The first fallacy of the academic approach to Book of Mormon historicity is the idea that a group of scholars can determine what the text means by consensus. This is especially problematic when the underlying premise of the academic approach is that the prophets were wrong, specifically about the New York Cumorah.

The second fallacy is imposing that academic consensus on everyone else. The text–especially the vague references to geography–is subject to a variety of interpretations. Any serious intellectual would recognize that and encourage the development of multiple hypotheses pending additional knowledge. 

Key point: it is even possible to interpret the text and the external evidence in such as way as to support and corroborate the teachings of the prophets, instead of insisting on an interpretation that repudiates the teaching of the prophets.  

But that possibility is not a requirement. People can believe whatever they want.

In my view, the only viable (and intellectual honest) approach is one of multiple working hypotheses. 

This approach recognizes that, in the absence of specific prophetic guidance that everyone can agree on, there are multiple ways of interpreting the text and the extrinsic evidence (as well as the teachings of the prophets). 

I emphasize repeatedly on this blog that I’m fine with people believing whatever they want. And certainly, basic human psychology enables people to find evidence to confirm whatever bias they have.

It’s funny to me that I have critics who seem to think I don’t understand or even know the arguments in favor of M2C. I accepted M2C for decades and I could make those same arguments as easily as anyone else. I changed my mind when I learned more about the topic and realized the teachings of the prophets make sense after all, but I don’t mind if others wish to stick with M2C, Peru, Chile, Baja, Eritrea, or anywhere else.

This is why I favor the Church’s policy of neutrality on these issues, which is basically a recognition of multiple working hypotheses. (It’s significant that the Gospel Topics entry on Book of Mormon Geography doesn’t mention Cumorah.)

_____

Here’s a specific example. A serious academic organization would not have a logo that limits possible interpretations, the way this one does with its Mayan glyph representing the Book of Mormon:

A logo that depicts the actual language of the Book of Mormon–English–would reflect the open-minded and neutral approach any intellectually honest group would adopt.

Such a logo would reflect the Church’s policy of neutrality.

________________

I discuss all of this in my book, Between these Hills. Here is an excerpt:

One of the main criticisms of the Book of Mormon by nonbelievers is the purported lack of evidence of the people and places it describes. Believers who reject the New York Cumorah similarly assert a lack of evidence based on their interpretations of the text.

Of course, there is abundant archaeological and anthropological evidence of ancient people living throughout the Western Hemisphere during Book of Mormon time frames. Connecting such evidence with the descriptions in the text is like solving simultaneous equations in algebra because there are unknown variables on both sides of the equation:

X external evidence = Y descriptions in the text

It is possible to interpret the text to support most theories of Book of Mormon geography based on external evidence from archaeology, anthropology, geology, etc. It is also possible to dispute every theory’s interpretation of the text and the evidence. This is why, pending more information, the approach of multiple working hypotheses makes the most sense.

Source: About Central America

Sometimes a graphic helps explain complex topics. Here’s one that explains the continuum from what the prophets taught to what unbelievers teach.

(click to enlarge)

Once we understand that the Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion, it’s easy to see how undermining faith in the prophets who brought forth the Book of Mormon leads to disbelief in the Book of Mormon itself.

To be clear: It is of course true that people can be faithful Latter-day Saints while still embracing M2C and SITH.*   

I don’t write these blogs for people who believe M2C and SITH. I’m not trying to persuade them to change their beliefs because I don’t think it’s likely, or even possible, for them to do so.

In my view, accepting the teachings of the prophets and validating them with external evidence is far preferable to relying on scholarship by academics who reject the teachings of the prophets.

I write for people who still believe the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah and the translation of the Book of Mormon, and who want to understand how external evidence supports those teachings.

I also write for people who have trouble reconciling the positions that (i) the prophets were wrong (and modern scholars are correct) about the translation of the Book of Mormon and its setting, but (ii) we should believe the prophets about everything else.

_____

1. The first step to undermining the prophets was to repudiate the New York Cumorah. This started over 100 years ago when RLDS scholars decided Cumorah couldn’t be in New York because they believed the Book of Mormon events took place in Central America.

Over the objection of LDS prophets, LDS scholars gradually adopted the RLDS position. They tried to soften the blow by framing it as a “two-Cumorahs” solution, claiming that Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith innocently (but ignorantly) misled the Church by speculating that the Cumorah of Mormon 6:6 was in New York, while assuring us that as credentialed scholars, they figured out that Cumorah was actually somewhere in southern Mexico.

Our current LDS M2C citation cartel, particularly Book of Mormon Central, now spends millions of dollars annually to enforce M2C, actively teaching LDS youth (and the entire world) that the prophets were wrong. M2C is embedded in their logo.

Despite their efforts, there are many Latter-day Saints who still believe the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah. How do we explain this?

Building on the teachings of the prophets, we interpret the text in light of external evidence including anthropology, archaeology, geology and geography to see how the New York Cumorah makes sense.

Notice: we don’t reject any possibilities about Book of Mormon settings other than Cumorah because the prophets haven’t identified any and the external evidence supports multiple working hypotheses. 

Even those LDS scholars (and their employees and followers) who reject the words of the prophets as inadequate or unreliable could do the same. But they won’t, because they prefer to confirm their bias for M2C. And they will continue to prevent other people from making informed decisions for themselves by censoring Church history and the teachings of the prophets that contradict M2C.

2. The next step to undermining the prophets was to repudiate the Urim and Thummim. Although Joseph and Oliver consistently and repeatedly taught that Joseph translated with the Nephite interpreters that Moroni put in the stone box, LDS scholars have decided Joseph and Oliver misled the Church. 

Instead, our scholars are teaching the youth (and the entire world) that Joseph didn’t use the Nephite interpreters. They say Joseph didn’t even use the plates. Instead, they say Joseph merely read words that appeared on a seer stone he put in a hat. This is the stone-in-the-hat theory, or SITH.

SITH is based on historical accounts given by (or attributed to) David Whitmer and Emma Smith, long after Joseph and Oliver had died. Strangely, some of our scholars claim that when Joseph and Oliver used the term “Urim and Thummim” they really meant the seer stone Joseph found in a well. Of course, that contradicts the historical record–including the statements by David and Emma they cite to support SITH!

Despite their efforts, there are many Latter-day Saints who still believe the teachings of the prophets about the translation of the Book of Mormon with the Urim and Thummim (U&T). How do we explain the discrepancy between U&T and SITH?

Some say that everyone who taught SITH was a liar, but that’s not a credible position. Plus, it characterizes important witnesses to other events, including David Whitmer, as a liar. There’s a big difference between what someone says they observed vs what they inferred or interpreted based on what they observed. David could accurately report what he observed and simultaneously make erroneous inferences about what it meant.

An alternative explanation for SITH that reconciles all the accounts, and preserves the reliability and credibility of Joseph and Oliver, is that Joseph used a stone in a hat to demonstrate the process, and David, Emma and others referred to the demonstration to defeat the prevalent Solomon Spalding theory. 

SITH scholars (and their employees and followers) won’t accept this explanation, and they will continue to prevent other people from making informed decisions for themselves.

But open-minded people can evaluate the evidence for themselves and reach their own conclusions.

3. The final step, once our LDS scholars have persuaded people to disbelieve the prophets about Cumorah and U&T, is for unbelievers to build on that process. 

It’s easy for them.

All they have to do is tell faithful members of the Church that their own scholars have repudiated what Joseph and Oliver taught about the translation of the Book of Mormon and its setting in New York. 

These same scholars claim they’ve been hired by the modern prophets to “guide the Church” in these matters. Their theories permeate Church media, manuals, visitors centers, etc.

As if this wasn’t bad enough, Book of Mormon Central now spends millions of dollars to promote “evidence” that the prophets were wrong.

Really, there’s not much difference between what CES Letter and MormonStories say and what Book of Mormon Central and the Interpreter say. 

Both groups claim scholars are more reliable than prophets.

But if the Restoration boils down to which scholars are “right,” is it likely that our M2C and SITH scholars will prevail?

_____

*People can believe whatever they want and thanks to the psychology of bias confirmation, people always find evidence to support whatever they believe. Every group (religious, political or otherwise) has a core of believers who are impervious to alternative evidence and arguments. 

The difference with the Restoration is that it’s supposed to convince “Jew and Gentile” that Jesus is the Christ. If the Restoration devolves into a group of people who repudiate the teachings of the prophets about the translation and setting of the Book of Mormon in favor of the teachings of the scholars, it’s not going to convince many people outside that bubble of anything–especially when scholars outside that bubble disagree with the scholars inside the bubble. Scholarship is a weak reed to support faith.

 

Source: About Central America

More Monday memes. 

Trigger warning: M2C/SITH believers should not read this post. These are just for fun. No offense intended. 

_____

Plato’s allegory of the cave represents prisoners whose knowledge of the world is limited to shadows cast on the wall by priests. But a prisoner escapes to discover the real world.

Click to enlarge images.

Source: About Central America

There is a new web page about the witnesses of the Book of Mormon (meaning the Three and Eight Witnesses, plus a few others who saw or handled the plates). 

https://witnessesofthebookofmormon.org/

It’s a slick page, well organized and presented. It has potential to be a helpful resource. We all want more accessible information that will help us understand and appreciate Church history and doctrine. Well done. Except…

Look who created and contributed to the website–the usual suspects, our M2C/SITH* scholars at the Interpreter, FairMormon, and Book of Mormon Central.

This means the new web page will not help people make informed decisions. 

Instead, the creators will omit historical evidence that contradicts, or merely challenges, M2C and SITH. It’s another example of the M2C citation cartel generating a new facade to convey the appearance of consensus. 

This new web page is another storefront in the Potemkin village of the Interpreter, FairMormon, Book of Mormon Central, Evidence Central, Meridian Magazine, BYU Studies, BMAF, etc. It’s all the same people behind the scenes. Somehow, they seem to actually believe that if they put up enough different-looking store fronts, they can convince Church members to accept M2C and SITH.

Of course, their obstacle is the clear, concise and unambiguous teachings of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. Despite the efforts of these scholars, there are still many Church members who believe the prophets instead of scholars, no matter how many ways these scholars dress up M2C and SITH.

As John Sorenson, author of Mormon’s Codex put it, “There remain Latter-day Saints who insist that the final destruction of the Nephites took place in New York, but any such idea is manifestly absurd.” Mormon’s Codex, p. 688.

Those of us who still believe what Joseph and Oliver taught don’t mind people believing whatever they want. We encourage Latter-day Saints to compare the teachings of the prophets with the teachings of the scholars to make their own informed decisions.

But the scholars disagree. They curate (censor) Church history so that Latter-day Saints never see the historical sources that contradict M2C and SITH. And this latest web page is more of the same.

_____

*M2C=Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory; SITH=stone-in-the-hat theory.

_____

The new page was developed to correlate with the Interpreter’s movie about the witnesses, to be released this summer. 

https://witnessesundaunted.com/

Of all the possible filmmakers, could there be any group worse than the Interpreter Foundation to make this film? 

The scholars at the Interpreter steadfastly repudiate what Joseph, Oliver, David, and Martin said about the New York Cumorah. They reject what Oliver and Joseph said about the translation (and they misinterpret what David and Martin said).  

And yet they expect people to believe their selective quotations because… 

because they said so. 

Which is the same reason they think everyone should accept their M2C and SITH theories. 

_____

The great irony is that by repudiating the teachings about the New York Cumorah and the translation with the Urim and Thummim, these scholars undermine both their own credibility and the credibility of the witnesses whose testimony they purport to share with the world.

The M2C/SITH scholars want us to believe some, but not all, of what these witnesses said. They assume the authority–conferred by their academic credentials, apparently–to censor statements from these witnesses that they don’t agree with. That censorship is exactly what so many members, former members, and potential members object to.  

The M2C/SITH scholars, blinded by their bias confirmation, don’t seem to realize that everyone has access to the same information. Dan Vogel, CES Letter, MormonStories–they all have read and discussed the same sources that are found on https://witnessesofthebookofmormon.org/. Except the critics don’t censor the historical sources. They put out everything and let people decide.

If our LDS scholars were no so focused on confirming their own biases, they would do the same. But they won’t, because they have convinced themselves that M2C and SITH are the only faithful narratives allowed, and they can’t jeopardize their theories by letting members of the Church make informed decisions.

No matter how many times a person reads these accounts from the witnesses, each individual must decide what to believe. If you think the witnesses were honest, credible, and reliable, you accept what they said. If you think they were either dishonest or delusional, you reject what they said. That’s how simple this all is.

_____

In this case, the approach of the M2C/SITH scholars deprives members of the Church of some of the strongest evidence of the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

It’s true that the witnesses were consistent. Throughout their lives, they stuck with the general outline of the official, published accounts of their experiences, contained in every copy of the Book of Mormon. It’s also true that they offered variations on those accounts. There is plenty of evidence to either believe or disbelieve them, whichever way you want to go.

But apart from the specific events related in the formal testimonies of the Three and Eight Witnesses, and apart from the experiences of Mary Whitmer, Lucy Mack Smith, Emma Smith, William Smith and others, there is another important category of evidence that our M2C/SITH scholars won’t accept.

The repository of Nephite records in the New York Cumorah.

David Whitmer, Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Wilford Woodruff and others said that Oliver Cowdery told them about the repository of Nephite records in the Hill Cumorah in New York. Brigham Young, fearing this knowledge would be lost among the Latter-day Saints, brought it up in one of his last sermons, delivered just two months before he died.

His fears have been realized because our M2C/SITH scholars have successfully purged the accounts from Church curriculum, media, visitors centers, etc. They know that if Cumorah is actually in New York, as the prophets taught for nearly 200 years, then that destroys their claim that the “real” Cumorah is in southern Mexico. (The New York Cumorah says nothing about other geographical settings, of course.)

The repository Oliver and Joseph visited is the repository Mormon discussed in Mormon 6:6. Oliver said he and Joseph visited the repository multiple times. Oliver related details about what was inside. He published a declaration that it was a fact that this hill was the Hill Cumorah where the final battles of the Jaredites and Nephites took place.

You can read some of these accounts here:

https://www.lettervii.com/p/cumorahs-cave-by-cameron-packer.html

David Whitmer explained that the messenger who picked up the abridged plates from Joseph Smith in Harmony took those plates to Cumorah. You can read about that here:

https://www.lettervii.com/p/trip-to-fayette-references.html

When asked about it, David explained that the records were no longer in Cumorah, but were not far from there.

Understanding that the repository of Nephite records was in New York, and that, as Moroni told Joseph Smith, the record had been “written and deposited not far from” Joseph’s home near Palmyra, is powerful evidence of the historicity of the Book of Mormon. 

We are not dealing with a fantasy setting, as taught by BYU and CES. We are not dealing with a mysterious, unknown location of Cumorah, which could be located anywhere in the world. 

Instead, we are dealing with a known, physical location, identified first by Moroni, then confirmed by Joseph and Oliver, and reiterated by numerous prophets and apostles. 

For those willing to accept these teachings, this is powerful additional evidence of the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

But you won’t find it on https://witnessesofthebookofmormon.org/

_____

If you look into the details of the web page, you’ll find some of the apologetic arguments typical of the M2C/SITH scholars. They are riddled with logical fallacies.

For example, look at this FAQ on David Whitmer. Notice how our scholars use scare quotes to frame David as claiming a false revelation because he didn’t report hearing the voice until six weeks after the fact.

Whitmer claimed no revelation from God at the time that he was excommunicated

Whitmer’s excommunication occurred on 13 April 1838.[5] Whitmer refused to appear at the council meeting that severed him from the Church; he wrote:

to spare you any further trouble I hereby withdraw from your fellowship and communion—choosing to seek a place among the meek and humble, where the revelations of heaven will be observed and the rights of men regarded.[6]

Whitmer here says that he will withdraw from the Church—this would have been an excellent opportunity for him to invoke a “revelation” telling him to leave the Church, but he did not. This is not surprising, since he does not report hearing the voice until June, at least six weeks later.

Thus, when he reports being told by God to “separate himself from among” the members of the Church, Whitmer was already out of the Church, but still living in Far West among members of the Church.

Our scholars think a six week delay is determinative, yet these same scholars insist David was absolutely correct about SITH (Joseph translating with the seer stone in the hat) even though he didn’t report it for decades after the fact. 

This is the type of subjective assessment of historical facts that makes their arguments unpersuasive.

I don’t think David’s six-week delay in invoking a revelation is a material delay; he probably felt inspired to leave the Church before he left the Church. 

As I’ve explained elsewhere, I think David told the truth about what he observed, but his subjective interpretations of what he observed, felt, or concluded is a separate matter. 

For example, I accept David’s claim that he actually observed Joseph using a stone in a hat, but he inferred it was an actual translation instead of a demonstration by Joseph about how the translation worked. The best Joseph could do, without displaying the Urim and Thummim or the plates, was to use a stone in a hat convey the idea. 

Lately we’ve seen references in the Ensign and elsewhere to David’s pamphlet, An Address to All Believers in Christ. The pamphlet is cited to support SITH because David describes what he observed. Yet the same pamphlet is primarily a denunciation of Joseph Smith. While I think David probably honestly thought Joseph had exceeded his original mandate, etc., does it make sense to provide selective quotations to support SITH while ignoring the bulk of what David wrote? 

In my view, none of David’s subjective interpretations have any bearing on David’s veracity about what he actually observed as one of the Three Witnesses, about the messenger carrying the abridged plates to Cumorah, about Oliver telling him about the repository, etc. But if we’re going to direct faithful Latter-day Saints to sources such as An Address to All Believers in Christ, we ought to at least provide context and consistent explanations.

_____

There are other examples in this web page (and throughout the writings of our M2C/SITH citation cartel), but the main point here is that, once again, our scholars are causing confusion for people, whether Church members or not, by censoring historical evidence that contradicts their theories.

Let’s all hope our scholars change course.

Let’s hope they decide to use this otherwise awesome and promising web page to provide a resource containing all the statements of the witnesses–even if the witnesses contradicted the pet theories of the scholars.

Source: About Central America