Author: Jonathan Neville

Some people new to this blog ask why I focus on the New York Cumorah. It’s a good question, and recent events have prompted a clearer explanation. 

The simple answer: 

the New York Cumorah is the only known touchstone between the real world and Lehi’s promised land. 

By repudiating the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah, LDS scholars have (i) distorted the text of the Book of Mormon, (ii) cast doubt on the credibility and reliability of the prophets, and (iii) misdirected the pursuit of evidence to support the claims of the Book of Mormon.

_____

Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery said Cumorah was in western New York because (i) they learned it from their personal experience visiting the repository of Nephite records (Mormon 6:6) and (ii) they knew Cumorah’s location was an essential fact to refute the claim that the Book of Mormon was fiction. 

Understanding these key points, Joseph’s contemporaries and successors as Church leaders frequently reiterated the New York location of Cumorah.  

But–and this is a key point–we don’t even have to take their word for it. The New York Cumorah is consistent with the text itself and with extrinsic evidence including archaeology, anthropology, geography and geology. 

Nevertheless, a handful of LDS scholars decided the prophets were wrong. These scholars adopted the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory (M2C) that had been developed by RLDS scholars in the early 1900s. Because of their privileged academic status at BYU and CES, these scholars have managed to impose their theories on Latter-day Saints throughout the world.

I think all of these scholars are honorable, fine people with good intentions. They make important and useful contributions to our knowledge base. I like them all personally, but that has nothing to do with the problem of scholars vs. prophets. We can trust, more or less, but we should also verify by making our own informed decisions.

_____

A few days ago on MormonStories.org, Jim Bennett discussed the “Heartlander thing.” (If you don’t know Brother Bennett, he is known for a lengthy response to the CES Letter, which we’ll discuss below). Judging by Brother Bennett’s comments, our LDS credentialed class continue to miss the point. 

Jim Bennett on MormonStories

During the interview, he said, “This is a huge controversy now. I don’t know if you follow the whole “Heartlander thing.” I think it’s fascinating because you’ve got these guys that, the most important principle of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ is the location of the Hill Cumorah. To me I think, what the heck is your problem? Who cares? It doesn’t matter to me at all. That has nothing to do with anything.” (see reference below)

Saying it doesn’t matter is a natural response for someone experiencing cognitive dissonance. 

Despite Brother Bennett’s pejorative characterization, those of us labeled by these scholars as “Heartlanders” spend most of our time serving in the Church, doing missionary and temple work, and testifying of Christ. We think the Book of Mormon is an authentic history, supported by strong evidence in addition to the teachings of the prophets, but we don’t accept the speculations of scholars who repudiate those teachings. Naturally, the scholars are upset.

Those who follow this blog know how sensitive the M2C scholars are about the question of Cumorah. Their cognitive dissonance can’t reconcile the inherent contradiction between claiming to believe and follow the prophets, but also repudiating what the prophets have taught about Cumorah (such as in Letter VII).

On one hand, they openly say the prophets were wrong about the New York Cumorah, that they were speculating, expressing their own incorrect opinions as men, etc. Realize, they are talking not only about Joseph and Oliver, but members of the First Presidency speaking in General Conference. 

On the other hand, these same scholars get upset when people point out they are repudiating the prophets. They get defensive. Some get aggressive. (Oddly, some of my critics try to debate these issues, as if I couldn’t make their arguments as well as they do. My time is better spent seeking ways to support and corroborate the teachings of the prophets instead of seeking ways to undermine and disavow–repudiate–those teachings.) 

Cognitive dissonance is unpleasant. Usually people deal with it by telling themselves the issue, whatever it is, “doesn’t matter,” the way Brother Bennett did. In the LDS context, this is called “putting it on the shelf,” meaning they’ll set it aside and try not to think about it, hoping for a future resolution.

But the issue is not going away.

_____

The question of Cumorah is not a harmless bit of academic speculation. 

Many faithful Latter-day Saints can’t understand why LDS scholars would speculate about Cumorah when we have the unambiguous teachings of the prophets on this topic. We can’t read the minds of the M2C intellectuals, but we can read their publications. 

We can see that Book of Mormon Central is spending millions of dollars annually to persuade people that the prophets were wrong and the scholars are correct. There is nothing so predictable as scholars insisting their theories are correct because of their superior credentials. The credentialed class need people to be dependent on them to justify their employment (and fundraising). The handful of LDS scholars who promote M2C have created a facade of like-minded publications and organizations that publish and cite one another’s work, which I call the M2C citation cartel. 

Their logo is a repudiation of the New York Cumorah; the Mayan glyph represents their insistence that the Book of Mormon is actually a  Mayan codex that Joseph (or whoever put the words on the stone in the hat) mistranslated because he didn’t understand Mayan culture.

Their cognitive dissonance is evident in their disparate treatment of Oliver Cowdery. When discussing Oliver’s teachings about the angel showing him and David Whitmer the plates, they scour every possible source. They examine every letter, newspaper article, or mention in third-party accounts. 

See https://evidencecentral.org/evidence/oliver-cowdery.

But when it comes to Cumorah, they ignore (or worse, reject as ignorant speculation) what Oliver explicitly wrote in his essays about Church history, particularly Letter VII. These essays were written with the assistance of Joseph Smith, copied into Joseph’s personal history, and republished at Joseph’s direction multiple times (Times and Seasons, Gospel Reflector, Millennial Star, the Prophet), but Book of Mormon Central claims Oliver’s formal, explicit, and official teaching was wrong–solely because their academic theories contradict what Oliver taught.

_____

We’ve reached the point where BYU professors use the BYU fantasy map to teach students about the Book of Mormon, portraying the Book of Mormon as taking place in a fictional setting. Surveys show that more and more active Latter-day Saints think the Book of Mormon is not an actual history. That trend can only accelerate as the BYU fantasy map becomes de facto doctrine in the minds of BYU and CES students.

Modern LDS scholars claim Joseph and Oliver were ignorant speculators who misled the Church about Cumorah. They say Joseph “didn’t know much about the Book of Mormon,” and whatever he thought at first, by 1842 he changed his mind because of a popular travel book and came to depend on scholarship instead of what he learned directly from Moroni and his personal experiences.

Leveraging their positions of trust as teachers at BYU and CES, they have used the academic cycle to persuade several generations of LDS students to prefer their M2C theories over the teachings of the prophets–mostly by censoring Cumorah.

Influential scholars have sought to eliminate cognitive dissonance among Church members by censoring the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah. They have managed to “disappear” references to Cumorah from curriculum, media, visitors centers, and even Church history, as we see in the Saints book. The current version of the Gospel Topics entry on Book of Mormon geography doesn’t mention Cumorah; instead, it frames Joseph Smith as equivocal and uncertain, exactly how our M2C citation cartel wants him to appear. (That entry was revised after I pointed out obvious errors, and it could and should be revised again to address Cumorah.)

We even have the Interpreter Foundation, which completely rejects Oliver’s teaching about Cumorah, creating a movie about the Three Witnesses–as if people won’t see the absurdity of claiming Oliver was only correct when he agreed with what modern scholars believe. Actually, all three of the witnesses referred to the “hill in New York” as the ancient Cumorah, but you won’t see that in their movie.

The problem is, the teachings of the prophets are available for everyone to see. People can read Letter VII right in Joseph’s own history, right in the Joseph Smith Papers. 

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/90

Fortunately, there are faithful Latter-day Saints who still accept the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah and can help others understand them. (Not just me, but many others.)

Unfortunately, there are many critics and nonbelievers who use the futile censorship efforts of the M2C citation cartel to sow confusion among new and young Latter-day Saints who have been taught M2C exclusively and have never heard the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah.

Which brings us to the CES Letter. 

_____

Some time ago, Brother Bennett wrote a response to the CES Letter that (according to Bennett) Book of Mormon Central spent a lot of money promoting. That’s not surprising because in his response, Brother Bennett promoted both M2C and SITH. He claimed M2C started with the anonymous 1842 editorials in the Times and Seasons. 

Outside of the M2C bubble, informed Latter-day Saints know that the 1842 editorials said nothing about Cumorah. They know that in 1841, the Times and Seasons published the essays about Cumorah that unambiguously placed the site in western New York. They know that in 1842, in two signed letters published in the Times and Seasons, Joseph Smith refuted Orson Pratt’s theory about Central America and referred to Cumorah in New York.

Those living inside the M2C bubble, however, either don’t know these details of Church history or have rationalized them away. 

_____

Let’s look at how Brother Bennett dealt with the Cumorah question in his response to the CES Letter. Here (in green) are the passages from the CES Letter. Brother Bennett’s responses are in blue. My comments in red. (To see this in the original, go to https://canonizer.com/files/reply.pdf and search for “Cumorah.”)

6. Archaeology: There is absolutely no archaeological evidence to directly support the Book of Mormon or the Nephites and Lamanites, who were supposed to have numbered in the millions.

Short Answer: Nonsense. There is a great deal of direct Old World archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, as well as a growing body of archaeological evidence in the New World, too. 

[Brother Bennett discusses the Old World evidence, then says] I’ll get to the New World evidence as I address the rest of your question. 

This is one of the reasons why unofficial apologists have developed the Limited Geography Model (it happened in Central or South America)… 

No. The theory that the Book of Mormon took place in Central or South America can be documented to have been around since at least 1842, when the Times and Seasons, the Church paper edited by Joseph Smith at the time, published three unsigned editorials detailing Mesoamerican Book of Mormon theories. 

[These are the anonymous articles that say nothing about Cumorah and, contrary to Brother Bennett’s representation here, reflected the hemispheric model. IOW, CES Letter was correct, and Bennett was wrong. 

Ironically, just a few months earlier, the Times and Seasons published Joseph Smith’s signed Wentworth letter, in which Joseph rejected Orson Pratt’s hemispheric model (including Central America) by emphasizing that the remnant of Lehi’s posterity are “the Indians that live in this country.” 

Bennett also cited the equivocal Bernhisel letter that was obviously drafted by Wilford Woodruff and not even signed by Joseph Smith. Nevertheless, he writes…] 

To say that the idea of the Book of Mormon in a Central American setting is a late product of “unofficial apologists” is to ignore the words of the prophet himself.

… and claim that the Hill Cumorah mentioned as the final battle of the Nephites is not in Palmyra, New York but is elsewhere. This is in direct contradiction to what Joseph Smith and other prophets have taught.

It is not, in fact, in direct contradiction to anything Joseph Smith taught. Joseph never made reference to the hill in New York as Cumorah. 

[The M2C citation cartel simply censors historical evidence that contradicts their theories. Again, CES Letter is correct and Bennett is wrong. Joseph’s mother quoted Joseph referring to the Hill Cumorah in 1827, before he even got the plates. He could only have learned that from Moroni. In 1831, Parley P. Pratt explained that Moroni called the hill Cumorah anciently. And, of course, Joseph helped write Letter VII, had it copied into his history as part of his life story, etc.]  

No identification of the drumlin in New York as Cumorah can be found in the Doctrine and Covenants or any canonized revelation.

[D&C 128:20 was published in 1842 in the Times and Seasons as a letter from Joseph Smith to the Church. “And again, what do we hear? Glad tidings from Cumorah! Moroni, an angel from heaven, declaring the fulfilment of the prophets—the book to be revealed.” 

A year earlier, the Times and Seasons had published Letter VII, declaring it was a fact that the final battles of the Jaredites and Nephites took place in the valley west of the “drumlin in New York” named Cumorah. Joseph’s contemporaries who read the Times and Seasons knew what the term “Cumorah” referred to. It was common knowledge. And if the “glad tidings” did not refer to the Book of Mormon that came from the “drumlin in New York,” to what was Joseph referring by the phrase “the book to be revealed” in this verse? Why would Joseph refer to “glad tidings from Cumorah” if Cumorah was a hill in southern Mexico that contained the repository of Nephite records but not the abridged plates?]

Even a cursory reading of the Book of Mormon makes it clear that the Hill Cumorah isn’t the hill in upstate New York where Joseph got the plates. 

[Notice, instead of a reading here, cursory or intense, Brother Bennett gives us his own M2C speculation, about what Moroni “presumably” did.]

In Mormon 6:6, Mormon states that he “hid up in the hill Cumorah all the records which had been entrusted to me by the hand of the Lord, save it were these few plates which I gave unto my son Moroni.” [Emphasis added.] So the plates Moroni had after the massive bloody battle at Cumorah were specifically not plates that had been buried there. Moroni then spends decades wandering with these plates, presumably getting as far away from Cumorah as possible, and then buries them up for Joseph to find in an area far removed the Cumorah carnage.

[Orson Pratt explained that the repository was in a separate department of the hill from where Moroni constructed his stone box. This is consistent with what David Whitmer and Oliver Cowdery said. But our M2C citation cartel has to persuade us that two of the three witnesses misled the Church about Cumorah. Actually, Martin Harris also referred to the hill as Cumorah in 1830 as well.]

It is correct to say that many Church leaders have equated the New York Hill with Cumorah, but the Church’s official position on Book of Mormon geography has always been one of neutrality, and they have scrupulously avoided officially jumping in to the long-running debate over where the Book of Mormon took place. 

[This is revisionist history and rhetorical commingling. Church leaders have always taught that Cumorah is the hill in New York where Joseph found the plates–no prophet or apostle has ever questioned that teaching. That’s separate from the question of where other events took place, a topic about which Church leaders have not taken a position. The Gospel Topics entry on this conflates the two issues by omitting any reference to Cumorah, but that does not negate the clear historical record.]

Now is it true that many – but not all – prophets, apostles, and members have long believed, and many still believe, that the New York his [sic] is the BoM Cumorah. We keep coming back to infallibility and the lack thereof, and so many of your objections are rooted in the idea that if even apostles make mistakes like this, the Church can’t be true. 

[This isn’t a question of “making mistakes.” We have specific declarations that the New York Cumorah is a fact, repeated by many Church leaders for over 150 years. The M2C citation cartel asserts these are mistakes solely because they disagree with the Church leaders and disbelieve what Joseph and Oliver said, based on their personal experience. People can believe and disbelieve whatever they want, but everyone should make informed decisions, not just rely on the obfuscation of the M2C citation cartel.] 

That’s not just wrong; it’s bad doctrine. 

Mormons ought to realize that agency trumps infallibility every single time. In the absence of direct revelation, speculation fills the gaps. There is no direct revelation about the specific whereabouts of any Book of Mormon location, so prophets and anyone else are perfectly capable of acting in good faith and still reaching incorrect conclusions, which seems to be precisely what they did in this instance. Like it or not, that’s how agency works. That’s mortality. That’s life, in and out of the Church.

[This is clever rhetoric, but it’s a straw man. No one is claiming that Joseph and Oliver taught the New York Cumorah based on revelation (although the absence of a written revelation does not mean they did not receive revelation on the topic). Instead, Joseph said he learned the name even before he translated the plates. Oliver said he and Joseph visited Mormon’s repository of records in the “drumlin in New York” multiple times. David Whitmer said the messenger (one of the 3 Nephites) took the abridged plates from Harmony to Cumorah.]

It also makes little sense in light of the Church’s visitor’s center near the Hill Cumorah in New York and the annual Church-sponsored Hill Cumorah pageants.

It makes a great deal of sense. It’s still the hill where Joseph got the plates, so it’s quite significant to Book of Mormon history.

CES letter makes more sense here. Why refer to the hill as Cumorah if it was just a drumlin in New York thousands of miles away from the “real Cumorah” in southern Mexico? The answer is, because the prophets declared this was the actual hill Cumorah. 

Thanks to the efforts of the M2C citation cartel, visitors to the Hill Cumorah today never learn why the hill is named Cumorah! There is no exhibit of the teachings of the prophets. Site missionaries are not allowed to even read Mormon 6:6 with visitors.  

We read about two major war battles that took place at the Hill Cumorah (Ramah to the Jaredites) with deaths numbering in the tens of thousands – the last battle between Lamanites and Nephites around 400 AD claimed at least 230,000 deaths on the Nephite side alone. No bones, hair, chariots, swords, armor, or any other evidence of a battle whatsoever has been found at this site.

None in upstate New York, no, which is not at all surprising, as the Book of Mormon itself makes it crystal clear that that’s not where either Cumorah or Ramah actually was

[Now we see the serious problem our M2C scholars have created. CES Letter is merely repeating the expectations raised by the scholars, who have to inflate Book of Mormon populations to be consistent with their Mesoamerican setting. They continually reinterpret the text to fit whatever new discoveries are made in Mesoamerica.

The other approach is to look at the text to inform our expectations. 

The text points out that the bodies were not buried. Unburied bodies (including bones and hair) disintegrate rapidly; otherwise, our forests and fields would be full of carcasses of deer, elk, buffalo, etc.  

CES Letter exaggerates by mentioning chariots and armor. Mormon 6:9 explains that they had the sword, the bow, the arrow, the ax, and “all manner of weapons of war.” Upstate New York has had abundant evidence of such weapons, dating to Book of Mormon time frames, which are found in museum and collections throughout the area. In the Cumorah area, farmers used to give them to tourists. The Bean children used arrowheads as skipping stones because they were so abundant. The exception, arguably, is “swords,” but even there, the text describes swords “cankered with rust” which means iron, which means we wouldn’t find them after a few years or decades.

In Letter VII, Oliver explained there were fewer than 10,000 Jaredites in their final battles and the numbers of Nephites and Lamanites were in the tens of thousands, not hundreds of thousands. A careful reading of the text shows there were at most 20,000 Nephites killed there, and that’s assuming the phrase “ten thousand” is a literal count and not a translation of a term such as “unit” or “patrols” like in the Old Testament. I compare this to the Battle of Hastings, where 10,000 men were killed without a trace.] 

The rest of this section continues with CES Letter repeating the expectations raised by the M2C scholars, with Brother Bennett pointing toward Mesoamerica as the answer. 

Instead, informed Latter-day Saints can point to museums and private collections throughout the midwestern and northeastern U.S. to show evidence of exactly the descriptions contained in the Book of Mormon. 

By repudiating the teachings of the prophets and refocusing our attention on Mesoamerica, our M2C scholars have created unnecessary problems. The have adopted their own interpretations of the Book of Mormon to fit Mesoamerica. They say Joseph (or whoever put the words on the stone in the hat) mistranslated the text by failing to describe pyramids, Mayans, tapirs, jaguars, jade, and jungles, so they “find” these elements of Mesoamerica themselves. They regularly contort the text to align with the latest archaeological discoveries in Mesoamerica.  

___________

To review:

The New York Cumorah was a specific, evidence-based rebuttal to the claim of critics that the Book of Mormon was fiction, composed by Joseph Smith and/or Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, Solomon Spalding, etc. Joseph and Oliver never claimed a revelation about Cumorah; instead, they claimed personal experience. Joseph learned the name from Moroni even before he translated the plates. Oliver explained that he and Joseph had visited the repository of Nephite records (Mormon 6:6) inside the hill in New York where Joseph found the plates in Moroni’s stone box–a separate department of the hill (as Orson Pratt explained). 

But a handful of LDS intellectuals disagreed. They rejected what the prophets taught and instead sided with a couple of RLDS scholars who, in the early 1900s, had concluded that Cumorah was actually somewhere in southern Mexico. (This is M2C, or the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory).

Through the academic cycle (because they were teaching at BYU) and over a couple of decades they’ve managed to persuade most of their students to repudiate the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah. Now, the New York Cumorah is being systematically disappeared (I call it de-correlated), to the point where even the Saints book revised Church history to eliminate Cumorah from the historical record.  

Consequently, it is critics such as the CES Letter who are educating Latter-day Saints about what the prophets actually taught.

Hopefully, future Latter-day Saints will learn what the prophets have taught about Cumorah within a framework that supports and corroborates these teachings, instead of learning from our M2C scholars that the prophets were wrong.

_____

Transcript of Brother Bennett’s interview on MormonStories.org.

https://www.mormonstories.org/podcast/belief-after-the-ces-letter-polygamy-racism-lgbtq-issues-and-prophets-jim-bennett-pt-3/

1:53:50

JB: This is a huge controversy now. I don’t know if you follow the whole “Heartlander thing.” I think it’s fascinating because you’ve got these guys that, the most important principle of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ is the location of the Hill Cumorah. To me I think, what the heck is your problem? Who cares? It doesn’t matter to me at all. That has nothing to do with anything. The point is, they point to all of these statements that were made by all of these prophets, seers and revelators and insist that the Book of Mormon has a hemispheric geography, that Cumorah was in fact the drumlin in New York where Joseph Smith got the plates, and that Joseph claimed that. But Joseph never did. 

JD: He called it the Hill Cumorah.

JB: No, he never did. Oliver did. There was a letter from Oliver where he defines that. Joseph, the only time we have Joseph referring to Cumorah is in the 128th section of the Doctrine and Covenants where it talks about “glad tidings from Cumorah.” But when he recounts his history he does not refer to the hill where he got the plates as Cumorah. I think he probably believed it was. But there was no statement by any prophet, seer or revelator that claims a revelation that delineates where Cumorah is or delineates a hemispheric model for the Book of Mormon. 

Source: About Central America

I’ve discussed George Orwell’s book 1984 before in my blogs. Some years ago I was quite surprised when none of my college students had ever heard of the book. Back in my day, we all studied it in high school. It’s fascinating to watch how Orwell’s descriptions align with our modern society, especially lately. 

Censorship of “crimethink” (see Orwell’s 1984) has become a big issue around the world. When I worked in China decades ago, it was difficult to access western web pages. My own company’s website had not been approved by the government so I couldn’t access it for needed files. That was a little understandable back when the Internet was new, but what’s it like today?

Last year when I lived in China, I got used to controlling my speech because there were lots of topics we could never discuss in public or even private conversations, and certainly not on the Internet. The Internet was highly censored; news items that contradicted official government positions were banned, as were individuals who were deemed a threat to society for voicing opinions or reporting news. In some cases, such people became unpersons. 

If you haven’t looked at China Daily, you should, because that’s what the American news media resembles. There is news, conveyed with attractive images and video. But already, only one point of view and only approved speech is permitted, and the scope of approved speech is narrowing. Other opinions, as well as inconvenient facts, are deemed crimethink and censored and banned.

More broadly, the cancel culture prevents “crimethink” on college campuses and doxes people for crimethink to impact their employment. 

Some thoughts from Twitter accounts that haven’t been banned yet: 

Either the government will regulate technology or technology will regulate the government.

This was the year the Fake News became so powerful they could tell you there was definitely no election fraud because you aren’t allowed to check. And it worked.

_____

Regarding censorship generally, here’s a relevant tweet from Brian Roemmele (assuming Twitter doesn’t ban him before you read this).

https://twitter.com/BrianRoemmele/status/1347702746850361345

The thing about studying history and the decline of cultures is all “team” are fully convinced that if they just could better control what people, thought, felt, read and talked about “society would be better”. It has never worked. It will never work. We have amnesia.

_____

In LDS culture, some of our most prominent apologists have long engaged in ad hominem attacks (attacking the person instead of the argument), which is the equivalent of doxing for crimethink. I plan to release a book about LDS apologists later this year, which I’m sure many will find quite interesting. One of my favorites is an anonymous blogger endorsed by one of the best-known LDS apologists.

People have asked me to focus on the critics such as MormonStories and CES Letter instead of the faithful scholars in the citation cartel. It’s a valid point. But how effective is it to point out the evidence and rational arguments that support what Joseph and Oliver taught, when both the critics and the LDS apologists agree that Joseph and Oliver were wrong?

In my view, both groups are effective for similar reasons: they both elevate their own theories and interpretations over the plain words of the prophets. 

Some LDS apologists seem to think it’s a good idea to repudiate what Joseph and Oliver taught, as if doing so would ingratiate themselves with the critics. I disagree with that approach. I respect both the critics and the LDS scholars, all of whom are undoubtedly well-intentioned from their various perspectives, but I don’t agree with their theories and interpretations. You can see my responses to MormonStories here. https://mormonstoriesreviewed.blogspot.com/

_____

We might think that after spending $28 million, the citation cartel would have some effective responses to the critics, but instead, their editorial policy of censorship of other faithful LDS has led to (i) agreement with the critics on key points and (ii) more confusion among members of the Church.

One of the reasons why I object to the ongoing censorship by Book of Mormon Central and the rest of the citation cartel is that censorship is a short-sighted error. It makes no sense to me for the cartel to insist that the only allowed theories are the ones that portray Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery as ignorant speculators who misled the Church about the New York Cumorah and the translation of the plates with the Urim and Thummim, but that’s what our scholars are doing.

The Church History Department continues to de-correlate both of those elements of Church history, solely to accommodate the theories of a handful of scholars in the M2C citation cartel.

Seriously, when your very logo announces to the world that you reject what Joseph and Oliver taught, and you censor alternative interpretations of historical evidence that is faithful to Joseph and Oliver, what outcome do you expect?

Look especially at the Mayan glyph (which doesn’t belong with the other scriptural languages anyway, but is purely an insistence on M2C). The figure has a line down the side of its face that represents closing off the mind. It’s an image of the closed-mindedness editorial policy of Book of Mormon Central and the rest of the citation cartel that justifies censorship.

You might find it unbelievable that this logo depicting a closed mind attaches itself to so much LDS apologetics. But it’s not actually unbelievable. Instead, it’s consistent and descriptive.

Source: About Central America

For Come Follow Me 2021, focusing on the Doctrine and Covenants, this blog will discuss a new idea in Church history: the idea that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery told the truth.

Many faithful LDS historians and scholars have decided that Joseph and Oliver were not candid when they wrote and said what they did. 

According to the scholars, Joseph did not translate the plates with the Urim and Thummim as he and Oliver claimed. Instead, the Saints book and the citation cartel teach that Joseph read words that appeared on a stone in the hat (SITH). 

According to the scholars, the Hill Cumorah was not in New York. Joseph and Oliver were ignorant speculators who misled the Church about that. Instead, the Saints book censored all references to Cumorah from Church history because the historians agree with the M2C scholars that Cumorah is somewhere in southern Mexico. (M2C = the Mesoamerican/Two-Cumorahs theory.)

_____

Fortunately, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can know when they are being fed these ideas. All you have to do is look for the mark of M2C.

Whenever you see this mark, you can be confident that the publication will promote M2C and SITH. It’s the mark of a closed mind, the antithesis of scholarship, the imposition of dogma.

For example, they’re asking you to give money to promote M2C and SITH.

Source: Letter VII

Who would have thought that the last day of the year 2020 would provide a high-profile promotion of SITH? (SITH = stone-in-the-hat theory). I’ll discuss the Dec 31st article in the Salt Lake Tribune below.

SITH is about the last thing I wanted to discuss in 2021, but it’s inevitable and, apparently, necessary. I’m posting this on this blog because our M2C citation cartel is also our SITH citation cartel. 

For more detail on Church history, see my new web page: ComeFollowMe2021.org. I’ll have commentary and links to podcasts for every lesson this year.

(BTW, last year I intended to do the same for the Book of Mormon in 2020, but I had lots of other projects and anyway, I was curious to see how the citation cartel was going to handle the issues. As expected, Book of Mormon Central ended up spending millions of dollars promoting M2C (and SITH), depriving their readers/viewers of the opportunity to make informed decisions. They are the mirror images of the critical sites (CES Letter, MormonStories, etc.) that also deprive their readers/viewers of the opportunity to make informed decisions.

Sigh.

We can’t expect the scholars, whether LDS, former LDS, or anti-LDS, to sacrifice their theories any more than we can expect the wealthy to sacrifice their wealth, as we discussed yesterday. For the credentialed class, Zion remains a theory–something for other people to live. 

So let’s move on.

Warning: this is a long post. I’ll be traveling and probably won’t post again for a week or so. 

I posted a short video summary here. https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/p/video-summary-of-sith-and-new-mormon.html

_____

The article in the SLTribune was an interview with Richard Bushman, the author of Rough Stone Rolling. (see below)

People often ask me about Brother Bushman. I’ve met him, spoken with him briefly a few times, and I think he’s awesome. He’s brilliant, friendly, personable, thoughtful. He’s an excellent historian, of course. I respect his work. But… he’s a historian.

If you’re not already familiar with the term “talent stack,” you should learn about it. Everyone develops different combinations of talents. We have natural interests and aptitudes. We get an education. We gain experience and expertise. We pursue our interests and develop our skills. The sum of all that is our talent stack.

Our talent stacks are part of our filters on the world. Our brains only process what our filters allow to pass through. Some of that is perceptual–what we see, touch, smell, hear, etc.–and part of that is mental or psychological–what confirms our biases, mostly.

For example, our M2C scholars say they “cannot unsee” Mesoamerica when they read the Book of Mormon. Their talent stack–Mesoamerican anthropology, archaeology, etc., combined with an M2C interpretation of the Book of Mormon–literally filters out information and explanations that contradict their M2C beliefs. That’s why they create this incestuous citation cartel and engage in peer approval instead of peer review. It’s all about bias confirmation, but to them, their beliefs are reality and everyone else is wrong. They think they’re doing a favor to Latter-day Saints by “protecting” them from impossible ideas such as the idea that the prophets were correct about the New York Cumorah.

It’s the same with the dominant LDS historians. They have convinced themselves that Joseph Smith didn’t use the plates, that he didn’t really translate anything, and that he merely read words off a seer stone in the hat (SITH). 

Why?

Because they’re historians. Their talent stack involves finding, uncovering, and preserving historical evidence (mainly documents). They consider the context and weigh the credibility of the evidence and reach conclusions. They think they are striving to be “objective” and get at the truth.

But historians are people, subject like everyone else to bias confirmation. Once they reach a conclusion, they profess skepticism or “caution” about documents that contradict their conclusions. They’ll redefine terms to suit their conclusions. They’ll omit inconvenient evidence, etc. For a prime example, notice how the Saints book, volume 1, censored Cumorah from the historical record.

Another good example is the “Early Modern English” theory promoted by Royal Skousen and Stanford Carmack. They’re linguists. Plus, they’re members of the citation cartels. Here is an excerpt from Brother Skousen’s book on the King James quotations in the Book of Mormon: ““The Book of Mormon is a creative and cultural translation of what was on the plates, not a literal one. Based on the linguistic evidence, the translation must have involved serious intervention from the English-language translator, who was not Joseph Smith.”

Years ago, my Stake President asked if I had read Rough Stone Rolling (I was the stake Sunday School president at the time). He said it was the best book on Church history he’d ever read. I told him I had read it, and I also thought it was great, although it reflected an editorial bias that I didn’t completely share.

Many Church members have contacted me to say they find the book appalling, along with the rest of “New Mormon History” promoted by Leonard Arrington, et al. Usually they object to the “anti” evidence, meaning the evidence that differs from or contradicts the traditional Church history narratives.

There are numerous anecdotes of faithful LDS who have found the book troubling. In fact, John Dehlin and other former LDS who encourage people to leave the Church feature Rough Stone Rolling (along with the Gospel Topics Essays) as one of the main factors for people losing their faith. One of Dehlin’s most popular podcasts is the interview he did with Brother Bushman several years ago, which I’ve discussed before.

[Some readers here know I have a web page that reviews MormonStories called MormonStoriesReviewed. I have a few reviews on there, but it’s a work in progress. If you want updates, subscribe or follow by email.]

_____

I think Rough Stone Rolling, like most of the New Mormon History, is useful and important but stopped short of reconciling the various historical accounts and historical evidence. 

It’s important to show all the evidence, for sure. To make informed decisions, people should have access to and consider all of the evidence, along with a variety of explanations and interpretations. But you can’t get that from one book.

Rough Stone Rolling omits important evidence and offers only limited alternative explanations. But that’s what the book is supposed to do. That’s all any book can do! 

This is an inherent problem every author faces. You can’t provide all the evidence or you’ve written a reference book. We already have reference books, and even those are abridgments. One of the most popular is Opening the Heavens, but by taking all the quotations out of context, the book is useful only as a quote book, or to confirm one’s biases, or as a guide to actual references in the footnotes. And, as I’ve shown, the editorial bias in Opening the Heavens is a serious problem. 

The Joseph Smith Papers are the only comprehensive references and they’re not even complete yet. Plus, the notes reflect the editorial agenda of the editors.

Think of Rough Stone Rolling (and every other book) as an abridgement. You can’t blame an author for omitting information because it’s impossible to include all the information in any one book. 

That’s why you consider the editorial agenda. What did the author plan (and hope) to accomplish? We’ll discuss that below, but first, let’s look at how people are using Rough Stone Rolling.

_____

The critics, such as John Dehlin, use Rough Stone Rolling as a tool to persuade Latter-day Saints to question their faith. But they are using a basic logical fallacy to mislead their readers and listeners. They frame Rough Stone Rolling as the most comprehensive, honest, detailed history of Joseph Smith. 

Of course, that’s nonsense. The book is selectively detailed and pursues an editorial agenda.

Nevertheless, Dehlin portrays Rough Stone Rolling as a sort of reference book, which it is not.

I don’t question Dehlin’s sincerity. I’ll assume he really believes what he says. But Dehlin’s straw man is an effective persuasion trick. Latter-day Saints and others who don’t know much about history generally, or Mormon history specifically, take Dehlin’s word for it. They accept the straw man argument that Rough Stone Rolling is the most honest, or even only honest, book about Joseph Smith written by a faithful Latter-day Saint. Richard Bushman, after all, is a Stake Patriarch and a former Stake President, one of the editors of the Joseph Smith Papers, etc.

Many faithful Latter-day Saints are unprepared for what they read in Rough Stone Rolling. Why?

Most people merely want to confirm their biases, so they read and listen enough to do that and then stop, satisfied. We actually get a dopamine hit when we confirm our biases. It feels good. We like to associate with people who share our beliefs. We meet with them regularly. We work with them. We trust them. 

Dehlin and others know that. Because of the way they frame the book, they know that Latter-day Saints will expect to get another dopamine hit when they read Rough Stone Rolling because they think it will somehow “prove” Joseph Smith was a prophet, etc.

Instead, the book gives them an alternative history that is jarring for many. It’s the opposite of a dopamine hit. It’s disturbing.

And it’s a major reason for Dehlin’s success. Whether he sends people to Rough Stone Rolling, the Gospel Topics Essays, FairMormon, Book of Mormon Central, the Interpreter, it doesn’t matter. All of these references create expectations for Latter-day Saints that are dashed when they realize these sources are teaching Latter-day Saints that the prophets were wrong.

Then, Dehlin can offer them an alternative source for a dopamine hit. Now, it’s the dopamine that comes from confirming the new bias that the prophets are wrong. 

It’s why people who leave the Church–the “ex-Mormons”–keep coming back to Dehlin’s webpage and podcasts to confirm their new biases. It’s a constant dopamine hit.

Bias confirmation is not inherently good or bad. It’s a core part of our psychology. It helps us navigate an uncertain and unpredictable world. We confirm our biases daily in innumerable ways. If your bias makes you happy and productive, great. But there’s always a risk that the bias we’re confirming is based on a mistake.

The big mistake here is the assumption that Rough Stone Rolling is actual history. It’s not. It presents merely an abridgment of one version of history. Like every other book, it relates some facts and omits others. It suggests some conclusions and omits others. It’s not good or bad. It’s a tool. It’s one of many windows into actual history.

I always say people can believe whatever they want. It doesn’t matter to me what you believe. I just encourage people to pursue the truth and make informed decisions. 

People who want to make informed decisions will not read Rough Stone Rolling and stop, no matter how it makes them feel. They won’t read Essentials in Church History and stop. They won’t read Come Follow Me 2021 and stop. They will read a variety of materials, hopefully skewed toward authentic original sources. They will use both their minds and their hearts. They will follow the guidance in D&C 9:8. “you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.”

As I noted above, unfortunately Dehlin can point to the Gospel Topics Essays for confirmation, but that’s a discussion for another day.

Dehlin can also point to FairMormon, Book of Mormon Central, the Interpreter, and the rest of the citation cartel for confirmation. These LDS intellectuals are making Dehlin’s case for him. He just has to point it out.  

One of the best examples is SITH.

_____

For over 150 years, LDS Church leaders taught that Joseph Smith translated the Nephite plates with the Urim and Thummim. From the early 1830s, critics said that Joseph produced the Book of Mormon by either (i) reading words off a seer stone he put in a hat or (ii) reading a manuscript written by Solomon Spalding and edited by Sidney Rigdon.

All three alternatives were set out in the 1834 book Mormonism Unvailed. When that book was released in October 1834, Oliver Cowdery responded by declaring unambiguously that Joseph translated the record with the Urim and Thummim. You can see Oliver’s declaration in the Pearl of Great Price, at the end of Joseph Smith-History, or in the Joseph Smith papers here:

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/50

You might think that Oliver’s declaration, which Joseph Smith helped write and specifically endorsed multiple times, would end the debate.

But no.

A few decades ago, some LDS historians decided it was time to deal with “all the evidence.” They started what has been called the “New Mormon History” to bring out some of the evidence that differed from, and contradicted, the traditional Church history narratives.

Among these was SITH.

Historians largely rejected the Spalding theory, so they focused on SITH vs U&T. 

(Sending the Spalding theory into oblivion is one reason why everyone has overlooked the key role it played, as I’ve discussed before.)

Rough Stone Rolling was a key part of the New Mormon History’s focus on SITH, but lots of people contributed. The historians in the Church History department largely embraced the New Mormon History (as well as M2C), and the result is the presentation of SITH in the Ensign (which I discussed here), the lesson manuals, the videos, etc.

Several justifications have been proposed. 

Some have claimed that when Joseph and Oliver said or wrote “Urim and Thummim” they really meant the peep stone Joseph found in a well. That obviously contradicts both what they said and the historical record. Others claim Joseph used both, but that also contradicts both what Joseph and Oliver always said. Some say the “SITH sayers” were all liars who hated Joseph Smith, but that also contradicts the historical record. Besides, people on the other side just say Joseph and Oliver were liars. Stalemate.

In a recent presentation, I summarized it this way, leading to my own conclusions. (click to enlarge) 

As I mentioned at the outset, a longer version of this is available here:

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/p/video-summary-of-sith-and-new-mormon.html

The full presentation is also available. Email me at lostzarahemla@gmail.com if you want a link.

_____

I hope by now you can see that it doesn’t matter whether you agree or disagree with my conclusions. What matters is whether you are satisfied that you’ve made an informed decision. Did you read multiple perspectives and interpretations of the facts? Did you study things out in your mind and then get confirmation in your heart?

If so, you can read Rough Stone Rolling and spot the editorial agenda and bias. You can read Essentials in Church History, Truth Restored, No Man Knows my History, or any other book about Church history and spot the editorial agenda and bias. But you will have decided, for yourself, what is factual, logical, rational, and true.

_____

Let’s consider the bias and motivation behind Rough Stone Rolling to keep it in perspective.

In the Preface, Brother Bushman wrote this:

it is unlikely there will ever be consensus on Joseph Smith’s character or his achievements… Everything about Smith matters to people who have built their lives on his teachings. To protect their own deepest commitments, believers want to shield their prophet’s reputation. On the other hand, people who have broken away from Mormonism-and they produce a large amount of the scholarship-have to justify their decision to leave. They cannot countenance evidence of divine inspiration in his teachings without catching themselves in a disastrous error. Added to these combatants are those suspicious of all religious authority who find in Joseph Smith a perfect target for their fears. Given the emotional crosscurrents, agreement will never be reached about his character, his inspiration, or his accomplishments.

A believing historian like myself cannot hope to rise above these battles or pretend nothing personal is at stake. For a character as controversial as Smith, pure objectivity is impossible.

From agnostic to believer, historian Richard Bushman explains why he sees the Book of Mormon as ‘right’ — as opposed to ‘true’ Dean of Mormon historians Richard Bushman discusses his faith and doubts. He is working on a book about the gold plates, from which the Book of Mormon was born, and says The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should continue to change while retaining its unique teachings. www.sltrib.com

“The Book of Mormon is a problem right now. It’s so baffling to so many that Joseph was not even looking at the gold plates [to translate them]. And there’s so much in the Book of Mormon that comes out of the 19th century that there’s a question of whether or not the text is an exact transcription of Nephi’s and Mormon’s words, or if it has been reshaped by inspiration to be more suitable for us, a kind of an expansion or elucidation of the Nephite record for our times. I have no idea how that might have worked or whether that’s true. But there are just too many scholars now, faithful church scholars, who find 19th-century material in that text. That remains a little bit of a mystery, just how it came to be.. . . .

Source: About Central America

On the last day of 2021, I turn to my main focus.

I’ve been asking around. People don’t know which verse, exactly, contains the term “come follow me.” Most think it comes from the calling of the fishermen apostles. There are several verses that include the words come, follow, and me, but the exact phrase appears only once in the scriptures. 

The Come Follow Me curriculum takes it’s title from a challenging scripture. It’s a call to Zion.

18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?

The Savior reviewed the commandments, to which the rule replied:

21 And he said, All these have I kept from my youth up.

22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

23 And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich.

24 And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!

(Luke 18:21–24)

There are now several million people–active Latter-day Saints–who weekly study the scriptures within in the context of “Come Follow Me.”

Imagine how quickly Zion could be established if we took the original verse to heart? 

I posted an awesome presentation on the Zion revolution on my howtoZion blog today:

https://howtozion.blogspot.com/2020/12/a-feast-of-fat-things.html

_____

The ruler, who “was very rich,” had kept all the commandments from his youth up. But the Lord recognized that he lacked one thing: this fine young ruler had not been willing to jettison his wealth for the benefit of the poor and then to live the law of consecration.

Imagine what a shining city on a hill would result if wealthy Latter-day Saints decided to sell what they had and distribute to the poor. Imagine if our role models were those who lived the law of consecration instead of those who have the biggest mansions, the most expensive cars, the greatest net worth, the most prominent Church callings, or the most popular youtube videos, bestselling books, etc.

Given the topic of this blog, one application of Come Follow Me might be for scholars to jettison their theories in favor of the teachings of the prophets. Imagine how much stronger the Church would be, and how much more united Latter-day Saints would be, if our scholars decided to support and corroborate the prophets on such basic topics as the truthfulness of the scriptures, the translation of the Book of Mormon and the New York Cumorah. 

Everyone in the world is seeking a Zion society. They just don’t know where to find it–and we’re not telling them.

11 And also it is an imperative duty that we owe to all the rising generation, and to all the pure in heart—

12 For there are many yet on the earth among all sects, parties, and denominations, who are blinded by the subtle craftiness of men, whereby they lie in wait to deceive, and who are only kept from the truth because they know not where to find it—

(Doctrine and Covenants 123:11–12)

The world is not going to find Zion in the cacophony of the Internet. But they can find it–or could find it–if the Latter-day Saints were united with one heart and one mind.

I hope that 2021 will bring about Zion more openly and happily than ever before as members of the Church, and seekers of Zion everywhere in the world, accept the Lord’s challenge to “Come follow me.”

Source: About Central America

A lot of people bought a kindle version of A Man that Can Translate months ago. Recently we expanded and updated the book, but we kept the same ISBN so previous buyers can update. 

I’ve arranged with Kindle to allow updates now. Check your account and you can choose to update the book if you like, although you’ll lose your notes.

Source: About Central America

On the question of how the Book of Mormon was produced, a useful item shows up in the June 1, 1881, issue of the Saints’ Herald. The newspaper reported the efforts of William H. Kelley to interview people who lived in Palmyra. Kelley interviewed John H. Gilbert, who set the type for the Book of Mormon. 

From page 165 of the 1881 Saints’ Herald.

“I would know that manuscript today if I should see it. The most of it was in Oliver Cowdery’s handwriting. Some in Joseph’s wife’s; a small part though. Hyrum Smith always brought the manuscript to the office; he would have it under his coat, and all buttoned up as carefully as though it was so much gold. He said at the time it was translated from plates by the power of God, and they were very particular about it. We had a great deal of trouble with it. It was not punctuated at all. They did not know anything about punctuation, and we had to do that ourselves.”

Well, did you change any part of it when you were setting the type?

“No, sir; we never changed it at all.”

Why did you not change it and correct it?

“Because they would not allow us to; they were very particular about that. We never changed it in the least. Oh, well; there might have been one or two words that I changed the spelling of; I believe I did change the spelling of one, and perhaps two, but no more.”*

Did you set all of the type, or did some one help you?

“I did the whole of it myself, and helped to read the proof, too; there was no one who worked at that but myself. Did you ever see one of the first copies? I have one here that was never bound. Mr. Grandin, the printer, gave it to me. If you ever saw a Book of Mormon you will see that they changed it afterwards.”

They did! Well, let us see your copy; that is a good point,. How is it changed now?

“I will show you,” (bringing out his copy). “Here on the title page it says,” (reading) “‘Joseph Smith, Jr., author and proprietor.’ Afterwards, in getting out other editions they left that out, and only claimed that Joseph Smith translated it.”

Well, did they claim anything else than that he was the translator when they brought the manuscript to you?

“Oh, no; they claimed that he was translating it by means of some instruments he got at the same time he did the plates, and the Lord helped him.”

Gilbert remembered that Joseph translated with the instrument that came with the plates. This was not the seer stone that Joseph found in a well years earlier.

_____

*Gilbert later disputed some elements of this published interview. For example, he said he specifically changed the spelling of “travail” twice (in Mosiah). But he did not dispute what he said about the translation with the instruments that came with the plates.

Those who have read my book A Man that Can Translate might be interested in what Gilbert said about the Spalding theory.

Source: Letter VII

Because I’m one of the faithful Latter-day Saints (LDS) who still believe the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah, I wrote a book to explain my position.  It’s called Between these Hills: A case for the New York Cumorah.

Long-time readers here know that I defer to the teachings of the prophets. I give special credence to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, who wrote of their personal experiences. 

But that’s not the only reason why I agree with what they taught about Cumorah. In my view, the LDS intellectuals who try to undermine the teachings of the prophets on this topic by casting doubt on the credibility and reliability of Joseph, Oliver, and their contemporaries, are missing the point. 

In the book, I also present evidence from the text and from extrinsic sources, both historical and scientific, to make a case for the New York Cumorah.

The title comes from a phrase in Oliver Cowdery’s Letter VII, in which he declares it’s a fact that the Hill Cumorah in western New York is the same hill called Cumorah by the Nephites and Ramah by the Jaredites. I’ll explain the book more below after briefly discussing two related topics.

_____

LDS apologetics have been in the news lately, partly because of controversial videos posted by FairMormon that try to appeal to Gen Z, and partly because of interviews on MormonStories.org that respond to those videos and take the topic further. 

I have a new blog that focuses on MormonStories, which does a good job empathizing with people while also pointing out some of the same problems with FairMormon that I’ve discussed here. You can find out about it on my Consensus blog.

https://bookofmormonconsensus.blogspot.com/2020/12/consensus-between-lds-scholars-and.html

The new blog is still in development but will be fully operational starting in January 2021.

_____

Joseph Smith’s birthday is a good time to reflect on some of the things he taught, especially regarding the early days of the Restoration. There are three key specific points that my latest books cover in depth. I disagree with LDS scholars, their employees and followers, as well as non-LDS critics, who reject the following three propositions.

1. Joseph Smith, Jr., translated the engravings on the plates with the Urim and Thummim.

2. The translation is “after the manner of [his own] language.” (D&C 1:24)

3. The Hill Cumorah of Mormon 6:6 is in western New York. That’s the topic of today’s post.

_____

Most LDS scholars (including historians) who otherwise believe the Book of Mormon is the word of God now agree with unbelievers that the “hill in New York” is not the Cumorah of Mormon 6:6. 

I’ve written dozens of posts about this, reviewing materials provided by the M2C citation cartel and others. By now, readers here know that I think M2C is a hoax, a product of bias confirmation that originated with a mistake in Church history; i.e., the assumption that Joseph Smith wrote, edited or approved of anonymous articles in the 1842 Times and Seasons that claimed the Nephites lived in Central America and that the city of Zarahemla was located there. I don’t think Joseph had anything to do with those articles, never saw them until after they were published, had repudiated the hemispheric model in the Wentworth letter in March 1842, and resigned as the nominal editor of the Times and Seasons in response to these article (among other reasons).

Some LDS scholars and historians debate whether Joseph ever taught the New York Cumorah. They reject the evidence from Lucy Mack Smith, David Whitmer, Martin Harris, and especially Oliver Cowdery. They also reject the teachings of Joseph’s contemporaries and successors as Church leaders. 

Why?

Because they prefer an explanation that puts the Book of Mormon in a limited geography in Mesoamerica. They think this limited geographical area is too far from New York to fit, so they invented a different Cumorah in southern Mexico and claimed there are really two Cumorahs (M2C): (i) the “real” Cumorah in Mexico, and (ii) the hill in New York, named to commemorate the one in Mexico or pursuant to a false speculation regarding the last battles of the Jaredites and Nephites.

Unlike the M2C scholars, I think the teachings of the prophets are reliable, relevant and important. 

The differences of opinion stem from different assumptions.

In Between these Hills, I spent several pages discussing the psychology of all of this because the problem is really psychological. There is abundant evidence from the text and from extrinsic sources to support whatever interpretation you like. That makes it difficult to ascertain what is truth vs what is opinion.

In my view, if you believe the LDS prophets, you should seek evidence that supports and corroborates what they say, not evidence that repudiates their teachings. This is the big difference between me and the M2C scholars and unbelievers.

In the book, I offer an alternative interpretation of the text that corroborates, instead of repudiates, the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah. I offer supporting evidence from science, including citations to peer-reviewed papers and various books. I don’t spend time explaining why I disagree with M2C, though, because I’m fine with people believing whatever they want.

The book is an overview of the topic. An introduction, really, but it includes plenty of resources for those who want to study more. 

I didn’t write the book to persuade anyone. Although I think there is a rational basis for accepting the New York Cumorah, based on the text and extrinsic evidence as well as the teachings of the prophets, people stick with their beliefs. Bias confirmation is usually too powerful to be overcome by facts and logical/rational arguments. 

My purpose was to help M2C believers, as well as those who reject the Book of Mormon, understand why thousands of Latter-day Saints still accept the New York Cumorah.

My secondary purpose was to help those who haven’t made up their minds to make informed decisions.

I hope people enjoy the book.

Source: About Central America