Author: Jonathan Neville

Readers ask me all the time how M2C persists. It requires a lot of bias confirmation. I recently posted another comment about volcanoes in Mesoamerica to illustrate the power of bias confirmation, compounded by faulty assumptions. You can read it here.

http://interpreterpeerreviews.blogspot.com/2020/05/m2c-volcanoes-bias-confirmation-and.html

In that post, I compared the M2C problem to the parable of the wheat and the tares. One reason why I encourage M2C readers not to read this blog is because so many faithful LDS have their testimonies entwined with M2C.

Book of Mormon Central and the rest of the M2C citation cartel are spending millions of dollars to portray M2C as the only valid interpretation of the Book of Mormon.

I don’t want people to discard their faith just because they come to the realization that M2C (i) repudiates the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah and (ii) is based on logical and factual fallacies. We don’t want to “pluck up” M2C if it will damage tender faith.

People who read only M2C material never learn that there is an alternative interpretation of the Book of Mormon and the relevant sciences that corroborates and supports, instead of contradicts and repudiates, the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah.

That’s why I wish Book of Mormon Central was neutral, pursuant to the Church’s position.

It’s why I keep emphasizing that people should not think “M2C or bust.” M2C ≠ truth.

_____

Back to the comparison between Mark Hoffman and M2C.

Mark Hoffman sharing forged document with First Presidency and members of the Twelve

Mark Hoffman was a well-known collector of Mormon documents. In the 1980s, he sold several to the Church. Experts, including Church historians, examined the documents and pronounced them authentic. They persuaded Church leaders that the documents were authentic.

The Church even purchased some of the forged documents.

After Hoffman murdered two people with bombs, and injured himself, investigators discovered that he had forged hundreds of documents, including the ones the Church purchased. There are books, articles, and even a documentary about the whole thing.

After investigators proved the documents were forged and charges were filed against Hoffman, investigators went to BYU to speak with those who had validated the documents.

By then, these historians had written articles based on the forgeries. The most notorious forgery was the Salamander letter, purportedly written by Martin Harris to W.W. Phelps, that claimed it was a salamander, not Moroni, who appeared to Joseph Smith.

Apologists such as FARMS had figured out a way to explain how the Salamander letter was consistent with what Joseph had taught all along. One of their publications was titled “Why Might a Person in 1830 Connect and Angel with a Salamander?”

In reality, Hoffman had derived the letter from the 1834 anti-Mormon book Mormonism Unvailed, which has recently enjoyed a renaissance of popularity among Church historians, as we’ve discussed before.

Back to the BYU visit. The investigators met with the historians, “none of whom seemed to think the prosecutors had a case… the only difference between LDS historians and Mormon religion teachers was that the historians still sounded like defense witnesses while the religion instructors pointed out anachronisms and other problems in the Hoffmann documents.” (Linda Sillitoe and Allen Roberts, Salamander: The Story of the Mormon Forgery Murders (Signature Books, 2006): 171-2).
_____

By now, I’m sure you see these two points.

1. Church leaders naturally (and necessarily, given time constraints) deferred to trusted experts regarding the authenticity of the forgeries. Church leaders must focus on ministering to people and administering the Church. They have to rely on experts for ancillary matters such as Church history, Book of Mormon historicity, scientific issues, financial issues, logistics, etc. The same is true for ordinary members; we are busy with our own lives and necessarily trust the experts on matters of special expertise.

2. The experts, albeit faithful and qualified, made errors. Fine, that happens. What is fascinating is how quickly a groupthink developed that redefined long-held understandings about Joseph Smith and early Church history. The groupthink caused the experts to stop investigating the documents (until the bombings). Church intellectuals figured out a way to incorporate the forged documents into their own theories about Church history and reinforced their new approach using their citation cartel and the academic cycle. Even when outside investigators proved the documents were forgeries, they resisted reality because their strong bias confirmation had embraced the documents as genuine.

In fact, it can be argued that the influence of the Hoffman forgeries continued through the present in the way Church historians are interpreting Church history (a topic for another day).

Conclusion. Church members and leaders who relied on the experts were misled by faithful, well-meaning experts who, for various reasons, developed a groupthink around the forged documents. Bias confirmation strengthened the groupthink to the point where it could be overcome only by outside experts and irrefutable evidence.
_____

Readers here already see the parallels to M2C.

I think that most M2C intellectuals and their followers are sincere, faithful members of the Church. They have rationalized away their repudiation of the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah (although they are still uncomfortable defending their position).

Like the Hoffman document believers, M2C believers have developed a groupthink, supported by bias confirmation, that prevents them from seeing, let alone considering, alternative interpretations of the text and the relevant sciences.

One simple example is their groupthink about volcanoes; i.e., although Mormon never mentioned volcanoes in 1,000 years of “Mayan” history in Mesoamerica, the M2C believers read volcanoes into the text. They do the same with massive stone pyramids and the three Js: jade, jaguars, and jungles.

Their groupthink is so powerful that they “cannot unsee” Mesoamerica when they read the Book of Mormon.

And, as I always say, that’s perfectly fine. Any groupthink that leads people to Christ through the Book of Mormon is fine with me.

The same could have been said for the Hoffman forgeries, as the FARMS paper showed.

But for most people, the forgeries had a negative impact. While many scholars were disappointed to discover the forgery because they had published and spoken about them, most Church members were relieved to know the documents were fake.

It’s similar with M2C.

Most faithful LDS, ordinary members and leaders alike, who learn only M2C tend to accept it because they think, thanks to the efforts of the M2C promoters, that it is the only explanation for the historicity of the Book of Mormon. These faithful LDS love the Book of Mormon and have testimonies, so they accept M2C as a sort of appendage.

But many faithful LDS have reservations about M2C. They know what the prophets have taught about the New York Cumorah. They know what Joseph said about the “plains of the Nephites” in Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. They know about Zelph. They read the rationalizations of the M2C scholars but have difficulty accepting them because of logical and factual fallacies.

Some go further and investigate Mayan society and culture. They see the incongruities. They begin to recognize that the “correspondences” cited by M2C scholars are illusory.

If they don’t know there is an alternative to M2C, many of these faithful Church members become confused and disturbed in their faith, as Joseph Fielding Smith warned so long ago.

As for non-members, M2C requires an enormous leap of faith. It’s a bridge too far for most of them, even before they learn that M2C directly repudiates the teachings of the prophets.

It’s a mess.

But it doesn’t have to be.

The teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah are so consistent and clear, and the scientific evidence that supports and corroborates those teachings is so abundant, that more and more Church members are recognizing that M2C doesn’t cut it any longer.

That won’t change any minds among M2C scholars, their followers, or their employees. It would require irrefutable evidence akin to the exposure of the Hoffman forgeries to change the minds of the M2C believers.

That’s why this blog doesn’t even try to change anyone’s mind.

All we can do is offer information to let people make their own informed decisions.

As you deal with M2C believers, be patient and understanding. Remember that they have never learned that there is an alternative interpretation of the Book of Mormon and the relevant sciences that corroborates and supports, instead of contradicts and repudiates, the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah.

_____
* Faith Crisis: we were not betrayed, by L. Hannah Stoddard and James E. Stoddard III.

I’m sitting in my home office, watching the waves of the Pacific Ocean crash, thinking about how intellectual fads come and go until they crash into oblivion on the shore.

In recent years, influential LDS scholars have claimed the critics were right after all.

According to them, Joseph produced the Book of Mormon by reading words off a seer stone. He didn’t really translate anything. We “need to change the definition of the term translate.” He didn’t use the Urim and Thummim. He didn’t even use the plates!

Despite what the scholars say, many active LDS still believe what Joseph and Oliver taught. We’re fine with the scholars saying whatever they want. We’re fine with people following them. We just think some of their conclusions are not credible and contradict what the prophets have taught.

The evolution of the seer stone narrative parallels the evolution of M2C. The historical record shows that Joseph and Oliver taught that Cumorah was in New York. Scholars dispute that record–Church historians even changed Church history to censor Cumorah in the Saints book–but the record persists and those interested can read it for themselves. We think extrinsic evidence supports the teachings of the prophets. We think M2C persists because of confirmation bias, but we don’t insist others agree with us. We oppose the efforts of the M2C citation cartel to censor and suppress alternative faithful perspectives.

It’s the same thing with the seer stone narrative.

The historical record shows that Joseph and Oliver taught that Joseph translated the plates with the Urim and Thummim that came with the plates. From as early as 1834, when Mormonism Unvailed set forth the seer stone (“peep” stone) narrative as an alternative to the Urim and Thummim narrative, critics pushed the seer stone while Joseph and Oliver reiterated the Urim and Thummim narrative throughout their lives.

The other day our friends at Book of Mormon Central posted an article about seer stones that articulated the latest LDS scholarly fad. It included this comment:

Joseph using peep stones to produce the Book of Mormon

Joseph Smith used both the Nephite Interpreters and his individual seer stone in the translation of the Book of Mormon. The practice of using stones or glass to receive divine revelation is found in many cultures, including among the ancient Israelites and Maya. Though we may ultimately never fully understand the nature of the Book of Mormon’s translation, Joseph repeatedly testified that he translated the plates by the gift and power of God.

https://bookofmormoncentral.org/blog/4-fascinating-insights-about-seers-seer-stones-and-interpreters

Notice how they threw in the “Maya” reference. That’s the confirmation bias we see in everything produced by the M2C citation cartel.

Notice also that last clause in bold. It’s a classic example of diversion because it’s a half-truth.

Joseph did say he translated the plates by the gift and power of God. But he also said he did so by the means of the Urim and Thummim he obtained with the plates.

E.g., in the Wentworth letter, Joseph wrote: With the records was found a curious instrument which the ancients called “Urim and Thummim,” which consisted of two transparent stones set in the rim of a bow fastened to a breastplate. Through the medium of the Urim and Thummim I translated the record by the gift, and power of God.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/church-history-1-march-1842/2

_____

Today I’ll refer to Benjamin Winchester to illustrate the evolution of the seer stone narrative. Our M2C scholars followed Benjamin Winchester’s lead by focusing on Central America. (Winchester wrote the anonymous 1842 Times and Seasons articles that remains the basic rationale for M2C. We discussed that yesterday here.)

Now scholars are following Winchester’s lead on the seer stones vs Urim and Thummim.
_____

In 1841, Benjamin Winchester published a newspaper in Philadelphia. At the time, he was a zealous missionary, a close friend of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, etc. In the March 15 issue, he wrote:

Moroni was then commanded to deposit this record in the earth, together with the Urim and Thummim, or as the Nephites would have said, Interpreters, which were instruments to assist in the work of the translation, with a promise from the Lord that it should be brought to light by means of.a Gentile Nation that should possess the land; and be published to the world, and go forth to the Lamanites, and be one of the instruments in the hands of God for their conversion.

A few pages later, with Joseph Smith’s express permission, Winchester republished Oliver Cowdery’s eight essays on Church history (the original Gospel Topics essays). These include the passage now found in the Pearl of Great Price:

Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his mouth, as he translated, with the Urim and Thummim, or, as the Nephites would have said, “ Interpreters,” the history, or record, called “ The book of Mormon.” 

Also this passage: “[Moroni] said this history was written and deposited not far from that place, and that it was our brother’s privilege, if obedient to the commandments of the Lord, to obtain, and translate the same by the means of the Urim and Thummim, which were deposited for that purpose with the record.”

Winchester was on solid ground. Not only did Joseph give him permission to republish Oliver’s essays, but he gave them to his brother Don Carlos to publish in the Times and Seasons. He had his scribes copy them into his own journal as part of his life history. His brother William republished them again in 1844 in New York City.

Winchester continued to publish books and articles defending the Church. He refuted the Solomon Spaulding theory. He went on a mission to promote Joseph Smith’s candidacy for U.S. President.

But then he became disgruntled, partly over polygamy and partly over disputes with his old friend William Smith (Joseph’s brother). He was excommunicated.

Later in life, he changed his version of his experiences with Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. Here’s what he wrote about the peep stones and the Urim and Thummim. This article was published in the Salt Lake Tribune on Sunday, September 22, 1889.

In regard to Joseph’s literary work — his “translations” — I well remember some of it at Kirtland. They had there in the temple some Egyptian mummies, four of them I am positive. From one of them Joseph had taken a scroll lettered over with what purported to be Egyptian characters. It was kept on exhibition in a glass case. To this scroll Joseph applied his peep-stone or “Urim-Thummim” and made out a translation purporting to be a vision of Abraham in which the modern theory that the world is round and that it revolves was sustained against the ancient theory prior to the time of Galileo.

Just like some of our LDS scholars today, Winchester put quotation marks around “translation” and equated the seer stone with the Urim and Thummim.

In 1900, Winchester dictated a final testimony.

[Joseph] carried what he called a ‘Peep stone’ through which he claimed to see hidden treasure & etc. This is what he afterwards called his ‘Urim and Thummem.’ Finally he took the notion to get up a book. Then he claimed to have made the discovery of the plates. Then he got Cowdery, Harris and Whitmer into it.”

“Cowdery was his scribe, or the writer of the book, as Smith dictated it. It was done this way…. Smith was behind the blankets in the dark with this ‘peep stone’ in his hat and then his face in the hat. As he looked into the hat there would come sentence after sentence upon the stone, and he would dictate it to Cowdery, and Cowdery would write it down.

There are many sources in Church history that support what Joseph and Oliver said about the translation. There are also sources, such as Benjamin Winchester’s final testimonies, that contradict what Joseph and Oliver said.

We can all choose what we want to believe. For now, let’s just consider a final passage.

34 He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang. He also said that the fulness of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the Savior to the ancient inhabitants;
35 Also, that there were two stones in silver bows—and these stones, fastened to a breastplate, constituted what is called the Urim and Thummim—deposited with the plates; and the possession and use of these stones were what constituted “seers” in ancient or former times; and that God had prepared them for the purpose of translating the book.
(Joseph Smith—History 1:34–35)

http://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2020/05/m2c-and-cognitive-dissonance.html

The same day, the Joseph Smith Papers announced the release of Volume 10, covering May through August, 1842.

https://www.churchhistorianspress.org/news/joseph-smith-papers-documents-v-10-released?lang=eng

As expected, our friends at Book of Mormon Central, the front for Book of Mormon Archaeological Forum, Inc. (BMAF), a long-time promoter of M2C, offered their spin on Volume 10.

According to Book of Mormon Central, the most important material in Volume 10 are the anonymous Times and Seasons articles.

They spent half their announcement describing and summarizing these articles, including such commentary as this: “As these editorials demonstrate, Joseph Smith and other early Latter-day Saints were excited to see new discoveries seemingly vindicate the claims made in the Book of Mormon and eagerly shared this new evidence with the world.”

Of course, none of these editorials said or implied anything about Cumorah, which everyone during Joseph’s lifetime knew was in New York. The year before, Joseph had his brother Don Carlos publish Letter VII in the Times and Seasons. In 1844 Joseph’s brother William republished Letter VII yet again in the New York City LDS newspaper titled The Prophet.

Nevertheless, our M2C friends continue to insist these anonymous 1842 editorials supersede everything the prophets have taught about the New York Cumorah.

Here’s the link.

https://bookofmormoncentral.org/blog/new-joseph-smith-papers-volume-gives-window-into-the-nauvoo-period
_____

At the bottom of the page, they offer Additional Resources including an awesome video titled “What did prophets think about Book of Mormon geography? Their old books may give clues.”

Except the video omitted an important “clue” about Cumorah, which I discussed here:

http://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2019/02/cumorah-and-presidents-lee-and-kimball.html
_____

People have asked about the article “4 Fascinating Insights about Seers, Seer Stones, and Interpreters” which you can see in the screen capture above.

There’s a simple answer for the seer stone issue. Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery always said Joseph translated the plates with the Urim and Thummim that came with the plates. They always said the Urim and Thummim, not a Urim and Thummim.

But as we’ve learned from our M2C friends, once you repudiate the teachings of the prophets on one topic, it’s easy to repudiate their teachings on other topics. Once you reject the New York Cumorah, you might as well also reject the Urim and Thummim and anything else that doesn’t fit your worldview.

That’s how confirmation bias minimizes the effect of cognitive dissonance.

And, as we always say, that’s fine. People can believe whatever they want.

We continue to hope that our friends at Book of Mormon Central will someday simply offer readers a variety of faithful perspectives instead of insisting that we’re only allowed to believe M2C.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/68

You might think that looks fairly straightforward. Webster’s 1828 dictionary defined “country” to mean the region in which one resides, the territory situated in the vicinity of a city, or the whole territory of a kingdom or state. Joseph Smith lived near Palmyra in western New York in the United States. You can choose among the Webster’s definitions (which remain valid today) to decide which “aborigenes” Moroni was referring to.

Our friends who promote M2C nevertheless claim that “this country” refers to Mesoamerica because, according to them, the Nephites never left the “limited geography” of Mesoamerica. They landed there and the entire Book of Mormon took place there, culminating in the final battle at Cumorah in southern Mexico.

They’ve written articles full of clever rhetoric and sophistry to justify their position. But it’s a patently ridiculous argument, so they’ve persuaded our Church historians to replace “this country” with the term “the Americas.” 

For example, in Saints, Volume 1, we read this:

“Moroni spoke of gold plates buried in a nearby hill. On the plates was etched the record of an ancient people who once lived in the Americas.“

Moroni never said that. No original documents use the term “the Americas.” It is pure revisionist history, designed solely to accommodate the current intellectual fixation on Mesoamerica and M2C.

For a fun exercise, go to the Joseph Smith Papers and search for “the Americas.” You’ll get 17 results. Every one of them is in the commentary and notes. You’ll read things such as “For early believers, the book was not only a religious history of ancient inhabitants of the Americas…” “The idea that God would establish the New Jerusalem, or the city of Zion somewhere in the Americas stemmed from the Book of Mormon.” “The Book of Mormon also prophesied that the New Jerusalem should be built up upon this land, referring to the Americas.” “Jaredites: a term used in the Book of Mormon to refer to descendants and followers of Jared who departed for a “land of promise” which JS later identified as the Americas.”

The last one is especially fun because Joseph never used the term “the Americas.” This is putting words in Joseph’s mouth for a specific modern agenda–M2C. It is not history. 

You can also search “this country” on the Joseph Smith Papers website and see how Joseph and his contemporaries used the term. It always referred to a specific nation (the United States or England, depending on where the author was at the time) or a local region.

Here are some examples.

Lucy Mack Smith reported that soon after she received word that the translation was complete, three men came to ask her to show them the gold bible. She wrote, “No gentlemen said I we have <​got​> <​no​> gold bible but we have a translation of some gold plates which was sent to the world to bring the plainess of the Gospel to the children of men and to give a history of the people that used to inhabit this country.“

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1844-1845/111

On October 22, 1829, Joseph Smith wrote a letter to Oliver Cowdery. This is the earliest letter written by Joseph Smith that we have today. He wrote from Harmony, Pennsylvania. Oliver Cowdery was in Palmyra, NY, at the time, supervising the publication of the Book of Mormon. Among other things, Joseph wrote “there begins to be a great call for our books in this country.“

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letter-to-oliver-cowdery-22-october-1829/1

In March 1831, Joseph wrote a letter from Kirtland, Ohio, to his brother Hyrum, who was in Harpursville, NY. He wrote “I think <​you​> had better Come into this Country immediately for the Lord has Commanded us that we Should Call the Elders of the this Chursh to gether unto this plase as soon as possable.“

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letter-to-hyrum-smith-3-4-march-1831/2

In 1832, Joseph Smith wrote a letter from Hiram Township, Ohio, to W.W. Phelps, who was then in Independence, Missouri. Joseph wrote about “our toils in travling from this country to Zion amidst a crooked & preverse generation.“

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letter-to-william-w-phelps-31-july-1832/2

On August 16, 1834, Joseph Smith wrote a letter from Kirtland to Lyman Wight and others who were in Liberty, Missouri. He wrote ” let there be every signer obtained that can be in the State of Missouri and while they are on their Journey to this country that paradventure we may learn whithe [whether] we have friends or not in these United States.”

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letter-to-lyman-wight-and-others-16-august-1834/2

In February 1835, when Oliver Cowdery delivered the apostolic charge to Parley P. Pratt, he said, “It is required, not merely to travel a few miles in this country, but in distant countries.“

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/minutes-and-blessings-21-february-1835/3

You can find more examples, but let’s end with this important one.

In 1842, Joseph wrote an article titled “Church History,” better known today as the Wentworth letter. In it, he reaffirmed the account of Moroni’s visit that opened this blog post. He wrote, “I was also informed concerning the aboriginal inhabitants of this country, and shown who they were, and from whence they came.” A few paragraphs later, when describing the Nephites, he wrote, “The remnant are the Indians that now inhabit this country.” 

In that same letter, he wrote about the “frontier country” and described how, when the Saints were in Missouri, “an organized banditti ranged through the country robbed us of our cattle, sheep horses…“

Despite the historical evidence, our M2C scholars, their followers, and Church historians claim that when Joseph Smith used the term “country” he really meant “the American continent,” which they shorten to “the Americas.” That’s how they rationalize changing Church history to accommodate their modern ideas about geography.

In an amazing irony, the Saints books themselves take their title from a paragraph in the Wentworth letter that explicitly distinguishes between “continent” and “country.” This is the paragraph that immediately precedes the Articles of Faith.

Our missionaries are going forth to different nations, and in Germany, Palestine, New Holland, the East Indies, and other places, the standard of truth has been erected: no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing, persecutions may rage, mobs may combine, armies may assemble, calumny may defame, but the truth of God will go forth boldly, nobly, and independent till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every country, and sounded in every ear, till the purposes of God shall be accomplished and the great Jehovah shall say the work is done.
_____

When you read all of this, it’s easy to see why the M2C proponents and the Church historians who collaborate with them are changing Church history right before our eyes.

Joseph, Oliver, and all their contemporaries knew that the Book of Mormon was the history of the ancient people who lived in the country where Joseph received the plates. Moroni even told him the record was “written and deposited” not far from Joseph’s home near Palmyra, NY.

Every time you read or hear the words “the Americas” in connection with Church history, think “this country.” Whether you interpret it to mean the area right around Palmyra, or western New York, or even the United States as it existed in 1823 through 1842, at least you’re on the same page with Joseph Smith.

Note: there are some examples of Joseph writing about “this continent,” such as in Joseph’s appeal to the “Green Mountain Boys” when he wrote “the Book of Mormon as the history of the aborigines of this continent,” and in the Wentworth letter: “The remnant are the Indians that now inhabit this country. This book also tells us that our Savior made his appearance upon this continent after his ressurrection, that he planted the gospel here in all its fulness, and richness, and power, and blessing.“

There is also Joseph Smith–History 1:34 (compiled by Joseph’s scribes). “He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang. He also said that the fulness of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the Savior to the ancient inhabitants.“

Our M2C friends and historians claim these references to “this continent” mean “the Americas” and that “this country” therefore is either an error or should be interpreted to mean “the Americas.” Of course, the other alternative is to use the connotation of “continent” that is consistent with “this country,” such as the way Webster defined it as “a connected tract of land of great extent.”

Webster’s 1828 dictionary commented also that “In Spenser, continent is use [sic] for ground in general.” The term can be used for “a mainland contrasted with islands.”

Some definitions distinguish between North and South America as separate continents while others combined them into one continent. There is a long history of the etymology of the term and its applications that can be debated. In my view, Joseph’s use of “continent” in these references does not contradict his use of “country” as a more specific and narrower territory. 
_____

Here’s another fun exercise.

Since Moroni wrote some of the Book of Mormon (and presumably read what his father had written), maybe Moroni’s own use of the term “country” should be considered when we seek to understand what he meant when he told Joseph Smith that the Book of Mormon was the history of the aborigines of “this country.”

Search for “country” in the Book of Mormon itself. You’ll find phrases such as “defend their country,” “the freedom of his country,” “defend themselves, and their families, and their lands, their country, and their rights, and their religion,” “the cause of their country,” “ye are also traitors to your country,” “those parts of our country which he hath retained,” “the safety of their country,” “defend their north country,” “the laws of their country,” “even unto his own country,” “the country which lay before us,” “escaped into the country southward,” “the face of this north country,” and “the country was divided.”

You’ll rarely find a better example than M2C.
_____

On my desk right now a 1917 copy of the L.E. Hills book titled Geography of Mexico and Central America from 2234 B.C. to 421 A.D., published in Independence, Missouri.

It makes a case for M2C the same way the M2C promoters do it today, over 100 years later.

Hills included all the elements.

– quotations about Copan from Stephens and Catherwood “Travels in Central America” (as Hills named the book that was cited in anonymous articles in the 1842 Times and Seasons that started this whole thing).

– discussion of Quetzal-Coatl and other legends.

– Lehi crossing the Indian and Pacific Oceans to land in Central America.

– Tehuantepec, narrow strip of mountainous wilderness, the Usumacinta River as Sidon, etc.

– an explanation that the “hill in New York” is too far away from Mesoamerica to be the Hill Cumorah of Mormon 6:6 or the Hill Ramah, and that the real Cumorah is in southern Mexico.

And, of course, the book completely ignores the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah.

Hills submitted his book “to committees and students of Archaeology in the Church,” meaning the RLDS Church. He rationalized his approach the same way M2C proponents do today. “I am convinced that the geography, taken from a close study of location as found in the record itself, is the very best evidence that can be furnished to authenticate the record.”
_____

As I’ve discussed these issues over the last few years, I’ve observed this train of cognitive dissonance among M2C advocates and their followers.

1. When you point out the absurdity of relying on the anonymous 1842 Times and Seasons articles, which cited post-400 AD ruins as Book of Mormon sites among other things, they say they never relied on those articles.

2. When you show them that their own materials cited those articles as justification, they say they no longer rely on them, but instead they rely on their interpretation of the text (like Hills).

3. When you point out their interpretation was driven by the need to justify the Mesoamerican setting because of the Times and Seasons articles (i.e., their interpretation is merely circular reasoning), they claim there are elements of Mayan society that are “parallels” to Nephite society.

4. When you point out that these “parallels” are common to most human societies and there are far more differences than similarities, they return to the anonymous 1842 Times and Seasons articles and claim Joseph Smith wrote or at least endorsed those.

5. When you point out that the articles say nothing about Cumorah and that Joseph explicitly endorsed Letter VII, which was written with Joseph’s participation by the Assistant President of the Church in the First Presidency, and that all of Joseph’s contemporaries and successors who have ever addressed the topic have reaffirmed the New York Cumorah, they say the prophets were all wrong and were merely giving their own opinions as uninformed, unqualified speculators.

6. When you point out they are repudiating the prophets, they say you are calling them apostates.

7. When you point out you aren’t calling anyone an apostate but you’re just stating an obvious fact they openly acknowledge, they say none of this has been revealed so those prophets testified to the truth of their own erroneous opinions in General Conference, in their books, etc. Furthermore, they say that Oliver Cowdery did not actually enter the depository of Nephite records in the “hill in New York,” that Brigham Young and others who spoke about the depository were mistaken or talking about a “spiritual experience” of the depository that is actually in southern Mexico, and that Lucy Mack Smith, David Whitmer, and others had faulty memories every time they mentioned Cumorah (but were otherwise accurate about everything).

8. When you point out the descriptions in the Book of Mormon align closely to what is now known about ancient North America, they say that critics have accused Joseph of composing the text based on common 1800s beliefs and legends about those ancient inhabitants.

9. When you point out that the early critics didn’t have as much information about archaeology, anthropology, geology, etc. as we do today, all of which contradicts key 1800s-era common beliefs but corroborates what the Book of Mormon actually says, they say you’re interpreting the text wrong because the text clearly describes Mesoamerica.

10. When you point out that the text can easily be interpreted to incorporate the New York Cumorah, Joseph’s other statements about locations, and the relevant geographical and geological features, as well as Lehi’s route across the Atlantic which not only makes sense but has been demonstrated in the real world, they say it’s impossible because of the anonymous 1842 Times and Seasons articles that they insist Joseph wrote.

And you start all over again.

As I wrote at the beginning, people who are experiencing cognitive dissonance follow this pattern of thinking. They do everything they can to maintain their worldview.

One important element of maintaining one’s worldview is to have more people adopt it. The smart ones know that once someone adopts a worldview, it is difficult to break out of this cognitive dissonance. That’s why they’ve incorporated M2C everywhere they can, especially where it can influence young people.

M2C is one of the most perfect examples of cognitive dissonance you’ll ever see, and it has been going on for over 100 years.

A recent Times and Seasons blog post noted that the August 1993 Ensign included this projection:

If growth rates for the past decade remain constant, membership will increase to 12 million by the year 2000, to 35 million by 2020, and to 157 million by the mid-twenty-first century. 

Those growth rates have not remained constant. The Church’s 2019 Statistical Report released the week after General Conference reported 16,565,036 members. That’s less than half of what was projected in 1993.

Nevertheless, there’s a lot to be grateful for. Every time someone joins the Church, we are all enriched. The person joins a wonderful, world-wide family of believers in Christ who serve one another with love and compassion.

I spoke about that in my presentation at the FIRM Foundation conference last week.

The Statistical Report showed 248,835 convert baptisms, an increase from 234,332 in 2018. There were 67,021 full-time missionaries, up from 65,137 in 2018. For good analysis, see http://ldschurchgrowth.blogspot.com/.

Although convert baptisms are not publicly reported by country, much if not all of the increase can be attributed to Brazil, which had an increased membership of 35,319 during 2019. This was 24,502 more people than the increase in membership in 2018. Maybe having an Apostle from Brazil made a difference. 

But there remain areas of concern.

In the United States, for example, the annual growth in Church membership was the lowest reported by the Church since approximately the mid-1800s. 

The increase of convert baptisms in 2019 of 14,503 is in the right direction, but how does 248,835 compare? People tell me all the time that our missionaries face obstacles because people are more “worldly” and “less interested in spiritual things.”

Maybe so, but is that a valid excuse?

The Seventh-day Adventists had 5,065 missionaries in 2017. They reported 1,352,931 “accessions” (by baptism or profession of faith) in 2017 (the latest numbers I can find).

Their detailed statistical report shows that they’ve had accessions of over 1 million per year for several years. Between 2016 and 2017, they’ve grown from 20,008,779 to 20,727,347. (online here:
http://documents.adventistarchives.org/Statistics/ASR/ASR2019.pdf)

BTW, it would be pretty cool to have a Church statistical report with as much detail as the Seventh-day Adventists provide.

Last year, I noted that 10 states, plus the District of Columbia, lost LDS membership from 2017 to 2018.

From 2018 to 2019, 12 states lost LDS membership. Some were the same states that lost membership between 2017 and 2018, but others were new.

Last year, I mentioned the LDS chapel I saw for sale in South Burlington, VT. It sold in late 2019.

The buyer was the Islamic Society of Vermont.

Comments to the Times and Seasons blog post included these observations about Australia and Scotland:

In Australia the church say there are 155,000 members. There are 41 stakes, and 9 mission districts. The census say there are 60,000 members (not all claiming to be active). So maybe one third of claims.

Total membership (31 Dec 2017) — 13,912
Latter-day Saint Census affiliation (2011) — 4,651
First Quarter Average Attendance (2019) — 2453
• Stake 1 — 403
• Stake 2 — 499
• Stake 3 — 507
• Stake 4 — 581
• Stake 5 — 463

https://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2020/04/mid-1990s-projections-for-2020-revisited/

I could go on, but I suppose most members outside of Utah can relate similar statistics.

Every member of the Church ought to think about what we are doing to help the work of the Restoration.
_____

There are undoubtedly many factors involved with missionary and retention issues. We can all think of lots of excuses for why the Restoration is not proceeding as it has in the past in terms of membership, awareness, activity, etc.

In my view, M2C, SITH, and other revisionist history and scholarly changes to what the prophets have taught continue to create barriers for outsiders to seriously consider conversion.

A better approach, IMO, is to read afresh what the prophets have taught, starting with the original sources from Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. I discussed some of those sources here:

http://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2020/04/reading-afresh-vs-m2c.html

I can’t make sense of the idea that it is a good idea to reject (or even modify) what Joseph and Oliver taught about the identity of the Lamanites, the location of the Hill Cumorah, the translation of the Book of Mormon, and other topics.

For example, to me, Joseph translating the ancient Nephite plates is a plausible scenario. The KJV itself is a translation of ancient languages. True, Greek and Latin were well known, but translation is a common human endeavor. The point of the Urim and Thummim was to “magnify to the eyes of men” the writing on the plates. Joseph studied the characters, copying and translating them with the Urim and Thummim. We can’t say how it works, but the concept makes sense.

Mormon and Moroni abridged the ancient records, which makes sense. Moroni preserved the plates by concealing them in a stone box. That makes sense, too.

Ensign: Joseph Smith not using the plates

However, Joseph merely reading words that mysteriously appeared on a stone in the hat (SITH) makes no sense.

While that narrative is being taught in the Ensign, the Saints book, the current lesson manuals, etc., it directly contradicts the scriptures and what Joseph and Oliver always said.

There are exactly zero accounts to support this illustration that appears in the Ensign and recent Church videos.

Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery never once said or even implied that Joseph Smith produced the Book of Mormon by reading words that appeared on the stone in the hat.

To the contrary, they always said that Joseph translated the plates with the Urim and Thummim that Moroni placed in the stone box with the plates. The Eight Witnesses testified that “as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands.”

Obviously, if Joseph translated the leaves of the plates as these witnesses testified, the plates were not sitting under a cloth the whole time.

Until recent years, it was only the critics of the Church who promoted SITH. Now we read about it in the Ensign. The youth are taught SITH in seminary and institute. Presumably missionaries are teaching this in the field.

I can’t imagine teaching people that the Book of Mormon was produced from a supernatural teleprompter, with the plates serving as nothing more than a prop on the table, hidden under a cloth, with the Urim and Thummim nowhere to be found.

It seems completely predictable that fewer and fewer people will find SITH credible, let alone appealing.

After all, we’re asking people to make the biggest change in their lives.
_____

I’m hoping that more and more members of the Church read afresh the teachings of the prophets, as President Nelson advised. In so doing, they will rely less and less on the theories of men, taught by so many intellectuals in the Church.

Maybe the pause in missionary work due to the corona virus will prove to be a time for reflection and renewal. Maybe we can read afresh the teachings of the prophets and recognize that their accounts make far more sense than the imaginations of the scholars.

CES fantasy map

BYU fantasy map

You don’t need more than a quick glance to realize these maps are ridiculous because it fits no place on earth. 

The original M2C map was developed by an RLDS scholar named L.E. Hills, who published his version in 1917. 

He moved Cumorah to southern Mexico, highlighted by the red circle.

It was this map and the associated analysis that led Joseph Fielding Smith to issue his warning. He repeated his warning when he was President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, but it didn’t matter.

Probably the best-known version was created by Brother Sorenson, one of the M2C triumvirate. The other two members of the triumvirate endorsed the Sorenson map. 

The news is full of public discussion about the corona virus models used by public health experts to influence public policy. The models projected millions of deaths and led government officials to lock down national economies around the world.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/come-follow-me-for-individuals-and-families-book-of-mormon-2020/14?lang=eng

Because the lesson focuses in part on the Resurrection, it reminded me of the post below that I wrote a while ago but didn’t publish. I’m publishing it now because the fake Moroni-Mary Whitmer story contradicts the basic teachings of the resurrection, as we’ll discuss below.

I was reminded of this quotation from Theodore Dalrymple I saw at the time.

When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. 

Mary Whitmer and Nephi, one of the 3 Nephites, falsely labeled Moroni by the M2C intellectuals

What prompted my post was an article in BYU Studies that yet again perpetuated the fake story. As part of this disinformation campaign, Book of Mormon Central commissioned a beautiful painting of the messenger showing the plates to Mary Whitmer. Except they titled it “Mary Whitmer and Moroni.”

See the article for yourself, here:

https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/mary-whitmer-and-moroni-experiences-artist-creating-historical-painting

We’re not surprised to see this M2C-inspired phony story in BYU Studies, which continues to promote M2C even under the new editor (who was also involved with the Saints book, volume 1, that teaches the fake Moroni story to millions of Church members).

When I read this article in BYU Studies, I was impressed with the artist’s detailed description of his work. It’s a wonderful painting that seems historically accurate in every respect–except for its title. It is exceedingly unfortunate that the artist has been misled this way by the M2C intellectuals.
_____

We don’t mind artists painting whatever they want. We don’t even mind people claiming it was Moroni who showed the plates to Mary Whitmer.

What we object to is having such a fake story being taught as accurate Church history.

IOW, thanks to M2C, Church historians (in volume 1 of Saints and at historic sites) and the M2C citation cartel (BYU Studies, Book of Mormon Central, etc.) are teaching the world that resurrected beings can have multiple bodies.

People can believe whatever they want, of course. But it is (or should be) inexcusable for a theory of geography to cause Church historians to change history. And it’s even worse for a theory of geography to change basic doctrine, such as the nature of a resurrected body.
_____

For some time now, I’ve discussed this point with several “seasoned” Church members, including employees of CES. When I point out the discrepancy between Joseph’s description of Moroni and the description of the old man who showed the plates of Nephi to Lucy Whitmer, they usually shrug and say, “Well, I guess Moroni could appear as anyone he wants to be.”

There are hundreds of thousands of Latter-day Saint youth being taught this new version of the resurrection in seminary and institute. There are millions of Church members who are learning this new doctrine by reading the Saints book and materials provided by the M2C citation cartel.

Compare this with the references in the Come Follow Me lesson regarding the resurrection, including these:

The spirit and the body shall be reunited again in its perfect form; both limb and joint shall be restored to its proper frame, even as we now are at this time…

Now, this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous; and even there shall not so much as a hair of their heads be lost; but every thing shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body… 

I say unto you that this mortal body is raised to an immortal body, that is from death, even from the first death unto life, that they can die no more; their spirits uniting with their bodies, never to be divided; thus the whole becoming spiritual and immortal, that they can no more see corruption.
(Alma 11:43-5)

The soul shall be restored to the body, and the body to the soul; yea, and every limb and joint shall be restored to its body; yea, even a hair of the head shall not be lost; but all things shall be restored to their proper and perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body….

I say unto you that this mortal body is raised to an immortal body, that is from death, even from the first death unto life, that they can die no more; their spirits uniting with their bodies, never to be divided.
(Alma 40:23, 25)

Notice how, in the painting, the old man with the plates appears somewhat short and stocky, with a heavy white beard. That fits the description by David Whitmer. But it flatly contradicts the description of Moroni given by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery.

If the spirit unites with a resurrected body, never to be divided, how can that same spirit unite with a different body?

And yet, this is what our Church historians expect us to believe, all because of this fake Moroni-Mary Whitmer story.
_____

The doctrinal problem arises not only because of the obvious incongruity between Joseph’s description of Moroni and David Whitmer’s description of the messenger with the plates. The problem exists also because David explicitly stated that Joseph Smith identified the messenger was one of the Nephites.

In December 1877, Edward Stevenson visited David Whitmer. Here’s what he wrote in his journal:

“I wish to mention an Item of conversation with David Whitmer in regard to Seeing one of the Nephites, Zina Young, Desired me to ask about it. David Said, Oliver, & The Prophet, & I were riding in a wagon, & an aged man about 5 feet 10, heavey Set & on his back, an old fashioned Armey knapsack Straped over his Shoulders & Something Square in it, & he walked alongside of the Wagon & Wiped the Sweat off his face, Smileing very Pleasant David asked him to ride and he replied I am going across to the hill Cumorah. Soon after they Passed they felt Strangeley and Stoped, but could see nothing of him all around was clean and they asked the Lord about it. He Said that the Prophet Looked as White as a Sheet & Said that it was one of the Nephites & that he had the plates.”

As I’ve discussed before, it is significant that Zina Young asked Elder Stevenson to ask David about this event. Zina had met David Whitmer in 1835 when he and Hyrum were missionaries that baptized her family. There is no record of her having an association with David after that time, and certainly not after David left the Church in 1837-8. This suggests that Zina’s question was prompted by her memory of what David told her back in 1835, possibly as part of his missionary message.

The key points from this interview:

1. Zina asked Stevenson to ask David about “seeing one of the Nephites.”

2. David said “an aged man about 5 feet 10, heavy set” had a knapsack over his shoulders.

3. The man said “I am going across to the hill Cumorah.”

4. Joseph “said that it was one of the Nephites  that he had the plates.”

None of this says or implies that the “Nephite” was the resurrected Moroni. Nor does the account say or imply that the Nephite was going to Fayette.

But Saints teaches otherwise, using a fictitious quotation derived from a grandchild’s belief that his grandmother, Mary Whitmer, was wrong when she said the messenger identified himself as “Brother Nephi.”

You can read the rest of the analysis here:

https://saintsreview.blogspot.com/2018/09/the-mary-whitmer-problem.html
______

People ask, why would the Church historians concoct the fake Moroni-Mary Whitmer story when the accounts are so plain?

The answer: they concocted this story to accommodate M2C. It’s the same reason why they changed history by purging Cumorah from the historical record.

If you’re a new reader on this blog, you may wonder, what does M2C have to do with it?

M2C insists the Cumorah of Mormon 6:6 is in Mexico, not New York. Therefore, it contradicts M2C to have one of the Three Nephites take the abridged plates to Cumorah in New York after Joseph had finished with them in Harmony, and then to have that same individual bring the original plates of Nephi to Fayette for Joseph to translate.

Rather than deal with the actual history, the M2C advocates simply changed the history by claiming instead it was Moroni who carried the plates directly to Fayette.

One member of the triumvirate, Brother Jack Welch, published a detailed account of the translation process from April through June, 1829. It is included in a chapter in the important book Opening the Heavens, which you can download for free at this link.

https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/opening-heavens-coming-forth-book-mormon-chapter-only

Incredibly, even in this otherwise detailed account, Brother Welch omitted the quotations from David Whitmer and created a false narrative to accommodate M2C.

I discussed this in detail here:

http://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2017/12/opening-heavens-but-censoring-history.html

In Opening the Heavens, Brother Welch wrote this footnote on page 108.

84. As reported by Joseph F. Smith, David Whitmer told him and Orson Pratt that Joseph prophesied to Oliver “a perfect description of what David did on the way” before David arrived. Joseph F. Smith, Statement, written April 25, 1918, typescript, 2, Church History Library, available on Church History Library, https://dcms.lds.org/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE4987096. They traveled on “an ordinary wagon with two long poles in it at each end across the end gates of the wagon box, and then two boards laid across that for seats on those hickory poles. Joseph and Emma were on the hind seat and Oliver and David on the front seat.” Joseph F. Smith, Statement, 2. The plates were carried to Fayette by Moroni in a bundle on his back. Joseph F. Smith, Statement, 3. “Lucy Mack Smith, History, 1844–1845,” book 8, p. 10, does not include Emma on this trip to Fayette (Waterloo). See also Cook, David Whitmer Interviews, 114–15, 197

Notice the reference Brother Welch cited. It’s not a “statement” by Joseph F. Smith (JFS). It’s a typescript of part of the minutes of an unspecified meeting dated April 25, 1918. JFS was relating what he told a Sunday School in Los Angeles, going by memory.

According to the typescript, in Los Angeles JFS related his recollection of his meeting with David Whitmer in 1878, 40 years earlier. The transcript has JFS saying this: “Joseph informed him [David] that the man was Moroni, and that the bundle on his back contained plates which Joseph had delivered to him before they departed from Harmony, Susquehanna County, and that he was taking them for safety, and would return them when he (Joseph) reached father Whitmer’s house.”

The problem: this unauthenticated typescript of JFS’s recollection contradicts what JFS himself wrote in a letter to President John Taylor on Sept. 17, 1878, 10 days after me met with David Whitmer (on Sept. 7). You can see the letter here:

https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets?id=dca15baa-a0ac-4fc1-b2ec-7f3cd75e4906&crate=0&index=38

Furthermore, JFS and his companion, Orson Pratt, wrote a formal report to President Taylor and the Quorum of the Twelve that is nearly identical to the letter, with the changes indicated below. (Wording from the original letter is in red, additions in the report are underlined.)

D.W.—I should think I did, he was, I should think, about 5 feet 8 or 9 inches tall and heavy set, about such a man as James Vancleave there, but heavier, his face was as large, he was dressed in a suit of brown woolen clothes, his hair and beard were white like [bro.] Brother Pratt’s, but his beard was not so heavy. I also remember that he had on his back a sort of knapsack with something in, shaped like a book. It was the messenger who had the plates, who had taken them from Joseph just prior to our starting from Harmony.

We can infer that the changes were prompted by Orson Pratt’s contribution, since the letter, written by JFS in his own handwriting, was the first draft of the report the two submitted to President Taylor. Thus the report was the product of both men.

Later in the same interview, David Whitmer said, “The three Nephites are at work among the lost tribes and elsewhere.” This suggests that to David, the three Nephites were an integral part of the work.
_____

There are several points to consider here.

The contemporaneous accounts from JFS and Orson Pratt are consistent with Elder Stevenson’s account of his interview with David Whitmer the year before. All of these accounts are consistent with Zina Young’s request to Elder Stevenson before he left Utah to visit David.

None of these mention Moroni. Instead, they refer to a Nephite who took the plates to Cumorah. The Nephite was an “old man” who was heavy set and five feet, eight or nine inches tall. David said it was this same messenger who showed the plates to his mother Mary.

Mary Whitmer claimed the messenger called himself “Brother Nephi.”

There are no statements attributed to David Whitmer or anyone else to the effect that the messenger was Moroni.
_____

To support the claim that it was Moroni who showed the plates to Mary Whitmer, the historians rely on Mary Whitmer’s grandson, who thought his grandmother was confused or wrong, and on this typescript of meeting minutes.

The unauthenticated typescript that mentions Moroni could be accurate or not. It’s possible that whoever typed it inferred that JFS meant to say Moroni when he said “the messenger” or even “the Nephite,” just as Mary Whitmer’s grandson inferred that she was wrong about how the messenger identified himself.

If the typescript is accurate, it shows JFS contradicting his 40-year-old contemporaneous account that was corroborated by Orson Pratt. It also shows JFS contradicting Elder Stevenson’s contemporaneous account and Zina Young’s contemporaneous question. Perhaps at some point JFS had heard an account from Mary Whitmer’s descendants who claimed it was Moroni, and then JFS conflated the two in his memory.

Beyond the relative credibility and reliability of these accounts, we still have the problem of a shape-shifting resurrected being.

There is sound scriptural reason to believe David Whitmer’s version. We know from 3 Nephi that the Lord promised the disciples that they would die at age 70, except for the three who would tarry. It seems logical that these three would be transformed at the age of 70 as well.

We don’t know the names of those three, but among the twelve, the leader was named Nephi. The messenger identified himself to Mary Whitmer as “Brother Nephi,” so at least Mary Whitmer’s statement is consistent with what we know about the Three Nephites. And remember, she met the messenger before she had ever heard of Nephi. The 116 pages had been lost, the plates of Nephi had yet to be translated, and the yet-unpublished Harmony manuscript was in the possession of Joseph and Oliver.
_____

The totality of the evidence, especially when considered in light of the doctrine of the resurrection, does not support the idea that it was Moroni, as a short, old, fat man, who showed the plates to Mary Whitmer.

I propose that the fake story be replaced with the authentic historical record, even though it means teaching members of the Church that the messenger took the Harmony plates to Cumorah.

That’s a feature, not a bug, of the original accounts.
_____

Summary:

Thanks to our M2C intellectuals and revisionist Church historians, the millions of people who have read, are reading, and will read Saints, Volume 1, learn a fake story about Moroni that is easily shown to be false. Missionaries are telling this phony story to visitors at the Fayette visitors center in New York. We members, including youth, as well as nonmembers are expected to believe this, but even cursory review of the original sources shows it was Nephi, not Moroni, who showed the plates to Mary Whitmer.

Moroni-a resurrected man

The M2C intellectuals don’t want people to know it was Nephi, because that means it was also Nephi who took the Harmony plates to Cumorah before bringing the plates of Nephi to Fayette. That means the repository of Nephite records was actually in the Hill Cumorah in New York, as Oliver Cowdery reported. And that means M2C is a hoax.

The Mary Whitmer/Moroni narrative promoted by the M2C intellectuals frames Moroni as a shape-shifter. He appears to Joseph Smith as a glorious resurrected being, but appears to Mary Whitmer as a aged, portly, short man with a long beard in an old brown wool suit.

Item by item, these M2C intellectuals and the revisionist historians are making the story of the Restoration less and less credible.

Not only are they saying the prophets have been wrong about the New York Cumorah, but now they’re saying that Joseph didn’t translate the plates after all, that the words he read off a seer stone in a hat were composed by someone in the 1500s, and that we should rewrite what Joseph and Oliver wrote about the translation to conform to their theories.

The original accounts by Joseph, Oliver and their contemporaries are far more credible than the revisionist versions created in recent years.

_____

Postscript re Moroni and Nephi.

Aside from the M2C-inspired effort to change Church history regarding the messenger who took the plates to Cumorah, there is another lingering issue that confuses Moroni and Nephi.

When originally published in the Times and Seasons in 1842, Joseph Smith’s history said that it was Nephi who first appeared to him in 1823 to tell him about the plates.

Church historians later edited the history so that it now read Moroni, but this detail has led critics to claim that Joseph couldn’t get his story straight.

I see it differently.

First, there’s no doubt the 1842 publication in the Times and Seasons was an error. Joseph had identified the messenger as Moroni in the Elders’ Journal in 1838. Oliver Cowdery had done the same in 1835.

So how can we account for such an obvious error in the 1842 Times and Seasons?

First, the publication of the error is evidence that Joseph Smith, who was the named editor of the newspaper at the time, was merely the nominal editor. He didn’t review the paper closely, or at all, prior to publication.

Second, the history published in the 1842 Times and Seasons was not written by, and probably not dictated by, Joseph Smith. Instead, it was compiled by his scribes beginning in 1838. Of course, this raises the question, why would the scribes think it was Nephi who first visited Joseph and not Moroni?

The answer could be that they knew Joseph had multiple encounters with both Moroni and Nephi.

Brigham Young explained in a letter to his son that “There is really no discrepancy in the history about these names. It was Moroni who delivered the sacred records and Urim and Thummim to Joseph, but Nephi also visited him.”

https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets?id=b3c72fee-6f44-4ce6-8a9f-5cf38b6153d1&crate=0&index=387

By changing the historical narrative to omit Nephi and insert Moroni into the account of the messenger who took the Harmony plates to Cumorah and showed the plates of Nephi to Mary Whitmer, our Church historians have compounded the confusion that long existed over the claim in the 1842 Times and Seasons that it was Nephi who first appeared to Joseph Smith.

The sooner we correct this detail in Church history, the better.

_____