Author: Jonathan Neville

Because of the huge response to my post about the January 2020 Ensign, I’m going to clarify some points here.

The cover is my editorial depiction of the contents, not the actual cover of the original magazine. But don’t be surprised to see such a cover eventually because that’s the narrative we’re getting from historians (and M2C advocates) today.

Consequently, the stone-in-a-hat narrative is being passed off as correct history, contrary to what Joseph and Oliver always taught.

If you read the contents of the Ensign, you will see in words and pictures a depiction of Joseph Smith translating the Book of Mormon with a seer stone in a hat. Here is a passage:

The “interpreters” used by Joseph during the translation process included the “two stones in silver bows” that were deposited by Moroni with the plates (see Joseph Smith—History 1:35.) In addition to these two seer stones, Joseph used at least one other seer stone that the Lord had provided.7

The first sentence is consistent with what Joseph and Oliver taught. They always said Joseph translated the plates with the Urim and Thummim. They never once said Joseph used a seer stone in a hat.

The article should have stopped right there. 

Instead, the second sentence introduces Church members to Mormonism Unvailed and David Whitmer’s “Address to All Believers in Christ.”

Look at the sentence again.

In addition to these two seer stones, Joseph used at least one other seer stone that the Lord had provided.

This is what the historians want us to believe, but here is the key point: every witness who said Joseph used the seer stone to translate today’s Book of Mormon* also said he did not use the Urim and Thummim. This includes the observers quoted in the Ensign, David Whitmer and Emma Smith.

This is what happens when historians accept statements uncritically. They mistake claims for truth.

This is an either/or situation, not “in addition to.”

Joseph translating with the stone in a hat and not the Urim and Thummim

Logically, we cannot combine two directly contradictory statements with the phrase “in addition to.” If we applied the logic of the Ensign article to the story of George Washington, we’d get this: 

“In addition to chopping down the cherry tree with an ax, George Washington did not chop down the cherry tree.”

When there are directly contrary statements, people have to make a choice about whom to believe.** 
_____

Because the historians apparently want Church members to read Mormonism Unvailed and “An Address to All Believers in Christ,” let’s see if there’s an accurate way to frame these statements. 

Those (and similar) materials are easily available on the Internet anyway. Critics have been citing them for years. They are old news.

What’s new is reading them in the Ensign, especially presented as the “true” story of the translation.
_____

Here is an example of what would be historically and analytically accurate.

Although Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery always said Joseph used the Urim and Thummim that came with the plates, some observers claimed that Joseph instead used at least one other seer stone.

With this approach, we acknowledge the observers’ statements without presenting them as the truth of what happened.

We also accurately show that these observers’ statements directly contradict what Joseph and Oliver said. 

And we don’t make the unsubstantiated claim that the Lord provided the seer stone Joseph found in a well, which raises a host of other issues.
_____

Because the Ensign is teaching Church members about the seer stone scenario, readers deserve to know there are three ways to handle the observers’ statements. 

1. Accept them as true and reject (or redefine, which is essentially the same thing) what Joseph and Oliver taught. (Some revisionist historians claim Joseph and Oliver used the term “Urim and Thummim” to mean both the Nephite interpreters and the seer stone found in a well, but that redefinition of the term contradicts the plain and explicit history of the terms as used by Joseph and Oliver and their critics, as anyone can see by reading the original writings.) 

2. Reject them as false because they contradict what Joseph and Oliver said. (This is problematic because it frames David Whitmer, Martin Harris, and Emma Smith as dishonest.)

3. Accept the factual elements as true but reject the hearsay and assumptions involved in the statements. (This is the approach that makes sense to me and is consistent with the historical evidence.)
_____

The next paragraph in the Ensign article comes close to objectivity by framing David’s statement as mere “additional information.” But by then it’s too late because we were just told that Joseph actually did use the seer (or “peep”) stones to translate and that this stone was provided by the Lord.

David Whitmer, whose family provided a place for Joseph and Oliver to complete the work of translation, provided this additional information: “Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine.

The article extends this quotation from “An Address to All Believers in Christ” for several paragraphs. It is obviously hearsay; David never claimed he looked into the hat himself. He did not personally observe words appearing and disappearing. He doesn’t even claim Joseph told him what he saw. David just reports what he observed (or heard) and then makes his own inferences and assumptions about the translation.

Readers of this blog know that I think Joseph conducted demonstrations to satisfy curiosity and explain the concept, but never “performed” a translation in the presence of people who were not authorized to see the plates or the Urim and Thummim. That’s just my interpretation, of course; it works for me but we’re all free to deal with the evidence in whatever way makes sense.
_____

This all brings up the question of whether Church history matters. I’ll be discussing that in upcoming posts. I suppose the existence in the Ensign of articles such as this demonstrate that history matters, but then the question becomes, does it matter whether we accept or reject what Joseph and Oliver taught?

Stay tuned.
_____

*Today’s Book of Mormon does not include the Book of Lehi that was on the 116 pages that Martin Harris lost. Martin Harris gave contradictory statements about how that translation took place, as did Emma. But none of the “stone-in-a-hat” witnesses said Joseph also used the Urim and Thummim after the 116 pages were lost.

**I think most observers accurately reported what they saw (or heard from other people), but they embellished because of mistaken assumptions. Joseph and Oliver were talking about the translation, while others were describing a demonstration that they incorrectly inferred was the translation. I wrote a book to explain all of this in detail. 

https://smile.amazon.com/Man-that-Can-Translate-Interpreters/dp/1944200797/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=a+man+that+can+translate&qid=1578644060&sr=8-1

2020 is the year of the Restoration in the sense of the 200th anniversary of Joseph Smith’s first vision.

What will be the long-term impact of this momentous year? Will anyone outside currently active members of the Church care?

The answer will depend, to some degree, on what they learn about the Restoration.

One narrative is inspiring and has a long history of prophetic affirmations.

The other narrative is bizarre and academic in origins and nature.

Which do you think will be more persuasive and influential for people in the world?
_____

The Restoration itself is a challenging concept for many people. It was unexpected by most of Christianity, but some people hoped and prayed for it. Some anticipated it. Most resisted and rejected it.

That’s the situation today, even after 200 years.

Joseph’s explanation that the angel Moroni guided him to the plates, the breastplate and Urim and Thummim, is straightforward and clear. The Book of Mormon, as well as the Doctrine and Covenants and Joseph’s own statements, corroborated by Oliver Cowdery’s statements, are consistent.

They all affirm that Joseph Smith translated the engravings on the plates by the gift and power of God, using the Nephite interpreters Joseph and Oliver called the Urim and Thummim.

For many people, the existence of ancient gold plates is difficult to believe but not impossible. Joseph Smith translating an ancient text is difficult to believe, but not impossible, given his four years of preparation and training, plus the months he spent with the plates, copying and translating characters before Martin Harris arrived to work as a scribe.

Joseph and Oliver stuck with their account their entire lives. Their faithful contemporaries and successors repeatedly re-affirmed that narrative.

Joseph Smith, not using the Urim and Thummim

Then, about 15 years ago, a different narrative made its way into the Church. It is based on several statements made by, or attributed to, people who claimed to be witnesses to the translation. The statements claim that Joseph did not use the Urim and Thummim to translate the engravings on the plates.

Instead, he put a seer stone in a hat and read words that appeared. He didn’t consult the plates, which sat under a cloth the whole time (if they were even in the room). He didn’t use the Urim and Thummim.

The new narrative became popular quickly.

Except it’s not a new narrative.

It’s an old narrative, initially promoted by Joseph’s fiercest opponents and, in more recent times, promoted by critics such as the CES Letter, the Tanners, and others.

Now, it’s being taught throughout the Church. We see it in the Ensign, in Church media, lesson manuals, etc.

The new narrative is a direct conflict with what Joseph and Oliver taught. Some have tried to say that when Joseph and Oliver referred to the Urim and Thummim, they actually meant the seer stone.

But that idea contradicts the plain history.

The 1834 book Mormonism Unvailed described two narratives. In one, Joseph produced the seer stone by reading words that appeared on a stone in a hat. In the other, he used the Urim and Thummim, aka the spectacles or interpreters that came with the plates.

Joseph and Oliver repeatedly testified that Joseph used the Urim and Thummim. Never once did they state or imply that Joseph used a seer stone he found somewhere.
_____

Put yourself in the position of a nonmember, or a member who questions his/her faith. Which one of the following scenarios is more believable?

1. Joseph Smith actually translated the ancient engravings on metal plates by using the Nephite interpreters (Urim and Thummim) prepared for that purpose.

OR

2. Joseph Smith merely read words that appeared on a seer stone he put in a hat that functioned as a supernatural teleprompter.

It’s pretty easy to compare the different approaches to Church history and Book of Mormon issues. The chart below offers some side-by-side comparisons.

Topic	Scenario 1	Scenario 2
Urim and Thummim	When Moroni hid up the abridged plates in the stone box in the Hill Cumorah in New York, he included special interpreters prepared by the Lord to translate the engravings on the plates. He told Joseph Smith about these, calling them the Urim and Thummim (U&T).	When Moroni hid up the abridged plates in the stone box in the Hill Cumorah in New York, he included special interpreters prepared by the Lord to translate the engravings on the plates. He told Joseph Smith about these, but did not call them the Urim and Thummim (U&T). W.W. Phelps or someone else came up with that name and Joseph and Oliver applied it retroactively when they related what Moroni told Joseph Smith.
U&T vs. seer stone	Joseph obtained the U&T and used them to translate characters. Then he used the U&T to translate the 116 pages. When the 116 pages were lost, he had to forfeit the plates and the U&T and lost the gift of translation. Later he received the plates and U&T back again, along with the gift of translation.	Joseph obtained the U&T and used them to translate characters, but it was more convenient for him to use a seer stone he had found in a well years previously. When the 116 pages were lost, he had to forfeit the plates and the U&T and lost the gift of translation, although he kept the seer stone. Later he received the plates and U&T back again, or maybe didn’t, depending on whom you believe, but it doesn’t matter because Joseph didn’t use the U&T anyway.
Plates vs seer stone	Using the U&T, he translated the abridged plates in Harmony, then the small plates of Nephi in Fayette.	Using the seer stone, he dictated the Book of Mormon text without referring to the plates, which sat nearby covered with a cloth.
Joseph and Oliver	Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery always said Joseph translated the engravings on the plates with the U&T. Others said Joseph did not use the U&T but instead used a seer stone in a hat. These observers apparently witnessed a demonstration of the process Joseph conducted to satisfy their curiosity, but not the actual translation because the Lord had forbidden him from showing the U&T and plates to anyone.	Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery always said Joseph translated the engravings on the plates with the U&T, but that was misleading because actual witnesses said Joseph did not use the U&T but instead used a seer stone in a hat. These observers told the world how the translation was actually done.
Language	Joseph actually translated the engravings on the plates, using his own language as any translator necessarily does.	Joseph merely read words that appeared on a seer stone in a hat. The language is Early Modern English which long predated Joseph Smith and which he could not have known.
Title Page	Joseph said the Title Page was a literal translation of the last leaf of the plates.	We don’t know how he knew the Title Page was a literal translation or that the Title Page was on the last leaf of the plates because he didn’t use the plates.
Need for plates	Mormon and Moroni abridged the Nephite and Jaredite history so a future prophet could translate the engravings on the plates using the interpreters prepared for that purpose.	We don’t know why Mormon and Moroni abridged the Nephite record and gave Joseph the interpreters because he never used them. Instead he just read words that appeared on a seer stone.
U&T and seer stones two separate things	In 1834, the book Mormonism Unvailed identified the two alternative descriptions of the process. When Joseph and Oliver responded to that book in their first essays on Church history, they reaffirmed that Joseph used the U&T.	In 1834, the book Mormonism Unvailed identified the two alternative descriptions of the process. When Joseph and Oliver responded to that book in their first essays on Church history, they said Joseph used the U&T, but they really meant he used the seer stone.
LDS vs RLDS position on U&T	Joseph’s contemporaries and subsequent LDS Church leaders have always reaffirmed the account given by Joseph and Oliver. RLDS Church leaders and other dissidents denied Joseph used the U&T and said he used the seer stone in a hat.	Joseph’s contemporaries and subsequent LDS Church leaders have always reaffirmed the account given by Joseph and Oliver. RLDS Church leaders and other dissidents denied Joseph used the U&T and said he used the seer stone in a hat.
LDS scholars	In the last few years, LDS scholars have embraced the RLDS position and it has become widespread among LDS people.	In the last few years, LDS scholars have embraced the RLDS position and it has become widespread among LDS people.
Moroni and Cumorah	Moroni called the hill in New York “Cumorah.”	Moroni did not call the hill in New York “Cumorah.” Parley P. Pratt (or Oliver Cowdery) was mistaken about that.
Joseph’s first mention of Cumorah	Joseph referred to the hill as Cumorah after meeting the angel there months before he got the plates in 1827.	Lucy Mack Smith was mistaken when she said Joseph referred to the hill as Cumorah.
Letter VII	As Assistant President of the Church and with the assistance of Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery stated it was a fact that the final battles of the Nephites and Jaredites took place in the mile-wide valley west of the Hill Cumorah in New York. (Letter VII)	President Cowdery misled the Church when he said it was a fact. He was merely speculating and he was wrong when he wrote Letter VII.
Letter VII republication	Joseph Smith had his scribes copy Letter VII into his journal as part of his life history and approved the republication of Letter VII in the Gospel Reflector and Times and Seasons.	Joseph didn’t pay much attention to what Letter VII said and it doesn’t matter because he didn’t know anything about Book of Mormon geography anyway.
NY depository —Brigham Young	Joseph and Oliver visited the repository of Nephite records in the New York Cumorah multiple times, as Brigham Young explained because he feared the truth would be forgotten.	Brigham Young misled the Saints about this because Oliver merely had a vision of this visit but it never really happened. And the vision was of a hill in Mesoamerica anyway.
NY depository —Wilford Woodruff	Wilford Woodruff taught about the repository of Nephite records in the New York Cumorah.	Wilford Woodruff misled the Saints about this.
NY depository — Heber C. Kimball	Heber C. Kimball said he visited the Hill Cumorah in New York and saw the embankments still around it. He also taught about the repository in the hill.	Heber C. Kimball misled the Saints about his.
Joseph’s contemp-oraries	All of Joseph’s contemporaries affirmed that the Hill Cumorah was in New York.	All these Church leaders misled the Church by repeating false speculation.
Later Church leaders	Every prophet and apostle who has formally addressed the Hill Cumorah, including members of the First Presidency speaking in General Conference, reaffirmed that there is one Hill Cumorah and it is in New York.	All these Church leaders misled the Church by teaching their own private, incorrect opinions as the truth.
Anony-mous articles in the Times and Seasons	In 1842, anonymous articles published in the Times and Seasons speculated that Mayan ruins in Central America were left by the Nephites. Joseph Smith was the nominal editor of the Times and Seasons but had little to do with the paper. He was also the named printer but he did not operate the printing press, either.	In 1842, anonymous articles published in the Times and Seasons speculated that Mayan ruins in Central America were left by the Nephites. Joseph Smith was the nominal editor of the Times and Seasons so he wrote or approved of the articles, even though they referred to ruins built long after Book of Mormon times.
Letter VII again	In the late 1800s, LDS Church leaders republished Letter VII and began seeking to purchase the Hill Cumorah in New York.	In the late 1800s, RLDS scholars determined that the hill in New York could not be the real Cumorah. Instead, the real Cumorah had to be in Mesoamerica.
Purcha-sing Hill Cumorah	In the early 1900s, the LDS Church purchased the Hill Cumorah in New York and reaffirmed its importance as the repository of Nephite records, the scene of the final battles, etc.	In the early 1900s, RLDS scholars published books to prove the New York hill could not be the real Cumorah. To reconcile statements from early Church history, there had to be “two Cumorahs.”
M2C	In the mid to late 1900s, LDS scholars adopted the RLDS position of two Cumorahs, with the real Cumorah in Mesoamerica, now known as M2C.	In the mid to late 1900s, LDS scholars realized the RLDS scholars were correct while LDS Church leaders were wrong.
CES	LDS scholars taught M2C for decades, while censoring the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah.	LDS scholars taught the correct ideas of M2C for decades, while de-correlating the incorrect teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah.
Neutra-lity	The Church is currently neutral on the question of Book of Mormon geography but has not stated a specific position about the New York Cumorah.	The Church is currently neutral on the question of Book of Mormon geography, which means the living prophets have repudiated the teachings of the dead prophets about the New York Cumorah.
Evidence—North America	Evidence from archaeology, anthropology, geography and geology corroborate the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah.	Evidence from archaeology, anthropology, geography and geology demonstrate the fallacy of the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah.
Evidence—Mesoamerica	Evidence from archaeology, anthropology, geography and geology in Mesoamerica has no connection with Book of Mormon descriptions.	Evidence from archaeology, anthropology, geography and geology in Mesoamerica has shows lots of correspondences with Book of Mormon descriptions, so long as you assume the Book of Mormon was not translated correctly; i.e., “horses” are actually “tapirs,” “towers” are actually “massive stone pyramids,” etc.

And they reach different conclusions about some key issues.

With the 2020 Come, Follow Me curriculum focused on the Book of Mormon, there has been renewed interest in the translation of the Book of Mormon.

Many LDS still believe what Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery always taught; i.e., that Joseph translated the plates with the Urim and Thummim that Moroni put in the stone box.

Joseph’s critics said he never had the Urim and Thummim and never translated anything. He just read words that appeared on a stone in a hat (or made it up as he went along).

Some years ago, LDS intellectuals started teaching that the critics were right and Joseph and Oliver were wrong. Their teachings now permeate lesson manuals, videos, and even the illustrations in the Ensign.

There are a lot of us Church members who don’t buy the “new” Church history, which is really nothing new at all, but just a rehash of the claims that Joseph and Oliver tied so hard to refute with facts.

So how can Church members see two completely different explanations of the translation of the Book of Mormon?
_____

The concept of “two movies on one screen” explains how two people can see the same facts yet reach completely different conclusions.

Look at the drawing to the left.

What do you see?

If everyone reading this blog could vote, we’d end up with about half the viewers saying one thing, and the other half saying another.

[Answers below]

The point is, we bring something with us when we view art. We bring our past experiences. Maybe we have a left or right bias. Maybe we have a color bias. Maybe we want to know what others think before we give our opinion.

Maybe we think we’re right and we cannot understand how someone else can see something different in the same image (the same screen).
_____

In the Church, people see different movies on one screen all the time.

The text of the Book of Mormon is an obvious example. Everyone’s reading the same text, but some people think it describes Mesoamerica. Others think it describes Chile, Peru, Panama, Baja, New York, or what is now the Midwest and Eastern U.S.

Church history has lots of examples. Everyone reads the same original material regarding the translation of the Book of Mormon (the peep stones-in-a-hat vs. the Urim and Thummim), but some believe in the peep stones while others believe in the Urim and Thummim.

Some people believe there was only one set of plates; i.e., that the plates of Nephi (D&C 10) were included in the abridged records written by Mormon and Moroni. Others believe there were two sets of plates and that Joseph didn’t get the plates of Nephi until he arrived in Fayette.

Some people believe Oliver Cowdery, Joseph Smith, and others (presumably two of Joseph’s brothers) visited the depository of Nephite records in the New York Cumorah (Mormon 6:6). Others believe that the accounts of these visits actually related visions Oliver had of a hill in Mexico.

You can think of more examples from your own experience.

_____

Frog

Horse

In George Orwell’s book Animal Farm, the animals who took over the farm from the humans adopted seven commandments. Number Seven was “All animals are equal.”

Eventually the pigs became like the humans and changed the commandment to read “ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL, BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS.”

According to the anonymous Gospel Topics Essay on Book of Mormon Geography, the Church currently has no position regarding Book of Mormon geography. “Some believe that the history depicted in the Book of Mormon—with the exception of the events in the Near East—occurred in North America, while others believe that it occurred in Central America or South America. Although Church members continue to discuss such theories today, the Church’s only position is that the events the Book of Mormon describes took place in the ancient Americas.”

We read this statement and think it means what it says; i.e., that the Church doesn’t take a position on the question. All models are equal.

But what is the reality?

Animal Farm.

Except now it’s the M2C intellectuals, instead of the pigs, making the rules.
_____

A position of neutrality would mean all models are equal. None are favored or disfavored.

For most members of the Church, this is a reasonable position because it leaves the question up to each of us to answer for ourselves.

The problem is, the position is not being implemented in practice. In reality, employees and affiliates of BYU, CES, and COB have modified the statement to read this:

All models are equal, but some are more equal than others.

And M2C is more equal than all other models.

Many Church members prefer the position stated in the anonymous Gospel Topics Essay, but we live in the real world where that position is not being implemented or even respected by members and groups who claim Church support for their positions and their scholarship.

We have organizations such as Book of Mormon Central, the Interpreter Foundation, BYU Studies, and FairMormon who insist the only “correct” model is M2C (the Mesoamerican/Two Cumorahs model). They censor, ban, and attack alternatives, to the point of teaching that the prophets were wrong when they taught that the Hill Cumorah of Mormon 6:6 is in western New York.

These organizations explicitly and aggressively reject the Church’s position of neutrality, and yet the Church lends them support and encouragement.

CES and BYU use a fantasy map of the Book of Mormon that puts Cumorah in a location that is anything but New York. The maps represent an explicit rejection of the teachings of the prophets in favor of M2C.

Illustrations in the Ensign and the Come, Follow Me materials for 2020 are dominated by M2C artwork.

Here are a few examples.

_____

Those who follow this blog know that we’re happy for people to believe whatever they want to believe. Everyone is free to reject the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah.

The teachings of the prophets about the Hill Cumorah of Mormon 6:6, include the final battles of the Jaredites and the Nephites, the location of the repository of Nephite records, and the place where Moroni interred the plates and where Joseph found them. Accepting the teachings of the prophets still leaves room for people to believe whatever they want about the rest of the geography.

But this artwork conveys the message that M2C is more equal than other models of Book of Mormon geography. The conflict with the Gospel Topics Essay on Book of Mormon Geography is obvious.

One or the other ought to be changed. If we’re all supposed to accept M2C because the intellectuals have, then what is the point of pretending there is a policy of neutrality, or that all models are equal?
_____

This post from April 2, 2019, shows the long-term nature of the problem.

As I write this, I’m a short distance from the Hill Cumorah in New York. The book The Next Mormons reports that only 50% of LDS Millennials are confident that the Book of Mormon is a literal, historical account, and the percentage is declining.

None of this is surprising.

In fact, prophets have warned that this would happen, but their warnings have gone unheeded.*

Younger generations of Church members have never heard what the prophets have taught about the Hill Cumorah. Those teachings have been censored by CES and BYU. They are censored in the Saints book. They are censored in the visitors centers.

BYU fantasy map of the Book of Mormon – no wonder only 50% of Millennials think the Book of Mormon is a literal, historical account

Instead, the youth learn the BYU/CES fantasy map and the M2C hoax (the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory). Even visitors to the “Hill Cumorah” Visitors Center learn M2C.

(Actually, they don’t even learn M2C. They are taught there is only one Cumorah, and it is in Mexico.)

The only place where visitors to Palmyra can see the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah is at the Oliver Cowdery Memorial about one mile north of the Hill Cumorah.

(BTW, the “Hill Cumorah” Visitors Center is scheduled for remodeling. It probably will no longer even be called the Hill Cumorah visitors center.)

All of this confusion is the inevitable result of censoring the teachings of the prophets, and for those few students who discover the teachings of the prophets on their own, teaching them that they should believe the M2C intellectuals instead of the prophets.

M2C represents a repudiation of the teachings of the prophets in favor of the teachings of the intellectuals. Today we’ll look at when and how this transition occurred.
_____

It’s a simple fact, verifiable by anyone, that the prophets and apostles have long taught two things about Book of Mormon geography:

1. The Hill Cumorah of Mormon 6:6 is in New York.
2. We don’t know for sure where the rest of the Book of Mormon events took place.

Anyone who questions these facts can read the reports of General Conference, as we’ve discussed before, such as here. 

Nevertheless, a lot of people try to conflate (mix up) the two points because they don’t believe what the prophets have taught about the New York Cumorah.
_____

We’ve seen how the Cumorah question arose as a contest between RLDS and LDS teachings around the turn of the century. Although LDS leaders, including members of the First Presidency speaking in General Conference, repeatedly reaffirmed Letter VII’s teaching about the New York Cumorah, LDS intellectuals sided with the RLDS intellectuals.

M2C became the default position of the Church because employees at CES, BYU and COB (Church Office Building) rejected what the prophets taught.

In the 1980s, M2C went mainstream with two 1984 articles in the Ensign by John L. Sorenson titled “Digging into the Book of Mormon.” You can red them here:

https://www.lds.org/study/ensign/1984/09/digging-into-the-book-of-mormon-our-changing-understanding-of-ancient-america-and-its-scripture?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/study/ensign/1984/10/digging-into-the-book-of-mormon-our-changing-understanding-of-ancient-america-and-its-scripture-part-2?lang=eng

The articles were republished in the Liahona in 1985.

The Editor of the Ensign at the time, Jay M. Todd, was fascinated with the Mesoamerican theory. The articles were illustrated with photos of Mesoamerican sites and artifacts, as well as this map:

This map, of course, represents the M2C interpretation of the Book of Mormon that has become the default “official” interpretation of the text, with one “narrow neck” in Mesoamerica.

It is this interpretation that the intellectuals used to generate the fantasy maps taught by CES and BYU.

The articles did not directly articulate the M2C theory, but they laid the groundwork. It’s very interesting how Brother Sorenson framed the discussion.

First, he established that the teachings of the prophets are irrelevant.

He didn’t even cite a single one of them.

Instead, he claimed this: The issue is not one of intentions, beliefs, or testimony; it is one of scholarship. To compare the Book of Mormon with the findings of archaeology and related fields is a scholarly, intellectual activity. When anyone, Latter-day Saint or not, sets out to work in that domain, he must operate according to the rules which govern there.

Recall, this was published in the Ensign. So far as I know, this was the inflection point. This is where science replaced the prophets. 

This is also when the censorship began.

In the left column below, I show some of the Ensign covers that depict M2C. It is fascinating to me because not one Ensign cover has ever depicted the New York Cumorah, not even when it was taught in General Conference. There has been zero effort to be “neutral” about Book of Mormon geography. It is all M2C, all the time.

The Ensign has never published Letter VII, either, even though all prior Church magazines did, including the Improvement Era. But now that M2C is the default position, Letter VII is censored.

(Fortunately, Joseph Smith had his scribes copy it into his journal, where anyone can read it in the Joseph Smith Papers. Otherwise, it would have been completely erased from accessible Church history. You can read about Letter VII here: http://www.lettervii.com/)

In 1975 and 1978, the New York Cumorah was reaffirmed in General Conference. Brother Sorenson didn’t mention that. Today, hardly anyone even knows that.

Now, I agree with Brother Sorenson that the issue is not one of intentions, beliefs or testimony. But I don’t agree it is an issue of scholarship exclusively. When the prophets have consistently and persistently taught that it is a fact that the Hill Cumorah of Mormon 6:6 is in New York, we don’t cavalierly reject their teachings solely because we disagree with them.

But that’s what Brother Sorenson and all his followers have done.

In my view, scientific analysis is useful and important, especially when, as in this case, it supports the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah.

Intellectual honesty requires that the M2C intellectuals (and CES and BYU teachers) at least acknowledge the teachings of the prophets and explain why they reject those teachings.

It’s not surprising that an article in the Ensign would avoid that topic, but to discerning readers the censorship is apparent–and it is just as apparent now in the Visitors Centers, curriculum, etc.
_____

The second framing Brother Sorenson used to lay the groundwork for M2C appears here:

A substantive discussion of geography cannot be given in these limited pages. However, for at least the past forty years, many students of the subject who have studied it in depth have reached similar basic conclusions: (1) the events reported by Nephite and Jaredite scribes evidently covered only a limited territory in the New World “land of promise,” and (2) there is presently known only one location in the Western Hemisphere that seems qualify as that scene.6

Notice how the article ignores the origins of M2C (the RLDS scholars who developed it in the late 1800s and early 1900 as part of their intellectual battle with LDS leaders). Instead, it frames M2C as something that originated in the 1940s among LDS scholars.

Notice also how the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah are both censored and repudiated. Brother Sorenson (and all of his M2C followers) don’t even acknowledge alternatives to M2C; they insist Mesoamerica is the “only” location that “seems to qualify.”

Of course, this is the inevitable result of their circular reasoning. They simply interpreted the text to match Mesoamerica, and then claimed only Mesoamerica “qualifies” according to their interpretation. 

We admire the audacity of this sophistry, but we recognize it for what it is.

Footnote 6 is awesome. The article never mentions the term “Cumorah” but the footnote does. It cites books that established M2C by saying the prophets were wrong. Here are two of my favorites:

Cumorah – Where? by Thomas Stuart Ferguson (Zion’s Printing and Publishing Co.: Independence, Missouri, 1947)

In Search of Cumorah: New Evidences for the Book of Mormon from Ancient Mexico, by David A. Palmer (Bountiful, Ut.” Horizon Publishers, 1981).
_____

We don’t have time to go through the entire Ensign articles, but I recommend that you do so. It’s astonishing to see how M2C became established.

However, we do need to look one paragraph that was crucial to the foundation of M2C. (My comment in red.)

Of course, placing the Book of Mormon lands within a limited region like Mesoamerica requires that we take a fresh look at some of the long-standing questions that have been of interest to Book of Mormon readers. For example, how did the plates of Nephi get from the final battlefield near the “narrow neck of land”11 to where Joseph Smith obtained them in New York? 

[This has never been a question for those who accept what the prophets have taught. It’s only a question for those who reject those teachings. Footnote 11 explains how the intellectuals turned a fact into a question.]

Here the Book of Mormon sheds no light. 

[But the prophets not only share light, they declare it as a fact that the final battles took place in the valley west of the “hill in New York.” Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith visited the depository of Nephite records in the hill Cumorah in New York. That alone justifies their teaching that this is the hill of Mormon 6:6.]

One obvious possibility is that Moroni himself may have carried the records to New York during his thirty-six years of wandering between the extermination of the Nephites and when he last wrote on the plates. (See Morm. 6:6; Moro. 1:1–4; Moro. 10:1.) Or he may have taken them there as a resurrected being. We only know that, whatever the means, in 1827 the plates were in the “hill of considerable size” near young Joseph Smith’s home at Palmyra, New York, where Moroni delivered the sacred record to him.

Notice how the teaching of the prophets–that the final battles of the Jaredites and Nephites took place in western New York–is nowhere considered even as a possibility. It is completely censored. 

Also notice the rhetorical trick of referring to the “hill in New York” as a generic hill and not as the Hill Cumorah.

This is footnote 11.

Consider the following reasoning: (1) The Cumorah of the Nephites and the Ramah of the Jaredites were the same hill (Ether 15:11). (2) This area, covered with bones (Omni 1:22; Mosiah 8:8; Mosiah 21:26–27; etc.) and also a “land of many waters, rivers, and fountains” (Morm. 6:4; Ether 15:8), was in the land of Desolation, which bordered on the land Bountiful at the narrow neck of land (Alma 22:29–32). 

[Here is one of the circular reasoning interpretations. The M2C interpretation conflates the “narrow neck of land” (Ether 10:20) with the “narrow neck” of Alma 63:5, as if these different terms hundreds of years apart referred to the identical geographical feature. Then they insert the “narrow neck” into Alma 22, where it doesn’t actually exist in the text.] 

(3) In Mormon 3 through 6, it becomes clear that the final battles of the Nephites were localized, centering largely in the general area of the city of Desolation, which was in the land of Desolation “by the narrow pass which led into the land southward” (Morm. 3:5, 7). 

[Here they conflate “narrow pass” with “narrow neck of land” and “narrow neck.” All of this also assumes that “land southward” and “land northward” are proper nouns instead of relative terms, relative to the specific location and time involved in the narrative. These assumptions are not necessarily unreasonable, but they are not mandatory and, IMO, contradict a basic rule of interpretation, that different terms refer to different things. But for M2C intellectuals, the conclusion that the prophets are wrong about Cumorah is fundamental. It’s a starting point. For me, just the opposite is the case; i.e., I start with what the prophets have taught and go from there.]

(4) And therefore, according to this reasoning, Cumorah, the final battlefield of the Nephites and Lamanites, was near the narrow neck of land.

The point of this post is not to debate the terminology. That’s a futile endeavor. I’m not interested in a “war of words” which can never be resolved and doesn’t change anyone’s mind anyway.

The point of this post is to show when and how science (as explained by M2C intellectuals) replaced the teachings of the prophets. 

In my view, replacing the prophets with the intellectuals is and has been a huge mistake. 

It’s fine with me if people prefer to believe the M2C intellectuals instead of the prophets, I just think such an important decision should be made with full knowledge of 

(i) what the prophets have taught and 

(ii) what science tells us that affirms and corroborates those teachings.

Currently, most members of the Church are never even exposed to, let alone taught, either category of knowledge.

I hope to see that change. I continue to call upon my friends in the M2C citation cartel to provide their readers and followers with full, complete information. 

I call on them to stop resorting to censorship and obfuscation to maintain M2C.

I call on them to trust their readers to make informed decisions.



_____

*About the time when President Joseph F. Smith wanted to purchase the Hill Cumorah in New York, RLDS scholars began teaching that the “real” hill Cumorah was in Mexico. Joseph F. Smith had republished Letter VII; for him, the Cumorah question was settled.

His son, Joseph Fielding Smith, and Apostle and Church Historian at the time, warned that the “two-Cumorahs” theory would cause members of the Church to become confused and disturbed in their faith in the Book of Mormon. He reiterated that warning when he was President of the Quorum of the Twelve.

But the intellectuals rejected his warning.

Two months before he died, Brigham Young expressed his serious concern that the teaching about the New York Cumorah would be forgotten. He had good reason to be concerned, as we discussed here:

http://bookofmormonwars.blogspot.com/2017/08/brigham-young-140th-anniversary-of-his.html

https://comefollowme2020.blogspot.com/

2020 will also be the year of the Restoration in the sense of the 200th anniversary of Joseph Smith’s first vision.

What will be the long-term impact of this momentous year? Will anyone outside currently active members of the Church care?

The answer will depend, to some degree, on what they learn about the Restoration.

One narrative is inspiring and has a long history of prophetic affirmations.

The other narrative is bizarre and academic in origins and nature.

Which do you think will be more persuasive and influential for people in the world?
_____

The Restoration itself is a challenging concept for many people. It was unexpected by most of Christianity, but some people hoped and prayed for it. Some anticipated it. Most resisted and rejected it.

Joseph’s explanation that the angel Moroni guided him to the plates, the breastplate and Urim and Thummim, is straightforward and clear. The Book of Mormon, as well as the Doctrine and Covenants and Joseph’s own statements, corroborated by Oliver Cowdery’s statements, are consistent.

They all affirm that Joseph Smith translated the engravings on the plates by the gift and power of God, using the Nephite interpreters Joseph and Oliver called the Urim and Thummim.

For many people, the existence of ancient gold plates is difficult to believe but not impossible. Joseph Smith translating an ancient text is difficult to believe, but not impossible, given his four years of preparation and training, plus the months he spent with the plates, copying and translating characters before Martin Harris arrived to work as a scribe.

Joseph and Oliver stuck with their account their entire lives. Their faithful contemporaries and successors repeatedly re-affirmed that narrative.

Joseph Smith, not using the Urim and Thummim

Then, about 15 years ago, a different narrative made its way into the Church. It is based on several statements made by, or attributed to, people who claimed to be witnesses to the translation. The statements claim that Joseph did not use the Urim and Thummim to translate the engravings on the plates.

Instead, he put a seer stone in a hat and read words that appeared. He didn’t consult the plates, which sat under a cloth the whole time (if they were even in the room). He didn’t use the Urim and Thummim.

The new narrative became popular quickly.

Except it’s not a new narrative.

It’s an old narrative, initially promoted by Joseph’s fiercest opponents and, in more recent times, promoted by critics such as the CES Letter, the Tanners, and others.

Now, it’s being taught throughout the Church. We see it in the Ensign, in Church media, lesson manuals, etc.

The new narrative is a direct conflict with what Joseph and Oliver taught. Some have tried to say that when Joseph and Oliver referred to the Urim and Thummim, they actually meant the seer stone.

But that idea contradicts the plain history.

The 1834 book Mormonism Unvailed described two narratives. In one, Joseph produced the seer stone by reading words that appeared on a stone in a hat. In the other, he used the Urim and Thummim, aka the spectacles or interpreters that came with the plates.

Joseph and Oliver repeatedly testified that Joseph used the Urim and Thummim. Never once did they state or imply that Joseph used a seer stone he found somewhere.
_____

Put yourself in the position of a nonmember, or a member who questions his/her faith. Which one of the following scenarios is more believable?

The January 2020 Ensign is awesome. It’s full of helpful articles about Church history and the Book of Mormon.

You can download a .pdf file here:

https://media.ldscdn.org/pdf/magazines/ensign-january-2020/2020-01-0000-ensign-eng.pdf?lang=eng

The timeline titled “Seeing the Lord’s Hand” starting on page 22 is a wonderful summary of world events leading up to the Restoration and the present day.

One of the nice features is the section that correlates with each week of the Come Follow Me curriculum.

This graphic on page 35 is a nice introduction to the world Lehi and his family left.

It points out that Jerusalem had a population estimated at 25,000, which was considered “big by ancient standards.”

Keep that in mind as we study the Book of Mormon this year.

There’s an article titled “Have the Greatest Year with the Greatest Book” that includes good idea about how to improve our study. One tagline reads “Decide now to make 2020 the year you and your family immerse yourselves in
the Book of Mormon.”

I encourage people to read the Ensign regularly, especially this year when we’re all focused on the Book of Mormon.
_____

As awesome as the January Ensign is, people have contacted me with concerns about the M2C artwork and revisionist Church history inside.

We have to expect this to continue. It’s not a big deal. Most readers don’t even notice. Some of our M2C intellectuals and their followers will claim this as a “victory” or something, which is bizarre.

One example is an article about the translation. If you want to know about the translation, you’re far better off reading the original sources from Joseph and Oliver than the theories of others. Here’s an excellent resource:

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/site/the-gold-plates-and-the-translation-of-the-book-of-mormon

Back to the Ensign. On page 40, we read this:

Joseph himself did not elaborate about the process of translation, but Oliver, David, and Emma provided some additional information. Oliver said: “These were days never to be forgotten—to sit under the sound of a voice dictated by the inspiration of heaven, awakened the utmost gratitude of this bosom! Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from [Joseph’s] 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’” ( Joseph Smith—History 1:71, note).

So far, so good. a quotation from the scriptures, written by Oliver Cowdery, unambiguously establishing that Joseph translated the text with the Nephite interpreters they called the Urim and Thummim.

Joseph not translating with the Urim and Thummim

But then we read this:

The “interpreters” used by Joseph during the translation process included the “two stones in
silver bows” that were deposited by Moroni with the plates (see Joseph Smith—History 1:35.) In
addition to these two seer stones, Joseph used at least one other seer stone that the Lord had
provided.7 

The Lord provided? Where is there any evidence that Joseph, or Oliver, or anyone else claimed the Lord provided this stone? This is the seer stone Joseph allegedly found in a well.

Look at footnote 7.

See Richard E. Turley Jr., Robin S. Jensen, and Mark Ashurst-McGee, “Joseph the Seer,”
Ensign, Oct. 2015, 48–55. You can read that article here:
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2015/10/joseph-the-seer?lang=eng

It’s a great article, overall, but it started a theme that continues to cause a lot of confusion in the Church. For example, the article says In another Book of Mormon account, Alma the Younger gives the interpreters to his son Helaman. “Preserve these interpreters,” Alma counsels him, referring to the two stones in silver bows. But Alma also quotes a prophecy that appears to refer to a single stone: “And the Lord said: I will prepare unto my servant Gazelem, a stone, which shall shine forth in darkness unto light.”(Alma 37:21, 23). 

But the original version of Alma 37 did not say interpreters. It said directors. The language was changed in 1920. When Oliver Cowdery said “interpreters” he could not have been referring to Alma 37.

The article also claimed this: By 1833, Joseph Smith and his associates began using the biblical term “Urim and Thummim” to refer to any stones used to receive divine revelations, including both the Nephite interpreters and the single seer stone.17 This imprecise terminology has complicated attempts to reconstruct the exact method by which Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon.

Note 17 refers to the Wilford Woodruff account of seeing the Urim and Thummim in Nauvoo, but Woodruff never said he saw a seer stone.

Besides, as anyone knows who has read the 1834 book Mormonism Unvailed, there was a clear difference between the Urim and Thummim and the seer or “peep” stones that everyone understood. That’s why it is significant–critical–that Joseph and Oliver always said Joseph translated with the Urim and Thummim and never said he translated with a seer stone.

The January Ensign article continues.

Cover based on content of translation article

David Whitmer, whose family provided a place for Joseph and Oliver to complete the work of translation, provided this additional information: “Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.” 8

Look at footnote 8.

8. Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, 12

Interested readers will naturally follow up with David Whitmer’s book, available here, which teaches that “Joseph Smith… after being called of God to translate his sacred word–the Book of Mormon–drifted into many errors and gave many revelations to introduce doctrines, ordinances and office in the church, which are in conflict with Christ’s teachings… Joseph Smith drifting into errors after translating the Book of Mormon is a stumbling block to many…”

Obviously, the Ensign does not condone that part of David Whitmer’s book, but why accept uncritically any of that book? Why refer readers to it at all?

I’ll have more to discuss on that in upcoming days.