"I hope that this will stop"

The title of this post has nothing to do with the Hill Cumorah pageant, as you’ll see below. I wish the pageant could continue because of all the good it has done, but I understand the rationale for ending it after 2020. Before addressing the title of this post, here’s an update on pageant.

I was on security duty at the Hill Cumorah visitors center yesterday. It’s wonderful to see all the visitors and meet so many of them. They come from around the world and learn a lot about Church history. Lots of enthusiasm and testimony building.

It’s also cool that so many are learning, some for the first time, what the prophets have taught about the Hill Cumorah in New York. The bookstore and museum downtown next to the Grandin building have been very busy all week.

Pageant this year has been awesome. Despite some heavy rain last Thursday, and a little more on Saturday, the crowds have averaged around 5,500, which projects to about 44,000 if the attendance stays the same throughout this week. I understand that’s about 50% more than the last few years.

As I showed on the video last week, there are still a few protesters, but they are friendly and doing what they think is right. It kind of adds to the atmosphere because one of the themes of the pageant is persecution of the prophets, starting in Jerusalem and continuing into America.
_____

Here’s a fun story about Elder Christofferson and pageant.

http://media.ldscdn.org/pdf/magazines/liahona-august-2008/2008-08-04-elder-d-todd-christofferson-prepared-to-serve-the-lord-eng.pdf

The Hill Cumorah pageant continues to inspire and energize thousands of members of the Church.
_____

Now, let’s consider the title of this post: “I hope that this will stop.” That’s a great title for what I hope will stop; i.e., the ongoing censorship of any facts or ideas that contradict M2C.

The title comes from a post by one of our favorite M2C intellectuals, the wonderful brother Dan Peterson, a BYU professor, former FARMS principle, current head of the Interpreter Foundation, etc. He’s a great guy who has written lots of useful and important material. However…

There’s always a downside of calling attention to an otherwise obscure corner of the Internet, but in this case, it’s a chance for people to see how the M2C intellectuals operate. That upside outweighs the downside, so here goes.

You can see his post here:

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2019/07/im-sincerely-worried-and-i-hope-that-this-will-stop.html

Apparently for a while now, brother Dan has used his blog to link to an anonymous troll who has been criticizing my ideas. I can see why Dan would refer people to this troll; the troll’s arguments are so irrational that they make Dan’s look good by comparison.

But still.

The whole thing is bizarre, really; brother Dan could contact me directly if he has a problem. I’ve tried to meet with him but he refuses.

The tactic I want to point out is this: if you disagree with M2C intellectuals, they’ll quickly play the “apostate” card, just as brother Dan did here. 

That’s standard totalitarian tactics. It fits with the actions of the M2C citation cartel over the last few decades.

By contrast, I’ve made it clear that I don’t care what anyone else thinks. People are entitled to believe whatever they want, and that doesn’t make them apostates.

The issue that brother Dan is worked up about is this: do we accept or reject what the prophets have taught about the New York Cumorah?

According to M2C dogma, members of the Church are supposed to reject what the prophets have taught about Cumorah. That’s how the M2C intellectuals justify censoring those teachings. That’s how they justify teaching CES and BYU students that the prophets are wrong.

Instead, you’re supposed to believe Cumorah is in southern Mexico (or in BYU’s fantasy world) and if you don’t believe that, you’re an apostate.

I think that’s a mistake, for all the reasons I’ve explained. In my view, M2C is a false tradition that not only contradicts the teachings of the prophets, but contradicts the text and everything known about ancient Central America.

But these are merely differences of interpretation and opinion. None of this is personal, from my perspective. I have no problem with those who believe M2C. I don’t think they are apostates; I readily agree that they are faithful members of the Church, wonderful in every way. I only think the M2C citation cartel should follow the Church’s policy of neutrality and allow members of the Church (and investigators) to learn about alternative ideas that support the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah.

Basically, I oppose censorship of the teachings of the prophets and I support the Church’s position of neutrality. That’s why I freely recommend that people read the M2C material for comparison.

Brother Dan is one of the most prominent censors. Before he was belatedly terminated from FARMS (after FARMS merged into the Maxwell Institute), FARMS had what I consider a well-deserved reputation for thin skin and ad hominem attacks. FARMS eventually disintegrated, but brother Dan took his donors and followers and created a new vehicle for his brand of rhetoric: The Interpreter Foundation.

There are many good articles on the Interpreter, interspersed with M2C apologetics and attacks on those who dare to question M2C. You can get a flavor for it here:
http://interpreterpeerreviews.blogspot.com/
_____

The specific issue that prompted brother Dan’s latest blog post involves the phony story that it was Moroni who showed the plates to Mary Whitmer.

The story is silly on its face. If you look up the citation in the Saints book, Mary called the messenger “Brother Nephi” but her grandson (or another editor) concluded she must have been talking about Moroni. IOW, the Moroni story is based on the assumption that Mary was wrong.

Plus, David Whitmer said the messenger who showed Mary the plates was the same one who took the Harmony plates to Cumorah. David said Joseph told him it was one of the Nephites. The Moroni story is based on the assumption that David and Joseph were wrong.

Both David and Mary described him as a heavy set older man. That’s such a different description than the one we have of Moroni when he appeared to Joseph that to accept the Moroni-Mary Whitmer story, we also have to accept the idea that resurrected beings are shape-shifters; i.e., they can assume multiple physical forms, etc.

I discussed all of this here:

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

The question is, why would the M2C intellectuals and revisionist Church historians promote the Moroni story in the face of all this evidence?

It’s simple. They don’t want people to know or think about the implications of the messenger taking the Harmony plates to Cumorah.

The entire premise of M2C is that the “real” Hill Cumorah is in southern Mexico. Therefore, the messenger could not have been taking the Harmony plates to Cumorah. David Whitmer was mistaken, Oliver Cowdery lied or was mistaken when he said he and Joseph entered the repository of Nephite records in the Hill Cumorah in New York, and Oliver and all the prophets misled the Church by stating that the Hill Cumorah is in New York.

I disagree with the M2C premise and its repercussions. Instead, I believe the teachings of the prophets (and the 3 witnesses). So Brother Dan wants to label me as an apostate.

That’s how twisted M2C dogma has become.

It’s quite a sight to behold.

Source: About Central America

M2C at Church history sites

It’s awesome to see how M2C has affected Church history sites.

Their site guides require the site missionaries to tell people that it was Moroni who showed the plates of Nephi to Mary Whitmer, a patently false story concocted by Mary Whitmer’s grandson and favored by M2C intellectuals (and revisionist Church historians) who don’t want people to know about the New York Cumorah. [I discuss this below.]

Visitors to the Hill Cumorah Visitors Center in New York never hear what the prophets have taught about the New York Cumorah. To learn about that, they have to visit the Oliver Cowdery Memorial, located one mile north of the Hill Cumorah, or the memorial in downtown Palmyra.

When visitors ask about Letter VII and/or the teachings of the other prophets about the New York Cumorah, the site missionaries tell them that Willard Bean believed the New York Cumorah was the scene of the final battles of the Nephites, but he was wrong about a lot of things. They don’t tell visitors about Letter VII, or what the following people said about the New York Cumorah: Lucy Mack Smith, Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff, Heber C. Kimball, James E. Talmage, President Ivins, President Romney, etc.

Anyone who visits Palmyra should ask the missionaries about this and see for yourselves. It’s pretty sad. I’ve been told that even seminary teachers don’t know that Cumorah = Ramah, and they’ll never learn that by visiting the Church historical sites.

Worse than not telling people what the prophets have taught is teaching them M2C, right at the Hill Cumorah Visitors Center in New York. In the rotunda, they feature this beauty:
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media-library/images/bring-forth-the-record-39676?lang=eng

Christ asks for the records: 3 Nephi 23

This is a spectacular painting, to be sure, but it isn’t even pretending to be “neutral” about Book of Mormon geography.

This painting is an illustration of 3 Nephi 23, when the Lord visited the Nephites and asked about their records.

It’s a full-blown Mayan setting. And it’s in the Hill Cumorah visitors center in New York.

As well as in the Mesa temple and other sites.

If you know anyone who doesn’t believe they’re teaching M2C, please review this post:

http://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2016/12/yes-they-do-teach-two-cumorahs-theory.html
_____

The following is reposted from https://bookofmormonwars.blogspot.com/2019/07/2019-cumorah-pageant-part-2.html

I’ve uploaded another video about the Hill Cumorah Pageant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQm_RFcPXtI

Turtle Island (North America)

In this video, we visit the Skanonh Great Law of Peace Center in Liverpool, NY (outside of Syracuse). The guide discusses the creation story, including the formation of Turtle Island which is North America. We can compare this to 2 Ne. 10:20: we have been led to a better land, for the Lord has made the sea our path, and we are upon an isle of the sea.

Some people are confused by that, concluding that Lehi’s promised land must be an island. There are several ways to interpret/understand this passage, but the Native American concept of Turtle Island fits pretty well.

Port Byron

Next we pass through Port Byron, where Brigham Young lived for a while. The town has a historical marker to that effect.

The house where some believe he lived is still standing, as we see in the video.

Peter Whitmer cabin

After that, we visit the Peter Whitmer farm where Joseph and Oliver translated the plates of Nephi that Joseph received from the messenger who brought them from the Hill Cumorah.

Finally, we end up at the first night of pageant (dress rehearsal). There were some great protesters outside. You can see them on the video. There were around 5,000 people, which is a big crowd for the rehearsal. Unfortunately, it rained pretty hard, but I didn’t get that in the video.

Enjoy!

_____

The reconstructed cabin in the video was long thought to be built on the original foundation of the Whitmer home. This was always a little problematic because the cabin had only two small bedrooms upstairs, one of which Joseph and Oliver used to translate the plates of Nephi.

In the last year or so, Church archaeologists have found evidence of more buildings on the property. It now appears that the Whitmer home was a double cabin, twice as large as the one that was rebuilt that we walk to in the video. It’s not yet clear which building(s) were the Whitmer home, but the current cabin always seemed a little small for all the events that took place there, including the organization of the Church in 1830.

This is also the home in which David Whitmer described people sitting around the table when Joseph demonstrated how he translated the plates by putting a stone in a hat and reading off words. That’s much different than the actual translation, of course, for which Joseph used the Urim and Thummim and the actual plates.

Mary Whitmer and the plates
The messenger was
“Brother Nephi,”
not Moroni.

BTW, the missionaries are telling everyone the phony story of Moroni showing Mary Whitmer the plates. Mary did see the plates, but it wasn’t Moroni who showed them to her. The M2C intellectuals want you to think it was Moroni because they don’t want people to know about the Hill Cumorah in New York.

According to Mary, it was “Brother Nephi,” one of the 3 Nephites, who showed her the plates. David said it was the same person who took the Harmony plates to Cumorah.

The phony story about Moroni was invented by Mary’s grandson, but Church historians and M2C intellectuals liked it better so they incorporated it into the Saints and now we have everyone in the Church learning false history, all because the M2C intellectuals don’t want people to even know about the New York Cumorah.

Sad.

I’ve explained all of this here

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

here

http://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2018/09/the-inside-mole-working-on-saints.html

and here

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

Have a great day! 

Source: About Central America

2019 Cumorah pageant part 2

I’ve uploaded another video about the Hill Cumorah Pageant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQm_RFcPXtI

Turtle Island (North America)

In this video, we visit the Skanonh Great Law of Peace Center in Liverpool, NY (outside of Syracuse). The guide discusses the creation story, including the formation of Turtle Island which is North America. We can compare this to 2 Ne. 10:20: we have been led to a better land, for the Lord has made the sea our path, and we are upon an isle of the sea.

Some people are confused by that, concluding that Lehi’s promised land must be an island. There are several ways to interpret/understand this passage, but the Native American concept of Turtle Island fits pretty well.

Port Byron

Next we pass through Port Byron, where Brigham Young lived for a while. The town has a historical marker to that effect.

The house where some believe he lived is still standing, as we see in the video.

Peter Whitmer cabin

After that, we visit the Peter Whitmer farm where Joseph and Oliver translated the plates of Nephi that Joseph received from the messenger who brought them from the Hill Cumorah.

Finally, we end up at the first night of pageant (dress rehearsal). There were some great protesters outside. You can see them on the video. There were around 5,000 people, which is a big crowd for the rehearsal. Unfortunately, it rained pretty hard, but I didn’t get that in the video.

Enjoy!

_____

The reconstructed cabin in the video was long thought to be built on the original foundation of the Whitmer home. This was always a little problematic because the cabin had only two small bedrooms upstairs, one of which Joseph and Oliver used to translate the plates of Nephi.

In the last year or so, Church archaeologists have found evidence of more buildings on the property. It now appears that the Whitmer home was a double cabin, twice as large as the one that was rebuilt that we walk to in the video. It’s not yet clear which building(s) were the Whitmer home, but the current cabin always seemed a little small for all the events that took place there, including the organization of the Church in 1830.

This is also the home in which David Whitmer described people sitting around the table when Joseph demonstrated how he translated the plates by putting a stone in a hat and reading off words. That’s much different than the actual translation, of course, for which Joseph used the Urim and Thummim and the actual plates.

Mary Whitmer and the plates
The messenger was
“Brother Nephi,”
not Moroni.

BTW, the missionaries are telling everyone the phony story of Moroni showing Mary Whitmer the plates. Mary did see the plates, but it wasn’t Moroni who showed them to her. The M2C intellectuals want you to think it was Moroni because they don’t want people to know about the Hill Cumorah in New York.

According to Mary, it was “Brother Nephi,” one of the 3 Nephites, who showed her the plates. David said it was the same person who took the Harmony plates to Cumorah.

The phony story about Moroni was invented by Mary’s grandson, but Church historians and M2C intellectuals liked it better so they incorporated it into the Saints and now we have everyone in the Church learning false history, all because the M2C intellectuals don’t want people to even know about the New York Cumorah.

Sad.

I’ve explained all of this here

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

here

http://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2018/09/the-inside-mole-working-on-saints.html

and here

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

Have a great day! 

Source: Book of Mormon Wars

The fundamentals – Church history

So often, organizations and people lose focus when they forget the fundamentals.

Those who have questions about Church history should remember this advice from twitter:

When in doubt, go back to the fundamentals. When you’re sure, build on the fundamentals. When not making progress, go back to the fundamentals. When you are making progress, build on the fundamentals. The fundamentals never go away. If anything, they become more pronounced.
_____

Fundamentals in Church history:

1. Joseph Smith obtained metal plates from a stone box on the Hill Cumorah in western New York.

2. Using the Urim and Thummim that were in the stone box, he translated the engravings on the plates into English while in Harmony, PA.

3. He returned the Harmony plates to a divine messenger who took them back to the Hill Cumorah.

4. In Fayette, NY, Joseph translated the plates of Nephi.

5. The Hill Cumorah of Mormon 6:6 is the same hill in New York from which Joseph got the plates.

Very simple.
_____

Here’s an example from football.

“This is a football.”

In his best-selling book, When Pride Still Mattered: A Life Of Vince Lombardi, author David Maraniss explains what happened when Lombardi walked into training camp in the summer of 1961.
He took nothing for granted. He began a tradition of starting from scratch, assuming that the players were blank slates who carried over no knowledge from the year before… He began with the most elemental statement of all. “Gentlemen,” he said, holding a pigskin in his right hand, “this is a football.”
Lombardi was coaching a group of three dozen professional athletes who, just months prior, had come within minutes of winning the biggest prize their sport could offer. And yet, he started from the very beginning.


Source: Book of Mormon Wars

neutrality – Church artwork

The current version of the Gospel Topics Essay on Book of Mormon Geography states that “The Church does not take a position on the specific geographic locations of Book of Mormon events in the ancient Americas.

While we all recognize this is a change from the past, when Church leaders reaffirmed the New York Cumorah, this has always been the position of the Church regarding locations other than Cumorah.

That being the case, why has Church art always depicted Mesoamerica?

And why does Church art continue to depict Mesoamerica exclusively?
_____

Here’s an example of a painting in the Gilbert temple that has been used in lots of places. It depicts Christ visiting Mayans in a scene from 3 Nephi. 

There is nothing neutral about this painting.

This painting teaches M2C far more powerfully than the words of neutrality in the Gospel Topics Essay.

I’ve cited lots of other examples, including the cover of the Ensign through the years, which has always depicted M2C and never the New York Cumorah.

Just search for “artwork” on this blog and you’ll see more examples, such as these:

http://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2018/03/m2c-technique-4-noah-flood-imprinting.html

http://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2018/06/correlation-department-uses-two-m2c.html

Example from the Deseret News:

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865552669/Becoming-as-a-child-is-the-door-to-heaven.html

Example from the Church News:

https://www.thechurchnews.com/archive/2012-01-07/the-book-of-mormon-is-designed-for-us-37981





Source: About Central America

Neutrality – Maxwell Institute

In a recent address to the Neal A. Maxwell Institute at BYU, Elder Holland gave this an apostolic charge: “the Neal A. Maxwell Institute must see itself as among the best the university has to offer, as a faithful, rich, rewarding center of faith-promoting gospel scholarship enlivened by remarkable disciple-scholars.

Elder Holland also pointed out that Elder Maxwell “said that we are not really “learned” if we exclude the body of divine data that the eternities place at our disposal through revelation and the prophets of God.”

The Maxwell Institute has done outstanding work in the past and will surely do even more in the future. On one topic, however, the Maxwell Institute has excluded the prophets of God under the guise of neutrality. The topic is M2C (the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory of Book of Mormon geography).
_____

For a while now, I’ve been pointing out that M2C is taken for granted throughout the Church because of the Academic Cycle. Once M2C intellectuals managed to take control of the curriculum at BYU and CES, it was inevitable that M2C would become the default position of the Church.

The Maxwell Institute has played a role in this academic cycle by promoting M2C, not only by absorbing FARMS and including its materials in the archive, but by promulgating M2C in its own publications.

We do not say that the Maxwell Institute is solely, or even largely, responsible for M2C. But it continues to promote M2C.

M2C taught on Temple Square in Salt Lake City, Utah

This leads to such M2C depictions as the North Visitors Center at Temple Square, which specifically and deliberately teaches two separate Cumorahs:

(1) the “real” Cumorah of Mormon 6:6 is portrayed in a cave in Mesoamerica, gratuitously decorated with Mayan glyphs; and

(2) the “false” Cumorah off in the distance in western New York where Moroni buried the plates in a stone box.

For more on this M2C display, see http://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2016/12/yes-they-do-teach-two-cumorahs-theory.html

Even purportedly “neutral” or “unbiased” Church members take M2C for granted. Today we’ll look at a specific example from the Maxwell Institute at BYU.

First, some background.
_____

We recognize that the Maxwell Institute (MI) made important changes in 2014, described here:

https://mi.byu.edu/mi-what-changed/

But those changes were gradual.

Their podcast logo emphasized the Mayan glyph, of all things.

Old MI logo

Recently, MI finally removed their M2C logo with the Mayan glyph, which they inherited from FARMS and which is now the logo for Book of Mormon Central (which is why I call that organization Book of Mormon Central America).

Everywhere you see the old FARMS logo, you know you’re looking at M2C intellectuals, which is why it makes sense for Book of Mormon Central to use it.

Another positive development is that a former MI employee who is a strong M2C proponent (a great guy whom I won’t name) left MI to work for Book of Mormon Central, where he does a great job confirming the M2C bias. 

However, the M2C bias is implicit still in the Maxwell Institute. For example, Terryl Givens, the M2C promoter who wrote the Foreword for Mormon’s Codex, is on the MI Executive Committee.

M2C readers edition

MI published a Study Edition of the Book of Mormon that explicitly teaches M2C under the guise of being “neutral.”

For example, in the books “Chronology of the Translation” under 1824-1826, the authors write “For three consecutive years, Joseph meets the angel at the hill (later called Cumorah) on Sept. 22.” But Lucy Mack Smith quoted Joseph calling the hill Cumorah even before he got the plates.

In the Index, the entry for Cumorah reads “Cumorah, land and hill: scene of the last Nephite battle and place where Mormon hid many records; Morm 6:2; see also Ramah, hill. The hill in upstate New York where Joeph Smith found the gold plates was named for this ancient site.

Of course, that is pure M2C propaganda. Not a single source in Church history claims “the hill in upstate New York” was named for some other Cumorah. That is M2C spin concocted within the last few decades. Every actual source declares that the “hill in upstate New York” is in fact the Hill Cumorah of Mormon 6:6.

It’s also astonishing that any study guide of the Book of Mormon omits the most detailed accounts we have of Moroni’s visit to Joseph and the Hill Cumorah itself, accounts that were repeatedly republished and copied into Joseph’s own history as part of his life story. But the M2C intellectuals reject those accounts so, naturally, they are omitted from this MI study guide.

A real study guide would at least inform readers about the facts of Church history. By contrast, this guide seeks to imprint M2C by censoring the facts.

We do not attribute this teaching of M2C to bad motives. Instead, we see that M2C is so deeply imprinted on the minds of these scholars that they don’t even realize what they’re doing.
_____

Here is the example we want to look at today.

After the first version of the anonymous Gospel Topics Essay on Book of Mormon Geography was released, the Maxwell Institute published this review on its web site:

‘Until we have clearer knowledge’—On Book of Mormon geography in church history

https://mi.byu.edu/bom-geography-essay/

It’s a fascinating piece because it illustrates how M2C bias is so endemic, even an “unbiased” observer is oblivious to his own M2C bias.

The title of the review is taken from a 1923 statement by Elder James E. Talmage. This was five years before the Church purchased the Hill Cumorah in New York. That acquisition was memorialized in the April 1928 General Conference when President Ivins of the First Presidency delivered an address that focused on the Hill Cumorah and reaffirmed the long-held teaching from Letter VII onward that the Hill Cumorah in western New York is, in fact, the Hill Cumorah of Mormon 6:6.

The next year, President Ivins followed up with a General Conference address that distinguished between the Hill Cumorah, the location of which is known, and all the other Book of Mormon sites, whose locations have not been identified.

As you’ll see, this MI review completely overlooks this key distinction. That’s understandable, because the Gospel Topics Essay does the same thing.

Readers here know that the first version of the anonymous Gospel Topics Essay was recalled and rewritten after I pointed out some of the logical and factual fallacies it contained. The second and current version fixed some, but not all, of the problems.

Hopefully, someday we’ll get a third revision that fixes the remaining errors of fact and logic.

Let’s take a look at the MI review.
_____

‘Until we have clearer knowledge’—On Book of Mormon geography in church history

Earlier this week LDS.org published an essay in the “Gospel Topics” series laying out the position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the geographic location of the events recorded in the Book of Mormon. The short essay is worth a read, but I’ll quickly review it here and offer a few thoughts about how it maps onto previous Church discussions. 

A worthy objective. All good so far.

It begins with a reference to the “internal consistency” in descriptions of setting and place in the Book of Mormon as one of the scripture’s “striking features.” It acknowledges the range of views taken on Book of Mormon geography by individual “members and leaders” throughout church history. Supposing that Joseph Smith would have the best information on this subject, the essay notes that he accepted evidence of Book of Mormon civilization in both North America and Central America. 

Here is one of the factual fallacies that should be corrected. It is mindreading to say Joseph “accepted evidence of Book of Mormon civilization in… Central America.” This claim is based on an inference from anonymous articles in the 1842 Times and Seasons. 

The M2C intellectuals insist that Joseph wrote and/or edited these articles because he was listed as the nominal editor of the paper. But he was also listed as the nominal printer, and no one makes the claim that he actually set type or operated the printing press. There is zero historical evidence of Joseph ever writing or editing anything in the paper that he did not individually sign or explicitly acknowledge, let alone these anonymous articles. 

Besides, nothing in these articles mentions the New York Cumorah, which had been reaffirmed just the year before in the Times and Seasons by yet another republication of Letter VII. Even if Joseph had approved of the anonymous articles, there is no reason to infer he changed his mind about Cumorah. In fact, he wrote the letter that became D&C 128, which references Cumorah in the context of other New York area events, and sent it to the editor of the Times and Seasons for publication in the same issue that contained some of the anonymous articles.

By contrast, Joseph specifically linked the Book of Mormon people to the route of Zion’s Camp through Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois because he wrote to Emma about it.

Finally, the essay notes that the Church has no official position (or revelation) on the subject beyond the Book of Mormon having taken place in the Americas. 

The essay doesn’t use the term revelation and certainly doesn’t equate position with revelation. In addition, the essay simply ignores past official statements in which the Church took the position that the Hill Cumorah is in New York. This leaves readers to wonder if these past positions were considered and are being explicitly repudiated, or were not considered at all. Being anonymous, the essay is immune from follow-up questions about clarity. 

Because the essay has already been withdrawn and reissued with unannounced changes, it remains subject to additional editing and revision.   

Importantly, what this statement did not say was that any one theory of the Book of Mormon’s setting was correct or incorrect. 

This is important, but it contradicts what is being taught by CES, BYU, and the departments at COB (the Church Office Building). M2C is being explicitly taught right on Temple Square, for example.

Rather, “The Church urges local leaders and members not to advocate theories of Book of Mormon geography in official Church settings.” 

This raises the question, is the North Visitors Center on Temple Square an “official Church setting” as defined by this essay? Are CES and BYU classes “official Church settings,” or does this term apply only to chapels and temples? 

Because CES, BYU, the visitors centers, and even the illustrations in the missionary edition of the Book of Mormon all teach M2C, readers are left to wonder if the employees responsible for these teachings are not considered “local leaders and members.” 

IOW, is the essay saying it’s okay for Church employees to advocate M2C in official Church settings? If not, why is this practice continuing at CES, BYU, and the other venues.

My days at the Maxwell Institute are spent working on a book that will examine each of the major geographic models for the Book of Mormon. 

This should be an important book.

My goal isn’t to figure out which of these communities of theorists have the most accurate understanding. Instead, I’m asking why particular different theories have been attractive to different Latter-day Saints at different times. 

Again, awesome.

What I’ve discovered early in my research is that while in the twentieth and twenty-first century, discussion about Book of Mormon geography took a highly contentious turn, this was not the case in early Latter-day Saint culture. In Utah, the Saints saw themselves in Book of Mormon lands just like they had in Missouri. They didn’t place their general acceptance of a Hill Cumorah in New York against the evidence they saw in reports of Mesoamerican archaeology. 

It will be interesting to see how the book handles M2C and the RLDS who originally developed it. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, when President Joseph F. Smith republished Letter VII in the Improvement Era, visited the Hill Cumorah in New York, and made arrangements to begin purchasing the hill, RLDS scholars began teaching that the “real” Hill Cumorah was in Central America, while the “hill in New York” was not the Hill Cumorah of Mormon 6:6. 

LDS leaders opposed the RLDS ideas, but LDS scholars eventually embraced the RLDS ideas anyway.

While many members accepted the belief that Lehi had landed in modern Chile, no one questioned that the Hopi or the Utes were also descended from Israelite peoples. Today Latter-day Saints also hold many views on Book of Mormon geography, but with the advent of limited geographic models, there is an intensity behind this debate that was not present previously. I have yet to discover when Church leaders realized that mapping the Book of Mormon would require taking sides, but it was a subject of deliberations in the Church’s highest quorums in the 1920s. 

I hope we see some research about the RLDS/LDS divide on this issue, starting in the late 1800s.

On February 23, 1923, the apostle James Talmage responded to Jean R. Driggs who had written to general authorities about his efforts to decipher the modern locations of Book of Mormon lands. Talmage did not discourage the pursuit, but urged that “the more capable workers we have in this field the better.” Continuing, Talmage wrote:

Somewhat over a year ago a committee of the Council of Twelve sat for days listening to the presentation of the subject of book of Mormon geography by several of our brethren who have given particular study to the subject, and we found that their views differed as widely as the continent. It was there and then decided that until we have clearer knowledge in the matter, the Church could not authorize or approve the issuance of any map, chart, or text, purporting to set forth demonstrated facts relating to Book of Mormon lands.1

This statement from 1923 predates the Church’s acquisition of the Hill Cumorah in New York in 1928. Elder Talmage himself affirmed the New York Cumorah in his books Jesus the Christ and Articles of Faith. Early drafts distinguished between the certain Cumorah and the speculative other geography, but later editions of his books seemed to endorse a hemispheric model. Research into this should indicate whether Elder Talmage himself made these changes, or whether an editor made them.

Maxwell Institute book
that teaches M2C


The new Maxwell Institute Study Edition of the Book of Mormon includes a newly commissioned hypothetical map and, in accordance with this precedent, doesn’t identify a geographic location. (See it below.) 


We assume the author here is sincere, but the statement is misleading because, according to the book itself, “This reconstruction of book of Mormon lands is taken from John L. Sorenson’s Mormon’s Map,” a book that explicitly promotes M2C. It even depicts Cumorah in a site that cannot be New York. 

The Maxwell Institute links to Mormon’s Map here:
https://mi.byu.edu/book/mormons-map/

Maxwell Institute fantasy map


Then the book references the BYU fantasy map by saying “For an alternative map that is similary based on the internal geographical references in the text,” go to the BYU web page, here: http://bom.byu.edu/.

While the Maxwell Institute map does not technically “identify” a geographic location, it does “exclude” the only location that Church leaders have consistently and persistently taught; i.e., the New York Cumorah.

The map is based on the close reading by John Sorenson and other scholars of the geographical markings in the text such as place names and distances. It is intended to help readers visualize various battles, missions, and other movements described in the text, but not to identify an exact location. 

Here the author’s bias comes out, but he appears oblivious of that bias. He lists John Sorenson, the most influential M2C intellectual, as the interpreter of the text for the creation of the “hypothetical” map. According to brother Sorenson, though, M2C is a fact, as he explained this way: 

What may startle some about this situation is that most of what Joseph Smith said or implied about geography indicates that he did not understand or was ambiguous about the fact, as it turns out, that Mesoamerica was the particular setting for Nephite history. 

M2C book used by
Maxwell Institute


The “other scholars” whose “close reading” also contributed to the hypothetical map all agree with brother Sorenson’s claim that M2C is a fact. The hypothetical map is driven by the strongest possible bias; i.e., the conviction that M2C is a fact.

The map is explicitly intended “to help readers visualize” events in the text in the M2C-driven setting. While the map does not “identify an exact location,” it narrowly limits possible locations to Mesoamerica.

The bias is evident because M2C requires a specific interpretation of terms that are not required or even implied by the text. Alternative interpretations exclude Mesoamerica as a possible setting. Rather than deal with these, M2C intellectuals pretend there are no other possible interpretations.

That’s what led brother Sorenson to insist M2C is a fact.

Here’s the point:

The Maxwell Institute map, like the BYU fantasy map, is a tool of indoctrination. It’s not neutral in any sense. Only M2C scholars were consulted in its creation.

Six years after Talmage’s letter, Anthony W. Ivins similarly stated in general conference that the Church had no official position on geography.

There is a great deal of talk about the geography of the Book of Mormon. Where was the land of Zarahemla? Where was the City of Zarahemla? and other geographic matters. It does not make any difference to us. There has never been anything yet set forth that definitely settles that question. So the Church says we are just waiting until we discover the truth. All kinds of theories have been advanced. I have talked with at least half a dozen men that have found the very place where the City of Zarahemla stood, and notwithstanding the fact that they profess to be Book of Mormon students, they vary a thousand miles apart in the places they have located. We do not offer any definite solution. As you study the Book of Mormon keep these things in mind and do not make definite statements concerning things that have not been proven in advance to be true.2

In other words, the Gospel Topics essay does not alter the century old policy of the Church to officially decline to take sides in the debate. 

This might be my favorite part of this essay. Like the Gospel Topics Essay, this review draws a direct line between E. Talmage’s 1923 statement and Pres. Ivins 1929 General Conference address about the location of Zarahemla and other geographic matters.

The Gospel Topics Essay made the same false representation of the facts, except it misleadingly paraphrased key points in Pres. Ivins 1929 address.

Both this essay and the Gospel Topics Essay fail to inform readers about two key facts:

1. In 1928, the Church purchased the Hill Cumorah in New York.

2. In the April 1928 General Conference, Pres. Ivins devoted an entire address to reaffirming the teaching of Letter VII that the hill in New York is the very Hill Cumorah of Mormon 6:6. 

After I pointed out the serious and misleading omission, did the authors of the anonymous Gospel Topics Essay correct the error?

Absolutely not.

Instead, they simply deleted Pres. Ivins 1929 conference address.

It’s really an amazing thing to behold.


In reading the immediate online response to the new essay, I noticed a few possible places where Latter-day Saints could misunderstand. 

One of these places, of course, is the misleading treatment of Pres. Ivins addresses.

I’m taken by how difficult the Church’s official position of not having an official position on Book of Mormon geography can be for Latter-day Saints. 

When the Church’s official position was that the Hill Cumorah was in New York, it was easy and clear. What is difficult for many members is seeing the official position change without explanation and even without acknowledgment of the previous official position.

The essay asks us to be willing to consider the views of Church leaders as separate from the official views of the Church. 

Wait. Let’s read this again. 

The views of Church leaders [are] separate from the official views of the Church….

What is the Church? Who declares the official view if not the leaders of the Church? Are we supposed to place an anonymous Gospel Topics Essay somewhere between the views of Church leaders and the scriptures? Or maybe put them above the scriptures?

The fact that these anonymous Gospel Topics Essays have been changed, without announcement or comparison between old and new, makes them even less credible than, say, General Conference addresses by members of the First Presidency that are part of the official records of the Church.

The real question is this: why should we accept anonymous and transitory “views of the Church” as declared through Gospel Topics Essays instead of the specific, consistent, and persistent teachings of the prophets and apostles in General Conference. 

In this case, the only reason I can think of is because M2C intellectuals insist it is a fact that the Book of Mormon took place in Mesoamerica and any prophet who disagrees with M2C is by definition wrong.

And that’s exactly what the next section of this essay seeks to persuade us to believe. 

This should be no surprise for Church members often familiar with Joseph Smith’s warning that “‘A Prophet is not always a Prophet’ only when he is acting as such”; but in application this is a difficult principle.3 

This is undoubtedly the most abused statement attributed to Joseph Smith. Here is the entire quotation in context:

Wednesday Feb. 8. Lesson in German. visited with breth[r]en & Sisters from. 

 Conversati[o]n.



Think of this in context, and then apply it to what we know about Cumorah.

Joseph has a lesson in German and visits with members from Michigan, perhaps having dinner with them. None of those activities involves “acting as a prophet.” Perhaps the visit included laughter, playing around, or even goofing off. IOW, Joseph is taking time off. Someone asked him about it, so he said a prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as such. But this could also have been an observation by the visitors from Michigan; the statement is not directly attributed to Joseph.

It seems reasonable to believe that a prophet is not acting as a prophet when having dinner with friends. But when is a prophet “acting as such” in this context? 

Is a member of the First Presidency speaking in General Conference acting as a prophet? If not, why is he speaking? Why do we listen? 

Currently Speaking as: a man/a prophet


A General Conference address is a far cry from Joseph visiting with members prior to or during dinner. 

The M2C proposition that we can ignore what the prophets teach in General Conference if we disagree with it generates memes such as this depiction of General Conference with a sign board telling the audience when the person at the podium is speaking as “a man” or “a prophet.”

The men who bear the mantle of “Prophet, Seer, and Revelator” and local leaders are, like other members, able to speculate about matters that have yet to be revealed. 

This is axiomatic, but when we apply it to the consistent, persistent teachings of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, in General Conference and official publications, there is no limiting principle.  

The statement warns that the Church does not have an official position on Book of Mormon geography and that such positions should not be presented by leaders or members in official settings. 

Why doesn’t this essay address the ways M2C is presented in official settings (not to mention in the Maxwell Institute edition of the Book of Mormon)?

While not all Latter-day Saints have a strong opinion on Book of Mormon geography, all members of the Church hold views, preferences, and passions that are not “officially” held by the Church. We should be careful in how and where we present these opinions. Can something be unofficial and also true? The answer is certainly “yes.” This becomes a problem when we force our personal opinions on others by declaring them “official.” 

This is undoubtedly true for us a members, but what is the limiting principle? If General Conference addresses, and statements by members of the First Presidency about facts, can be dismissed as “speculation,” why have Church leaders at all? Are they relevant only for administrative purposes?

The Gospel Topics essay does not discourage presenting one’s views on Book of Mormon geography in special symposium, on the web, or in personal conversation. 

Hmmm… Maybe this is the rationale for promoting M2C in the Maxwell Institute edition of the Book of Mormon?

In fact, it does not even discourage the monetization of Book of Mormon geography through book and video sales, tours, cruises, or conferences, however people feel about such endeavors. It only regulates official Church settings—Sunday services and so forth—and the claim that there is an official position. 

Does it regulate anything when M2C is openly taught by CES, BYU, etc?

Finally, another way some Latter-day Saints have applied this and similar statements in the past is to assume that Book of Mormon geography is an unworthy cause. We—myself included—sometimes have a tendency to view those who have a deep commitment to one geographic model or another as “zealots.” 

The first missionaries (Cowdery, Pratt, Whitmer, Peterson) made historicity a major part of their message. So did the Apostles on the British Mission. Letter VII was republished in every Church newspaper. Those who are uncomfortable with the conflict between M2C and the teachings of the prophets dismiss the issue, but historicity remains a major issue for nonmembers, youth, and less active members. .

To be sure, the recent Gospel Topics essay and President Ivins’s statement acknowledge that a testimony of the Book of Mormon and the Book of Mormon’s testimony of Jesus Christ is vastly more important than the exact setting of the text. 

President Ivins also emphasized how important the New York Hill Cumorah is.

Yet, there has also been a consistent respect among Church leaders for those who seek to find evidence of the Book of Mormon. With history as our guide, we see that although the Church doesn’t weigh in on the accuracy of specific sites or maps, that need not be seen as a deterrent for those who have found meaning and fulfillment in their search for ancient Nephite civilization. 

This is carefully worded, but it’s still misleading. Maybe the “Church” doesn’t weigh in, but CES, BYU, the Maxwell Institute, the Visitors Centers, the MTC, etc. all weigh in by depicting and teaching M2C.

My forthcoming book will tell more of their stories.   

I look forward to it, especially if the author can identify and purge his M2C bias.

NOTES
1. James Talmage, Letter to Jean R. Driggs, February 23, 1923, MS 1232, Church History Library, Salt Lake City, Utah. I am indebted to Ardis Parshall for sharing this source with me. 
2. Anthony W. Ivins, Conference Report (April 1929), 16. A portion of this quote appears in “Book of Mormon Geography,” Gospel Topics Essay.
3. Joseph Smith, Journal, February 8, 1843, in Andrew H. Hedges, Alex D. Smith, Richard Lloyd Anderson, eds., The Joseph Smith Papers: Journals 2:256. [Scroll to see both pages included in the PDF] [pdf-embedder url=”http://mi.byu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/MISE-BOM-MAP.pdf”]  

https://mi.byu.edu/bom-geography-essay/

Source: About Central America

Reality is subjective

In a sense, it would be great if everyone reached a consensus about Book of Mormon geography and historicity, but because reality is subjective, it will probably never happen.

Whatever our beliefs, our personal realities can work for us. The key is finding a reality that does work.

Scott Adams (Dilbert) discusses how reality is subjective.

He said, “God is what is left over once you take everything away.” Good description of how our individual subjective realities all work, even when we all believe something different. Everyone can live together even when they have different worldviews. Plus, once you realize reality is subjective, you can control it. That’s how you escape the matrix, etc. You control your reality, and your reality is complete. Put systems in place to create the reality you want.

Reality can be interpreted in a completely different way and still work. You can understand reality through a different filter and it works as well as the one you looked through before. The lesson is they both work. 

https://www.pscp.tv/w/1OwxWkkaEENxQ

Start at 43:00

_____

The other related item is simulation theory. Here’s a good intro.


Source: Book of Mormon Concensus

Mormon Stories – Cultural Context

Most of the Mormon Stories articles I’ve read so far are rational, based on the author(s)’ assumptions, but they are sometimes misleading because they reflect an unstated bias, don’t make assumptions clear, and don’t acknowledge alternative interpretations of the facts that are equally rational. There always seems to be enough evidence to confirm one’s biases, whatever they are.

Once we know what bias is being confirmed by what facts, we can compare it with our own bias and how our bias explains the same facts. We can try to be as objective as possible. Or not.

What I hope to do in this series is offer people alternative, rational, fact-based interpretations so that undecided people can make informed choices.

Today we’ll look at the Mormon Stories article titled “Cultural Context Preceding the Book of Mormon,” which you can see here:
https://www.mormonstories.org/truth-claims/the-books/the-book-of-mormon/cultural-context-preceding-the-book-of-mormon/

_____

This article is pretty long but if I omit any of it, we run the risk of later changes in the original and/or claims that we’re avoiding issues. You might want to scan for my comments (in red).

I summarize this article by observing that it offers evidence of both composition and translation; i.e., whether Joseph composed or translated the text, the language in the text would be the same.

In my view, Joseph Smith was prepared for his role as translator through his exposure to his environment in Vermont, Massachusetts, and New York. This article discusses some of that preparation.

Whether or not the historical narrative in the text is an accurate account of actual history, the ensuing legends about the moundbuilders would be the same because the Europeans were observing the remains of the ancient inhabitants but had no records from the ancient people.

IOW, the ancient inhabitants of America had a history. They left behind evidence, but no written records. Because there are no historical records other than the Book of Mormon to explain that history, people have to decide whether the Book of Mormon is an actual record of those inhabitants or not.

The article seeks to portray the Book of Mormon as fiction. That’s the same argument, articulated in the 1834 book Mormonism Unvailed, that Oliver Cowdery addressed in Letters VII and VIII by citing facts.

(Of course, modern LDS scholars who promote M2C make the same arguments as Mormonism Unvailed, so the analysis here addresses the M2C arguments as well.)

We have to look at other indicia to distinguish between composition and translation, a topic not covered in this article.

CULTURAL CONTEXT PRECEDING THE BOOK OF MORMON

While Europeans grew weary of ongoing wars and economic stagnation, vanquishing Napoleon in 1815, America remained for them the land of promise and discovery. Lewis and Clark first glimpsed the Pacific Ocean in 1805; and the Erie Canal, the most significant industrial marvel of its time, would soon expand passage to the Great Lakes, bringing commerce and religious fervor to upstate New York. Immigrants from all parts of the world harbored visions of fertile land and opportunity.
The Second Great Awakening rose, in part, as a response to the industrial revolution in America and age of scientific skepticism that swept across Europe. Fear that men were becoming too secular and losing their spiritual path motivated evangelical preachers to ride on horseback throughout the western frontier, preaching spiritual rebirth and urgently warning of the end-of-times. As America expanded its borders to the west, speculation grew over the great mounds in the Mississippi and Ohio valleys, leading to numerous tales of America’s ancient inhabitants and their possible connection to the Old World. Free Masonry, which once enjoyed prestige among America’s founding fathers, became increasingly scorned as secretive and anti-democratic after exposé writer William Morgan’s suspected murder in 1826. Each of these themes is prominent throughout the Book of Mormon.
This is an effective introduction because the rest of the article merely expands on this idea. The implication is that Joseph wrote the Book of Mormon to address issues he was concerned with. This is a common assertion by critics (and M2C scholars). My response is two-fold because I separate the question of themes from the question of the language in which the themes are expressed in the text.
Language. All evidence of composition (the claim that Joseph composed the Book of Mormon) is also evidence of translation (the claim that Joseph translated the ancient plates). It is axiomatic that whether we compose or translate, we can produce a text only from our individual mental language bank.  Consequently, whether Joseph composed or translated the text, and whether it was inspired or not, the text would necessarily reflect “the manner of his language.” IOW, we expect Joseph to express ideas and themes using language particular to his own environment.

(Note: I don’t accept the theory that Joseph didn’t really translate the plates, but instead simply read words that appeared on a stone in a hat, but that’s a topic for another post.)
Themes. Those who claim the text focuses on themes local to Joseph Smith’s environment, such as Masonry, are reading these themes into the text. Nowhere does the text refer to Masonry. People usually see what they want to see. It’s called bias confirmation. To a hammer, everything is a nail, etc. 
Like the Bible, the Book of Mormon addresses universal themes that arise in most human cultures throughout time. That’s why scriptures endure through the ages.

Don’t confuse terminology with underlying meaning. For example, what human civilization has not had some form of “secret combinations” (Ether 8)? Are they absent in today’s America? 10th century China? Colonial Africa? Of course not. What human has no secrets? What society has no groups of people who combine to accomplish objectives? It would be far more surprising if these things were absent in the early 1800s than that they existed in Joseph Smith’s environment. 
We’ll look at each of these specifically below. 

EVANGELICALISM


Theological debates and sectarian division raged in colonial America as numerous sects jockeyed for superiority. Puritan dominance gave way to the five mainline Protestant religions: Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, and Congregationalist. The Cane Ridge Revival of 1801 sparked waves of charismatic spiritual outpourings, while popular ministers Alexander Campbell and Barton Stone preached a return to the earliest Christian practices. On the margins of society, religious diversity increased with German Anabaptist, Lutheran, and Catholic immigration, alongside religious-economic experiments such as the Shakers and Cochranites. Rationalism and Romanticism inspired less-dogmatic movements such as Universalism and Unitarianism.
This is all true, but it was called the Second Great Awakening because it followed the Great Awakening of the 1700s. Religious debates are ubiquitous among human societies around the world. The Bible relates religious debates throughout. There are “numerous sects” among every religious tradition. While the Book of Mormon uses terminology from the 1700s and early 1800s, the principles are common to all human societies.
Joseph Smith Jr. came of age in this fertile religious environment. Richard Van Wagoner described “dissatisfaction with the existing order” as the “fertile soil from which sprang the Mormon revolution.” He continued: “Smith’s dynamism drew the displeased and disappointed to him with vivid, compelling new revelation of a better life.”[1] 
Again, religious diversity and debates are the norm. It’s possible (but questionable) that the early 1800s were more “fertile” by some measures than other periods of time, but “dissatisfaction with the existing order” is an ordinary human experience (as every parent of a teenager knows).
Joseph Smith experienced the discord of religious differences within his family. His father, Joseph Sr., a practicing Free Mason who remained aloof to formal religious membership, leaned towards universalism. His mother, Lucy, raised Congregationalist, held Spiritualist views and, along with Joseph’s three eldest siblings, joined the Presbyterians in 1826. Lucy recounts young Joseph telling vivid stories of the ancient inhabitants of America to the family, conversing with an angel and using his gift as a seer to read from golden plates hidden away in a hillside that contained teachings of relevance to his family. 
This would be a good place for a citation so readers could see what she actually reported instead of this paraphrase.
Within a few years, Joseph would reportedly acquire the golden plates and begin work on a religious text that would become the cornerstone of a new religious movement.
Notice the rhetorical bias here. Lucy “recounts” but Joseph “reportedly acquires.” Joseph’s account of obtaining the plates is even more direct and specific than Lucy’s vague statement, but the authors accept her statement as fact while questioning Joseph’s.
Claimed to be written for our day, the Book of Mormon addressed many significant topics of debate during the Second Great Awakening, including questions over the nature of God, free will, infant baptism, eternal punishment, eternal progression, the state of matter and intelligence, democracy, secretive societies, and more. The Book of Mormon proposed answers to questions about the origin of America’s native people while supporting the popular legends of the day that told of a superior white race that once dwelt upon the land and built great cities and temples, but who were ruthlessly murdered by dark-skinned savages.
Anyone can see that the Book of Mormon contradicts the popular legends of the day. First, no racial element is stated or implied regarding the Jaredites, about whom there were no popular legends. Second, contrary to the legend of whites killed by dark-skinned savages, the Book of Mormon explicitly states that, whatever the racial composition prior to the visit of Christ, afterward there were no more -ites, but they were all one people. Later, they were distinguished by religious, not racial, differences. 
No legend framed the destruction in terms of wicked vs. wicked. Oliver Cowdery explained this distinction when he wrote that “It was not the wicked who overcame the righteous; far from this: it was the wicked against the wicked, and by the wicked the wicked were punished.” 
Many of Smith’s contemporaries were understandably skeptical of the book’s modern tone and claimed ancient origins, questioning if pre-Columbian Indians were indeed the authors of the work. E. D. Howe, in his 1834 book Mormonism Unvailed, deemed the Book of Mormon a “cursory account of the popular doctrines which have been agitated since the Reformation. To give credit to the pretense, that Nephi, living six hundred years before the christian era, could, or would, have had the name of Jesus and John revealed to any other prophet, is repugnance to common sense” (31). He continued: “Who can be credulous enough to believe, that a preacher, five hundred and fifty years before the ministry of the Savior and his apostles. . . did preach and instruct not only the same principles, but the very words and phrases were used to convey the sentiments which are found in the evangelical [New Testament] writings?” (50). “The author,” Howe concluded, “doubtless had some knowledge of the revivals of religion” (61).
This is a good example of how evidence of composition is also evidence of translation. In either capacity, Joseph would have necessarily drawn on his own mental language bank, consisting largely (but not solely) of KJV vocabulary and religious speech derived from that.
Alexander Campbell, successful preacher and Sidney Rigdon’s mentor prior to his affiliation with Joseph Smith, dismissed the Book of Mormon outright, writing: “This prophet Smith, through his stone spectacles, wrote on the plates of Nephi, in this book of Mormon, every error and almost every truth discussed in New York for the last ten years. He decided all the great controversies;—infant baptism, ordination, the trinity, regeneration, repentance, justification, the fall of man, the atonement, transubstantiation, fasting, penance, church government, religious experience, the call to the ministry, the general resurrection, eternal punishment, who may baptize, and even the question of free masonary, republican government, and the rights of man. All these topics are repeatedly alluded to.” [2] 
Campbell had a motive to attack Mormonism because many of the early converts near Kirtland came from his congregation, including Sidney Rigdon. Others have pointed out that Campbell’s list is both over- and under inclusive. Note (i) many of the terms he uses that are not in the text (trinity, transubstantiation, penance, masonary [sic], republican) and (ii) the topics he lists are universal in nature, although he naturally presents them in a Christian context. Infant baptism, for example, is a proxy for the universal social question of how and when infants become part of society in addition to their place in a family. All religions have something to say about the fate of the soul, etc. That these are framed in Christian terms is to be expected, whether Joseph composed or translated the text, because of his personal mental language bank. 
LEARN MORE:

DARTMOUTH COLLEGE


Hyrum Smith, Joseph’s older brother, attended Moor’s Academy, a prep school for Dartmouth College, from 1811 to 1815.  At the time of this writing, Dartmouth’s website states that “Dartmouth’s founder, Rev. Eleazar Wheelock, a Congregational minister from Connecticut, established the College as an institution to educate Native Americans.” Their website reiterates: “In 1972…Dartmouth reaffirmed its founding mission and established one of the first Native American Programs in the country.” Along with many institutions, Dartmouth believed that it was Christianity’s duty to civilize and educate the Indian.
Before Hyrum’s arrival, John Smith, cousin of Asael Smith (Joseph’s Grandfather), established and ran the theology department. He became a professor of learned languages, studied exotic dialects and published Hebrew Grammar in 1803. John Smith was even a pastor of the Church of Christ at Dartmouth College until 1804. Dartmouth also established a School of the Prophets.
While at the Dartmouth campus, Hyrum Smith studied the ideology and theological questions that Mormonism would mirror. Other notable Dartmouth alumni include Solomon Spaulding (class of 1785), author of Manuscript Found, and Ethan Smith (1790), author of View of the Hebrews. Hyrum’s Dartmouth acquaintances also included Nathan Smith, the surgeon who performed Joseph Jr.’s leg operation in 1813.
This background is consistent with Joseph both as composer and translator. I have a chapter on this in my upcoming book. 

MANIFEST DESTINY / AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM


In addition to heavy immigration from Great Britain, France, and Germany, filled with impoverished families who sought a land of opportunity and freedom from political and religious exploitation, America’s borders were pushing westward. “Manifest Destiny,” a phrase later coined to describe a sense of inevitable expansion of the United States to the western ocean, was more than a political sentiment. Along with physical expansion came the expansion of Protestant ideas and values throughout Indian territory. Many Protestants believed God’s hand was at work in the expanding United States, which also gave them license to forcibly remove what they believed to be the degenerate heathen race of the America’s indigenous people. Much of this sentiment centered on the notion of American Exceptionalism, or America as “God’s chosen land” or “promised land,” given to God’s chosen prior to the Lord’s Second Coming.
As America pushed to the west, discovery of ancient mounds and earthworks that laced the Mississippi and Ohio valleys sparked public imagination. From the earliest days of colonial exploration, myths circulated about the mysterious society that built the mounds. As local tribes offered no legends or frame of reference as to their origins, many postulated that the earthworks must have been created by a great society that vanished without a trace. While some argued that migration came from the Bering Strait, connection to the Old World and the legendary lost Ten Tribes of Israel was a more popular belief. Legends abounded of a great Hebrew society that was eventually annihilated by dark-skinned savages. Puritan ministers would use the stories of the conquered people as a “Jeremiad,” which is a type of sermon calling people to repentance in order to be spared from God’s wrath. Preachers warned that God’s wrath upon them would loose the savage Indian to defile their women and murder their children. These ominous stories led to the first popular literature series to be born in America: captivity narratives.
Myths and legends about the origin of America’s first inhabitants flourished over the next two centuries. Mound expeditions were as frequent as digs for buried Spanish pirate treasure, and often employed the same crews. Early American treasure diggers remained unaware that the largest hills, such as Cumorah, were naturally occurring glacial drumlins. Unlike the treasure digs, Indian burial mound digs did often yield some artifactual results, as the custom was to bury the deceased along with their possessions, much of which came through trades with Spanish explorers centuries prior. However, without the benefit of modern science and carbon dating, many of the artifacts only further supported the belief that a great unknown society had possessed advanced metallurgy. This supported the racist theory that these ancients must have been white, and perhaps even pre-Columbian Christians.
Another variant of the great pre-Columbian society began to emerge: that the American Indians didn’t merely destroy the ancient society, but indeed were their descendants. However, through their wickedness, they had fallen into heathenism and idolatry. Christian clergy during the 1800s frequently supported the notion of the American Indian as a Lost Tribe because it not only validated the Biblical tale, it also encouraged their perceived right to colonize America and expand westward while Christianizing or relocating Native Americans.
One example of the widely-circulated theories of Indian origins is Ethan Smith’s View of the Hebrews: American Antiquities, Discoveries in the Westpublished in 1823, which reminded readers: “The opinion that the American Indians are descendants of the lost ten Tribes, is now a popular one, and generally believed.” Native Americans represented a fertile mission field to be harvested before Jesus could usher in his glorious return. 
LDS leader B. H. Roberts affirmed, “such common knowledge existed throughout New England and New York in relation to American Indian origins and cultures.” See Richard Van Wagoner, Natural Born Seer, (p. 376) for an extensive listing of contemporary books propagating the notion that the Indians were Hebrew, of one race, divided by savages.
Such ideology may seem misguided by modern standards, but it carried great significance in the early-nineteenth century. It served to supplant rich Native American history with a predominantly white, old world view. It also fostered the ongoing cultural genocide, as it was much easier to displace and exterminate a people who “loved murder and would drink the blood of beasts” (Jarom 1:6). For early converts to Mormonism, The Book of Mormon not only affirmed popular suspicions of American Indian origins but also supported perceptions of the Native as “led by their evil nature that they became wild, ferocious, blood thirsty…full of idolatry and filthiness…continually seeking to destroy” (Enos 1:20).
On May 26, 1830, weeks after Joseph Smith printed his book and founded his church, Congress passed the Indian Removal Act, forcing the largest Native tribes to migrate west of Mississippi. Latter-day Saints, along with most other whites, viewed their displacement as “God’s work,” fulfilling prophecy regarding their gathering. W. W. Phelps declared: “It is not only gratifying but almost marvelous to witness the gathering of the Indians. …through the instrumentality of the Government of the United States.” [3] 

This background is all consistent with both theories: Joseph as translator, and Joseph as composer. If the narrative in the Book of Mormon relates an actual and accurate history, these same legends would have arisen because, as the text explains, the Lamanites destroyed every Nephite record they could get and didn’t keep records of their own. 

ABUNDANT BOOKS


Through the advent of modern stereotype printing, books and ideas flowed freely across the emerging American landscape. Europeans and Americans considered themselves to be living in the age of enlightenment. Newspapers flourished and carried popular stories, histories, opinions, politics, and religious discourse across the land.
The Smiths’ Palmyra home was situated three miles from the Erie Canal, affording them access to the latest periodicals of the day. The canal even boasted of a floating library named The Encyclopedia of Albany. “It is used as a bookstore and lottery office, and contains about two thousand well selected volumes, and a quantity of stationary. It is accompanied by two wagons, for the purpose of extending their trade to those villages, which are a short distance from the canals. The owners sell for money where they can find purchasers, but they calculate that a barter for rags will be the principal part of their trade.” [4] 
When not working on labor contracts or treasure digs, Smith Sr. was also employed as a school teacher. Although learning was rudimentary and infrequent, with many students receiving only primary education, a rich culture of written and oral literature supported learning beyond the school room. Owning books was considered a luxury for poor subsistence farmers, but most families owned at least a family Bible and some works of William Shakespeare, both of which were likely passed down through generations. Cheaply-produced novels, which told daring tales of adventure, were a popular form of entertainment as were traveling Shakespearian acting troupes, variety shows, and religious revivals where ministers would preach elaborate sermons for hours on end. While Smith Jr. may have received only limited formal schooling, he was, like most, immersed in a literary culture that valued learning and public exposition. Tales of lost pirate treasure, emerging archaeological discoveries, and religious fervor regarding both the American Indian and Christ’s imminent return, further fueled Joseph Smith Jr.’s vivid imagination.

Obviously, the last sentence is argumentative mind-reading, not factual. In my view, for Joseph (or anyone) to translate an ancient record, he/she would have to be prepared by developing a mental language bank of terminology and concepts sufficient to convey the original material (the Nephite plates) into the target language (English). All the resources available to Joseph would serve as preparation whether he translated or composed the text.

In my upcoming book, I have examples of specific origins for most of the Book of Mormon and other early texts.
LEARN MORE:

JOSEPH’S STORYTELLING


Lucy Smith described Joseph’s profound ability to entertain the family with fascinating stories during his teenage years:

Note the argumentative adjectives in that sentence: profound, fascinating.
During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of travel, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life among them. [5]
B. H. Roberts summarized Joseph Smith’s imagination:
In light of this evidence, there can be no doubt as to the possession of a vividly strong, creative imagination by Joseph Smith…an imagination it could with reason be urged…the common knowledge…supplemented by such a work as Ethan Smith’s View of Hebrews, would make it possible for him to create a book such as the Book of Mormon. …The evidence I sorrowfully submit points to Joseph Smith as their creator. [6]

The obvious logical fallacy of Roberts’ statement is that Joseph’s recitals could be the same whether he composed them or learned them from Moroni and/or other divine messengers. 

Joseph said that, on the night of the first visit, “I was also informed concerning the aboriginal inhabitants of this country and shown who they were, and from whence they came; a brief sketch of their origin, progress, civilization, laws, governments, of their righteousness and iniquity, and the blessings of God being finally withdrawn from them as a people, was [also] made known unto me.   

He went on to explain that during the ensuing 4 years, “After having received many visits from the angels of God, unfolding the majesty and glory of the events that should transpire in the last days, on the morning of the 22nd of September, A.D. 1827, the angel of the Lord delivered the records into my hands.

One can choose to disbelieve Joseph, but his explanation fits all the known facts, including Lucy’s statement.

VIEW OF THE HEBREWS


Ethan Smith was a Minister in Poultney, Vermont, who published View of the Hebrews, which expounds upon a commonly held notion of the time of the numerous and distinct American Indian tribes having originated from Hebrew stock. View of the Hebrews enjoyed wide circulation in New England and New York, running through two editions in 1823 and 1825.
While scholars agree that Ethan’s work reads nothing like the Book of Mormon, the framework and storyline of both books are remarkably similar. View of the Hebrews begins with the destruction of Jerusalem while suggesting that the Ten Tribes came to America before dividing into two disparate groups: one barbarous, the other civilized. Ethan elaborates on robust military fortifications, forms of government, a hidden book that becomes revealed, prophets among ancient Americans, and ancient Indians as highly civilized people, while offering numerous quotes from the King James Bible version of Isaiah.
Like many other theologians of various denominations, Ethan Smith suggested that it was America’s mission to gather the remnants of the House of Israel, reiterating the legend that the stick of Joseph and Ephraim would one day be united. His book describes copper breastplates taken from the mounds, with two white buckhorn buttons fastened to the outside of each plate in resemblance to an Urim & Thummim. His book describes a prophet atop a wall in Jerusalem exhorting while the wicked unsuccessfully assail him with arrows.
Few Mormons today have heard of Ethan’s work, or how perfectly it fits into the nineteenth-century worldview that informed Joseph Smith. Oliver Cowdery, Joseph Smith’s third cousin and primary scribe on the Book of Mormon, was undoubtedly aware of View of the Hebrews, as he lived in Poultney for twenty-six years and his family attended Ethan’s congregation.

The logical fallacy here is the irrelevance of how many “Mormons today” have heard of View of the Hebrews. In Joseph’s day, the book was known well enough to have extractions from the book published in the Times and Seasons in Nauvoo. The actual evidences cited by Ethan Smith support the history in the Book of Mormon, even though Ethan Smith’s explanation differed.

It makes sense to me that Oliver and/or Joseph read View of the Hebrews. It seems unlikely that they would not have. But again, that’s evidence of both composition and translation.  

VIEW OF THE HEBREWS SUMMARY

The following excerpts are taken directly from View of the Hebrews, primarily in the order appearing in Ethan’s original book:
  • Rejection of Jesus Christ as our atoning Savior.
  • O Jerusalem! Thou that killest the prophets – destruction of Jerusalem. [p.19]
  • A prophet  ascends the walls, in tremendous voice exclaimed, ‘Wo, wo to this city, this temple, and this people!’, while arrows shot at him. [p.26]
  • The natives of our country are the outcasts of Israel – they have lost their way…bewildered in darkness. [p, vii]
  • Found themselves involved in darkness…that they would take the book which the white people call the word of God, to throw light on their path. [p, vii]
  • American Indians derive their origin from a foreign stock. [p. 159]
  • Tools of iron not being found in these works, is no sign they did not possess them. For had they been there, they would, no doubt, long since have been dissolved by rust. [p. 194]
  • After they settled in America they became wholly separated from the hunting and savage tribes of their brethren…lost the knowledge of their having descended from the same family.
  • The more civilized part continued for many centuries; tremendous wars were frequent between them and their savage brethren, till the former became extinct. [p. 173]
  • This accounts for the ancient works…centuries before Columbus discovered America…and articles dug from old mounds in and near those fortified places. [p. 173]
  • The savage tribes prevailed…annihilated their more civilized brethren. …This accounts for their loss of the knowledge of letters, of the art of navigation, and of the use of iron. [p. 172]
  • People of Israel who came into the western continent maintained some degree of civilization for a long time…finally became extinct, at least in North America, under the rage of their more numerous savage brethren. [p. 188]
  • Situated in the midst of savage tribes from their race…degenerated…intent on the destruction of this better part of their brethren…struggling to maintain their existence and to maintain their religious traditions, they would naturally form many of the very things above enumerated, walled towns, forts, temples, altars, habitations of chieftains, watch towers. [p. 189]
  • An old Indian informed him that his fathers in this country had…a book which they had for a long time preserved. But having lost the knowledge of reading it, they concluded it would be of no further use to them; and they buried it with an Indian Chief. [p. 223]
  • They would preserve these fragments of their better days with the utmost care. Wherever they went then, they would have these with them…keep them with diligence…most precious contents…fearing these precious leaves would get lost. [p. 224]
  • It was buried; and hence was providentially transmitted to us. [p. 225]
  • Some modern Jew left it there in the situation in which it was found…on Indian Hill underground. [p. 225]
  • The account of the old Indian, that his fathers had buried, not long ago, a book which they could not read. [p. 227]
  • The prophet Isaiah to be of deep interest to America. [p. 228]
  • The great and generous Christian people, who occupy much of the land of those natives, and who are on the ground of their continent, and hence are the best prepared to ameliorate their condition, and bring them to the knowledge and order of the God of Israel, must of course be the people to whom this work is assigned. [p. 230]
  • They will be fulfilled only in the conversion of these ancient people of God to Christianity. [p. 64]
  • This address of heaven must be to our western continent; or to a hospitable people found here… the two great wings of North and South America meet. [p. 238]
  • Go thou nation highly distinguished in the last days (America), save the remnant of my people. [p. 250]
The purpose of introducing Ethan’s thesis is not to suggest that Joseph plagiarized the work, but rather to reaffirm how prevalent such notions of Native Americans were in Joseph Smith’s day, and how others were also mirroring scriptural language to express the story.

This is an important point. Confronted with the physical evidence of the mounds, their contents, and the Indian customs that included what seemed to be Hebrew elements, as well as the relevant texts of the Bible, Ethan Smith came up with his explanation. The Book of Mormon gave a different explanation for that same evidence. 

Of course, the Book of Mormon includes other details that were not known until well after the Book of Mormon was published, such as the earlier Jaredite (Adena) culture that largely disintegrated before the Nephite (Hopewell) culture.  

The point is, given the evidence Ethan Smith relied on, his book was arguably as plausible as the Book of Mormon. Subsequent scientific discoveries, however, show that Ethan Smith’s explanation doesn’t work, but the historical narrative in the Book of Mormon does.  

WHAT DID B.H. CONCLUDE?

Brigham H. Roberts (B. H.) was President of the Quorum of the Seventy in the 1920s. At the request of Apostle James Talmage, B. H. conducted a thorough review of various difficulties and anachronisms within the Book of Mormon narrative. As a result, B. H. spent a great deal of time with Ethan Smith’s View of the Hebrews. Roberts concluded that Ethan Smith’s work provided “structural material” for Joseph Smith’s Book of Mormon:
It has been pointed out in these pages that there are many things in the former book that might well have suggested many major things in the other. Not a few things merely, one or two, or half dozen, but many; and it is this fact of many things of similarity and the cumulative force of them that makes them so serious a menace to Joseph Smith’s story of the Book of Mormon’s origin. [7]
Upon completing his extensive study, Roberts reported to the apostles that there was “a great probability” that Joseph Smith had a close encounter with View of the Hebrews. [8]

This is a bizarre appeal to authority that simply repeats the logical fallacy of Roberts’ thinking, at least as that thinking is portrayed here. A “close encounter” with View of the Hebrews is consistent with both composition and translation.   

THE LEGEND OF CAPTAIN KIDD


Charles Johnson published A General History of the Robberies and Murders of the Most Notorious Pirates in 1724, recounting the exploits of the infamous Captain William KiddKidd resided in New York and was famous for leading pirate expeditions into the lawless Indian Ocean area. Shortly before his execution in 1701, a portion of what was believed to be Kidd’s treasure was discovered on Gardiner’s Island, off the coast of Long Island, New York. Numerous popular novels further told the exploits of pirates, intriguing readers with aspirations of discovering their buried treasure. Oak Island, a site of tremendous Captain Kidd treasure speculation, lies just off the coast from New York, not far from the Smith’s Palmyra roots (see the documentary “The Curse of Oak Island” chronicling the region’s rich history of buried treasure lore).
Captain Kidd novels were well known in their day, and the Smiths are documented to have enjoyed them. Palmyra resident Ann Eaton noted that Kidd was Joseph’s “hero,” whose work he “eagerly and often perused.” [9] So popular was Captain Kidd lore that even Palmyra’s tiny Wayne Sentinel reprinted “Money Diggers” from the Windsor Journal (Vermont), on Feb 16, 1825, deriding the abundance of Kidd’s treasure seekers. “We are sorry to observe,” the article reported, “even in this enlightened age, so prevalent a disposition to credit the accounts of the marvelous. Even the frightful stories of money being hid under the surface of the earth, and enchanted by the Devil or Robert Kidd, are received by many of our respectable fellow citizens as truths.”
Numerous writings about Kidd’s exploits in East India reference the Comoros Islands and their capital city Moroni as pirate hideouts. While some scholars dismiss the possibility that Smith derived Cumorah and Moroni from pirate novels, they often focus on documents that post-date the Book of Mormon, overlooking earlier Captain Kidd writings which refer to “Comore” and “Meroni.” Adding to the confusion, the original Book of Mormon printer’s manuscript spells “Camorah” once, “Cumorah” six times, and “Comorah” twice. Outside of the Kidd novels, maps detailing explorations, trade routes, and the islands of the sea were widely-circulated and popular in Smith’s time. Historian Noel Carmack wrote: “In light of Jacque-Nicolas Bellin’s widely available chart of Anjouan, the idea is arresting—if not a probability—that Joseph Smith saw the island place names on this chart, as it featured the place names ‘Comore and ‘Meroni’ together for the first time.”

Connecting the Hill Cumorah with the island Comoros (or Comore) has the obvious implausibility of a hill vs island. Connecting a capital city with a person compounds the implausibility, but implausibility is in the eye of the beholder, so we should consider the possibility of a connection.

The point of this article is that these place names were so commonly known that Joseph almost certainly saw them. But that same alleged common knowledge of Captain Kidd, Comoros Islands, and Moroni argues against Joseph adopting the same names if he was pretending to write an ancient history. IOW, the similarity would be too obvious to his own family, let alone everyone who read the Book of Mormon or heard the missionaries speak about Cumorah. I’m not aware of any of Joseph’s critics making this connection until long after Joseph and his contemporaries had died off.

There are virtually infinite place names if one looks at enough maps, especially if one transliterates foreign names. There are other transliterated terms in the Book of Mormon. It’s possible that Joseph transliterated Cumorah and Moroni, using the closest English terms he knew.

There are other possibilities. I’ve visited the Comoros Islands and its capital Moroni. The origins of the real-world names Comoros and Moroni are unknown, although there are theories based on Arabic. If we postulate that these islands were inhabited around 600 BC, of which there is currently no evidence but it would be nearly impossible to find such evidence given the volcanic nature of the island, it could have had ancient names that survived through later Arabic conquest. 

The Comoros islands are along Lehi’s probable route. That means the Nephites could have acquired the name when they stopped there and then applied that name to the hill in New York. Possibly the same thing happened with the name Moroni.

All of these possibilities are pure speculation, of course. There is just enough “evidence” to confirm whatever bias one has.

LEARN MORE:

CULTURAL TIMELINE OF JOSEPH SMITH’S DAY


The following timeline outlines key publications and events that influenced Joseph Smith’s cultural environment and shaped his worldview.
1678 – John Bunyan, one of the most prominent authors of the late seventeenth century publishes The Pilgrim’s Progress.
1699 – A portion of Captain Kidd’s treasure is discovered on Gardiner’s Island off the coast of Long Island, N.Y.
1775 – James Adair publishes History of the American Indians, which details twenty-three arguments that American Indians are descendants of Hebrews and tells of buried plates (five copper and two brass) kept by Indians.
1784 – John Glen, sailing from London, brings Emanuel Swedenborg’s popular work, Heaven and Hell to the U.S., lecturing and promoting the book. Among other things, Swedenborg argues for a three-tiered heaven.
1785 – Solomon Spalding graduates from Dartmouth.
1786 – Ethan Smith (reportedly a seminary classmate of Solomon Spalding) enters Dartmouth.
1789 – Emanuel Swedenborg reading groups form in New York, Boston, Ohio, and many other Northeastern states.
1801 – Francis Barrett’s prominent occult handbook, The Magus, published.
1802 – U.S. President Thomas Jefferson and one hundred members of Congress hear Baltimore minister John Hargrove speak on Emanuel Swedenborg’s work.
1811 – Solomon Mack, Joseph Smith’s grandfather, publishes his war/sailing adventures.
1811 – Hyrum Smith, Joseph’s older brother, enters Moor’s Academy, a Dartmouth prep school.
1811 – Joseph Smith Sr. has a tree of life dream, according to a later report by his wife.
1812 – Napoleon invades Russia, suffers massive losses, retreat as winter sets in.
1812 – Emanuel Swedenborg’s Heaven and Hell is published in the U.S.
1812–1814 – Solomon Spalding brings Manuscript Found to printers Patterson & J. Harrison Lambdin. Many would later assert that the Book of Mormon shares striking similarities to one of Spalding’s lost manuscripts.
1815 – Napoleon crushed by British at Waterloo, exiled for a final time.
1816 – Smith family moves to Palmyra, NY. “The Burned-Over District” known for its evangelical fervor. Unpaid creditors seize most of their funds.
1816 – Joseph Sr. relates one of several visionary dreams.
1816 – Elias Smith publishes his vision of God in a book titled, Life, Conversion, Preaching, Travels, and Sufferings of Elias Smith.
1816 – The Late War Between the United States and Great Britain, which recounts the War of 1812 in pseudo-biblical language, is published in New York and becomes common reading in primary schools. The book contains striking similarities in language and phrasing to the Book of Mormon.
1817 – New York Daily Advertiser describes the public’s enthusiasm for Captain Kidd treasure.
July 1817 – Erie Canal construction begins.
1817 – Governor of NY describes mounds around state containing “piles of skeletons.”
Jan 1818 – Palmyra Register publishes article speculating of battles and burial mounds in the area.
May 1819 – Palmyra Register publishes speculation “this country was once inhabited by a race of people, partially civilized, exterminated by forefathers of the…tribes of Indians in this country.”
1820 – Compilation of Samuel Mitchill’s speculations on the origins of indigenous peoples published. Mitchill theorized that a white race met a dark race in bloody conflicts in upstate NY.
1823 – Ethan Smith publishes View of the Hebrews.
April 1823 – Ontario, NY repository publishes the story of Colonel Abraham Edwards’s discovery of an ancient manuscript, nobody could decipher the hieroglyphics, receives prominent press.
May 1823 – Detroit Gazette publishes an article about Edwards’s manuscript.
August 1823 – Salem Gazette reports in Albany, NY newspaper that Captain Kidd hid his loot in the region.
June 1824 – The Wayne Sentinel, a Palmyra, NY paper, publishes an announcement of The Encyclopedia of Albany, a floating library which regularly traversed the Erie Canal offering over 2,000 works.
1824 – Popular history of New York published, “relating tradition of Seneca Indians and a highly-civilized white race that was utterly destroyed, but who built fortifications against savage red Indians” (History of State of N.Y. Including its Aboriginal and Colonial Annals, 40).
1825 – Ethan Smith’s View of the Hebrews reprinted.
Feb 1825 – Palmyra’s Wayne Sentinel reprints “Money Diggers” from Windsor Journal (VT) on the prevalence of seeking Kidd’s treasure.
1825 – The Palmyra Register reprints an article depicting the pursuit of Captain Kidd’s treasure and adds: “A respectable gentleman in Tunbridge, in that state, was informed, through a dream, that a chest of money was buried on a small island in Agar’s brook, in Randolph. No sooner was he in possession of this valuable information, than he started off to enrich himself with treasure. After having been directed by the mineral rod where to search for the money.”
Oct 11, 1825 – The Wayne Sentinel, Smith’s hometown newspaper, publishes an article describing how Indians are “lineal descendants of the Israelites.”
1826 – There were at least twenty-three libraries surrounding the Manchester and Palmyra area.
1828 – Palmyra newspapers print anti-Masonic articles describing “secret combination,” and referring to “its secret and cut-throat oaths.”
May 1830 – Congress passes the Indian Removal Act, forcing Indians west of Mississippi. Mormons view displacement as “God’s work,” fulfilling prophecy of a literal gathering.
February 1, 1831 – The Palmyra Reflector mocks those afflicted with gold fever: “The mania of money digging soon began rapidly to diffuse itself through many parts of this country; men and women without distinction of age or sex became marvellous wise in the occult sciences, many dreamed, and others saw visions disclosing to them, deep in the bowels of the earth, rich and shining treasures.”

This is a good start to the cultural environment, but there are other elements that I consider even more significant. None of this is proof of composition, of course, because the identical elements would be essential for Joseph to translate the plates.   

CONCLUSION


The evidence presented demonstrates a cultural environment in Joseph Smith’s day that influenced the Book of Mormon and shaped his assumptions about Indian origins, buried treasure, visions, and sectarian contestation. The long-standing assumption that Smith operated in near-cultural isolation and was too ignorant to produce such a complex work as the Book of Mormon is not a tenable position. The debate among scholars over Smith’s religious innovations has begun to shift from being one without precedent to one thoroughly entwined in and reflective of nineteenth-century New England culture. The degree to which divine inspiration vs. cultural interaction is defended remains a matter of perspective and belief. Given the facts, it is reasonable to argue that the Book of Mormon is substantially, if not entirely, a product of Joseph Smith’s cultural environment, vivid imagination, and religious aspirations.

This conclusion is not unreasonable but it’s incomplete. I agree with the proposition that Joseph was neither ignorant nor culturally isolated, but his own statements and those of his contemporaries made that clear all along (even though they have been misinterpreted by some, both critics and apologists). 

The conclusion is incomplete because it doesn’t acknowledge that these facts support both composition and translation; i.e., for Joseph to translate the ancient records, he needed the vocabulary, cultural context, and theological understanding to render the ancient writings into the target language of English in the culture of his day. 

It is other evidence that tips the balance toward translation, a topic of another post in this series.  

[1] Natural Born Seer, p. xii.
[2] The Millennial Harbinger, Vol. 2: 93.
[3] The Indians, The Evening and The Morning Star, Dec 1832.
[4] The New-York Canals, Wayne Sentinel, June 30, 1824: 2.
[5] Lucy Smith, Biographical Sketches, 85.
[6] Studies of the Book of Mormon, 250.
[7] B. H. Roberts, Studies of the Book of Mormon, 240.
[8] Studies of the Book of Mormon, 243, 271.
[9] Dan Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, 3:148.

Source: Book of Mormon Wars

Jack Welch explains the problem with M2C

BYU Professor John W. (Jack) Welch gave an outstanding description about university education when when he presented the 2010 Karl G. Maeser Distinguished Faculty Lecture at a BYU forum on 17 May 2011. It was titled “Thy Mind, O Man, Must Stretch.”

Online here: https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/john-w-welch_thy-mind-o-man-must-stretch/

In the passage below, he provided a key that explains why, after all these decades of pursuing M2C* as the “only plausible setting” for the Book of Mormon, the M2C scholars have brought the Church to the point where even BYU professors in the Religion Department no longer believe the Book of Mormon is a real history.

On other issues, LDS intellectuals have also capitulated to the critics. They would do well to reconsider what brother Welch taught in this lecture.
_____

The following passage is especially meaningful to me because for decades I too accepted M2C. It was only when I took the intellectual journey brother Welch advises here that I realized what a mistake M2C is.

As you read the passage below, think about how the M2C scholars approach President Oliver Cowdery’s essays published as Letters IV, VII and VIII.

I’ve reformatted the passage to make it clearer, but otherwise it’s a direct quotation (blue) with my comments (red).

“Thy Mind, O Man, Must Stretch.”
….
Under its second bullet point, the BYU Mission Statement speaks of “the pursuit” of truth. It doesn’t speak of “inventing” or “voting on” truth, but rather of “pursuing” truth. We expand our knowledge by looking for things, pursuing things that exist beyond our current understanding. 

M2C is based on consensus; i.e., the scholars took a vote and rejected the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah. Brother Welch decided decades ago that brother John Sorenson was correct when he said it is a fact that Mesoamerica is the setting for the Book of Mormon. Since then, he and other M2C intellectuals (and their employees) have done nothing but seek to confirm that bias. 

They would be far more productive if they sought to support, instead of oppose, the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah, even if this is beyond their current understanding.  

How can one logically pursue something that one assumes does not exist? As former BYU academic vice president Robert K. Thomas said, “Skeptics—by definition—cannot affirm anything, even their own skepticism.” 

M2C assumes the New York Cumorah does not exist, so how could they logically pursue it? Their skepticism has prevented them from even considering interpretations of the text and relevant sciences that affirm what the prophets have taught.

Thus, discoveries that have given me the greatest satisfaction have begun by assuming 

(i) the correctness of a text, 

(ii) the truthfulness of a proposition, or 

(iii) the wisdom of an instruction given by one in authority.  
Contrary to his own advice to students, regarding the Book of Mormon, Brother Welch assumes 

(i) the incorrectness of the text (Oliver’s 8 essays), 

(ii) the falsehood of the proposition that the Hill Cumorah of Mormon 6:6 is in New York, and 

(iii) the foolishness of an instruction given by one in authority, in this case starting with President Cowdery and continuing through all the prophets and apostles who have reaffirmed the New York Cumorah.
_____
In my view, BYU students should pay attention to what brother Welch taught in this lecture and ignore the example he has set in pursuing M2C.
_____
Brother Welch’s excellent talk continues:

When we come up against things that seem out of sorts or nonsensical, our critical instincts lure us into thinking that there must be something wrong. 

But a special joy attaches to the discovery of a new insight that began with the thought that something was wrong but turned out to be right. 

It’s the joy of finally seeing an odd little puzzle piece snap into place in the bigger picture. 

It’s the joy that comes from the great gospel principle of reversal: that by small things come great purposes; that the Lord’s ways are not always the world’s ways (see Isaiah 55:8);

This “special joy” comes when we recognize how the New York Cumorah fits the text and the relevant sciences; how the two sets of plates resolve the many otherwise inexplicable events in Church history; and how the Wentworth letter and Joseph’s other teachings are perfectly sound and don’t need to be censored from Church publications.
We hope more LDS intellectuals will re-examine their long-held assumptions about these matters and recognize that a great reversal is in store for them and all members of the Church.
_____
There is one deeply ironic passage in the lecture, ironic because it comes from brother Welch, who is Chairman of Book of Mormon Central.

if forced to choose, Mormon thought will always prefer openness over closedness, boldly inviting further growth, progression, and—fortunately for us in academia—further questions.

In direct contradiction to this passage, Book of Mormon Central insists on closedness over openness, boldly inhibits further grown, and absolutely forbids further questions that have anything to do with the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah. 

Brother Welch continues in this part of the lecture to discuss fiduciary duties. He says, how much in need we are of a more robust legal approach to the duties owed by people in positions of greatest trust.” 

I ask, who in the Church has a greater fiduciary duty than teachers at BYU and CES?  Parents and Church leaders have given these teachers tremendous trust and responsibility to teach the youth of the Church, but what are they doing with that trust? 

They are teaching the youth that the prophets are wrong about the New York Cumorah. They teach them the Book of Mormon by referencing a fantasy map. And they teach them to trust the intellectuals over the prophets.

In my view, that is a serious breach of their fiduciary duty.

_____

From time to time, employees of Book of Mormon Central respond to my blog posts in social media or in their Kno-Whys. The predictable argument they will give to this post is to say the current prophets have rejected the teachings of their predecessors about Cumorah. They will cite the Gospel Topics Essay on Book of Mormon Geography as evidence.
That anonymous Gospel Topics Essay has been changed once without notice and could change again at any moment. It does not even address the teachings of the prophets and apostles about the New York Cumorah, from Letter VII through General Conference addresses by members of the First Presidency. 
I view the Gospel Topics Essay as a reasonable and understandable effort to accommodate multiple points of view and eliminate contention, not as a repudiation of past prophets and apostles. 
I’ve been informed that the committee that wrote the essay did not give the Brethren an alternative to consider; i.e., they did not submit a version that started with “Except for the New York Cumorah, the Church has no position…”
In fact, after I pointed out that the first version of the Gospel Topics Essay quoted from Pres. Ivins’ 1929 General Conference talk, but omitted his 1928 General Conference talk that reaffirmed Letter VII, the committee simply removed Pres. Ivins altogether from the second version of the Gospel Topics Essay. The committee does not want members of the Church to even know what the prophets and apostles have taught about this topic. 

Like Volume 1 of Saints, the Gospel Topics Essay completely avoids the term Cumorah.
That’s consistent with the way the Correlation Department edited the Wentworth letter in the Joseph Smith lesson manual; i.e., they are intentionally censoring the teachings of the prophets that contradict M2C.
Of course, at any moment the Church could issue a third version of the Gospel Topics Essay that specifically rejects what past prophets and apostles have taught about the New York Cumorah. Maybe the Brethren will actually sign such a document instead of leaving it anonymous.
But until that happens, the M2C scholars would do well to re-consider their approach and try implementing brother Welch’s excellent advice to BYU students.
This would entail:
Assuming 

(i) the correctness of a text (Letters IV, VII, and VIII), 

(ii) the truthfulness of a proposition (that the Hill Cumorah of Mormon 6:6 is in New York), or 

(iii) the wisdom of an instruction given by one in authority (President Cowdery and all of his successors in the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve who have ever addressed this issue).  
_____
I realize that the M2C intellectuals have invested decades of sunk costs into their theories. That makes it especially difficult to implement brother Welch’s advice. 
But as he said, this effort leads to the type of “discoveries that have given me the greatest satisfaction.”
I’m confident that, should they decide to heed brother Welch’s advice (instead of his example), the M2C scholars, too, will make discoveries that will give them the greatest satisfaction.
_____
*M2C is the acronym for “Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory” that teaches President Cowdery, Joseph Smith, and all their contemporaries and successors were wrong about the New York Cumorah.

Source: About Central America