Author: Jonathan Neville

Uncategorized

Working with M2C believers

There is a contest of opinions going around that I’d like to help resolve through greater understanding. If you know any believers in M2C (the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory), ask them one question:

I accept the teachings of the prophets and apostles about the New York Cumorah. Can you help me understand why you disagree?

CAUTION: Usually, they will become defensive. If they work for the M2C citation cartel, they will become angry. You will see their response boils down to #3 below, but they resist this reality as long as they can.

IMPORTANT: Do not ask the question to start an argument.

Ask because you are genuinely curious. If you just want to argue, don’t ask the question.

Emphasize you are not accusing them of anything. These are wonderful brothers and sisters with whom we share the most important beliefs about the gospel. We want to know why people think the things they do because we want to improve understanding and facilitate cordial relationships.

We’re not criticizing them for their beliefs or saying they’re wrong. (Many people feel personally attacked when their beliefs are questioned. This is especially true of M2C employees. Be sensitive and empathetic if they get emotional. Use your judgment. It may take a while to get past the emotions.)

Emphasize that we have no problem with people having different opinions.

We just want to know if they’ve made an informed decision. If so, fantastic. We don’t expect everyone to think alike. In fact, you should have an open mind as well. Maybe they will tell you something you didn’t know before. If you haven’t ever changed your mind on this topic and you’re convinced you’re right, realize that they think the same way.

In almost every case, you’ll see they have been trained by BYU/CES to think only of M2C and have not made an informed decision. They have never thought this through.

I can relate to them because I, too, trusted my M2C professors at BYU. I trusted FARMS, etc.

I wish someone had asked me that question 30 years ago. I wouldn’t have spent decades believing M2C myself.
____

Here are the responses you’ll get, depending on how well trained they are.

1. “The prophets have never said Cumorah is in New York.”

Notice: no prophet or apostle has ever questioned, let alone repudiated, the teachings of his predecessors about the New York Cumorah. This is not “Mormon Chess” in which people can find contradictory quotes by prophets and apostles to support their positions.

Because the M2C citation cartel censors teachings that contradict M2C, most members of the Church today have never heard of Letter VII, President Romney’s talk, etc. Refer them to the BYU packet here: http://www.lettervii.com/p/byu-packet-on-cumorah.html

In most cases, they will be surprised. In many cases, they will say, “How come I’ve never heard about this?” In some cases, they’ll say, “I need to study this.” A few will even accept these teachings and wonder why they believed the M2C intellectuals and their employees in the first place.

Those who have been well trained by the M2C citation cartel will say, “Those were merely the opinions of men. They were not speaking as prophets and apostles.”

Besides being disrespectful of the prophets and apostles, this answer contradicts the statements themselves, but don’t argue about that. Notice: their response was not a response to the question. Pace them and ask, “then why do you reject their opinions?”

If they start talking about evidence, skip to #3 below.

2. “The Church has no position on Book of Mormon geography.” 

This is a dodge they resort to because they are uncomfortable with the real answer.

They will refer to the anonymous Gospel Topics Essay which is not an answer to the question.

The essay has been changed once and can change again at any moment without notice.

Contrast this with the specific and clear teachings by well-known prophets and apostles contained in the Joseph Smith Papers, the General Conference reports, and books published by the Church including Jesus the Christ and A Marvelous Work and a Wonder. Not to mention prior statements that say the Church has always taught that Cumorah is in New York.

Here’s the key point: the essay allows members to believe whatever they want. It says nothing about Cumorah and simply restates long-held positions about Book of Mormon settings other than Cumorah.

What the essay does not do is give a reason for rejecting what the prophets and apostles have taught about the New York Cumorah.

When M2C intellectuals and their employees, followers, and donors cite the essay, just respond by repeating the question, “Fine, but why do you reject the teachings of the prophets and apostles about the New York Cumorah?”

They won’t want to tell you their reason. They will do almost anything to avoid answering. But eventually they will get around to it.

3. “Because the New York Cumorah doesn’t fit my interpretation of the text.”

This is the real reason, and the only reason, why the M2C intellectuals, their followers, employees and donors, reject the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah. 

This is not criticism.

This is just reality.

Once everyone understands this, there will be no more “contests of opinions” because we can all agree on our respective biases and leave peacefully together.

They will undoubtedly say they reject the teachings of the prophets and apostles about the New York Cumorah because of “evidence,” but that’s a pretext and a delusion. The “evidence” they site is post hoc rationalization to support their interpretation of the text.

None of the typical reasons they cite (anonymous 1842 Times and Seasons articles, statements by prophets and apostles about Lamanites in Latin America, the location of Zion, etc.) has anything to do with the New York Cumorah–except as it relates to the M2C interpretation of the text.

In fact, there is nothing necessarily inconsistent between a Mesoamerican setting and a New York Cumorah except for the M2C interpretation of the text.

While I happen to think the North American setting makes more sense than any Mesoamerican setting, I’m open to all ideas. Until the prophets and apostles speak about these issues, I rely on what they’ve said in the past. And they have consistently and persistently taught that Cumorah is in New York.

One thing I’m not open to is devaluing and repudiating the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah just because some academic interprets the text to fit his/her preferred geography. That approach leads to confusion and doubt about everything the prophets have taught.
_____

Separately, I’ve explained how the entire M2C interpretation of the text is based on a false premise (that Joseph couldn’t have known about ancient civilizations in Central America) supported by circular reasoning and illusory evidence.

I’ve also explained how the scientific evidence supports the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah.

By now, we all know that people confirm their biases by interpreting “evidence” to fit their preconceptions. The facts don’t matter. This should be especially obvious to every member of the Church who accepts the Book of Mormon. We know that at least a billion people have looked at the same evidence that we think supports the Book of Mormon, but they have rejected it.

(BTW, this is why Book of Mormon Central’s marketing campaign is so ridiculous. If the evidence they offer was “clear and convincing” we wouldn’t have 99% of the people who look at that evidence rejecting it. Somebody needs to do some A/B testing outside the M2C bubble.)

I freely admit my bias is to accept the teachings of the prophets and apostles.

If your M2C friends are self-aware and honest, they will admit that their bias is to favor the theories of intellectuals over the teachings of the prophets and apostles. 

It’s a simple choice. Nothing to argue about.

So long as people are making informed choices, we’re happy with whatever they decide for themselves.
_____

Finally, you should be able to answer the inverse question. They will ask something such as this”

“I think the Book of Mormon took place in a limited geography of Mesoamerica. Can you help me understand why you disagree?”

By now, I’m sure you can answer easily and lovingly.
_____

Hopefully, you can have a productive discussion with your friends. You’re not trying to persuade them or change their minds. You’re honestly curious about what they think, how they arrived at their conclusions, etc.

All you want to do is encourage them to make informed decisions.

Regardless of what they decide, move forward with faith and love together.

Source: Book of Mormon Wars

Uncategorized

Dan, BMC, and deferring to scholars

Dan, BMC, and deferring to scholars

There’s a new book titled Conformity: The Power of Social Influences that explains much of the behavior of the M2C citation cartel. I posted a review here:
https://bookofmormonconsensus.blogspot.com/2019/06/conformity-power-of-social-influences.html

Below I discuss Kno-Why #521 from Book of Mormon Central (BMC), a discussion of Book of Mormon witnesses that may be the most astonishing piece they’ve published so far. We love all the people at BMC, but seriously, they’re the last ones people should listen to regarding the witnesses.

Not coincidentally, BMC employees and affiliates are also working on the upcoming movie on the Witnesses produced by the Interpreter Foundation, which you can read about here: https://witnessesfilm.com/

The Kno-Why tries to support the testimonies of the Book of Mormon witnesses, which, presumably, is also the purpose of the film. We can all agree that’s a fine objective.

Here’s the problem.

BMC (and the Interpreter Foundation) want people to believe some, but not all, of what the witnesses said. 

These are the least credible organizations imaginable to support the testimonies of the Book of Mormon witnesses. 

If the intellectuals at BMC and the Interpreter agree with what the witnesses said, you’re supposed to believe the witnesses. But if the intellectuals at BMC and the Interpreter disagree with what the witnesses said, you’re supposed to believe the intellectuals instead of the witnesses. 

None of this is surprising to those who read the material produced by the M2C citation cartel.

Trailer for Witnesses movie,
featuring Terryl Givens,
M2C promoter and author of
Foreword to Mormon’s Codex

– BMC and the Interpreter Foundation promote M2C (the Meosamerican/two Cumorahs theory).

– The first principle of M2C is the claim that the Three Witnesses were unreliable whenever they spoke or wrote about the New York Cumorah.

– None of the M2C intellectuals believe what the Three Witnesses said when the witnesses’ statements contradict M2C; i.e., these intellectuals believe M2C more than the Three Witnesses.

Trailer for Witnesses movie,
featuring Matt Roper,
M2C promoter and employee
of Book of Mormon Central

– The arguments made by the M2C intellectuals to justify disbelieving what the Three Witnesses said about Cumorah are the identical arguments made by the critics to justify disbelieving everything the Three Witnesses said.

Just watch the trailer for the Witnesses movie and you’ll how the M2C intellectuals discuss the witnesses. We can be sure they’re not going to tell the public what the witnesses said about the New York Cumorah.
_____

Reading this Kno-Why reminds me of a larger point.

I don’t understand why some members of the Church give so much deference to scholars. It borders on reverence in some cases. Respect is fine–we respect everyone, ultimately–but I keep hearing people quoting scholars as authority for one thing or another.

These scholars are just people doing their jobs.

Unlike ordinary members such as you and I, these scholars are paid to study the scriptures and “interpret” them. Many are paid to teach the youth in the Church. We can assume they are all great people, devoted, faithful, committed, etc. Every one of them I have spent time with is awesome, exemplary, etc., so I vouch for their character (if not their ideas).

There are a lot of LDS scholars who work in a variety of fields, but here I’m mainly referring to the M2C intellectuals and revisionist historians, along with their followers and employees. Most are supported by tithing funds (BYU, CES, COB) or other donations and have a much higher standard of living than most members of the Church around the world who pay that tithing. Some brag about their world travels, close relationships with the Brethren, etc. As Gershwin wrote, nice work if you can get it.

To be clear, I appreciate and respect the work they do. I use their material all the time and encourage others to do the same. I consider their views and biases, but I certainly don’t defer to their interpretations or ideas.

Consider their work as a tool, like your phone. I use my phone all the time, but I don’t defer to the philosophies of the people who invented, designed, manufactured, shipped and marketed the phone. The phone is a useful implement, just like the materials produced by LDS (or other) scholars.

The Joseph Smith Papers, for example, are awesome. But the notes often reflect the interpretations, biases, and ideas of the revisionist and M2C scholars. Focus on the documents. You can take or leave the notes.

I think the scriptures and the gospel are for everyone. You don’t need an expert to tell you what the scriptures teach. And you really don’t need an expert who tries to persuade you that the prophets are wrong.

President Ballard made this point at BYU when he said:

If you have a question that requires an expert, please take the time to find a thoughtful and qualified expert to help you. There are many on this campus and elsewhere who have the degrees and expertise to respond and give some insight to most of these types of questions.

That’s great advice, so long as we first ask, what questions require an expert?

Does it require an expert to read and understand the scriptures? To read and understand Letter VII? To read and understand the consistent and persistent teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah?

Of course not.
_____

Someone sent me a link to the latest Kno-Why from BMC that I referenced above. Here’s the link.

https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/did-the-book-of-mormon-witnesses-really-see-what-they-claimed

You have to read it for yourself to appreciate the irony.

This Kno-Why is astonishing because the strongest attacks on the credibility of the Three Witnesses come directly from within the Church–from the M2C citation cartel, including Book of Mormon Central, the Interpreter, Fairmormon, and the rest.

Everyone expects critics of the Church to disbelieve the witnesses. That’s axiomatic; if they didn’t disbelieve the witnesses, they’d believe them. Presumably they’d accept the Book of Mormon (whether or not they join any church).

The Kno-Why goes through the usual list of statements and arguments. Of course, none of it is persuasive. There’s enough evidence to support whatever you want to think about the witnesses. That’s basic psychology. People see only evidence that confirms their biases; they are blind to evidence that contradicts their biases.

Here’s what makes this Kno-Why so amazing.

The entire foundation of M2C rests on the claim that the Three Witnesses were unreliable!

For example, BMC’s footnote 14 refers to David Whitmer’s interview with Joseph F. Smith about David’s experience with the plates. BMC cites this as a reason to believe David Whitmer. But that same interview included his statement about the messenger going to Cumorah, a statement that BMC rejects!

When I was returning to Fayette with Joseph and Oliver all of us riding in the wagon, Oliver and I on an old fashioned wooden spring seat and Joseph behind us, while traveling along in a clear open place, a very pleasant, nice-looking old man suddenly appeared by the side of our wagon who saluted us with, “good morning, it is very warm,” at the same time wiping his face or forehead with his hand. We returned the salutation, and by a sign from Joseph I invited him to ride if he was going our way. But he said very pleasantly, “No, I am going to Cumorah.’ This name was something new to me, I did not know what Cumorah meant. We all gazed at him and at each other, and as I looked round enquiringly of Joseph the old man instantly disappeared, so that I did not see him again.

[BTW, if you go to the link provided by BMC, it goes to a resource at BYU that omits three pages, including the page containing David’s statement about Cumorah that I quoted above. You can see the entire interview here: 

http://jared.pratt-family.org/report-of-elders-orson-pratt-and-joseph-f-smith.html
_____

Here is a partial list of statements from the Three Witnesses that BMC wants people to disbelieve.

BMC expressly rejects what President Cowdery wrote about Moroni and Cumorah in Letters IV, VII, and VIII.

BMC expressly rejects Oliver Cowdery’s statement to the Indians that Moroni himself called the hill in New York Cumorah anciently.

BMC expressly rejects Oliver Cowdery’s statements that he and Joseph visited the depository of Nephite records in the Hill Cumorah on multiple occasions.

BMC expressly rejects David Whitmer’s testimony about the messenger he met on the road to Fayette who was taking the Harmony plates to Cumorah.

BMC expressly rejects David Whitmer’s testimony that Oliver told him about visiting the Nephite depository in Cumorah.

BMC expressly rejects David Whitmer’s testimony that the plates are no longer in Cumorah but are not far from there.

BMC expressly rejects Martin Harris’s statement that only he, David, Oliver and Joseph ever saw the plates that were kept in the wooden box.

I could go on, but you see the point.

Plus, of course, BMC expressly rejects the teachings of any prophet and apostle who has publicly supported the testimony of these witnesses about the New York Cumorah.

All of these statements have been published, but BMC censors them (except when they’re justifying their disbelief in them).

Contrast that to what the Kno-Why says:

When viewed collectively, the witnesses’ published testimonies are favored by “an overwhelming preponderance of evidence.” Each of the relevant first-hand statements from members of the Three and Eight Witnesses reaffirm their original statements. In addition, the majority of second-hand or hearsay accounts of the witnesses’ statements—from friends, critics, and neutral observers alike—also support the witnesses published testimonies.

That point is just as true about the witnesses’ statements about the New York Cumorah as it is about their statements about the plates.

BMC has zero credibility when it comes to supporting the testimony of the Three Witnesses. Why does anyone pay them any attention at all?

One good thing might come out of this Kno-Why.

Maybe people who actually read it will recognize that Book of Mormon Central has just completely destroyed their own arguments against the credibility of the witnesses.
_____

Speaking of LDS intellectuals…

I’m told Dan Peterson–a wonderful, faithful, smart, and all-around great guy– has been complaining about my criticism of the Interpreter. Maybe someday I’ll read what he has to say, but it doesn’t matter because he has had emotional reactions like this for decades, from the FARMS days through the present. He’s taken what he perceives to be a lot of arrows for what he perceives to be his defense of the Church. If he has a problem, I’m always available for a meeting. I’ve never turned down an invitation to meet with any of the M2C intellectuals, but Dan has declined my invitation to meet. Now he’s producing the Witnesses film through the Interpreter Foundation. We can be confident he’s not going to allow viewers to know what the witnesses said about the New York Cumorah.

Then we have Book of Mormon Central, which is pretty much the same story. I’m told one of their employees is also complaining about my criticism of M2C, but that doesn’t matter, either. He’s just another employee doing a job. His bosses insist the witnesses and the prophets are wrong about the New York Cumorah because of M2C, so he’s doing everything he can to support M2C. I have no problem with that.

In fact, I when I was his age, if I had been working for Book of Mormon Central, I probably would have done the same thing. Back then, I, too, had been persuaded to believe M2C. Fortunately, we all have chances to learn and grow.

Well, then we have Dan, still reacting the same way he’s been doing for years…

The one thing I wouldn’t have supported as an employee of Book of Mormon Central is the organization’s ongoing censorship of alternatives to M2C.

Censorship is a normal practice among those who are insecure about their own positions, but it is surprising that in today’s world, anyone in a free country supports censorship. Fortunately, censorship is a losing strategy in the long run.

I’ve noticed some very strange characteristics of M2C intellectuals. I don’t mean to generalize, but in most cases, the M2C intellectuals are hyper-defensive. They view debates about facts and logic as if they were personal. They have a strong “us vs. them” mentality, sort of a siege mentality, as if it is them against the world. They get angry a lot.

From my perspective, those are all characteristics of uncertainty and insecurity.

Another attribute, the claim that they are hired by the prophets to guide the Church, may be a factor. Those who actually believe this would naturally be hyper-defensive. Those who deny the M2C scholars think this way don’t know what their employees have said.

None of this matters to those of us who don’t defer to these scholars. Which, hopefully, is the approach most people take.

We’re confident and happy, with no animosity or anger toward anyone. We’re happy to exchange views. We freely refer people to the M2C citation cartel publications and websites. We want people to know what they’re teaching.

Really, the only thing we oppose is censorship.
_____

For anyone interested in knowing more about the M2C psychology from an academic perspective, there’s a nice article on motivated reasoning here:

https://judithcurry.com/2019/06/19/climate-scientists-motivated-reasoning/

Source: About Central America

Uncategorized

Dan, BMC, and deferring to scholars

There’s a new book titled Conformity: The Power of Social Influences that explains much of the behavior of the M2C citation cartel. I posted a review here:
https://bookofmormonconsensus.blogspot.com/2019/06/conformity-power-of-social-influences.html

Below I discuss Kno-Why #521 from Book of Mormon Central (BMC), a discussion of Book of Mormon witnesses that may be the most astonishing piece they’ve published so far. We love all the people at BMC, but seriously, they’re the last ones people should listen to regarding the witnesses.

Not coincidentally, BMC employees and affiliates are also working on the upcoming movie on the Witnesses produced by the Interpreter Foundation, which you can read about here: https://witnessesfilm.com/

The Kno-Why tries to support the testimonies of the Book of Mormon witnesses, which, presumably, is also the purpose of the film. We can all agree that’s a fine objective.

Here’s the problem.

BMC (and the Interpreter Foundation) want people to believe some, but not all, of what the witnesses said. 

These are the least credible organizations imaginable to support the testimonies of the Book of Mormon witnesses. 

If the intellectuals at BMC and the Interpreter agree with what the witnesses said, you’re supposed to believe the witnesses. But if the intellectuals at BMC and the Interpreter disagree with what the witnesses said, you’re supposed to believe the intellectuals instead of the witnesses. 

None of this is surprising to those who read the material produced by the M2C citation cartel.

Trailer for Witnesses movie,
featuring Terryl Givens,
M2C promoter and author of
Foreword to Mormon’s Codex

– BMC and the Interpreter Foundation promote M2C (the Meosamerican/two Cumorahs theory).

– The first principle of M2C is the claim that the Three Witnesses were unreliable whenever they spoke or wrote about the New York Cumorah.

– None of the M2C intellectuals believe what the Three Witnesses said when the witnesses’ statements contradict M2C; i.e., these intellectuals believe M2C more than the Three Witnesses.

Trailer for Witnesses movie,
featuring Matt Roper,
M2C promoter and employee
of Book of Mormon Central

– The arguments made by the M2C intellectuals to justify disbelieving what the Three Witnesses said about Cumorah are the identical arguments made by the critics to justify disbelieving everything the Three Witnesses said.

Just watch the trailer for the Witnesses movie and you’ll how the M2C intellectuals discuss the witnesses. We can be sure they’re not going to tell the public what the witnesses said about the New York Cumorah.
_____

Reading this Kno-Why reminds me of a larger point.

I don’t understand why some members of the Church give so much deference to scholars. It borders on reverence in some cases. Respect is fine–we respect everyone, ultimately–but I keep hearing people quoting scholars as authority for one thing or another.

These scholars are just people doing their jobs.

Unlike ordinary members such as you and I, these scholars are paid to study the scriptures and “interpret” them. Many are paid to teach the youth in the Church. We can assume they are all great people, devoted, faithful, committed, etc. Every one of them I have spent time with is awesome, exemplary, etc., so I vouch for their character (if not their ideas).

There are a lot of LDS scholars who work in a variety of fields, but here I’m mainly referring to the M2C intellectuals and revisionist historians, along with their followers and employees. Most are supported by tithing funds (BYU, CES, COB) or other donations and have a much higher standard of living than most members of the Church around the world who pay that tithing. Some brag about their world travels, close relationships with the Brethren, etc. As Gershwin wrote, nice work if you can get it.

To be clear, I appreciate and respect the work they do. I use their material all the time and encourage others to do the same. I consider their views and biases, but I certainly don’t defer to their interpretations or ideas.

Consider their work as a tool, like your phone. I use my phone all the time, but I don’t defer to the philosophies of the people who invented, designed, manufactured, shipped and marketed the phone. The phone is a useful implement, just like the materials produced by LDS (or other) scholars.

The Joseph Smith Papers, for example, are awesome. But the notes often reflect the interpretations, biases, and ideas of the revisionist and M2C scholars. Focus on the documents. You can take or leave the notes.

I think the scriptures and the gospel are for everyone. You don’t need an expert to tell you what the scriptures teach. And you really don’t need an expert who tries to persuade you that the prophets are wrong.

President Ballard made this point at BYU when he said:

If you have a question that requires an expert, please take the time to find a thoughtful and qualified expert to help you. There are many on this campus and elsewhere who have the degrees and expertise to respond and give some insight to most of these types of questions.


That’s great advice, so long as we first ask, what questions require an expert?

Does it require an expert to read and understand the scriptures? To read and understand Letter VII? To read and understand the consistent and persistent teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah?

Of course not.
_____

Someone sent me a link to the latest Kno-Why from BMC that I referenced above. Here’s the link.

https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/did-the-book-of-mormon-witnesses-really-see-what-they-claimed

You have to read it for yourself to appreciate the irony.

This Kno-Why is astonishing because the strongest attacks on the credibility of the Three Witnesses come directly from within the Church–from the M2C citation cartel, including Book of Mormon Central, the Interpreter, Fairmormon, and the rest.

Everyone expects critics of the Church to disbelieve the witnesses. That’s axiomatic; if they didn’t disbelieve the witnesses, they’d believe them. Presumably they’d accept the Book of Mormon (whether or not they join any church).

The Kno-Why goes through the usual list of statements and arguments. Of course, none of it is persuasive. There’s enough evidence to support whatever you want to think about the witnesses. That’s basic psychology. People see only evidence that confirms their biases; they are blind to evidence that contradicts their biases.

Here’s what makes this Kno-Why so amazing.

The entire foundation of M2C rests on the claim that the Three Witnesses were unreliable!

For example, BMC’s footnote 14 refers to David Whitmer’s interview with Joseph F. Smith about David’s experience with the plates. BMC cites this as a reason to believe David Whitmer. But that same interview included his statement about the messenger going to Cumorah, a statement that BMC rejects!

When I was returning to Fayette with Joseph and Oliver all of us riding in the wagon, Oliver and I on an old fashioned wooden spring seat and Joseph behind us, while traveling along in a clear open place, a very pleasant, nice-looking old man suddenly appeared by the side of our wagon who saluted us with, “good morning, it is very warm,” at the same time wiping his face or forehead with his hand. We returned the salutation, and by a sign from Joseph I invited him to ride if he was going our way. But he said very pleasantly, “No, I am going to Cumorah.’ This name was something new to me, I did not know what Cumorah meant. We all gazed at him and at each other, and as I looked round enquiringly of Joseph the old man instantly disappeared, so that I did not see him again.

[BTW, if you go to the link provided by BMC, it goes to a resource at BYU that omits three pages, including the page containing David’s statement about Cumorah that I quoted above. You can see the entire interview here: 

http://jared.pratt-family.org/report-of-elders-orson-pratt-and-joseph-f-smith.html
_____

Here is a partial list of statements from the Three Witnesses that BMC wants people to disbelieve.

BMC expressly rejects what President Cowdery wrote about Moroni and Cumorah in Letters IV, VII, and VIII.

BMC expressly rejects Oliver Cowdery’s statement to the Indians that Moroni himself called the hill in New York Cumorah anciently.

BMC expressly rejects Oliver Cowdery’s statements that he and Joseph visited the depository of Nephite records in the Hill Cumorah on multiple occasions.

BMC expressly rejects David Whitmer’s testimony about the messenger he met on the road to Fayette who was taking the Harmony plates to Cumorah.

BMC expressly rejects David Whitmer’s testimony that Oliver told him about visiting the Nephite depository in Cumorah.

BMC expressly rejects David Whitmer’s testimony that the plates are no longer in Cumorah but are not far from there.

BMC expressly rejects Martin Harris’s statement that only he, David, Oliver and Joseph ever saw the plates that were kept in the wooden box.

I could go on, but you see the point.

Plus, of course, BMC expressly rejects the teachings of any prophet and apostle who has publicly supported the testimony of these witnesses about the New York Cumorah.

All of these statements have been published, but BMC censors them (except when they’re justifying their disbelief in them).

Contrast that to what the Kno-Why says:

When viewed collectively, the witnesses’ published testimonies are favored by “an overwhelming preponderance of evidence.” Each of the relevant first-hand statements from members of the Three and Eight Witnesses reaffirm their original statements. In addition, the majority of second-hand or hearsay accounts of the witnesses’ statements—from friends, critics, and neutral observers alike—also support the witnesses published testimonies.

That point is just as true about the witnesses’ statements about the New York Cumorah as it is about their statements about the plates.

BMC has zero credibility when it comes to supporting the testimony of the Three Witnesses. Why does anyone pay them any attention at all?

One good thing might come out of this Kno-Why.

Maybe people who actually read it will recognize that Book of Mormon Central has just completely destroyed their own arguments against the credibility of the witnesses.
_____

Speaking of LDS intellectuals…

I’m told Dan Peterson–a wonderful, faithful, smart, and all-around great guy– has been complaining about my criticism of the Interpreter. Maybe someday I’ll read what he has to say, but it doesn’t matter because he has had emotional reactions like this for decades, from the FARMS days through the present. He’s taken what he perceives to be a lot of arrows for what he perceives to be his defense of the Church. If he has a problem, I’m always available for a meeting. I’ve never turned down an invitation to meet with any of the M2C intellectuals, but Dan has declined my invitation to meet. Now he’s producing the Witnesses film through the Interpreter Foundation. We can be confident he’s not going to allow viewers to know what the witnesses said about the New York Cumorah.

Then we have Book of Mormon Central, which is pretty much the same story. I’m told one of their employees is also complaining about my criticism of M2C, but that doesn’t matter, either. He’s just another employee doing a job. His bosses insist the witnesses and the prophets are wrong about the New York Cumorah because of M2C, so he’s doing everything he can to support M2C. I have no problem with that.

In fact, I when I was his age, if I had been working for Book of Mormon Central, I probably would have done the same thing. Back then, I, too, had been persuaded to believe M2C. Fortunately, we all have chances to learn and grow.

Well, then we have Dan, still reacting the same way he’s been doing for years…

The one thing I wouldn’t have supported as an employee of Book of Mormon Central is the organization’s ongoing censorship of alternatives to M2C.

Censorship is a normal practice among those who are insecure about their own positions, but it is surprising that in today’s world, anyone in a free country supports censorship. Fortunately, censorship is a losing strategy in the long run.

I’ve noticed some very strange characteristics of M2C intellectuals. I don’t mean to generalize, but in most cases, the M2C intellectuals are hyper-defensive. They view debates about facts and logic as if they were personal. They have a strong “us vs. them” mentality, sort of a siege mentality, as if it is them against the world. They get angry a lot.

From my perspective, those are all characteristics of uncertainty and insecurity.

Another attribute, the claim that they are hired by the prophets to guide the Church, may be a factor. Those who actually believe this would naturally be hyper-defensive. Those who deny the M2C scholars think this way don’t know what their employees have said.

None of this matters to those of us who don’t defer to these scholars. Which, hopefully, is the approach most people take.

We’re confident and happy, with no animosity or anger toward anyone. We’re happy to exchange views. We freely refer people to the M2C citation cartel publications and websites. We want people to know what they’re teaching.

Really, the only thing we oppose is censorship.
_____

For anyone interested in knowing more about the M2C psychology from an academic perspective, there’s a nice article on motivated reasoning here:

https://judithcurry.com/2019/06/19/climate-scientists-motivated-reasoning/

Source: Book of Mormon Wars

Uncategorized

Conformity: The Power of Social Influences

New book explains the M2C citation cartel.
Excerpts:
Our urge to obey authority is powerful. But our drive to conform is greater.
Cass Sunstein’s new book, Conformity: The Power of Social Influences, delivers a brisk and accessible overview of research from social psychology, economics, and political science on how people behave in groups. Sunstein, a Harvard professor and alumnus of the Obama Administration, discusses the dangers of conformity and ideological groupthink in structuring a society and its various institutions. Sunstein, moreover, examines how viewpoint diversity can serve as a bulwark against group polarization and institutional rot. Indeed, any organization, system, or society which does not incentivize freedom of expression and public dissent is one that is doomed to fail….
For many people, conformity sparks mental images of sheep doing what they’re told. But in fact, at the outset, Sunstein notes that conformity has its advantages. We lack information about science, health, politics, and so on. Not only that, but we simply don’t have the time to assess every option presented before us. Oftentimes, the most rational course of action is to follow the choices of those we trust. We are natural conformers because, more often than not, it keeps us alive and in good standing with our peers. But sometimes it can lead us to disaster.
Consider group polarization, the topic of one of the chapters. In short, social psychologists have found that when individuals hold certain beliefs, those beliefs are magnified when they interact with others who hold similar beliefs. In a study on jury behavior, researchers gave jurors an 8-point scale to measure how severely they wanted to punish a law-breaker. They found that when individual jurists preferred high punishment, the overall verdict ended up higher than that recommended by the median juror. Put differently, when individual jurors preferred a severe punishment, deliberation with other jurors sharing this view raised the overall severity of the punishment. One juror might say they want to impose a fine of $10,000 while another might say that anything less than $12,000 is unacceptable. By the end, the fine might increase to an amount far beyond anyone’s initial starting point. On the flip side, Sunstein reports that groups comprised of lenient jurors produced even more lenient verdicts than the one recommended by the median juror in the group. When group members drift in a certain direction, individual members will double down on that perspective to show their commitment. This drives the group towards extremism despite individual members not being extremists themselves….
The Conformity Paradox
Then there are what Sunstein calls “affective ties.” Plainly, dissent can disrupt social harmony, which is not always the best course of action when interacting with our peers. As the book puts it, “Some forms of dissent might correct mistakes while also weakening social bonds.” This can be risky. The choice we face is a difficult one. Do we share our views, introducing information that could improve group decision-making, or do we go along to get along, preserving our social relationships in the process? When we are bonded by affective ties, the latter option is often more appealing. But for Sunstein, the first option offers indisputable long-term benefits.
The problem with conformity is that it deprives a society of the information it desperately needs. Sunstein rightly asserts that conformists are often viewed as protectors of the social interest while dissenters are seen as selfish individualists, calling attention to themselves and disrupting the status quo. This is not always the case. The dissenter challenges the status quo, introducing new ideas that may aid his group by improving an ailing system. The conformist is reticent, choosing to live in comfort as his group blunders.

Source: Book of Mormon Concensus

Uncategorized

truth vs consensus

“Individuals search for truth, groups search for consensus.”

https://twitter.com/naval/status/1141844787705741312

And inspiring leaders build consensus around the discovered truth.
_____
Management is telling other people what to do. Leadership is making them want to do it.
_____
I thought, wait but scientific groups like lab groups & collaboration teams & scientific societies & fields search for truth. But then I remembered, oh no, they also search for consensus…
_____



Source: Book of Mormon Concensus

Uncategorized

Kno-Why #520 Did Jesus Bleed from Every Pore?

This is a brief note to myself about a fascinating Kno-Why that illustrates two common errors:

1. BMC scholars are unaware of important sources Joseph drew upon; and

2. Some Christians are so focused on rejecting the Book of Mormon that they ignore Christian ideas the pre-dated the Book of Mormon.
_____

The Kno-Why addresses the passages in the Book of Mormon and D&C that describe Christ bleeding from every pore:

Mosiah 3:7 And lo, he shall suffer temptations, and pain of body, hunger, thirst, and fatigue, even more than man can suffer, except it be unto death; for behold, blood cometh from every pore, so great shall be his anguish for the wickedness and the abominations of his people.

Doctrine and Covenants 19:18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—

The New Testament says nothing about pores. It says only this:

And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him. And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground” (Luke 22:43–44).

Other translations render this passage to say “his sweat became like great clots of blood” and similar variations, as discussed here. 

Talmage discusses the issue in Jesus the Christ, which you can see here: 
http://www.scottwoodward.org/atonement_bloodfromeverypore.html

Like BMC, Christian scholars have debated over the meaning and even origins of Luke 22:43-4. Such debates can never be resolved, which is why the intellectuals love them. Full employment, etc.

Here’s how BMC explains it:

In other words, based solely on the manuscript evidence and the understandings of ancient Christian writers, while the matter of whether these verses are original to Luke’s gospel cannot be fully resolved at the present time, there are, however, enough reasons for one to cautiously accept their factual authenticity while still being aware of their questionable textual status.

This is stereotypical M2C rhetoric. Next, they claim superiority over their Christian peers:

The issues surrounding the authenticity of Luke 22:43–44 and whether Jesus sweat actual blood or merely sweat as though he were bleeding will likely remain open to debate among biblical scholars for many years to come. Latter-day Saints, however, have additional scriptures that tip the scales in favor of these verses being authentic and also describing a real physiological phenomenon.

This is not an irrational point, but here’s a key to understanding the passages that BMC ignores.

As near as I can determine, the first Christian writer to claim that Christ sweat actual blood from every pore was James Hervey, published in 1764 and subsequent editions.

Hervey – Whereas, the divine Redeemer expired in tedious and protracted torments. His pangs were as lingering, as they were exquisite. Even in the prelude to his last suffering, what a load of sorrows overwhelmed his sacred humanity! Till the intolerable pressure wrung blood, instead of sweat, from every pore; till the crimson flood stained all his raiment, and tinged the very stones.

Here, Hervey has Christ suffering and bleeding in Gethsemane (the prelude to his last suffering).

Why is Hervey important? Because his books were on sale in Palmyra in 1819, and Joseph donated a Hervey book to the Nauvoo Library in 1844. Hervey was a significant influence on Joseph’s vocabulary, as I’m showing in an upcoming book.

Notice too that Hervey wrote about Christ’s pangs as exquisite. Compare that to D&C 19:15.

Doctrine and Covenants 19:15 Therefore I command you to repent—repent, lest I smite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your sufferings be sore—how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not.

Anti-Mormon Christians criticize these passages, claiming that the atonement did not occur in Gethsamane.

E.g., http://mit.irr.org/mormonism-garden-cross-and-atonement

This is the type of argument that comes across as argumentative purely for the sake of argument, but when they make such arguments, they are ignoring their own tradition, such as James Hervey’s work.




Source: About Central America

Uncategorized

M2C impact on Church history

Here are three issues in Church history that are obstacles for people because the prevailing narratives make the truth claims about events in Church history less credible. This is a serious problem for the youth, for investigators (friends) and for less-active members.

There are solid answers, based on historical evidence, that LDS scholars ignore or reject mainly because of M2C.

1. The plates. There are a lot of inconsistencies about the plates. Here are a few.

-Martin Harris said that only he, David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, and Joseph Smith ever saw the original plates.
– Witnesses said the plates weighed 30 pounds others said 60 pounds.
– The Eight Witnesses said they handled the plates but none of them said any portion was sealed.
– A divine messenger took the original plates to Cumorah before meeting Joseph in Fayette and giving him the plates of Nephi to translate.

None of this can be explained by the prevalent narrative that there was only one set of plates, and that Moroni hauled this set of plates 2400+ miles north from southern Mexico.

LDS intellectuals will tell you to put these questions “on the shelf” because they reject what two of the three witnesses said about the Hill Cumorah.

There is an answer to these inconsistencies.

Joseph Smith translated the original plates in Harmony and gave them to the messenger before leaving for Fayette. The messenger took those plates to the depository of Nephite records in the Hill Cumorah, found the plates of Nephi (to replace the lost 116 pages), and brought those to Fayette so Joseph and Oliver could translate what we know today as 1 Nephi through Words of Mormon.

You can see the diagram here:

http://www.lettervii.com/p/the-two-sets-of-plates-schematic.html

Simple. But because it contradicts M2C, you’ll never hear about it from our LDS intellectuals.

2. The translation process. Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery (as well as the revelations in the D&C) consistently said Joseph translated the engravings on the plates by using the Urim and Thummim, or Nephite translators that had been prepared for that purpose. Moroni put them in the stone box so Joseph could use them.

However, several witnesses said Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon (after the 116 pages were lost) by reading words off a stone he put in a hat.

In terms of truth claims, the stone-in-a-hat scenario is obviously a far cry from Joseph actually translating the engravings on the plates using instruments prepared by the Lord for that purpose.

There are three ways to resolve this inconsistency.

A. We can say Joseph and Oliver used the term “Urim and Thummim” to apply to any device used for translation, including both the Nephite interpreters and the seer stone Joseph found in a well years earlier. Church historians (and Church publications and web pages, including the Gospel Topics Essay) now teach that Joseph translated the Book of Mormon with the stone-in-a-hat technique. They teach that Joseph didn’t even use the plates after all, but that they were always covered in a cloth or even outdoors. Because they believe Joseph didn’t even use the plates, they can’t explain how Joseph knew the Title Page was the last leaf of the plates, or why the Lord told Joseph he would have to translate the plates of Nephi (D&C 10).

B. We can say Joseph and Oliver told the truth but everyone else who spoke or wrote about the stone-in-a-hat scenario was a liar; i.e., Joseph never used the stone-in-a-hat technique. This requires one to believe a grand conspiracy over decades.

C. We can say that everyone told the truth according to what they observed, but people made inferences that they reported as facts. Joseph and Oliver translated the engravings on the plates using the Nephite interpreters, which they called Urim and Thummim. People also saw Joseph put a stone in a hat and dictate words to a scribe. But what these witnesses saw was a demonstration, not the actual translation.

I favor option C, and I provide all the detail in my upcoming book (to be released in August). The key is, Joseph was commanded never to show the Nephite interpreters or the plates to anyone. That commandment was a nullity if Joseph didn’t even use the interpreters or the plates. Plus, the stone-in-a-hat scenario negates all the work Mormon and Moroni did when they abridged and protected the plates.

Why a demonstration? People were constantly asking about the translation process, but Joseph was expressly forbidden to let anyone see the interpreters or the plates. The solution: demonstrate how the translation works by putting a stone anybody can see in a hat anybody can see and then dictating words to a scribe while letting people infer they were watching the actual translation.

3. The language of the text. There are three basic explanations for the text of the Book of Mormon.

A. Composition. Critics claim Joseph and/or co-conspirators wrote the entire book, drawing from their experiences and sources available to them. The language is that of Joseph and/or his co-conspirators. Joseph read the words of such a manuscript to Oliver Cowdery when they were alone, and used the stone-in-a-hat demonstration to mislead observers.

B. Transcription. Because the stone-in-the-hat scenario has been embraced in today’s Church, the concept of translation has evolved to the point where most LDS intellectuals now think Joseph merely transmitted (transcribed) words that appeared on the stone. They claim the language is not Joseph Smith’s because he was unschooled and didn’t know big words, the grammar of Early Modern English, etc. IOW, our LDS scholars now teach that Joseph didn’t really translate the text. He simply read out loud the words that appeared on the stone in the hat.

C. Translation. After years of instruction from Moroni (and probably Nephi, one of the Three Nephites), Joseph used the Nephite interpreters to study the characters, translate them, write them down, and then give some of them to Martin Harris to take to New York. When Martin returned, Joseph dictated his translation to Martin, who then lost the 116 pages. Nearly a year later, Joseph dictated the translation of the text we have today to Oliver Cowdery (except for a few pages). The text we have today reflects Joseph’s own vocabulary and speech patterns.

For reasons I explain in detail in my August book, Option B is the least plausible. Option C is better supported by the evidence than Option A. Plus, of course, it coincides with Option C from the method of translation.
_____

What does the translation process have to do with M2C?

I’m glad you asked.

The basic premise of M2C is that Joseph didn’t know about Mesoamerican culture, that he was illiterate and barely educated, and that he speculated about the New York Cumorah, the plains of the Nephites, etc.

The idea that Joseph was smart and educated enough to produce the text of the Book of Mormon contradicts the M2C narrative. The more ignorant and speculative Joseph was, the better, as far as the intellectuals are concerned. They assert more knowledge than the prophets on lots of topics, but especially on the topic of the New York Cumorah.

This all comes back to the truth claims.

Imagine you are a youth in the Church attending Seminary or Institute or BYU. In which of the following explanations would you be more likely exercise faith?

Current CES/BYU teachings. Joseph Smith was an uneducated farm boy who found a seer stone in a well and produced the entire Book of Mormon by reading words that appeared on the stone when he put it into a hat and covered his face with the hat. Yes, he found gold plates, but he didn’t use them. Yes, Mormon and Moroni were real people, and they worked hard at considerable personal risk to abridge the Nephite records, but all that effort was only done so Joseph could have metal plates to show to 11 men who served as witnesses. And yes, Martin Harris said only the 3 witnesses ever saw the plates, but he was wrong. Yes, David Whitmer and Oliver Cowdery said the Nephite depository was in the Hill Cumorah in New York, but they were wrong, too. So were all the prophets who repeated these teachings.

Alternative teachings. Although he attended little formal school, Joseph Smith was prepared from a young age to translate the Book of Mormon. Moroni directed him the the stone box that contained the plates and the Urim and Thummim prepared by the Lord for the translation of the plates. Joseph took these plates to Harmony and translated the engravings on them. After he and Oliver translated the last leaf of the plates (the Title Page), Joseph gave the plates to a divine messenger who took them to the depository of Nephite records in the Hill Cumorah in New York. The messenger brought the plates of Nephi to Fayette, where Joseph and Oliver translated them. Martin Harris was correct that only the Three Witnesses and Joseph himself ever saw the original Harmony plates. David and Oliver were correct that the depository of Nephite records was in the Hill Cumorah in New York. All the prophets who repeated these teachings were likewise correct.
_____

The choice between these explanations could not be any plainer.

Source: About Central America

Uncategorized

M2C impact on Church history

Here are three issues in Church history that are obstacles for people because the prevailing narratives make the truth claims about events in Church history less credible. This is a serious problem for the youth, for investigators (friends) and for less-active members.

There are solid answers, based on historical evidence, that LDS scholars ignore or reject mainly because of M2C.

1. The plates. There are a lot of inconsistencies about the plates. Here are a few.

-Martin Harris said that only he, David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, and Joseph Smith ever saw the original plates.
– Witnesses said the plates weighed 30 pounds others said 60 pounds.
– The Eight Witnesses said they handled the plates but none of them said any portion was sealed.
– A divine messenger took the original plates to Cumorah before meeting Joseph in Fayette and giving him the plates of Nephi to translate.

None of this can be explained by the prevalent narrative that there was only one set of plates, and that Moroni hauled this set of plates 2400+ miles north from southern Mexico.

LDS intellectuals will tell you to put these questions “on the shelf” because they reject what two of the three witnesses said about the Hill Cumorah.

There is an answer to these inconsistencies.

Joseph Smith translated the original plates in Harmony and gave them to the messenger before leaving for Fayette. The messenger took those plates to the depository of Nephite records in the Hill Cumorah, found the plates of Nephi (to replace the lost 116 pages), and brought those to Fayette so Joseph and Oliver could translate what we know today as 1 Nephi through Words of Mormon.

You can see the diagram here:

http://www.lettervii.com/p/the-two-sets-of-plates-schematic.html

Simple. But because it contradicts M2C, you’ll never hear about it from our LDS intellectuals.

2. The translation process. Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery (as well as the revelations in the D&C) consistently said Joseph translated the engravings on the plates by using the Urim and Thummim, or Nephite translators that had been prepared for that purpose. Moroni put them in the stone box so Joseph could use them.

However, several witnesses said Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon (after the 116 pages were lost) by reading words off a stone he put in a hat.

In terms of truth claims, the stone-in-a-hat scenario is obviously a far cry from Joseph actually translating the engravings on the plates using instruments prepared by the Lord for that purpose.

There are three ways to resolve this inconsistency.

A. We can say Joseph and Oliver used the term “Urim and Thummim” to apply to any device used for translation, including both the Nephite interpreters and the seer stone Joseph found in a well years earlier. Church historians (and Church publications and web pages, including the Gospel Topics Essay) now teach that Joseph translated the Book of Mormon with the stone-in-a-hat technique. They teach that Joseph didn’t even use the plates after all, but that they were always covered in a cloth or even outdoors. Because they believe Joseph didn’t even use the plates, they can’t explain how Joseph knew the Title Page was the last leaf of the plates, or why the Lord told Joseph he would have to translate the plates of Nephi (D&C 10).

B. We can say Joseph and Oliver told the truth but everyone else who spoke or wrote about the stone-in-a-hat scenario was a liar; i.e., Joseph never used the stone-in-a-hat technique. This requires one to believe a grand conspiracy over decades.

C. We can say that everyone told the truth according to what they observed, but people made inferences that they reported as facts. Joseph and Oliver translated the engravings on the plates using the Nephite interpreters, which they called Urim and Thummim. People also saw Joseph put a stone in a hat and dictate words to a scribe. But what these witnesses saw was a demonstration, not the actual translation.

I favor option C, and I provide all the detail in my upcoming book (to be released in August). The key is, Joseph was commanded never to show the Nephite interpreters or the plates to anyone. That commandment was a nullity if Joseph didn’t even use the interpreters or the plates. Plus, the stone-in-a-hat scenario negates all the work Mormon and Moroni did when they abridged and protected the plates.

Why a demonstration? People were constantly asking about the translation process, but Joseph was expressly forbidden to let anyone see the interpreters or the plates. The solution: demonstrate how the translation works by putting a stone anybody can see in a hat anybody can see and then dictating words to a scribe while letting people infer they were watching the actual translation.

3. The language of the text. There are three basic explanations for the text of the Book of Mormon.

A. Composition. Critics claim Joseph and/or co-conspirators wrote the entire book, drawing from their experiences and sources available to them. The language is that of Joseph and/or his co-conspirators. Joseph read the words of such a manuscript to Oliver Cowdery when they were alone, and used the stone-in-a-hat demonstration to mislead observers.

B. Transcription. Because the stone-in-the-hat scenario has been embraced in today’s Church, the concept of translation has evolved to the point where most LDS intellectuals now think Joseph merely transmitted (transcribed) words that appeared on the stone. They claim the language is not Joseph Smith’s because he was unschooled and didn’t know big words, the grammar of Early Modern English, etc. IOW, our LDS scholars now teach that Joseph didn’t really translate the text. He simply read out loud the words that appeared on the stone in the hat.

C. Translation. After years of instruction from Moroni (and probably Nephi, one of the Three Nephites), Joseph used the Nephite interpreters to study the characters, translate them, write them down, and then give some of them to Martin Harris to take to New York. When Martin returned, Joseph dictated his translation to Martin, who then lost the 116 pages. Nearly a year later, Joseph dictated the translation of the text we have today to Oliver Cowdery (except for a few pages). The text we have today reflects Joseph’s own vocabulary and speech patterns.

For reasons I explain in detail in my August book, Option B is the least plausible. Option C is better supported by the evidence than Option A. Plus, of course, it coincides with Option C from the method of translation.
_____

What does the translation process have to do with M2C?

I’m glad you asked.

The basic premise of M2C is that Joseph didn’t know about Mesoamerican culture, that he was illiterate and barely educated, and that he speculated about the New York Cumorah, the plains of the Nephites, etc.

The idea that Joseph was smart and educated enough to produce the text of the Book of Mormon contradicts the M2C narrative. The more ignorant and speculative Joseph was, the better, as far as the intellectuals are concerned. They assert more knowledge than the prophets on lots of topics, but especially on the topic of the New York Cumorah.

This all comes back to the truth claims.

Imagine you are a youth in the Church attending Seminary or Institute or BYU. In which of the following explanations would you be more likely exercise faith?

Current CES/BYU teachings. Joseph Smith was an uneducated farm boy who found a seer stone in a well and produced the entire Book of Mormon by reading words that appeared on the stone when he put it into a hat and covered his face with the hat. Yes, he found gold plates, but he didn’t use them. Yes, Mormon and Moroni were real people, and they worked hard at considerable personal risk to abridge the Nephite records, but all that effort was only done so Joseph could have metal plates to show to 11 men who served as witnesses. And yes, Martin Harris said only the 3 witnesses ever saw the plates, but he was wrong. Yes, David Whitmer and Oliver Cowdery said the Nephite depository was in the Hill Cumorah in New York, but they were wrong, too. So were all the prophets who repeated these teachings.

Alternative teachings. Although he attended little formal school, Joseph Smith was prepared from a young age to translate the Book of Mormon. Moroni directed him the the stone box that contained the plates and the Urim and Thummim prepared by the Lord for the translation of the plates. Joseph took these plates to Harmony and translated the engravings on them. After he and Oliver translated the last leaf of the plates (the Title Page), Joseph gave the plates to a divine messenger who took them to the depository of Nephite records in the Hill Cumorah in New York. The messenger brought the plates of Nephi to Fayette, where Joseph and Oliver translated them. Martin Harris was correct that only the Three Witnesses and Joseph himself ever saw the original Harmony plates. David and Oliver were correct that the depository of Nephite records was in the Hill Cumorah in New York. All the prophets who repeated these teachings were likewise correct.
_____

The choice between these explanations could not be any plainer.

Source: Book of Mormon Wars

Uncategorized

The apologetics of M2C

From time to time I repost articles here from my other blogs. I’ve renamed this one.

The apologetics of M2C

I’ve been reluctant to post this material but I think it’s time. As we’ve seen recently, faith in the historicity of the Book of Mormon is declining in the Church, not only among the younger generations but among BYU faculty. That trend will undoubtedly accelerate. And IMO, the reason is M2C.

This is not a question about what past Church leaders have said about Cumorah. It’s not a question of interpreting the text and other semantic considerations.

The issue is the core belief of M2C that makes it attractive to so many Church members.
_____

People often ask why M2C advocates get angry when their theory is questioned.  A good answer appeared on twitter recently:

“Do you know why your feelings are hurt by criticism of your beliefs? Because you believe for emotional reasons instead of factual ones.”

M2C believers are emotionally attached to their theory because they say it is the only plausible explanation of the Book of Mormon. For them, it is M2C or bust.

They actually think the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon depends on its Mesoamerican setting.

The M2C advocates think they are protecting and defending the Book of Mormon when they promote M2C. They think that alternative interpretations, including the New York Cumorah, are false. That’s why they censor information about those alternatives, including the teachings of the prophets.

But the core belief of M2C has nothing to do with the teachings of the prophets.

Brother John Sorenson summarized the basic idea on p. 144 of his book, Mormon’s Codex. Other M2C intellectuals make the same argument, but Sorenson’s book is still the “high-water mark of scholarship” among M2C believers.

One of the most common explanations for the origin of the Book of Mormon holds that Joseph Smith created the book on the basis of his local knowledge environment. In that case, one would have expected him to establish a more modest historical account than what he published. That is, lightly and almost entirely at second hand, he would have described Indians like the tribes known in his rural New York home where he grew up in the 1820s. Instead, in the book he published we read of full-fledged civilizations located in tropical America.
The idea that there was any ancient “civilization” in the Western Hemisphere was contrary to notions commonly held in Smith’s area in his day, and for that matter, it was contrary to the views of the entire Western world of the time. That there had existed ancient civilizations far to the south of the United States did not dawn on even sophisticated scholars or readers until the 1840s.

Do you see what’s happening here?

M2C advocates think that Joseph could not have known about ancient civilizations in Mesoamerica, so the Mesoamerican setting proves Joseph couldn’t have written the Book of Mormon. 

By contrast, they claim a setting in North America, with the Hill Cumorah in New York, supports the arguments of critics who say Joseph wrote the book.

In my view, they have it exactly backwards.

As we’re about to see, if Joseph Smith had composed the Book of Mormon, he would have set it in Central and South America.
_____

As I discuss in more depth in my upcoming book, there are three possible origins for the Book of Mormon.

1. Composition. This is the claim that Joseph (and/or co-conspirators) composed the Book of Mormon based on his experience and the information available to him.

2. Transcription. This is the claim that Joseph merely read words that appeared on a stone he placed into a hat (the “stone-in-a-hat” theory that is popular among today’s LDS historians and M2C proponents).

3. Translation. This is Joseph’s claim that he translated the engravings on ancient metal plates that related one thousand years of history of the ancient inhabitants “of this country.”

We won’t discuss transcription or translation in this post. Instead, we’ll focus on the composition claim by examining what Brother Sorenson wrote. Original in blue, my comments in red.

One of the most common explanations for the origin of the Book of Mormon holds that Joseph Smith created the book on the basis of his local knowledge environment. 

This is always the first assumption for any new book; i.e., that the author wrote it. What did Joseph’s “local knowledge environment” consist of? Let’s see what Brother Sorenson thinks. 

In that case, one would have expected him to establish a more modest historical account than what he published. That is, lightly and almost entirely at second hand, he would have described Indians like the tribes known in his rural New York home where he grew up in the 1820s. 

The “would have” argument is really no argument at all. It’s pure mind reading (and usually it’s projection). M2C scholars have embraced this mind reading uncritically because it confirms their bias, but we all know authors can invent all kinds of settings beyond the limits of their personal lives. 
Nevertheless, it’s a good point in the sense that the Book of Mormon does notdescribe Indian tribes such as those known in western New York in the the 1820s. Of course, that says nothing about what the book does describe.  

Instead, in the book he published we read of full-fledged civilizations located in tropical America.

Here we have the flip side of mind reading. Instead of reading Joseph’s mind, now Brother Sorenson is reading his own mind. The word “tropical” never appears in the text. Every indicia of “tropical America” is concocted by Brother Sorenson and his like-minded M2C believers. For example, the actual text omits the big three Js: jade, jaguars, and jungles. When Brother Sorenson sees the term “horses” in the text, he reads it as “tapirs.” One well-known M2C scholar has explained that he “can’t unsee” Mesoamerica when he reads the text. While that’s undoubtedly true, it’s because he wants to see Mesoamerica there, not because the words of the text describe Mesoamerica.   

The idea that there was any ancient “civilization” in the Western Hemisphere was contrary to notions commonly held in Smith’s area in his day, and for that matter, it was contrary to the views of the entire Western world of the time. 

This may have reflected the views of some people in Joseph’s day, but not the views of Alexander von Humboldt, whose books were available in English in the early 1800s. Humboldt’s 1811 book “Political Essay on the Kingdom of New Spain” was on sale in Palmyra in 1818 at the printing shop Joseph visited weekly to get the newspaper for his father.
Three times in that book, Humboldt referred to the isthmus of Panama as a “neck of land,” which may explain why so many early Church writers inferred Panama was the “neck of land” mentioned in the Book of Mormon. 
Humboldt wrote about the “ancient pyramid of Cholula,” “the ruins called las Casas grandes” that was “the site of an ancient cultivation of the human species,” “the valley of Tenochititlan… the site of an ancient civilization of American people… more ancient monuments, the pyramids of Teotihuacan, dedicated to the sun and the moon,” and more. He discussed the “aborigines” of Mexico, “these Indians, degraded by the despotism of the ancient Aztec sovereigns.” He claimed that tribes of the “savages” “possess even languages of which the mechanism proves an ancient civilization.” 
In one passage, he noted that past civilizations were greater than those built by the Spanish. “The enormous magnitude of the market-place of Tlatelolco, of which the boundaries are still discernible, proves the great population of the ancient city.”
He also mentioned the “ancient grandeur of the empire of Cusco” and other ancient civilizations in South America. “These ruins appeared to him demonstrative of an immense population in Peru at a remote period.”
Humboldt wrote about carved stones, statues covered with hieroglyphics, the entire destruction of a city, intermittent fevers, a city governed by a king independent of the larger nation, and more. 
Compare this passage from Humboldt to terms and concepts found in the Book of Mormon:
“In every village we find eight or ten old Indians who live at the expense of the rest, in the most complete idleness, whose authority is founded either on a pretended elevation of birth, or on a cunning policy transmitted from father to son. These chiefs… have the greatest interest in maintaining their fellow-citizens in the most profound ignorance; and they contribute the most to perpetuate prejudices, ignorance, and the ancient barbarity of manners.” 

Recall, all of this is in an 1811 book on sale in Palmyra in 1819.
That there had existed ancient civilizations far to the south of the United States did not dawn on even sophisticated scholars or readers until the 1840s.

Humboldt’s 1811 book stated the exact opposite of Sorenson’s claim. Humboldt discussed the origins of the ancient people in Central America when, after observing that the “Toultecs” built cities, made roads, and constructed those great pyramids, he asked, “where is the source of that cultivation? where is the country from which the Toultecs and Mexicans issued?… There are no remains at this day of any ancient civilization of the human species to the north of the Rio Gila, or in the northern regions travelled through by Hearne, Fiedler, and Mackenzie.”
In 1841 explorer John Lloyd Stephens published the first American edition of his sensational account of the discovery of ruined cities in Central America (Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan). 

The Stephens book was the first account of his discoveries, but it was far from the first account of the ancient civilizations in Mexico and Central America.
Before he knew about Stephens’ book, Benjamin Winchester referred to Humboldt in his 1841 Gospel Reflector. He wrote “if any one should wish to learn farther concerning the antiquities of America, we recommend him to A. Davis’ “Discovery of America by the North-men.” J. Priests’s “American Antiquities,” Mr. Hill’s Do.; and Baron Humboldt’s “Travels in South America.”
The Third Edition of Davis’ book was published in 1839. Davis had sold out two previous editions in less than three months and had lectured widely. He sold 5,000 copies before publishing the Fifth Edition. 
Winchester quoted a passage from Davis’ book about Palenque, but he did not quote the Third Edition (1839) or the Fifth Edition (1840). 
Davis wrote, “That America was peopled by those in advance of the savage state long before any authentic accounts are given of settlements, is manifest from nameless monuments of antiquity found in various parts. The ruins of a city in Central America are among the most striking of such. This city, called Palenque, lies two hundred and forty miles from Tabasco.”

As Stephens’s biographer explained, “The acceptance of an ‘Indian civilization’ demanded, to an American living in 1839 [when Stephens’s book came out in London], an entire reorientation, for to him an Indian was one of those barbaric, half-naked te-pee dwellers against whom wars were constantly waged [on the American frontier]. . . . Nor did one ever think of calling the other indigenous inhabitants of the continent ‘civilized.’ In the universally accepted opinion [of that day], they were like their North American counterparts—savages.”1
The sensational aspect of Stephens’ book was the illustrations of exotic ruins, not the idea that there had been ancient civilizations in Central and South America. Stephens was born in 1805, after Humboldt had already returned from his travels and met with President Thomas Jefferson. 
Long before Stephens traveled to Mesoamerica, the existence of ruined cities there was well known. In fact, Stephens read about the ancient civilization, including cities in Mesoamerica, in Humboldt’s books.

Smith and his cohorts were just as surprised by what Stephens brought to light as was the contemporary public. Apparently, early believing readers of the Book of Mormon—including even Joseph Smith—had not paid enough attention to the book’s descriptions of the setting where Nephite history was played out to fully realize the implied level of civilization that now seems obvious when we read the text. The book relates that the people it tells about dwelled in “cities,” and even “great cities.” They practiced intensive agriculture to support the large populations implied. 

If “Joseph and his cohorts” were surprised by Stephens’ books, they weren’t paying attention to books being sold in Palmyra, let alone what Benjamin Winchester and others were writing.
In the 1814 English translation of his book titled Researches concerning the institutions and Monuments of the Ancient Inhabitants of America, Humboldt wrote about Quetzalcoatl, explaining the tradition and how the Spaniards were taken by Montezuma as being the descendants of Quetzalcoatl. “The reign of Quetzalcoatl was the golden age of the people of Anahuac. At that period, all animals, and even men, lived in peace; the earth brought forth, without culture, the most fruitful harvests; and the air was filled with a multitude of birds, which were admired for their song, and the beauty of their plumage. But this reign, like that of Saturn, and the happiness of the world, were not of long duration.”
Humboldt described the Mayan numbering system. 
He included illustrations of ruins and “hieoglyphicals.” 
He wrote about cement in Peru: “it is a true mortar, of which I detached considerable portions with a knife, by digging into the interstices which were left between the parallel courses of the stones. This fact deserves some attention; because the travellers who preceded us have all asserted, that the Peruvians were unacquainted with the use of mortar; but the supposition, that the Peruvians were as ignorant in this point as the ancient inhabitants of Egypt, is erroneous.” 

_____

I could go on with this, but I suspect you see the point by now.

Its easy to see why some of the early LDS leaders and authors (but never Joseph Smith) claimed the Book of Mormon explained the civilizations described by Humboldt, Stephens and others. Contrary to what our M2C intellectuals have been telling us, people in Joseph’s day knew all about ancient civilizations in Central and South America. To them, a hemispheric model made sense, especially because Humboldt himself had described Panama as a “neck of land.”

Move forward to the late 1800s, when Joseph F. Smith was reaffirming the New York Cumorah and sought to purchase the hill. His opponents in the RLDS church declared that the hill in New York was not the real Cumorah, after all. They claimed that the “real Cumorah” was in Mexico.

Hence, M2C.

Soon enough, certain LDS scholars adopted their theory, partly because of the apologetic benefit. They began promoting the idea that Joseph could not have known about ancient civilizations in Central America before he translated the Book of Mormon; therefore, M2C actually proved the Book of Mormon was true.

And some of them still think that.

But, as we’ve seen in this post, it’s a fundamentally flawed premise.

If Joseph (and/or his co-conspirators) composed the Book of Mormon as a record of a lost civilization, the most natural setting would be ancient America in Central and South America, precisely as described by Humboldt and others before the Book of Mormon was published in 1830.

This is why I think M2C is exactly the wrong theory to promote the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. 

This is why I think M2C is going to continue to leave people confused and disturbed in their faith in the Book of Mormon, just as Joseph Fielding Smith warned all those decades ago.
_____

Brother Sorenson did make a good point: Joseph could have composed a book based on his experiences with Indians in and around New York, but he didn’t.

Joseph could just have easily composed a book set in ancient Central and/or South America. But he didn’t.

So what is the Book of Mormon?
_____

I won’t get into all the semantic arguments about geography, or the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah in New York, or Joseph Smith’s statements in the Wentworth letter, on Zion’s Camp, etc.

For now, just consider this.

Brother Sorenson made another good point: a powerful evidence of the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon would be its description of a civilization unknown and unknowable before Joseph translated the plates.

The ancient civilizations in Central and South America simply don’t qualify because they were described in books sold right in Palmyra before Joseph even met Moroni.

What does qualify?

The Hopewell and Adena civilizations of North America.

These civilizations were not even named until around 1900. The extent and sophistication of these civilizations is still being discovered today.

They fit the time frames from the text and the locations Joseph identified. They align with the New York Cumorah. They match up with other important events that have taken place, and will take place, in North America.
_____

Long-time readers know that I accepted M2C for decades. Like the fine young scholars employed by the M2C citation cartel today, I was convinced by my CES and BYU teachers that the prophets were wrong and that the scholars were right.

That was my mistake, and I hope that more members of the Church, as well as non-members, can come to see M2C for the mistake it is. I’m not trying to persuade anyone; I simply encourage people to make informed decisions.

In recent years I have come to realize the prophets were right about Book of Mormon geography all along. They have always emphasized two main points:

1. The Hill Cumorah of Mormon 6:6 is in New York.

2. We don’t know the location of the other events.

These are the only two positions I hold.

Point #2 is important because it’s not a lack of evidence but an overabundance of evidence that we confront. It’s impossible to choose among dozens or hundreds of sites in North America that could match up with the text.

That said, I don’t reject a Mesoamerican setting per se (although I think it’s relatively implausible). I don’t categorically exclude any theory of geography that has Cumorah in New York.

As more and more people return to accepting what the prophets have taught all along, we will discover more and more evidence that supports their teachings.

It’s an exciting time to be a member of the Church.

Source: Book of Mormon Concensus

Uncategorized

Does the Book of Mormon matter?

Yesterday Jana Reiss published an important article about how the Church addresses people in their 20s and 30s.

https://janariess.religionnews.com/2019/06/18/20-changes-the-new-mormon-president-has-made-to-appeal-to-millennials-and-generation-z/

She concludes: “I don’t think they will move the needle back to the way things used to be, for three reasons.” Her reasons are (i) social issues, (ii) disaffiliation in society overall, and (iii) young people resist centralized authority.

I found this interesting because two words never came up in her article: truth, and Book of Mormon.

People still respond to truth.

Gospel living has always entailed some contrast with society as a whole.

It seems to me that skepticism about truth claims is a more basic problem than the reasons Reiss identified, and the 20 changes she listed have little to no bearing on the truth claims.

In fact, the Saints book (#16 on her list) created a false historical present purely to accommodate M2C.

We’ve seen how half of Millennials and even some BYU professors no longer believe the Book of Mormon is an authentic history.

That’s an easily predictable outcome when BYU and CES teach the Book of Mormon with fantasy maps, especially when those maps are a pretext for teaching the M2C hoax.
_____

Here’s another change Reiss should have mentioned: The Gospel Topics Essay on Book of Mormon Geography.

Now, “the Church’s only position is that the events the Book of Mormon describes took place in the ancient Americas.”

That is a big change from the past and seems to be another accommodation to younger people who have been taught M2C their entire lives, but it’s not exactly a reaffirmation of what the prophets have taught. It is difficult to see how this watering down of the teachings of the prophets will build faith.

Thanks to employees at BYU, CES and COB who believe in and promote M2C, very few Millennials or GenXers are familiar with the following teachings that have long been part of the Church’s truth claims:

“The Church has long maintained, as attested to by references in the writings of General Authorities, that the Hill Cumorah in western New York state is the same as referenced in the Book of Mormon.”

“This modernistic theory (M2C) of necessity, in order to be consistent, must place the waters of Ripliancum and the Hill Cumorah some place within the restricted territory of Central America, notwithstanding the teachings of the Church to the contrary for upwards of 100 years.” 

“This Book, which contained these things, was hid in the earth by Moroni, in a hill called by him, Cumorah, which hill is now in the State of New York, near the village of Palmyra, in Ontario County.”

“At about one mile west rises another ridge of less height, running parallel with the former, leaving a beautiful vale between. The soil is of the first quality for the country, and under a state of cultivation, which gives a prospect at once imposing, when one reflects on the fact, that here, between these hills, the entire power and national strength of both the Jaredites and Nephites were destroyed.

By turning to the 529th and 530th pages of the book of Mormon you will read Mormon’s account of the last great struggle of his people, as they were encamped round this hill Cumorah.”

“In the western part of the state of New York near Palmyra is a prominent hill known as the “hill Cumorah.” (Morm. 6:6.) On July twenty-fifth of this year, as I stood on the crest of that hill admiring with awe the breathtaking panorama which stretched out before me on every hand, my mind reverted to the events which occurred in that vicinity some twenty-five centuries ago—events which brought to an end the great Jaredite nation.”
_____

The point of the Restoration was bringing truth to the world and establishing Zion. The Book of Mormon was a critical element. The keystone, actually.

And righteousness will I send down out of heaven; and truth will I send forth out of the earth, to bear testimony of mine Only Begotten; his resurrection from the dead; yea, and also the resurrection of all men; and righteousness and truth will I cause to sweep the earth as with a flood, to gather out mine elect from the four quarters of the earth, unto a place which I shall prepare, an Holy City, that my people may gird up their loins, and be looking forth for the time of my coming; for there shall be my tabernacle, and it shall be called Zion, a New Jerusalem.
(Moses 7:62)

Moving away from truth claims about the Book of Mormon seems to be the opposite of sweeping the earth with truth. Replacing those truth claims with M2C and fantasy maps is even worse.

And what about establishing Zion? Everyone seeks a just, fair, and loving society, with no poor among us and everyone seeking to serve and honor others.

The world has shown itself unable to establish Zion, despite an abundance of resources, teachings, and aspirations. That’s because establishing Zion requires a change of heart. It’s a process, not a goal, and the gospel can make it a reality.

But hardly anyone even knows about this because no one talks about it any more.

That’s a topic for another time and place.

Let’s get back to the Book of Mormon.
_____

Yesterday we saw how the underlying premise of M2C is fake. That’s why I call it a hoax.

The M2C hoax reminds me of this: Whatever you think and believe will very much shape your reality.” –

M2C advocates have long maintained that the Mesoamerican setting is evidence of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon because Joseph could not have known about ancient civilizations in Mesoamerica.

The premise is fake because long before Joseph translated the plates, the ancient civilizations in Mesoamerica were well known. (Plus, the Book of Mormon doesn’t describe Mesoamerica anyway, but that’s a separate topic.)

The originator of M2C, an RLDS scholar named H.A. Stebbins, recognized that the premise of M2C would be invalid if, in fact, Joseph knew about ancient Mesoamerican civilizations before he translated the plates. In 1897, Stebbins wrote an article attempting to rebut the evidence that these civilizations were well known. Basically, he claimed the Europeans didn’t know about the Mesoamerican ruins until after 1830, which may or may not be true but it’s irrelevant because, as we saw yesterday, Humboldt’s book was on sale in Palmyra in 1819. This is getting too far into the weeds, but if you’re interested, email me and I’ll email you the reference.

Once LDS intellectuals adopted the Stebbins M2C theory, they ran with it. Let’s look at some of the LDS intellectual background for M2C.
_____
Extract from John Lloyd Stephens,
one of the displays at the “Worlds of Joseph Smith”
symposium at the Library of Congress

The M2C hoax was on full display at the disastrous Library of Congress event in 2005. That event, titled “The Worlds of Joseph Smith,” portrayed the Book of Mormon as a Mesoamerican document. Speakers described Joseph Smith as ignorant, speculative and dependent on intellectuals. I discussed that conference here.

Here is an excerpt from a presentation at that conference:

Consequently,  what  Joseph  Smith  knew  and  understood about the book ought to be research questions rather than presumptions. Thanks  in  large  part  to  his  critics,  it  is  becoming  clear that Joseph Smith did not fully understand the geography, scope, historical scale, literary form, or cultural content of the book.

What is clear is that Joseph did not understand the M2C interpretation of the text. Having been tutored by Moroni, and having visited the depository of Nephite records in the Hill Cumorah in New York, the plains of the Nephites in Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, the site of Zelph’s burial, etc., Joseph understood the content of the book quite well. 

He explained what Moroni taught him: “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,  about the culture, mode of transportation, and other features.”   

For  example,  early  Mormons  believed  Book  of  Mormon  lands stretched  throughout  all  of North  and  South  America,  a  presumption clearly at odds with the book itself (fig. 1a).⁸

Some early Mormons believed that, but only a handful wrote about that theory. Projecting the ideas of a few onto an entire population is a logical fallacy, of course. Here, it’s even worse than usual because Joseph Smith explicitly rejected the hemispheric model. 

When he wrote the Wentworth letter, he based it on Orson Pratt’s pamphlet, An Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions. In that pamphlet, Pratt had spent several pages outlining the hemispheric model. Joseph crossed out that section and replaced it with this: “the remnant [of the Nephites and Lamanites] are the Indians that now inhabit this country.” Recall that he was writing from Nauvoo Illinois to an editors in Chicago Illinois. When he wrote “this country” he was not writing about Mesoamerica.

BTW, if you google “Wentworth letter,” don’t go to the first link. That one goes to the lesson manual, Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith. The curriculum committee (which is dominated by M2C believers) edited out Joseph’s teaching about the Indians. Fortunately, the full Wentworth letter slipped past the censors into the Ensign in 2002, and you can still find it here.)]

The book speaks specifically only of a limited land about the size of Pennsylvania. 

Anyone can read the text and see that its descriptions of geography are anything but specific. The M2C interpretation confines it to a small area because that’s the only way the M2C intellectuals can make it fit. (Ironically, Pennsylvania is a lot closer than southern Mexico.)

In 1842, after reading about ancient cities in Central America, Joseph speculated that Book of Mormon lands were located there (fig. 1b). 

Joseph as speculator, the framing every intellectuals loves because it elevates the scholars above the prophets. This sentence is a double hoax because ancient cities in Central America were known from at least 1804, when von Humboldt visited President Thomas Jefferson and told him about the ruins there, and because Joseph had nothing to do with the anonymous 1842 Times and Seasons articles.

I derive two lessons from his speculation: First, Joseph did not know exactly where Book of Mormon lands were; second, he considered their  location  an  important  question  addressable  through scholarship.

Here is the self-serving repudiation of the prophets accompanied by the inevitable demand for full employment of scholars. 

BTW, almost every time you attend an academic conference such as this, at least one speaker will emphasize how important it is to continue more research. Scholars are understandably dependent on the financial support (and gullibility) of ordinary people, but in many cases, they are spending your money on rabbit holes that lead nowhere.

I’m all in favor of more information, but the M2C hoax has consumed millions of dollars and untold hours of wasted effort, all because the scholars decided the prophets were mere speculators, misleading the Church with their incorrect opinions. 
_____

You can go through the work of the M2C citation cartel and find nothing but M2C all the time. The cartel includes FairMormon, Book of Mormon Central, the Interpreter, BYU Studies, Meridian Magazine, and everyone who supports and reproduces their M2C materials.

The cartel resorts to censorship, obfuscation, and similar tactics to maintain M2C. But ultimately, they can’t suppress the teachings of the prophets forever.

Or, maybe they can.

Source: Book of Mormon Wars