Category: Uncategorized

This is the fourth part of the Mike Parker clarification. For Parts I-III, see

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2023/04/mike-parker-clarifies-part-i.html

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2023/04/mike-parker-clarifies-part-ii.html

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2023/04/mike-parker-clarifies-part-iii.html

Again, I appreciate Mike’s willingness to discuss these issues, and I think he has done a good job summarizing the M2C position. We both realize we disagree about some of these things but we also agree it is useful for us to have a fair and open dialog about them.

I welcome any additional input by other M2C advocates, if any.

Discussion

Mike: 1. Framing the issue as “Joseph and Oliver intentionally misled people” dishonestly misrepresents the views of those who accept that Joseph also used a seer stone to translate the Book of Mormon.

My response: This is a binary question regarding the Book of Mormon as we have it today. Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery always and unambiguously said Joseph used the Urim and Thummim that came with the plates. Neither of them said or implied that Joseph used a seer stone, let alone a seer stone in a hat. 

Therefore, those who say Joseph used a seer stone to produce the Book of Mormon necessarily imply (and some outright state) that Joseph and Oliver misled everyone. 

Sources that say Joseph used “both” refer to his work on the lost 116 pages, not the Book of Mormon we have today, as I clarified with my parenthetical. If there are historical sources that say he used both, and Mike can provide citations, then I’ll revise my summary here. 

Mike: 2. Martin Harris—Joseph’s first scribe in translating the Book of Mormon—testified that Joseph used both the Nephite interpreters and a seer stone in the process. The historical record suggests that early Latter-day Saints referred to both items as “Urim and Thummim.”

My response: Martin Harris referred to the 116 pages, which I clarified when I wrote the parenthetical “(at least the text we have today).” The Turley article to which Mike refers states a theory as a fact: “By 1833, Joseph Smith and his associates began using the biblical term “Urim and Thummim” to refer to any stones used to receive divine revelations, including both the Nephite interpreters and the single seer stone.” (Apparently the article was published before the discovery of the 1832 Boston article in which Orson Hyde explained that Joseph used the Urim and Thummim to translate the plates.) 

For support, Turley cites only a journal entry by Wilford Woodruff from 1841. Turley doesn’t mention that the 1835 book Mormonism Unvailed, explicitly distinguished the SITH narrative from the Urim and Thummim explanation, showing the terms were not commingled at that time. Turley also doesn’t mention that other contemporaries of Joseph and Oliver also distinguished the Urim and Thummim from the seer stone.

Mike: 3. And it’s more that a little disingenuous for Jonathan Neville to accuse others of claiming Joseph Smith “intentionally misled everyone about the translation” when he himself has used his “demonstration theory” to argue that Joseph Smith did exactly that. (See below.)

My response: I’m glad Mike raised this point. First, I’m not accusing anyone. “Accusation” is a pejorative term for merely reporting what the SITH proponents have said and published, as anyone can see.

My demonstration scenario does not propose any intentional or unintentional misleading. Just the opposite. Joseph explained clearly that he could not display the Urim and Thummim or the plates, but his supporters wanted to understand the translation process. This is why Gurley said Joseph used the seer stone to “satisfy the awful curiosity” of his supporters. The eyewitness testimony has Joseph putting a stone in a hat, covering his face with the hat, and dictating words. No one recorded what he dictated. It was only later that people began saying Joseph produced the Book of Mormon with SITH, but Joseph and Oliver left no room for SITH in their published statements.

To be clear, my demonstration theory is a conditional hypothetical. It arose from the assumption that (i) the SITH witnesses accurately reported what they observed and (ii) what Joseph dictated from SITH has made its way into the text we have today (despite the lack of a chain of evidence). Based on the extant original manuscripts, and assuming that what the SITH witnesses observed was Joseph dictating the text we have today, I think he probably dictated the Isaiah passages from 2 Nephi from memory, having seen during the actual translation upstairs that Nephi was quoting Isaiah. Thus, he was actually dictating his translation. He just was not dictating a “live” translation, but instead dictated material he had previously translated before doing the demonstration. 

People can interpret this as “misleading” if they want to. But that requires inferring that Joseph told the SITH witnesses something false, which we do not have evidence of. Instead, it appears that the SITH witnesses inferred that his demonstration was the actual translation process (or later claimed that to refute the Spalding theory, which seems more likely to me).

What we do have is Joseph’s own explicit, unambiguous published statements that he translated the record with the Urim and Thummim that came with the plates. If instead he produced the text from a stone in a hat, then there is no reasonable, fact-based alternative to concluding he misled everyone with his published statements.

Because I give the statements of Joseph and Oliver greater weight than the statements of those who were not directly involved with the translation (especially those who later turned against Joseph), this is an easy call for me, based on the available evidence. 

But I’m fine with people disagreeing. I just think they should own the implications of their explanation so people can make informed decisions.

Source: About Central America

Brigham Young, “SAINTS SUBJECT TO TEMPTATION”.

A Discourse by President Brigham Young, Delivered in the Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, April 17, 1853.

_____

We talk about true riches—about the eternal attributes of the Deity—and about that which He has given to the children of men. I also heard something said the other day about sanctification. This doctrine I heard taught many years ago, and I perceive that men do not fully understand these  principles; even the best of the Latter-day Saints have but a faint idea of the attributes of the Deity.

Were the former and Latter-day Saints, with their Apostles, Prophets, Seers, and Revelators collected together to discuss this matter, I am led to think there would be found a great variety in their views and feelings upon this subject without direct revelation from the Lord. It is as much my right to differ from other men, as it is theirs to differ from me, in points of doctrine and principle, when our minds cannot at once arrive at the same conclusion. I feel it sometimes very difficult indeed to word my thoughts as they exist in my own mind, which, I presume, is the grand cause of many apparent differences in sentiment which may exist among the Saints.

What I consider to be virtue, and the only principle of virtue there is, is to do the will of our Father in heaven. That is the only virtue I wish to know. I do not recognize any other virtue than to do what the Lord Almighty requires of me from day to day. In this sense virtue embraces all good; it branches out into every avenue of mortal life, passes through the ranks of the sanctified in heaven, and makes its throne in the breast of the Deity. When the Lord commands the people, let them obey. That is virtue.

The same principle will embrace what is called sanctification. When the will, passions, and feelings of a person are perfectly submissive to God and His requirements, that person is sanctified. It is for my will to be swallowed up in the will of God, that will lead me into all good, and crown me ultimately with immortality and eternal lives.

(1850s1853, Brigham Young, Saints ¶13–16 • JD 2:122–JD 2:123)

Source: Book of Mormon Concensus

Source: Book of Mormon Concensus

This is the third part of the Mike Parker clarification. Again, I appreciate Mike’s willingness to discuss these issues, and I think he has done a good job summarizing the M2C position. I welcome any additional input by other M2C advocates, if any.

For Part I, see

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2023/04/mike-parker-clarifies-part-i.html

For Part II, see

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2023/04/mike-parker-clarifies-part-ii.html

BTW, I know this may seem tedious to some people, but it’s important to have a complete record that people can refer to. I’m going through these in detail because some Book of Mormon scholars seem to think I’ve never thought of these objections/criticisms and if I don’t respond, others may infer I have no response. Apparently a lot of people don’t realize I was once an enthusiastic M2C advocate myself because, as a student, I deferred to the M2C scholars and trusted them. But when I eventually realized they were agenda-driven apologists instead of legitimate scholars, I looked into the issues from a fresh perspective. Then I discovered that they had suppressed and changed Church history to promote their M2C theories, persuading Latter-day Saints through sophistry and obfuscation to reject the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah.

And they’re still doing it, as the “Peter Pan” fiasco exemplified.

Discussion.

Mike: 1. Framing the issue as “scholars decided the prophets were wrong about Cumorah” both dishonestly misrepresents the people involved and unfairly accuses them of “repudiating the teachings of the prophets.” No one began or ended with the conclusion that “the prophets were wrong” about anything.

My response: Mike has a legitimate point to consider so let’s unpack this. I don’t want to misrepresent anyone’s views or make unfair accusations. 

Start with the last sentence. If no one concluded that “the prophets were wrong” about Cumorah, there would be no ongoing debate over the location of Cumorah. But that debate persists. Mike’s claim is false. 

Everyone can see that the prophets have long taught that there is one Cumorah and it is in New York. Letter VII, written by the Assistant President of the Church who is also named as an Apostle in the scriptures (D&C 20:3), is clear and unambiguous. The New York Cumorah has been reaffirmed many times by Church leaders, including in General Conference. Anyone who contradicts the New York Cumorah is, by definition, saying the prophets were wrong.

Even when M2C scholars frame Letter VII and corroborating teachings as “opinions,” they still insist these opinions are wrong. Otherwise they wouldn’t be preaching “two Cumorahs.”

Mike’s point boils down to whether the scholars “began” with the conclusion that the prophets were wrong.

In his first sentence, Mike says my framing “dishonestly misrepresents the people involved and unfairly accuses them of ‘repudiating the teachings of the prophets.’” By “people involved” we have to infer he means those I named; i.e., Stebbins, Hills, Sorenson, Peterson, and Welch. I don’t want to Each of them teach M2C, which by definition repudiates the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah. I showed that history here: https://www.lettervii.com/p/origin-and-rationale-of-m2c.html.

If I’m incorrect–if any of the named individuals (or other M2C advocates)–has accepted the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah, I’ll be the first to acknowledge that. 

Just provide a quotation and citation.

_____

Mike: 2. Since there has been no revelation about Book of Mormon geography—including the location of the hill Cumorah—the question has been entirely one of finding a location in the Western Hemisphere that best fits, geographically and anthropologically, the descriptions given in the Book of Mormon.

My response. This is a rehash of Mike’s first point, which we discussed here:

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2023/04/mike-parker-clarifies-part-i.html

Notice the internal fallacy of his approach. He says we have to find “a location in the Western Hemisphere” that fits the descriptions in the text. But the text never mentions the Western Hemisphere. Confining the search to the Western Hemisphere requires going outside the text to the teachings of the prophets. But then Mike (like all M2Cers) rejects the teachings of those same prophets about Cumorah!

And, of course, the descriptions in the text are far from precise. Finding a “fit” is an exercise in circular reasoning. That’s why there are so many variations, all of which claim to “fit” the text.

_____

Mike: 3. Beginning in the late 19th century, careful readers of the Book of Mormon began to realize that the action it describes could not have taken place across the entire Western Hemisphere and must have happened in a much more limited area. Latter-day Saints and members of the Reorganized Church were working along parallel lines (similar to how Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz both independently discovered calculus), but there is no evidence that Saints in Utah were aware of RLDS publications.

My response. Even assuming it wasn’t until the late 19th century that people rejected the hemispheric model (an assumption I don’t share), a limited geography doesn’t exclude a New York Cumorah.

Mike claims there is “No evidence that Saints in Utah were aware of RLDS publications,” yet the RLDS send missionaries to Utah and converted thousands of Latter-day Saints. Heber J. Grant discussed the RLDS in General Conference?

I have done it because there is a question, and an active labor now being carried out among the Latter-day Saints by what is known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but as Brother Richards, I think it was, said, there is no such thing, as the Church was never disorganized.

(1890s1898, October, 4th Session, Elder Heber J. Grant, ¶9 • CR90)

When Joseph Fielding Smith denounced M2C in the 1920s, the only ones who had proposed M2C were RLDS scholars Hills and Gunsolley, as Sorenson shows in his chart here:

https://www.lettervii.com/p/origin-and-rationale-of-m2c.html.

_____

Mike: 4. In 1880, Latter-day Saint George Reynolds proposed the first limited geography model, with Desolation—the land where the hill Cumorah was—located in Central America. (This was published by the Church in their periodical The Juvenile Instructor.) The anonymous 1886 Latter-day Saint publication Plain Facts for Students of the Book of Mormon situated the entire text of the book in northern South America and Central America. In 1909 Elder B.H. Roberts wrote, “The question of Book of Mormon geography is more than ever recognized as an open one by students of the Book,” and that the lands of the Book of Mormon might “be found between Mexico and Yucatan with the isthmus of Tehuantepec between.”

My response. None of these proposed Cumorah outside of New York, as Sorenson’s table shows us. The official text of the Book of Mormon at the time (through 1920) acknowledged speculation about “Chili” and other possible locations, but reaffirmed that the New York Cumorah was a fact.

_____

Mike: 5. During the 20th century, many Latter-day Saint scholars and students of the Book of Mormon developed and refined several competing Mesoamerican Book of Mormon geographical models. (Daniel Peterson and John W. Welch are not key individuals in this and haven’t published any independent research on Book of Mormon geography.) None of these scholars and students has ever written or spoken anything resembling the assertion that a Cumorah in Mesoamerica “is the truth that must be defended against those who still believe the teachings of the prophets.”

My response. Focusing on Dan Peterson and John W. (Jack) Welch is important. Let’s discuss whether they are “key individuals” in this.

There are no more “key individuals” in the Cumorah question than Dan and Jack.

Jack founded FARMS in 1979, represented by the pervasive M2C logo, discussed here: 

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2022/12/narrative-poisoning.html.

Nothing has done more to imprint M2C on the minds of the Latter-day Saints than that logo, which uses a Mayan glyph to represent the Book of Mormon. For over 40 years, the M2C logo was featured on most LDS scholarship, including Royal Skousen’s series of books on the text of the Book of Mormon. 

FARMS promoted M2C exclusively and aggressively. For over 20 years, Dan Peterson served as editor of the Mormon Studies Review (formerly the FARMS Review) and, after he was removed from his position, he continued promoting M2C through the Interpreter. 

https://www.templestudy.com/2012/06/25/rise-fall-farms/

Meanwhile, as editor of BYU Studies, Jack published his M2C maps in BYU Studies (and they persist there, unfortunately). 

And is Mike really unaware of the M2C orientation of Book of Mormon Central, which is owned by BMAF (http://bmaf.org/) and which shamelessly promotes M2C to its unsuspecting Spanish readers?

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2023/02/bilingual-deception-bmc-misinforms-and.html

As to Mike’s point that Dan and Jack “haven’t published any independent research on Book of Mormon geography,” they both have carefully preserved plausible deniability by acting through surrogates and anonymous publications, as we’ll discuss in more detail separately.

If that isn’t obvious to everyone already, just think about the way Dan Peterson promoted Mike Parker’s fraudulent and racist “Peter Pan” pseudonym in his own blog and even in the Interpreter journal.

Finally, Mike writes “None of these scholars and students has ever written or spoken anything resembling the assertion that a Cumorah in Mesoamerica “is the truth that must be defended against those who still believe the teachings of the prophets.”

Mike’s categorical claim is easy to refute just by reading anything published by FARMS, Book of Mormon Central, and the Interpreter about Cumorah and the work of those who still believe what the prophets have taught about Cumorah. 

Of course, a recent example of the aggressive defense of M2C is Mike’s own “Peter Pan” persona.

_____

Mike: 6. Those who favor a Mesoamerican geography remain open to serious, reliable evidence that it took place elsewhere. The fraudulent artifacts and implausible geographical models proposed by followers of the Heartland movement fail in every way to meet that standard.

My response. First, in terms of evidence, there is zero evidence for tolerance, let alone consideration, by M2C advocates of an alternative setting. Mike could have provided a quotation or citation of such an openness if he had one. The history of M2C apologetics (including Mike’s comments) has demonstrated tremendous antipathy toward any evidence that contradicts M2C–including not only the evidence from the teachings of the prophets, but extrinsic evidence from archaeology, anthropology, etc.

Second, while I agree that some questionable artifacts have been used to promote various theories, the same is true of M2C theories. Fake antiquities are pervasive worldwide. That’s not a reason to reject the teachings of the prophets. 

Third, whether a model is implausible is a subjective question. For some readers, a plausible model requires volcanoes because they infer the text describes volcanoes; for others, a plausible model could not have volcanoes because the text never mentions them and the text doesn’t describe them. 

_____

Source: About Central America

Source: Book of Mormon Concensus

This is the second part of the Mike Parker clarification. For Part I, see

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2023/04/mike-parker-clarifies-part-i.html

Again, I appreciate Mike’s willingness to discuss these issues, and I think he has done a good job summarizing the M2C position. I welcome any additional input by other M2C advocates, if any.

Discussion

Mike: 1. Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery’s contemporaries and successors shared the same assumptions about the text that they did, and they taught and testified in good faith based on these assumptions. These assumptions became traditions, but just because something is traditional does not make it true (as has been seen in the Church’s recent disavowal of theories that for over a century were used to explain the priesthood ban).

My Response: There is no historical evidence to support Mike’s theory that the NY Cumorah was a mere “assumption.” Instead, the historical record shows that the NY Cumorah originated with Moroni telling Joseph the name of the hill the first night they met. This is also the most parsimonious explanation for why everyone accepted the NY Cumorah.

Neither Oliver nor Joseph ever framed the New York Cumorah as a mere “assumption.” Oliver unambiguously declared it was a fact. In his eight essays about the origins of the Church, Oliver made clear and repeated distinctions between speculation and fact. 

Joseph assisted Oliver in writing these essays, had his scribes copy them into his own journal as part of his life story, and approved their republication in the Gospel Reflector and Times and Seasons. During Joseph’s lifetime, they were also republished in the Millennial Star and The Prophet, each time reiterating that it is a fact that the hill in New York is the Cumorah of Mormon 6:6. Joseph wrote D&C 128:20 in this context.

The comparison to the priesthood ban is inapposite and pejorative. The New York Cumorah has a definite origin: Moroni’s first visit to Joseph Smith. It is corroborated by many historical sources and is contradicted by no historical sources. It has been clearly articulated by Church leaders including members of the First Presidency speaking in General Conference. 

By contrast, the origins of the priesthood ban are murky. The justifications involved a variety of explanations, none of them official. The elimination of the priesthood ban was a direct result of revelation.

In early June of this year, the First Presidency announced that a revelation had been received by President Spencer W. Kimball extending priesthood and temple blessings to all worthy male members of the Church.

(Doctrine and Covenants, OD 2, 2)

My response: By this logic, no one can be misled by anything that does not pertain to salvation. This is news to anyone who has ever been misled about finances, advertising and product claims, interpersonal relationships, politics, science or any other topic (including pseudonyms).

Underneath the faulty logic, though, are two important issues.

First, because no one says the location of Cumorah is essential to salvation, Mike makes a straw man argument; i.e., he argues against a position no one holds. Straw man arguments are useful for distracting people from the real issues, and we can all see why Mike avoids the real issue here. 

In this case, the important question that Mike avoids is why did Oliver declare it was a fact that Cumorah is in New York? For that matter, why did Moroni identify the hill as Cumorah the first time he met Joseph? 

Oliver was responding to the book Mormonism Unvailed, which, among other things, claimed the Book of Mormon was fiction derived from Solomon Spaulding’s lost manuscript. To refute the charge, Oliver explained the historical fact–the reality–that the final battles of the Nephites and Jaredites took place in a known location: the mile-wide valley west of Cumorah. 

While it is true in a sense that the historicity of the Book of Mormon “does not pertain in any way to salvation,” it is also true that the Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion. If it is not what it claims–if the Book of Mormon is actually fiction, even if pious–then the keystone collapses. 

Does that pertain to salvation? Apparently, Mike thinks it does not. People can decide for themselves. 

Second, what pertains to salvation? 

This Cumorah issue implicates the credibility of Oliver Cowdery more generally. If he deliberately lied about Cumorah by declaring it was a fact when he either did not know it was a fact or knew it was not a fact, then his credibility about everything else is called into question–including the restoration of the Priesthood, the restoration of temple keys, the translation of the Book of Mormon, etc. 

Presumably Mike would agree that the restoration of the Priesthood and temple keys pertains to salvation. Then why does Mike seek to undermine the credibility of Oliver Cowdery, who was the only witness of these things other than Joseph Smith? And why does Mike seek to undermine the credibility of other Church leaders who have reaffirmed Oliver’s declaration of fact?

So far as we can tell, the only reason Mike undermines their credibility is because he personally believes the “real Cumorah” is somewhere in Mesoamerica. 

Those interested in this issue can weigh for themselves the relative credibility of Oliver Cowdery and the other historical evidence vs. the personal opinion of Mike Parker.

People can believe whatever they want. For me, though, it’s no contest.

I still accept what Oliver, Joseph, Lucy Mack Smith, David Whitmer, Brigham Young, and everyone else said about Cumorah.

____

Next, part III.

Source: About Central America