Category: Uncategorized

In the pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding, we’ll use this format when we discuss issues related to the Book of Mormon.

As always, see this link for explanation of acronyms (SITH and M2C).

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/p/acronyms-used-in-this-blog.html

_____

By now, readers here know that the current iteration of SITH (the stone-in-the-hat theory) was first set out in Mormonism Unvailed in 1834. Decades later, David Whitmer related SITH in various interviews, as well as his booklet An Address to All Believers in Christ.*

Now it turns out that Whitmer also has a connection to M2C (the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory). 

A few decades after David died, the Whitmerite church published an edition of the Book of Mormon that included the M2C maps first published by RLDS scholar L.E. Hills.

You can see a video presentation about this here:

https://youtu.be/N1gn18qgQAQ?t=754

This means the Whitmerite edition of the Book of Mormon was the first edition to publish an M2C map.

This was about 100 years ago, long before John Sorenson, Jack Welch, and Dan Peterson published their own derivative articles and maps.

For a modern version of the Hills M2C map, go to BYU Studies and look at the map published there by Jack Welch.

https://byustudies.byu.edu/further-study-chart/160-plausible-locations-in-mesoamerica-for-book-of-mormon-places/

Needless to say, Jack Welch gave Hills no credit for developing M2C (although he did mention him once in a presentation, so he knew about Hills).

Most of the M2C believers know nothing about L.E. Hills. Even Dan recently claimed he’d never heard of him, as if Dan was oblivious to what his associates Jack and John were publishing at FARMS.

When he published his Source Book, John Sorenson at least recognized Hills as the first to put Cumorah in Mesoamerica.

Now, a handful of influential LDS scholars/academics (the Interpreters) have embraced the L.E. Hills map as the foundation for the theories they spend millions of dollars promoting through Book of Mormon Central.

Here is the L.E. Hills map showing Cumorah in southern Mexico:

Here is the Jack Welch map from BYU Studies, which moved Cumorah a little east and claimed this was all based on extensive research by BYU experts.

And here’s how Book of Mormon Central currently portrays Cumorah to Spanish-language readers and followers:

https://geografia.centralldm.es/mapa-modelo/?playlist=3db12fa&video=c33c342

_____

* It’s strange to see so many modern LDS scholars embrace David Whitmer’s account of SITH on its face, especially because they have to reject what Joseph and Oliver said to accept Whitmer’s account. 

Here is the passage that modern SITH scholars quote as accurate:

I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat. and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man

https://archive.org/details/addresstoallbeli00whit/page/12/mode/2up

The SITH sayers quote this passage, but they don’t tell their followers about the rest of the claims David made in this pamphlet, such as his claim that Joseph was not called to establish the church.

Now I hope you understand me. I am not persecuting Brother Joseph, and never did persecute him. Because he erred is no reason why I should not love him. God called him to translate his sacred word by the power and gift of God; but he was not called to set up and establish the church any more thin any of us Elders were. This I will prove conclusively later on, from evidence which you are bound to accept.

https://archive.org/details/addresstoallbeli00whit/page/26/mode/2up

David wrote lots of things about Joseph Smith that the faithful SITH sayers reject.

Remember this matter brethren ; it is very important. Farther on I will give you references of scripture on this point, showing that this is God’s way of dealing with His people. Now is it wisdom to put your trust in Joseph Smith, and believe all his revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants to be of God ? Every one who does not desire to be of Paul, or of Apollos, or of Joseph, but desires to be of Christ will say that it is not wisdom to put our trust in him and believe his revelations as if from God’s own mouth I I will say here, that I could tell you other false revelations that came through Brother Joseph as mouthpiece, (not through the stone) but this will suffice. Many of Brother Joseph’s revelations were never printed.

https://archive.org/details/addresstoallbeli00whit/page/30/mode/2up

Source: Book of Mormon Wars

In the interests of clarity, charity and understanding (http://nomorecontention.com/), from time to time we’ll help the M2Cers clarify their positions.

Ancient Treaty AD 353

Abstract: An alliance celebrated on February 26, AD 353 at the Maya site of Tortuguero in modern Tabasco may be the same treaty the Nephites entered into with the Lamanites and the Gadianton robbers ca. AD 350 as recorded in Mormon 2:28.

https://bookofmormonresources.blogspot.com/2023/05/ancient-treaty-ad-353.html?m=1

Kirk’s explanation is fairly detailed, and he helpfully acknowledges his theory is based on a series of if/then conditionals, but he left out the key point that needs clarification.

_____

Kirk and the other M2Cers claim they follow the text of the Book of Mormon. 

Of course, everyone who proposes a setting for the Book of Mormon events also claims to be following the text. Because the text is vague and subject to a variety of interpretations, people reach a variety of conclusions. (I call this multiple working hypotheses.)

There’s one big problem for M2Cers that they should clarify every time they articulate one of their M2C “correspondences.” 

The text never mentions Mesoamerica. 

The text doesn’t mention America at all. It doesn’t even mention the western hemisphere.

Clarification point: to justify their focus on Mesoamerica, the M2Cers have to start by going outside the text!

But that contradicts their claim that they rely on the text.

M2Cers justify going outside the text by relying on the teachings of the prophets about America–and the anonymous articles in the 1842 Times and Seasons about Central America.

But they simultaneously reject the teachings of those same prophets regarding the hill Cumorah!

M2Cers fit into the all/some/none paradigm this way:

Relative acceptance of what Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery taught: America and Cumorah/Ramah
All	Some	None
1. It is a fact that Book of Mormon events took place in America 2. It is a fact that Cumorah/Ramah is in western New York	1. It is a fact that Book of Mormon events took place in America 2. But it is not a fact that Cumorah/Ramah is not in western New York	1. Book of Mormon events did not take place in America (or anywhere else) 2. Cumorah/Ramah is not in western New York (or anywhere else)

The ALL and NONE positions are logical and consistent. The SOME position is purely and obviously bias confirmation. 

_____

When looking for parallels and correspondences, we can find some all over the world.

I’ve previously pointed out that features such as a “narrow neck of land,” a “small neck of land,” and a “narrow neck” are ubiquitous. George Washington referred to several in the New York/Boston area. It would be difficult to find an area anywhere in the world that did not feature a neck of land or water.

The prevalence of political alliances and wars and treaties is also ubiquitous. Looking at circa 350 AD, for example, the Varman dynasty in India was founded. The Jin imperial dynasty retreated south of the River Huai, leaving the north to other kingdoms (presumably by agreement or treaty). European history is a series of alliances and treaties. 

Oddly, the site of Tortuguero is an unlikely place for a treaty giving the Nephites “the land northward” because from Tortuguero, the “land northward” is a small sliver bordering the Gulf of Mexico.

It’s also one of the few places in the world where you’d be hard pressed to find a “narrow neck” of any sort.

But this is all fine. M2Cers can believe whatever they want.

They just need to clarify the inconsistency of (i) focusing on Mesoamerica because of anonymous articles in the Times and Seasons, while (ii) rejecting the explicit declaration from the prophets that it is a fact that Cumorah/Ramah is in New York.

 

Source: About Central America

In the pursuit of clarity and understanding, we’ll use this format when we discuss issues related to the Book of Mormon.

As always, see this link for explanation of acronyms (SITH and M2C).

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/p/acronyms-used-in-this-blog.html

_____

By now, readers here know that the current iteration of SITH (the stone-in-the-hat theory) was first set out in Mormonism Unvailed in 1834. Decades later, David Whitmer related SITH in various interviews, as well as his booklet An Address to All Believers in Christ.*

Now it turns out that Whitmer also has a connection to M2C (the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory). 

A few decades after David died, the Whitmerite church published an edition of the Book of Mormon that included the M2C maps first published by RLDS scholar L.E. Hills.

You can see a video presentation about this here:

https://youtu.be/N1gn18qgQAQ?t=754

This means the Whitmerite edition of the Book of Mormon was the first edition to publish an M2C map.

This was about 100 years ago, long before John Sorenson, Jack Welch, and Dan Peterson published their own derivative articles and maps.

For a modern version of the Hills M2C map, go to BYU Studies and look at the map published there by Jack Welch.

https://byustudies.byu.edu/further-study-chart/160-plausible-locations-in-mesoamerica-for-book-of-mormon-places/

Needless to say, Jack Welch gave Hills no credit for developing M2C (although he did mention him once in a presentation, so he knew about Hills).

Most of the M2C believers know nothing about L.E. Hills. Even Dan recently claimed he’d never heard of him, as if Dan was oblivious to what his associates Jack and John were publishing at FARMS.

When he published his Source Book, John Sorenson at least recognized Hills as the first to put Cumorah in Mesoamerica.

Now, a handful of influential LDS scholars/academics (the Interpreters) have embraced the L.E. Hills map as the foundation for the theories they spend millions of dollars promoting through Book of Mormon Central.

Here is the L.E. Hills map showing Cumorah in southern Mexico:

Here is the Jack Welch map from BYU Studies, which moved Cumorah a little east and claimed this was all based on extensive research by BYU experts.

And here’s how Book of Mormon Central currently portrays Cumorah to Spanish-language readers and followers:

https://geografia.centralldm.es/mapa-modelo/?playlist=3db12fa&video=c33c342

_____

* It’s strange to see so many modern LDS scholars embrace David Whitmer’s account of SITH on its face, especially because they have to reject what Joseph and Oliver said to accept Whitmer’s account. 

Here is the passage that modern SITH scholars quote as accurate:

I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat. and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man

https://archive.org/details/addresstoallbeli00whit/page/12/mode/2up

The SITH sayers quote this passage, but they don’t tell their followers about the rest of the claims David made in this pamphlet, such as his claim that Joseph was not called to establish the church.

Now I hope you understand me. I am not persecuting Brother Joseph, and never did persecute him. Because he erred is no reason why I should not love him. God called him to translate his sacred word by the power and gift of God; but he was not called to set up and establish the church any more thin any of us Elders were. This I will prove conclusively later on, from evidence which you are bound to accept.

https://archive.org/details/addresstoallbeli00whit/page/26/mode/2up

David wrote lots of things about Joseph Smith that the faithful SITH sayers reject.

Remember this matter brethren ; it is very important. Farther on I will give you references of scripture on this point, showing that this is God’s way of dealing with His people. Now is it wisdom to put your trust in Joseph Smith, and believe all his revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants to be of God ? Every one who does not desire to be of Paul, or of Apollos, or of Joseph, but desires to be of Christ will say that it is not wisdom to put our trust in him and believe his revelations as if from God’s own mouth I I will say here, that I could tell you other false revelations that came through Brother Joseph as mouthpiece, (not through the stone) but this will suffice. Many of Brother Joseph’s revelations were never printed.

https://archive.org/details/addresstoallbeli00whit/page/30/mode/2up

Source: About Central America

It was nice spending 3 weeks in Eastern Europe, far from the contention emanating from LDS apologists in Utah. However, when I was in Europe, someone sent me a screenshot of a post by Mike Parker.* 

Because I favor recognition of multiple working hypotheses and I seek clarity and understanding, I’ve taken a few moments here to address the points Mike raised.

Mike’s post may offer an explanation for everything he’s written.

Basically, he’s in awe of credentials. 

Understanding this may help defuse some of the contention as we seek “no more contention.”

And this episode helps us understand how and why some Church historians manipulate the historical evidence to promote their own narratives instead of helping Latter-day Saints understand the complete historical record.

(*Mike Parker is aka Peter Pan (the boy who doesn’t grow up), aka Richard Nygren (the racist, fake Black apologist)

_____

In his post, Mike promotes a podcast by Gerrit Dirkmaat called “The Standard of Truth.” Mike explains that Gerrit “has a PhD in American history and worked on the Joseph Smith Papers Project as a historian and writer.” 

These are valid, relevant credentials. And Gerrit is undoubtedly a fine scholar, a faithful Latter-day Saint who is exemplary and articulate. But lots of people have lots of credentials, and they are just as prone to differences of opinion, confirmation bias, and cognitive dissonance as anyone else.

In my view, Mike Parker’s awe of credentials has led him (and other like-minded M2C/SITH* proponents) to suspend rational thought in deference to the scholars he so admires. 

*for an explanation of acronyms, see 

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/p/acronyms-used-in-this-blog.html

_____

The credentialed class (the “Interpreters”) encourage this type of deference. They get paid for their expertise, after all. And no doubt, some people seem to feel “smart” by agreeing with and parroting experts. 

The logical fallacy, of course, is that when we defer to credentialed experts, we’re merely confirming our own biases by choosing which experts to follow. As any trial lawyer knows, there are experts on every side of most issues. That’s why lawyers can hire experts to support either side of a case.

Mike Parker has chosen to follow the experts who confirm his biases. Nothing wrong with that; we all rely on experts in areas we don’t have time to pursue ourselves. 

And, as I’ve explained before, I used to do the same thing. I used to follow the FARMS publications. I thought Jack Welch and Dan Peterson were awesome. Too busy with life to do my own research, I deferred to them because I thought they were open and honest and dependable. So I’m empathetic with Mike Parker and the other Interpreters.

Mike’s post helped me realize that for some people it is important to cling to their experts. This is why he gets offended on their behalf and spends so much time trying to defend them. 

But at some point, people should accept responsibility by making informed decisions instead of relying on an expert who confirms their bias.

When they become disillusioned upon realizing how Jack, Dan and other apologists promote agendas, some people lose their faith and become critics. 

Others (like me) take another look at the evidence and discover a different narrative that is more faith-affirming than what Jack and Dan promoted. Obviously, this is all subjective; we can all reach different conclusions based on the same evidence. But that is why, IMO, it’s important to recognize multiple working hypotheses and why it is inexcusable for Jack and Dan to refuse to do so.

By now, everyone interested in these issues can see that the Interpreters are promoting an agenda that consists, apparently, of preserving their reputations and the narratives they’ve taught for decades to thousands of Latter-day Saints. That’s why they perpetuate false stereotypes about Heartlanders, for example.

(For another fun example of the credentialed class, look at how Book of Mormon Central promotes their credentials on their M2C-promoting, Spanish-language “Book of Mormon Geography” page, here:

https://geografia.centralldm.es/nosotros/

_____

Back to Mike’s post. After citing Gerrit’s credentials, Mike says “He is, in my estimation, better acquainted with the life and teachings of Joseph Smith than just about any other living historian.”

With this “estimation,” it’s no wonder that Mike is in awe of Gerrit’s credentials. 

Let’s set aside the absurdity of Mike deciding which living historian is best “acquainted with the life and teachings of Joseph Smith.” It’s unlikely–let’s say, impossible–that Gerrit Dirkmaat has access to any secret teachings of Joseph Smith that no one else has. IOW, we’re all dealing with the same historical evidence. 

It’s not a question of being acquainted with historical evidence. It’s a question of what we do with that evidence, as we’ll discuss below.

For purposes of this blog, though, let’s assume that Gerrit does know more about Joseph Smith than anyone else.

That makes his manipulation of the evidence all the more inexcusable.

_____

BTW, if you find it difficult to believe that anyone would actually write such a statement, here’s part of the screen shot of Mike’s blog post that was sent to me (click to enlarge):

_____ 

The historians and other experts at the Joseph Smith Papers have produced an outstanding reference. I encourage everyone to use it.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/

As I’ve discussed before, The Joseph Smith Papers project is exemplary in the way it has compiled, organized, and presented historical documents. We are all grateful to everyone who participated in that project.

However, the editorial commentary is not so exemplary. While mostly factual, the editors slipped in numerous examples of editorial bias to promote their interpretive agenda. I discussed some of these before.

https://www.academia.edu/67756647/Agenda_driven_editorial_content_in_the_Joseph_Smith_Papers

Part of that agenda is M2C, but another part is SITH.

I think it is inexcusable for these experts to use their editorial commentary to manipulate the historical evidence the way they have. I’d like to see revisions that are more factually correct. (I’d like to see similar improvements to accuracy in the Saints books and the Gospel Topics Essays, too.)

This leads directly to Mike’s blog post. Here’s another part of the screen shot (click to enlarge):

Mike says Dirkmaat discussed “a rising trend/movement among Church members [who] adamantly reject that Joseph Smith used seer stones placed into a hat (in order to block out the light) to translate the Book of Mormon.”

[The subtext is whether Joseph translated the plates with the Urim and Thummim, as he claimed, or whether he actually used the stone-in-the-hat (SITH) instead of the plates and the U&T.]

According to Mike, Dirkmaat was referring to the book by the Stoddards as well as my books.

For purposes of this post, let’s assume Mike correctly represented what Gerrit said.

I won’t comment on the Stoddards’ book. I don’t agree with some of their conclusions, but that’s the nature of historical analysis. There is a large element of subjectivity in reading historical documents. 

If someone polled all the historians/experts who have assessed the life of Joseph Smith, we’d find a full spectrum of conclusions, driven largely by their respective biases. Using exactly the same evidence,, nonbelieving scholars would reach different conclusions than believing scholars would. Among believing scholars there would be a range of views.

All of that is normal.

But for Gerrit Dirkmaat to claim there is a “rising trend/movement” in favor of U&T over SITH is a misleading and contradicts the historical record.

Until a few years ago, there was nearly universal acceptance among Latter-day Saints of U&T over SITH.

Thanks to the efforts of scholars such as Gerrit Dirkmaat and the Interpreters who follow them, there is a “rising trend,” but that trend is the promotion of SITH among young Latter-day Saints and the rejection of the traditional U&T narrative in favor of SITH.

Still, if Gerrit perceives there is a “rising trend” in favor of U&T, then that’s great news. It means more people are learning what Joseph and Oliver actually said. It means more people are seeing through the spin provided by the SITH sayers who prefer David Whitmer’s “An Address to All Believers in Christ” over the Wentworth letter.

_____

To be clear, I’m fine with the Interpreters disagreeing with my conclusions.* 

I’m also fine with them promoting SITH (as well as M2C). 

I just ask that they provide clarity instead of obfuscation, understanding instead of acrimony, and openness instead of censorship.

Last year I discussed the book Gerrit co-authored that’s at the core of the SITH promotion. In that book, the authors simply omitted the historical evidence that contradict their thesis. Last I checked, they haven’t revised the book.

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2022/07/from-darkness-unto-light-omitting.html

It’s easy to promote a historical narrative when you simply omit contrary historical information. That’s why in my books, I try to include all the evidence. I cite people who disagree with me because I favor clarity and understanding. I encourage people to make informed decisions.

That’s why I keep talking about multiple working hypotheses.

Let’s hope that Mike Parker’s post leads to greater clarity and understanding, which will in turn lead to no more contention.

_____

*It is funny, though, that the Interpreters are so insecure about their own positions that they resort to manipulative tactics. For example, when Mike Parker and his fellow Interpreters wrote two long critiques of my books last summer, they didn’t give me any notice or a chance to respond. When I contacted an editor at the Interpreter, he agreed to let me respond within a word count restraint that was far shorter than the original articles. And then they delayed publication of my response until Mike and his fellow Interpreters could prepare a rejoinder to publish alongside my response, in which they raised issues I hadn’t addressed. When I asked to respond to the rejoinder, the editors refused, saying I could make comments if I wanted. Online comments are not part of the journal, leaving readers of the Interpreter with a series of misleading and unanswered criticisms. 

Which readers of the Interpreter are used to, actually, given the pattern established by Dan Peterson (Slander Dan) over many years.

All of this is the opposite of seeking clarity and understanding, which is (or should be) the point of authentic academic exchanges. 

But this all passes as “scholarship” among LDS apologists.

Source: About Central America

A few days ago, FAIRLDS posted a presentation from their 2019 conference on youtube. People have been sending me the clip in which Ben Spackman labels “heartlanders” as “dangerous fundamentalists,” which starts here:

https://youtu.be/QZIYar6FyaM?t=2947

There’s a lot to like in Spackman’s presentation. I think he does a good job explaining an aspect of scriptural interpretation and the process of revelation that everyone should be familiar with.

It’s one of the multiple working hypotheses that I like to understand with clarity.

However, Spackman starts and ends with a contentious premise and motivation: his antipathy toward so-called “fundamentalists” whom he identifies as the “Heartlanders.” 

Because of its relevance to the problem of contention, I posted a discussion of Spackman’s presentation here:

https://nomorecontention.blogspot.com/2023/05/contention-over-evolutioncreationism.html

_____

To help eliminate contention, from time to time, we will look at some of the Kings of Contention, but today we’ll look at a Prince of Contention. I refer to Spackman as merely a Prince of Contention because, as he said in his presentation, he did not make the cut in this meme he presented:

I don’t recall ever seeing this meme before, and I don’t know its origin. I don’t recognize all the people in the collage, either, but some I recognize I wouldn’t call contentious. But there are a few on there who qualify as Kings of Contention, as we’ll discuss in upcoming posts.

The meme makes a good point, though. We could simply ignore everyone in the collage and have a perfectly harmonious and functional Church family. 

And yet, I agree with the scholars that academic discussion plays a useful role for many people (myself included).

The question I ask is, can the people in the collage interact with mutual respect, clarity, and understanding?

As Spackman’s presentation demonstrates, some of them seem incapable of doing so. So far. But I hope to see the day when they do.

Hence my post: 

https://nomorecontention.blogspot.com/2023/05/contention-over-evolutioncreationism.html

_____

BTW, undoubtedly my NPC critics (the typical M2C/SITH Interpreters) will claim that I’m a King of Contention, but anyone who has read my work (as opposed to the caricatures created by my NPC critics) can see that I’m fine with people believing and teaching whatever they want, so long as they are clear about and own what they teach. Unlike my NPC critics, I don’t think it’s contentious to expect clarity and understanding to help everyone make informed decisions. I oppose censorship and obfuscation, not alternative perspectives, ideas, and interpretations.

Anyone who shares my desire for clarity and understanding does not, in my view, contribute to contention. Others are free to disagree, of course.

_____

I had actually mentioned Spackman’s anti-Heartlander comment in a post in 2019 because I had attended part of the conference (albeit not Spackman’s presentation). 

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2019/08/fairmormon-conference-report.html

In my 2019 post, I mentioned something I’d been told about the Q&A at the end of a session I didn’t attend. I didn’t mention the speaker or the title of the presentation, but after watching this video clip, I now can see it was Ben Spackman’s. Here’s what I wrote then.

The second funny incident was during another Q&A. The speaker was asked what he thought about the Heartland movement. I’m told he replied, “They’re a bunch of crazy fundamentalists.”

That comment says it all. Now, if you still believe what the prophets have taught, you’re ridiculed by the FairMormon intellectuals as a “fundamentalist.”

That pretty well sums up the M2C citation cartel.

Because I never read his blog, I didn’t know at the time that my NPC critic Peter Pan (aka Mike Parker, aka Richard Nygren) accused me of lying because Spackman actually said the heartlanders were “dangerous fundamentalists,” not “crazy fundamentalists.” As usual, Peter Pan misrepresented what I wrote. Because I didn’t attend the session and clearly explained that I was repeating what I’d been told (which after all was a fair summary of Spackman’s rant) I wasn’t lying about what Spackman said. I was reporting what I had been told he said. But NPCs don’t actually think.

To make it even more fun, yet another anonymous person (“On the Other Hand”) made a comment on the FAIRLDS youtube video referring to “Robert Boylan” as “a great and knowledgeable member of the Church.” Boylan created the infamous racist false identity “Richard Nygren” for Mike Parker’s Peter Pan, which Bill Reel exposed as we discussed here. 

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2023/04/clown-world-m2c-citation-cartel-and.html

Given the proclivity for pseudonyms Mike Parker and his friends have demonstrated, we can reasonably infer that Mike and/or his fellow Interpreters made the gratuitous comment praising Boylan.

The fun continues…

🙂

Source: About Central America

In the last 3 weeks, we visited a dozen countries in Eastern Europe. We visited missionaries and branches of the Church in most of those countries. Lots of interesting things to discuss, obviously, but in this post I’ll mention a famous painting that is still in use in Romania.

The 1999 painting by Simon Dewey was on the cover of the Ensign in February, 2001. 

(Hopefully my mention of this location doesn’t lead to getting the painting removed.)

I’m one of many Latter-day Saints who still believe what Joseph and Oliver claimed instead of the SITH narrative, so it was cool to see this painting still in use at least somewhere in the world.

____________

This painting was featured in an article by Jana Riess about the shift away from the Urim and Thummim toward the stone-in-the-hat (SITH) narrative. Her caption to the photo claims

https://religionnews.com/2015/08/05/mormons-react-to-first-ever-photograph-of-joseph-smiths-seer-stone/

In her article, she cited “a Gospel Topics essay on the issue in December 2013 that conceded that:

1. Joseph Smith also used his seer stone to seek buried treasure, and

2. He translated much of the Book of Mormon by placing the seer stone in a hat to block out the ambient light, then proceeded to simply recite whatever words appeared on the stone.”

It’s clever rhetoric to frame these claims as a “concession,” but the so-called “concession” directly contradicts what Joseph and Oliver themselves said.

Which is no surprise because the Gospel Topics Essay itself never quotes what Joseph and Oliver said, except for a misleading, truncated quotation, as I’ve discussed before.

The SITH narrative as taught by Dan Peterson, Jack Welch, and other LDS scholars, was first articulated in Mormonism Unvailed back in 1834. 

The translation finally commenced. They were found to contain a language not now known upon the earth, which they termed “reformed Egyptian characters.” The plates, therefore, which had been so much talked of, were found to be of no manner of use. After all, the Lord showed and communicated to him every word and letter of the Book. Instead of looking at the characters inscribed upon the plates, the prophet was obliged to resort to the old ”peep stone,” which he formerly used in money-digging. This he placed in a hat, or box, into which he also thrust his face. Through the stone he could then discover a single word at a time, which he repeated aloud to his amanuensis, who committed it to paper, when another word would immediately appear, and thus the performance continued to the end of the book.

https://archive.org/details/mormonismunvaile00howe/page/18/mode/2up 

Notice that, apart from the term “old ‘peep stone’,” this description from Mormonism Unvailed is essentially what the Interpreters advocate today. Dan Peterson even made a movie teaching this to the world.

In response to the SITH narrative, Joseph and Oliver both denounced Mormonism Unvailed and explained clearly and unambiguously that Joseph translated the plates with the Urim and Thummim that came with the plates–not with any seer stone.

http://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/2023/04/mormonism-unvailed-then-and-now.html

Source: About Central America