I wish our LDS scholars and educators who continue to promote the Mesoamerican and two-Cumorahs theories would follow that example.
The withdrawal prompted an article in the Deseret News that included a quotation from Keith Erekson, director of the LDS Church History Library.
“Typically, any story is incomplete, and different tellings of the story become contradictory,” he said. “The past is gone. We have just pieces of it in the form of stories. Whenever we encounter a piece of the past, we always have to ask, what is this piece? Who did it come from? How do I make sense of it today?”
These are excellent questions and I’ve tried to address them in my research into Church history and Book of Mormon issues.
____________________
Recently I was asked to provide a clear statement of what I think about all of this. I’ve done so before, but I keep learning new things.
Because so many new readers keep coming to this blog, I’m posting the latest version below. It’s a little long, but I think it gives a good idea of what my blogs and books and presentations and videos are all about.
Here is an excerpt from the concluding paragraphs:
Just to be clear: I think the Mesoamerican theory is false, and CES teachers should abandon it as soon as possible. I think everyone who has promoted the Mesoamerican theory ought to reject it publicly and reaffirm the credibility and reliability of Oliver Cowdery.
As always, I welcome input, corrections, suggestions, etc.
____________________
Summary and thesis
- You can accept Letter VII and believe the Hill Cumorah is in New York.
- You can reject Letter VII and put Cumorah somewhere else. Where else doesn’t really matter.
Source: Book of Mormon Wars