Why does M2C continue to refuse unity?

5 thoughts on “Why does M2C continue to refuse unity?”

1. Brother Neville,

   As you well know, proponents of the Mesoamerican geography have met with you, Rod Meldrum, and other Heartland theorists and tried to reach an amicable relationship. There was even a multi-day summit of sorts a few years back.

   The problem with reaching unity, I would suggest, lies in how you continue to repeatedly act in bad faith by constantly referring to those you disagree with as a “cartel,” by accusing those who do not believe that the hill in New York is the Cumorah of the Book of Mormon of “rejecting the prophets,” and spinning wild and irresponsible conspiracy theories about people in all departments at all levels of the Church and how they’re plotting to keep the Saints from knowing the truth (as you see it).

   This kind of “poisoning the well” that you engage in on this blog and elsewhere is what really prevents the kind of unity you claim to be seeking.

   I would suggest that changing your obnoxious behavior toward those who have different views than you do would be a dramatic step forward in resolving differences. Once that’s done, everyone can sit down and reasonably debate the evidences for each side. Until then, there’s little hope to be had for any amicable meeting of the minds.

   Kind regards,

   Mike

   1. Hi Mike. Thanks for your comment. I’m happy to have a chance to explain. Long before I got involved with this issue, the M2C citation cartel had a history of obnoxious academic bullying of Heartland proponents. It was that bullying that got me interested in this topic in the first place. I was curious about why otherwise rational BYU professors and other LDS apologists were writing such strident, mean-spirited attacks on other members of the Church in the FARMS publications. The M2C advocates had zero interest in meeting with the Heartland people, amicably or not.

      I’m not sure where you got your information, because I don’t recall you being present at the summit, so I’ll give you some more background.

      At the summit, we reached an agreement to develop a joint web page resource that would accumulate and present all the evidence that supports the Book of Mormon from throughout the Americas. It was a very positive development and a tremendous step toward unity, but in the ensuing weeks, the project was vetoed by Book of Mormon Central Censor. That’s one of the reasons I use that name.

      We also reached a “comity agreement” whereby I agreed to stop using the term “citation cartel” and they agreed to remove objectionable content. I also offered to remove my blogs. I did stop using the term, but instead of removing the objectionable content, they removed my Letter VII book and added more objectionable content. When they intensified their cartel activities, I resumed using the name. By now, I think it’s apparent to everyone that they have earned the name “M2C citation cartel,” as they continue to censor anything that contradicts or even challenges M2C.

      I’m not accusing anyone of anything. I am merely observing that the very foundation of M2C is the claim that the prophets are wrong about the New York Cumorah. While they are not as open about this as they could be, every M2C advocate takes this position against the teachings of the prophets. If you choose to characterize that as an “accusation,” that’s your choice of terminology, not mine.

      I realize the latest talking point from the M2C citation cartel is that I am “spinning” “conspiracy theories,” but I have explicitly explained I don’t think there is a conspiracy. A conspiracy involves a secret plan. The ongoing censorship is anything but secret; it reflects an openly shared belief in M2C. The M2C advocates publicly call it a “consensus.” It is undeniable that the editors of Saints censored Cumorah; in their own explanation, published on lds.org, they admitted creating a false historical narrative present to reflect their modern “neutrality” approach. This is all out in the open, as I’ve explained over and over.

      All that said, I sincerely like everyone I’ve met, on all sides of this issue. The idea of taking personal offense about any of this is bizarre to me, so I don’t understand your last paragraph. This is a discussion about ideas, not individuals. In my view, everyone involved is a faithful LDS, trying to do what they think is best and right. There is zero animosity from my side. I’m always willing and eager to sit down and reasonably debate any of these issues, but the M2C people (including the historians) have not been as willing.

      For example, let’s see how sincere you are. Would you be willing to meet with me to discuss this? You’d enjoy it here in Africa.

      🙂

      Best,

      Jonathan

      1. Brother Neville,

         Your own account of the history of this disagreement amply demonstrates how you have consciously taken the low road in response to perceived violations of agreements. You choose to use belittling, demeaning, and pejorative nicknames for those who disagree with you. You also very much trumpet an open conspiracy by nearly every Church-related organization to squash your views. Everyone is out of step but Jonathan.

         I don’t expect to convince you that your views on Book of Mormon geography are wrong. I would hope, however, to encourage you to consider your own behavior and how it has contributed to the animosity you feel from those who disagree with your views.

         Kind regards,

         Mike

         1. Jonathan, while I am a fellow Heartlander and agree with many, even most, of the points you make in blogs, presentations, and books, I agree with Mike about using “belittling, demeaning, and pejorative nicknames…” To me it seems somewhat petty, counterproductive, and condescending.

2. This debate reminds me of two stories. The first is the one about the parable of the Blind Men and the Elephant. In this parable, four blind men are brought to an elephant, and the first man, wraps his arms around a leg and explains, “The elephant is a tree!” The second one places his hands on the side of the beast and disagrees: “No, the elephant is a wall, a breathing wall. The third grabs the ear as it moves back and forth and hisses: “You’re both wrong! It’s a fan.” And as you guessed it, the last man grabs the pachyderm’s trunk and sneers: “None of you know what you’re talking about: It’s a snake.” By discounting what the others are saying, the blind men remain blind to the whole picture; what the blind men required was humility.

   And this leads to the second story. There was once an old man in a cabin in the woods who was charged with caring for his grandson for the summer. Every day the boy would go out to play and would return about dusk to see his caretaker sitting on a rocking chair with a large tree branch he was whittling. Day after day, the boy would watch the old man whittle away at the piece of wood and watch it grow smaller. Finally, he couldn’t keep himself from asking the old curmudgeon a question, “Grandpa, what are you making (hoping it was something for him)?” The old man looked up and glanced at the pile of shavings on the porch and dismissed the boy’s question with one of his own. “Ain’t it obvious? I’m making a pile of chips.” And that’s what the M2C scholars are saying to anyone who questions their work; they dismiss anyone without an advanced degree by insisting that “a prophet is only a prophet when he’s speaking as one.” I suppose that means unless a prophet announces in a voice of thunder “Thus sayeth the Lord” we can ignore whatever he says, whether it’s Joseph Smith on his mission to the “Lamanites” or finding Zelph’s remains on Zion’s Camp, Oliver Cowdery (in Letter VII), Brigham Young, Joseph Fielding Smith, Marion G, Romney, Mark E. Petersen, Bruce R. McConkie, Tom Perry or even the scholar, Hugh Nibley. That’s why more and more knowledgeable members I know now see the huge pile of shavings on the porch of the cabin and are turning to listen to folks like Rod Meldrum, Wayne May or Jonathan Neville.

   No “Heartlander” I have spoken to disagrees with the notion that, after the destruction of the Nephites, that the Lamanites remained within the borders of the United States. No, they continued their marauding as Moroni tells us. In 1600 hundred years, they could have–and probably did–spread all over North America, Central America and even South America.

   For example, where did the Aztecs come from? Scholars say from the north in the southwest US (where Uto-Aztecans speak a language, that according to linguist Brian Stubbs, consists of a vocabulary with up to 40 percent of it traceable to Middle Eastern languages like Egyptian, Aramaic, Arabic and yes, even Hebrew). Those scholars maintain that the Aztecs moved into what is today Mexico City and set up their empire about 1300 AD, a couple of hundred years after the Mississipian culture which was created in much the same area as the Hopewells).

   The Nephites are gone, destroyed by the Lamanites who then spread all over two continents and took their stories and grievances with them. But, the Nephites were pushed further and further northeastward until they met their end in the killing fields of what is today New York State. The evidence points to the fact that they landed in and then settled the eastern half of what is today the United States.

   The Promised Land is not Belize; it is not Guatemala, nor any other Central American country. It is the United States of America, and that is an undeniable fact, one that the M2C scholars seem to have difficulty accepting.

Comments are closed.