Scholars vs prophets and multiple working hypotheses

The discussion about the New York Cumorah presents people with a simple, clear choice about whom you follow and how you interact with the scriptures, particularly the text of the Book of Mormon but also the Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price.

Choice 1: Scholarly, subjective speculations about the text and extrinsic evidence that guide our interpretation of the location of Cumorah.

Choice 2: Prophetic, factual statements about Cumorah in New York that guide our interpretation of the text and extrinsic evidence.

In the case of Cumorah, it makes an enormous difference which choice we make. If we accept the teachings of the scholars, we reject the teachings of the prophets. If we accept the teachings of the prophets, we reject the teachings of the scholars. There is no middle ground on this point. It’s a binary, either/or choice. The Cumorah of Mormon 6:6 is either in western New York, or it’s elsewhere. And if the prophets were wrong about the New York setting, it doesn’t really matter where the “real Cumorah” is.

It’s a bizarre “tail wags the dog” scenario. The scholars insist the prophets are wrong solely because of their subjective speculations about where the Nephites must have lived, which leads them to develop “criteria” for Cumorah based on extrinsic evidence from their speculations. For example, because they insist the Nephites lived in Mesoamerica, they also insist Cumorah must be in a land of volcanoes, even though the text never mentions volcanoes. They insist Cumorah must be in a place inhabited by millions of ancient people, even though the text never says or implies that was the case.

When we read what the text actually says, as opposed to what commentators have said about what the text says, it’s easy to reconcile the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah with the extrinsic evidence. For example, we can see that population estimates based on the text are congruent with extrinsic evidence from archaeology and anthropology in western New York, Ohio, etc. I discussed some of that here:

http://www.lettervii.com/2021/03/book-of-mormon-populations.html

_____

Discussions about history involve two elements:

A. Historical facts (documents and extrinsic evidence). Because we’re dealing with history, and no one is claiming any new revelation about that history, everyone is on a level playing field. No one has “special knowledge” about history because of their experience, credentials, positions, etc. Anyone who can read and understand English has equal access to all the facts.

B. Interpretation of those facts (multiple working hypotheses). This is where it is easy to get confused. Often, historians write in a style that presents their hypotheses as facts. Obviously, they have no personal knowledge of historical facts; they rely on evidence just like everyone else. This is a standard persuasive technique, but don’t accept historians’ statements as fact without seeing the evidence they rely upon. In the context of Church history, historians who are both believers and unbelievers use this rhetorical style. Discerning readers can tell the difference.

_____

Ideally, we first establish the facts. Everyone should be able to agree about what the facts are. Proponents often avoid, discount, or even censor facts that contradict their hypotheses, but that’s easy to expose.

For example, ask yourself, did you know that Joseph’s mother reported that Moroni identified the hill in New York as Cumorah the first time he visited Joseph Smith in 1823?

Moroni said, “the record is on a side hill on the Hill of Cumorah 3 miles from this place.”

If you don’t know that, why don’t you know that?

Ask your BYU or CES teacher. Or ask the teachers of your children or grandchildren.

It is inexcusable that Latter-day Saints don’t know about this.

As a test, if you search for that phrase on Fairlatterdaysaints.org, you get two results, here and here. Both are buried in discussions about the First Vision, and both cite Dan Vogel’s Early Mormon Documents book, volume 1, instead of the Joseph Smith Papers.

If fairlatterdaysaints.org was a legitimate educational organization instead of an advocacy front for the M2C citation cartel, they would feature Lucy’s account in their discussions of Cumorah. But they don’t and they won’t. They don’t want Church members to know about anything that contradicts M2C.

_____

Every sincere seeker of truth should be able to agree on what the facts are.

That’s the easy part.

Next, we interpret those facts to develop hypotheses that explain and reconcile the facts in various ways. This involves assessing reliability, credibility, authenticity, and other indicia of truthfulness. Much of that analysis is subjective, but that’s fine so long as we clearly explain our reasoning.

Different people develop different hypotheses that reflect their respective biases, desired outcomes, values, priorities, etc. Some people claim they “follow the evidence” but we can all see that is a delusion. The worst extreme of bias confirmation is not recognizing your own biases–or actually believing you have no bias.

To repeat: Because we’re dealing with history, and no one is claiming any new revelation about that history, everyone is on a level playing field. We all have access to all the evidence.

In this short post, I can’t list all the evidence about Cumorah (some of it is here), but readers of this blog by now are familiar with it. Really, regarding Cumorah there is very little debate about the evidence itself. The debate involves (i) disclosing and (ii) interpreting the evidence.

Here’s a table that illustrates the two separate approaches to the Cumorah issue. Most references are here: http://www.lettervii.com/p/byu-packet-on-cumorah.html

Facts	Interpretation – Prophets	Interpretation – Scholars
Lucy Mack Smith: When Moroni first visited Joseph Smith, he told Joseph that “the record is on a side hill on the Hill of Cumorah 3 miles from this place.”	Lucy was correct and this explains why everyone knew Cumorah was in New York	Lucy was wrong because she related a false tradition, or else Moroni was referring to a “second” Cumorah because the real Cumorah is in Mexico
Lucy Mack Smith: Joseph said, “as I passed by the hill of Cumorah, where the plates are”	Lucy was correct and this explains why everyone knew Cumorah was in New York	Lucy was wrong because she related a false tradition, or else Moroni was referring to a “second” Cumorah because the real Cumorah is in Mexico
David Whitmer: The messenger who had the abridged plates declined a ride to Fayette and said “No, I am going to Cumorah.” David said, “This name was something new to me, I did not know what Cumorah meant.”	David was correct and this explains why everyone knew Cumorah was in New York	David was wrong because she related a false tradition, or else the messenger was referring to a “second” Cumorah because the real Cumorah is in Mexico
Oliver Cowdery (quoted by Parley P. Pratt) during the mission to the Lamanites (D&C 28, 30 and 32). “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.”	Oliver and Parley were correct and this explains why everyone knew Cumorah was in New York	Oliver and Parley were wrong because they related a false tradition, or else the Moroni was referring to a “second” Cumorah because the real Cumorah is in Mexico
Heber C. Kimball, who lived in western New York and joined the Church in 1832, visited Cumorah after his baptism and reported he could still see the embankments around the hill (most of which have since been plowed under)	Heber was correct because he had been taught about the New York Cumorah and observed the evidence with his own eyes	Heber was wrong because he didn’t describe the embankments in enough detail to verify his observations and because he was relying on a false tradition anyway
Oliver Cowdery, then Assistant President of the Church (which meant he was Joseph’s spokesman) wrote a series of essays about Church history with the assistance of Joseph Smith, published as letters in the Messenger and Advocate, Times and Seasons, Gospel Reflector, Millennial Star, The Prophet, and the Improvement Era. Joseph also had them copied into his journal as part of his life story. Letter I. “[Moroni] said this history was written and deposited not far from that place” referring to Joseph’s home near Palmyra	Oliver was correct. If the history was “written and deposited” not far from Joseph’s home, Mormon and Moroni lived in that vicinity when they abridged the Nephite and Jaredite records.	Oliver was wrong because either he or Joseph misquoted Moroni based on a false tradition
Letter VI. Referring to the mile-wide valley west of the hill in New York where Joseph found the plates, “here, between these hills, the entire power and national strength of both the Jaredites and Nephites were destroyed.”	Oliver was correct because he and Joseph had visited the depository of Nephite records in the hill mentioned in Mormon 6:6 multiple times, as related by Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, David Whitmer, and others	Oliver, David Whitmer, Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, and others were wrong because either Oliver misled people based on a false tradition or he was relating multiple joint visions of the “real Cumorah” in southern Mexico, but also Oliver and Joseph never had any revelation about Cumorah
Letter VII. “[Mormon] deposited, as he says, on the 529th page, all the records in this same hill, Cumorah and after gave his small record to his son Moroni”	Oliver was correct because he had visited that depository, so he knew exactly where it was and he explained by citing Mormon 6:6	Oliver was wrong because he was merely speculating based on a false tradition
Letter VII. “This hill, by the Jaredites, was called Ramah: by it, or around it pitched the famous army of Coriantumr their tents.”	Oliver was correct because he had visited that depository and knew from personal experience what it contained	Oliver was wrong because he was merely speculating based on a false tradition
D&C 128:20 (originally a letter published in the Times and Seasons in September 1842): “And again, what do we hear? Glad tidings from Cumorah! Moroni, an angel from heaven, declaring the fulfilment of the prophets—the book to be revealed.”	Joseph was correct because he had learned the name from Moroni before he ever got the plates, he had visited the depository, and he had helped write and promulgate Letter VII, which had been published in the Times and Seasons a year previously.	Joseph was wrong because he had adopted the false tradition about Cumorah, or else he was referring to the hill in southern Mexico because of speculative articles in the Times and Seasons that anachronistically attributed Mayan ruins to the Nephites
Various other teachings by Joseph’s contemporaries and successors about the New York Cumorah	They were correct because they relied on what Joseph and Oliver taught	They were wrong because they relied on a false tradition, which we know is false because our interpretation of the Book of Mormon requires Cumorah to be in southern Mexico

Source: Letter VII

September 9, 2021Uncategorized

No map is better than the wrong map

This wisdom borrowed from another context should be adopted by BYU and CES:

“No map is better than the wrong map” – Nassim Taleb

Instead, the M2C citation cartel has managed to enforce their M2C interpretation of the text as the only allowable interpretation.

By any reasonable academic standard, a serious scholar would acknowledge multiple working hypotheses. But the M2C citation cartel refuses to do so.

Latter-day Saints would be far better informed with no map than with a map that intentionally defies and repudiates the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah.

_____

Here’s some history.

Several years ago, BYU administration told the faculty to stop teaching M2C. The usual suspects objected. William Hamblin, in particular, wrote an infamous blog post criticizing the new direction.

How BYU Destroyed Ancient Book of Mormon Studies

I maintain that numerous policies adopted by a wide range of BYU administrators over the past thirty years have had the effect—intended or unintended—of destroying ancient Book of Mormon studies as a fledgling discipline.

You can read his post with my comments here:

http://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2015/09/how-byu-destroyed-ancient-mesoamerican.html

Not to be deterred, the M2C citation cartel found a work-around.

They used the M2C interpretation of the text (with Cumorah far, far from New York) to develop a fantasy map that imprinted the M2C interpretation on the minds of all their students.

And they’re still using it.

https://bom.byu.edu/

Source: About Central America

September 7, 2021Uncategorized

Skousen on witnesses, part 4, and confidence traps

The final part of my 4-part analysis of Royal Skousen’s manuscript on the witnesses of the Book of Mormon is available here:

https://interpreterpeerreviews.blogspot.com/2021/09/skousen-on-witnesses-part-4.html

Subscribers to Mobom.org have access to the complete analysis as one document.

_____

People often wonder how experts can be so completely wrong. Doesn’t their expertise enable them to correct errors?

Not when they’re subject to the confidence trap, as I’ll discuss below.

_____

It’s difficult to think of an issue more fundamental than the translation of the Book of Mormon–the “keystone of our religion.” Nonbelievers have known all along that the credibility of the Restoration hinges on the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

This is why SITH (the stone-in-the-hat) narrative is so effective at undermining faith. Those who embrace SITH will, sooner or later, reach the same conclusion that Royal Skousen reached after he examined the statements of the witnesses.

“Joseph Smith’s claim that he used the Urim and Thummim is only partially true; and Oliver Cowdery’s statements that Joseph used the original instrument while he, Oliver, was the scribe appear to be intentionally misleading.”

Contrary to the SITH sayers, I think the historical evidence, when considered as a whole and in context, corroborates what Joseph and Oliver claimed. Their statements are neither “only partially true” nor “intentionally misleading.” They were forthright and accurate.

Skousen concludes otherwise because he manipulated the evidence to support his theory that Joseph didn’t really translate anything but instead merely read words that appeared on a stone in the hat (SITH). In the process, he omitted relevant evidence, applied inconsistent burdens of proof depending on whether a statement supported or contradicted SITH, and refused to consider alternative interpretations of the evidence.

_____

I realize that members of the M2C/SITH citation cartel are as attached to SITH as they are to M2C. It’s typical of them to combine excellent research about facts (as Brother Skousen does better than anyone) with academic theories that contradict the teachings of the prophets (as Brother Skousen expressly admits here). As a charter member of the M2C/SITH citation cartel, we would expect the Interpreter to publish Brother Skousen’s material.

After all, it was the Interpreter’s predecessor, FARMS (with its Mayan logo) and BYU Studies who have been publishing Skousen’s books. I’ve pointed out before that on page 6 of his Part Five: The King James Quotations in the Book of Mormon, Brother Skousen wrote:

Based on the linguistic evidence, the translation must have involved serious intervention from the English-language translator, who was not Joseph Smith.

Because these are expensive books that not a lot of people own, skeptics might think I’m not accurately quoting the book, so here’s a photo. (click to enlarge)

That’s the line of thinking–the bias–that led directly to the conclusion that Joseph and Oliver misled us about the translation.

Fortunately, more and more Latter-day Saints are catching on to the shenanigans of these scholars. While I respect and personally like the scholars, and I admire their factual research, I don’t think they are flawless. No one is perfect, as they say.

It’s not uncommon for a brilliant, educated person to make both important discoveries and major errors.

In fact, experts are prone to making big mistakes because of the confidence trap, as explained here.

One of the things that makes experts so convincing is that they exude confidence. They can talk calmly and knowledgeably about a subject, make reference to relevant facts and build a compelling logic for their case. A good expert is always impressive, but still usually wrong….

pundits who specialized in a particular field tended to perform worse than those whose knowledge was more general….

This is so counterintuitive that it hardly seems possible, but it’s true. The reason lies in the confidence of the predictions. Specialists, with their deep knowledge of a particular subject, tend to not to incorporate information outside their domain, which makes for a cleaner, more definitive story line.

That’s what we are seeing with M2C and SITH.

_____

Notice the Mayan logo on the title page below. M2C and SITH, all over again.

Source: About Central America

September 6, 2021Uncategorized

High culture, but not high demand

I saw the excerpt below in the WSJ and thought of how it relates to Church history and culture.

As an artist, I encourage everyone to become familiar with the Center for Latter-day Saint Arts.

https://www.centerforlatterdaysaintarts.org/

_____

High Culture, Not High Demand

‘How many Americans pay attention to serious contemporary literature, art, or music?’

https://newcriterion.com/issues/2021/9/culture-as-counterculture

Kindle and Spotify give us a degree of access to “the best which has been thought and said” that a Medici or a Rockefeller couldn’t have bought at any price, while simultaneously reminding us that almost no one cares.

For instance, if you search for Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony on Spotify, the most popular recording of the most popular piece in the classical repertoire is the one made in 1984 by Herbert von Karajan with the Berlin Philharmonic. The first movement has been streamed about 1.5 million times, the third about half a million (which tells a story in itself). By contrast, the hit song “Driver’s License,” by the teen pop star Olivia Rodrigo, was released in January 2021 and by the end of May it had been streamed 800 million times. . . .

Of course, Spotify and Kindle are imperfect measures of the true currency of any work. But they confirm the impression that people devoted to high culture must already have: that they are members of a very small minority. Just how small is impossible to say with any confidence. How many Americans pay attention to serious contemporary literature, art, or music? An estimate of one-half of one percent of the population—1.6 million people—would surely be on the high side.

Source: Book of Mormon Concensus

September 3, 2021Uncategorized

FAIR LDS (again) and Skousen on Witnesses, Part 3

I posted part 3 of my peer review of Royal Skousen’s preliminary manuscript on the Witnesses of the Book of Mormon.

http://interpreterpeerreviews.blogspot.com/2021/09/skousen-on-witnesses-part-3.html

Part 4 is scheduled for Tuesday, Sept 7th.

Part 3 includes Skousen’s astonishing conclusion:

That sentence is the take-away from Skousen’s book. It is the inevitable result of faithful LDS scholars embracing the SITH narrative without even considering all the evidence, or the context, or how the evidence actually supports and corroborates what Joseph and Oliver taught.

Many Latter-day Saints have anticipated (and dreaded) this result ever since the Gospel Topics Essay on the Translation was published. Once Saints and the Ensign endorsed SITH, it was really game over. We might as well make David Whitmer’s Address to All Believers in Christ part of the curriculum directly instead of just quoting from it.

Skousen’s sentence will undoubtedly become a Mormon Stories podcast and a featured addition to CES Letter and all the other critical websites.

_____

To be clear, I don’t agree with those who claim all the SITH witnesses were liars. That approach is the mirror image of Skousen’s, and neither is historically legitimate.

Instead, I think the witnesses accurately reported what they observed, but they also mingled their factual testimony with hearsay and their own assumptions and inferences, which makes their testimony confusing. Every trial lawyer knows this happens all the time with witnesses, and without cross-examination, it’s difficult to sort the facts from the opinion/hearsay. I understand why people have fallen for the SITH narrative, but it is possible to sort through the evidence and realize that no one was lying. They were just talking about different things, and Joseph and Oliver told the truth about the translation.

We can all see why critics, starting with Mormonism Unvailed in 1834 and continuing through CES Letter today, perpetuate the SITH narrative. SITH undermines the Restoration in a fundamental sense.

What is inexplicable is why LDS scholars embrace that narrative, particularly because of the way they do it. As I’ve shown in my peer review, Brother Skousen (i) simply omits relevant, critical evidence, (ii) discredits evidence that contradicts his SITH bias, and (iii) allows only one interpretation of the remaining evidence.

It’s no wonder that the Interpreter and the rest of the M2C/SITH citation cartel love this stuff; they say the same things about the New York Cumorah.

Which leads to the latest from FAIRLDS.

_____

In their ongoing (and futile) battles with CES Letter, FAIRLDS posted another entry.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/09/01/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-4

I say “futile” because FAIRLDS and the rest of the M2C/SITH citation cartel members laid the groundwork for CES Letter. It was the assumptions and teachings of the M2C/SITH citation cartel that generated the questions that prompted CES Letter in the first place.

[For those new to this blog, SITH=stone-in-the-hat and M2C=Mesoamerican/two Cumorahs theory.]

Usually when the apologists try to rebut CES Letter, they make things worse.

However, at the end of this piece, I wrote this:

Here is a hint of progress. FAIRLDS has been adamant about M2C since its inception. Is this conclusion opening the door for other faithful interpretations of the text and the extrinsic evidence that supports and corroborates, instead of rejecting and repudiating, the teachings of the prophets?

If so, someone from FAIRLDS needs to email me ASAP.

Let’s look at the latest entry. I’m not critical of the author, who is merely repeating what the M2C/SITH citation cartel scholars have been teaching. This is a “greatest hits” compilation that everyone has seen before–including Jeremy Runnels.

This FAIRLDS “rebuttal” is not only unpersuasive. It unintentionally demonstrates why CES Letter, Mormon Stories, and the other critics are so successful in their efforts to persuade Latter-day Saints to question their faith.

FAIRLDS in blue, CES Letter in green, my comments in red.

_____

Diving back in, today we’re talking about archeological evidences. I’ve been looking forward to this one. We’ll get to discuss some of the coolest evidences we have supporting the Book of Mormon’s authenticity.

Sounds great!

[What follows is a quotation from CES Letter.]

Archaeology: There is absolutely no archaeological evidence to directly support the Book of Mormon or the Nephites and Lamanites, who were supposed to have numbered in the millions. This is one of the reasons why unofficial apologists have developed the Limited Geography Model (it happened in Central or South America) and claim that the Hill Cumorah mentioned as the final battle of the Nephites is not in Palmyra, New York but is elsewhere. This is in direct contradiction to what Joseph Smith and other prophets have taught. It also makes little sense in light of the Church’s visitor’s center near the Hill Cumorah in New York and the annual Church-sponsored Hill Cumorah pageants.

Every sentence in this paragraph is incorrect, so let’s go through them one at a time.

Actually, some of these sentences are correct, which everyone can see (except, apparently, the M2C/SITH scholars and their followers), which is why FAIRLDS is not credible. This is an example of how the citation cartel teed up the CES Letter in the first place.

There is absolutely no archaeological evidence to directly support the Book of Mormon or the Nephites and Lamanites, who were supposed to have numbered in the millions.

False. There’s actually quite a lot of archaeological evidence that directly supports the Book of Mormon and the Nephites and Lamanites. In a previous entry, I mentioned the LIDAR scans of Mesoamerica, which show that its populations did in fact number in the millions during the time periods in question.

Here is the first example of how FAIRLDS embraces the same false premise that the critics have. Both FAIRLDS and CES Letter agree that the Book of Mormon describes a population in the millions. But that’s not what the text says, nor is it what the archaeology/anthropology says. Consequently, the apologists are defending a false narrative and all CES Letter is doing is pointing that out.

The largest enumerated Nephite army in the text is only 42,000 men. I’ve discussed this before so I won’t repeat the details, but this is a perfect example of how M2C has led to an interpretation of the text that not only doesn’t make sense, but is not supported by textual or extrinsic evidence.

To make it worse, FAIRLDS cites the LIDAR evidence, which if anything proves the Book of Mormon could not have taken place in Mesoamerica. I discussed this when the LIDAR results were announced, so no need to get into the detail here, but you can read about it if you’re interested here:

http://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2018/02/new-discoveries-about-mayans-and-bias.html.

Skipping a few meaningless paragraphs …

Jeremy Runnells is doing the same thing as the atheist who frequently tries to debate Peterson on his blog: conflating evidence with proof. They’re not the same thing. No one can prove that the Book of Mormon is true. Only the Spirit can teach you that. But, as I said previously, there is quite a lot of evidence mounting, and it’s only getting stronger with time.

It’s bad enough to quote Dan the Interpreter (whose style of ad hominem apologetics has embarrassed every serious scholar for years) for an axiom about evidence vs proof which everyone already knows. That’s condescending rhetoric. But if “only the Spirit can teach you” that the Book of Mormon is true, why cite evidence in the first place?

Besides, the evidence FAIRLDS cites is not evidence of the Book of Mormon; it’s evidence of M2C bias confirmation, as we’ll see.

Take, for example, the Interpreter articles demonstrating the volcanic eruptions around the time of Christ’s crucifixion in Mesoamerica, as well as the drought and famine from Helaman 11, which has a direct correlation to a drought in Mesoamerica during the same time period. Those are evidences supporting the narrative of the Book of Mormon. They are not direct proof.

FAIRLDS quoting the Interpreter is demonstrating the Potemkin village nature of the citation cartel. FAIRLDS, the Interpreter, Book of Mormon Central, BYU Studies, etc., are all storefronts for the same M2C/SITH mindset. They have interlocking management and contributors who have worked closely together for years to enforce M2C/SITH assiduously.

The volcano evidence is a perfect example. The Book of Mormon, despite 1,000 years of history in (allegedly) Mesoamerica, never once mentions volcanoes. The destruction in 3 Nephi is not volcanic, nor are there any other instances of volcanic action. Yet the citation cartel keeps insisting there really were volcanoes in there somewhere, if you read between the lines. What they’re citing is evidence of their M2C theory, not evidence of the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

As for drought, it is common human experience (even in our day) almost everywhere in the world to experience dry spells, crop failures, etc. This is another problem with the M2C apologetics. They frequently find “correspondences” with ordinary and ubiquitous human activities in most societies.

The next section delves into Old World evidence, which is fine because it doesn’t involve M2C or SITH. But it’s not responsive to the CES Letter paragraph this response is supposedly addressing. It’s a diversion.

Moving on.

As far as the New World evidences go, John Sorenson wrote an 850-page book detailing all of the evidence he’d personally compiled, with approximately 400 correlations between the Mesoamerican peoples and the peoples of the Book of Mormon. Obviously, I can’t go through them all here, but he gave a brief overview of several of them in this article.

It’s funny, I’ve had people cite me this book based on its size and weight as well, as if that matters in the least. Sorenson is an awesome guy, smart and faithful, etc., but Mormon’s Codex is an exercise in blatant bias confirmation. Much of it involves the “Sorenson translation” of the text, where he inserts his own opinions about what the text means or should have said to correspond with Mayan culture and geography. I don’t have to ask Michael Coe for all the reasons why the Book of Mormon doesn’t fit Mesoamerica; all I have to do is read the text and observe the absence of jungles, jaguars and jade, not to mention pyramids and Mayans. Then, like everyone else, I can read Mormon’s Codex and see the semantic gyrations Sorenson resorted to (e.g., his “narrow neck”) to cram the Nephites into Mayan society. And, of course, Mormon’s Codex contains the infamous passage in which Sorenson ridicules the prophets who have taught the New York Cumorah.

Even things as random as Coriantumr’s history being engraved on stelae, infant baptism, Chiasmus, Ammon cutting off the arms of the robbers and the servants delivering them to the king, Abinadi being scourged with burning sticks, etc., all have precedent in Mesoamerica.

Such “correspondences” have “precedent” in many, if not most, human cultures.

Brian Stubbs even found over 1,000 correlations in the Uto-Aztecan language family with Egyptian and Semitic languages. That Uto-Aztecan language family includes languages spoken in Mesoamerica. This work is still being studied and evaluated, but if it’s true, it’s remarkable.

Stubbs found correlations with Algonquin languages as well, but not Mayan languages.

And these things are only scratching the surface. There’s so much out there that I just don’t have space to include. There’s a ton of direct evidence supporting the Book of Mormon. There’s just not any direct proof.

This is a fair statement, so long as we’re discussing “correspondences,” because there is literally no end once you start looking, especially when you’re free to interpret the text to fit whatever you find in your chosen setting, as Mormon’s Codex does. But for those who stick with what the text actually says, there is “a ton of direct evidence” right in North America.

This is one of the reasons why unofficial apologists have developed the Limited Geography Model (it happened in Central or South America) and claim that the Hill Cumorah mentioned as the final battle of the Nephites is not in Palmyra, New York but is elsewhere.

Nope. Putting aside the snide comment about “unofficial apologists”—a qualifier Runnells conveniently omits from his own unofficial sources to give them more weight—limited geography models, particularly those in the Central American region, have been circulating since 1842, and the Mesoamerican model in particular since 1917. Matthew Roper tracked the evolution of thought on the subject in this article.

How is it a “snide comment” to call unofficial apologists “unofficial apologists” here? Is FAIRLDS now claiming status as official apologists?

More to the point, CES Letter is correct about the reason why apologists developed the limited geography model. This article by FAIRLDS makes that very point! They defend, promote, and seek evidence of M2C precisely because they claim Cumorah cannot be in New York.

Regarding the “evolution of thought on the subject,” FAIRLDS needs to re-read the history. Limited geography models did not originate until the early 1900s, when Stebbins and Hills came up with it. The book Cumorah Revisited was published in the early 1900s and prompted their limited geography theory. (Ironically, Cumorah Revisited relied on false archaeological information that was outdated when the book was published, although the author didn’t realize that, which means M2C was developed to respond to a false accusation.)

Hills published the first M2C map in 1917 that M2C scholars have followed ever since. The 1842 date alludes to the anonymous editorials in the Times and Seasons, as well as Orson Pratt’s 1840 pamphlet. Matt Roper’s article omits critical sources and facts involving the geography because his paper was designed to show that the limited geography had earlier antecedents. He doesn’t tell his readers that Joseph Smith, in the Wentworth letter, replaced all of Orson Pratt’s speculation about Lamanites in Central America with the simple declarative statement that “The remnant are the Indians that now inhabit this country.” He doesn’t tell his readers that Oliver declared it was a fact that the Hill Cumorah of Mormon 6:6 is in New York, or that Joseph Fielding Smith denounced M2C because it would case members to “become confused and disturbed in their faith,” a result we see througout the Church today.

The models were developed because that’s what the text of the Book of Mormon dictates. The distances described are only a few days’ journey on foot in any direction. You can’t traverse the entire length of North and South America in only a few days while on foot.

The second and third sentences make a good point I think everyone agrees with. The early speculative hemispheric models never made sense. But the first sentence is nonsense to the extent it refers to M2C. It is the M2C interpretation of the text, not the text itself, that dictates the Mesoamerican setting.

This is in direct contradiction to what Joseph Smith and other prophets have taught.

Only partially. It’s certainly true that some of our leaders over the years have given different opinions on this matter, and many of them did indeed support a hemispheric model for the Book of Mormon, but many didn’t.

This is the big lie that FAIRLDS perpetuates.

We can all understand why the M2C/SITH citation cartel doesn’t like being called out for repudiating the teachings of the prophets, but CES Letter is spot on here.

Everyone can read the sources. None of this is a secret. Not a single Church leader has ever repudiated what Joseph, Oliver, their contemporaries and successors taught about the New York Cumorah, which is the specific point that CES Letter raised. CES Letter is correct that M2C is a direct contradiction to what Joseph and the other prophets have taught.

It’s awesome that FAIRLDS continues to try to confuse people by repeating this lie, but the lie is so blatant that it undermines everything else they say. They would be far better off to simply and honestly admit they think Joseph and Oliver deceived the world about Cumorah, the way Royal Skousen is doing with his SITH theory.

There are two major models today, the Mesoamerican Model, and the Heartland Model. There are tons of other ideas, but those are the two largest camps right now. There’s been a lot of back and forth between the two camps over what exactly Joseph knew by revelation and what he was opining. The fact remains that no revelation on the location of Book of Mormon geography has ever been definitively given.

This is a red herring borrowed from L.E. Hills, who at least recognized what the prophets had taught. First, no one can say it’s “a fact” that “no revelation” about the setting has ever been definitively given. At most, we can say there is no canonized statement about the geography (although even that’s debatable).

To say there was no revelation on the topic assumes we have records of every revelation, but we don’t. Joseph and Oliver both mentioned revelations that they never recorded. Joseph gave around 200 sermons that no one wrote down. Joseph taught lots of things that he didn’t claim specific revelation for, including some of the sections of the D&C (such as D&C 128). We infer that, because he taught these things, they originated with revelation. And Oliver, as an apostle and Assistant President of the Church (meaning he was Joseph’s spokesman) declared it was a “fact” that the hill in New York was the setting for the final battles of the Jaredites and Nephites.

Furthermore, Lucy Mack Smith reported that Moroni identified the hill as Cumorah the first time he visited Joseph and that Joseph referred to the hill as Cumorah ever since. Others affirmed that identification.

Notice the word thinking in this M2C argument. Why would Joseph or Oliver have to claim revelation when they knew the location by personal experience? The restoration of the Priesthood and the keys were not “revelations.” They were experiences. Do we debate whether the Priesthood was restored because it was not a “revelation” or do we accept the report of the experience?

We have more details about the New York Cumorah than we do about the restoration of the Priesthood. We have a date and approximate location for John the Baptist, but neither for Peter, James and John. Yet Oliver Cowdery related details about the visits he and Joseph made to the repository of Nephite records in the Hill Cumorah, described in Mormon 6:6. David Whitmer affirmed that Oliver told him about that–but he denied knowing about the restoration of the Priesthood.

We’re not going to get into a discussion of different geography models at this time. Most of the evidences I mentioned do point toward Mesoamerica as the right location, because that’s simply where most of the scholarship is being done right now. That could be the wrong location, though I and others don’t think it is. However, that is a big conversation and there just isn’t time or room to discuss it now. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter which model you support, as long as you recognize that nothing is definitive and the matter has not been settled by revelation.

This is nonresponsive to CES Letter’s point about Cumorah. M2C explicitly and unambiguously repudiates the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah. Trying to obfuscate by pretending the prophets were speculating or confused doesn’t respond to the point.

But, as for what Joseph Smith had to say, his opinion seemed to change over time. And he wasn’t alone in that. The simple fact is, opinions varied, even back in the early days of the Church.

More obfuscation. Joseph never changed his opinion about Cumorah. There was never any debate or “varied opinions) about the location of Cumorah. Even the 1879 footnotes in the Book of Mormon declared the New York Cumorah as a fact while acknowledging other sites were speculative (“believed to be,” etc.).

As far as things like the Zelph prophecies go, those weren’t published until after Joseph’s death, and all seven accounts contradict one another on various points. No one knows exactly what was said, especially since the word “Lamanite” seemed to mean “anyone of native, indigenous ancestry” to the early Saints.

First, FAIRLDS complains that there was no revelation. When faced with an actual revelation, they parse it for inconsistencies instead of accepting the overall context and implications.

It’s not a question of publication, either. The accounts were recorded contemporaneously. This is one of the few instances where multiple people witnessed the revelation. Naturally they recorded it differently. In other situations, we take Wilford Woodruff’s words on their face because his is the only record. If we did that in this case, there wouldn’t be a debate.

Additionally, there are a few theories flying around that suggest that both models have merit. Mark Wright wrote a really interesting paper for the Interpreter suggesting that some of the Heartland evidences are actually evidences of the northward migrations in the Book of Mormon, and that both major models are entwined as one. Even John Sorenson, who is basically the poster child for the Mesoamerica model, points out that there’s a ton of evidence suggesting the peoples and cultures of Mesoamerica spread throughout North America over time. Tyler Livingston connected this evidence to the revelation regarding Zelph, suggesting that he belonged to the descendants of those who migrated northward, and pointing out that there had been known trade between Mesoamerica and the Eastern US since approximately 200 BC. Therefore, it was entirely possible for Lamanites and Nephites to have spread throughout parts of North America. They surely had their own prophets and leaders after they migrated.

This is a clever “solution” for M2C, but it still avoids the Cumorah issue that CES Letter properly raised.

So, it’s just not true that the Mesoamerican theorists are in “direct contradiction” to what the prophets have taught. Many prophets have supported the limited geography models, and many have supported hemispheric models. Opinions vary in the absence of direct revelation.

This is a classic rhetorical diversion. CES Letter did not ask about the various opinions. The question was about the New York Cumorah specifically. There is no getting around the reality that the M2C scholars and their followers directly repudiate the teachings of the prophets on that question.

It also makes little sense in light of the Church’s visitor’s center near the Hill Cumorah in New York and the annual Church-sponsored Hill Cumorah pageants.

It makes perfect sense, since the hill in Palmyra is significant and important to our Church’s history. It’s where the plates were buried and later found, and it’s where Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith at least on a few occasions. Why wouldn’t there be a visitor’s center near where the plates were found? And why wouldn’t a pageant celebrating the coming forth of the Book of Mormon take place where that book actually came forth? (R.I.P. to the now-shuttered Hill Cumorah and Manti pageants.) The answers to both of those questions seem obvious to me.

This is another rhetorical diversion. The hill is named Cumorah because that’s what Moroni named it and because Joseph and Oliver said it was the location of the final battles. Also, Moroni told Joseph that the text was “written and deposited” near Joseph’s home, which contradicts the narrative that they wrote it in Mesoamerican and hauled the plates thousands of miles to western New York. It was never named Cumorah because Moroni deposited the plates there.

We read about two major war battles that took place at the Hill Cumorah (Ramah to the Jaredites) with deaths numbering in the tens of thousands – the last battle between Lamanites and Nephites around 400 AD claimed at least 230,000 deaths on the Nephite side alone. No bones, hair, chariots, swords, armor, or any other evidence of a battle whatsoever has been found at this site.

They haven’t been found at the site in Palmyra, sure. Because that almost certainly wasn’t the Hill Cumorah/Ramah described in the Book of Mormon. Benjamin Jordan and Warren Aston wrote a fascinating article for the Interpreter discussing why the hill in Palmyra was the perfect spot for Moroni to have built the box and buried the plates. However, that hill in Palmyra is a drumlin formed by a glacier, and as John Tvedtnes points out, “It is comprised of gravel and earth. Geologically, it is impossible for the hill to have a cave, and all those who have gone in search of the cave have come back empty-handed.” It’s geologically impossible for the hill to support a cave the size needed to hold all of the Nephite records that Mormon buried in the hill. (This heavily suggests that the cave Joseph and Oliver Cowdery reportedly saw was a vision of the real cave, not a physical location.)

This is one of the most outrageous of the M2C arguments. Instead of refuting the erroneous assumptions of the CES Letter, they embrace them!

First, FAIRLDS insists “almost certainly” that the prophets were wrong about the New York Cumorah.

Second, FAIRLDS cites another irrelevant Interpreter article, invoking the Potemkin village again.

Third, it’s not impossible for these drumlins to contain a cave. There is an extensive cave system through western New York, some of which have been developed into tourist attractions.

Fourth, no one said the repository was a natural cave. It’s not only possible to dig and build up a chamber or room inside these drumlins, it has been done. They are not piles of gravel and earth, anyway. They are largely clay deposits.

Fifth, The idea that Oliver “saw a vision” when he described physically entering and engaging with objects is wishful thinking that contradicts the plain language of the accounts. It would require multiple shared by multiple people that constituted precisely the type of revelation FAIRLDS just insisted never happened. Worst of all, dismissing this experience in the repository as a mere “vision” undermines the credibility and reliability of Joseph and Oliver regarding everything else they described as facts.

John E. Clark, director of BYU’s archaeological organization, wrote in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, “In accord with these general observations about New York and Pennsylvania, we come to our principal object – the Hill Cumorah. Archaeologically speaking, it is a clean hill. No artifacts, no walls, no trenches, no arrowheads. The area immediately surrounding the hill is similarly clean. Pre-Columbian people did not settle or build here. This is not the place of Mormon’s last stand. We must look elsewhere for that hill.”

Yep. He’s absolutely right. It’s the only logical explanation, hence the reason why Book of Mormon scholars have been pointing away from the hill in New York for decades now. One wonders why Jeremy seems intent on arguing that Clark is wrong when it’s the explanation that makes the most sense.

One wonders how FAIRLDS could make it any worse, but here it is. Now they cite another storefront in the Potemkin village and insist that “what makes the most sense” is that Joseph and Oliver misled the world.

I’ve addressed Brother Clark’s articles in detail. They were superficial, outcome-oriented apologist arguments for M2C, not serious scholarly analysis. After he joined the Church in 1832, Heber C. Kimball visited Cumorah and reported that he could still see the embankments around it. He described the numerous hilltop fortifications in the area, replete with artifacts. There are plenty of archaeological sites in western New York that corroborate the Book of Mormon, including Hopewell sites where people from Ohio migrated before vanishing around 400 AD.

He goes on to discuss other battle sites with more physical evidence and other civilizations who have left a strong archeological mark on the areas they inhabited, like the Roman occupation of Great Britain. All of that is interesting from a historical perspective, but none of it is relevant to the discussion. Nobody ever argued that those things don’t leave strong evidence behind. What we’re arguing is that Jeremy is demanding evidence come from the wrong location, while ignoring the strong evidence coming out of other locations.

Archaeologists have never even found the site of the Battle of Hastings. It’s a question of what we expect as much as what evidence exists. Jeremy is not demanding evidence from the wrong location; he’s demanding evidence that no one should expect to find because it’s not in the text, which doesn’t mention chariots, armor, or hundreds of thousands of warriors at Cumorah.

Admittedly, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but where are the Nephite or Lamanite buildings, roads, armors, swords, pottery, art, etc.? How can these great civilizations just vanish without a trace?

Easy: they didn’t vanish without a trace. But how can we possibly tell Nephite/Lamanite buildings, roads, armors, swords, pottery, art, etc., from Mayan and Olmec buildings, roads, armors, swords, pottery, art, etc.?

Again, FAIRLDS simply adopts the premise of CES Letter and then buries the evidence in the Mayan culture. Then they claim that the absence of evidence of Nephite (Christian) culture in Mesoamerica is because it vanished without a trace.

And they don’t see the irony in their own arguments.

If we stick with the text, we can see the difference between reasonable expectations based on the text, and unreasonable expectations based on trying to fit the Nephites within Mesoamerica. The Book of Mormon describes a relatively small population (only 7 Churches in Zarahemla), spread out along rivers. It doesn’t mention pottery or art, although there is plenty of that in the Hopewell culture, as well as headplates and the other weapons, roads, buildings, etc. The archaeology and anthropology in North America aligns with the text, and we don’t have to keep changing the text to fit whatever is discovered in Mesoamerica.

Next FAIRLDS provides a series of typically bizarre apologetics, which I won’t bother to dissect because they are nonresponsive and unpersuasive anyway. I’ll skip to the key point:

Taken together, all of these problems mean that we will most likely never be able to learn the Pre-Classic names for most ancient Mesoamerican sites. Barring further discoveries, we will therefore never learn from inscriptional evidence how the names of Mesoamerican cities were pronounced in Book of Mormon times.

Everything about M2C is, basically, ridiculous. The more we learn about Mesoamerican culture, the less it resembles what the text actually describes. The M2C supporters keep reinterpreting the text to match new discoveries in Mesoamerica, but it’s a losing battle because the text simply never mentions anything about Mayan culture.

Latter-day Saint Thomas Stuart Ferguson was the founder of BYU’s archaeology division (New World Archaeological Foundation). NWAF was financed by the LDS Church. NWAF and Ferguson were tasked by BYU and the Church in the 1950s and 1960s to find archaeological evidence to support the Book of Mormon. After 17 years of diligent effort, this is what Ferguson wrote in a February 20, 1976 letter about trying to dig up evidence for the Book of Mormon: “…you can’t set Book of Mormon geography down anywhere – because it is fictional and will never meet the requirements of the dirt-archaeology. I should say — what is in the ground will never conform to what is in the book.”

The NWAF was not founded “to find archaeological evidence to support the Book of Mormon.” In fact, that was expressly forbidden, and Thomas Stuart Ferguson was a lawyer and student of political science, not an archaeologist. He was also not in charge of the archaeology program at BYU.

CES Letter should adopt these technical corrections if they’re accurate.

The NWAF was first established as an independent, amateur organization, and Ferguson was its chief fundraiser until it was absorbed by BYU, and Ferguson was demoted from President to Secretary.

Okay, so what?

While I sympathize with a self-taught enthusiast realizing he doesn’t know as much as he thought he did—as I’ve said, I’m a self-taught layperson when it comes to Church history and apologetics too, and I have no formal training in any of these subjects—recognizing the limitations of your knowledge is important. There’s much I can learn from actual experts in these areas, and that’s why I study their research. I try to keep up-to-date on as much of the latest scholarship I can, and if I discover that I had something wrong, I try to swallow my pride and digest the new information. It seems that Ferguson didn’t do that. According to John Sorenson:

Okay, so what?

[Stan] Larson implies that Ferguson was one of the “scholars and intellectuals in the Church” and that “his study” was conducted along the lines of reliable scholarship in the “field of archaeology.” Those of us with personal experience with Ferguson and his thinking knew differently. He held an undergraduate law degree but never studied archaeology or related disciplines at a professional level, although he was self-educated in some of the literature of American archaeology. He held a naive view of “proof,” perhaps related to his law practice where one either “proved” his case or lost the decision; compare the approach he used in his simplistic lawyerly book One Fold and One Shepherd. His associates with scientific training and thus more sophistication in the pitfalls involving intellectual matters could never draw him away from his narrow view of “research.” (For example, in April 1953, when he and I did the first archaeological reconnaissance of central Chiapas, which defined the Foundation’s work for the next twenty years, his concern was to ask if local people had found any figurines of “horses,” rather than to document the scores of sites we discovered and put on record for the first time.) His role in “Mormon scholarship” was largely that of enthusiast and publicist, for which we can be grateful, but he was neither scholar nor analyst.

This is all legitimate criticism, but I don’t see how it is responsive.

Ferguson was never an expert on archaeology and the Book of Mormon (let alone on the Book of Abraham, about which his knowledge was superficial). He was not one whose careful “study” led him to see greater light, light that would free him from Latter-day Saint dogma, as Larson represents. Instead he was just a layman, initially enthusiastic and hopeful but eventually trapped by his unjustified expectations, flawed logic, limited information, perhaps offended pride, and lack of faith in the tedious research that real scholarship requires. The negative arguments he used against the Latter-day Saint scriptures in his last years display all these weaknesses.

The problem with this response is that every non-LDS expert on Mayan culture (and some LDS experts) entirely reject any connection between Mayan culture and the Book of Mormon. Michael Coe was just one who agreed to discuss the issues.

And from the same link, Daniel Peterson and Matthew Roper add the following:

… We know of no one who cites Ferguson as an authority, except countercultists, and we suspect that a poll of even those Latter-day Saints most interested in Book of Mormon studies would yield only a small percentage who recognize his name. Indeed, the radical discontinuity between Book of Mormon studies as done by Milton R. Hunter and Thomas Stuart Ferguson in the fifties and those practiced today by, say, the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) could hardly be more striking. Ferguson’s memory has been kept alive by Stan Larson and certain critics of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as much as by anyone, and it is tempting to ask why. Why, in fact, is such disproportionate attention being directed to Tom Ferguson, an amateur and a writer of popularizing books, rather than, say, to M. Wells Jakeman, a trained scholar of Mesoamerican studies who served as a member of the advisory committee for the New World Archaeological Foundation? Dr. Jakeman retained his faith in the Book of Mormon until his death in 1998….

This is another worthless appeal to authority, combined with a dash of ad hominem and self-praise typical of these two authors.

Ferguson’s amateur archaeological research stopped being published in 1962, and he died in 1983. The vast majority of scholarship in this area has only been coming out in the past few decades, well after 1962 and even much of it after 1983. It’s absolutely tragic that he lost his testimony, but one man’s experiences don’t speak for the whole. Many other trained archaeologists have retained and strengthened their testimonies through the research being done in Mesoamerica.

More appeal to authority, but not responsive to the CES Letter anyway.

Like Peterson and Roper said, it’s odd that the critics focus on one little-known amateur who lost his testimony, rather than the many professionals who have only strengthened their testimonies through their research. Perhaps we should all be asking why that is.

Obviously, CES Letter use Ferguson for persuasion purposes. It’s fair to point out that tactic, but it works because most people can identify with amateurs, people don’t buy what the credentialed class is saying, and we can all see that Ferguson worked hard on the problem, only to realize he was looking in the wrong place. Hence the defensiveness of the M2C proponents.

When the apologetic response is to say Ferguson was an amateur (essentially an ad hominem attack), while they, the apologists, have a handful of experts who find M2C compelling, that appeal to authority is doomed to failure because the vast majority of real Mayan experts completely reject the idea that the Book of Mormon has anything to do with Mayan culture.

Worse, of course, is that none of this responds to the CES Letter arguments about the New York Cumorah.

For what it’s worth, you don’t have to find the Mesoamerican research compelling. If you prefer the Heartland theory or the Baja Peninsula theory or any of the others, that’s great. But keeping on top of the research and knowing how to respond to these questions, whether you agree with the conclusions or not, is useful. These questions come up often online and it’s easy to become discouraged. But when you know what information is out there, you don’t have to let it overwhelm you.

As I wrote at the outset, here, finally, is a hint of progress. FAIRLDS has been adamant about M2C since its inception. Is this conclusion opening the door for other faithful interpretations of the text and the extrinsic evidence that supports and corroborates, instead of rejecting and repudiating, the teachings of the prophets?

If so, someone from FAIRLDS needs to email me ASAP.

In closing, remember the words of Neal A. Maxwell:

All of the Scriptures including the Book of Mormon will remain in the realm of faith. Science will not be able to prove or disprove holy writ. However, enough plausible evidence will come forth to prevent scoffers from having a field day, but not enough to remove the requirement of faith. Believers must be patient during such unfolding.

Awesome quotation. Why doesn’t FAIRLDS apply that to the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah?

Don’t let “the scoffers [have] a field day,” and don’t give up. Be patient. Plausible evidence is out there, and more is coming all the time. It won’t replace your testimony, but it can give your firm foundation a little extra support.

They wouldn’t have a field day if the apologists were not agreeing with the critics’ false premises and then using poor rhetorical devices to obfuscate and misinform people.

The end.

Source: About Central America

September 2, 2021Uncategorized

Royal Skousen on Witnesses-Part 2

I posted the second part of my peer review of Royal Skousen’s preliminary manuscript on the witnesses of the Book of Mormon. Here’s the link:

https://interpreterpeerreviews.blogspot.com/2021/09/skousen-on-witnesses-part-2.html

In this part, I discuss Brother Skousen description of what he says are “Two different methods of translating the Book of Mormon.”

He concludes “The Book of Mormon, as we have it today (the result of losing the 116 manuscript pages), was most probably all translated by means of a seer stone that Joseph Smith had.“

However, the “most probably” qualification evaporates in the narrative. Instead, he claims that “the only part that could have been translated by means of the Nephite interpreters” is the initial part of the book of Mosiah, which is not extant.

This line of reasoning leads Skousen, as I discuss in my part 3 tomorrow, to conclude that Joseph Smith’s statements about the translation are “only partially true” and Oliver Cowdery’s statements are “intentionally misleading.”

_____

The M2C/SITH citation cartel has left Latter-day Saints susceptible to more complete information coming from critics, such as CES Letter and Mormon Stories, both of which prey on uninformed Latter-day Saints by presenting narratives about Church history and doctrine that undermine faith. It’s tragic and avoidable. Fully-informed Church members can detect the fallacies in the narratives from the critics, but our scholars are intentionally keeping the Latter-day Saints ignorant solely to protect and enforce their M2C and SITH theories.

It’s unconscionable.

Fortunately, the Internet makes it increasingly difficult for the M2C/SITH citation cartel to continue to mislead the Latter-day Saints. But it requires some effort and critical thinking on the part of members to assess the teachings of these scholars and become fully informed.

_____

I’m astonished at Brother Skousen’s work in this book. Normally he is thorough and detailed, but in this book, he omits key witness statements that contradict his theory, as I point out in my commentary. He doesn’t consider alternative interpretations of the evidence that contradict his own bias but better explain and reconcile the evidence.

We can only speculate why this is the case. Everyone is subject to bias confirmation, but that doesn’t excuse omitting relevant evidence.

Maybe our LDS scholars are just so used to omitting contradictory evidence that they think this is an appropriate technique.

However, that technique produces uninformed Latter-day Saints who–and this is critical–think they are fully informed because they read the work of these LDS scholars whom they respect as actual scholars.

– We see this technique in the Gospel Topics Essays on the Translation of the Book of Mormon, which doesn’t even quote what Joseph and Oliver said about the Urim and Thummim.

– We see it in the Saints book which completely censored the New York Cumorah along with the the teachings about the translation by the Urim and Thummim.

– We see the M2C scholars steadfastly refusing to inform their readers and students about the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah and all the extrinsic evidence that corroborates those teachings.

The worst example, of course, is Book of Mormon Central, which embeds M2C in its logo and spends millions of dollars to promote M2C and SITH. But as we see with Royal Skousen’s book here, the problem is pervasive.

The progression away from the teachings of the prophets follows this pattern:

Source: About Central America

September 2, 2021Uncategorized

The ideal school

The ideal school would teach health, wealth, & happiness.

It‘d be free, self-paced, & available to all. It‘d show opposing ideas and students would self-verify truth. No grades, no tests, no diplomas – just learning. Actually, you’re already here. Careful who you follow.

@naval
“When building habits, choose consistency over content. The best book is the one you can’t put down. The best exercise is the one you enjoy doing every day. The best health food is the one you find tasty. The best work is the work you’d do for free.” @naval

Source: Book of Mormon Concensus

September 1, 2021Uncategorized

Royal Skousen on the Witnesses – Part 1

Just for a fun change of pace, the last couple of days I posted some images to prod a goofy anonymous critic who, as I expected, posted his typically goofy responses.

Today, though, I’m posting something serious.

It was one thing for the stone-in-the-hat (SITH) theory to worm its way into the Gospel Topics Essays. Next, it surfaced in the Saints book and in the Ensign. Nevertheless, careful readers and students could easily detect the factual and logical fallacies of SITH.

Now, though, we’re about to see a more serious effort to embed SITH in LDS thought.

_____

First, I emphasize that this discussion is not intended for those who think the translation of the Book of Mormon is unimportant or irrelevant. Lots of people accept the Book of Mormon on its face for what it teaches and what it means to them. I have no problem with that at all. They don’t care where it came from or how it originated. That’s all great. There are people in every religion who take that approach to their respective sacred texts. Anyone who has been a missionary has encountered such people, and that’s fine. It’s wonderful. If you’re in that category, you don’t need to read the rest of this post.

This discussion is for those who think the origin of the Book of Mormon matters. Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery spoke about it as a critical aspect of the divine authenticity of the book. It’s difficult to argue otherwise, particularly for those who seek to share the Book of Mormon with the world outside the believers. I cannot imagine what life is like for missionaries who have to tell people that the Book of Mormon came from a stone in a hat, but statistics show it’s not a very successful approach.

The bizarre aspect of the discussion is that SITH as the source of the Book of Mormon is not well supported by the historical evidence in the first place. But neither are claims that SITH is a lie.

_____

Royal Skousen, the top scholar of the Book of Mormon manuscripts, posted a preliminary version of his next book, which focuses on the Witnesses of the Book of Mormon.

I admire and respect Brother Skousen and I cherish his detailed research. His research is highly influential throughout the Church, deservedly so. His book on the witnesses will likely be considered the definitive statement about those witnesses.

Which is an enormous problem, in my opinion.

In his manuscript, not only does Brother Skousen strongly endorse SITH, but he concludes that Oliver and Joseph gave statements about the translation that were “only partially true” and appear to be “intentionally misleading.”

Notice how that also sums up the conclusions of our M2C scholars regarding what Joseph and Oliver taught about the New York Cumorah.

While I embrace Brother Skousen’s factual research, I don’t agree with his conclusions because I think his assumptions are flawed and not supported by the evidence.

Because I don’t see anyone else credibly resisting what the scholars are doing, or even offering a plausible alternative, I took some time to analyze Brother Skousen’s document. You can read part 1 here:

https://interpreterpeerreviews.blogspot.com/2021/09/royal-skousen-on-witnesses-of-book-of.html

_____

By now, readers here know that the stone-in-the-hat narrative (SITH) has replaced the traditional teaching that Joseph Smith translated the engravings on the plates with the Urim and Thummim (U&T).

Many LDS scholars have joined long-time critics to teach that Joseph never really translated anything, but instead he merely read words that appeared on a stone he put in a hat.

I realize some LDS authors have responded by claiming all evidence of SITH is bogus or a lie, but that’s not historically accurate or even plausible. Plus, it undermines the credibility of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon. Most of all, such an approach is not necessary to defend and support what Joseph and Oliver taught.

There is unmistakable, unambiguous, obvious historical evidence to support both scenarios.

Joseph, Oliver, and Lucy Mack Smith all explained that Joseph translated the plates by means of the Urim and Thummim.

Others, including David Whitmer, Emma Smith, and Martin Harris, claimed that they observed Joseph dictating while his face was in a hat, reading words that appeared on a seer stone. The SITH scenario involves what I call the MIST (mysterious incognito supernatural translator) who had the power to cause words to appear on a stone, which became a sort of supernatural teleprompter.

Reconciling the evidence has been a challenge. As I describe in my review of Brother Skousen’s book, there are four main alternatives. See which one makes the most sense to you.

Source: About Central America

August 31, 2021Uncategorized

Origin of M2C Fantasyland

People often ask why our leading LDS scholars continue to teach students (as well as missionaries and new members) that the prophets were wrong about the New York Cumorah.

These scholars teach instead that there are “two Cumorahs.” The one in New York, they claim, is a false tradition, while the real Cumorah of Mormon 6:6 is somewhere in southern Mexico. This is the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory (M2C).

Here’s a short explanation of the intellectual genealogy of M2C.

(click on images to enlarge)

RLDS scholar L.E. Hills decided that Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and their successors in the LDS church were wrong about Cumorah in New York. He rejected Letter VII and the teachings of Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Orson Pratt, and every other LDS leader who ever addressed the topic.

Hills published a map in 1917 showing Cumorah in southern Mexico.

L.E. Hills 1917 map

Over the objection of LDS leaders, LDS scholars copied the map published by L.E. Hills, moved Cumorah a few miles east, called it their own, and published it everywhere, including on the BYU Studies web page, where you can still see it today.

https://byustudies.byu.edu/further-study-chart/159-plausible-locations-of-the-final-battles/

BYU Studies map

Church leaders asked the scholars to stop teaching a specific geography, so CES took the BYU Studies map and turned it into a fantasy map, continuing to teach students that the prophets were wrong about Cumorah in New York.

CES fantasy map

Then BYU scholars who work with Book of Mormon Central used computer graphics to make the CES map look more like a real-world setting.

https://bom.byu.edu/

Book of Mormon Central continues to insist that the only viable and permissible interpretation of the text is M2C. They’ve embedded M2C in their logo by using a Mayan glyph to represent the Book of Mormon.

Nevertheless, some people wonder why faith in the Book of Mormon is declining, both among young people who are taught this fantasyland version of the Book of Mormon and among nonmembers contacted by the missionaries (who have been taught M2C).

For more info, see http://www.lettervii.com/2017/12/lessonfireside-material.html

Source: About Central America

August 30, 2021Uncategorized

China wins the future

Twenty years from now, this will be the most important news from 2021. While American and European kids, including teenagers (and young adults), spend most of their time playing videogames, Chinese kids study, exercise, and maintain personal relationships.

China Limits Videogames to Three Hours a Week for Young People

New regulation will ban minors from playing videogames entirely between Monday and Thursday

https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-sets-new-rules-for-youth-no-more-videogames-during-the-school-week-11630325781?mod=hp_lead_pos2

SINGAPORE—China has a new rule for the country’s hundreds of millions of young gamers: No videogames during the school week, and one hour a day on Fridays, weekends and public holidays.

China on Monday issued strict new measures aimed at curbing what authorities describe as youth videogame addiction, which they blame for a host of societal ills, including distracting young people from school and family responsibilities.

The new regulation, announced by the National Press and Publication Administration, will ban minors from playing videogames entirely between Monday and Thursday. On the other three days of the week, and on public holidays, they will be only permitted to play between 8 p.m. and 9 p.m.

The announcement didn’t offer a specific age for minors, but previous regulations targeting younger videogamers have drawn the line at 18 years old.

_____

The link on videogame addiction explains:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/tencent-plummets-as-china-takes-aim-at-online-videogames-11627962018?mod=article_inline

The state-owned Economic Information Daily published a feature on Tuesday, saying excessive gaming could have ill effects on children and highlighting experts’ calls for tighter regulation.

“Society has come to recognize the harm caused by online gaming and it is often referred to as ‘opium for the mind’ or ‘electronic drugs,’” the original article said. This line didn’t appear in the updated version. In both versions of the article, the newspaper said gaming addiction was on the rise, affecting children’s studies and causing alienation.

Source: Book of Mormon Concensus