Author: Jonathan Neville

Considering the contributions of those who preceded us.

https://twitter.com/george__mack/status/1684627512448401408

George Mack

@george__mack

This might be the best email I’ve ever read:

• Steve Jobs email to himself 13 months before he died.

(click to enlarge)

We stand on the shoulders of giants everyday.

Next time you speak to a cynic, ask them these 10 questions:

1. How does the electricity grid work?

2. If you tried to create your food purely from scratch, how long would it take you?

3. How much work is involved in maintaining sewage systems?

4. How much time did people spend building the roads you drive on everyday?

5. Who created air conditioning?

6. If you was dropped on an island and had to create a smartphone, how long would it take you?

7. What did the economy look like before the invention of money?

8. How many people died in the Black Plague?

9. What would your role have been if you was fighting age in WW2?

10. What daily modern item would Kings of the past trade their whole empire for?

Source: Book of Mormon Concensus

This map from the Museum of Native American History in Bentonville, Arkansas, shows the ancient routes to America.

https://www.monah.org/

Thanks to https://twitter.com/DrGregLittle2/status/1684723218215505920?s=20

With recent genetic research it is known that ancient migrations were made into the Americas from people living in the Australia/New Zealand area of the South Pacific. Some American archaeology museums are now accepting that there were at least two, and possibly three, ancient migration routes. This map from the MONAH museum in Arkansas shows the “southern route” at the bottom, the standard Beringia route in the top left, and an eastern route shown in the upper right.

_____

Once when I was in Brisbane, Australia, a temple worker noticed my accent and asked if I was American. I said yes. 

He said, “Did you know Lehi landed here on his way to America?”

“That’s a new one,” I replied.

“It’s obvious. Just look at Alma 10:2.”

I pulled it up on my phone. “I am Amulek; I am the son of Giddonah, who was the son of Ishmael, who was a descendant of Aminadi.” (Alma 10:2)

I told him that made more sense than that Lehi landed in Mesoamerica!

Source: Letter VII

Saints Unscripted recently posted a video about SITH (the stone-in-the-hat theory) titled “Did the Church hide the truth about Joseph Smith’s seer stone?” | Ep. 201

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAMv7z6ubXk

Saints Unscripted produces great videos, with effective graphics and commentary. 

But ultimately, this one is another “just move on” approach, similar to that taken by many of the references provided in the notes. Avoiding the issue by minimizing and trivializing seems short-sighted and ultimately ineffective. 

Screen shot from Saints Unscripted

Some people adopt the “just move on” approach, of course, and that’s fine with me. 

But the pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding to achieve no more contention leads me to discuss how this video is another example of classic cognitive dissonance. 

_____

As suggested by the title, the video attempts to respond to critics who claim “the Church” somehow “hid” the so-called “truth” about Joseph’s seer stone.

As you can see, the title is laden with assumptions. The video makes a decent case that “the Church” has not “hidden” claims that Joseph used SITH to produce the Book of Mormon. But to imply, as the video does, that SITH is “the truth” is a leap of fact and logic–and a concession to the critics, which undermines the premise of the video itself.

There’s a good reason why critics tout SITH as a major problem with “Mormonism.” 

The question is not whether “the Church” hid the historical record about the seer stones, but whether Joseph Smith misled everyone.

IOW, SITH is a challenge to the credibility and reliability of Joseph and Oliver, a point the video completely ignores.

In the past, everyone knew that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery claimed openly and publicly that Joseph translated the plates with the Urim and Thummim that came with the plates.

In recent years, though, Church historians have moved away from that claim. Instead, they’ve argued that Joseph actually dictated words that appeared on a seer stone he found in a well years earlier. Some even say he didn’t use the plates at all, especially after losing the 116 pages. Instead, once he prepared spiritually, he dictated words that appeared on the stone-in-the-hat (SITH).

The discrepancy–SITH vs Urim and Thummim–was articulated in the 1834 book Mormonism Unvailed. In our day, some faithful LDS scholars, along with most critics of the Church, claim that the SITH account in Mormonism Unvailed is “the truth” about the origin of the Book of Mormon. 

Many people don’t realize that Joseph Smith denounced Mormonism Unvailed, as I discussed here:

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

Consequently, the discrepancy between SITH and U&T persists to this day, despite the unambiguous declarations by Joseph and Oliver that should have clarified the issue (at least, for those who believe them).

_____

The discrepancy generates obvious cognitive dissonance in both believers and nonbelievers.

– If Joseph actually used the U&T to translate the plates, then unbelievers have a big problem when they reject the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Hence their insistence that Joseph did not use the U&T and did not use the plates.

– If Joseph dictated words that appeared on the stone-in-the-hat (or through vision or composition), then believers have a big problem because the SITH narrative (i) contradicts what Joseph and Oliver said, (ii) undermines the viability of the plates/U&T narrative, and (iii) calls into question the source of the words (whether they appeared on the stone, or in Joseph’s mind by revelation, or by some other means, there is no direct link to the plates and thus the source of the text could range from divine to human to devilish, depending on what one wants to believe). 

It is well known that there are four strategies to reduce the discomfort of cognitive dissonance. People take one or more of these strategies to resolve the SITH/U&T dissonance:

1. We trivialize the inconsistency altogether, making it less important and less relevant.

2. We add other (consonant) thoughts that justify or reduce the importance of one thought and therefore diminish the inconsistency.

3. We change our behavior so that it is consistent with the other thought.

4. We change one of the dissonant thoughts in order to restore consistency. 

1. Trivialize the inconsistency. Some believers trivialize SITH/U&T dissonance altogether by saying, in effect, “it doesn’t matter how Joseph produced the Book of Mormon because I have a testimony it is true, because the words in the text are evidence of their divine origin, because no ignorant farm boy could produce the book, etc.”

This is the approach taken in the video.   

5:57 the evidence isn’t overwhelmingly straightforward. If I die and find out that Joseph never used his Seer Stone to translate I’m not going to lose any sleep. Frankly, I don’t really care which Stones Joseph used. It’s just a rock. 

We’ll discuss this more in the section below, but it’s easy to see how the video concludes the evidence isn’t straightforward. It simply ignores what Joseph and Oliver said in favor of the confusing, inconsistent statements from others.

2. Add consonant thoughts. Some believers add other consonant thoughts, such as the idea that Joseph used both the U&T and SITH and/or used the term “Urim and Thummim” to refer to both. That approach may be soothing for those who are unaware of the details of the historical record, but the record defies both consonant thoughts. 

Contrary to the thought that Joseph used both, the SITH witnesses said that Joseph used only SITH (except possibly for the 116 pages), while Joseph, Oliver, Lucy Mack Smith, and John Whitmer said Joseph used only the U&T to translate. One historian who interviewed David, Emma and others pointed out that Joseph used a seer stone to “satisfy the awful curiosity” of his supporters, but not to translate. 

Contrary to the thought that Joseph used the term “Urim and Thummim” to refer to both the Nephite interpreters and the seer stone, the 1834 book Mormonism Unvailed clearly delineated between the two alternative explanations. David Whitmer, Emma Smith, and others likewise distinguished the two alternatives whenever they addressed the topic. Joseph himself resolved the confusion with his specific declaration that he used the U&T that came with the plates.

3. Change behavior. Some believers deal with the SITH/U&T dissonance by changing their behavior; i.e., unable to reconcile SITH and U&T, they stop learning about Church history and put the topic “on the shelf” so they can ignore it. 

Others accept SITH and leave the Church on the ground that they’ve been misled by the teachings about the U&T. Responding to that response is one of the ostensible objectives of the video, but because the video resorts to strategy 1, it doesn’t offer much for those who respond to cognitive dissonance with strategy 3. 

4. Change dissonant thoughts. Some believers change one of the dissonant thoughts by rejecting either SITH or U&T. 

Some believers reject U&T and embrace SITH as “cool” or a faith-promoting narrative. They turn a “bug” into a “feature,” to use the software metaphor.

Some believers reject U&T and embrace SITH, leading them to change their behavior accordingly as discussed in 3. above.

Other believers reject SITH and embrace U&T for various reasons, such as accusing the SITH witnesses of lying. 

I think #4 is the most rational and evidence-based approach to resolving cognitive dissonance, but I don’t think it is rational or evidence-based to simply conclude one side or the other was outright lying.

My detailed examination of the historical record, combined with my experience with witnesses and evidence as a lawyer, indicated to me that the SITH witnesses were not outright lying, but (i) they had a strong motivation to use SITH to defend against the Spalding theory and (ii) they developed a SITH narrative that was apparently based on a demonstration event that may not have even involved the text of the Book of Mormon. As witnesses do, they relied on hearsay, assumptions, and inferences to coordinate a narrative they thought was useful.

For me, this is an easy, obvious, and straightforward resolution that is supported by the evidence. Basically, I believe what Joseph and Oliver taught for all the reasons I’ve explained elsewhere.

That’s why the “just move on” approach is unsatisfactory to many people, both believers and nonbelievers. 

_____

My comments I posted on youtube:

Although this video is a good effort to respond to some critics, the title of this video is misleading because the issue isn’t whether “the Church” hid “the truth” but whether Joseph Smith “hid the truth.”

Source: About Central America

There is an interesting parallel between a current political issue and the issue of SITH and M2C within the Church.

While I’m fine with people believing whatever they want, and I favor no more contention (see nomorecontention.com), I also think SITH and M2C are major scandals based on false premises. For that reason, SITH and M2C promoters oppose clarity, charity, and understanding.

Jonathan Turley wrote an editorial about how the media and Democrats want to “just move on” from the Biden scandals, despite the unfolding evidence.

In similar manner, the SITH and M2C promoters want Latter-day Saints to “just move on” from the scandalous origins (and ramifications) of their theories.

They don’t want Latter-day Saints to inquire into these topics. They don’t want Latter-day Saints to even know about the facts. That’s why the Gospel Topics Essays, the Saints books, and the publications and websites from Book of Mormon Central, the Interpreter, etc., continue to censor what Joseph and Oliver taught. The SITH and M2C promoters obfuscate instead of clarify the relevant facts.

Despite their efforts, more and more people are becoming educated about SITH and M2C.

In our day, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery are the whistleblowers on the SITH and M2C narratives.

And eventually Latter-day Saints everywhere will be able to make informed decisions that reinvigorate their faith in what Joseph and Oliver taught, despite SITH and M2C.

_____

Excerpt from Turley’s article:

I wonder after this plea happens if you would advise your party to move on?”

That question from CBS’s “Face the Nation” host Margaret Brennan to Republican presidential candidate Chris Christie was raised just days before a former business associate of Hunter Biden, Devon Archer, gives potentially explosive testimony to a House committee in the Biden corruption scandal.

The media’s desire to “move on” from the scandal is reaching an almost frantic level, as millions in foreign payments and dozens of corporate shell companies are revealed, and incriminating emails are released.

The same plaintive demand was made in congressional hearings.

What was most striking about the last hearing involving two respected IRS whistleblowers was how Democratic members avoided virtually any specific questions….

Members and the media were literally citing a plea bargain as dispositive, even as two lead investigators were saying it was fixed and politically influenced.

Some in the media attacked these two IRS veterans as “so-called whistleblowers” (just as members previously attacked “so called journalists” for discussing censorship records).

Others insisted that the allegations were still “unproven” or “unverified” while showing the same lack of interest in establishing the truth.

Notably, these same media outlets did wall-to-wall coverage of the false Russian collusion claims in the Steele dossier.

They are now simply shrugging off what could be one of the most serious corruption scandals in modern history despite the testimony of highly credible whistleblowers and thousands of pages of supporting evidence.

None of this is going to work, of course. The public has long ago lost trust in the media. Indeed, the “Let’s Go, Brandon” movement is as much a mocking of the media as it is the President.

Polls show that the public is not “moving on” and now view this as a major scandal. A majority believes that Hunter has received special protection in the investigation. While the media can continue to suppress the evidence and allegations within their own echo-chambered platforms, truth like water has a way of finding a way out.

The scandal is moving forward with or without the media.

https://jonathanturley.org/2023/07/25/nothing-to-see-here-members-and-the-media-panic-as-the-biden-scandal-mounts/

Source: About Central America

When I’m not cutting trees, walking on the beach, working on a book, preparing for an upcoming art exhibition, traveling, golfing, teaching, fishing, kayaking, etc., I engage with readers about various topics and I make notes.

I realize it may be difficult to keep track of all my blogs, but I use them as notes when I get ideas and the topics vary. I don’t expect anyone to read all of what I write, but people seem interested, so here are a few updates to some of my blogs/websites.

https://nomorecontention.blogspot.com/

I’ve added some relevant links and new pages.

https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/

I added an article on how historians choose narratives to promote, using Cumorah as an example.

https://www.lettervii.com/

I added a post about pre-Columbian civilizations in North America.

http://bookofmormonconsensus.blogspot.com/

I added a comment about euphemisms for censorship.

https://www.mobom.org/cumorah-overview

I updated the Cumorah overview.

https://natureoftheclimate.blogspot.com/

I added an article from the WSJ about how we will never run out of resources.

https://closertoknowing.blogspot.com/

I added a link to a podcast by Naval Ravikant.

https://dailyjonathanedwards.blogspot.com/

I added an excerpt about “sandy foundations,” another non-Biblical Book of Mormon term.

Source: About Central America

Gregory Little makes an important observation about the Smithsonian map from the late 1800s.

I need to do this again… this is the Smithsonian’s Bureau of Ethnology map showing the general distribution of mound sites they had identified in the eastern half of the USA by the late 1800s. The red dots indicate areas where mounds, sometimes hundreds, were found. However, they typically then looked only at places that were easily visited: by roads, railways, and rivers. For just one simple example, the entire Gulf coast of Florida should be solid red. Another example: the mountains of NE Alabama has hundreds to a thousand or more stone mounds that were not found until the 2000s.

(click to enlarge)

Source: Letter VII

People often ask why Book of Mormon Central (BMC) betrays its mission and misleads its donors by focusing on M2C (the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory) to the exclusion of other faithful concepts about the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon and in defiance of the Church’s policy of neutrality on that issue. 

The short answer is because John W. (Jack) Welch insists that BMC promote M2C exclusively. He could single-handedly change the organization into a legitimate scholarly resource that accommodates the full spectrum of faithful Latter-day Saints, but he refuses to do so.

In the interest of clarity, charity and understanding, let’s discuss this important question.

_____

Q1. Does BMC teach M2C as the only acceptable setting? 

A1. Yes. One look at their Spanish-language website clarifies their position:

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

A closer look at the BMC site shows how they attack alternative faithful settings. I won’t provide the links, but they are easily searchable here: https://bookofmormoncentral.org/

_____

Q2. Why does BMC teach M2C as the only acceptable setting?

A2. Because of their “scholarly consensus.”

When we ask these scholars why they fight against the Church’s policy of neutrality on the setting of the Book of Mormon, the common answer is that there is a scholarly consensus about M2C; i.e., according to the scholars at Book of Mormon Central, all the relevant, credentialed scholars agree that the prophets were wrong about the New York Cumorh, so their focus on M2C is justified.

_____

Q3. Why would legitimate scholars at BMC censor alternative faithful viewpoints?

A3. Censorship is based on insecurity, fear and mistrust. Censors are insecure about their own beliefs/positions, they fear openness and comparison to alternatives, and they mistrust their followers (and donors) who might reject the censors if they could make fully informed decisions. 

All of the people at BMC are undoubtedly awesome, smart, educated, faithful, etc. But they do share this intransigence about M2C, apparently as a condition of employment/affiliation.

In the academic world, a heightened concern about reputation and legacy also plays an important role that often outweighs the fundamental principle of legitimate scholarship: clarity and openness. 

BMCs refusal to engage in clarity and openness undermines the credibility of the organization. BMC is an M2C advocacy group, not a legitimate scholarly organization.

Clarity. When we understand the history of BMC, their M2C advocacy makes sense (sort of). BMC is a subsidiary of BMAF (Book of Mormon Archaeological Forum, http://bmaf.org/) which was a long-time M2C advocacy group founded in 2004. BMAF published harsh attacks on alternatives to M2C and touts its M2C advocacy in its logo and on its website (http://bmaf.org/about/why_mesoamerica).

Well before BMAF was organized, Jack Welch founded FARMS in 1979. He adopted a logo that taught M2C and, in collaboration with John Sorenson and many others, has promoted M2C for decades. (For an overview, see https://www.templestudy.com/2012/06/25/rise-fall-farms/).

Charity. Everyone can understand the deep psychological investment in M2C that arises from teaching M2C to thousands of faithful Latter-day Saints over 40 decades. We are empathetic with such an investment.

Understanding. Understanding why BMC does what it does helps us appreciate the dynamics of BMCs ongoing censorship and opposition to basic principles of legitimate scholarship. But we have to ask, do those reasons justify exclusion of alternative faithful views from what is supposed to be Book of Mormon Central?

Source: About Central America