Author: Jonathan Neville

Yesterday, President Nelson announced a temple would be built in Antananarivo, Madagascar. We were particularly happy about that one because we lived in Mauritius and spent a week in Madagascar. The new temple will have a tremendous impact on the Latter-day Saints in that area, as well as on their friends, families and neighbors.

Plus, our new illustrated book about Church history from an African perspective is set in Madagascar. The artist is from Madagascar and currently lives in Mauritius. He’s a well-known political cartoonist who is very talented, as you can see from the illustrations.

For today’s post, we’ll use images to tell the story. (click to enlarge)

BTW, this was the same trip during which we visited Moroni, the capital of Comoros, with two books I was working through at the time: Royal Skousen’s book on the History of the Language and the Annotated Book of Mormon (see the last two photos).

 Back cover

Front Cover

Explaining temples

Explaining the Church in Africa

https://www.digitalegend.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=377

In Madagascar

 Antananarivo, with the Mission Home in the distance

Lemurs like salt!

Lemur on the shoulder

 

Make Cumorah Great Again

Moroni, Comoros, with the Annotated Book of Mormon

Moroni, Comoros, with Royal Skousen’s book

Source: About Central America

I put together some graphics to simplify the important concepts about facts and analysis. By applying this model, we can see why LDS apologists are failing. They basically agree with the critics regarding fundamental aspects of the Book of Mormon.

It’s no wonder so many Latter-day Saints, former LDS, and prospective LDS, are so confused. When they read or hear LDS scholars agreeing with the critics on such basic points, they are led to inquire themselves. But our LDS scholars have habitually and persistently censored and obfuscated the facts that support the teachings of the prophets, and most people aren’t experienced enough to know where to find good information. They end up deferring to the scholars/critics and become confused and disturbed in their faith.

This is all essentially a thinking error that we can rectify once we identify the error.

_____

First, there are objective facts, including historical and scientific, that everyone can agree exist. 

For example, an automobile collision occurs. At an intersection, a blue car struck the right side of a green car. Both cars stopped. The blue car is perpendicular to the green car. A police officer with a bodycam shows up and asked a bystander what happened. The bystander says, “The blue car ran the red light.” The fact that the bystander made the statement is a fact everyone can agree exists (assuming the bodycam accurately recorded the statement). 

The existence of the bystander’s statement is a fact, but the veracity of the statement is a separate issue. 

Second, we filter the facts with analysis, denial, assumptions, inferences, etc. Analysis includes scrutiny of the reliability and credibility of facts. 

For example, the police officer may follow up by asking, “Where you here when it happened?” The bystander might say “No, but a friend of mine was and he told me.” The original statement is based on hearsay, not personal observation, and is unreliable.

Or, the bystander might say, “Yes.” Then the officer asks, “Tell me what you saw.” The bystander says, “I heard the crash and looked up. The light was red.” Now we see the bystander was present but didn’t actually observe what he claimed was a fact. He made an assumption or inference.

Further investigation could reveal that it was the green car that ran a red light, exactly the opposite of what the bystander stated, even if the bystander thought he was telling the truth.

Critical analysis can be effective at separating truth from untruth, but there are other ways in which people filter facts. They deny facts they don’t want to accept. They make assumptions and/or inference based on the facts they do know. They make logical errors, including comparison errors, that lead to erroneous conclusions. 

Cross-examination could filter out unreliable testimony, but we can’t cross-examine historical figures. That’s why we have a third step.

Third, we think of working hypotheses that may explain some or all of the evidence. Because different people filter the facts differently, we usually have multiple working hypotheses. Then we evaluate the hypotheses to see how well they explain the facts.

_____

A good example is the way organizations that purport to have contradictory hypotheses actually share the same filter on basic facts. (click to enlarge)

These groups all applied one filter to the facts: the filter that the prophets were wrong. To understand how these groups reached different hypotheses despite sharing the same filter, we can apply a graphical model of the process.

_____

Here’s the basic graphic.

The next time you consider Church history, apply this model and see if you can come up with a solution in the form of a hypothesis that explains more facts. 
Source: About Central America

I often refer to “multiple working hypotheses.” The concept means a variety of interpretations of the same facts. I’m all in favor of different ideas. What I don’t favor is censorship, omitting facts, and conflating facts with assumptions, opinion, inferences, hearsay, etc. 

People often ask for a good resource that compares the various geographical theories. A few years ago, we agreed in principle with Book of Mormon Central to create an open source comparison, but they reneged on the agreement so nothing was ever done. They still don’t want people to consider multiple working hypotheses based on all the facts. 

But I do. 

One resource that presents multiple working hypotheses is here:

https://bookofmormon.online/map

This is one of the best sites I’m aware of for info about the Book of Mormon. 

I’m told that Book of Mormon Central acquired the site, which may explain the editorial bias evident throughout. (Yes, I realize that one could argue this site contradicts my claim that BMC doesn’t want people to consider multiple working hypotheses, but the site had these maps before BMC acquired it.) 

Hover your cursor over “Internal,” “Mesoamerica,” and “Heartland” and you’ll see what I mean about editorial bias. 

The “Internal” map is the self-serving Sorenson M2C interpretation of the text, which CES and BYU have adopted when they created their fantasy maps. Predictably, this “internal” map is designed to imprint Mesoamerica on the minds of all who see it. 

I’m fine with the idea of an “internal map” so long as the assumptions are clearly stated and alternative internal maps are also considered. However, this site will never show alternative internal maps because of the M2C bias.

The “Mesoamerican” map description uses the typical appeal to authority fallacy: “subscribed to by most mainstream LDS scholars at BYU and the Maxwell Institute.” In reality, the Maxwell Institute takes no position on the question, there has never been a poll of “mainstream LDS scholars at BYU,” many of whom don’t accept Mesoamerica, and this appeal to authority boils down to the efforts of a handful of scholars in the M2C citation cartel–including the ones who own this website. Book of Mormon Central insists people must accept M2C to even participate in their efforts to share the Book of Mormon with the world.

That said, there is plenty of evidence to support M2C, provided one first rejects what the prophets have taught about the New York Cumorah. It’s a valid “working hypothesis” once you accept the assumptions it relies upon.

And, of course, there are numerous variations among M2C proponents. Such multiple working hypotheses are healthy and productive as we continue to learn more.

The “Heartland” map description frames it as “United States-centric” because one of the favorite M2C criticisms of “Heartland” ideas is the false claim that “Heartland” models are based on patriotism and nationalism. As anyone who actually reads the material knows, the so-called “Heartland” models are based on accepting (instead of repudiating) the New York Cumorah, statements by Joseph Smith and early Church members about what Joseph said, the revelations in the D&C, and relevant extrinsic evidence from archaeology, anthropology, etc. 

Within the “Heartland” scenario, there are several variations, as there are within the M2C scenario. Readers here are presumably familiar with my proposal, which I described in Moroni’s America. It differs in some respects from the working hypotheses proposed by Wayne May, Rod Meldrum, and others. For example, here’s a detailed working hypothesis called the “Zarahemla Centric Heartland Model” that accepts the New York Cumorah but reaches a conclusion different from mine.

https://zchm.theholyscriptures.info/

Here again, having multiple working hypotheses is healthy and productive. 

There is a rational basis for all the hypotheses: New York, Costa Rica, Panama, Baja, Sri Lanka, Malay, Peru, Chile, Colombia, etc.

_____ 

The first step to assessing the multiple working hypotheses is accepting or rejecting the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah. Accepting those teachings leads us to interpret the text accordingly. Rejecting those teachings leads us to interpret the text accordingly. 

Everything else flows from there.

So far as I know, no one is claiming any additional revelation about the geography. It’s a matter of interpreting and prioritizing evidence.

For example, I’ve been told many times by M2C proponents that they reject the New York Cumorah because the text requires them to. That’s the argument that RLDS scholar Stebbins made over 100 years ago, and M2C believers today have accepted that argument. All the non-New York Cumorah theories take that approach.

There’s nothing irrational about that approach. It’s the basis for several legitimate working hypotheses. 

Like me, though, most people realize that Oliver Cowdery knew the Book of Mormon pretty well, and he didn’t think the text contradicted his experience when he visited the depository of Nephite records in the “hill in New York” that, according to the M2C scholars, cannot be Cumorah.

But, as I said, people can reasonably believe that Oliver was wrong, that Lucy Mack Smith falsely reported her experiences, that Joseph eventually adopted a false tradition about Cumorah, etc.

After all, now that BYU scholar Royal Skousen has determined that Joseph and Oliver intentionally misled people about the translation of the Book of Mormon, for M2C scholars to conclude that Joseph and Oliver also intentionally misled people about the New York Cumorah is at least consistent–if that’s what you want to believe.

Soon I’ll post Stebbins’ argument, which the M2C proponents have mimicked ever since. See what you think.

Source: About Central America

I frequently hear from M2C and SITH scholars and their followers who say that we should accept the theories of the credentialed class because they are experts who have studied these things. They’ve reached a “consensus” about M2C and SITH and they expect all Latter-day Saints to agree with them.

To use President Nelson’s term, “lazy learners” defer to others to do their thinking for them. “Engaged learners” study for themselves. They don’t bow to credentials.

In yesterday’s Face to Face, Elder Bednar said, “We should not expect the Church as an organization to teach or tell us all the things we need to know and do to become devoted disciples and to endure valiantly to the end. Rather, our individual responsibility is to learn what we should learn, to live as we know we should live, and to become what the Master would have us become.”

If we can’t expect the Church to teach us everything we need to know, we definitely cannot expect the credentialed class to teach us everything we need to know.

To be sure, scholars have a lot to offer. I respect and admire them for their expertise, diligence, ability to communicate, etc. But we should all recognize the difference between an expert’s discovery of and explanation of facts, and that same expert’s assumptions, interpretations and conclusions.

It’s the same principle whether the “expert” is a believer or an non-believer. If you let the expert assign your opinion to you, you’re shirking your individual responsibility.

We embrace facts, and the more the better. For the rest, we consider multiple working hypotheses and decide for ourselves which best explains the totality of the facts and circumstances.

We are each responsible for our own education. We can choose to make our own informed decisions, or we can choose to defer to others and let them make decisions for us. 

If you make an informed decision to believe M2C, great. But if you think you’ve made an informed decision because you’ve read materials published by Book of Mormon Central, the Interpreter, FairLatterdaysaints, Meridian Magazine, BYU Studies, or any of the rest of the M2C citation cartel, you’re kidding yourself. The M2C citation cartel has made deliberate editorial decisions to promote M2C to the exclusion of other faithful interpretations of the scriptures, while also directly and openly repudiating the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah.

If you want to make informed decisions, read what the M2C citation cartel publishes, but also read what the prophets have taught (such as the compilation here: http://www.lettervii.com/p/byu-packet-on-cumorah.html). Notice the things the M2C citation cartel keeps from its readers and followers, such as the extrinsic evidence that supports the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah. 

There is abundant evidence that supports the teachings of the prophets, but you won’t read about it in the work of the M2C citation cartel because they expect Latter-day Saints to defer to the M2C experts.

It’s the same with SITH, as I discussed last week.

Are you awake yet?

Source: About Central America

If you don’t know about him already, you should start watching Steven Pynakker’s youtube channel Mormon Book Reviews. He is doing more to explore and explain all the facets of the Restoration than anyone else I know of.

He recently posted an interview we did about my book Infinite Goodness, which examines the influence of Jonathan Edwards on Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRZ2J2lsksk

In my view, the Book of Mormon is the fulfillment of long-held Christian hopes and dreams, including those expressed by Jonathan Edwards. There is tremendous potential for all Christians to come together and pursue the glorious future that Edwards described, as I discuss in the book.

_____

On this blog we’ve discussed the pros and cons of consensus. Often, groups seek consensus for purposes other than seeking truth. They can seek consensus for harmony, for consolidation of common beliefs, for financial reasons, and for lots of other reasons that may or may not be productive.

In other cases, individuals or groups who have differences of opinion can unite by finding common ground in the pursuit of truth.

It has been said that a necessary condition of any “solution” is to live in truth, and to address the facts honestly.

Regarding the Book of Mormon, there has been a long-running debate over the existence of biblical passages in the text, along with nonbiblical language drawn from other sources, such as The Late War.

Critics claim such evidence shows Joseph Smith composed (copied or plagiarized) the text. Believers deny Joseph read those sources because he was mostly uneducated and illiterate.

What both sides seem to have overlooked is that evidence of composition is also evidence of translation.

Translators necessarily draw upon their personal lexicons to express the information from the original source into the target language they are translating into. Thus, if Joseph translated the plates as he claimed, he would have had to draw upon his own lexicon, or mental language bank. And he could have acquired that lexicon only by reading (or, possibly, hearing) the Bible and related Christian writings.

My study led me to focus on Jonathan Edwards, whose works were easily accessible to Joseph Smith, as I explain in my book Infinite Goodness. 

Source: Book of Mormon Concensus

The history of LDS apologetics is a fascinating story that keeps getting more interesting. Lately, it has become a team sport, with the M2C/SITH citation cartel vs. the CESLetter/MormonStories citation cartel. Both teams resort to factual and logical fallacies to rally their respective sides. 

Unfortunately (from my perspective), social media anecdotes, increasingly common personal experiences, and statistical trends indicate that the critics are winning many of these debates. People frequently tell me about friends, family and ward members who have been persuaded by the critical arguments. I’ve addressed some of the specific critical arguments here and here, but the bigger problem is on the faithful side, because we shouldn’t be resorting to logical and factual fallacies to explain and defend our position.

Because I think both cartels actually share assumptions that are invalid and unexamined, I’m taking a look at their methodology and recognizing the worst LDS apologist/polemicist (in my opinion, due to long-lasting influence on other apologists). 

We note that the term “apologist” has earned a pejorative connotation, particularly in our LDS setting, because of factual and logical fallacies employed by so many LDS apologists, as well as by their critics. However, in the abstract, the term itself is merely descriptive. Google uses this Oxford definition: “a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial.” There’s nothing wrong with being an apologist, but an apologist can make either good or bad arguments. 

Most apologists on all sides of the issues are very nice, sincere, thoughtful people. Those I know personally are great people whom I like and respect. I assume those I don’t know personally are the same. For me, none of these discussions about Church history, textual interpretation, etc. are personal in the least. I expect people to disagree about all sorts of things and it has no bearing on friendship, cordiality, respect, etc. But I recognize that for some people, these debates are emotional, not intellectual. Their egos (and possibly their careers) are directly tied to the success of their theories. Their investment in their theories affects their rationality and objectivity. I see this among both faithful and critical apologists.

As we’ll see below, there is an extreme version of apologetics referred to as “polemics.” A polemicist focuses on attacking his/her opponents rather than defending a point of view. The more an apologist becomes a polemicist, the worse the ensuing arguments become, to the point where they are counterproductive.

Naturally, both faithful and critical apologists make good and bad arguments. One way to distinguish good from bad is whether you agree or disagree with a particular argument, but that’s a “lazy learner” approach. It’s mere bias confirmation, often without stating the underlying bias. 

Bad apologetic arguments are nevertheless highly persuasive if they confirm your bias. This is the problem we see in much of apologetics from both LDS supporters and critics. The debate has devolved into tribalism, an “us vs. them” approach that has little chance of persuading or even improving understanding.

Another (more productive) way is to assess the validity of the argument in terms of fact and logic (reasoning). Usually we find a mixture of solid arguments with factual and logical fallacies. A good example is the mixture we see in the fairlatterdaysaint.org response to the CES Letter that we discussed last week here: 

http://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2021/09/fair-lds-again-and-skousen-on-witnesses.html 

In my view, much of the fairlatterdaysaint.org response was counterproductive (from the persepctive of believers) because it’s easy to see that, in this case, CES Letter was more factually accurate (and hence more persuasive) in specific instances. The faithful argument would be much stronger if they weren’t constantly trying to justify M2C as they did in that response.

_____

Factual fallacies are simply errors about facts, whether intentional or not. They include misquoting, taking facts out of context, omitting facts that contradict one’s argument, etc. These are relatively easy to detect and correct, and apologists should embrace correction, regardless of how it affects their argument. An apologist who persists with a factual fallacy should be challenged directly. A polemicist resists correction. 

Logical fallacies are thinking errors. There are lots of lists of logical fallacies, such as this one:

https://owl.excelsior.edu/argument-and-critical-thinking/logical-fallacies/

You can assess apologist arguments, whether pro or con regarding a particular issue, by going through the checklist of logical fallacies. 

One common fallacy that sort of blends logical with factual fallacies is the straw man fallacy: A straw man fallacy occurs when someone takes another person’s argument or point, distorts it or exaggerates it in some kind of extreme way, and then attacks the extreme distortion, as if that is really the claim the first person is making.

The worst fallacy, probably, is the ad hominem fallacy. Ad hominem means “against the man,” and this type of fallacy is sometimes called name calling or the personal attack fallacy. This type of fallacy occurs when someone attacks the person instead of attacking his or her argument.

_____

The ad hominem fallacy is the principal rhetorical tool of a polemicist. Polemicists who resort to ad hominem attacks are admitting that their arguments cannot survive scrutiny.

Lately, we have an LDS polemicist who not only relies on ad hominem attacks, but his very brand is ad hominem. Even better, he is so unsure of (or embarrassed by) his attacks that he remains anonymous.

I should say, tries to remain anonymous.

This doesn’t make him (or her or them) a bad person. Undoubtedly this is a very nice guy who is just insecure and emotionally involved, whose ego and worldview is threatened by even faithful teachings that he has not been aware of before. His work is full of factual and logical fallacies that are easy to observe. It’s pathetic, really, but we can’t fault the poor guy for trying. 

But we can fault the well-known polemicist who promotes his “anonymous” alter ego.

Obviously, I’m not going to name names or provide links. This specific individual (or group) is not the point. Even if one person decided to desist with the polemical ad hominem attacks, it wouldn’t matter because the M2C/SITH citation cartel has plenty of such people who write anonymously, popping up in various fronts of the Potemkin village they inhabit. 

You can look at fairlatterdaysaints.org and see that their authors are almost completely anonymous (like the 1842 Times and Seasons that are the foundation for M2C in the first place).

All I’ll do here is provide a graphic that some readers will understand and a passage from a well-known book on Church history in which the author reviews the history of the problem with LDS apologetics that is ongoing (even though this book was published in 1998). Isn’t it astonishing that 23 years later, the same people are still doing the same things, with the same results?

While I completely disagree with the author’s interpretation of the facts regarding Church history, I nevertheless agree with his assessment of LDS apologetics.

Polemical tactics have been fundamental to the self-definition of FARMS. After six years as book review editor for FARMS, Peterson acknowledged that LDS church members “on our side” have asked “on a number of occasions” why “ do you have to be so polemical, so argumentative?” He responded: “We did not pick this fight with the Church’s critics, but we will not withdraw from it. I can only regret that some may think less of us for that fact.” Then as a religious echo of political McCarthyism’s innuendos about its critics, Peterson indicated that Mormons “on our side” should be careful about criticizing FARMS: “Certain of our critics have emphasized our alleged ‘nastiness,’ I am convinced, as a way of distracting attention from our evidence and arguments.” In the previous issue, Peterson had also written a thirty-eight-page defense of the periodical’s use of “insults” and “ad hominem (i.e., ‘against the man’)” statements about authors whose books were being reviewed by FARMS. Peterson even boasted that some FARMS writers were born with the nastiness gene.”

The end

Source: About Central America