Brant Gardner finished his series of blog posts comparing M2C with the Heartland. Brant is a fine scholar, a great guy, and a faithful Latter-day Saint.
The series is a good candidate for a FAITH model analysis if/when I get the time. Hopefully someone else will take the opportunity to separate the facts we all know from the various assumptions, inferences and theories that lead to the multiple working hypotheses found throughout the community of Latter-day Saints.
So in that sense, kudos to Brant.
But hopefully in the future he will consider employing the FAITH model.
_____
Certainly we can't expect the Interpreter (or the M2C-driven Meridian Magazine) to do a serious peer review of anything that promotes M2C (although I've offered to do so many times). Nor can we expect them to publish an explanation of the Heartland model by anyone who is not a critic.
Consequently, we'll do a peer review of his conclusion here, all in the spirit of offering suggestions for improvement in the pursuit of clarity, charity and undesrtanding.
Original in blue, my comment in red.
https://interpreterfoundation.org/the-heartland-versus-mesoamerica-part-13-some-final-comments/
This series of blog posts has been a comparison between two possible real-world locations for the Book of Mormon: The Heartland and Mesoamerica.
For the Heartland model, it is clear that the most important facet of the proposal is the declaration that the hill in upstate New York, from which Joseph Smith retrieved the plates, was the very hill Cumorah of the Nephite final battles.
Yes, it seems obvious that the unambiguous, clear, and specific teachings of the prophets should prevail over private interpretations of the text, especially when those interpretations themselves are ambiguous, contorted, and outcome-driven.
But to say this is "the most important facet" ignores the reality that different aspects of the question have more importance than others for different people. Some people focus on the extrinsic evidence, some on the prophetic promises and covenants, some on the historical accounts, and some on other issues.
In my view, the teachings of the prophets are a solid starting place, but I'm also interested in, and consider to be important, the extrinsic evidence and the text itself.
This is the point most vehemently argued for and it is supported by long tradition and statements by leading Church authorities from the past. It is by far the strongest aspect of the Heartland model.
No objective, rational or even fair author would use "vehemently" here. An actual peer reviewer would have deleted it. But we're dealing with the Interpreter, so it's just normal rhetoric.
Nevertheless, this is a pejorative framing for purely rhetorical purposes. But Brent doesn't acknowledge that the New York Cumorah is also supported by the text itself, as well as extrinsic evidence.
As discussed in the second post on the “Heartland Pins in the Map,” the adamant declarations of previous generations of General Authorities hasve [sic] not continued to the present. The current statements and instructions are much more cautious.
Shortly before his death, Brigham Young warned about exactly the problem Brant points to here: "I take this liberty of referring to those things so that they will not be forgotten and lost." Few Latter-day Saints today know what Brigham Young said. Unlike Joseph's contemporaries, they have never read Oliver's letters (including Letter IV and VII), which Joseph had republished repeatedly. References to Cumorah have been removed from lesson manuals and other curriculum that many of us grew up with. But no General Authorities have ever repudiated the New York Cumorah the way scholars such as Brent have. Church leaders have noted the problem of contention about this issue (such as Brent's rhetoric) which may explain why they simply avoid it. Even the Gospel Topics entry on Book of Mormon geography doesn't mention Cumorah. https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/p/book-of-mormon-geography-essay.html
In particular, the historians cannot find any mention of the NY hill being called Cumorah in the earliest documents, . It cannot be found in Joseph’s descriptions until the 1840s, despite its fairly common use prior to that among others.
This is a persistent argument by M2Cers, based on an outcome-driven approach to history. We have virtually no documents prior to 1829. The first known written account of the First Vision is Joseph's 1832 history--12 years after the fact--and it doesn't mention two beings or the other details we all accept because of the 1842 account. The earliest published account was in 1840 by Orson Pratt--20 years after the fact.
By contrast, the earliest published account of Cumorah was in Jan 1833 (Phelps, E&MS 1), making it closer in proximity to Moroni's visit than Joseph's earliest account of the First Vision was to that experience. Oliver's detailed Letter VII in 1835--12 years after Moroni's first visit--declares it is a fact that the hill Cumorah/Ramah is in New York.
Historians rely extensively on Lucy Mack Smith's history for information about the pre-1830 era. Lucy recalled that it was Moroni who identified the hill as Cumorah the first time he met Joseph, and that Joseph referred to the hill as Cumorah before he even obtained the plates. That recollection is corroborated by David Whitmer's experience in 1829 with the messenger who had the abridged plates and said he was going to Cumorah before giving Joseph the plates of Nephi in Fayette. Lucy's recollection is also corroborated by Parley Pratt's Autobiography, in which Oliver explained to the Indians in 1830 that Moroni called the hill Cumorah anciently.
Joseph's letter in 1842 (D&C 128:20) corroborates and affirms these earlier accounts. "Glad tidings from Cumorah! Moroni, an angel from heaven, declaring the fulfilment of the prophets—the book to be revealed." (Doctrine and Covenants 128:20) As Lucy explained, Joseph knew the name Cumorah before he ever saw the plates.
The multiple examinations I have done in this series of posts rarely suggest that the Heartland model works on any level.
Naturally they would not, because Brant does not want the Heartland model to work on any level. But everyone who reads his series of posts can see that plain as day.
For example, the strongest Heartland model “pin” is the traditional association of the NY hill with Cumorah. The Heartland model completely ignores the Book of Mormon internal geography, which clearly indicates that the Nephites did not come to Cumorah until long after they had been forced north of the narrow neck.
This is an excellent example of how Brant's interpretation of the text merely conforms to his predetermined model. By referring to "the narrow neck" he conflates all the Book of Mormon terms that involve "narrow" or "small," contrary to normal usage of the language, as we've discussed many times.
E.g., https://www.lettervii.com/2025/06/narrow-necks-etc.html
To assume that even in a limited Mesoamerican geography there can be only one "narrow neck" is purely an outcome-driven assumption.
The typical Heartland model narrow neck is between the Great Lakes. It is indeed narrow, but it is north of the NY Cumorah whereas the Book of Mormon narrow neck is south.
Same "narrow neck" assumption we just discussed, but I don't know how any particular "narrow neck" is "typical." There are numerous Heartland models. Brant's approach is to find one that doesn't fit his interpretation of the text and then say that's the one that is "typical."
I assume everyone who reads his series can see this, but the job of a peer reviewer is to point out rhetorical and logical problems with the material so they can be corrected before publication.
There is a very important reason that these posts are so lopsided in favor of the Mesoamerican model, and why the Heartland theory isn’t my stated preference for the events of the Book of Mormon.
The primary reason is it wouldn't have been published by the Interpreter otherwise. But secondarily, we all know Brant is fully invested in M2C.
The posts have looked at issues that belong to anthropology, archaeology, history, and geology. Those are all disciplines which are open to evidentiary inquiry. That is the kind of analysis I have provided.
We all agree that Brant actually thinks this, but we can all see that his analysis is superficial because it relies on his subjective interpretation of the text. His familiarity with Mesoamerica and his long history of promoting M2C drive everything he writes on the topic. His analysis is a classic example of confirmation bias.
The unknown question is why he is so determined to repudiate the teachings of the prophets. We can only infer that he closely identifies with the M2C theory he has spent so much of his life defending that he either cannot, or refuses to, objectively assess other perspectives.
I can only speak for myself, but I know lots of other former M2Cers who were once convinced that Sorenson, Welch, Gardner and others had made a convincing case for M2C. I once thought arguments by these fine LDS scholars were solid. Maybe even irrefutable.
But then I learned better and now their logical and factual fallacies are obvious to me.
I assume most of their students and followers agree with them that the prophets were wrong about Cumorah. And that's all fine. People can believe whatever they want.
But as we've seen in this simple, quick peer review, the M2Cers resort to logical fallacies and omit relevant facts every time they write about this subject. And apparently they don't even realize it.
It is important to understand that the arguments of the Heartland model– the ones that appear to have been the most persuasive – are not evidentiary but rather personal and related to faith.
Brant's arguments in this piece, as well as his argument in the many volumes of commentary he has published, are entirely "personal and related to faith." That's why Mesoamerican scholars find the attempt to place Book of Mormon events in Mesoamerica to be foolish and contrary to all evidence.
But because Brant believes the Book of Mormon is a true history (albeit mistranslated in several respects), and because he also believes the events took place in Mesoamerica, his confirmation bias leads him to find all kinds of correspondences and parallels between what he considers the evidence and his interpretation of the text.
And that's great. Everyone who has come up with a model of Book of Mormon geography has done exactly the same thing.
But Brant's bias prevents him from recognizing that others are making evidentiary arguments to support their views.
When the argument is based on the way one reads particular prophecies and promises of the Book of Mormon, evidence is the wrong measuring stick. One can explain how one sees those prophecies and promises, but they are not subject to the kind of analysis that can be based on objective evidence.
Now Brant is shifting gears again. First, he claimed it was Cumorah that mattered. Now it is "prophecies and promises." But even those who start with "prophecies and promises" support their views with objective evidence.
In the end, even the strongest points of the Heartland model cannot be compared to the strength of the Mesoamerican model. There is simply no common ground where the two can meet. The weakest of the Mesoamerican evidences are still a better textual fit than the strongest of the Heartland arguments.
It may be true that there is no common ground because of the fundamental difference about Cumorah. M2Cers think the prophets were wrong and work to confirm that bias. Heartlanders think the prophets were correct and work to confirm that bias.
But that doesn't mean the two sides have any reason to contend. We can all see the same facts. From there, our respective assumptions, inferences, and theories diverge, but by seeking to understand one another, we can avoid contention and continue to live in peace as we all work to establish Zion.
