“The more I study the history of intellectuals, the more they seem like a wrecking crew, dismantling civilization bit by bit — replacing what works with what sounds good.”
— Thomas Sowell
The Interpreter: A Journal of LDS Faith and Scholarship (aka, https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/journal/, fka mormoninterpreter.com) is an online/print journal that publishes purportedly peer-reviewed articles. Many of the articles are useful, but often the "Interpreters" engage in peer approval instead of peer review to enforce their own orthodoxy. Here I offer my peer reviews of these articles.
Monday, April 28, 2025
Brant Gardner, part 2, elicits a strange comment
Apparently there is a discussion of Brant Gardner's series over on the Interpreter. I don't read the comments because I'm doing a peer review of Brant's articles, which usually makes such comments moot, but someone sent me the comment below and asked for my response.
I won't mention the name of the author of this comment, who is no doubt awesome, faithful, smart, etc. The comment raises a common M2Cers claim that doesn't make much sense.
See what you think.
Original in blue, my comments in red, original quotations in green.
_____
“I don’t know why anyone actually believes in a hemispheric model, resulting in Central America as the narrow neck.”
I don't know who the author is quoting, but it's easy to see why some early Church members speculated about Central America as the narrow neck. They were enamored with reports of ancient civilizations in Central America that they thought would motivate people to read the Book of Mormon. They knew little to nothing about the archaeology, anthropology, geology and geography they speculated about, as is evident from the anachronistic and implausible nature of their speculation.
The inconvenient truth for Heartlanders is that the Hemispheric Model was the de facto model for pretty much every single Latter-day Saint Church leader who has gone on the record with a view on Book of Mormon geography.
This isn't an "inconvenient truth" because Church leaders pointed out that there are two separate aspects of Book of Mormon geography:
(i) we know as a fact that the hill Cumorah/Ramah is in New York; and
(ii) we don't know the location of other places and events.
This duality was formalized in Orson Pratt's footnotes in the official 1879 edition of the Book of Mormon, as shown here:
There are some exceptions, but it was the prevailing paradigm far and away. Orson Pratt, Parley Pratt, Brigham Young, Oliver Cowdery, W. W. Phelps, B. H. Roberts, George Reynolds, and, yes, Joseph Smith—all of them pretty much defaulted to a Hemispheric view.
The "pretty much" phrase reveals the author's speculation and projection (mind-reading). As we saw from his footnotes, Orson Pratt readily admitted his theory about the hemispheric model was purely speculative, while Cumorah was a known fact.
More importantly, Joseph Smith rejected Orson's speculation about Central and South America when he adapted Orson's pamphlet for the Wentworth letter. Joseph replaced Orson's extensive speculation with the simple statement that
"the remnant are the Indians that now inhabit this country."
Predictably, M2Cers rationalize that when Joseph wrote "this country" he actually meant "this hemisphere" or "Central America." They are free to impose their own beliefs on Joseph's worldview if they want, but we can all read what Joseph actually wrote and published and decide for ourselves what makes the most sense.
Heartlanders embrace all the teachings of the prophets and comparisons between different assumptions, inferences and theories. M2Cers do not, as this author's comment demonstrates.
This is why it’s so frustrating when Heartlanders selectively cherry pick statements from Church leaders to create the impression they were Heartlanders. They were not. They were Hemispherists. It is fundamentally dishonest to pretend otherwise.
"Frustrating" is a key word here because M2Cers cannot tolerate the concept of multiple working hypotheses. That's why they resort to contentious rhetoric and, in this case, a straw man logical fallacy.
The simple, noncontentious approach is to simply lay out all the facts, then explain the respective assumptions, inferences and theories that lead to multiple working hypotheses. This type of comparison based on the FAITH model allows everyone to make informed decisions for themselves.
But so far, no M2Cers have agreed to engage in such a comparison.
It is the opposite of "cherry picking" to quote and incorporate all of the consistent teachings of the prophets and Joseph's contemporaries about Cumorah/Ramah in New York. These teachings are well established in the official record in Church publications, as well as in authentic historical sources available in the Joseph Smith Papers and elsewhere. For too long M2Cers have suppressed, censored, ridiculed, and outright repudiated these teachings
The straw man fallacy arises from the nonexistence of anyone who claims Church leaders were "Heartlanders." As we all know, there are innumerable variations of geography based on the New York Cumorah/Ramah, ranging from the hemispheric setting to the "limited geography" of western New York, and everywhere in between.
The clear distinction between the two separate issues--(i) Cumorah/Ramah in New York vs (ii) speculative other sites--has long been clear.
Yet M2Cers persistently conflate the two issues.
Apparently the M2Cers think they can elevate their own self-appointed "authority" as "scholars" by undermining the credibility of the prophets by ridiculing them as ignorant speculators who misled the Church about Cumorah because some of them also speculated about the hemispheric model. But we can all see that this is a rhetorical tactic, not legitimate scholarship.
So if we want to play this game of “my prophet checkmates your prophet on Book of Mormon geography” then I have bad news for Heartlanders, because without question the most statements from Church leaders favor a Hemispheric view.
This is more of this author's typically contentious rhetoric that conflates the two separate issues. This is the type of obfuscation that is exposed by the FAITH model.
This also explains why the end of M2C is near. In our day, people prefer transparency over dogmatism. We prefer to make informed decisions for ourselves instead of having academics tell us what to think.
Heartlanders embrace and promote transparency and enabling people to make their own informed decisions. M2Cers reject that approach. Instead, they expect "ordinary" Latter-day Saints to accept what they preach purely because of their academic credentials.
Which is why, in my judgement, John L. Sorenson’s methodology is so fundamentally important (despite the calumnies and well-poisoning of “TwoCumorahFraud”).
Sorenson's "methodology" consisted of borrowing the map created by RLDS author L.E. Hills in the early 1900s, as Sorenson noted in his Source Book. Hills rejected what the LDS prophets had taught about Cumorah, deeming it ignorant speculation (as modern M2Cers still do). Sorenson then found "parallels" ("correspondences") between Mayan culture and his interpretation of the text of the Book of Mormon.
To make the text fit his map, Sorenson came up with his own translation, such as "narrow strip of mountainous wilderness" and horses as "tapirs." He invented a method of determining how far a Nephite can travel based on what his map required, etc.
All of which is perfectly fine, so long as his followers are clear about what he was doing so we can all see his methodology and make our own informed decisions about it.
(Full disclosure: I had a class at BYU from John, I reviewed a pre-publication version of his Ancient American Setting with an archaeologist friend who was doing a peer review, and I was fully sold on John's approach for decades before I had time to reassess it with better information.)
We first need to begin with what the Book of Mormon describes and work from there.
This is the basis for M2C, but we can all see the dual logical fallacy.
(i) Nothing in the text mentions America, Americas, or the Western Hemisphere, so M2Cers are looking in Central America purely because of prophetic direction--which they paradoxically and adamantly refuse regarding Cumorah.
(ii) No two people can possibly interpret the text of the Book of Mormon identically because the text (like all ancient texts) is too vague regarding distances and directions. Having two or more people merge their own opinions to develop a "consensus" does not overcome the inherent problem of vagueness. It's a fool's errand to assume the ability to develop a single abstract "internal geography" because any such geography is based on assumptions and inferences about the text--not on the actual text itself, which is not self-executing.
Consequently, the only rational basis for constructing a model for the setting of the Book of Mormon is to have a starting place in the real world. Then the vague descriptions in the text can be interpreted to fit the chosen starting place.
For many Latter-day Saints, the starting place is the Hill Cumorah/Ramah, as taught by the prophets. From there, they derive a variety of settings, ranging from the entire hemisphere to the local area of western New York.
For M2Cers, the starting place is Central America, paradoxically because they think the prophets taught that the events took place in the Americas.
For other non-New York Cumorah believers, the starting place can be Baja, Panama, South America, Eritrea, Malaysia, or any number of other sites around the world.
In all cases, the proposed geography is not based on "the book itself" but on the respective interpretations of the text, formulated to fit the assumed setting.
Because it’s game over for pretty much everything except the Hemispheric Model if you’re going to insist that the statements of Church leaders or long-held tradition should take priority.
As we've seen, this is both counter-factual and irrational, but it's about all that's left for M2C's repudiation of the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah/Ramah in New York. As more Latter-day Saints come to realize what M2C is all about, they reject M2C in favor of the New York Cumorah/Ramah. This is why we're seeing the end of M2C. Apparently there is a discussion of Brant Gardner's series over on the Interpreter. I don't read the comments because I'm doing a peer review of Brant's articles, which usually makes such comments moot, but someone sent me the comment below and asked for my response.I'm told this comment was from Mr. Smoot, who is no doubt awesome, faithful, smart, etc. But the comment doesn't make much sense. Because someone asked, below are some thoughts.
Original in blue, my comments in red, original quotations in green.
_____
“I don’t know why anyone actually believes in a hemispheric model, resulting in Central America as the narrow neck.”
I don't know who the author is quoting, but it's easy to see why some early Church members speculated about Central America as the narrow neck. They were enamored with reports of ancient civilizations in Central America that they thought would motivate people to read the Book of Mormon. They knew little to nothing about the archaeology, anthropology, geology and geography they speculated about, as is evident from the anachronistic and implausible nature of their speculation.
The inconvenient truth for Heartlanders is that the Hemispheric Model was the de facto model for pretty much every single Latter-day Saint Church leader who has gone on the record with a view on Book of Mormon geography.
This isn't an "inconvenient truth" because Church leaders pointed out that there are two separate aspects of Book of Mormon geography:
(i) we know as a fact that the hill Cumorah/Ramah is in New York; and
(ii) we don't know the location of other places and events.
This duality was formalized in Orson Pratt's footnotes in the official 1879 edition of the Book of Mormon, as shown here:
There are some exceptions, but it was the prevailing paradigm far and away. Orson Pratt, Parley Pratt, Brigham Young, Oliver Cowdery, W. W. Phelps, B. H. Roberts, George Reynolds, and, yes, Joseph Smith—all of them pretty much defaulted to a Hemispheric view.
The "pretty much" phrase reveals the author's speculation and projection (mind-reading). As we saw from his footnotes, Orson Pratt readily admitted his theory about the hemispheric model was purely speculative, while Cumorah was a known fact.
More importantly, Joseph Smith rejected Orson's speculation about Central and South America when he adapted Orson's pamphlet for the Wentworth letter. Joseph replaced Orson's extensive speculation with the simple statement that
"the remnant are the Indians that now inhabit this country."
Predictably, M2Cers rationalize that when Joseph wrote "this country" he actually meant "this hemisphere" or "Central America." They are free to impose their own beliefs on Joseph's worldview if they want, but we can all read what Joseph actually wrote and published and decide for ourselves what makes the most sense.
Heartlanders embrace all the teachings of the prophets and comparisons between different assumptions, inferences and theories. M2Cers do not, as this author's comment demonstrates.
This is why it’s so frustrating when Heartlanders selectively cherry pick statements from Church leaders to create the impression they were Heartlanders. They were not. They were Hemispherists. It is fundamentally dishonest to pretend otherwise.
"Frustrating" is a key word here because M2Cers cannot tolerate the concept of multiple working hypotheses. That's why they resort to contentious rhetoric and, in this case, a straw man logical fallacy.
The simple, noncontentious approach is to simply lay out all the facts, then explain the respective assumptions, inferences and theories that lead to multiple working hypotheses. This type of comparison based on the FAITH model allows everyone to make informed decisions for themselves.
But so far, no M2Cers have agreed to engage in such a comparison.
It is the opposite of "cherry picking" to quote and incorporate all of the consistent teachings of the prophets and Joseph's contemporaries about Cumorah/Ramah in New York. These teachings are well established in the official record in Church publications, as well as in authentic historical sources available in the Joseph Smith Papers and elsewhere. For too long M2Cers have suppressed, censored, ridiculed, and outright repudiated these teachings
The straw man fallacy arises from the nonexistence of anyone who claims Church leaders were "Heartlanders." As we all know, there are innumerable variations of geography based on the New York Cumorah/Ramah, ranging from the hemispheric setting to the "limited geography" of western New York, and everywhere in between.
The clear distinction between the two separate issues--(i) Cumorah/Ramah in New York vs (ii) speculative other sites--has long been clear.
Yet M2Cers persistently conflate the two issues.
Apparently the M2Cers think they can elevate their own self-appointed "authority" as "scholars" by undermining the credibility of the prophets by ridiculing them as ignorant speculators who misled the Church about Cumorah because some of them also speculated about the hemispheric model. But we can all see that this is a rhetorical tactic, not legitimate scholarship.
So if we want to play this game of “my prophet checkmates your prophet on Book of Mormon geography” then I have bad news for Heartlanders, because without question the most statements from Church leaders favor a Hemispheric view.
This is more of this author's typically contentious rhetoric that conflates the two separate issues. This is the type of obfuscation that is exposed by the FAITH model.
This also explains why the end of M2C is near. In our day, people prefer transparency over dogmatism. We prefer to make informed decisions for ourselves instead of having academics tell us what to think.
Heartlanders embrace and promote transparency and enabling people to make their own informed decisions. M2Cers reject that approach. Instead, they expect "ordinary" Latter-day Saints to accept what they preach purely because of their academic credentials.
Which is why, in my judgement, John L. Sorenson’s methodology is so fundamentally important (despite the calumnies and well-poisoning of “TwoCumorahFraud”).
Sorenson's "methodology" consisted of borrowing the map created by RLDS author L.E. Hills in the early 1900s, as Sorenson noted in his Source Book. Hills rejected what the LDS prophets had taught about Cumorah, deeming it ignorant speculation (as modern M2Cers still do). Sorenson then found "parallels" ("correspondences") between Mayan culture and his interpretation of the text of the Book of Mormon.
To make the text fit his map, Sorenson came up with his own translation, such as "narrow strip of mountainous wilderness" and horses as "tapirs." He invented a method of determining how far a Nephite can travel based on what his map required, etc.
All of which is perfectly fine, so long as his followers are clear about what he was doing so we can all see his methodology and make our own informed decisions about it.
(Full disclosure: I had a class at BYU from John, I reviewed a pre-publication version of his Ancient American Setting with an archaeologist friend who was doing a peer review, and I was fully sold on John's approach for decades before I had time to reassess it with better information.)
We first need to begin with what the Book of Mormon describes and work from there.
This is the basis for M2C, but we can all see the dual logical fallacy.
(i) Nothing in the text mentions America, Americas, or the Western Hemisphere, so M2Cers are looking in Central America purely because of prophetic direction--which they paradoxically and adamantly refuse regarding Cumorah.
(ii) No two people can possibly interpret the text of the Book of Mormon identically because the text (like all ancient texts) is too vague regarding distances and directions. Having two or more people merge their own opinions to develop a "consensus" does not overcome the inherent problem of vagueness. It's a fool's errand to assume the ability to develop a single abstract "internal geography" because any such geography is based on assumptions and inferences about the text--not on the actual text itself, which is not self-executing.
Consequently, the only rational basis for constructing a model for the setting of the Book of Mormon is to have a starting place in the real world. Then the vague descriptions in the text can be interpreted to fit the chosen starting place.
For many Latter-day Saints, the starting place is the Hill Cumorah/Ramah, as taught by the prophets. From there, they derive a variety of settings, ranging from the entire hemisphere to the local area of western New York.
For M2Cers, the starting place is Central America, paradoxically because they think the prophets taught that the events took place in the Americas.
For other non-New York Cumorah believers, the starting place can be Baja, Panama, South America, Eritrea, Malaysia, or any number of other sites around the world.
In all cases, the proposed geography is not based on "the book itself" but on the respective interpretations of the text, formulated to fit the assumed setting.
Because it’s game over for pretty much everything except the Hemispheric Model if you’re going to insist that the statements of Church leaders or long-held tradition should take priority.
As we've seen, this is both counter-factual and irrational, but it's about all that's left for M2C's repudiation of the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah/Ramah in New York. As more Latter-day Saints come to realize what M2C is all about, they reject M2C in favor of the New York Cumorah/Ramah. This is why we're seeing the end of M2C.
Saturday, April 26, 2025
The Heartland Versus Mesoamerica Part 2: The Heartland “Pins” in the Map
Brant Gardner posted his interesting and useful Part 2. There are comments going back and forth, many of which digress from the main points.
Here is my peer review of Brant Gardner's Part 2. I'm writing this as though Brant sent it to me for comments before he published it (which he should have).
https://interpreterfoundation.org/blog-the-heartland-versus-mesoamerica-part-2/
Original in blue, my comments in red, internal quotations in green.
As part of the Gospel Topics essay in Book of Mormon geography, it is declared:
The Book of Mormon includes a history of an ancient people who migrated from the Near East to the Americas.
As I pointed out in my comments to Part 1, nothing in the text mentions "America" or any other modern name for the place to which Book of Mormon people migrated. To say they migrated "to the Americas" is to teach what the prophets have taught, not what the Book of Mormon--the "book itself" to use John Sorenson's term--claims.
Obviously this contradicts your entire thesis, which is that the prophets don't know anything about the geography. And obviously the same prophets who taught that Book of Mormon events took place in America also taught that the hill Cumorah/Ramah was in New York.
It's also relevant that the term "Americas," plural, is modern terminology that misrepresents the historical record.
If you go to the Joseph Smith Papers and search for "the Americas." You'll get 17 results. Every one of them is in the commentary and notes. You'll read things such as:
"For early believers, the book was not only a religious history of ancient inhabitants of the Americas..."
"The idea that God would establish the New Jerusalem, or the city of Zion somewhere in the Americas stemmed from the Book of Mormon."
"The Book of Mormon also prophesied that the New Jerusalem should be built up upon this land, referring to the Americas."
"Jaredites: a term used in the Book of Mormon to refer to descendants and followers of Jared who departed for a "land of promise" which JS later identified as the Americas."
The last one is especially problematic because Joseph never used the term "the Americas." This is putting words in Joseph's mouth to accommodate a specific modern agenda--M2C. It is not history.
This history contains information about the places they lived, including descriptions of landforms, natural features, and the distances and cardinal directions between important points. The internal consistency of these descriptions is one of the striking features of the Book of Mormon.[1]
The internal consistency is striking, but no two readers would develop identical, or even similar, "internal maps" on their own, just as no two readers of the Bible, relying solely on the text, would develop identical, or even similar, "internal maps" of Biblical lands. Ancient texts were vague with both directions and distances.
Although there is no official Church position on the Book of Mormon,[2] there is an understanding that because we believe the Book of Mormon to represent an ancient people, the descriptions of “landforms, natural features, and the distances” might be subject to investigation.
Brant, you should be more specific about "there is an understanding...[that] the descriptions... might be subject to investigation." The passive voice suggests you have assumed this, but the very essay you just quoted also says, "Speculation on the geography of the Book of Mormon may mislead instead of enlighten; such a study can be a distraction from its divine purpose."
This is why my endeavor has focused primarily on corroborating the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah. Notice the essay never mentions Cumorah. That is why, in my view, the essay deals with the speculative geography other than Cumorah, a distinction modern prophets have made clear.
There is more than one suggestion for the way the Heartland model maps the Book of Mormon to the real world. This analysis will use the geography Jonathan Neville has proposed.[3] There are two geographical correlations that Jonathan Neville suggests are pins in the map that will assist in the discovery of all other locations. The first is the New York hill that has come to be called Cumorah. Jonathan Neville understands that:
No two people can independently develop an identical map merely from reading the text. Matching such maps to real-world locations is just as problematic. What we need is a solid starting point—a reliable pin in the map. That’s why we need modern revelation.[4]
Neville is suggesting that there is revelation that provides the starting point for interpreting Book of Mormon geography. Were that true, it would indeed be a firm foundation.[5]
This use of terminology deserves discussion before proceeding. As the dictionary explains, revelation is "an act of revealing or communicating divine truth; something that is revealed by God to humans."
Scripture describes two basic forms of revelation:
(i) physical experience (such as the Restoration of the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods and the keys in the Kirtland temple) and
(ii) spiritual experience (such as revelations Joseph Smith recorded).
Presumably the First Vision and Moroni's visits in 1823 fit the first category; i.e., physical visitations. Thus if, as the historical record indicates, Moroni identified the hill in New York as "Cumorah" during that first visit, that would be a documented revelation. When the Nephite messenger told David Whitmer he was "going to Cumorah," that would also be a revelation.
One confirming revelation is Doctrine and Covenants 128:20. “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.” The revelation declares that we have “glad tidings” [the Book of Mormon] from Cumorah [thus linking the Book of Mormon name with the location where the plates were found]. This gives Neville a revealed location and therefore a pin in the map. As I discussed in the post initiating this series, this is the same beginning point that Ed Goble used to create what has become the Heartland model.[6]
You make a good point here, but this is why clarification is needed. It isn't D&C 128:20 per se that constitutes the revelation. Instead, D&C 128:20 refers to the original revelation when Moroni first identified the hill to Joseph Smith; i.e., during that first visit, before Joseph ever saw the plates (as his mother related).
How firm is this pin? From tradition, it is solid. It has long been accepted and taught that the New York hill is the very Hill Cumorah mentioned in the Book of Mormon. When we examine that actual text of the Book of Mormon, however, the pin is less than firm.
Here you have converted the revelation to a mere tradition. We'll see why you did that and how it plays out, but this is a sleight of hand.
The latter part of Mormon 6:6 reads:
I made this record out of the plates of Nephi, and hid up in the hill Cumorah all the records which had been entrusted to me by the hand of the Lord, save it were these few plates which I gave unto my son Moroni.
This repository in Cumorah is another element of revelation about Cumorah that we'll return to.
The plates given to Moroni were the ones recovered in New York. Nevertheless, according to the only statement we have about records in the hill Cumorah, the plates Joseph received were not among those buried in the hill Cumorah.
This is a misleading statement you should clarify.
First, You meant to write "according to the only statement in the text about records in the hill Cumorah...." And the plates were not buried but "hid up" (deposited}.
Second, the historical record indicates that Mormon's repository and Moroni's stone box were both in the same hill. Not only did Moroni identify the hill containing the stone box as Cumorah, but Orson Pratt explained there were two separate departments in the hill: the stone box and the repository. Oliver Cowdery described visiting the depository, etc.
Third, we know Joseph obtained the abridged record--the "original Book of Mormon"--from the stone box, but it also appears he obtained the plates of Nephi from the repository.
Although Joseph Smith retrieved plates from a hill, according to Mormon, those specific plates were never in the Book of Mormon Hill Cumorah – they were given to Moroni, in contrast to those that were “hid up.” From the text alone, we cannot say that the New York hill was the Book of Mormon Hill Cumorah.
Exactly. From the text alone we cannot say any of the events took place in "the Americas," which is why we rely on extra-textual prophetic guidance; i.e., revelation.
The Church-sanctioned publication of Saints does not use the name Cumorah for the New York hill. The omission of Cumorah has resulted in some controversy, which Jed Woodworth and Matth [sic] Grow specifically address:
The word “Cumorah” does not appear in Saints. This omission has led some to believe that we left out that word in order to speak against a “heartland” model. We assure you that this is simply not the case. We have worked on Saints for many years, Matt as a general editor of Saints and Jed as a review editor of Volume 1. In those capacities, we have read all the draft chapters and editorial comments accompanying these drafts. No one under our observation—writers, editors, external reviewers, General Authority reviewers—has expressed any concern about the word “Cumorah” or articulated any need to expunge it from the record. To our knowledge, there have been no discussions about the need to put down one theory of Book of Mormon geography in order to promote another.[7]
I'm glad to see you resurrect this commentary from the editors of Saints, but you owe it to your readers to also post my response.
https://saintsreview.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-historians-explain-censorship-in.html
What motivated their editorial decisions is not relevant. The simple fact is that they avoided the word "Cumorah" by editing it out of the narrative, creating a false historical narrative present contrary to the stated objectives of Saints..
They continue to provide this historical framework they followed:
The preface to Saints explains that the book is a narrative history. Narrative histories are governed by rules, and one of the rules implemented by our writing team is that characters are to live in the “narrative present” and not be burdened by the understanding of later time periods. Our rule states: “The whole story as we understand it will be told, but readers will be following that story scene-by-scene, or even volume-by-volume, as the narrative progresses. If readers desire a broader view of the story or want additional information, extensive footnotes are included, and other in-depth material is available online, including links to essays, videos, and other sources.”
Thus, as Saints tells it, Joseph Smith walks into the “woods,” not the Sacred Grove, in 1820. There he has a “vision” of God and Christ, not the First Vision. In the same way, Joseph walks to a “hill” not far from his father’s home, not to the Hill Cumorah. The reason for omitting “Cumorah” is not that the writers wanted to expunge it in order to promote a geographical theory. The reason is that there is no historical evidence that Moroni called the hill “Cumorah” in 1823.
Of course, early Latter-day Saints, including Joseph Smith, later called the hill Cumorah, but the best research on the subject puts the term into common circulation no earlier than the mid-1830s. The main historical source concerning events at the hill between 1823 and 1827 comes from the history Joseph Smith began in 1838. There Joseph uses the term “hill,” never “Hill Cumorah.” Saints follows Joseph’s lead.[8]
What does this mean for Neville’s pin? It confirms that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not agree that there is revelation that declares the New York hill to be the Book of Mormon Cumorah.
You should revise this sentence because you are misrepresenting what the Saints book is.
Saints has not been canonized and was never intended to replace the scriptures, the teachings of the prophets, or authentic historical documents, all of which speak for themselves. Saints is merely a tool to introduce the actual history to a broad audience.
Right in the statement from the Saints editors, in a section that you forgot to quote here, they explain that .
Our rule states: “The whole story as we understand it will be told, but readers will be following that story scene-by-scene, or even volume-by-volume, as the narrative progresses. If readers desire a broader view of the story or want additional information, extensive footnotes are included, and other in-depth material is available online, including links to essays, videos, and other sources.”
The footnotes and other authentic sources contradict some of the narrative in Saints, as I explained in my response. When you don't inform your readers that I've responded in detail to the claims by the Saints editors, you are misleading your readers.
Combined with Mormon’s statement that the plates were not buried in Cumorah, the idea that the New York hill can be considered a pin in the map is a very weak hypothesis resting solely upon tradition.
Now you have misrepresented Mormon's statement. Mormon said only that the repository of Nephite records was in Cumorah. Not only did he not say the plates were not buried in Cumorah, he could not have said where Moroni would deposit the abridged records in the future. As we've seen, both Oliver Cowdery and Orson Pratt explained that both the repository and Moroni's stone box were in the same hill, just in different areas.
It is not revelation. It is not in line with the text of the Book of Mormon. It is not in line with the official position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
All three of your statements are your opinion, contradicted by the evidence, which everyone can see. People can believe whatever they want, but you owe it to your readers to help them make informed decisions. Your continual misrepresentations and omissions are not helping people make informed decisions, but you are showing why M2C cannot withstand transparency and is therefore unsustainable.
Neville proposes that there is a second pin in the map. That proposal also comes from Doctrine and Covenants 125:3, “Let them build up a city unto my name upon the land opposite the city of Nauvoo, and let the name of Zarahemla be named upon it.”
Neville says of this verse: “This verse is not conclusive about geography, but it doesn’t need to be. The Lord named the site Zarahemla. I want to see if it fits, so I stick a pin in Eastern Iowa, along the Mississippi River across from Nauvoo.”[9]
Exactly. This is a testable hypothesis.
There is much less tradition, and certainly no revelation behind the idea that the land opposite Nauvoo was the Book of Mormon Zarahemla. The revelation says that “let the name of Zarahemla be named upon it."
First, I think we agree that D&C 125 is a revelation. Then it's a matter of interpreting the revelation.
That is a modern statement applying the name. There is no indication that it was connected to the ancient Zarahemla any more than Madrid, New Mexico is the same place as Madrid, Spain. It isn’t much of a pin if there really is no support for it.
This is a rational point, but not the end of the analysis. For support, let's consider D&C 125 in the context of the Book of Mormon.
7 Now it was the custom of the people of Nephi to call their lands, and their cities, and their villages, yea, even all their small villages, after the name of him who first possessed them; and thus it was with the land of Ammonihah.
(Alma 8:7)
The revelation does not say "Name the city Zarahemla." It says "let the name of Zarahemla be named upon it." A rational interpretation is that the "name of Zarahemla" refers to the individual Zarahemla, who presumably was the "first possessor" of the city of Zarahemla. That in turn suggests that Zarahemla first settled the site across the river from Nauvoo.
Even Neville understands that calling the place Zarahemla in 1841 doesn’t mean that it was ever called Zarahemla in any previous time.
Haha, "even Neville" is a funny way to put it. It's just a rational observation, like everything else I've written about this. It doesn't mean the site was called Zarahemla in the past, but it is also consistent with that site being called Zarahemla in the past.
This is not a pin, but a hypothesis.
Exactly as I explained. Cumorah/Ramah is a firm pin, while Zarahemla is a tentative pin, that I would remove if it didn't fit.
As noted in the introductory blog, the Heartland model begins with a geography it wants to find and therefore fits the evidence to the desired model.
Which is also true of M2C, which simply assumes a site in the Americas. In both cases, we are beginning with a bias and then confirming it.
The Heartland bias accepts the teachings of the prophets about both Cumorah and America.
The M2C bias rejects the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah but accepts the teachings of the prophets about America, which is an inconsistent, irrational, and outcome-determined methodology.
G. J. Renier underlined the problem with this approach when he quoted the French historian Fustel de Coulanges as saying “if we approach a text with a preconceived idea we shall read in it only what we want to read.”[10]
It's difficult to understand why you keep reiterating this axiomatic point. It applies to both Heartland and M2C. You should trust your readers to understand this the first time you made the point.
Instead, you repeat it yet again below!
The Heartland has a preconceived idea and, as will be discussed, imaginatively reads the Book of Mormon in order to support that preconceived idea.
Okay, we're repeat again that this is true of both Heartland and M2C.
It is a preconceived idea that is contradicted by the official Church statement on geography and the evidence from the trained historians working on Saints, volume one.
As we've seen, the "official Church statement on geography" says nothing about Cumorah, and the "trained historians working on Saints" deliberately created a false historical narrative present to maintain a modern theory of "neutrality" about Book of Mormon geography.
The entire model starts on a less than firm foundation.
We can all read the authentic historical sources, the teachings of the prophets, and the scriptures and make informed decisions about whether Heartland or M2C is based on a firm foundation.
[1] “Book of Mormon Geography,” Topics and Questions https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/book-of-mormon-geography?lang=eng.[2] “Book of Mormon Geography.”[3] I am using Jonathan Neville, Moroni’s America. The North American Setting for the Book of Mormon, (Digital Legend, 2016). I am aware that there is a second edition, but I do not have that one.[4] Neville, 11. The quotation combines the original three paragraphs combined. Nothing has been removed.[5] Sorry, but pun intended. I couldn’t resist as the main support for the Heartland model comes from the Firm Foundation.[6] This point is referenced in Edwin G. Goble and Wayne N. May, This Land: Zarahemla and the Nephite Nation (Colfax, Wisconsin, Ancient American Archaeology Foundation, 2002), 10, and in W. Vincent Coon, “Who Originated the Heartland Model?” https://www.bookofmormonpromisedland.com/Heartland%20Model.htm.[7] Jed Woodworth and Matt Grow, “Saints and Book of Mormon Geography,” https://history.churchofjesuschrist.org/content/saints-and-book-of-mormon-geography?lang=eng.[8] “Saints and Book of Mormon Geography.”[9] Neville, 12. The idea that Zarahemla could be the very Zarahemla of the Book of Mormon is credited to Duane Erickson. See Goble and May, 11.[10] G. J. Renier, History: Its Purpose and Method (New York: Harper & Row, 1965), 219
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)