Steve Smoot and Letter VII

While I usually focus on the Interpreter in this blog, any publication by the citation cartel is fair game because they are not subjected to legitimate peer review. In this case, I'm looking at comments by an enthusiastic member of the citation cartel. Brother Steve Smoot has outed himself as the principal author of the delightful no-wise #453 that I discussed here

http://bookofmormonwars.blogspot.com/2018/07/m2c-intellectuals-terrified-of-letter.html

and here

http://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2018/07/no-wise-453-how-are-oliver-cowderys.html

Brother Smoot followed up his no-wise with an even more delightful piece on his own blog at this link:

https://www.plonialmonimormon.com/2018/07/seven-reasons-why-letter-vii-is-not-a-heartlander-silver-bullet.html.

Because he has resorted to ad hominem attacks, straw man arguments, and other logical fallacies, I felt it important to address his arguments here. My comments in red.
_____

Seven Reasons Why Letter VII Is Not A Heartlander Silver Bullet

July 26, 2018

290

SHARES

FacebookTwitterGoogleRedditSubscribe

The so-called Heartland model for the geography of the Book of Mormon is built on a foundation of fraud. 

It is ironic that just two days ago I posted a Dilbert cartoon depicting a Book of Mormon Central Board meeting. http://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2018/07/behind-scenes-at-book-of-mormon-central.html.

Now Brother Smoot shows the world that the cartoon was even more accurate (and prescient) than I could have anticipated. In his article, Brother Smoot demonstrates the inevitable result of years of phony scholarship perpetrated by the citation cartel. Because they have refused to consider alternative views or subject their work to legitimate peer review, participants in the citation cartel have thin skins and are incapable of addressing critiques without ad hominem attacks and other logical fallacies. 

Careful readers know that the Heartland model is built on the words of the prophets--a fact that Brother Smoot, like all the M2C intellectuals, recognizes when he claims it is based on a foundation of fraud. The reason: Brother Smoot and the other M2C intellectuals believe the prophets are ignorant speculators who have misled the Church; i.e., the prophets who have taught the New York Cumorah have committed fraud. Usually the M2C'ers are not as open about their beliefs, so I give Brother Smoot credit for his candor.

Fraudulent artifacts, fraudulent science, fraudulent theology, and fraudulent history secured in place by racist ethno-nationalism are the four cornerstones of Heartlanderism.1 

This is a wonderful footnote. I haven't previously seen such a concise yet complete demonstration of how the citation cartel operates. This list of beauties explains why no one outside of the citation cartel takes these scholars seriously. None of the articles in this footnote has been subjected to legitimate peer review; they are merely peer approved, with the peers chosen according to their adherence to the M2C dogma and their participation in the citation cartel. The authors all cite one another--as well as themselves. I've addressed every one of these articles at length, except the DNA articles, which I haven't addressed yet and probably won't bother with anyway.   

(By Heartlanderism I do not mean general belief in a North American setting for the events of the Book of Mormon, but specifically the movement started by Rod Meldrum.) The fraudulence of the history promoted by Heartlanderism is evident in how its proponents treat historical sources such as Oliver Cowdery’s letters published in the Messenger and Advocate in the years 1834–1835.

It's awesome to have Brother Smoot explain that he considers President Cowdery's history to be fraudulent. Let's watch how he develops his argument.

Book of Mormon Central published a KnoWhy today explaining what these eight letters are and how they are significant for the Book of Mormon. 

Actually, the title of the no-wise betrays the academic arrogance of the M2C intellectuals: "How Are Oliver Cowdery’s Messenger and Advocate Letters to Be Understood and Used?" As I pointed out in my comments, "This title demonstrates the unrelenting arrogance of these intellectuals. They are not merely suggesting or proposing an interpretation; they declare how these letters "are... to be understood and used."

One of the letters, published in July 1835 as “Letter VII,” is worth discussing because in it Oliver Cowdery (despite Mormon 6:6) (not despite, but because of Mormon 6:6 and Oliver's personal experience in the depository) identified the drumlin in western New York where Joseph Smith obtained the golden plates as the same Hill Cumorah where the Nephites perished in their last battle with the Lamanites.

Heartlanders such as the monomaniacal Jonathan Neville have latched onto Letter VII as some kind of silver bullet that disproves the Mesoamerican model of the Book of Mormon. 

This is a laughable deception that would fool only unwary readers. I've long pointed out that the prophets have consistently and persistently taught two things: (i) that Cumorah is in New York and (ii) we don't know where the other events took place. It is the M2C argument that disproves the Meosamerican model because they insist Cumorah is too far away from Mesoamerica. While I agree with their analysis on that point, I have not adopted the M2C argument that the prophets are wrong. I fully agree with the prophets on both of their two points, which leaves the door open for a Mesoamerican setting. 

With an inquisitorial and self-righteous fanaticism, Neville has denounced, variously, Book of Mormon Central, FairMormon, the Neal A. Maxwell Institute, the Religious Education Department at BYU, the LDS Church History Department, LDS Seminaries and Institutes, and the Correlation Committee of the LDS Church (which, perhaps Neville is unaware, includesthe First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve) 

A common tactic of the M2C citation cartel is the straw man fallacy that Brother Smoot utilizes here; i.e., they put words in the mouths of their critics and then criticize the straw man they've created. Readers know that I've never once criticized the Brethren; in fact, in my view, the issue boils down to a choice between the prophets and the intellectuals. 

Consequently, I've openly criticized employees at BYU, CES and COB who promote M2C by teaching that the prophets are wrong, the way Brother Smoot does here. These straw man arguments are so plentiful in the literature produced by the M2C citation cartel that I suspect Brother Smoot doesn't even recognize the fallacy when he commits it.  

as useful idiots at best or subversive fifth columnists at worst in spreading apostate views of the Book of Mormon that undermine faith, sow confusion and discord amongst the Saints, retard the Church’s growth, hinder the Church’s missionary efforts, and compromise confidence in Joseph Smith and other prophets. 

Actually, I have frequently quoted President Joseph Fielding Smith's prescient warning that M2C would cause members to become confused and disturbed in their faith in the Book of Mormon. The evidence of that warning being realized is abundant. M2C is a disaster no matter how we look at it.

What, you may be wondering, is the shocking crime of these heretical culprits? Failure to pay unwavering obeisance to Letter VII—and thereby Heartlander geography—as the final arbiter in Book of Mormon geography debates.

This hyperbolic rhetoric is effective persuasion for those who read Brother Smoot's work to confirm their biases, but it's demonstrably false. Brother Smoot is merely repeating the standard M2C dogma that conflates the two teachings of the Brethren that I listed above. This is how the M2C intellectuals sow confusion among LDS youth, who are taught to believe the prophets except when the prophets contradict the intellectuals such as Brother Smoot.

While the Book of Mormon Central KnoWhy (of which I was the principal author) urges caution in uncritically using Cowdery’s letters, what it doesn’t do is directly address the fraudulent way in which Heartlanders use them, including especially Letter VII, as sources in reconstructing what early Mormons thought about Book of Mormon geography.

But here, on my personal blog, I am happy to oblige.

So consider, if you will, these seven reasons why Letter VII is not some magical silver bullet for Book of Mormon Heartlanders.

I. Joseph Smith did not write Letter VII

Heartlanders often claim that Joseph Smith assisted Oliver Cowdery in composing the Messenger and Advocate letters, including most importantly Letter VII. Therefore, they reason, the letters are authoritative and reflect Joseph Smith’s inspired views on Book of Mormon geography.2 

Notice that footnote 2 does not include any citations. That's because this is a straw man argument; no one I know of claims Joseph wrote Letter VII. As a bonus, the rhetoric in the footnote displays Brother Smoot's thin-skinned sensitivity.

As evidence for this, they point to a letter written by Joseph Smith and published in the Messenger and Advocate in December 1834 which, they claim, indicates the Prophet’s participation in writing the letters. But this text specifically tell us how Joseph intended to help Oliver in composing the letters and it wasn’t in matters related to Book of Mormon geography. Instead, because anti-Mormon publications were alleging that Joseph had a disreputable character, Joseph informed Oliver that he was going to provide him with a brief history of his early youth. He wrote:

I have been induced to give you the time and place of my birth, as I have learned that many of the opposers of those principles which I have held forth to the world, profess a personal acquaintance with me, though when in my presence, represent me to be another person in age, education, and stature, from what I am. (italics added)

Joseph’s early history is not discussed in Letter VII, but it is included in Letter III (December 1834). In other words, the extent of Joseph Smith’s involvement with the authorship of these letters was to provide Oliver with details about his early life which would refute anti-Mormon accusations of illicit behavior during his youth.

This is a delightful logical fallacy also typical of M2C citation cartel literature, so Brother Smoot is accustomed to reading and writing this type of fallacy without challenge or peer review. The fact that Joseph gave Oliver the time and place of his birth obviously doesn't preclude Joseph giving Oliver additional details about Moroni's visit and other events.

As such, contrary to Heartlander assertions, beyond this “there is no evidence that Joseph Smith assigned Cowdery to write the letters,” including Letter VII.3

Here we have Brother Smoot providing the same misleading excerpt from the Joseph Smith Papers that he provided in the no-wise, which I pointed out in my review.

II. Joseph Smith did not give Letter VII special treatment

Related to the claim made by Heartlanders that Joseph Smith allegedly helped write Letter VII is their claim that he must have found it particularly inspired or useful because he had it copied into his 1834–1836 history. While it’s true that Letter VII was copied into Joseph’s history, Heartlanders typically don’t bother to mention that all of the letters were copied into the history, not just Letter VII. 

This is another straw man argument; no one claims Joseph gave Letter VII "special treatment." We notice the absence of a footnote here because anyone who has read my book titled Letter VII knows that, far from not "bothering to mention" the other letters, I have always addressed all eight letters, as I have in all of my presentations, articles and blog posts. 

And, what’s more, they were copied as a block of text, with no perceived effort to make any corrections or changes to the contents, including even factually problematic claims in the letters which contradicted other parts of Joseph’s history (more on this in a moment).

This concept is also in the no-wise, which I addressed in my review.

It is clear that “the transcription of [these] letters into [Joseph Smith’s] history was evidently conceived in terms of the entire series, not as a piecemeal copying of the individual letters.”4 It is also clear which scribes were tasked with composing this history: Frederick G. Williams, Warren Parrish (who copied Letter VII), and Oliver Cowdery himself. Contrary to the misleading impression given by Heartlanders, 

If Brother Smoot's characterization was accurate, he could give a citation. But he doesn't because no one has claimed Joseph gave preference to Letter VII.

this is not a case of Joseph selectively giving preference to Letter VII as some sort of uniquely inspired text worthy of preservation. Rather, it’s a matter of Joseph outsourcing the task of composing his history to scribes who then made use of a large chunk of already accessible material. So the 1834–1836 history “serve[d] as a repository—more permanent than unbound newspapers—for a copied compilation of the entire series” rather than a shrine to the sui generis inspiration of Letter VII.5

III. Letter VII was never published under the supervision of Joseph Smith

There is little doubt that Oliver Cowdery’s letters were popular during Joseph Smith’s lifetime. This can be seen in the many times they were republished beginning in 1840:

• The Latter-day Saints’ Millennial Star6
• Times and Seasons7
• A[n] Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions8
• The Gospel Reflector9
• Letters by Oliver Cowdery, to W.W. Phelps on the Origin of the Book of Mormon and the Rise of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints10
• The Prophet11

Heartlanders argue that this is evidence that Joseph Smith must have accepted the legitimacy of their contents, including the location of the Hill Cumorah in New York. Several glaring problems with this argument are at once apparent.

First, of the letters that were republished in Joseph Smith’s lifetime, at least half were published in the United Kingdom, far from the Prophet’s supervision. None of these republications of the letters had Joseph’s editorial oversight.

This is a strange argument, given that Joseph had input before the letters were written and could have made editorial changes before they were copied into his personal history--if he thought such editorial changes were needed. Why would anyone expect him to wait until 1840 to make changes to letters that were already copied into his personal history as part of his life story?

Second, when the letters were republished in the Times and Seasons in 1840–1841 they were done not while Joseph was editor of the paper, but rather under the editorship of his younger brother, Don Carlos Smith. (Joseph would not assume editorship of the paper until February 19, 1842.) 

Don Carlos reported that Joseph gave him the letters to publish in the Times and Seasons. This was not the idea of Don Carlos. Besides, Joseph was never anything more than a nominal editor of the Times and Seasons in 1842.

This point is especially ironic, since Heartlanders go to great lengths to desperately explain away the Times and Seasons editorials affirming a Mesoamerican connection to the Book of Mormon that appeared under Joseph’s editorial direction between June–October 1842 (see note 1 below). 

There is no desperation involved; it is simply a historical fact that the only Mesoamerican connections appear in anonymous editorials and that Joseph himself wrote letters and sent them to the actual editor for publication--but always with his name attached to them. The only evidence that Joseph had anything to do with the paper is the boilerplate printed at the end of each paper, but that boilerplate also says the paper was printed by Joseph Smith. Not even the M2C proponents claim Joseph spent his time in the print shop, operating the presses and setting type. 

In other words, as my friend Neal Rappleye perceptively observed, according to Heartlanders, publications which appeared in the Times and Seasons at a time when Joseph wasn’t the editor of the paper are more authoritative than ones which appeared when he was the editor! Why? For the simple reason that they affirm the Heartland geography.

All the members of the M2C citation cartel are friends, as they like to emphasize. That's the point; these publications are merely confirmation bias groupthink masquerading as legitimate scholarship by having like-minded friends check for typos and calling that peer review. We're still waiting for any historical evidence that Joseph had anything to do with the Times and Seasons as editor, printer or publisher, apart from having his name attached.

Third, the republication of the letters in the Gospel Reflector and The Prophet took place in Philadelphia and New York City, respectively, both outside of the supervision of Joseph Smith. (This is to say nothing of the fact that the letters republished in The Prophet appeared two days after Joseph Smith’s death.) One cannot help but appreciate the additional irony of Heartlanders using The Gospel Reflector, the organ of their arch-nemesis Benjamin Winchester, as evidence for their theory.12

Here, we can't tell whether Brother Smoot is ignorant or intentionally deceptive. Winchester explained that he received specific approval from Joseph Smith to republish these letters. He also obtained approval from Sidney Rigdon, First Counselor in the First Presidency. While it's true that there is no specific evidence, so far, of Joseph's approval of the republication in The Prophet, the first issue of the Prophet republished Letter I and Joseph's brother William was the editor when Letter VII was published in June. Perhaps William read the Times and Seasons and saw that Joseph had given the letters to their brother Don Carlos to publish. 

None of this denies that Oliver’s letters were influential, or even that Joseph Smith may have been influenced by them—they certainly were influential among early Mormons.13 Rather, the publication venues contradict the Heartlander claim that Joseph gave them his imprimatur.

Rarely do we see so many logical fallacies in such a concise paragraph. Instead of Joseph helping to write the letters, as both he and Oliver acknowledged, now Brother Smoot claims the letter influenced Joseph! 

The fact that these letters were influential is an important indicator that Church members considered them authoritative. After all, every reprinting was done after Oliver had been excommunicated. What writings by other excommunicated members were published in any Church publications, let alone republished in every Church newspaper? Wouldn't Winchester have sought permission precisely because Oliver was no longer in the Church? Because Joseph's gave specific approval for the republication in the Gospel Reflector and the Times and Seasons, it is not unreasonable to infer that he approved the other republications, or that the respective editors, Parley P. Pratt and William Smith, knew that Joseph had given his approval to their mutual friend Benjamin Winchester. In fact, the special pamphlet published in England used the Winchester version of the letters. 

For these reasons, the publication venues don't contradict Joseph's imprimatur; instead, they indicate that Church leaders wanted members everywhere to be familiar with their contents.

IV. Letter VII was never canonized

This point is simple enough: if Letter VII is so foundational, so fundamentally important, so essential in definitively settling the supposedly revealed geography of the Book of Mormon as Heartlanders insist it is, why was it never canonized? It’s not like there has ever been want of opportunity to do so. Two editions of the Doctrine and Covenants were prepared during Joseph Smith’s lifetime: one in Kirtland in 1835 and the other in Nauvoo in 1844 (although the latter finally appear in print only shortly after the Prophet’s death). In neither of these editions of the D&C (nor in any edition up to the present, for that matter) has Letter VII appeared as canonical revelation, despite the fact that other texts attributed to Oliver Cowdery were canonized during Joseph’s lifetime, including declarations on marriage and government.

This is a strange argument. Relatively few publications (or revelations) were canonized after 1834. The declarations on marriage and government were approved by the assembly after they were presented by Phelps and Cowdery, not because they were deemed revelations. In fact, Joseph apparently objected to at least part of the statement on marriage. Both were short statements of Church policy that had real-world objectives. President Cowdery's letters were much longer and had already been published anyway.

The fact that Letter VII remains uncanonized today, even after multiple editions of the Doctrine and Covenants have added and removed material,14 should indicate that the letter is either not scripturally binding or Neville and the Heartlanders know something about it that generations of prophets, seers, and revelators overseeing the canon apparently have missed.

This is a specious argument, of course. If only canonized material was doctrine, there would be no need for continuing revelation and no need to learn what Joseph taught that is not in the D&C and PofGP.  

V. Oliver Cowdery’s Messenger and Advocate letters contain factual errors and embellishments (which Heartlanders conveniently ignore)

A problem with the Cowdery letters that Heartlanders routinely ignore or downplay is the fact that they contain glaring errors and embellishments. The most obvious example of this is that Oliver was completely silent about the First Vision. The way Oliver tells the story in Letters III and IV, in the year 1823 (!) Joseph Smith was confused by the religious sects and denominations fighting for converts around him and so retired to his bedroom, prayed, and was visited by the angel Moroni, which event kicked off the Restoration. This version of events contradicts Joseph Smith’s own official history, his 1832 journal entry (written in his own hand), and his private retellings of the First Vision, in which he placed the religious excitement in the years 1818–1820 and was visited by God the Father, Jesus Christ, and a host of angels—not a solitary visit from Moroni. The reason Cowdery didn’t mention of the First Vision is unknown. Roger Nicholson has a plausible theory, but it must remain tentative without more definitive evidence.

In addition to his factual errors, Oliver also embellished aspects of Joseph Smith’s early history. This is especially clear in Letter VIII, in which Oliver attributed to Moroni a verbatim quote (!) of well over 1,000 words:

All this is shown, the good and the evil, the holy and impure, the glory of God and the power of darkness, that you may know hereafter the two powers and never be influenced or overcome by that wicked one. Behold, whatever entices and leads to good and to do good, is of God, and whatever does not is of that wicked one: It is he that fills the hearts of men with evil, to walk in darkness and blaspheme God; and you may learn from henceforth, that his ways are to destruction, but the way of holiness is peace and rest. You now see why you could not obtain this record; that the commandment was strict, and that if ever these sacred things are obtained they must be by prayer and faithfulness in obeying the Lord. They are not deposited here for the sake of accumulating gain and wealth for the glory of this world: they were sealed by the prayer of faith, and because of the knowledge which they contain they are of no worth among the children of men, only for their knowledge. On them is contained the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, as it was given to his people on this land, and when it shall be brought forth by the power of God it shall be carried to the Gentiles, of whom many will receive it, and after will the seed of Israel be brought into the fold of their Redeemer by obeying it also. Those who keep the commandments of the Lord on this land, desired this at his hand, and through the prayer of faith obtained the promises, that if their descendants should transgress and fall away, that a record might be kept and in the last days come to their children. These things are sacred, and must be kept so, for the promise of the Lord concerning them, must be fulfilled. No man can obtain them if his heart is impure, because they contain that which is sacred; and besides, should they be entrusted in unholy hands the knowledge could not come to the world, because they cannot be interpreted by the learning of this generation; consequently, they would be considered of no worth, only as precious metal. Therefore, remember, that they are to be translated by the gift and power of God. By them will the Lord work a great and a marvelous work: the wisdom of the wise shall become as nought, and the understanding of the prudent shall be hid, and because the power of God shall be displayed those who profess to know the truth but walk in deceit, shall tremble with anger; but with signs and with wonders, with gifts and with healings, with the manifestations of the power of God, and with the Holy Ghost, shall the hearts of the faithful be comforted. You have now beheld the power of God manifested and the power of satan: you see that there is nothing that is desirable in the works of darkness; that they cannot bring happiness; that those who are overcome therewith are miserable, while on the other hand the righteous are blessed with a place in the kingdom of God where joy unspeakable surrounds them. There they rest beyond the power of the enemy of truth, where no evil can disturb them. The glory of God crowns them, and they continually feast upon his goodness and enjoy his smiles. Behold, notwithstanding you have seen this great display of power, by which you may ever be able to detect the evil one, yet I give unto you another sign, and when it comes to pass then know that the Lord is God and that he will fulfil [sic] his purposes, and that the knowledge which this record contains will go to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people under the whole heaven.-This is the sign: When these things begin to be known, that is, when it is known that the Lord has shown you these things, the workers of iniquity will seek your overthrow: they will circulate falsehoods to destroy your reputation, and also will seek to take your life; but remember this, if you are faithful, and shall hereafter continue to keep the commandments of the Lord, you shall be preserved to bring these things forth; for in due time he will again give you a commandment to come and take them. When they are interpreted the Lord will give the holy priesthood to some, and they shall begin to proclaim this gospel and baptize by water, and after that they shall have power to give the Holy Ghost by the laying on of their hands. Then will persecution rage more and more; for the iniquities of men shall be revealed, and those who are not built upon the Rock will seek to overthrow this church; but it will increase the more opposed, and spread farther and farther, increasing in knowledge till they shall be sanctified and receive an inheritance where the glory of God will rest upon them; and when this takes place, and all things are prepared, the ten tribes of Israel will be revealed in the north country, whither they have been for a long season; and when this is fulfilled will be brought to pass that saying of the prophet-‘And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the Lord’-But, notwithstanding the workers of iniquity shall seek your destruction the arm of the Lord will be extended, and you will be borne off conqueror, if you keep all his commandments. Your name shall be known among the nations, for the work which the Lord will perform by your hands shall cause the righteous to rejoice and the wicked to rage: with the one it shall be had in honor, and with the other in reproach; yet, with these it shall be a terror because of the great and marvelous work which shall follow the coming forth of this fulness [fullness] of the gospel. Now, go thy way, remembering what the Lord has done for thee, and be diligent in keeping his commandments, and he will deliver thee from temptations and all the arts and devices of the wicked one.-Forget not to pray, that thy mind may become strong, that when he shall manifest unto thee, thou mayest have power to escape the evil, and obtain these precious things.

Oliver Cowdery didn’t so much as even know Joseph Smith in 1827—the two men first met in April 1829—when these words he attributed to Moroni were spoken, let alone witness firsthand the recovery of the plates and the interview between the Prophet and the angel. As a secondhand source publishing eight years after the event, Oliver was certainly embellishing details about the interview supplied to him by Joseph Smith. 

Brother Smoot made most of this argument in the no-wise as well, but here he is mindreading with certainty, as I addressed in my review.

This would not be out of character for Oliver. Others have already noted his “florid romantic” language and his pedantic and flamboyant literary habits (as opposed to Joseph Smith’s own simple and straightforward authorial style) in these letters and elsewhere.15 “The rhetorical flourishes” in Oliver’s letters published in Messenger and Advocate “carried over into a way of describing events that put himself in the forefront. His feelings and thoughts are always on display, making the story more Oliver’s than Joseph’s.”16

Heartlanders want to selectively claim that some parts of Oliver’s letters are inspired (e.g., the location of the Hill Cumorah) while others are not (e.g., failure to mention the First Vision and embellishing the account of Moroni’s visit to Joseph Smith) for completely arbitrary and self-serving reasons. They are free to do so if they desire, but they’re not accomplishing credible scholarship.

On top of the persistent straw man argument about what these imaginary "Heartlanders" want to do, here we have a red herring fallacy; the dog that didn't bark argument. We can speculate about why Oliver did not mention the First Vision, but the "omission" (if it's really an omission) is entirely unrelated to President Cowdery's recitation of facts about Cumorah. For an article as replete with logical fallacies as this one is, Brother Smoot's observation about "credible scholarship" is ironic, to say the least.

VI. The location of the Hill Cumorah remains open (as does the rest of Book of Mormon geography)

The fact is that “Church leadership officially and consistently distances itself from issues regarding Book of Mormon geography.”17 

It's always fun to see people cite self-serving articles from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism. Anyone can read the General Conference talks and Church publications to see how Church leaders have consistently taught that (i) Cumorah is in New York and (ii) we don't know where the other events took place.

Neville and other Heartlanders excitedly call attention to general authorities like Joseph Fielding Smith who accepted at face value Oliver’s identification of the Hill Cumorah in New York.

Elder Smith and other general authorities were and are certainly free to offer their personal opinions on the location of the Hill Cumorah and many other subjects that have not been definitively established by revelation. 

As a member of the M2C citation cartel, we would expect Brother Smoot to assert this argument. President Benson warned us of this approach: "The learned may feel the prophet is only inspired when he agrees with them, otherwise the prophet is just giving his opinion—speaking as a man." 

Presumably this would also include Church leaders such as President Harold B. Lee, who said in 1966, “Some say the Hill Cumorah was in southern Mexico (and someone pushed it down still farther) and not in western New York. Well, if the Lord wanted us to know where it was, or where Zarahemla was, he’d have given us latitude and longitude, don’t you think? And why bother our heads trying to discover with archaeological certainty the geographical locations of the cities of the Book of Mormon like Zarahemla?”

The fact that the M2C intellectuals have to resort to this obscure, out-of-context statement as their only source for repudiating the rest of the prophets demonstrates the weakness of their argument. I addressed this quotation here: 

http://bookofmormonwars.blogspot.com/2017/10/fairmormons-famous-harold-b-lee.html

The identification of the drumlin in upstate New York as the Hill Cumorah of the Book of Mormon has been and is very common in the Church, but it is not an official position of the Church for the simple reason that the Church has no official Book of Mormon geography. “The Church emphasizes the doctrinal and historical value of the Book of Mormon,” F. Michael Watson, secretary to the First Presidency, clarified in 1993, “not its geography. While some Latter-day Saints have looked for possible locations and explanations [for Book of Mormon geography] because the New York Hill Cumorah does not readily fit the Book of Mormon description of Cumorah, there are no conclusive connections between the Book of Mormon text and any specific site.”

This phony fax was never seen by the First Presidency. I addressed it here:

http://bookofmormonwars.blogspot.com/2016/11/how-to-create-some-doctrine.html

Traditionally—but not always—Church leaders have assumed a hemispheric Book of Mormon geography while over time granting space for alternate theories (such as the Mesoamerican theory) in Church publications like the Ensign and general authority supervised publications like the Encyclopedia of Mormonism. It’s simply disingenuous for Heartlanders to claim there is revealed consensus on Book of Mormon geography and the location of Cumorah among modern Church leaders.

This is more of the obfuscation tactic the M2C intellectuals have to use to justify their position. They conflate two separate issues: the location of Cumorah in New York and the location of other Book of Mormon sites. The prophets have consistently and persistently taught that Cumorah is in New York and that we don't know the locations of the other events. None of the prophets has disputed or repudiated either of these clear positions.

VII. Joseph Smith (like Oliver Cowdery) was not a Heartlander

Finally, Letter VII cannot be used as evidence that Joseph Smith or Oliver Cowdery were Heartlanders since neither of them believed the events of the Book of Mormon took place exclusively in the continental United States. Certainly Oliver believed the Hill Cumorah was in New York, and Joseph probably did as well later in his life,18 but the historical record is abundantly clear that, like most of their Mormon contemporaries, both Joseph and Oliver believed in a hemispheric geography for the events described in the Book of Mormon.19“Joseph Smith never showed any interest in creating a geographic model for the Book of Mormon,” notes one scholar. “Any and all artifacts from virtually anywhere in the Americas were treated equally as evidence for the book’s divine authenticity.”20

In the first place, Brother Smoot merely cites other members of the M2C citation cartel. This is pure confirmation bias. In the second place, Joseph never once connected the Book of Mormon to any setting outside North America. Anyone who reads the citation cartel articles Brother Smoot cites here can see how much the authors strain to justify their M2C dogma. It's all sophistry and confirmation bias.

Heartlanders cannot pick up one end of the stick without picking up the other end when it comes to what Joseph and Oliver thought about Book of Mormon geography. They cannot selectively decide which of Oliver’s and Joseph’s views on geography they’re is going to believe (e.g. Zelph and the location of the Hill Cumorah) and which ones they’re going to discard (e.g. Mesoamerican connections and the landing place of Lehi in Chile). 

Neither Joseph nor Oliver connected the Book of Mormon to Mesoamerica or Chile. 

Individuals are free to accept early Mormon speculation on Book of Mormon geography to whatever extent they are willing, but if Heartlanders have a shred of integrity, they must not consider Joseph or Oliver within their ranks.

Ha-ha, this is typical rhetoric from the citation cartel. I hope for his sake that Brother Smoot breaks free of the cartel and engages in independent thought, research and analysis.

Conclusion

Because I know how many Heartlanders will react to this post (assuming any of them ever read it), I will conclude by affirming my total commitment to the historicity of the Book of Mormon, its divinity, its coming forth “by the gift and power of God,” and the inspiration and seership of Joseph Smith, its translator. If it isn’t obvious from my previous blog posts, podcast discussions, publications, and video interviews, I am a firmly committed believer in the Book of Mormon. I am also a committed and active member who sustains the current leaders of the Church.

This is always the qualifier: the M2C intellectuals proudly reject all the prophets and apostles who disagree with their M2C dogma. It will be interesting to see what happens if/when the "current leaders" reaffirm the teachings of their predecessors.

Had Brother Smoot lived in 1985 when President Romney gave his General Conference address on The Destiny of America, could he have said he sustained the current leaders at the same time he rejected their witness of the historical reality of the events at Cumorah? 

I am inspired by the testimony of Oliver Cowdery relative to the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. By no means do I wish to diminish his sacred calling as one of the Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon or as the Second Elder of the Church of Christ. I am touched and inspired whenever I read his testimony found in Letter I: “These were days never to be forgotten—to sit under the sound of a voice dictated by the inspiration of heaven, awakened the utmost gratitude of this bosom! Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his mouth, as [Joseph] translated with the Urim and Thummim, or, as the Nephites would have said, ‘Interpreters,’ the history or record called ‘The Book of Mormon.’”

I am not, however, beholden to Heartlanders’ misappropriation of Oliver’s letters. No matter how much any Heartlander may think me an apostate for insisting otherwise, I reject their pretensions to being the gatekeepers of orthodoxy, faithfulness, and commitment to the Book of Mormon, and refuse to bow to their interpretation of Letter VII as if it were a modern golden calf. 

This delightful rhetoric is also typical of the M2C citation cartel. Brother Smoot has chosen to repudiate the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah. He's perfectly free to do so, and no one is questioning his faith and commitment (at least, I'm not and never have). My objection instead is that these M2C intellectuals systematically suppress the facts, conflate and obfuscate the issues, and outright declare that the prophets are wrong solely to confirm their Mesoamerican bias. 

I appreciate Brother Smoot's candor here. The issue is not one of apostasy vs orthodoxy, as the M2C intellectuals like to frame it. It's a simple question for every member of the Church:

With respect to the location of Cumorah, do you accept the teachings of the prophets or the teachings of the M2C intellectuals who claim the prophets are wrong?

It's a simple question. I don't think the M2C intellectuals would have such thin skin and engage in the polemics they do if they had more confidence in their position.

Heartlanders are free to believe that I am afflicted by a deranged “Mesomania,” as Jonathan Neville calls it, but until he or they can demonstrate that they have even the slightest desire to handle the primary historical evidence responsibly, and aren’t just waging ideological warfare against perceived enemies of their cult, I am free to dismiss their arguments as fraudulent.

haha, the entire M2C citation cartel has chosen to "dismiss their arguments as fraudulent" without engaging in any serious way.

I've engaged in far more detailed analysis and discussion of the primary historical evidence than any of the M2C intellectuals. I've offered to meet with and discuss these issues with any of them at any time, in any forum. I've offered to present my views at the FairMormon and Book of Mormon Central conferences, but they refuse because they don't want people to even know about alternatives to M2C, let alone expose them to actual discussion and debate about them. 

It's always easy to persuade someone when you present your side of an argument without allowing the other side to present theirs, especially when you resort to straw man arguments as Brother Smoot does in his article here. That's why our judicial system gives both sides a chance to present their respective cases.

But the M2C citation cartel cannot afford to let people see both sides of the Cumorah issue. They know most members of the Church are going to choose to believe the prophets instead of the intellectuals.

Letter VII is not a silver bullet to the heart of the Mesoamerican geography theory. In the hands of Heartlanders it is, rather, no more harmful than a paper cap in a plastic toy gun.

A classic M2C citation cartel parting shot, the kind of juvenile rhetoric we used to read in FARMS publications and now see at Book of Mormon Central and the Interpreter. Well done, Brother Smoot.

–Notes–

1. For refutations of Heartlander arguments, see “Reviews of DNA Evidence for Book of Mormon Geography,” FairMormon; Gregory L. Smith, “Often in Error, Seldom in Doubt: Rod Meldrum and Book of Mormon DNA,” The FARMS Review 22, no. 1 (2010): 17–161; Ugo A. Perego, “The Book of Mormon and the Origin of Native Americans from a Maternally Inherited DNA Standpoint,” FARMS Review 22, no. 1 (2010): 191–227; Matthew Roper, “Joseph Smith, Revelation, and Book of Mormon Geography,” FARMS Review 22, no. 2 (2010): 15–85; “Losing the Remnant: The New Exclusivist ‘Movement’ and the Book of Mormon,” FARMS Review 22, no. 2 (2010): 87–124; Matthew Roper, Paul J. Fields, and Atul Nepal, “Joseph Smith, the Times and Seasons, and Central American Ruins,” Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture 22, no. 2 (2013): 84–97; Matthew Roper, “How Much Weight Can a Single Source Bear? The Case of Samuel D. Tyler’s Journal Entry,” Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture 22, no. 1 (2013): 54–57; Neal Rappleye, “‘War of Words and Tumult of Opinions’: The Battle for Joseph Smith’s Words in Book of Mormon Geography,”Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 11 (2014): 37–95; Mark Alan Wright, “Heartland as Hinterland: The Mesoamerican Core and North American Periphery of Book of Mormon Geography,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 13 (2015): 111–129; Matthew Roper, “The Treason of the Geographers: Mythical ‘Mesoamerican’ Conspiracy and the Book of Mormon,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 16 (2015): 161–205; “John Bernhisel’s Gift to a Prophet: Incidents of Travel in Central America and the Book of Mormon,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 16 (2015): 207–253; Matthew Roper, “Joseph Smith, Central American Ruins, and the Book of Mormon,” in Approaching Antiquity: Joseph Smith and the Ancient World, edited by Lincoln H. Blumell, Matthew J. Grey, and Andrew H. Hedges (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2015), 141–62; Matthew Roper, Paul Fields, and Larry Bassist, “Zarahemla Revisited: Neville’s Newest Novel,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 17 (2016): 13–61.
2. As a corollary to this argument, anybody, like evil Mesoamericanists, who doesn’t accept the letters as such are, obviously, out to throw Joseph Smith under the bus and deceive victims into disbelieving inspired prophets.
3. Karen Lynn Davidson et al., eds., The Joseph Smith Papers: Histories, Volume 1: Joseph Smith Histories, 1832–1844 (Salt Lake City, UT: The Church Historian’s Press, 2012), xxi.
4. Davidson et al., eds., The Joseph Smith Papers: Histories, Volume 1, 39.
5. Davidson et al., eds., The Joseph Smith Papers: Histories, Volume 1, 39, emphasis added.
6. “A Remarkable Vision,” The Latter-day Saints’ Millennial Star 1, no. 2 (June 1840): 42–44; “A Remarkable Vision,” The Latter-day Saints’ Millennial Star 1, no. 5 (September 1840): 105–109; “A Remarkable Vision,” The Latter-day Saints’ Millennial Star 1, no. 6 (October 1840): 150–154; “A Remarkable Vision,” The Latter-day Saints’ Millennial Star 1, no. 7 (November 1840): 174–178.
7. “Copy of a Letter written by O. Cowdery,” Times and Seasons 2, no. 1 (November 1, 1840): 199–201; “Letter II,” Times and Seasons 2, no. 2 (November 15, 1840): 208–212; “Letter III,” Times and Seasons 2, no. 3 (December 1, 1840): 224–225; “Letter IV,” Times and Seasons 2, no. 4 (December 15, 1840): 240–242; “Letter VI,” Times and Seasons 2, no. 11 (April 1, 1841): 359–363; “Rise of the Church,” Times and Seasons 2, no. 12 (April 15, 1841): 376–379; “Letter VIII,” Times and Seasons 2, no. 13 (May 1, 1841): 390–396.
8. Orson Pratt, A[n] Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions (Edinburgh: Ballantyne and Hughes, 1840), 8–12)
9. “O. Cowdery’s Letters to W. W. Phelps,” Gospel Reflector 1, no. 6 (March 15, 1841): 137–176.
10. Letters by Oliver Cowdery, to W.W. Phelps on the Origin of the Book of Mormon and the Rise of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Liverpool: Ward and Cairns, 1844).
11. “O. Cowdery’s Letters to W. W. Phelps,” The Prophet 1, no. 7 (June 29, 1844).
12. Roper, “The Treason of the Geographers,” 161–205.
13. Contrary to Neville’s bald assertion, however, there is no evidence that Joseph Smith quoted Letter VII in his 6 September 1842 letter to the Saints.
14. See Richard E. Turley Jr. and William W. Slaughter, How We Got the Doctrine and Covenants (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2012).
15. Davidson et al., eds., The Joseph Smith Papers: Histories, Volume 1, 38. See also Arthur Henry King, The Abundance of the Heart (Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft, 1986), 204.
16. Richard L. Bushman, “Oliver’s Joseph,” in Days Never to Be Forgotten: Oliver Cowdery, ed. Alexander L. Baugh (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2009), 7.
17. John E. Clark, “Book of Mormon Geography,” in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, ed. Daniel H. Ludlow (New York, NY: Macmillan, 1992), 1:176.
18. The Prophet waffled on the location of the hill Cumorah throughout his life. In his 1832 history, Joseph spoke only of an unnamed “place . . . where the plates [were] deposited.” History, circa Summer 1832, p. 4. Six years later he described the location where he found the plates as merely “a hill of considerable size.” History, 1838–1856, volume A-1 [23 December 1805–30 August 1834], addendum, p. 7. That same year Joseph spoke only of “a hill in Manchester, Ontario County New York” as the location where he found the plates. Elders’ Journal (July 1838): 43. The Prophet first speaks of the location as Cumorah in a letter dated 6 September 1842, where he poetically describes heading “Glad tidings from Cumorah! Moroni, An Angel from heaven, declaring the fulfilment of the prophets.” “Letter to ‘The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints,’ 6 September 1842 [D&C 128],” p. 7. It’s reasonable to assume that Joseph eventually accepted the identity of the hill Cumorah as the hill in Palmyra after this theory became popular amongst Latter-day Saints. Even so, there’s nothing in the historical sources to suggest Joseph came to identify the Palmyra drumlin as Cumorah because of revelation.
19. See Matthew Roper, “Limited Geography and the Book of Mormon: Historical Antecedents and Early Interpretations,” FARMS Review 16, no. 2 (2004): 225–275. Mark Alan Wright, “Joseph Smith and Native American Artifacts,” in Approaching Antiquity, 119–140.
20. Wright, “Joseph Smith and Native American Artifacts,” 130–131.