Great news - revised Gospel Topics Essay

Yesterday an alert reader told me that the Gospel Topics Essay on Book of Mormon Geography had been revised. It's an important change that will improve the conversation because it discourages people from claiming prophetic and/or Church support for their personal opinions.

That means the M2C citation cartel can no longer claim prophetic and/or Church support for M2C.

Below I'll show the original and revised versions, compared side to side.
_____

The revised Gospel Topics Essay includes this big change.

Individuals may have their own opinions regarding Book of Mormon geography and other such matters about which the Lord has not spoken. However, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles urge leaders and members not to advocate those personal theories in any setting or manner that would imply either prophetic or Church support for those theories.

M2C intellectuals have long claimed prophetic and Church support for their personal theories. Recently they've claimed that they're hired by the prophets, so they represent the prophets, so their ideas about Book of Mormon geography are immune from analysis and comparison.  

Claiming prophetic and Church support

That's the justification Book of Mormon Central uses for censoring other ideas, for example. 

Right on their web pages, the M2C promoters claim Church support because lds.org links to their organizations and General Authorities have encouraged members to donate to their organizations.

Just yesterday, a prominent M2C intellectual bragged that "My relationship with them ["the Brethren"] has never, I think, been better than it is right now." 

This comes just a couple of days after the same M2C intellectual mentioned me by name and provided a link to a web site that purports to attack my beliefs.

I hope this latest version of the essay puts an end to the M2C claims of prophetic and Church support for their theories.

_____

There's a big difference between these two things:

1. claiming one's ideas have prophetic and Church support, and 

2. seeking to support the prophets. 

Apart from the M2C intellectuals and the revisionist Church historians, I don't know of anyone who claims his/her ideas have prophetic or Church support. 

Most Church members seek to support the prophets, not the other way around. 

Like me, most Church members are not employed by the Church. We don't teach at BYU or CES, we don't prepare Church lesson manuals, we don't produce Church videos, and we don't create Church visitors center displays. 

We don't have "connections" with Church leaders. We don't meet with Church leaders, go to dinner with them, speak with them on the phone, etc. They don't ask us for our opinions.

Supporting the prophets

But we, the ordinary members of the Church, all know people, including friends and family members, who have left or are leaving the Church. A big reason is the teachings of intellectuals who claim the prophets are wrong.

We simply love the gospel and we support Church leaders. One way we do this is to find and share evidence that supports their teachings.

For example, before Joseph Smith even obtained the plates, he identified the hill in New York as Cumorah. Every Church leader who has spoken about that issue has affirmed that site. Some are shown in the graphic at the left.

Everything I've done since I entered this arena has been an effort to support the teachings of the prophets. I don't claim prophetic or Church support for my personal views.

By contrast, the M2C intellectuals claim both prophetic and Church support for their personal views, as mentioned above. 

Rather than seek to support the teachings of the prophets, they claim superiority over those teachings.

Rather than placing an exclamation mark after the words of the prophets, they place a question mark.

Maybe this essay will help change that course.

_____

The latest version of the essay says:

The Church does not take a position on the specific geographic locations of Book of Mormon events in the ancient Americas. 

From the beginning, Church leaders have always taught that, apart from Cumorah, we don't know for sure where the events of the Book of Mormon took place. The essay is consistent with that.

Presumably the Church still takes the position that Moroni, in ancient times, deposited the abridged plates on the hill in New York where the Cumorah Visitors Center is located. That would seem to conflict with the essay, unless the essay is not intended to apply to the teachings about Cumorah. 

It's possible that the essay is intended to reject the teachings of past prophets, including the ones shown in the graphic. Perhaps it is intended merely to cast doubt on those teachings. Or, perhaps it is intended to indicate that more research is needed to verify what past prophets have taught. 

Several past prophets have taught that we await more revelation regarding Book of Mormon geography. They said that in the context of also saying we know Cumorah is in New York, but we don't know where the other events took place. 

Unless the essay is further clarified, it seems to represent not a rejection of past prophets, but an openness to new information. As President Nelson has taught, "good inspiration is based upon good information. 

Accordingly, my objective is to continue to assemble and provide good information that supports the teachings of the prophets. Maybe that will also lead to more good information in the future.

_____

Comparison of essays. The original version is shown in the left column in blue. The revisions are in the right in black. My notes throughout are in red. A blank cell indicates the corresponding paragraph in the other version does not exist.

One of the noteworthy changes is the deletion of President Ivins' quotation. I offer my thoughts on that in the notes below.

My comments on the unchanged portions can be seen here: 

https://presidentnelsonspeaks.blogspot.com/2019/02/revisions-to-gospel-topics-essay-on.html

Original	Feb 27
Book of Mormon Geography Overview The Church takes no position on the specific geographic location of Book of Mormon events in the ancient Americas. Church members are asked not to teach theories about Book of Mormon geography in Church settings but to focus instead on the Book of Mormon’s teachings and testimony of Jesus Christ and His gospel. Comment. It’s not apparent why this overview was deleted, except that it duplicated a later statement in the essay. However, I did note in my comments before that “this policy appears to censor references to or discussion of” the teachings of past prophets and apostles regarding the Hill Cumorah.	Book of Mormon Geography Overview
The Book of Mormon includes a history of an ancient people who migrated from the Near East to the Americas. 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.	The Book of Mormon includes a history of an ancient people who migrated from the Near East to the Americas. 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.
Since the publication of the Book of Mormon in 1830, members and leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have expressed numerous opinions about the specific locations of the events discussed in the book. Some believe that the history depicted in the Book of Mormon occurred in North America, while others believe that it occurred in Central America or South America. Although Church members continue to discuss such theories today, the Church takes no position on the geography of the Book of Mormon except that the events it describes took place in the Americas.	Since the publication of the Book of Mormon in 1830, members and leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have expressed numerous opinions about the specific locations of the events discussed in the book. Some believe that the history depicted in the Book of Mormon —with the exception of the events in the Near East— occurred in North America, while others believe that it occurred in Central America or South America. Although Church members continue to discuss such theories today, the Church’s only position is that the events the Book of Mormon describes took place in the ancient Americas. This changes the former statement of “no position except” to “only position is.” The terms “Americas” is a recent development. The Church History Department uses it everywhere now to replace what the historical documents actually say. Moroni and Joseph Smith both referred to the aborigines in “this country,” but that causes problems for M2C, so instead we always see “Americas” instead. The same tactic was used in the Saints book to write Cumorah out of Church history.
The Prophet Joseph Smith himself accepted what he felt was evidence of Book of Mormon civilizations in both North America and Central America. While traveling with Zion’s Camp in 1834, Joseph wrote to his wife Emma that they were “wandering over the plains of the Nephites, recounting occasionally the history of the Book of Mormon, roving over the mounds of that once beloved people of the Lord, picking up their skulls and their bones, as a proof of its divine authenticity.”1 In 1842, the Church newspaper Times and Seasons published articles under Joseph Smith’s editorship that identified the ruins of ancient native civilizations in Mexico and Central America as further evidence of the Book of Mormon’s historicity.2	The Prophet Joseph Smith himself accepted what he felt was evidence of Book of Mormon civilizations in both North America and Central America. While traveling with Zion’s Camp in 1834, Joseph wrote to his wife Emma that they were “wandering over the plains of the Nephites, recounting occasionally the history of the Book of Mormon, roving over the mounds of that once beloved people of the Lord, picking up their skulls and their bones, as a proof of its divine authenticity.”1 In 1842, the Church newspaper Times and Seasons published articles under Joseph Smith’s editorship that identified the ruins of ancient native civilizations in Mexico and Central America as further evidence of the Book of Mormon’s historicity.2 It's unfortunate that the serious error in this paragraph was not corrected. The first sentence states as a fact what can only be at most an inference. This undermines the credibility of the essay and suggests it was driven by an agenda.
Anthony W. Ivins, a Counselor in the First Presidency, stated: “There has never been anything yet set forth that definitely settles that question [of Book of Mormon geography]. So the Church says we are just waiting until we discover the truth.”3 Comment. I pointed out that this quotation, a favorite of FairMormon and other M2C advocates, was taken out of context and modified with a misleading inserted bracket.  I also pointed out that President Ivins, just the year before in General Conference, gave an entire address about the New York Hill Cumorah, affirming that it is, in fact, the Cumorah of Mormon 6:6. Deleting President Ivins from this essay suggests that the authors did not want people researching President Ivins, who made the clear distinction between the two separate teachings of all the prophets: 1. Cumorah is in New York. 2. We don’t know where the other events took place.
The Church urges local leaders and members not to advocate theories of Book of Mormon geography in official Church settings. This statement applied to any theories, including the teachings of the prophets, but limited the ban to official Church settings. The revision expands the ban to “any setting or manner.”
	The Church does not take a position on the specific geographic locations of Book of Mormon events in the ancient Americas. President M. Russell Ballard, Acting President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, reminded members that “the Book of Mormon is not a textbook on topography. 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 paragraph basically restates the paragraph above about “the Church’s only position.” Again, we see the term “Americas.”  President Ballard’s quotation replaces President Ivins’ but the authors forgot to provide a footnote. It’s undoubtedly true that speculation on geography can be a distraction, but isn’t it also a distraction to ignore or, worse, reject the teachings of past prophets? At least the previous version cited President Ivins, who took a firm stand that Cumorah is in New York.
	Individuals may have their own opinions regarding Book of Mormon geography and other such matters about which the Lord has not spoken. This new sentence raises the question, how do we know when the Lord has spoken? Most members think the Lord speaks through his prophets, every one of whom has affirmed the New York Cumorah (at least, every one who has ever addressed the topic). This includes members of the First Presidency speaking in General Conference. Accordingly, this sentence could be interpreted to mean individuals may have their own opinions about geography other than the New York Cumorah. If, on the other hand, the sentence is intended to repudiate the teachings of past prophets, that should be made clear. However, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles urge leaders and members not to advocate those personal theories in any setting or manner that would imply either prophetic or Church support for those theories. This sentence is probably the most important in the essay because it should put an end to the practice of the M2C advocates of claiming prophetic or Church support for their theories. We’ll see if they respond on their web sites. But it also raises a question about Church curriculum, media, visitors centers, etc., which advocate M2C. Because the Church now officially has no position on the geography issues, we can expect to see M2C eradicated, or at least balanced with alternative theories. All parties should strive to avoid contention on these matters. This is also an important sentence. There’s no reason to contend about any of this, so long as people are enabled to make informed decisions as they choose. There’s no justification for using claims of prophetic or Church support to justify censorship, logical fallacies, etc. Ideally, everyone involved would simply offer facts and analysis for others to consider.
Speaking of the book’s history and geography, President Russell M. Nelson taught: “Interesting as these matters may be, study of the Book of Mormon is most rewarding when one focuses on its primary purpose—to testify of Jesus Christ. By comparison, all other issues are incidental.”4	Speaking of the book’s history and geography, President Russell M. Nelson taught: “Interesting as these matters may be, study of the Book of Mormon is most rewarding when one focuses on its primary purpose—to testify of Jesus Christ. By comparison, all other issues are incidental.”3
Note 1: Letter to Emma Smith, June 4, 1834, in The Joseph Smith Papers, Documents, Volume 4: April 1834–September 1835,ed. Matthew C. Godfrey and others (2016), 57; spelling standardized. Note 2: “Traits of the Mosaic History, Found among the Azteca Nation,” Times and Seasons, June 15, 1842, 818–20; see also “American Antiquities,” Times and Seasons, July 15, 1842, 858–60. Although it is not clear how involved Joseph Smith was in writing these editorials, he never refuted them. Note 3: Anthony W. Ivins, Conference Report (April 1929), 16. Note 4: Russell M. Nelson, “A Testimony of the Book of Mormon,” Ensign, Nov. 1999, 69.	Note 1: Letter to Emma Smith, June 4, 1834, in The Joseph Smith Papers, Documents, Volume 4: April 1834–September 1835,ed. Matthew C. Godfrey and others (2016), 57; spelling standardized. Note 2: “Traits of the Mosaic History, Found among the Azteca Nation,” Times and Seasons, June 15, 1842, 818–20; see also “American Antiquities,” Times and Seasons, July 15, 1842, 858–60. Although it is not clear how involved Joseph Smith was in writing these editorials, he never refuted them. Note 3: Russell M. Nelson, “A Testimony of the Book of Mormon,” Ensign, Nov. 1999, 69.

The Keystone of the Book of Mormon

One could find support in past teachings for all kinds of theories about Book of Mormon geography, with one exception: every prophet and apostle who has addressed the topic has affirmed that the Hill Cumorah is in New York. Not one has repudiated his predecessors.

The Hill Cumorah is the keystone of the historicity of the Book of Mormon, just as the Book of Mormon itself is the keystone of our religion.
_____

From BYU Studies

The Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion. 

In General Conference, President Ezra Taft Benson taught, "A keystone is the central stone in an arch. It holds all the other stones in place, and if removed, the arch crumbles. 

There are three ways in which the Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion. It is the keystone in our witness of Christ. It is the keystone of our doctrine. It is the keystone of testimony... 

Just as the arch crumbles if the keystone is removed, so does all the Church stand or fall with the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. The enemies of the Church understand this clearly. This is why they go to such great lengths to try to disprove the Book of Mormon...

Our beloved brother, President Marion G. Romney, who celebrated his eighty-ninth birthday last month and who knows of himself of the power that resides in this book, testified of the blessings that can come into the lives of those who will read and study the Book of Mormon....

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1986/10/the-book-of-mormon-keystone-of-our-religion?lang=eng
______

The Hill Cumorah is the keystone of the historicity of the Book of Mormon. 

Cumorah is the intersection of the account of the Nephites, who called it Cumorah, and the account of the Jaredites, who called it Ramah.

As the only specific location unambiguously identified by the prophets, is the touchstone between the Book of Mormon and the real world.

Remove Cumorah, and there is no keystone for the historicity of the Book of Mormon. We're left with nothing but abstract fantasy maps that portray the Book of Mormon as a myth with no connection to the real world.

In General Conference, President Marion G. Romney taught, "In the western part of the state of New York near Palmyra is a prominent hill known as the “hill Cumorah.” (Morm. 6:6.) On July twenty-fifth of this year, as I stood on the crest of that hill admiring with awe the breathtaking panorama which stretched out before me on every hand, my mind reverted to the events which occurred in that vicinity some twenty-five centuries ago—events which brought to an end the great Jaredite nation....

Thus perished at the foot of Cumorah the remnant of the once mighty Jaredite nation, of whom the Lord had said, “There shall be none greater … upon all the face of the earth.” (Ether 1:43.)


As I contemplated this tragic scene from the crest of Cumorah and viewed the beautiful land of the Restoration as it appears today, I cried in my soul, “How could it have happened?”

[The Nephite] civilization came to an end for the same reason, at the same place, and in the same manner as did the Jaredites’....

Now my beloved brethren and sisters everywhere, both members of the Church and nonmembers, I bear you my personal witness that I know that the things I have presented to you today are true—both those pertaining to past events and those pertaining to events yet to come."

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1975/10/americas-destiny?lang=eng
_____

The New York Cumorah is the keystone to the historicity of the Book of Mormon, but it does not determine where the other events in the Book of Mormon took place.

Lots of possible settings with Cumorah in New York

The prophets and apostles have been clear and specific about two things:

1. The Hill Cumorah is in New York.

2. We don't know where the rest of the events took place.

There are many differences of opinion about the rest of Book of Mormon geography, and that's fine. These ideas can encourage people to study the text for themselves.

Different theories and different evidence may be meaningful for different people. 

There is no reason to dispute about these. 

People can present their ideas, along with all the relevant information including the teachings of the prophets and the available extrinsic evidence, and then let others make informed decisions for themselves.

But there is no excuse for rejecting the consistent and persistent teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah.
_____

When we think about the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah, we could keep in mind something else President Benson said in his talk about the Keystone:

In the Doctrine and Covenants, section 84, verses 54 to 58, we read:

“And your minds in times past have been darkened because of unbelief, and because you have treated lightly the things you have received—

“Which vanity and unbelief have brought the whole church under condemnation.

“And this condemnation resteth upon the children of Zion, even all.

“And they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon and the former commandments which I have given them, not only to say, but to do according to that which I have written—

“That they may bring forth fruit meet for their Father’s kingdom; otherwise there remaineth a scourge and judgment to be poured out upon the children of Zion.” [D&C 84:54–58]"

90% of inspiration is information

I read a comment by a BYU professor that rings true to me. It's akin to President Nelson's teaching that good inspiration comes from good information.

Sharing a personal philosophy he has applied in his career, his Church service, and his role as a parent, Top said, “90 percent of inspiration is information. So I’ve got to have enough information to know what to take to the Lord and then say guide me and help me to understand this better.”

“I can’t go to the Lord with a superficial pondering of the scriptures and the study questions in ‘Come, Follow Me’ and expect the Lord to pour deep knowledge into my head,” Top continued. “But if I am serious about my studies and I have taken responsibility for my own learning, then I can expect — and I personally know that it happens — that He is going to give me greater knowledge than I got from my own studies. But that’s after you’re willing to pay the price.”

https://www.thechurchnews.com/living-faith/2019-02-25/new-testament-come-follow-me-2-byu-religion-professors--october-2018-general-conference-weigh-in-on-personal-gospel-study-49036

_____

If 90% of inspiration is information, then what are we to make of those who censor information?

In my view, the acceptance of M2C is easily explained by the ongoing censorship practices of the M2C citation cartel.

"Mosiah first" explanation

There was an excellent "Kno-Why" on Book of Mormon Central last week, except for one glaring problem.

The Kno-Why was titled, "How does the 'Mosiah-First' Translation Sequence Strengthen Faith?" You can see it here:
https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/how-does-the-mosiah-first-translation-sequence-strengthen-faith

Translation sequence - traditional explanation
the "small plates of Nephi" don't fit anywhere

After the 116 pages were lost, Joseph did not translate much if anything until Oliver Cowdery arrived in Harmony in April, 1829.

Joseph resumed the translation of the plates by starting with the Book of Mosiah.

The Kno-Why included the illustration to the left, which depicts the timeline of the translation process according to the traditional explanation.

Do you see the problem?

It shows the "Small Plates" after the "Title Page." But Joseph said the Title Page was the very last leaf of the plates,* not the last leaf before the Small Plates.

This is the problem with the traditional explanation of the translation process and the plates. The "Small Plates" don't fit anywhere.

This is apparent not only from the order of translation, but also from the Title Page, which describes only three components:

1. Abridged record of the Nephites.
2. Abridged record of the Jaredites.
3. Sealed by Moroni (his original writings).

The Title Page does not mention any original plates. 

This is one of several indications that there were two separate sets of plates.

Translation sequence - "two-sets-of-plates" explanation
the "small plates of Nephi" were never in Moroni's stone box

The illustration to the left is a revision to the translation chronology chart that explains the setting of the two translations.

You can see that the abridged plates, which I call the "Harmony plates," were translated in Harmony. The original plates of Nephi, usually called the "small plates," were translated in Fayette. That's why I call them the "Fayette plates."

Joseph also used the term "Original Book of Mormon," which apparently consisted of the plates Moroni put in the stone box on the Hill Cumorah. This would have been the Book of Lehi through the Book of Moroni--the abridged records described by the Title Page.

After Martin Harris lost the Book of Lehi (the 116 pages), Joseph continued the translation from where he left off; i.e., the Book of Mosiah. Then, when Joseph and Oliver neared the end of the plates, they considered re-translating the Book of Lehi. In D&C 10, the Lord told them not to do this. Instead, they had to translate the engravings on the "plates of Nephi."

But they didn't have the "plates of Nephi" yet. 

Before leaving Harmony, Joseph gave the original plates to a divine messenger. On the road to Fayette, he, Oliver Cowdery, and David Whitmer met this messenger. David offered to give him a ride but he declined, saying he was going to "Cumorah."

David lived in the area but had never heard of "Cumorah." He asked Joseph what was going on. Joseph said the man was one of the Three Nephites.**

Apparently the messenger was taking the Harmony plates back to the repository of Nephite records in the Hill Cumorah. There, he picked up the plates of Nephi and brought them to Fayette. He showed them (and/or the original plates) to Mary Whitmer, David's mother, and then gave the plates of Nephi (the "small plates") to Joseph Smith.

That's why Joseph and Oliver translated the plates of Nephi in Fayette.

I put more explanation and a complete diagram here:

http://www.lettervii.com/p/the-two-sets-of-plates-schematic.html

I have a lot more detail and explanation in my book, Whatever Happened to the Golden Plates?

Available everywhere, including Amazon.

The "two-sets-of-plates" answers lots of questions about Church history that the traditional explanation simply leaves as mysteries, inconsistencies--and, for some, reasons to disbelieve what Joseph, Oliver, David, and others claimed.
_____

* Joseph's 1839 history explains:

"I wish also to mention here, that the Title Page of the Book of Mormon is a literal translation, taken from the very last leaf, on the left hand side of the collection or book of plates, which contained the record which has been translated.... said Title Page is not by any means a modern composition either of mine or of any other man’s who has lived or does live in this generation. Therefore, in order to correct an error which generally exists concerning it, I give below that part of the Title Page of the English Version of the Book of Mormon, which is a genuine and literal translation of the Title Page of the Original Book of Mormon, as recorded on the plates."

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-circa-june-1839-circa-1841-draft-2/40

**David Whitmer related this account multiple times. Here's one example, published in the Juvenile Instructor, a magazine published in Utah by George Q. Cannon.

A Visit to David Whitmer.

By. E. Stevenson [Note: ancestor of Elder Gary E. Stevenson of the Twelve]

While on the return journey from Palmyra, David noticed a somewhat aged-looking man who approached them on the road. He had a very pleasant face, about which, however, there seemed something peculiar, and he carried a knapsack on his back fastened with straps which crossed his breast. David asked him to take a ride, but he declined, saying: "I am going over to Cumorah," and then disappeared very suddenly, though there was no chance for him to secrete himself in the open country through which the party was then passing. All felt very strange concerning this personage and the Prophet was besought to inquire of the Lord concerning him. Shortly afterwards, David relates, the Prophet looked very white but with a heavenly appearance and said their visitor was one of the three Nephites to whom the Savior gave the promise of life on earth until He should come in power. After arriving home, David again saw this personage, and Mother Whitmer, who was very kind to Joseph Smith, is said to have seen one only this Nephite, but to have also been shown by him the sealed and unsealed portions of the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated.

https://archive.org/details/juvenileinstructv224geor/page/54

Great example of persuasion vs education

Some people wonder where M2C is being taught. They find it difficult to believe that employees at BYU, CES and COB (the Church Office Building) are actively teaching that the prophets were wrong about the New York Cumorah.

I agree, it's difficult to believe. But I'm not kidding about this. Nor am I trying to persuade. It's just a fact.

The real question should be, where is M2C not being taught?

Below I'll give a specific recent example of the M2C rationale, but the teaching that Joseph adopted a false tradition about Cumorah is implicit in every depiction of M2C.

It's very simple.

BYU's M2C fantasy map

If they didn't reject the teachings of the prophets and apostles about the New York Cumorah, the scholars and their followers would agree that the Hill Cumorah is in New York and depict it that way.

Instead, in their books, articles, blogs, and images, they depict Cumorah in Mesoamerica--or in the BYU/CES fantasy world designed to resemble Mesoamerica.

Participants in the M2C citation cartel explain M2C by claiming that Joseph Smith never referred to the hill as Cumorah until "late," meaning several years after his associates created the "false narrative" that the hill in New York is the same as the hill Cumorah of Mormon 6:6.

They claim that when Joseph did refer to Cumorah, such as in D&C 128:20, he was spreading a false tradition started by others.
_____

Here's the recent example. It's from a blog post. I don't identify individuals on this blog because names are irrelevant and I don't want people coming to this blog by searching for names.

None of this is a personal issue; we're dealing with facts and reason in the context of persuasion vs. education. It doesn't matter who wrote it except that he's a well-known author and active member of the M2C citation cartel.

I'm going to take the time to point out the difference between persuasion and education because I think readers can use this example to analyze everything they read. 

There's a lot of detail in here, but sophistry is complex and unsuspecting readers don't recognize the difference between persuasion and education. This is why we have so much fake news and sharp divisions among people, everywhere in the world.

I think that if people were educated about facts vs. opinions and how to recognize logical fallacies, most people would tend to agree on issues (assuming they could overcome their bias confirmation). Most people don't want to take the time or make the effort; it's far easier and more comfortable to continue confirming one's biases.

Nevertheless, I think some Church members, at least, want to make informed decisions.

I re-emphasize that I don't care what anyone believes. I'm not trying to persuade anyone of anything. I just want everyone interested to make informed decisions, and that means people need to have all the facts and learn to distinguish between persuasion and education.

This M2C author was responding to a post about Letter VII, which he rejects. Original in blue, my comments in red.

Oliver is a second-hand witness. The one person who could have settled this completely, Joseph, did not (until a decade or more later). 

This is an example of persuasion, as opposed to education. Everyone can read, right in the Joseph Smith Papers, that Oliver Cowdery, while Assistant President of the Church, declared it was a fact that the "hill in New York" is the very Hill Cumorah of Mormon 6:6.   

Of course, the author cannot point to any factual evidence that Oliver did not know, first hand, that the hill in New York was the real Cumorah. There is zero evidence that Oliver ever expressed speculation, doubt or confusion about Cumorah. Nor did anyone else associated with Joseph or Oliver, including family members and both members and nonmembers of the Church who heard them speak and lived among them. 

All our M2C proponent can do is try to persuade people that President Cowdery was lying because he didn't explain, in Letter VII, how he knew it was a fact. That supposedly makes him a "second-hand witness."

However, it is a fact that David Whitmer, Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff and Heber C. Kimball all explained that Oliver Cowdery said that on multiple occasions he (Oliver) and Joseph Smith entered the depository of records Mormon mentioned in Mormon 6:6. That alone makes Oliver a first-hand witness, but the M2C advocates also consider this testimony unreliable, so they relegate him to a "second-hand witness" based solely on their mind-reading.

It's also a fact that Joseph had Letter VII copied into his own history and had it republished multiple times in Church publications during his lifetime, but none of that, in the M2C view, means Joseph settled the matter. 

Needless to say, the author simply censors all these facts. 

We can't mind-read to know why he censors them, but we can see that the facts contradict they theory he is trying to persuade people to accept. That's the typical motivation of censors.

Surely he has come up with reasons for rejecting the facts, but it's easier to just censor them. To the extent he has reasons for rejecting the facts (he has articulated some elsewhere), the reasons are just as problematic as his characterization of Oliver Cowdery as a confused speculator who, as Assistant President of the Church, knowingly misled the Church. 

No matter what Oliver said, you have to deal with the two essential facts: 1) Joseph didn't make the claim, and adopted it only after it was in common usage, and 2) no leader of the church after Joseph ever suggested that the Book of Mormon lands had been located.

The author knows he is not relating facts; he's relating his subjective rejection of historical facts.

Readers here know that right in the Joseph Smith papers, we can read that Joseph's mother quoted Joseph referring to the hill as Cumorah even before he got the plates. When the messenger who had the Harmony plates said he was taking the plates to Cumorah, Joseph identified him as one of the Nephites. (At a minimum, Joseph learned about Cumorah on this occasion, if he didn't already know it.) Joseph related his experience with Cumorah to early members, such as Joseph Curtis, about which I posted here.

http://www.lettervii.com/2019/02/joseph-smiths-account-referring-to.html

Every prophet and apostle who has ever formally addressed the issue has affirmed that Cumorah is in New York, including members of the First Presidency speaking in General Conference. 

But, because of M2C, this author rejects all of these facts, as well as Letter VII. He not only rejects the teachings of the prophets and apostles; in this post he insists they never even said what the Conference Reports and other materials document. That is pure persuasion.

There is no question that Joseph retrieved the plates from a hill that later came to be known as Cumorah.

See? Because he rejects Lucy Mack Smith's account, he censors it as if it didn't exist and claims the hill "later came to be known as Cumorah." 

It appears historically likely that Oliver was the one to make that association, just as W.W. Phelps was responsible for the shift from seer stone/interpreters to urim and thummin. 

Here is a delightful compound persuasion technique. First, he has Oliver making "that association" based on no evidence, contrary to the evidence we do have about Moroni and the divine messenger taking the Harmony plates to Cumorah. Then he claims Phelps was the one who "was responsible" for the term urim and thummim, which is a common interpretation of an article Phelps wrote but not a fact.

It is also quite clear that Oliver believed that the NY Cumorah was the Book of Mormon Cumorah, so it is unsurprising that anything he said would reflect that belief. Since we are dealing with second-hand information at best, and filtered through Oliver's understanding, his statement makes sense--without making it true.

Here, he reads President Cowdery's mind to frame him as a liar because when President Cowdery wrote in Letter VII that it was a fact, he knew it was really only a belief, based on "second-hand information at best." Do you see how persuasion relies not on facts, but on mind-reading, inference, and unstated rejection of facts?

You will see these same tactics on display throughout the M2C literature.

---

If feels as though you are not aware of what a second-hand witness is. It means someone who heard the information from someone else. 

One hallmark of persuasion is the persuader gets confused. He's claiming that Oliver was a "second-hand witness." Here, he says a "second-hand witness" is "Someone who heard the information from someone else." 

By this logic, Oliver heard Cumorah from someone else, but the M2C author doesn't suggest from whom Oliver could have heard it. It's easy to see why. From whom could Oliver have heard it from if not from Joseph, Moroni, the Lord, or the messenger taking the plates to Cumorah? He doesn't offer an alternative. He either doesn't recognize he's tied his argument into a knot, or he hopes readers don't realize what just happened here.  

That doesn't make them unreliable. It means that we usually have to do some verification. If they are generally a good source, they can be accepted for what they are saying. However, if there is evidence that contradicts what they are suggesting, then the strong possibility is that in that thing where we have contradictory evidence, the second-hand witness is not as strong as we would like.

This is all persuasion-speak for saying that President Cowdery was unreliable. As a faithful Latter-day Saint, he knows that's problematic. After all, President Cowdery was the only witness other than Joseph to the restoration of the Priesthood, the restoration of keys in the Kirtland temple, most of the Book of Mormon translation, and much more. M2C scholars realize they can't directly call the Three Witnesses liars without undermining the entire foundation of the Restoration, so they couch it in this type of word salad, using terms such as "strong possibility," "not as strong as we would like," etc. 

The case for Oliver and the naming of the NY hill as Cumorah is one of those cases. We have it early from Oliver, but not from Joseph--even when Joseph is talking about the same hill. 

See? He keeps censoring Lucy's account because it contradicts his theory. Persuasion, not education.

That happens for close to a decade, where Joseph didn't use Cumorah, but Oliver (and increasingly the whole of the community) began using Cumorah. 

This is a very important persuasion technique. He writes "Joseph didn't use Cumorah" as if that's a fact, but of course it's not. It's pure opinion. The most he can accurately state is "we don't have a written record of Joseph using the word Cumorah for close to a decade." 

Here are facts (education) instead of persuasion: (i) Joseph wrote little, (ii) we don't even have everything Joseph wrote, (iii) very few of Joseph's words were recorded, and even fewer were recorded verbatim, (iv) some of his words that were recorded identify the hill in New York as Cumorah, (v) Joseph's associates taught things they learned from Joseph, even when we don't have Joseph's words themselves recorded. 

Among these facts are those I related above (Lucy Mack Smith, Brigham Young, etc.) and Letter VII itself.

Another fascinating thing about this argument is that, by this definition, Joseph didn't "use" the Book of Mormon itself. Oliver wrote it down. So far as we know, Joseph rarely quoted from the text. The only proper nouns found in the Book of Mormon that appear in Joseph's writings that we do have are Cumorah (in the letter that became D&C 128:20) and Nephites (in his letter to Emma about the plains of the Nephites), although he dictated a few proper nouns in the revelations in the D&C. 

While we don't have evidence that Joseph dictated Oliver's eight historical letters, we do have evidence that Joseph helped write them, had them copied into his own history as part of his life story, and had them republished in official Church publications (including by his own brothers William and Don Carlos). 

Readers need to weigh this evidence against zero evidence that Joseph ever disputed, questioned, or rejected the New York Cumorah.   

Since there is no evidence that Oliver received revelation on the topic, we have to look at who his source might have been. The only one who could declare the name from revelation was Joseph--but that would be hard to conclude since Joseph himself didn't use that name.

More careful persuasion. The author wants readers to think past the sale; i.e., to think that revelation is the only way Oliver could have learned that the hill in New York was the Hill Cumorah of Mormon 6:6, which of course is untrue.  

This argument is like saying that Oliver never had a revelation that Joseph dictated the Book of Mormon. Of course, Oliver didn't need such a revelation--he experienced it.

We have evidence from credible witnesses that Oliver told people he had been inside the repository of Nephite records in that hill. Personal experience works as well as revelation.

There's another "think past the sale" persuasion argument here; i.e., the argument that only Joseph could declare the name from revelation. But we already saw evidence that Oliver heard about Cumorah from the divine messenger taking the plates to Cumorah. Oliver also met Moroni during the Three Witnesses experience. We don't have a record of what Moroni told the witnesses, but both Oliver and David Whitmer taught that the hill in New York was the Hill Cumorah of Mormon 6:6. 

And, of course, the lack of a written record of other revelation doesn't mean Oliver didn't receive other revelation, especially when we know he and Joseph had revelations they didn't record. JS-H 1:73. Plus, Oliver explained that he wrote the letters using documents then in their possession which we no longer have. 

IOW, we have evidence of Oliver receiving revelations for which we have no records, and of Oliver using records we no longer have. Yet this M2C author contradicts that evidence by citing... no evidence! 

So, you are incorrect that I am discounting the validity of everything that Oliver said. 

Finally, a logical, factual statement (assuming that's what the other author actually wrote). But, if the other author was referring to what Oliver wrote and said about Cumorah, then this M2C author is, actually, "discounting the validity of everything that Oliver said" on that topic.

I am saying that he didn't get the information from Moroni, and the case for getting it from Joseph is contradicted by Joseph's avoidance of the name when discussing the hill.

It's difficult to find a better example of pure persuasion vs. education than this. He's stating as fact both (i) his inference from a lack of evidence about Moroni (i.e., his own imagination) and (ii) his own rejection of the available facts (i.e., the evidence from when Joseph did use the name)! 

Yes, Oliver said it was Cumorah. No, that doesn't mean that Joseph did, and the evidence is that he didn't.

One effective persuasion technique is to combine something that looks logical, but is actually a fallacy, while characterizing a subjective opinion as a fact.

The first part of the sentence looks logical; i.e., it's true that Oliver saying it was Cumorah doesn't mean that Joseph did. But it also doesn't mean that Joseph did not say it was Cumorah! 

It is persuasion to make bare conclusions by simply citing the term "evidence," (especially after censoring relevant evidence).

It is education to provide the facts, in context, and then assess probabilities based on those facts.

In every other case of Oliver's writing about facts, he related either 
(i) his own personal experiences or 
(ii) what he learned from Joseph Smith--including in these eight historical essays both before and after Letter VII, including Moroni's visit, Joseph's first trip to the hill Cumorah, and the contents of Moroni's stone box. Those are facts from which we can draw one of two inferences:

1. Like everything else in these letters, Oliver learned the facts about Cumorah from Joseph Smith or his own personal experience.

OR

2. Unlike everything else in these letters, Oliver speculated about Cumorah and falsely claimed it was a fact.

Now, the second part of the sentence is pure opinion, not fact: "the evidence is that he didn't." 

There is no evidence that Joseph never called the hill Cumorah, as we saw above. 

But there is evidence that Joseph called it Cumorah before he even got the plates, that he and Oliver visited the depository in the hill. that the messenger took the Harmony plates to Cumorah, that he taught others that the hill was named Cumorah (Joseph Curtis).

In terms of publications, we have Letter VII, republished multiple times in official and unofficial Church publications, including the Times and Seasons.

Opposed to this evidence is the fact that the hill was left unnamed in a history compiled by Joseph's scribes that was intended for non-members (now JS-H). This history was published once in the Times and Seasons and it contained a serious mistake (substituting Nephi for Moroni), but the M2C advocates consider it so important that it outweighs all the other evidence.

Therefore, it seems to be a name that Oliver applied, and it was picked up. Citing Oliver on the topic does not establish that the hill was Cumorah, only that Oliver called it that by the time he wrote those letters (and I suspect earlier).

After censoring all the evidence that contradicts his theory, this M2C advocate seeks to persuade his readers that Oliver was a liar. 

I hope this has been a helpful exercise to see the difference between persuasion and education. You can do the same exercise whenever you read material published by the M2C citation cartel.
_____

Here are more examples of M2C in print. They all teach that Cumorah cannot be in New York.

M2C map of Mesoamerica

M2C book

M2C book

M2C book

M2C painting

M2C book