Solving Cumorah

Here's a pop quiz you can take or try on your friends.

Is Cumorah in North America or Central America?

A large majority of the LDS people I've asked say Cumorah is in New York. Probably 90% of Church members would say that. Usually, they wonder why I ask about Central America.

Typically, people say something such as, "It never made sense to me that Moroni carried the plates all the way to New York from Mexico, but I never thought much about it."

That's a tell for cognitive dissonance. People avoid thinking about the obvious problem created by Mesomania because it makes them uncomfortable.  

Plus, they don't realize what LDS scholars and educators are teaching about Cumorah and they're usually surprised when I tell them. 

Most members of the Church accept the New York Cumorah, but they also think the Church has endorsed a Central American setting for most of the events of the Book of Mormon. How could they not, the way Mesomania has permeated LDS culture? But this creates the uncomfortable cognitive dissonance that they mitigate by blocking the obvious questions from their minds. 

I should say, most active members just avoid thinking about it. People who do think about it do one of three things:

1. Reject the scholars and educators.

2. Reject the prophets and apostles.

3. Reject all of the above because of the confusion caused by the scholars.

It really is this basic and simple.

I wish everyone would reject the scholars and educators, but that's difficult if you're a student. And what you learn in Church education stays with you. If you're a missionary, you have to show people images of Central America when you introduce them to the Book of Mormon. 

It's unbelievable.

Unbelievable in the sense that missionaries actually have to use these images, and unbelievable in the sense that it is simply not believable to most investigators--especially those who actually read the book and don't find anything about jungles and Mayans and pyramids.

I hope no one rejects the prophets and apostles just because the scholars do. 

And I wish no one rejected all of the above, but unfortunately that may be the most common response to the conflict. It's what most investigators do, for sure. 

On the topic of Cumorah, I think 99% of Church members will choose to accept the prophets and apostles instead of LDS scholars once they learn there is a conflict between the two. 

Resolving the Cumorah question is really a matter of educating the Saints.

________________

Look at it this way. The New York Cumorah was declared by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery and corroborated by David Whitmer and Lucy Mack Smith. These were the only ones involved with the Book of Mormon before it was printed who commented on Cumorah. Later, every contemporary of Joseph Smith's who mentioned Cumorah agreed that it was in New York. Later prophets and apostles, including Joseph Fielding Smith, Marion G. Romney, and Mark E. Peterson, also said Cumorah was in New York.

On the other hand, not a single prophet or apostle has ever said Cumorah was in Mexico--or anywhere else other than New York.

Key point: the only ones who insist Cumorah is not in New York are LDS scholars and the educators who follow them.

It's a simple choice for each member of the Church: Do you follow the prophets and apostles, or do you follow the scholars?

________________

If you want to get a sense for the difference between prophets and apostles vs. scholars, read Letter VII. Then read this blog post. Compare the two approaches.

In Letter VII*, you have the Assistant President of the Church making a matter-of-fact observation that the final battles of the Jaredites and Nephites took place in the mile-wide valley west of the hill Cumorah in New York. He describes Mormon standing at the top of the hill surveying the carnage, etc. Then you have Joseph Smith including it in his own history and having it reprinted so every Latter-day Saint can read it. Simple, clear, authoritative, declarative.

In the scholarly analysis, you have no mention of prophets and apostles. Instead, you have a series of strained interpretations of the text and inferences designed to fit a preconceived narrative that supports the Mesoamerican setting. You have a claim that Cumorah must be "in a location prone to seismic and volcanic activity," even though the text never mentions volcanoes. I hope by now readers can see how the 30 criteria specified in that article are imaginary. Complex, confusing, speculative, and hypothetical.

For me, it's an easy decision.

How about you?

____________________

* People reading this blog know about Letter VII. (If you don't, go to this blog http://www.lettervii.com/ right now.)

 

Distinguishing between anti-Mormon and Mesoamerican proponents

Questions have arisen about my observation that there are two groups who seek to impeach (or cast doubt on) the credibility and reliability of Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith. I hope this post simplifies and clarifies the point.

The two groups who desire to impeach Joseph and Oliver are:

Group A. Those who believe Cumorah is not in New York.

Group B. Those who believe Cumorah does not exist.

Group A includes faithful LDS scholars, educators and members who believe Cumorah is not in New York because it is in Baja, Southern Mexico, Panama, Chile, Peru, or any of a number of other locations, so long as it is not in New York.

Group B includes detractors (anti-Mormons) who believe Cumorah is not in New York because because it doesn't exist; i.e., the Book of Mormon is pure fiction.*

The difference between these two groups is one of degree. Group A seeks to impeach Joseph, Oliver, David Whitmer, Lucy Mack Smith and others on the narrow issue of Cumorah being in New York. Group B also seeks to impeach Joseph, Oliver, etc. on the issue of Cumorah, but seeks to extend that impeachment to everything else they wrote about.

In my view, Group A is a precursor to Group B, meaning that if you accept Group A, it's much easier to also accept Group B.

This progression becomes clear in the following three syllogisms. The first one is the one I posted a few days ago to explain the Moroni's America point of view. The subsequent two show the similarities and differences between Group A and Group B.

Point of view that the Book of Mormon took place in North American (Moroni's America)

Premise 1:   If Joseph, Oliver, etc. are reliable and credible, then Cumorah is in New York.

Premise 2:   Joseph, Oliver, etc. are reliable and credible.

Conclusion:   Therefore, Cumorah is in New York.

Group A: Point of view that the Book of Mormon took place in Mesoamerica (or Baja, Panama, Peru, Chile, etc.)

Premise 1:   If Joseph, Oliver, etc. are reliable and credible, then Cumorah is in New York.

Premise 2:   Cumorah is not in New York.

Conclusion:   Therefore, Joseph, Oliver, etc. are not reliable and credible on this point.

Group B: Point of view that the Book of Mormon took place nowhere because it is fiction

Premise 1:   If Joseph, Oliver, etc. are reliable and credible, then Cumorah is in New York.

Premise 2:   Cumorah is not in New York.

Conclusion:   Therefore, Joseph, Oliver, etc. are not reliable and credible on anything.

You can see how, once someone successfully impeaches Joseph, Oliver, etc., on the issue of Cumorah, it becomes much easier to impeach them on other issues. This is particularly true when it is LDS scholars and educators themselves who are doing the impeaching. 

Imagine an LDS student who listens to his/her teachers insist Joseph and Oliver were wrong about Cumorah but right about everything else. 

Now imagine what it's like for an investigator to have the missionaries explain that Joseph and Oliver were wrong about Cumorah but right about everything else. It's bad enough for missionaries to have to explain why the Book of Mormon never mentions the jungles, leopards, and pyramids depicted in the artwork inside the copy the missionaries gave them, but imagine what investigators think when they learn that the missionaries themselves don't believe what Joseph and Oliver wrote about something as basic as Cumorah. 

I've had some LDS people tell me that students and investigators never ask about this because educators and missionaries don't emphasize it (or may not even realize this is what they're teaching when they refer to Central America or use Church-provided artwork). And I suppose that may be true. 

But it doesn't mean it's not a big issue.

Students and investigators know what the Internet is. They double-check what they're told. Anti-Mormon sites love to point out the discrepancy between what Joseph and Oliver (and other modern prophets and apostles) taught about the New York Hill Cumorah on one hand, and what LDS scholars and educators and missionaries teach on the other hand. 

If you're a student or investigator and you come across this obvious discrepancy, are you going to ask your teacher or missionaries about it? 

Probably not.

No one likes a confrontation. People like to be polite.

You'll choose to i) accept Joseph and Oliver and reject what your teachers and missionaries are telling you, ii) accept living with the cognitive dissonance it creates, or iii) veer toward Group B.

I hope everyone chooses option i), but realistically, we know a lot of people choose option ii). Sadly, option iii) seems to be the most popular choice.

Frequent readers of this blog know that this is exactly the problem that Joseph Fielding Smith warned would arise as a result of the two-Cumorahs theory. I won't revisit that now, but I hope LDS scholars, educators, students, missionaries and members generally will think more carefully about this serious issue. If you still believe Cumorah is not in New York, you need to come up with better reasons than anyone else has so far.

In the meantime, think of how powerful it would be if LDS scholars and educators would abandon their effort to impeach Joseph and Oliver. 

If they would simply accept the New York Cumorah, we would eliminate a major stumbling block for members and investigators. 

People could still choose to disbelieve Joseph and Oliver, but at least their disbelief wouldn't be a logical progression from what LDS scholars and educators are teaching.

Maybe at that point we could also clean up the misleading Book of Mormon art and eliminate the confusion readers get when they compare the text to the illustrations and wonder where all the jungles, pyramids, jaguars and Mayans are. 

:)   

As always, I welcome input and correction if I've misstated anyone's positions here.

_____________

* There are some faithful LDS who believe the Book of Mormon is an inspired parable, which would make it fiction, but many of them accept Joseph as a prophet anyway. I can't follow their reasoning so I don't know how it would fit in this analysis, if at all.

Joseph Smith Papers - New 1842 material

Just a head's up for those interested in Church history. The Joseph Smith Papers recently released their collection of 1842 documents, here: http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/the-papers/documents/1842.

Several of these I hadn't seen before, and they are very important for those interested in the Book of Mormon geography question.

For years, Mesoamerican advocates have claimed Joseph Smith i) wrote the anonymous articles in the Times and Seasons that linked the Book of Mormon to Central America and ii) wrote a letter to Dr. John Bernhisel of New York that suggested Joseph read Stephens' books about Central America and approved of those books as evidence of the Book of Mormon.

I think both of those claims are false.

I explained my reasoning and the detailed historical evidence in my books The Lost City of Zarahemla, Brought to Light, and The Editors: Joseph, William, and Don Carlos Smith. For those not familiar with those books, they discuss the detailed historical evidence that supports my assertions that:

1. Everything Joseph Smith taught about Book of Mormon geography related to a North American setting.

2. Joseph never connected Central America to the Book of Mormon.

3. Everything that links the Book of Mormon to Central America cannot be linked directly to Joseph Smith.

These new 1842 documents support the positions I took in those books.

I blogged about the detail here:

http://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/2016/11/1842-bernhisel-letters-released-by-jsp.html

and here:

http://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/2016/11/1842-benjamin-winchester-letter.html
________________

I don't know how many people still believe the Mesoamerican theory that is being promoted by Book of Mormon Central and a handful of scholars. I expect the number to continue to dwindle, for many reasons.

It's fascinating to watch as the Mesoamerican theory just keeps disintegrating before our eyes.

Why Central America?

A fundamental question to ask is, why look at Central America (Mesoamerica) in the first place?

Everyone who has read the Book of Mormon knows it never mentions volcanoes, jungles, pyramids, or even buildings made of stone. No mention of jade, jaguars, tapirs. There is literally nothing in the text that relates to Central America in any way (beyond generic mention of mountains, rivers, and rain, which describe pretty much everywhere on the planet). This is why including depictions of Mesoamerica in the missionary editions is so problematic; they raise expectations that the text does not meet.

So why look at Central America?

I've asked Mesoamerican proponents this question, and here are typical answers.

1. Because Joseph Smith said Zarahemla as in Guatemala. As we all know by now, this claim refers to the anonymous articles in the 1842 Times and Seasons. For all the reasons I've discussed, it is well established now that Joseph didn't write or edit those articles. Not even John Taylor or Wilford Woodruff thought he did. The long-held belief that he wrote those articles is a historical mistake, evident now thanks to the Joseph Smith Papers. Beyond that, though, LDS scholars and educators reject what Joseph and Oliver said about the Hill Cumorah being in New York, so why would they care what Joseph said about anything related to geography?

2. Because early Church members wrote about Central America. It's true that W.W. Phelps, the Pratt brothers, William Smith, John E. Page, Benjamin Winchester, and others wrote about Central America. But it's also true that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery did not. In fact, in the Wentworth letter, Joseph edited out Orson Pratt's hemispheric model to specify that the Lamanites are the Indians that live in this country (the U.S.). Early Church authors had two objectives. First, discoveries of exotic ruins discovered in Central America excited the public and these authors thought linking the ruins to the Book of Mormon would attract readers (and converts). Second, they sought to counter anti-Mormon arguments that Joseph had copied (or used) the work of other authors to create the Book of Mormon. These other authors were incorporating aspects of the Moundbuilder legends, and critics saw many similarities between these legends and the Book of Mormon. Today, we realize the text has important differences from those legends. Plus, we realize we would expect legends to reflect Book of Mormon history if the events took place in North America.

3. Because there are correspondences between Mayans and Book of Mormon people. LDS scholars and educators have compiled lists of what they call "correspondences" between their interpretations of the Book of Mormon text and features of ancient Mayan civilization. These correspondences require two elements: first, the assumption that Joseph mistranslated the text (e.g., by dictating horses instead of tapirs) and second, the assumption that these features are unique to the two cultures. However, these correspondences are features common in many human cultures. We could find similar correspondences between many ancient civilizations and the text.

4. Because the text describes an isthmus, which is only found in Central America. The Mesoamerican proponents assume three terms in the text are referring to the same geographical feature, and that it's an isthmus: small neck of land, narrow neck, and narrow neck of land. The also assume that the phrase "nearly surrounded by water" can only mean "nearly surrounded by seas." While those assumptions are not irrational, they are not required. There is an alternative assumption that disqualifies Central America; i.e., the assumption that different terms refer to different features.

5. Because the text doesn't describe North America. As we all know by now, the text describes North America quite well, once you assume different terms refer to different features.

6. Because Cumorah cannot be in New York. This has become perhaps the most fundamental reason for looking in Central America. The conclusion is based primarily on the work of two LDS authors: David A. Palmer and John Clark. I've previously posted comments on their work, but I'm going to re-post them soon with additional evidence. My conclusion is that their work has never been carefully evaluated before because it confirmed the biases of Mesoamerican proponents. Contrary to their conclusions, the hill in New York matches the description in the text.
__________________________

If anyone knows of another reason to look in Central America, I'd like to know about it.

Simplifying with 3 syllogisms

In my ongoing effort to simplify the discussion about Book of Mormon geography, I've been focusing on the Hill Cumorah, meaning the Cumorah of Mormon 6:6.*

Is it in New York or elsewhere?

This topic has been debated for decades, without resolution.** The debate focuses on different interpretations of 1) the text, 2) various statements by Joseph's contemporaries, and 3) real-world evidence. Each of these offers enough variety that scholars are in a neverending loop that is confusing to many people.

This confusion has obscured the fundamental premises of the two positions about Cumorah.

I propose three sets of syllogisms*** to simplify and clarify the discussion. Due to time constraints, I put them in a video, here. It's faster to talk through them than to write everything out in this blog.
________________________

Below is the first set of syllogisms (syllogism A) to give you an idea of the approach.

I frame the arguments in terms of  true/false and equals/not equals. In the video I explain how the syllogisms are constructed and applied. Each set begins with a premise both sides agree with. Premise 2 reflects the different assumptions made by each side, which logically lead to the conclusions each side reaches.

The syllogisms represent the views of two major groups. One, Mesoamerican, represents all those who agree the Hill Cumorah is not in New York. This includes Mesoamerica, Baja, Panama, Chile, and many other variations of non-New York models. The other, Moroni's America, represents all those who agree the Hill Cumorah is in New York. This includes Heartland, North American, and many other variations of New York based geographic models.

Based on published material, I think both groups will agree with each point I make in the syllogisms once they go through the explanations. I've tried to be fair and accurate, so I welcome additional ideas and corrections.

Important: The syllogisms do not produce a right or wrong conclusion. The designations of True and False are terms of logic, not a comment on the merits of the premises or conclusions. 

The objective is to clarify the assumptions and logic both sides use to reach their respective conclusions, not to say one is right and one is wrong.

For example, in syllogism A, Premise 1 shows that both sides agree that Joseph, Oliver, and other Church leaders claimed Cumorah was in New York.****

This is shown by "Joseph, Oliver, etc. = New York Cumorah."

In Premise 2, the Moroni's America approach assumes Joseph and Oliver were correct (Joseph, Oliver, etc. = true), which logically leads to the conclusion that Cumorah is in New York (New York Cumorah = true).

In Premise 2, the Mesoamerican approach assumes Cumorah is not in New York (New York Cumorah = false), which logically leads to the conclusion that Joseph and Oliver were incorrect (Joseph, Oliver, etc. = false).

Here's syllogism A.

Moroni’s America approach - syllogism A

Premise 1:   Joseph, Oliver, etc.  = New York Cumorah

Premise 2:   Joseph, Oliver, etc. = True

Conclusion:   New York Cumorah = True

_______________________________

Mesoamericanapproach - syllogism A

Premise 1:   Joseph, Oliver, etc.  = New York Cumorah

Premise 2:   New York Cumorah = False

Conclusion:   Joseph, Oliver, etc.  = False

_______________________________

Again, I emphasize that the syllogisms use true/false as terms of logic. They are not characterizing either approach as true or false.

The conclusion, "Joseph, Oliver, etc. = False," relates only to their statements about the New York Cumorah. The Mesoamerican literature uses softer terms such as speculating, changing their views, relying on tradition, etc. 

______________________________

Now that this syllogism makes the two positions clear, members of the Church are able to choose which one to accept without getting lost in the fog of rhetoric from both sides.

______________________________

The obvious next step is to examine Premise 2 for both sides. 

The Moroni's America approach assumes Joseph, Oliver, etc. were accurate (true in terms of logic) on the ground that they were accurate in everything else they wrote and said about the Book of Mormon. 

The Mesoamerican approach assumes the New York Hill Cumorah is incorrect (false in terms of logic) for two reasons. First, it is linked to the hemispheric model which both sides agree is false. Second, it is incompatible with the Mesoamerican model.

The subsequent syllogisms explain this logic.

syllogism B

Mesoamericanapproach

Premise 1:   Hemispheric model = False

Premise 2:   Hemispheric model = New York Cumorah

Conclusion:   New York Cumorah = False

syllogism B

Moroni’s America approach

Premise 1:   Hemispheric model = False

Premise 2:   Hemispheric model ≠ New York Cumorah 

Conclusion:   New York Cumorah = True

syllogism C

Mesoamericanapproach

Premise 1:   Meso model ≠ New York Cumorah

Premise 2:   Meso model = True

Conclusion:   New York Cumorah = False

syllogism C

Moroni’s America approach

Premise 1:   Meso model ≠ New York Cumorah

Premise 2:   New York Cumorah = True

Conclusion:   Meso model = False

_______________________________

Another factor in the Mesoamerican Premise 2 of syllogism A is extrinsic evidence, mainly from David A. Palmer and John Clark, that claims the archaeology does not support the New York Cumorah. I've addressed those before, concluding that their work is unpersuasive for several reasons. I'll discuss those in terms of syllogisms soon.    

_______________________________

*I have to clarify that we're talking about the Cumorah of Mormon 6:6 because some scholars and educators have confused the issue by means of the two-Cumorahs theory. They have concocted the idea that there are two hills named Cumorah. They claim the one in New York, where Joseph found the plates, was mistakenly named Cumorah by Joseph's contemporaries. Joseph supposedly adopted this false tradition. This is Moroni's hill. They claim the Cumorah of Mormon 6:6 is somewhere in southern Mexico. That's Mormon's hill. Any time you see a painting, map, or scholarly article that claims the Book of Mormon took place in Mesoamerica, you're seeing the two-Cumorahs theory, although the scholars and educators don't emphasize that point.

**LDS scholars and educators have claimed a consensus on this issue, but, as John Sorenson admitted in Mormon's Codex, "[t]here remain Latter-day Saints who insist that the final destruction of the Nephites took place in New York." As long as any such Latter-day Saints "remain," the issue is not resolved. Brother Sorenson finished his sentence by writing "but any such idea is manifestly absurd." That appears to be the view of many, if not most, current LDS scholars and educators.

***I used the true/false, equals/not equals form instead of the formal modus ponens and modus tollens form of syllogism. The result and the logic are the same, but it is less wordy.

If I restated Moroni's America syllogism A in modus ponens, it would read like this:

1. If Joseph, Oliver, etc. are reliable and credible, then Cumorah is in New York.

2. Joseph, Oliver, etc. are reliable and credible.

3. Therefore Cumorah is in New York.

 If I restated Mesoamerican syllogism A in modus tollens, it would read like this:

1. If Joseph, Oliver, etc. are reliable and credible, then Cumorah is in New York.

2. Cumorah is not in New York.

3. Therefore Joseph, Oliver, etc. are not reliable and credible.

****Remember, this is a simplified analysis; I realize some say Joseph never wrote the word Cumorah in his own handwriting, but he wrote little and never wrote the terms Bible, Moroni, or many other important terms. The historical record is clear that Oliver wrote and published Letter VII with the assistance of Joseph Smith, and that Joseph endorsed Letter VII multiple times. I don't think it's a credible argument to say Joseph never linked the New York hill to Cumorah.

Removing barnacles

This blog has evolved over the past year or so. 

It began as my notes about the things I was reading in the literature published by LDS scholars and educators on the topic of Book of Mormon geography and historicity. That progressed into more detailed analysis and comment.

But now I see that it is really about removing barnacles. 

And I suggest it's time to sail the ship of Book of Mormon geography into fresh water.

_________________

President Monson has used this metaphor in the past, so I'll copy his comments here and then explain how that metaphor describes what I'm trying to do here.

An inspiring lesson is learned from a “Viewpoint” article which appeared some time ago in the Church News. May I quote:

“To some it may seem strange to see ships of many nations loading and unloading cargo along the docks at Portland, Ore. That city is 100 miles from the ocean. Getting there involves a difficult, often turbulent passage over the bar guarding the Columbia River and a long trip up the Columbia and Willamette Rivers.

“But ship captains like to tie up at Portland. They know that as their ships travel the seas, a curious saltwater shellfish called a barnacle fastens itself to the hull and stays there for the rest of its life, surrounding itself with a rocklike shell. As more and more [of these] barnacles attach themselves, they increase the ship’s drag, slow its progress, decrease its efficiency.

“Periodically, the ship must go into dry dock, where with great effort the barnacles are chiseled or scraped off. It’s a difficult, expensive process that ties up the ship for days.

“But not if the captain can get his ship to Portland. Barnacles can’t live in fresh water. There, in the sweet, fresh waters of the Willamette or Columbia, the barnacles die and some fall away, while those that remain are easily removed. Thus, the ship returns to its task lightened and renewed.

“Sins are like those barnacles. Hardly anyone goes through life without picking up some. They increase the drag, slow our progress, decrease our efficiency. Unrepented, building up one on another, they can eventually sink us.

“In His infinite love and mercy, our Lord has provided a harbor where, through repentance, our barnacles fall away and are forgotten. With our souls lightened and renewed, we can go efficiently about our work and His.”3

_________________

Lest anyone infer that I'm comparing theories about Book of Mormon geography to sin, I am most definitely not. Instead, I'm using the metaphor of barnacles to show how clear and simple teachings can become encrusted over the years.

In Letter VII, Joseph and Oliver were as clear, precise, and specific as they could be when they declared the Hill Cumorah in New York is the location of the final battles of the Nephites and Jaredites. Although it was originally published in Kirtland in 1835, Joseph saw that Letter VII was republished in Nauvoo, Philadelphia, and England so everyone would know about it.

Joseph F. Smith republished it in the Improvement Era. Joseph Fielding Smith republished part of it in the 1930s and again in the 1950s. As recently as 1975 and 1978, two Apostles reaffirmed the teaching in General Conference.

The New York setting for Cumorah is simple and clean.

But like ships at sea, the question of Cumorah has become encrusted with barnacles of confusion, doubt, and contention. RLDS scholars determined that New York was too far from the Mesoamerican sites they identified as locations of Book of Mormon events. LDS scholars, over the objection of Joseph Fielding Smith, adopted the RLDS position and added even more confusion. Barnacles grew thicker. They reached the point of claiming Joseph, Oliver, David Whitmer, Lucy Mack Smith, and others were unreliable and untrustworthy as witnesses. 

As Joseph Fielding Smith warned, these barnacles have caused members of the Church (and investigators) to become confused. Members have become disturbed in their faith in the Book of Mormon when LDS scholars and educators teach that Joseph and Oliver were speculating and, worse, were wrong. 

As President Monson observed, "As more and more of these barnacles attach themselves, they increase the ship's drag, slow its progress, decrease its efficiency... But not if the captain can get his ship to Portland. Barnacles can't live in fresh water. There, in the sweet, fresh waters of the Willamette or Columbia, the barnacles die and some fall away, while those that remain are easily removed. Thus, the ship returns to its task lightened and renewed."

I repeat: it is time to sail the ship of Book of Mormon geography into fresh water.

Let's let those barnacles die off and fall away.

Then the ship can return to its task, lightened and renewed by the clarity and simplicity of what Joseph and Oliver taught in the first place.

I hope that some day, LDS scholars and educators will concur. I hope some day they will help scrape off whatever barnacles remain.

But as long as they resist, ignore them. As members of the Church, we are not bound by what they say. We can each make our own decisions about Letter VII and the teachings of the prophets and apostles on the location of Cumorah.

How to create some doctrine

I'm offering this post in the spirit of "let's get real." I'm observing historical reality here. I'm not criticizing anyone because, as I've emphasized for a while now, I don't blame anyone for Mesomania. That said, we can't fix mistakes if we don't identify and acknowledge them.

On my Mesomania blog, I've started a series looking at the techniques that are being used to perpetuate and promote the Meosamerican theory. Some of that is technical and maybe too detailed for most readers, so I wanted to call your attention to an important point I touched on there.

Let me start by observing that you can't make this stuff up.

For many years, Mesoamerican proponents have cited a 1993 fax from "the office of the First Presidency" to support their two-Cumorahs theory. You can still see it being used on FairMormon here. I included a copy of the fax at the end of this post.

This is FairMormon's quotation from the fax:

The Church emphasizes the doctrinal and historical value of the Book of Mormon, 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.
—Fax from the Office of the First Presidency to FARMS, April 12, 1993.

If you want to get more detail on the background, I put a link to the FairMormon page at the end of this post.
________________

In at least one commentary, Mesoamerican proponents represent this as a letter coming from the office of the First Presidency.

It turns out, this 1993 fax was sent by a secretary and consists of nothing more than a plagiarized rewording of a 1992 article in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism (EOM) titled "Cumorah." 

That article, in turn, was written by David A.Palmer, author of In Search of Cumorah. In Search of Cumorah is an extensive justification for the two-Cumorah theory that doesn't even mention Letter VII, let alone discuss it. It's an awesome piece of work that I've discussed on this blog before and is featured in one of my videos. Plus, it is cited repeatedly in Meso literature, including in An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, Mormon's Codex and Traditions of the Fathers, as the go-to explanation for why Cumorah cannot be in New York and is actually in southern Mexico. (Well, one of the go-to references; the others are the articles by John Clark that I've also addressed).

You can see the EOM article on Cumorah here: http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Cumorah
or here: http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/EoM/id/4391/show/5649.

Now, compare the language of the fax to the article:

Fax: 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.

Palmer: Because the New York site does not readily fit the Book of Mormon description of Book of Mormon geography, some Latter-day Saints have looked for other possible explanations and locations, including Mesoamerica. Although some have identified possible sites that may seem to fit better (Palmer), there are no conclusive connections between the Book of Mormon text and any specific site that has been suggested.

The "fax" is just a plagiarized rewording of Palmer's article, which predates the fax. 

Here is what the Palmer article looks like when it is edited to become the fax from the First Presidency. 

You just have to move Palmer's first sentence to the middle, change and delete a few words, and voila, you've created an important announcement from the First Presidency that refutes Letter VII and endorses the two-Cumorah theory!

Even better: you have the First Presidency endorsing David Palmer's theory in Palmer's own words!

By citing the "office of the First Presidency," FairMormon implies that Ezra Taft Benson, Gordon B. Hinckley, and Thomas S. Monson reworded Palmer's article and faxed it to FARMS. 

While it's possible the First Presidency reworded Palmer's article and faxed it to FARMS to refute Letter VII and support the two-Cumorahs theory, does anyone really believe that? 

[NOTE: If it turns out that the First Presidency actually did plagiarize the EOM article and send it to FARMS for this purpose, I'll readily edit this post to so indicate here.]
_______________

I've been criticized by some LDS scholars for using the term "citation cartel," but this is such a beautiful example I'll go through it step-by-step. 

1. David Palmer writes his book justifying the two-Cumorahs theory. 
2. His book is cited by several Mesoamerican proponents, including some of the most prominent books that promote the Mesoamerican theory, such as An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon (Deseret Book and FARMS), Mormon's Codex (Deseret Book and the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship) and Traditions of the Fathers (Greg Kofford Books).
3. Palmer he gets the job to write the Cumorah entry in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, in which he cites his own book as authority. 
4. Then a staffer from in the Office of the First Presidency plagiarizes the article by rewording it a little and faxes it to FARMS. 
5. FARMS then uses it to sow doubt about the New York Cumorah. 
6. FairMormon puts it on their web page to give an implied endorsement by the First Presidency of the two-Cumorah theory.
7. All the usual suspects endorse the Palmer material, including FARMS, FairMormon, BMAF, and Book of Mormon Central.

It's a wonder to behold how the citation cartel works, for sure, but this is what passes for LDS scholarship about Mesoamerica.

As far as I can tell, not a single LDS scholar or educator has objected to this methodology before. 

It is this behavior that led me to the only explanation that makes sense to me: the psychology of Mesomania.

Also known as confirmation bias.
_________________

The fax:

  Link to FairMormon for more background:
http://en.fairmormon.org/Question:_Did_the_First_Presidency_identify_the_New_York_%22Hill_Cumorah%22_as_the_site_of_the_Nephite_final_battles%3F