Naval and Church history in the Biblical style

Those who follow my twitter account know I've retweeted Naval's posts from time to time. Here's an awesome summary of his recent podcast (along with his recent tweetstorm):

https://twitter.com/SMBrinson/status/1139072845680562176

You can download .pdf, .mobi and .epub versions. Highly recommended. I made notes of other aspects of the podcast that aren't in here, but this summary captures most of the key points.

Although a lot of the material involves business topics, the points apply to other aspects of life, including the topic of this blog. For example:

People don’t like going back when they’re 2/3rds of the way from the mountain peak, but if there’s a dead end ahead, that’s the right thing to do.

M2C has hit a dead end. It's time to turn back to what the prophets have taught.

If you want to see who rules over you, see who you're not allowed to criticize.

Try criticizing the M2C citation cartel and see what happens.

People who are easily outraged tend to be the stupidest and less educated people on social media. They're foot soldiers for a mob, and mob mentality rules their behavior. No independent thinking, just blind mob rule. 

The outrage from the employees of Book of Mormon Central says it all.
_____

Switching gears...

Here's a fun summary of Church history, written in the biblical style, sent by reader:

5 Now in the year 1834, a certain man was in Kirtland, Oliver Cowdery, twenty and eight years old.

6 When Joseph saw him and knew that he had been now a long time with him, he saith unto him, take up thy pen, and write.

7 And immediately the man did write of the history of the restoration and the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.

8 ¶ The Scholars therefore said of him that wrote, it is not lawful for thee to contradict our theory.

9 But he answered them, saying, He that translated, the same said unto me, Take up thy pen and write.

10 Then asked they of him, What man is that which said unto him, Take up thy pen and write?

11 But that which he had written told the Scholars that it was Joseph, which had asked him to write.

12 And therefore did the Scholars persecute Joseph and Oliver, and sought to belittle them, because they had written these things contrary to their theories.

Catching up

We've been traveling, but here are some misc. items to discuss.

1. Interpreter. Some people wonder why I'm critical of the Interpreter.

The "Interpreters"

First, the very name reflects the arrogance of the intellectuals behind the Interpreter. In Jesus' day, the scribes and pharisees claimed the right to interpret the scriptures for everyone. They were the "Interpreters." Today, those involved with the Interpreter (and their interlocking affiliates FairMormon and Book of Mormon Central) claim that right. They even claim they are above criticism because they have been hired by the prophets to guide the Church. They brag about their "close relationships" with the Brethren, their financial support, and their overall influence over employees at BYU, CES, and COB (Church Office Building).

In my view, we don't need experts to tell us what the scriptures say or what the Brethren teach.

Especially we don't need experts who tell us that if the prophets/scriptures disagree with their scholarly theories, we should reject the prophets/scriptures and follow the intellectuals.

Second, I've always said that some of what they publish is useful and well done. I can't give a percentage, obviously; you have to decide for yourself on a case-by-case basis.

Mainly because of their uniform and adamant belief in M2C (and the Mesomania of their publishers, editors, peer-reviewers, etc.), many of the articles in the Interpreter are pure propaganda. Other articles merely reflect the M2C groupthink. Although they claim their articles are peer-reviewed, I think many of them are mere peer-approved; i.e., they are carefully screened to sustain and accommodate M2C.

Third, I've reviewed only a few of their articles, usually in response to questions people pose. None of this is personal. I don't care about who wrote an article; I assume every author is awesome, faithful, smart, dedicated, has pure motives, etc. But none of that has anything to do with promoting a specific agenda.

You can see my reviews here:

http://interpreterpeerreviews.blogspot.com/
_____

2. Zelph. Donald Q. Canon's article on Zelph that I discussed on this blog a while back was a good overview of the accounts we have from Church history. I've discussed Zelph a few times. Here's one of the articles that mentioned it:

http://bookofmormonwars.blogspot.com/2018/09/the-saints-mole-strikes-again.html

The original link to Brother Canon's article at BYU is broken; i.e., the article was removed.

Thanks to the wayback machine, it's still available here:

https://web.archive.org/web/20180104055710/http://emp.byui.edu/marrottr/341folder/zelph%20revisited%20cannon.html

If anyone wants a copy, email me at lostzarahemla@gmail.com and you'll get it by reply email.
_____

3. Anonymous juveniles on the Internet. Apparently there are some kids playing on keyboards who write nonsense about some of my blogs and the North American setting (which I call Moroni's America for short). I trust readers to recognize the logical and factual fallacies.

There are also some fine young scholars who write similar nonsense on assignment from their M2C employers, but that's what we expect of employees. Apple, Google, Ford, General Mills--all these companies hire PR people to defend and promote their corporate ideas. Book of Mormon Central also hires PR people to defend and promote its M2C dogma. Nothing to be surprised about. Nothing to respond to. It's just PR.

A high percentage of my posts are responses to questions people ask. If anyone has a serious question, comment, or criticism, everyone knows they can email me at lostzarahemla@gmail.com and I'll respond either personally or on this blog, based on what the individual requests.

That's all for now.

:)

An M2C blog tells the truth

"Many BYU professors, even on the religion faculty, do not believe the Book of Mormon is historical."

Kirk Magleby, Executive Director, Book of Mormon Central

http://bookofmormonresources.blogspot.com/2019/06/auditing-book-of-mormon-geography-models.html

I'm going to address that statement in a moment, but first I want to discuss the blog that made the statement.
_____

And before I do that, you might be interested in my post about yet another Kno-Why, here:

http://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2019/06/knowhy-519-abridgment.html
_____

Back on topic.

The best M2C blog is http://bookofmormonresources.blogspot.com/. If you want to see some of the rationales for M2C, go here. The list of contributors includes "Captain Kirk," aka Kirk Magleby, who posts most of the articles.

Kirk is one of the nicest, smartest people you'll ever meet. He's awesome. On this blog we don't use names because we don't want to jeopardize academic reputations, etc., but Kirk is quite open about his views and is rightly proud of his work. I'm sure he does not mind me discussing his posts from time to time. He knows I think he has a bad case of Mesomania. You'll see the symptoms in nearly every post on the blog.

For example, he has a recent post claiming that "many waters" refers to salt water, not large bodies of water, because he wants to exclude the Great Lakes from consideration in Book of Mormon geography.

He writes: "Many waters" is one of the few terms actually defined by the editor in the text itself. 1 Nephi 17:5 is explicit. Irreantum or many waters refers to the sea.

The logical fallacy is obvious. Of the 11 instances of the phrase in the text, 9 refer to oceans. The other 2 refer to the area around Cumorah, so Kirk infers that the phrase "many waters" requires salt water.

Every time we see the phrase "many waters" in the text it likely refers to a salt water ocean. This means we should look for hill Ramah/Cumorah seaside.

Here's what the verse actually says:

1 Nephi 17:5 ... And we beheld the sea, which we called Irreantum, which, being interpreted, is many waters.

Sea=Irreantum=many waters.

According to Strong's Concordance, the Hebrew word for sea, yam, is used in the Bible to refer to the Mediterranean Sea, the Red Sea, The Dead Sea, the Sea of Galilee, a mighty river (the Nile) and the great basin in temple-court. The first three are bodies of salt water, but the last three are fresh water.

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/3220.htm

IOW, bodies of water designated as "sea" have one thing in common: a large quantity of water. Salt is irrelevant. The Great Lakes fit the description nicely.
_____

Kirk's analysis here is the kind of logical fallacy that I have to deal with every time I read material published by the M2C citation cartel. 

But it's also the kind of logical fallacy that explains why, as Kirk says, "many BYU professors, even on the religion faculty, do not believe the Book of Mormon is historical."

Trust me on this: Kirk would know.

He has BYU professors working with him at Book of Mormon Central.

BYU fantasy map of the
Book of Mormon

I've been saying for some time now that, without a course correction, members of the Church will eventually conclude that the Book of Mormon is not historical.

We've seen in The Next Mormons that already, 50% of Millennials in the Church don't believe the Book of Mormon is a real history. That statistic surprises me.

I'm surprised even 1/2 of Millennials believe the Book of Mormon is a real history because they're taught to understand the text by referring to fantasy maps developed by CES and BYU.

If I had been taught this fantasy map in Seminary and at BYU, I doubt I would believe the Book of Mormon is a real history.

If I knew my Religion professors at BYU didn't believe it was a real history, I'm pretty confident I would adopt their opinions.

After all, I believed M2C itself when I was a BYU student (and for decades afterwards).
_____

Why would many BYU professors disbelieve in the historicity of the Book of Mormon?

It's simple.

They believed M2C.

By definition M2C is based on the premise that the prophets are wrong about the New York Cumorah. Such a teaching is a sandy foundation that will, eventually, collapse.

3 Nephi 14:24 Therefore, whoso heareth these sayings of mine [and the sayings of the prophets] and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, who built his house upon a rock—

25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not, for it was founded upon a rock.

26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine and doeth them not shall be likened unto a foolish man, who built his house upon the sand—

27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell, and great was the fall of it.

Being built on a foundation of sand, M2C is destined to implode. Already, for many people, M2C has imploded, and when it does, if there are no alternative explanations for the setting of the Book of Mormon, people naturally lose faith in the historicity of the Book of Mormon.
_____

Now, what is the solution?

It seems obvious to me that the only solution is to return to the teachings of the prophets, including the teaching of the New York Cumorah.

Those who adhere to the teachings of the prophets are more likely to retain faith in the Book of Mormon than are those who reject the teachings of the prophets.

Most readers of this blog are faithful LDS (including employees at BYU, CES, and COB) who still believe the teachings of the prophets, both about the New York Cumorah and the overall divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

My blogs have had about 350,000 page views directly, plus views from other sites that repost them, such as Amazon, moronisamerica.com, Facebook, etc. But that's a small number compared with the millions of members of the Church and the billions of people on earth.

Each of us has a social circle that allows us to discuss these issues from time to time.

Now is the time to do so.
_____

The blog post I quoted at the outset proposes that the solution is conducting an "audit" of the various Book of Mormon geography models.

In a way, that makes sense.

But the audit tool, at least as presented in the blog, includes assumptions that drive the results toward M2C. For example, it treats "land northward" and "land southward" as proper nouns instead of relative terms.

It's the spreadsheet equivalent to BYU's "abstract" fantasy map that reflects the M2C interpretation of the text.

Kirk wrote, "With a robust audit procedure in place, I now predict rapid progress."

I predict that, because of built-in assumptions,

(i) the BYU fantasy map will get a 100% score, along with Kirk's own M2C map, and

(ii) any map based on the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah will fail.

And exactly no one will change their minds as a result. 

Certainly no BYU professors who have already rejected M2C will suddenly believe M2C just because the M2C intellectuals developed a self-serving audit tool to confirm their biases.

BMC employees still doing their job

BMC employees have been having fun on the Internet lately.

The M2C intellectuals who run Book of Mormon Central (and the rest of the M2C citation cartel) know the New York Cumorah is the only specific site identified by the prophets, but they teach the youth that the prophets are wrong.

It's the approach Korihor exemplified:

The Mayan Corihor,
as depicted by BMC

14 Behold, these things which ye call prophecies, which ye say are handed down by holy prophets [such as Letter VII], behold, they are foolish traditions of your fathers.

15 How do ye know of their surety? Behold, ye cannot know of things which ye do not see; therefore ye cannot know that there shall be a Christ. [and ye cannot know that Cumorah is in New York]

16 Ye look forward and say that ye see a remission of your sins. But behold, it is the effect of a frenzied mind; and this derangement of your minds comes because of the traditions of your fathers, which lead you away into a belief of things which are not so.

(Alma 30:14–16)

Then the M2C intellectuals hire fine young scholars to promote this message to their peers. They want the youth of the Church to trust them, the intellectuals, more than the prophets.

Whether these employees actually believe that message or not doesn't matter. They're doing their job, spreading the dogma of their employers because too many members of the Church (i) trust the intellectuals over the prophets and/or (ii) don't even know what the prophets have taught.

They are clever.

These intellectuals have successfully confused members of the Church by conflating two separate teachings of the prophets.

1. The Hill Cumorah is in New York.
2. We don't know for sure where the rest of the events took place.
_____

People often ask me for examples of what's going on with M2C. All anyone has to do is read the material published by the M2C citation cartel to see plenty of examples, but here's a recent example that was brought to my attention.

It's a social media comment by an employee of Book of Mormon Central (BMC) whom I won't name here because he/she is a wonderful individual who could still change his/her mind. The comment is not directed at this blog, but BMC employees have long made these same arguments, including in comments on this blog. (These employees make these same old arguments everywhere they can.)

The comment was directed at someone who still believes the prophets' teaching that the Hill Cumorah is in New York. Notice how the argument entirely avoids that issue. Instead, it conflates two unrelated issues. Original in blue, my comments in red.


However, the problem is you are teaching people that some things are doctrine, when it's not, and other prophets have said otherwise. Prophets have said the Promised Land is the entire Americas. Prophets have said the Land of Liberty is the entire Americas. Prophets have said there are Lamanites in Latin America. It's not healthy to tell your followers selective quotes as if they are doctrine. Your followers only get one perspective.

Readers of this blog recognize this straw-man tactic and the irony it contains. It's a straw man because it creates a false target to attack; i.e., it creates someone who does not acknowledge the teachings of the prophets about the land of liberty.

On this blog, we recognize and embrace all the persistent and consistent teachings of the prophets, including the ones alluded to in this paragraph. 

We often refer people to the citation cartel to see what they teach. We're happy for people to see all perspectives because we want people to make informed decisions.

The irony comes because this employee fully realizes his bosses resort to censorship to keep M2C on life support; everyone who reads Book of Mormon Central understands why so many people refer to it as Book of Mormon Central America. It's all M2C, all the time. 

But yes, we have opinions. I have the opinion it happened in Central America. You have the opinion that it happened in the Heartland. President Howard W. Hunter had the opinion that it happened in Mesoamerica. Other prophets had opinion about Hill Cumorah. Joseph Smith had opinions about it happening in both North and Central America.

Here is the core M2C obfuscation. No prophet (or apostle, whom I consider prophets) has ever repudiated the New York Cumorah. Those who have addressed non-Cumorah locations have observed that we don't know for sure where the other events took place. Even Orson Pratt, the most outspoken advocate of a hemispheric model, admitted that he was speculating about everything except Cumorah.

M2C intellectuals conflate these two issues because of their own theories; i.e., they insist that Cumorah cannot be in New York because it is "too far" from Mesoamerica. Of course, that's merely circular reasoning, but these employees have heard it so often they don't even recognize the logical fallacy. Those who recognize the fallacy (the management of the M2C citation cartel) nevertheless embrace the fallacy for various reasons, including their own sunk costs, reputations, etc.

The M2C intellectuals always like to claim Joseph Smith "had opinions" about Central America, which is purely their mind-reading because the only specific evidence of what Joseph thought about the topic is Letter VII and the Wentworth letter, which repudiated Orson Pratt's Central American theory. Instead, the intellectuals rely on anonymous articles in the Times and Seasons and the phony claim that Joseph wrote the 1841 Bernhisel letter.  


The Church's recognizes these are all opinions. The Church's official geography statement says it's not revealed where it happened. The only thing that is revealed is that it happened somewhere in the Americas. The First Presidency specifically asked us to not say that our opinions are supported by prophets, yet FIRM keeps saying their opinions are supported by prophets. And you say that if scholars don't agree with them, then they are essentially denying what the prophets have said. This idea is simply untrue. Prophets have supported Mesoamerica. Prophets have supported South America. Prophets have supported North America.

Notice also how this BMC employee continues to avoid the issue of Cumorah. To date, the Church has never once said the New York Cumorah is a matter of opinion. Presumably, this employee is referring to the anonymous Gospel Topics Essay on Book of Mormon Geography that was written with materials from the M2C citation cartel and has already been revised once because of obvious errors (at least one of which was still in the essay as of a few days ago, although today the url to the essay no longer works). 

The original version used a poorly edited General Conference quotation from President Ivins that was taken from the citation cartel. When I pointed out that President Ivins, just a year before, gave an entire address in General Conference about the New York Cumorah, did the anonymous authors correct the essay? 

Of course not. Instead, they just removed the Ivins quotation altogether. 

IOW, rather than correct the essay to include President Ivins' specific teachings about the New York Cumorah, which put the original essay's quotation in context, the authors censored President Ivins altogether so members of the Church would not learn what President Ivins actually taught about Cumorah. 

This is exactly the type of censorship we see from the citation cartel every day. 

You can see the before/after versions of the essay here:
https://presidentnelsonspeaks.blogspot.com/2019/02/revisions-to-gospel-topics-essay-on.html

To make things even worse, the BMC employee gets the point of the essay backwards. The essay asks people to avoid claiming their views are supported by the Church or the prophets. That's exactly what the M2C citation cartel does! They claim Church support on most of their web pages, at their conferences, etc. 

By contrast, FIRM never claims Church support, but instead seeks to support the prophets.  

[Note: FIRM is an organization that educates people about the New York Cumorah and other topics. I'm not involved with managing FIRM, but when BMC and others attack them, I sometimes point out the BMC tactics.]


If FIRM quite saying their opinions were doctrine, then things would be better. But the fact that you make your opinions doctrine, despite even the Church suggesting otherwise, creates a divide, where anyone who doesn't agree with your opinion/doctrine, is the bad guy. In my experience, the scholars I work with recognize it's all opinion.

The last line is an all-time classic, right up there with the claim of another BMC employee that the BMC scholars have been hired by the prophets to guide the Church. 

"The scholars I work with recognize it's all opinion." 

IOW, my bosses tell me what to say.

This is the classic rationale for rejecting the teachings of the prophets. Intellectuals have been making that argument in every age, as we see throughout the scriptures. Whenever they disagree with the prophets, they always say the prophets are wrong. 

E.g., Korihor.

The tragic thing is, the M2C intellectuals and their employees are teaching the youth of the Church, using the New York Cumorah as an example, that everything the prophets teach is opinion.

Remember: The M2C intellectuals who run Book of Mormon Central (and the rest of the M2C citation cartel) know the New York Cumorah is the only specific site identified by the prophets, but they teach the youth that the prophets are wrong.

Clarity vs confusion - George Q. Cannon

My blog statistics tell me I have 122 draft posts I've forgotten about. That's more than the days left before I start a new assignment, so I probably won't post all of them.

Here's one that is timely, though. It was part of a series about "clarity vs confusion" that illustrates this table:

Teachings about Book of Mormon geography
Clarity	Confusion
Teachings of prophets	Teachings of M2C intellectuals
1. We know the Hill Cumorah of Mormon 6:6 is in western New York state.	1. Church leaders who taught about the Hill Cumorah in New York were merely expressing their opinions and were wrong.
2. We don’t yet know for sure where the other events in the Book of Mormon took place.	2. The prophets don’t know where any of the events in the Book of Mormon took place.
	3. Qualified modern scholars know more about the Book of Mormon geography than Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery did.

By now, readers here know that the M2C intellectuals and their employees and followers conflate (or mix together) the two clarity teachings so they can create the three confusion teachings.

The M2C intellectuals want people to be confused about these two teachings because they have repudiated the teachings of the prophets about the Hill Cumorah, and they want people to believe that the prophets have never taught where the Hill Cumorah is.

Well, they have to admit that every prophet and apostle who has ever formally addressed the issue has confirmed that Cumorah is in New York, but they say all these prophets and apostles were wrong.

When they confuse members of the Church by conflating (or mixing up) teachings #1 and #2, the M2C intellectuals and their employees and followers can evade accountability for repudiating the teachings of the prophets.

Their treatment of President George Q. Cannon is a good example.
_____

FairMormon, a member of the M2C citation cartel, provides a list of statements about Book of Mormon geography from the 19th Century.

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/Statements/Nineteenth_century

They just omit statements they don't want people to know about.

For President Cannon, FairMormon provides an editorial attributed to him that focuses on point 2 above. You can see it at this link. Below in this post I inserted the entire statement, including the parts FairMormon censored.

What FairMormon doesn't tell readers is that President Cannon made a very specific statement about Cumorah in a book he wrote about the Prophet Joseph Smith.

https://archive.org/details/lifeofjosephsmit00cann/page/44

During his description of Joseph's visit to the hill Cumorah in New York, President Cannon explained what Moroni taught Joseph:

Many precious truths the angel now imparted to him: telling him that he, Moroni, while yet living, had hidden up the plates in the hill, four centuries after Christ, to await their coming forth in the destined hour of God's mercy to man; that he, Moroni, was the son of Mormon, a prophet of the ancient Nephites, who had once dwelt on this land; that to the Nephites this sacred hill was known as Cumorah, and to the Jaredites (who had still more anciently inhabited this continent), as Ramah; and much more did he impart to Joseph concerning the mysteries of the past, and the future purposes of Almighty God in the redemption of fallen mankind.

Add this to the long list of teachings of the prophets that the M2C intellectuals reject.

For everyone except M2C believers, this language is as clear as word can be. Moroni told Joseph Smith that the hill in which he, Moroni, buried the plates was the same hill that the Jaredites called Cumorah and the Jaredites called Ramah.

But M2C believers don't want to understand what President Canon said because they've been trained to believe the prophets are wrong. 

(Sadly, the missionaries currently serving in Palmyra also don't know what President Canon said, a topic of an upcoming post.)

When M2C believers do actually read these words and realize their significance, they see the phrase "it is my opinion that" written in otherwise invisible ink throughout. That invisible ink entitles them to disbelieve President Canon.
_____

Look at another teaching of President Cannon's that FairlyMormon omits:

George Q. Cannon recognized the power of early impressions:  "If our children be permitted to conceive incorrect ideas concerning the location of the lands inhabited by the Nephites and the sites of their cities, it will be difficult to eradicate them." "Editorial," Juvenile Instructor, 22/4 (1887): p. 221

Here's an excerpt from a post on this topic that I made a year ago:

http://bookofmormonwars.blogspot.com/2018/02/getting-real-about-cumorah-part-5c.html

Way back in 1890, President George Q. Cannon observed in the Juvenile Instructor that the First Presidency has never published or approved of a map of Book of Mormon geography because there are so many uncertainties.

From 1880 to his death in 1901, President Cannon served as First Counselor to Presidents John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, so he was well qualified to express the views of the First Presidency. He served with Joseph F. Smith, who was Second Counselor from 1880 until he became President of the Church in 1901. Joseph F. Smith was editor of the Improvement Era during this time.

In 1899, nine years after President Cannon published his comment about Book of Mormon geography, President Joseph F. Smith published Letter VII in the Improvement Era. This demonstrates that, from the perspective of the First Presidency, teaching that Cumorah is in New York is consistent with neutrality on the rest of Book of Mormon geography. That position has also been explained by other prophets.

You can read Letter VII in the 1899 Improvement Era here:

https://archive.org/stream/improvementera29unse#page/656/mode/2up

_____

You can read President Cannon's complete quotation here:

https://archive.org/details/juvenileinstruct251geor/page/18

Below I provide it with the parts FairlyMormon omitted in red.

There is a tendency, strongly manifested at the present time among some of the brethren, to study the geography of the Book of Mormon. We have heard of numerous lectures, illustrated by suggestive maps, being delivered on this subject during the present winter, generally under the auspices of the Improvement Societies and Sunday Schools. We are greatly pleased to notice the increasing interest taken by the Saints in this holy book. It contains the fullness of the gospel of Christ, and those who prayerfully study its sacred pages can be made wise unto salvation. It also unravels many mysteries connected with the history of the ancient world, more particularly of this western continent, mysteries which no other book explains. But valuable as is the Book of Mormon both in doctrine and history, yet it is possible to put this sacred volume to uses for which it was never intended, uses which are detrimental rather than advantageous to the cause of truth, and consequently to the work of the Lord.

We have been led to these thoughts from the fact that the brethren who lecture on the lands of the Nephites or the geography of the Book of Mormon are not united in their conclusions. No two of them, so far as we have learned, are agreed on all points, and in many cases the variations amount to tens of thousands of miles. These differences of views lead to discussion, contention and perplexity; and we believe more confusion is caused by these divergences than good is done by the truths elicited.

How is it that there is such a variety of ideas of this subject? Simply because the Book of Mormon is not a geographical primer. It was not written to teach geographical truths. What is told us of the situation of the various lands or cities of the ancient Jaredites, Nephites and Lamanites is usually simply an incidental remark connected with the doctrinal or historical portions of the work and almost invariably only extends to a statement of the relative position of some land or city to contiguous or surrounding places and nowhere gives us the exact situation or boundaries so that it can be definitely located without fear of error.

It must be remembered that geography as a science, like chronology and other branches of education, was not understood nor taught after the manner or by the methods of the moderns. It could nto be amonst those peoples who were not acquainted with the size and form of the earth, as was the case with most of the nations of antiquity, thought not with the Nephites. Their seers and prophets appear to have received divine light on this subject.

The First Presidency has often been asked to prepare some suggestive map illustrative of Nephite geography, but have never consented to do so. Nor are we acquainted with any of the Twelve Apostles who would undertake such a task. The reason is, that without further information they are not prepared even to suggest. The word of the Lord or the translation of other ancient records is required to clear up many points now so obscure that, as we have said, no two original investigators agree with regard to them. When, as is the case, one student places a certain city at the Isthmus of Panama, a second in Venexuela, and a third in Guiana or northern Brazil, it is obvious that suggestive maps prepared by these brethren would confuse instead of enlighten; and they cannot be thus far apart in this one important point without relative positions being also widely separate.

For these reasons we have strong objections to the introduction of maps and their circulation among our people which profess to give the location of the Nephite cities and settlements. As we have said, they have a tendency to mislead, instead of enlighten, and they give rise to discussions which will lead to division of sentiment and be very unprofitable. We see no necessity for maps of this character, because, at least, much would be left to the imagination of those who prepare them; and we hope that there will be no attempt made to introduce them or give them general circulation. Of course, there can be no harm result from the study of the geography of this continent at the time it was settled by the Nephites, drawing all the information possible from the record which has been translated for our benefit. But beyond this we do not think it necessary, at the present time, to go, because it is plain to be seen, we think, that evils may result therefrom.

_____

Bio (from wikipedia): Cannon was born in Liverpool, England, to George Cannon and Ann Quayle, the eldest of six children. His mother and father were from Peel on the Isle of Man. His father's sister, Leonora Cannon, had married future Latter Day Saint apostle John Taylor and was baptized in 1836. News reached the elder George Cannon and four years later, when Taylor came to Liverpool, the entire Cannon family was baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints; George Q. Cannon was 13 years old at the time. Cannon's siblings were Mary Alice Cannon (Lambert), Ann Cannon (Woodbury), Angus M. Cannon, David H. Cannon, and Leonora Cannon (Gardner). In 1842, the Cannon family set sail for the United States to join with the church in Nauvoo, Illinois. On the voyage over the Atlantic Ocean, Cannon's mother died. The motherless family arrived safely in Nauvoo in the spring of 1843. George Sr. married Mary Edwards in 1844 and had another daughter, Elizabeth Cannon (Piggott).

In Nauvoo, Cannon's father sent him to live with his uncle and aunt, John and Leonora Taylor. Cannon worked in the printing office of Times and Seasons and the Nauvoo Neighbor for Taylor, who was an editor of both periodicals. In June 1844, Taylor accompanied Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith, and Willard Richards and others to Carthage Jail. There, Joseph and Hyrum were killed, and Taylor sustained serious bullet wounds. Cannon tended the printing affairs while Taylor recovered. This training would serve him well in later life.[3] Cannon's father died in 1845.

In 1846, Taylor traveled to England to organize the affairs of the church after Smith's death. Meanwhile, Cannon accompanied Taylor's wife and family as they moved to Winter Quarters, Nebraska. When Taylor returned, Cannon traveled with the entire Taylor family to the Salt Lake Valley, arriving in October 1847.

Diamond truth from Joseph Smith

Consider some of the real-world ramifications of the neurochemistry behind M2C.

Our M2C intellectuals, including the employees of Book of Mormon Central, portray Joseph Smith and the other prophets as confused speculators who misled the Church by teaching that the Hill Cumorah of Mormon 6:6 is in New York.

They say Joseph changed his mind about the Hill Cumorah when he read a popular Mesoamerican travel book in 1841, even though he specifically linked it to New York in 1842 (D&C 128:20).

They say Joseph made errors in the Wentworth letter that were so serious (because they contradicted M2C), that they had to censor that part of the letter in the chapter on the Wentworth letter in the Joseph Smith manual.

And that's all fine. Their brains generate positive neurochemistry every time they repeat these beliefs. Nothing wrong with that.

But not everyone gets positive biochemical feedback when they read the M2C material.
_____

Here's what Joseph himself wrote:

I combat the errors of ages; I meet the violence of mobs; I cope with illegal proceedings from executive authority; I cut the Gordian knot of powers; and I solve mathematical problems of universities; with truth, diamond truth, and God is my right hand man.’

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-e-1-1-july-1843-30-april-1844/150
_____

I much prefer what Joseph taught over what our modern M2C intellectuals and revisionist Church historians are teaching.

But we're all entitled to believe whatever we want, so there's no need to argue or contend about any of this.

Just ask yourself, is my brain generating positive neurochemicals because of truth, or error?

The calling of President Nelson

There's a wonderful excerpt from President Nelson's biography here:

http://www.ldsliving.com/The-Miracle-Behind-President-Nelson-s-Call-as-an-Apostle/s/90529/?utm_source=ldsliving&utm_medium=sidebar&utm_campaign=related

The article explains that Presidents Nelson and Oaks were originally called to fill vacancies in the Quorum of the Twelve created by the deaths of Elders LeGrand Richards and Mark E. Petersen.

This is interesting because both Elder Richards and Elder Petersen made a point of teaching that the Hill Cumorah of Mormon 6:6 is in western New York.
_____

Some people tell me that the Brethren have changed their minds about Cumorah, which is why the Mesoamerican/Two-Cumorahs theory (M2C) is so widely depicted in Church-related material, including the curriculum at BYU and CES.

I see zero indication of that.

It strikes me as highly unlikely that either President Nelson or President Oaks would repudiate the plain teachings of the men they replaced in the Quorum of the Twelve.
_____

Here is an excerpt from Elder Petersen's General Conference address in 1978:

Moroni’s father was commander of the armies of this ancient people, known as Nephites. His name was Mormon. The war of which we speak took place here in America some four hundred years after Christ. (See Morm. 6.)

As the fighting neared its end, Mormon gathered the remnant of his forces about a hill which they called Cumorah, located in what is now the western part of the state of New York.

You can read or watch it here:
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1978/10/the-last-words-of-moroni?lang=eng

Here is an excerpt from Elder Richard's famous book.

LeGrand Richards: "It was at this time that Mormon deposited in the Hill Cumorah all the records that had been entrusted to him except a few plates that he gave to his son Moroni. (See Mormon 6.) About A.D. 420, Moroni placed these plates with those his father, Mormon, had already deposited in the hill. (See Moroni 10:1-2.)" A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, p. 73.