Wednesday, May 24, 2017

Unless it is exactly like themselves

On October 22, 1829, Joseph Smith wrote a letter to Oliver Cowdery from Harmony, Pa.

"Respected Sir I would in form you that I arrived at home on sunday morning the 4th after having a prosperous Journey, and found all well the people are all friendly to <us> except a few who are in opposition to ev[e]ry thing unless it is some thing that is exactly like themselves." (original spelling)

Over the last couple of years as I've been involved with questions about the Book of Mormon historicity and geography, as well as Church history, I've noticed two main themes.

The historians generally want to get the history right. They don't have an agenda other than accuracy. Naturally, many of them were taught a particular point of view about Church history, and these traditions endure, as I've shown in the Joseph Smith Papers, the Church history museum, and other places. But for the most part, historians are dedicated to accuracy. They embrace all evidence and seek to reconcile it all, as much as possible.

That's definitely not what I've experienced with the Mesoamerican proponents.

This group, typified by the "Book of Mormon Archaeological Forum" which owns Book of Mormon Central, by their own admission, has the goal "to increase understanding of the Book of Mormon as an ancient Mesoamerican codex." They are not just uninterested in evidence that contradicts their goal; they actively oppose it.

As Joseph expressed it, they "are in opposition to everything unless it is some thing that is exactly like themselves."

Consequently, the pursuit of consensus about Church history has a high likelihood of success. People dedicated to accuracy and consideration of all relevant material should be able to reach a consensus about the facts, at a minimum, and hopefully about the most reasonable inferences as well.

Obviously, there are critics of the Church who claim to know all the facts and yet infer different motivations, thereby reaching different conclusions, but to the extent these inferences are spelled out, people can make informed choices. In my experience, few of the critics have all the facts. They find enough to support their doubts and stop seeking. I'd be interested in any critics who know all the facts about the two sets of plates and reach different conclusions, for example.

With respect to Book of Mormon geography, however, we have the most prominent group of LDS scholars and educators whose main goal is "to increase understanding of the Book of Mormon as an ancient Mesoamerican codex." (This goal appears to be shared by Mesomania Meridian Magazine, Mesomania BYU Studies, The Mesomania Mormon Interpreter, the Mesomania Maxwell Institute, and other such publications.)

Of course, one could say that Moroni's America is dedicated to "increase understanding of the Book of Mormon as a history of North America," but I don't think the two situations are parallel.

First, I accepted the Mesoamerican material for decades before new information helped change my mind. A person who has never changed his/her mind ought to wonder why other once like-minded people have.

Second, I did not start out with the goal of presenting a "North American" setting. I started with the goal of understanding what Joseph and Oliver taught, and then seeing if the text described what they claimed. That goal could have led me to a setting of New York state or all of the Western Hemisphere, and anything in between. In fact, it could have led to a Mesoamerican setting.

But it didn't.

This shows the fundamental difference between my approach and that of the Mesoamerica proponents. I start with what Joseph and Oliver said and see if the text can be interpreted to support their claims. Then I look at anthropology, geography, archaeology, geology, etc. Everything seems to fit quite nicely.

The Mesoamerican approach (as well as the Baja, Chile, Peru, Malaysia, and other non-New York Cumorah approaches) start with interpreting the text and then seeking a place where it fits. In my view, this is not just unwise. It is nonsensical. The text is vague enough to support any number of possible settings. Perhaps an infinite number, but surely a number in excess of 100.

That's why the Lord told us where Cumorah was.

This all boils down to the reality that until members of the Church reach a consensus on Cumorah, we will never reach a consensus on the rest of the Book of Mormon geography.

Conclusion: Let's reach a consensus on Church history, which is doable.

Then let's reach a consensus about Cumorah, which should be doable.

Then, let's all work together to see how the New York Cumorah fits.

Friday, May 19, 2017

Serious obstacle to consensus-Translations of the Book of Mormon obscure meaning

One obstacle to consensus is changing the text of the Book of Mormon itself. 

I've referred to the "Sorenson" translation before, when Brother Sorenson and like-minded people use terms that aren't actually in the text. The best known example is replacing the phrase "head of Sidon" with "headwaters of Sidon." Another is the phrase, "narrow strip of mountainous wilderness." Mountainous does not appear in the text.

When I recently translated the pocket edition of Moroni's America into French, I discovered something I hadn't noticed before.

The translation of the Book of Mormon into French uses the Sorenson translation.

Wherever the text uses a variation of the phrase "head of the river Sidon," the translation first converts the English into "source of the river Sidon" and then translates it that way.

Look at Alma 22:27. "the borders of the wilderness which was on the north by the land of Zarahemla, through the borders of Manti, by the head of the river Sidon, running from the east towards the west."

In French: "les régions frontières du désert qui était au nord près du pays de Zarahemla, à travers les régions frontières de Manti, près de la source du fleuve Sidon, allant de l’est vers l’ouest."

This is not a literal translation!

Instead, it's an interpretation.

The literal translation of the French back into English would be: near the source of the river Sidon.

Of course, that's the Sorenson translation, meaning, that's the translation that Mesoamerican advocates wish Joseph Smith had used, and the one they prefer. They think Joseph should have written "headwaters" instead of "head" of Sidon.

I've discussed this Sidon several times on this blog. You can find the posts by searching for "head of Sidon." Here is one example:

The Mesoamerican activists need the Sidon river to flow northward because the only two rivers in Mesoamerica that they can possibly identify as Sidon both flow northward. Therefore, they reason, "head of Sidon" means "headwaters of Sidon," which means "source of Sidon."

The Mesoamerican activists have successfully educated people throughout the Church about the Sorenson translation (i.e., headwaters of Sidon), and the translator used Sorenson's translation, not Joseph Smith's, when he/she translated the Book of Mormon into French.

A literal translation into French would be: À la tête de la rivière Sidon.

The same thing has been done in the translations into other languages.

I'm sure the translators think "head of the river" is too vague to translate, so they put it in words that convey a specific meaning; i.e., they changed the text to read the "source of the river." 

Joseph knew the word source. He used it here, in 2 Nephi 25:26: "And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins."

Had the Nephite text referred to the source of the river Sidon, Joseph could have used that word. I think he would have used that word. He would have dictated "source of Sidon."

Instead, he chose the phrase "head of Sidon."

The Mesoamerican activists think Joseph translated this incorrectly. They think he should have dictated "headwaters" or "source." They can't change the original text (fortunately), but they can change the foreign language texts by influencing the translators.

Consequently, unless you read English, you will think Joseph translated the plates using the term "source" in connection with the River Sidon. 

But he did no such thing.

A related problem is the small neck of land, the narrow neck of land, the narrow neck, the narrow pass, and the narrow passage. In English, each of these is a distinct term. But in French, they are conflated into one term, the way the Sorenson translation does.

Alma 50:34 - there they did head them, by the narrow pass which led by the sea into the land northward, yea, by the sea, on the west and on the east.

French - là ils les devancèrent, près du passage étroit qui menait près de la mer jusque dans le pays situé du côté du nord, oui, près de la mer, à l’ouest et à l’est.

Mormon 2:29 - And the Lamanites did give unto us the land northward, yea, even to the narrow passage which led into the land southward. 

French - Et les Lamanites nous donnèrent le pays situé du côté du nord, oui, jusqu’au passage étroit qui menait au pays situé du côté du sud.

Notice how in French, both are translated as passages, even though the term passe is the French translation of the English pass

Alma 63:5 - launched it forth into the west sea, by the narrow neck which led into the land northward.

French - et le lança dans la mer de l’ouest, près de la langue étroite qui menait au pays situé du côté du nord.

Ether 10:20 - And they built a great city by the narrow neck of land, by the place where the sea divides the land.

French - Et ils construisirent une grande ville près de la langue étroite de terre, près de l’endroit où la mer divise le pays.

Both of these are translated as a "narrow tongue," not as a "narrow neck."

Alma 22:32 - the land of Nephi and the land of Zarahemla were nearly surrounded by water, there being a small neck of land between the land northward and the land southward.

French - le pays de Néphi et le pays de Zarahemla étaient presque entourés d’eau, une étroite bande de terre existant entre le pays situé du côté du nord et le pays situé du côté du sud.

Notice here that the French does not say a "small" neck of land, but a "narrow strip of earth." This seems to refer back to verse 27, another narrow strip, but it also links it to the previous narrow places.

Alma 22:27 - by a narrow strip of wilderness, which ran from the sea east even to the sea west, 

French - par une étroite bande de désert, qui allait de la mer de l’est jusqu’à la mer de l’ouest,

The French translation uses "désert" for wilderness (which means desert in English) instead of a more accurate translation, "région sauvage."

Thursday, May 18, 2017

Current state of the consensus

I continue to think it would be possible to reach a consensus about Book of Mormon geography if everyone sat down and discussed the issues openly.

But that isn't happening.

The proponents of Mesoamerica don't even want Church members to know about the North American setting. This is easy to understand.

As it stands today, there are two basic groups.

Group A thinks Cumorah is somewhere other than in New York. Adherents think Joseph and Oliver were wrong when they identified the hill in New York as Cumorah. They think scholarship can identify the Hill Cumorah and other sites.

Group B thinks Cumorah is in New York, based on what Oliver Cowdery wrote in Letter VII. Adherents think Joseph and Oliver knew Cumorah was in New York because they had visited the repository of Nephite records in the hill, because of the two sets of plates, because Moroni identified it as Cumorah, etc.

I don't think the choice between these two views is even close. Most members of the Church, when presented with the choice, choose Joseph and Oliver over the scholars.

This explains why the scholars and educators who promote the Mesoamerican setting refuse to present their theory alongside the North American setting. The only way their theories endure is by excluding the North American setting from their publications, conferences, web pages, and classrooms.

Instead, you'll read 2D arguments about which way the river Sidon flows, which "correspondences" are closer to which interpretation of the text, etc.

But you won't read the 3D argument about accepting or rejecting Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery.

The current status of the consensus is this: people who accept what Joseph and Oliver said about Cumorah accept the North American setting, while people who think Joseph and Oliver didn't know what they were talking about accept another setting (Mesoamerica, Baja, Panama, Chile, Peru, Malaysia, etc.).

IOW, the status hasn't changed much.

Except that thousands of people are changing their minds about the setting, switching from Mesoamerica to North America.

Sunday, May 14, 2017

If ye are not one

One oft-quoted scripture on the topic of consensus is this:

"I say unto you, be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine." D&C 38:27

I've heard this quoted many times to support the idea that people should agree on doctrinal matters, including interpretations of geography of the Book of Mormon and Church history. And that's fine, provided the agreement is on something that is true.

But look at the first part of the verse:

"Behold, this I have given unto you as a parable, and it is even as I am. I say unto you, be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine."

What is the Lord referring to here?

Verse 26 is the parable, but it refers,in turn, to the preceding verses.

Verse 26: "For what man among you having twelve sons, and is no respecter of them, and they serve him obediently, and he saith unto the one: Be thou clothed in robes and sit thou here; and to the other: Be thou clothed in rags and sit thou there—and looketh upon his sons and saith I am just?"

In the preceding verses, the Lord explains that he created the Earth, that he has taken "the Zion of Enoch into mine own bosom," and that "all flesh is corrupted before me, and the powers of darkness prevail upon the earth." 

Then the Lord says, "And for your salvation I give unto you a commandment, for I have heard your prayers, and the poor have complained before me, and the rich have I made, and all flesh is mine, and I am no respecter of persons. And I have made the earth rich, and behold it is my footstool, wherefore, again I will stand upon it.... And let every man esteem his brother as himself, and practice virtue and holiness before me. And again I say unto you, let every man esteem his brother as himself."

This principle is so important that the Lord repeats it twice, right before giving the parable of the unjust father.

In my view, Section 38 teaches about the basic Zion principle of equality; i.e., it is not just that some people are rich while others are poor. The Lord clarifies that he has made the rich; they may think they have "earned" it and therefore "deserve" it, but it is God who has given them the gifts and opportunities to become rich. 

A few months later, on June 15, 1831, the Lord explained further. 

"Wo unto you rich men, that will not give your substance to the poor, for your riches will canker your souls; and this shall be your lamentation in the day of visitation, and of judgment, and of indignation: The harvest is past, the summer is ended, and my soul is not saved!"

The parable of the unjust father who tells one son to be clothed in robes while the other must be clothed in rags applies to the Latter-day Saints who seek to establish Zion. 

The Lord has told us that he has made the rich, and he has told the rich that they must give their substance to the poor. Enabling some of his children to create wealth is the Lord's way of providing for the poor. As D&C 104 puts it, "this is the way that I, the Lord, have decreed to provide for my saints, that the poor shall be exalted, in that the rich are made low."

This is what D&C 38 means. 

And to the extent that we fall short of becoming one in terms of wealth, we are not His.

Tuesday, April 18, 2017

The comical search for Cumorah in Mexico

One obstacle to reaching consensus is absurdity.

For a good example, watch this:

We have people wandering through Mesoamerica searching for Cumorah. Seriously. My favorite line in the presentation is, "We're doing all we can while waiting for the Lord to give us more."

These people are rejecting what the Lord already gave us. Why would they think the Lord would give more?

We have a few lines of ambiguous text from the Book of Mormon, granted. It's possible to concoct any number of "requirements" for Cumorah depending on what assumptions we want to make and how far we are willing to "expand" the text.

But we also have the declaration by Joseph and Oliver that it was a fact that the final battles took place in the mile-wide valley west of the hill Cumorah in New York. We have the repository in that same hill.

There is (or should be) no ambiguity about the location of Cumorah in New York.

And yet we have serious people traipsing (to use John Sorenson's term) through the jungles of Mesoamerica searching for a mountain that can "qualify" as the Hill Cumorah. They come up with their list of imaginary criteria or requirements based on a few vague passages and a whole lot of speculation. The most fun speculation is that Cumorah has to be near volcanoes, but not active ones that might have buried the site in ash. Plus, they need 2,000 hectares of land, and the hill Cumorah has to be smaller than the hill Riplah because of what the Onomasticon says about the word Riplah, etc. This sort of cascading series of assumptions moves the endeavor beyond absurdity.

There is also a "Hill Cumorah Expedition Team" from the Community of Christ, competing with LDS scholars to be the first to locate the hill Cumorah.

It is difficult to conceive of a more absurd pursuit than this.

Here is Team B's website.

Here is Team A's website (with links to all its affiliates):

One thing they don't explain is why they are looking in Mesoamerica. If it's not because of the anonymous Times and Seasons articles, why limit the search to Mesoamerica? Why exclude Peru, Chile, Panama, Baja?

For that matter, why exclude the actual Hill Cumorah in New York?

For bonus laughs, check out the comments.

Didn't everything Joseph Smith show through vision, personal walkabouts and such reveal everything happening in America.  Adam Andi Amon, Zelf, mounds, and now many artifacts seem to indicate a relationship with those in Central and South America but the nations they set up were not anywhere else accept the North American Continent.
Fair Mormon 
While he did make the above references you cited, he also made many other statements that placed The Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica, South America, Canada and the western US. This video we put together may help answer your question

That FairMormon video is every bit as ridiculous as the comical search for Cumorah in Mesoamerica.

Saturday, April 15, 2017

Blogs are higher quality than journal articles

Daniel Lakens, an experimental psychologist at Eindhoven University of Technology in the Netherlands, offers five reasons why blog posts are of higher scientific quality than journal articles.

Here is the link:

I agree with all of his points, and I think they apply to LDS topics as well. Here is a summary:

1. Blogs have Open Data, Code, and Materials [This is important for scientific topics, but it should also be important for LDS topics when relevant. The most notorious example I'm aware of are the so-called "stylometry" studies published in the Interpreter, in which the authors give no data, code, or assumptions. That kind of "black box" study is worse than no study at all, IMO, because it opens the door for anyone to publish anything that confirms their biases, without any possibility of analysis or replication.]

2. Blogs have Open Peer Review [This alludes to the practice of using "peer review" as a sham appeal to authority as well as to the practice of using phony peer reviews, both of which I think occur in many LDS academic journals. As Lakens explains, "Scientific journal articles use peer review as quality control. The quality of the peer review process is as high as the quality of the peers that were involved in the review process. The peer review process was as biased as the biases of the peers that were involved in the review process." These points apply to the publications of the LDS citation cartel, which never disclose the identity of peer reviewers or even whether the material was actually peer reviewed. Of course, a "peer" is someone who shares the same assumptions, so peer review is illusory in most cases. At best, it is really nothing more than "peer approval," as I've noted many times. Blogs tend to be more honest about peer review. My blog, for example, is not peer reviewed at all, so I don't use "peer review" as a phony appeal to authority. You can accept, modify, or reject my ideas and the facts I offer, but I'm not going to try to persuade you with a fake appeal to the authority of some anonymous "peer review" process.]

3. Blogs have no Eminence Filter [This alludes to the elitism characteristic of scientific publications, which also exists in the world of LDS intellectuals. The citation cartel that controls LDS publications filters out alternative voices to maintain their dogmatic hold on their own ideas.]

4. Blogs have Better Error Correction [This one refers to the comments feature that allows readers to point out mistakes within a matter of minutes in many cases. When I started my blogs, I left them open for comments. But as readership increased, I started getting a lot of spam (people selling junk) that I didn't have time to delete, so I had to close comments. It's unfortunate. Some of the most productive interactions were with people who disagree with points I've made. Now people contact me by email to point out errors, which I then promptly correct or address one way or another. I welcome any and all relevant comments on my blogs, books, presentations, etc. I just want to get things right, using accurate and complete data and rational analysis. Lately, the citation cartel has published a lot of stuff that is easily rebutted, but they don't allow comment or rebuttal, which suggests they aren't confident about what they're publishing. I may open the blogs to comments again and see if the spam has been blocked by Google.]

5. Blogs are Open Access (and might be read more). [With no paywalls, blogs have broader distribution. Most LDS material doesn't have paywalls anyway, so it's not a big issue in this community. But it's not the paywall that is the biggest impediment to distribution, anyway. It's people's time, and the long-held, well-established dogma drive by Mesomania. The promoters of the Mesoamerican geography and related Church history lore have cleverly (but falsely) framed their position as the position of the Church. This makes Church members feel guilty of questioning the scholars and educators. That's the paywall that needs to be broken down more than it has so far. It could easily be remedied if the citation cartel offered more open access. To be specific, if the Interpreter, Book of Mormon Central, BYU Studies, etc., were willing to publish articles about the new paradigms in Church history and Book of Mormon geography, they would have more credibility and, I think, long-term viability. But because they refuse, the Internet is the place for open access.]

Friday, April 14, 2017

Someone is wrong on the Internet

Is it possible to resolve anything on the Internet?

Probably not.

Is it possible to reach a consensus on the Internet?

Almost surely not.

Then why write and read blogs?

For me, blogs are useful records of the things I'm working on, what I read, and my thoughts, a sort of easily accessible journal that, apparently, other people are interested in. So far, there have been about 150,000 hits on my blogs and hundreds of people read them every day, mostly from the U.S. but also from many other countries around the world.

Marketing experts know it takes many impressions to influence thinking and behavior. Most people are not going to change their minds even in the face of new information, but a few do. Impressions can accumulate until a tipping point can be reached. One blog post might make the difference, like the last snowflake that causes an avalanche.

There's a clever post about the challenge of persuasion on another blog, here. Ardis Parshall writes:

"This classic xkcd webcomic (#386, Duty Calls) captures the common online absurdity of exerting great effort to prove to a stranger that he is wrong and you are right about something that doesn’t matter to anyone. I mean, who would do something like that?"

So is there a reason to blog other than journaling?

I think so.

As I've discussed many times, one of the biggest obstacles to reaching consensus in any field is lack of open communication and exchange of ideas. Whenever possible, people tend to prefer confirming their biases as opposed to changing their minds. This may be even more true of scholars, academics and educators than of the general public, for the obvious reason that the intellectuals have much more invested in their beliefs.

To confirm their biases, scholars, academics and educators tend to establish and perpetuate closed systems. A college campus, for example, is a closed system; faculty are hired based on shared academic assumptions and credentials, and students are admitted based on shared objectives and beliefs in the value of the established academic assumptions and credentials.

The LDS citation cartel is a prime example, of course, since the cartel's concept of "peer review" is essentially "peer approval" by a small group of like-minded academics who resist intrusion (or even participation) by outsiders who challenge their shared assumptions.  

Because the academic citation cartel exists to confirm the shared biases of cartel members, the cartel is able to impose their assumptions and beliefs on others through the educational system. Their assumptions about Church history (i.e., that Joseph and Oliver were confused speculators who misled the Church about the New York Cumorah) and about Book of Mormon geography (i.e., that Mesoamerica is the only viable setting) have come to dominate LDS thought because the cartel members have successfully excluded alternative assumptions from BYU and CES. Consequently, everyone is taught the same assumptions, and they continue ad infinitum.

The Internet is one of the only ways to bypass the cartel and communicate new ideas. Cartel members understand this, which is why the citation cartel exists in the first place. They know that most members of the Church, when faced with a choice between the academics on one hand and Joseph and Oliver on the other, will choose Joseph and Oliver.

Given a choice, most members of the Church would reject the two-Cumorahs theory. For that reason, the citation cartel relegates the two-Cumorahs theory to isolated comments in academic writings and subliminal teaching such as the display on Temple Square and the images in the missionary editions of the Book of Mormon.

In Joseph Smith's day, everyone knew there was one Cumorah and it was in New York.

In our day, LDS academics reject what Joseph and Oliver said, replacing it with the idea that there are two Cumorahs; Mormon's Cumorah is in Mesoamerica, and Moroni's Cumorah in New York.


I doubt this post will be the snowflake that causes an avalanche, but hopefully it will add to the accumulation of ideas that weighs on the citation cartel. Eventually, I trust, a consensus about Church history and Book of Mormon geography will develop.

Thursday, March 30, 2017

"Consensus science"

Yesterday John R. Christy, a Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, testified before the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology. His testimony is here.

He suggested that Congress organize "Red Teams" to consider the problem of climate science "because Consensus Science is not Science." Below is an excerpt of his testimony that explains what I've been trying to say about the citation cartel of LDS scholars who promote the "two Cumorahs" and Mesoamerican theories of Book of Mormon geography.

See what you think.

John Christy excerpt: The term “consensus science” will often be appealed to regarding arguments about climate change to bolster an assertion. This is a form of “argument from authority.” 

Consensus, however, is a political notion, not a scientific notion. 

As I testified to the Inter-Academy Council in June 2010, wrote in Nature that same year (Christy 2010), and documented in my written House Testimony last year (House Space, Science and
Technology, 31 Mar 2011) the IPCC and other similar Assessments do not represent for me a consensus of much more than the consensus of those selected to agree with a particular consensus. 

The content of these climate reports is actually under the control of a relatively small number of individuals - I often refer to them as the “climate establishment” – who through the years, in my opinion, came to act as gatekeepers of scientific opinion and information, rather than brokers. The voices of those of us who object to various statements and emphases in these assessments are by-in-large dismissed rather than accommodated. 

This establishment includes the same individuals who become the “experts” called on to promote IPCC claims in government reports such as the Endangerment Finding by the Environmental Protection Agency. As outlined in my [31 Mar 2011] House Testimony, these “experts” become the authors and evaluators of their own research relative to research which challenges their work. 

But with the luxury of having the “last word” as “expert” authors of the reports, alternative views vanish.

I’ve often stated that climate science is a “murky” science. We do not have laboratory methods of testing our hypotheses as many other sciences do. As a result what passes for science includes, opinion, arguments-from-authority, dramatic press releases, and fuzzy notions of consensus generated by preselected groups. This is not science.


My comments: The debates in climate science differ in many respects from the debates about Book of Mormon geography and historicity, but in this respect they are the same. A small group of LDS scholars and educators has co-opted the narrative and trained thousands of Latter-day Saints to believe in a Mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon.

These scholars and educators know their theory relies on the "two-Cumorahs" theory, but they don't publicize that much. In promoting the two-Cumorahs theory, they openly repudiate the words of the modern prophets and apostles, expressed in General Conference, as well as the teachings of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery about Cumorah.

As long as the two-Cumorahs theory is actively promoted and taught, members of the Church and investigators will remain "confused and disturbed in their faith in the Book of Mormon," as Joseph Fielding Smith put it.

We're not in a scientific endeavor here. Archaeology is more an art than a science, as is interpreting the text and the words of the modern prophets and apostles. But the analogy to science is useful because, ultimately, whatever consensus we reach needs to take into account all the relevant data. The current so-called consensus, contrived by the handful of LDS scholars and educators who promote the Mesoamerican and two-Cumorahs theories, is a huge mistake.

It is important to reach consensus among Church members regarding the location of Cumorah, at least, if for no other reason than to stop casting doubt on Joseph and Oliver and their successors.

Friday, March 10, 2017

Earthquake zones

I've been discussing nuclear energy risks with an environmental science class and the topic of the U.S. came up.

This map from the US Geological Survey is interesting from a Book of Mormon perspective. Here's the explanation from that site: "n the Central and Eastern United States, earthquakes are felt over a broader area than comparable-size quakes in the Western United States because of differences in geology. Although only of magnitude 6, the earthquake that occurred near Saint Louis in 1895 affected a larger area than the 1994 magnitude 6.7 Northridge, California, quake, which caused $40 billion in damage and economic losses and killed 67 people. A repeat of the 1895 earthquake could prove disastrous for the Midwest, where structures are not as earthquake resistant as those in California."

Those of us who believe the Book of Mormon took place in North America (Moroni's America, Heartland, etc.) think the land of Zarahemla was roughly today's Illinois and Iowa, while the land Bountiful was roughly Indiana and Ohio. The Lamanite land southward was below the Ohio River, with the city of Nephi in southeastern Tennessee. 

Most of the Nephites lived along rivers (or seas we call lakes today). It's pretty easy to see how an earthquake in this area would have caused the damage described in 3 Nephi, when combined with the tornadoes.

There is a lot more information here:

I've discussed all of this before in more detail, but this was a reminder and I posted it here for further consideration.

Thursday, February 23, 2017

Consensus by choosing narratives

I always find it humorous when a person says, "The consensus is..."

By definition, a consensus is general agreement among a particular group of people defined as those who agree with the consensus. Maybe there is a universal consensus throughout the world about something, but I suspect there are always some people who disagree regardless of the topic.

Consensus is achieved when a particular group agrees on a narrative (Consensus 1). Those who disagree are not part of the Consensus 1 group; presumably they are part of another group who has reached a different consensus (Consensus 2).

There are plenty of examples. Democrat vs. Republican. Falcons vs. Patriots. Coke vs. Pepsi. Apple vs. Samsung. Israel vs. Palestine.

Consensus about Book of Mormon geography/historicity is also a result of choosing a narrative.

At one level, there are believers vs nonbelievers; i.e., traditional Christians vs. Mormons. Christians have reached a consensus that the Book of Mormon is not what it claims; Mormons have reached the opposite consensus.

Among Mormons, there are two general narratives regarding the location of Cumorah. Some Mormons have reached a consensus that Cumorah is in New York (1 Cumorah) while others have reached a consensus that Cumorah is not in New York (2 Cumorahs).

It's pretty easy to decide which narrative you accept when both are spelled out clearly. 

The table below lets you choose which one you prefer. (This is cross-posted from another blog.)

Choose which narrative you accept, and you'll know which consensus you agree with.

[Note that "Mesoamerica" is a proxy for every theory that places Cumorah somewhere other than in New York.]

As always, I emphasize that people are free to believe whatever they want. The table is intended to clarify what others think so you can compare your own beliefs and make up your own mind.

Which do you find more compatible with your personal beliefs? 

Moroni’s America
Mormon and Moroni lived in Mesoamerica.
Mormon and Moroni lived in North America.
Mormon wrote his abridgment somewhere in Mesoamerica and hid up all the Nephite records in a repository in the Hill Cumorah (Mormon 6:6), a hill somewhere in southern Mexico, before giving "these few plates" to Moroni.
Mormon wrote his abridgment in the vicinity of western New York and hid up all the Nephite records in a repository in in the Hill Cumorah (Mormon 6:6), the hill near Palmyra, New York, before giving "these few plates" to Moroni.
Moroni adds a couple of chapters to his father’s record, travels 3,400 miles to New York, and hides the plates in the stone box, thinking he would not live long. Or, he keeps the plates with him while he roams around Mesoamerica for decades. Or he hides them somewhere else until he is ready to take them 3,400 miles to New York.
Moroni adds a couple of chapters to his father’s record and hides the plates in the stone box in New York, thinking he would not live long.
Later, Moroni retrieves the plates of Ether from the repository in southern Mexico and abridges them. He adds the abridgment to his father’s abridgment, along with a sealed portion, and hides the plates again in New York. Or, Moroni abridges the plates of Ether right after his father died, and the plates were among the few his father gave him. 
Later, Moroni retrieves the plates of Ether from the repository in New York and abridges them. He adds the abridgment to his father’s abridgment, along with a sealed portion, and hides the plates again in the stone box on the Hill Cumorah in New York.
Later, Moroni returns to the repository in southern Mexico and gets a sermon and letters from his father. He adds this material to his final comments—the Book of Moroni—and returns to New York to put the finished record back in the stone box.
Later, Moroni returns to the repository in New York and gets a sermon and letters from his father. He adds this material to his final comments—the Book of Moroni—and puts the finished record back in the stone box.
Moroni visits Joseph Smith in 1823 and tells him the record was “written and deposited” not far from Joseph’s home. But this is a mistake because the record was written in Central America and deposited in New York. Either Joseph or Oliver misunderstood, or else Moroni misspoke.
Moroni visits Joseph Smith in 1823 and tells him the record was “written and deposited” not far from Joseph’s home. Moroni accurately describes where the record was written.
Joseph Smith obtained the abridged record of the Nephites and the Jaredites from Moroni’s stone box. He translated part of these plates in Harmony and gave them back to an angel. The Lord told him to translate the plates of Nephi (D&C 10), even though he had reached the end of the plates and hadn't found these plates yet.
Joseph Smith obtained the abridged record of the Nephites and the Jaredites from Moroni’s stone box. He translated these plates in Harmony and gave them back to an angel because he was finished with them. The Lord told him to translate the plates of Nephi (D&C 10), but he didn’t have those yet.
In Harmony, Joseph translated the Title Page from the last leaf of the plates. He had it printed and delivered to the U.S. federal district court in New York as part of his copyright application.
In Harmony, Joseph translated the Title Page from the last leaf of the plates. He had it printed and delivered to the U.S. federal district court in New York as part of his copyright application.
On the way from Harmony to Fayette, David Whitmer said he, Joseph and Oliver encountered an old man bearing the plates who was heading for Cumorah. Joseph said it was one of the three Nephites. But David was mistaken because he conflated the false tradition of the New York Cumorah with another unspecified event.
On the way from Harmony to Fayette, David Whitmer said he, Joseph and Oliver encountered an old man bearing the plates who was heading for Cumorah. Joseph said it was one of the three Nephites. This was the messenger who had the Harmony plates and was returning them to the repository.
In Fayette, an angel returned the Harmony plates to Joseph.
In Fayette, an angel gave Joseph the small plates of Nephi which came from the repository in Cumorah.
In Fayette, Joseph translated the small plates of Nephi (1 Nephi – Words of Mormon).
In Fayette, Joseph translated the small plates of Nephi (1 Nephi – Words of Mormon).
Joseph and Oliver Cowdery and others had multiple visions of Mormon’s repository in the “real” Hill Cumorah, which is somewhere in southern Mexico.
Joseph and Oliver Cowdery and others actually visited Mormon’s repository in the Hill Cumorah in New York and saw the stacks of plates and other Nephite artifacts.
Cumorah cannot be in New York because it is a “clean hill.”
Cumorah is in New York because hundreds of artifacts, including weapons of war, have been recovered from the hill.
Cumorah cannot be in New York because it is a glacial moraine that cannot contain a natural cave.
Cumorah is in New York because an actual room that matches the description given by Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Wilford Woodruff and others has been found there.
Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery never claimed revelation about the location of Cumorah. They merely speculated. They adopted a false tradition and misled the Church. Joseph later changed his mind and, by writing anonymous articles, claimed the Book of Mormon took place in Central America and that only scholars could determine where the Book of Mormon took place.
Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery didn’t need revelation about the location of Cumorah because they visited Mormon’s repository. They may also have had revelations that they didn’t write or even relate. E.g., JS-H 1:73-4. They did not mislead the Church. Joseph never changed his mind and never linked the Book of Mormon to Central America, through anonymous articles or otherwise.
All the modern prophets and apostles who have identified the Hill Cumorah as the scene of the final battles were speaking as uninspired men. This includes members of the First Presidency speaking in General Conference.
All the modern prophets and apostles who have identified the Hill Cumorah as the scene of the final battles were speaking as their roles as prophets, seers and revelators. This includes members of the First Presidency speaking in General Conference.
The two-Cumorahs theory originated with scholars from the Reorganized Church and was adopted and promoted by LDS scholars because it’s the only explanation that fits their criteria. Joseph Fielding Smith was wrong to condemn the theory and didn’t know what he was talking about.
The two-Cumorahs theory originated with scholars from the Reorganized Church and was adopted and promoted by LDS scholars because they rejected Joseph Fielding Smith when he prophetically said the two-Cumorahs theory would cause members to become confused and disturbed in their faith in the Book of Mormon.
The scholars’ two-Cumorah theory is correct because whenever the current Brethren have a question about the Book of Mormon, they consult the scholars at BYU who promote the two-Cumorahs theory.
The scholars’ two-Cumorah theory doesn’t fit the historical record, the affirmative declarations of Joseph and Oliver, or the prophetic statements of numerous modern prophets and apostles.

Wednesday, February 15, 2017

Supporting the opposite side

Political discussion and diplomacy involve reconciling different perspectives and objectives. Lessons learned in those areas may be relevant to reaching consensus about Book of Mormon geography. 
I saw a good piece on the utility of looking at issues from an alternative perspective. Titled "Flipping the Script," the article addresses the problems of confirmation bias and the backfire effect. Both of these appear frequently in the literature of Book of Mormon geography studies.
Here's the link to the article:
Here's an excerpt from the article, with my comments:
"The spirit of liberty," wrote Judge Learned Hand, "is the spirit that is not too sure it is right." 
[the quotation is from a speech, here. The line continues: "the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the minds of other men and women; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which weighs their interest alongside its own without bias." By this measure, the various sides of the Book of Mormon geography question have not been very effective.]
Authoritarianism starts with absolute certainty: Why tolerate any dissent when it is so clearly wrong? Why allow people their own choices if they choose incorrectly?
[That passage describes the citation cartel perfectly. They refuse to publish material on this topic written by anyone other than Mesoamerican advocates; they refuse to publish critiques of the Mesoamerican theory; they refuse to allow proponents of other theories to publish; and they attack alternative theories without allowing rebuttals or even a dialog. Currently, Book of Mormon Central is the worst because they are republishing all the old stuff, but you can tell if a publication is part of the citation cartel by whether its editors follow these guidelines.]
The antidote to absolute certainty is a spirit of inquiry—but that spirit runs up against various mental habits we're all wired with, such as confirmation bias and the backfire effect: People confronted with information that contradicts their belief often end up digging in their mental heels.
[The spirit of inquiry is absent from the citation cartel; that's why it's a cartel. Both confirmation bias and the backfire effect are on display regularly.]
In one experiment, conservatives were presented with Bush administration claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Some also were given information refuting those claims. Thirty-four percent of the first group accepted the administration's claim. But 64 percent of those presented with the refutation accepted the administration's claim. The contradictory evidence made them truculent.
["Truculent" is a perfect description of the publications of the citation cartel.]
This has serious consequences in more than one way. As Bloomberg columnist and George Mason University economics professor Tyler Cowen recently wrote, "a few years ago, when I read people I disagreed with, they swayed my opinion in their direction to some degree. These days, it's more likely that I simply end up thinking less of them." (His comment is reminiscent of Santayana's remark about newspapers: "When I read them I form perhaps a new opinion of the newspaper, but seldom a new opinion on the subject discussed.")
[An excellent description of Mesomania. I encounter this all the time.]
As an antidote to such cognitive biases, Cowen suggests not merely reading things you disagree with, but actually writing them—and, he further advises, "try to make them sound as persuasive as possible." The exercise is similar to the invention of another GMU economist, Bryan Caplan, who came up with the Ideological Turing Test: Try to write an essay in the voice of an ideological opponent. If a neutral judge can't tell the difference, then you pass.
[The citation cartel makes sure readers are not exposed to alternative perspectives; that's why it's a cartel. LDS students and members are essentially unable to read things that the establishment LDS scholars and educators disagree with. Ironically, these scholars and educators disagree with Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery on this issue, so they actively suppress Letter VII and many other important references.]
These are excellent proposals that might help break the political logjam America seems to have gotten itself into. Instead of knocking down straw men and rebutting claims nobody actually believes, they make us take on the best arguments from the other side. If nothing else, this makes our own case stronger. If you don't comprehend your opponent's point, then you can't counter it. And if you can't counter it, then you can't convince anybody who believes it.
[This is another way of saying that if you actually switch sides because you've actually changed your point of view, then you understand both points of view. Those who have never changed their minds on this topic are probably not going to comprehend the other's point of view.]
More hopefully, arguing for the other side might inculcate a healthy sense of self-doubt.