In the pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding, it's useful from time to time to review the history of ideas. In this case, we have an example of greater unity among Latter-day Saints regarding the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon.
_____
Recently I've had several interactions with people from a range of backgrounds who have accepted the "two sets of plates" scenario and say it not only makes sense, but is obvious.
It wasn't always like that, but things are changing fast.
We can all observe how this shift back to what the prophets always taught about Cumorah follows the "Innovation Adoption Curve."
See the diagram here: http://www.lettervii.com/p/the-two-sets-of-plates-schematic.html
My original book about the two sets of plates was published about 9 years ago. I discussed it with lots of people and in various conferences. Early adopters were mostly among the "Heartlanders" who had already embraced the New York Cumorah/Ramah.
Perceiving it as a threat to their Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory, many prominent LDS scholars resisted and even fought against the idea. To their credit, a few BYU/CES teachers began teaching it as an alternative explanation. A few podcasts picked it up. It reached the early majority stage.
Then Richard Bushman mentioned it in his book on Joseph Smith's Gold Plates, and more scholars paid attention.
Earlier this year, BYU Studies published Don Bradley's article, making it mainstream.
By now, we're somewhere between the early majority and late majority stage.
Naturally there are still laggards, particularly among M2Cers, and that's fine.
We should all be happy to consider multiple working hypotheses. The fact that the hill Cumorah/Ramah is the hill where Joseph Smith got the plates does not determine whether other events took place. Lots of people have different ideas.
But we can clearly assess whether someone's theory incorporates the New York Cumorah/Ramah and make decisions accordingly.
_____
On this blog we've previously discussed the end of M2C, meaning the re-acceptance of the New York Cumorah/Ramah that was well established for the first 100 years of the Restoration.
The NY Cumorah was declared to be a fact by President Oliver Cowdery, which anyone can read in Joseph Smith's own journal, as well as in the Times and Seasons, Millennial Star, Messenger and Advocate, and the Improvement Era, among others. It was in our hymnbooks and numerous General Conference addresses, as well as D&C 128:20.
So what happened?
Almost 100 years after the Restoration began, RLDS scholar L.E. Hills decided that Oliver Cowdery, Joseph Smith, and everyone else was wrong about Cumorah because New York did not fit his theory of Book of Mormon geography based on Mesoamerica. He published a map in 1917 that showed Cumorah in southern Mexico. Eventually LDS scholars, including John Sorenson, Jack Welch, and Kirk Magleby, latched on and even published their version of the Hills map in BYU Studies, along with innumerable articles, books, presentations, etc.
They rationalized their repudiation of the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah by saying there were "two Cumorahs" to support their Mesoamerican setting. Hence, the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory (M2C).
They claimed (and taught thousands of BYU/CES students) that the traditional New York Cumorah was a mere speculative assumption and that President Cowdery, Joseph Smith, Lucy Mack Smith, David Whitmer, and everyone else who discussed Cumorah was wrong.
Why?
Solely because it did not fit their Mesoamerican theory, which required the "real" Cumorah to be in southern Mexico, just as L.E. Hills had claimed.
But now we're all glad to see a refocus on what President Cowdery and others said all along.
No more need to rationalize away the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah.
_____
On an individual basis, the diffusion of innovations follows a five-stage process. We may continue to see individuals go through this process, but overall, most Latter-day Saints readily accept the two-sets-of-plates explanation because they did not have the M2C baggage.
American sociologist Everett Rogers tied these findings together in his 1962 book Diffusion of Innovations.9 In it, Rogers offered a clear definition: diffusion is the process by which an innovation is communicated through specific channels over time among members of a social system. Innovations don’t spread in isolation. They move through conversation, observation, and relationships. They gain ground not when people are convinced by a single argument, but when enough small signals accumulate to tip the balance.
Rogers also outlined a five-stage process describing how individuals adopt something new:
- Awareness: You’re exposed to a new idea, but the details are vague. You know it exists, but not much more.
- Interest: Curiosity kicks in. You start asking questions or casually researching.
- Evaluation: You consider the idea in context, including how it might fit your needs or solve a particular problem.
- Trial: You test it out, either through a free trial, a small purchase, or by observing someone else’s experience closely.
- Adoption: You commit. The innovation becomes part of your routine, possibly replacing whatever came before.
