Thank you Brant Gardner

'Tis the season for giving and gifts are flying around everywhere.

The latest comes from Brant Gardner.

In our pursuit of clarity, charity, and understanding, we recognize contributions from a range of views. We like people to know about multiple working hypotheses and we enjoy the diversity of opinions because we think unity comes from diversity. 

We encourage people to make informed decisions because we agree with President Nelson that good inspiration is based upon good information.

So we're happy to thank Brant Gardner for his recent contributions.

_____

Brant is a great guy, a diligent researcher, an effective writer, a faithful Latter-day Saint, and a prolific contributor to LDS scholarship. 

We assume he is always acting in good faith, with good intentions and with good will for all, even those who disagree with him. Together with Brant, we seek to understand one another. That's the spirit in which this post is written. 

Readers of this blog know that we like to feature and discuss multiple working hypotheses because we think the best way to make informed decisions is to know the facts in the context of the assumptions, inferences, and theories that people use to create their own narratives and worldviews. As the Introduction to the Gospel Topics Essays explains, "The Church places great emphasis on knowledge and on the importance of being well informed about Church history, doctrine, and practices."

Brant has long been one of my favorite M2C and SITH scholars because he owns his work. So far as I know, he doesn't publish things anonymously. He doesn't hide by having attractive young people read his scripts on social media the way the scholars at Scripture Central do. 

Brant takes responsibility. He engages with others more than most M2C and SITH scholars. That's awesome. And, as I said, he's a great guy.

Maybe at some level Brant would like to join in the pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding, which means rejecting the compulsion to insist on agreement with his own views. It's probably not easy to do so when you're one of the Interpreters, but if any of them could do it, Brant could. I hope he does someday. 

If he chose to, he could help elevate the discourse between the Interpreters and those Latter-day Saints whom the Interpreters typically look down upon because they don't have credentials and they don't march in lock-step with the Interpreters.

In other words, ordinary Latter-day Saints who still believe the scriptures and the teachings of the prophets.

_____

Another reason why Brant one of my favorites is that he provides lots of pithy, insightful quotations.

Recently he published a review of one of my books on the Interpreter. In doing so, he gave us some classics, such as this statement about the Gospel Topics Essays (GTE).

Brant Gardner: "The Church’s essay on the translation of the Book of Mormon is as close to canonical as the official Church gets." 

This gift of clarity is packed with meaning and implication.

Here Brant unmistakably announces the elevation of scholars over prophets--at least, in the minds of Brant and the other Interpreters.

We've long read between the lines that this is what the M2C and SITH scholars really believe, but until now, none have declared it so clearly and openly.

Most Latter-day Saints probably consider General Conference talks "close to canonical," particularly the talks given by whomever is President of the Church at the time he speaks.

But not so Brant and the Interpreters. Instead, the GTE are now "as close to canonical as the official Church gets." You can't get any more canonical than the GTE.

Brant's declaration provides clarity for much of what is going on among LDS scholars today, including Scripture Central and the Interpreter Foundation. Both organizations have adopted names that deflect from the prophets. The scholars at the Interpreter have set themselves up as "Interpreters" for the rest of us, with their self-appointed authority to declare what is and what is not "correct," who is and who is not an "apostate," what faithful views can and who cannot be heard, etc.

Scripture Central does the same, with the added bonus of having a multi-million dollar budget to employ young scholars and produce popular videos and thereby assure propagation of their narratives for future generations. 

Just look at the name: Scripture Central.

We used to think of the Church as the central place for scripture. 

Scripture Central even competes with the Gospel Library through its ScripturePlus app, promoting SITH, M2C, and other academic theories with attractive and popular graphics and videos.

All of this is summed up in Brant's declaration:

"The Church’s essay on the translation of the Book of Mormon is as close to canonical as the official Church gets."  

_____

Now, let's look at the GTE themselves.

For some apologists--particularly the ones who wrote or collaborated on the GTE, or whose close friends and fellow Interpreters did--the GTE have acquired an almost mystical aura of authority. People frequently cite me the GTE as if they were scripture, just as Brant does in his review. 

Brant's declaration explains why: he considers them "as close to canonical as the official Church gets."

The reason the scriptures are considered "canon" is because we know where they came from, the source is deemed authoritative, and they never change. They are "standard works." 

A common definition of canon: The collection of books received as genuine Holy Scriptures, called the sacred canon, or general rule of moral and religious duty, given by inspiration; the Bible; also, any one of the canonical Scriptures.

None of that definition fits the GTE. Unlike General Conference talks and other official statements by the First Presidency, where the authority and calling of the speaker is clear, the anonymous GTE do not fit within the direction given by the Lord here: "whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same." (Doctrine and Covenants 1:38)

The GTE are characterized by two elements:

(i) they were published anonymously, prepared by unnamed scholars who cited their own (or their friends') work throughout.

(ii) they are subject to change at any moment, without notice or documentation.

These two elements are the antithesis of canon.

That's why the GTE are provided as resources for further study and discussion only, and that's why the are subject to continual improvement. They were never intended to replace the scriptures, the teachings of the prophets, or authentic historical documents such as those provided in the Joseph Smith Papers.

_____

Let's look at the GTE on translation, which is the one Brant was specifically referring to. 

For starters, it does not quote or even cite what Joseph and Oliver said about the translation, apart from a brief excerpt that is used to contradict what Joseph and Oliver actually said.

I've discussed the GTE line-by-line here:

https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/2022/09/analysis-gospel-topics-essay-on-book-of.html

More importantly, the introduction to the GTE specifically warns against using the GTE or any other "one set of opinions" as the only approved opinions, which is how Brant and the Interpreters insist we should use them.

 Seeking “out of the best books” does not mean seeking only one set of opinions, but it does require us to distinguish between reliable sources and unreliable sources.

See the discussion here:

https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/p/gospel-topics-essays-do-not-supersede.html

People can think whatever they want about the GTE. I'm fine if people such as Brant want to consider them scripture, or akin to scripture.

But that's an unstable, shaky foundation. 

Maybe Brant's opinions change whenever the GTE change, but I don't think the prophets want or expect us to delegate our own faith to the anonymous authors of whichever version of the GTE is currently on the website. 

So thank you, Brent, sincerely, for sharing this pithy, revealing declaration of academic arrogance.

_____

I'd like to take the time to discuss some of his other clever, concise statements, but let's just look at this revealing classic, which is the title of Brant's review.

Trust Us, We’re Lawyers: Lucas and Neville on the Translation of the Book of Mormon

Here's what I wrote in my review of Brant's review, which you can read here:

https://interpreterpeerreviews.blogspot.com/2024/12/review-of-brant-gardners-review-of-by.html

As Brant admits below, “Lucas and Neville didn’t really say ’trust us, we’re lawyers.’ I confess that is my translation of what they said.”

Nevertheless I like the title because it’s an example of Brant’s pithy statements that reveal far more than it seems at first glance.

As summarized by the title, the essence of Brant’s review is that readers should trust the “trained LDS scholars” (a phrase he repeats 10 times) instead of a couple of lawyers whose views diverge from the Interpreter orthodoxy.

This is the overall message, and objective, of not only Brant but the Interpreter Foundation itself. The principals want people to trust them because of their credentials. In their view, the credentialed class deserves (by virtue solely of their credentials) our deference, our appreciation, our awe, and ultimately our adherence to their opinions.

That’s why it’s called the “Interpreter” Foundation in the first place. They have set themselves up as the “interpreters” of Church doctrine, practices, and theology for those of us who (according to them) can’t properly think for ourselves and assess scriptures, teachings of prophets, and extrinsic evidence without their guidance.

The Interpreters’ self-appointed role strikes the rest of us as quaint, funny, and even absurd, but it’s all too real in their minds.

As Brant makes abundantly clear in his review.

But as I said at the outset, I like Brant and appreciate his style and thoughtfulness.

 

Review of Royal Skousen's methodology: Part Seven

The pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding leads to a place of tranquility, peace, harmony, and happiness. 

The goal is a Zion society where there is "unity in diversity." 

Where people are "determined in one mind and in one heart, united in all things." 

Where we are "of one heart and one mind," not because we all think alike but because we see clearly, have charity for one another, and enjoy understanding different perspectives and ideas instead of demanding uniformity through compulsory means and contention.

The first step is clarity, and for that we apply the FAITH model, which explains diversity in the spirit of charity and understanding. 

When everyone has access to the relevant FACTS, everyone readily agrees about those facts. Then we can distinguish facts from our respective ASSUMPTIONS, INFERENCES and THEORIES to clearly understand how people arrive at their multiple working HYPOTHESES. 

And voila, we all "follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another."

It's easy to articulate the goals and methodology.

Let's see how it works in practice.

_____

In this case, we'll look at Royal Skousen's Part Seven: The Early Transmission of the Text. This post is part of my longer review which I will post on Academia.edu tomorrow. (I'll provide the link on this blog.)

The charity and understanding elements are easy.

Royal Skousen is one of the most meticulous, careful, detailed and conscientious scholars in Church history. I can't think of anyone who comes close, actually. He is widely respected by both scholars and casual readers.

Stan Carmack is a perfect collaborator who uses his knowledge of linguistics and statistical analysis to enhance Royal's research.

They do phenomenal work. I rely on their exemplary research all the time.

They are both awesome people, and we can readily assume they act in good faith. 

They make their assumptions, inferences, theories and conclusions (hypotheses) clear so everyone can understand them. We can disagree with their conclusions without feeling any compulsion to have them or anyone else change their minds. We enjoy the different perspectives and seek unity in diversity. 

In my view they trip over basic assumptions and inferences, but that's fine. So long as we have access to the relevant facts, different assumptions, inferences, and theories make life interesting as we all pursue truth through clarity, charity and understanding.  

The challenge here is clarity, because clarity relies on a factual foundation.

In Part Seven, Royal has unwittingly or intentionally omitted highly relevant facts that deprive his readers of the ability to make informed decisions about his assumptions, inferences, and theories. Again, we assume he is acting in good faith, but we must build on a foundation of clarity, which means we want all the relevant facts.

_____

Here's one example from Part Seven: The Early Transmission of the Text. 

The specific topic is a section titled "Another Account of Mary Whitmer's Viewing of the Golden Plates," starting on page 43 and continuing through page 47. 

We will look at this in detail because the conclusion Royal presents here is a widely shared belief among many Latter-day Saints today. Actually, it's a nearly universal belief among young and new Latter-day Saints because it is conveyed in Saints, volume 1, and depicted in a famous painting.

_____

Royal writes, "For a long time we have known that Mary Whitmer was also shown the plates. These accounts are familiar and derive from David Whitmer and John C. Whitmer (the son of Jacob Whitmer)." (p. 43)

Then, on page 44, Royal gives us an excerpt of David Whitmer's 1878 account, recorded by Orson Pratt and Joseph F. Smith. This is all good. 

Next he gives us the John C. Whitmer 1878 account, recorded and published by Andrew Jenson. This is the infamous account in which Jenson rejects what Mary Whitmer herself said. Quoting John, Andrew writes:

I have heard my grandmother (Mary Musselman Whitmer) say on several occasions that she was shown the plates of the Book of Mormon by a holy angel, whom se always called Brother Nephi. (She undoubtedly refers to Moroni, the angel who had the plates in charge.)

Royal recognizes the problem when he writes at the end of this passage on page 45, "We should note here that there is some issue about the identity of the angel. Mary Whitmer referred to him as Nephi, but John C. Whitmer identifies him as Moroni."

When we look at the passage, it's obvious it was Andrew Jenson who inserted the parentheticals. John Whitmer would not have put his grandmother's name in a parenthetical. More importantly, John was likely familiar with his uncle David's earlier account identifying the messenger, which Royal hasn't shared. This omission is our first clue something is wrong here.

Next, on pages 45-47, Royal provides an extended discussion of a "third account" which amounts to mere family lore, first recorded in 1958, complete with a fabricated direct quotation of the messenger who, contrary to Mary's own account, arrives and says, "My name is Moroni." From then on, Royal refers to the messenger as Moroni.

Finally, on page 47 (reproduced at the left), Royal writes:

We should also add here the earliest record of the angel appearing to Mary Whitmer. This is found in Edward Stevenson's interview of David Whitmer on 22-23 December 1877 and is recorded as follows in Stevenson's diary [Cook 13, Vogel 5:31]:

& the next Morning Daivds Mother Saw the Person at the Shed and he took the plates from A Box & Showed them to her She Said that they Were fastened with Rings thus: D he turned the leaves over this was a Sattisfaction to her.

[Note: Vogel 5:31 is Vogel's Early Mormon Documents (EMD), Vol 5, page 31, shown below.] 

Quotation from Stevenson's diary, p. 47

Wait a minute. This is the "earliest record" but we don't get it until the end of this section? 

Royal had announced his own standards of evidence back on p. 42.

In selecting witnesses and their statements, we hunt for those accounts that are firsthand, preferably in the witness’s own hand or otherwise based on fairly recent interviews of the witness. As with all accounts of historical events, we will find that they tend to change over time, which means that the earliest accounts are the most reliable ones. Most importantly, we find that the most reliable accounts are supported by more than one witness and that they end up being quite consistent. [emphasis added]

Instead of starting with the earliest account, Royal dedicates three pages on a hearsay account first recorded in 1958. He saves the earliest account for last.

But worse, he omits the key part of the earliest account!

Just a few lines before the sentence Royal quoted from the Stevenson's diary (see the images from EMD below), David Whitmer explained that Joseph identified the messenger as one of the Three Nephites.

"I wish to mention an Item of conversation with David Whitmer in regard to Seeing one of the Nephites, Zina Young, Desired me to ask about it. David Said, Oliver, & The Prophet, & I were riding in a wagon, & an aged man about 5 feet 10, heavey Set & on his back, an old fashioned Armey knapsack Straped over his Shoulders & Something Square in it, & he walked alongside of the Wagon & Wiped the Sweat off his face, Smileing very Pleasant David asked him to ride and he replied I am going across to the hill Cumorah. Soon after they Passed they felt Strangeley and Stoped, but could see nothing of him all around was clean and they asked the Lord about it. He Said that the Prophet Looked as White as a Sheet & Said that it was one of the Nephites & that he had the plates." [emphasis added]

(It is significant that it was Zina who asked Stevenson to ask David about this account. She first met David Whitmer when he and his missionary companion, Hyrum Smith, baptized her family in 1832. She even remembered that she wanted Hyrum to baptize her because he was more handsome. She apparently asked Stevenson to ask David about it because she heard this account from David in 1832)

To restate the obvious, David told Stevenson that Joseph Smith himself identified the messenger as "one of the Nephites." That is highly relevant to the identity of the messenger, and by Royal's own evidentiary standard, should be considered "the most reliable." 

Yet Royal omitted this from his book.

Perhaps Royal reasoned that, well, Moroni was also a Nephite, so it could have been Moroni and Mary might have been wrong after all. But if that's his reasoning, he owes it to us to spell it out after first sharing the relevant facts. 

_____

Royal's citation to EMD also refers to Stevenson's published account, where he clarified by writing,   

David relates, the Prophet looked very white but with a heavenly appearance and said their visitor was one of the three Nephites to whom the Savior gave the promise of life on earth until He should come in power. After arriving home, David again saw this personage, and mother Whitmer, who was very kind to Joseph Smith, is said to have seen not only this Nephite, but to have also been shown by him the sealed and unsealed parts of the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated. (emphasis added) Edward Stevenson, “Visit,” Instructor 22 (1887):55 [emphasis added]

Royal doesn't inform his readers about any of this.

To be sure, Royal isn't writing an encyclopedia. We don't expect him to include every available source. But by his own standards, "the earliest accounts are the most reliable ones." In this case, he was not unaware of the earliest account.

He even quotes part of it.

But he omits the most directly relevant part of the earliest account (Stevenson's diary) and doesn't share the more detailed account Stevenson formally published.

This practice violates the first principle of clarity and misleads readers. While we assume Royal acts in good faith, we also observe that the facts he omitted contradict his conclusion that it was Moroni who showed the plates to Mary Whitmer. 

_____

To see how obvious this manipulation of history is, let's look at the page Royal cited from Vogel's Early Mormon Documents. Royal cited Volume 5, page 31, for the quotation from Stevenson's diary.

Below are images of pages 30-31 from EMD vol. 5. The passage Royal quoted from page 31 is the passage I outlined in yellow below. 

The passage I outlined in red is where David Whitmer relates Joseph's identification of the messenger.  Royal omitted this passage from his quotation, even though it is on the same page as the part he did quote.

Whether Royal omitted the relevant passage unwittingly or deliberately, he has misinformed his readers and should correct the error to rehabilitate the credibility of his work. 

He can retain his opinion that the messenger was Moroni if he wants by rejecting what David and his mother said (the way he rejects what Joseph and Oliver said about the translation), but he owes it to his readers to explain his reasoning after providing the relevant facts here. 

Especially when the facts he censored are those that, according to his own criteria, are "are the most reliable ones."

(click to enlarge)

(click to enlarge)

  

Footnote 13, outlined in red above, relates a subsequent interview that Stevenson had with David Whitmer on 9 Feb 1886. On this occasion, David reiterated his statement that "they asked the Prophet to enquire of the Lord who this stranger was. Soon David said they turned around & Joseph looked pale almost trans¬ parent Se said that [he] was one of the Nephites, and he had the Plates of the Book of Mormon in the knapsac[k]"

You can read this account here:

https://archive.org/details/volume-5_202011/page/159/mode/2up 

Footnote 15 is also interesting. This refers to the interview of John C. Whitmer by Andrew Jenson and Edward Stevenson together on 11 Oct. 1888.

Here we see how Jenson inserted the parentheticals, including John's name, the name of his grandmother, and the Moroni narrative. 

(click to enlarge)

Jenson published his account in Historical Record.

A few months later, Stevenson published his version of this interview. “The Thirteenth Witness to the Plates of the Book of Mormon,” Juvenile Instructor 24 (1 January 1889): 23

(click to enlarge)

In his version of the interview, Stevenson refers to the messenger as Moroni, having adopted Jenson's "correction" of what Mary Whitmer said.

(click to enlarge)

It's easy to see that Royal may not have wanted to go down this rabbit hole to get into all these interviews. But he provided considerable detail about the much later and less credible family lore on this topic, when these earlier sources were readily available right in the references he cited.

_____

Conclusion: If everyone involved with Church history research would join in the pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding, we could apply the FAITH model and agree on the facts. Then we could all understand and appreciate the various assumptions, inferences and theories that everyone uses to reach their conclusions (hypotheses).

And everyone would understand one another with no more contention.

_____

Additional Reference:

https://www.mobom.org/moroni-and-nephi

Ether 12 annotated

Sunday School classes around the world studied Ether 12 today as part of Come Follow Me. 

An annotated version of the chapter is here.

https://www.mobom.org/bm-kjv-and-je-ether-12

The annotations show how Joseph Smith, having been prepared from his youth by the Lord to be the translator, drew upon his own mental language bank that included the KJV of the Bible as well as the work of Jonathan Edwards and other Christian authors, with whom, as he said, he had "an intimate acquaintance." 

Thank you Royal Skousen

Tomorrow is Thanksgiving, a national holiday in the United States. Our first President, George Washington, issued a proclamation that started this way:

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor...

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-04-02-0091

The day became a National Holiday when President Abraham Lincoln issued another proclamation in 1863 during the Civil War. Lincoln implored Americans to “fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquility and Union..”

In that spirit, I hope this Thanksgiving will be a time when Latter-day Saints will pray for and implement greater peace, harmony, tranquility and union among themselves and with others.

This is the pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding that we discuss on this blog and at nomorecontention.com.

_____

Clarity is the predicate or foundation for unity. And, because so much contention arises from our LDS academics, their theories, and their obsession with seeking acceptance of their theories, we should all thank Royal Skousen for stating the obvious about the implications of SITH (the stone-in-the-hat narrative about the origin of the Book of Mormon).

The unity I refer to is not a unity of belief, but 

(i) unity in knowledge (clarity), 

(ii) unity in charity (love and good faith), and 

(iii) unity in understanding (acceptance and appreciation for differences without a compulsion to have everyone think the same).

Unity among Latter-day Saints on the questions of the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon will naturally follow once everyone recognizes that their opinions are based on their assumptions about whether Joseph and Oliver told the truth. We can all be faithful, productive, harmonious Latter-day Saints when we accept the reality that some of us accept what they taught, while others reject what they taught, without insisting everyone must do one or the other.

IOW, unity through diversity.

But for that to happen, we must all be crystal clear about the facts and their implications. And we must fully own our respective beliefs without trying to enforce our own through censorship, obfuscation, and sophistry.

_____

In his latest book, Brother Skousen makes plain this reality: everyone who teaches SITH is also teaching that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery deliberately misled everyone about the origin of the Book of Mormon.

"Joseph Smith’s claim that he used the Urim and Thummim is only partially true; and Oliver Cowdery’s statements that Joseph used the original instrument while he, Oliver, was the scribe appear to be intentionally misleading."

While this point has been obvious to those of us who still believe what Joseph and Oliver taught about the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon, the various scholars who promote SITH have managed to skirt the issue by simply not telling their followers what Joseph and Oliver taught.

It's amazing, really, that this tactic has succeeded for so long. The LDS scholars who wrote Saints (vol. 1), the Gospel Topics Essay on Book of Mormon Translation, innumerable articles, commentaries, Kno-Whys, videos, podcasts, etc., have carefully avoided Brother Skousen's point by simply omitting (I call it censoring) what Joseph and Oliver taught about the origin of the Book of Mormon.

But now Brother Skousen has "unvailed" the truth about SITH.

To be clear, I completely disagree with Brother Skousen's conclusion, which is based not on fact but on assumptions and inferences; but every Latter-day Saint should recognize that Brother Skousen's conclusion necessarily follows from the SITH narrative.

That's why E.D. Howe spelled it out in his 1834 anti-Mormon book titled Mormonism Unvailed in the first place.

Next week, we'll apply the FAITH model to examine Brother Skousen's claims. I'll show that he either was unaware of, or chose not to include, some of the most relevant facts regarding the translation of the Book of Mormon. This suggests he was more focused on confirming his bias than on fully informing his readers, but we'll let people decide for themselves about that.

_____

Brother Skousen's clarifying point also applies to the setting of the Book of Mormon. Those who accommodate and/or promote M2C (the Mesoamerican/Two-Cumorahs theory of Book of Mormon geography) necessarily reject, repudiate, and renounce what Joseph and Oliver said about the setting of the Book of Mormon hill Cumorah/Ramah. Like the SITH sayers, the M2C scholars skirt the issue by not telling their followers what Joseph and Oliver taught.

Thus, like the SITH sayers, the M2Cers reach a conclusion similar to Brother Skousen's SITH conclusion:

Both Joseph Smith’s claims about Cumorah and Oliver Cowdery’s statement that it is a fact that Cumorah/Ramah is in New York appear to be intentionally misleading.

 

The elephant in the room was born as M2C, which started a little over 100 years ago when faithful scholars began rejecting what Joseph and Oliver taught about Cumorah.

The elephant grew larger when faithful scholars adopted SITH by rejecting what Joseph and Oliver taught about the origin of the Book of Mormon.

Now, the mature elephant in the room is what Brother Skousen has finally articulated; i.e., the assertion by the credentialed class of academics of the authority to cancel what Joseph and Oliver plainly taught because, according to them, Joseph and Oliver deliberately misled us all.

_____

We usually attribute this assertion of authority to organizations, including Scripture Central, the Interpreter Foundation, FAIRLDS, and BYU.

But Brother Skousen has shown that it is not an organizational behavior problem. It's an individual problem.

Hence the new acronym JTDS that we'll discuss in upcoming posts.

Buckle up.

_____

Meanwhile, Happy Thanksgiving!

SITH interlude

We'll continue the popular discussion of Cumorah next week after Thanksgiving. I'm introducing a new acronym - JTDS - and we'll go through Scripture Central's videos, etc.

[For those who don't know, SITH = stone-in-the-hat narrative.]

Let's start today's SITH interlude by asking, Do you believe the following statement?

Joseph Smith’s claim that he used the Urim and Thummim is only partially true; and Oliver Cowdery’s statements that Joseph used the original instrument while he, Oliver, was the scribe appear to be intentionally misleading.

It's a serious question because this is the inevitable and obvious outcome of the SITH narrative. 

_____

To be clear, my answer to that question is no, I don't believe that statement. 

I, along with many Latter-day Saints, still believe what Joseph and Oliver said. 

But our friends at Scripture Central, the Interpreter, FAIRLDS, etc., along with their followers who believe SITH, do believe that statement. They actually think Joseph and Oliver misled everyone about the translations of the Book of Mormon.

The statement is a quotation from Royal Skousen's latest book.

Some time ago I uploaded a paper on Academia.org titled "Agenda-driven editorial content in the Joseph Smith Papers."

https://www.academia.edu/67756647/Agenda_driven_editorial_content_in_the_Joseph_Smith_Papers

On page 4 I made this statement:

Skousen has explained that he not only rejects the claim that Joseph used the Urim  and Thummim to produce the text we have today [i.e., he may have used that instrument for the lost 116 pages but stopped after those pages were lost], but he believes Joseph and Oliver intentionally misled the world about the translation. “Joseph Smith’s claim that he used the Urim and Thummim is only partially true; and Oliver Cowdery’s statements that Joseph used the original instrument while he, Oliver, was the scribe appear to be intentionally misleading.” 7 

At a minimum, the editors of Volume 5 should alert readers to their biases in favor of M2C and SITH. Ideally, they would do so while acknowledging alternative interpretations of the same historical facts, including interpretations that corroborate instead of repudiate what Joseph and Oliver claimed.

Footnote 7 went to this link.

https://interpreterfoundation.org/blog-update-of-the-pre-print-of-a-discussion-of-the-book-of-mormon-witnesses-by-royal-skousen/

Yesterday I bought the recently released Part 7: The Early Transmission of the Text by Royal Skousen, with the collaboration of Stanford Carmack, so now I can update that footnote to page 62.

Royal Skousen's claim that Joseph and Oliver
"misled" everyone about the translation
(click to enlarge)

Brother Skousen is an amazing, awesome scholar whose detailed work is invaluable. On January 25, 2022, in the Church Administration Building on Temple Square, President Russell M. Nelson thanked those who helped make the volume of the Joseph Smith Papers that contains the Original Manuscript possible, including Brother Skousen.

(click to enlarge)

But despite his meticulous, professional research, Brother Skousen inexplicably makes questionable assumptions about source material and draws inferences that lead him to theories and hypotheses that strike many people as unreasonable.

In Part Seven, for example, he carefully itemizes the statements from the various witnesses, which is great. But he seems to simply take them at face value--except for the statements from Joseph and Oliver, which he rejects as misleading or only partially true.

This is the same approach taken by the currently dominant LDS historians and other scholars, as we'll see when I publish my paper(s) about Part Seven and other current developments in this area.

_____

So, what do you think? 

Do you agree with Brother Skousen and the other SITH sayers that Joseph and Oliver deliberately misled everyone about the translation of the Book of Mormon?

Or do you not know enough about Church history to say?

Stay tuned to this blog for more updates.

Ether, Edwards, and extras

Ether: LetterVII.com has a new post about Ether 5, here:

https://www.lettervii.com/2024/11/ether-5-answers-questions.html

Edwards: Mobom.org has new annotated chapters from the Book of Mormon, here:

https://www.mobom.org/jonathan-edwards

Extras:

Overview of Joseph Smith's early years:

https://www.mobom.org/joseph-smith-early-years

Museum info. Because many museums in the United States are removing their artifacts related to ancient North America, MOBOM (Museum of the Book of Mormon) will offer information about the exhibits. For example, photos from the National Great Rivers Museum are available here.

https://www.mobom.org/archaeology

Updated analysis of Gospel Topics Essay on Book of Mormon Translation.

https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/2022/09/analysis-gospel-topics-essay-on-book-of.html

Cumorah 2024 - 3. Origin and promotion of M2C

The Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory (M2C), which claims that the Book of Mormon events in the promised land took place in Mesoamerica (Central America), originated over 100 years ago. 

For an article about the origins of M2C, see

https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/p/the-m2c-narrative-origin-and.html

Currently, M2C is being heavily promoted by influential LDS scholars and organizations, including 4 whom we will discuss next week. They're all awesome people and careful scholars who have many followers. 

And we respect M2C as one of multiple working hypotheses. On this and other blogs, we encourage people to learn all they can about M2C. We host comparisons of different hypotheses, such as this one.

https://www.lettervii.com/p/rationality-comparison-chart-cumorah.html

We want people to make informed decisions for themselves, all in the spirit of understanding instead of persuasion, compulsion, compliance, etc. We reject deference to others' opinions, regardless of how many credentials they claim, their positions at BYU, or how much money they have.

We think the teachings of the prophets and the scriptures are clear, simple, and profound--and more than sufficient for every Latter-day Saint to understand the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon.

As part of the pursuit of clarity, next week we will discuss the four principal promoters of M2C in our day. These include:

1. Scripture Central, led by John W. (Jack) Welch, who co-founded FARMS, then Book of Mormon Central. He and Kirk Magleby, the current "Evangelist" for Scripture Central, are awesome people who have been promoting M2C for decades.

2. FAIRLDS, led by Scott Gordon.

3. Interpreter Foundation, led by Dan Peterson.

4. Tyler Griffin, who developed the BYU Fantasy Map and who is featured on Scripture Central's Come Follow Me podcasts.

_____

Despite the efforts of these fine scholars, there remain many Latter-day Saints who still believe the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah/Ramah. For us, the evidence from Church history and the scriptures is unambiguous. The New York setting is corroborated by extrinsic evidence from archaeology, anthropology, geology, geography, etc.

We recognize that others have different interpretations and opinions, and that's fine with us. We hope that everyone interested in the Book of Mormon can make informed decisions for themselves about such topics as these:

(i) whether Oliver Cowdery, Joseph Smith, Lucy Mack Smith, and David Whitmer told the truth about the New York Cumorah/Ramah;

(ii) whether subsequent prophets were correct about the New York Cumorah/Ramah; 

and 

(iii) whether the modern M2C theory should be the only theory taught to Latter-day Saints.

_____

Disencumbering Latter-day Saints from the confusion and complexity of M2C reveals the beauty and simplicity of the New York Cumorah/Ramah.

It's like freeing a water lily from spirogyra.