Multiple lands of promise

Recently I was annotating 2 Nephi 9 and I was reminded about this important passage.

1 And now, my beloved brethren, I have read these things that ye might know concerning the covenants of the Lord that he has covenanted with all the house of Israel—
2 That he has spoken unto the Jews, by the mouth of his holy prophets, even from the beginning down, from generation to generation, until the time comes that they shall be restored to the true church and fold of God; when they shall be gathered home to the lands of their inheritance, and shall be established in all their lands of promise.
(2 Nephi 9:1–2)

This is an essential point to keep in mind in today's world. The "Guide to the scriptures" gives this definition.

Promised Land

Lands that the Lord promises as an inheritance to His faithful followers, and often also to their descendants. There are many promised lands.

The "promised land" for ancient Israel was Israel. The "promised land" for Lehi, as well as the Jaredites "in this north country," was North America. The "promised land" for the early Latter-day Saints was Kirtland, then Missouri, then Illinois, then Utah.

But the promised land in our day is wherever the saints gather. 

That's why the Book of Mormon refers to "lands of promise," plural.

It has been over 50 years since President Lee emphasized the relevance of this passage.

At the Mexico City Area Conference last August, Elder Bruce R. McConkie of the Council of the Twelve, in a thought-provoking address, made some comments pertinent to this subject, and I quote a few sentences from his address:

“Of this glorious day of restoration and gathering, another Nephite prophet said: ‘The Lord … has covenanted with all the house of Israel,’ that ‘the time comes that they shall be restored to the true church and fold of God’; and that ‘they shall be gathered home to the lands of their inheritance, and shall be established in all their lands of promise.’ (2 Ne. 9:1–2.)

“Now I call your attention to the facts, set forth in these scriptures, that the gathering of Israel consists of joining the true church; of coming to a knowledge of the true God and of his saving truths; and of worshiping him in the congregations of the Saints in all nations and among all peoples. Please note that these revealed words speak of the folds of the Lord; of Israel being gathered to the lands of their inheritance; of Israel being established in all their lands of promise; and of there being congregations of the covenant people of the Lord in every nation, speaking every tongue, and among every people when the Lord comes again.”

Elder McConkie then concluded with this statement, which certainly emphasizes the great need for the teaching and training of local leadership in order to build up the church within their own native countries:

“The place of gathering for the Mexican Saints is in Mexico; the place of gathering for the Guatemalan Saints is in Guatemala; the place of gathering for the Brazilian Saints is in Brazil; and so it goes throughout the length and breadth of the whole earth. Japan is for the Japanese; Korea is for the Koreans; Australia is for the Australians; every nation is the gathering place for its own people.”

(1970s, 1973, April, Lee, Strengthen the Stakes of Zion, ¶31–35 • CR)

"After all we can do"

Because most M2Cers are also SITH sayers, we sometimes discuss SITH (the stone-in-the-hat theory) on this blog. 

Because I still believe what Joseph and Oliver taught about the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon, and because I think the extrinsic evidence corroborates and supports what they claimed, I occasionally post examples here.

In this case, it involves the ongoing debate about the meaning of this passage:

23 For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do. (2 Nephi 25:23)

If Joseph Smith translated the plates, we can expect to find helpful interpretations from his environment. And in this case, we do.

Recently Kyle Beshears posted a thoughtful analysis here: https://www.kylebeshears.com/p/the-verse-that-bothered-me. He concluded that "after" in this verse is equivalent to "despite."

I agree with him. And IMO the works of Jonathan Edwards corroborate this interpretation.

Kyle explains:

It sounds like Nephi is saying, “We know Christ will save us by grace, but we have to put forth the effort first, which is why we keep the Law.”

But I don’t think that’s the right interpretation.

LDS scholars have noticed how “after all we can do” is logical, rather than chronological, and, when put back into its original linguistic environment, means something more like “despite all we can do.”1

Note 1 reads: 

Daniel O. McClellan, “2 Nephi 25:23 in Literary and Rhetorical Context,” JBMS 29 (2020):1–19. Stephen E. Robinson earlier suggested the same when he interpreted “after”as logical rather than chronologically (i.e., that grace does not follow “all we can do” but comes regardless of “all we can do”). So Robinson: “the preposition ‘after’ in 2 Nephi 25:23 to be a preposition of separation rather than a preposition of time. It denotes logical separateness rather than temporal sequence. We are saved by grace ‘apart from all we can do’ or ‘all we can do notwithstanding,’ or even ‘regardless of all we can do’” (Believing Christ: The Parable of the Bicycle and Other Good News [Salt Lake City: Deseret, 1992], 91–92).

At first glance, it might seem strange to equate "after" with "despite."

Because so much of the Book of Mormon language apparently quotes and/or draws from the works of Jonathan Edwards (see https://www.mobom.org/jonathan-edwards}, I was curious how Edwards used the term. I came up with the following examples among many more of him using "after" to mean "despite."

These are easily found at edwards.yale.edu:

In opposition to this, the Apostle says, "We Jews, after all our glorying in our distinction, were by nature children of wrath, as well as the rest of the world." And a yet further evidence, that the Apostle here means to include the Jews, and even himself, is the universal term he uses, "Among whom also we ALL had our conversation," etc. 

Yet after all my sorrows, I trust through grace, this day and the exercises of it have been for my good, and taught me more of my corruption, and weakness without Christ, than I knew before.

And her heart felt pleased and satisfied it should be so, although of late she had often found her heart rise and quarrel with God because he would, if he pleased, send her to hell after all she had done, or could do to save herself, etc.; and added that the heavy burden she had lain under was now removed:

Nor will it be the main business of that council to judge whether or no I should fairly continue the pastor of this church, if the people, after all fair means used and all proper steps taken to effect an accommodation, should finally desire that I should not be their pastor.

The man tries a great while to be a means of his own salvation, by his own strength to change and sanctify his own heart, and by his righteousness to engage God to show mercy to him: but now he is quite discouraged; the heart gives out and gives up such endeavors; he finds by experience after all his trials, that his heart is as hard as ever.

And God won't act at all cruelly and hardly if, after all your prayers and all your striving, he should let you alone to drop into hell. It would not be any reflection at all upon his mercy, nor would he in the least come short of those declarations of his mercy which he has made in his Word

It is also agreeable to a Scripture way of speaking when it is said, "He shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren," to understand it that they, after all their opposition to it, shall see him still subsisting, and retaining his own habitation in spite of them.

But are we to expect this, dear Sir, that Satan will ever find means to bring things to that pass, that after all the increase of light that has been in the world since the Reformation, there shall be a return of a more dark time than in the depth of the darkness of popery, before the Reformation, when the church of God shall be nearer to a total extinction,

But dear Sir, though your circumstances are difficult, and your temptations great, yet let me entreat you once to look back on what you have laid down; and after all your positiveness and high charge, to suffer in yourself a little reflection and exercise of reason.

  living from day to day without one spark of true love to the God of infinite glory, and fountain of all good, their having greater complacence in the little vile things of this world than in him, their living in a rejection of Christ, with all his glorious benefits, and dying love; and after all the exhibitions of his glory and grace, having their hearts still as cold as a stone towards him; their living in such ingratitude for the infinite mercy of his laying down his life for sinners.

They ben't really and thoroughly convinced, after all that is said, that there is any such thing as heaven or hell or any such being as God. There is none of all the talk about another world and a future judgment that seems real to them. 

After all my attainments in knowledge and wisdom, yet all signified nothing to remove or avoid the troubles and sorrows of the world, to mend it or make it better, or to find out any way to remove the vexation, or to seek satisfaction from it. 

Next, I asked Grok what it thought. First, it told me that "after" is not a synonym for "despite." After I gave it the Edwards examples, it replied.

These Jonathan Edwards examples further support the historical point.

Edwards (1703–1758) wrote in the 18th century, slightly earlier than the 19th-century sources in the Kyle Beshears article, but in the same broad Anglo-American Protestant rhetorical tradition. In many of these passages, “after” functions concessively—roughly equivalent to “despite,” “even after,” “notwithstanding,” or “for all.” It highlights the insufficiency or futility of human effort, striving, or circumstances in light of God’s sovereignty, grace, or larger reality.

Quick breakdown of your examples

Here’s how the concessive sense appears:

“We Jews, after all our glorying in our distinction, were by nature children of wrath...”

→ Despite all our boasting/pride in being distinct.

“Yet after all my sorrows, I trust through grace...”

→ Despite/all my sorrows notwithstanding.

“...send her to hell after all she had done, or could do...”

→ Despite everything she had done or could do (classic insufficiency-of-works theme).

“...if the people, after all fair means used...”

→ Despite all proper/fair efforts having been made.

“...he finds by experience after all his trials, that his heart is as hard as ever.”

→ Despite all his efforts/trials.

“...after all your prayers and all your striving...”

→ Even after/despite all that.

“...they, after all their opposition to it...”

→ Despite all their opposition.

“...after all the increase of light that has been...”

→ Despite all the progress in light/knowledge.

“...after all your positiveness and high charge...”

→ Despite all your strong assertions.

“...after all the exhibitions of his glory and grace...”

→ Despite all those displays.

“They ben't really... convinced, after all that is said...”

→ Despite everything that has been said.

“After all my attainments in knowledge and wisdom...”

→ Despite all my achievements.

This usage is idiomatic and rhetorical, common in religious writing of the period to underscore humility before God: no matter how much we do, strive, know, or suffer, it doesn’t change the fundamental reality (e.g., our need for grace, God’s sovereignty, the hardness of the heart).

Important caveats (same as before)

This is not standard modern English. Today, “after all [effort]” more often sounds temporal (“following all that effort”) or summative (“when everything is considered”).

It works best in fixed or semi-fixed phrases like “after all we/I/they can do,” “after all [noun],” or “after all that...”

It’s a contextual/historical nuance, not proof that “after” and “despite” are broadly interchangeable synonyms.

Edwards’ style is dense and theological, so these fit the pattern seen in the Book of Mormon analysis: 18th–19th century religious prose often used “after” this way to emphasize that human achievement falls short and grace (or divine will) prevails despite it.

This strengthens the case for that older usage without overturning the general modern distinction. Great examples—thanks for sharing them!

 

Lindsay Graham and what's important

When my friend Lindsay Graham died a week ago, I was shocked. His death reminded me and I suppose everyone of how suddenly and unexpectedly death can come.

Lindsay and I used to work together on cases when we were Air Force JAGs in Europe. Back then, he told me he wanted to become the governor of South Carolina, but he pursued federal office instead. 

He prosecuted the guy who tried to murder me by stabbing me in the upper spine and then, after I lost all feeling from the waist down, tried to strangle me. 

The near-death experience I had during that attack changed my perception of mortality. Among other things it led me to my oft-repeated philosophy that the hardest thing about mortality is how real it seems.

Which also relates to the setting of the Book of Mormon.

The pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding eliminates incentives for contention. People can happily disagree once they seek understanding instead of consensus, coercion, conversion, etc. 

Clarity seems to remain the most difficult obstacle for many people to overcome. One purpose of this blog is to bring clarity to the issues, and we'll keep doing so, recognizing that there are many far more important issues than the setting of the Book of Mormon.

 

Why experts miss the obvious

Many Latter-day Saints wonder how and why so many LDS scholars got wrapped up in the M2C fiasco. I've been asked to do a detailed explanation of the intellectual genealogy of M2C. Maybe I'll put it online someday.

By analogy, here's a good explanation of how and why experts overlook the obvious.

_____

Dustin

@r0ck3t23

The biggest improvement ever made to the most complex machine in human history came from a guy holding a camera. Not a propulsion engineer. Not a systems architect. Not anyone on the SpaceX payroll. A YouTuber named Tim Dodd. Dodd was touring Starbase when Musk explained how they eliminated the entire cold gas thruster system on the Super Heavy booster. Instead of a separate mechanism with its own weight and its own failure points, they just vented hot gas straight from the propellant tanks. Zero added weight. Zero extra parts. Dodd asked one question. “But this is only for the booster, right?” Musk stopped. Musk: “Although, arguably, now you mentioned it, it might be wise to do this for the ship too. We’re gonna fix that.” Seven months later, Musk confirmed it was one of the biggest improvements ever made to the vehicle. That moment should have been impossible. Thousands of the most brilliant aerospace minds alive work at SpaceX. They designed this system. Reviewed it. Tested it. Shipped it. Defended it in rooms where challenging the architecture has a cost. None of them asked the question. Not because they were stupid. Because they were expert. We worship expertise. We hire for it. We pay for it. We promote for it. We have built entire civilizations on the assumption that the person who understands a problem most deeply is the one most qualified to solve it. But depth is not the same thing as sight. Expertise is not a straight line toward truth. It is a circle. You learn enough to solve the problem. Then you learn enough to justify the solution. Then you learn enough to defend the justification. And eventually you know so much about why things are the way they are that you lose the ability to ask whether they should be. The SpaceX engineers understood exactly why the cold gas thrusters existed on the ship. Thermal constraints. Attitude control requirements. Heritage design logic. They had context and history and institutional memory and ten perfectly valid reasons the ship was different from the booster. Every single one of those reasons was a wall between them and the obvious. Dodd had none of it. No history telling him the question was already answered. No career incentive to leave the architecture alone. No knowledge of why things were the way they were. He just had the question. And the question was right. The cold gas system on the ship was not a mistake anyone was hiding. It was a mistake nobody could see. Because the only way to see it was to know less. Not more. Now think about your own expertise. The thing you have built or maintained or defended longer than anyone around you. The system you understand so deeply that nobody questions your judgment on it anymore. What is the question nobody around you is asking? Not because it is hard. Because it is so simple it feels beneath the room. That question is probably worth more than everything your smartest people have produced this quarter. And right now it is sitting in the mouth of someone you would never think to invite to the meeting. The rocket got lighter because someone didn’t know he wasn’t supposed to ask. Most expertise will spend its entire life making sure no one does.

The Helaman 9:2 test for M2C and SITH

Every person on earth has a direct personal interest in whether what Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery said was true or not. If they told the truth, then their message supersedes all other religious traditions and beliefs (although the truths found in those are also part of the full Restoration). 

If Joseph and Oliver did not tell the truth, then their message is worthless.

This is why SITH and M2C are so fundamentally inimical to the Restoration.

For new readers, SITH is the "stone-in-the-hat" theory about the production of the Book of Mormon that contradicts the Urim and Thummim explanation Joseph and Oliver always gave.

M2C is the "Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs" theory that the Book of Mormon events took place in Mesoamerica, that New York is too far away to be the location of Cumorah/Ramah, and therefore the "true" Cumorah/Ramah must be in southern Mexico while the hill in New York was only called Cumorah because of a false tradition.

_____

The ongoing pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding leads us to recognize that all the conversations/debates about the Restoration revolve around the principle set out in Helaman 9:2. 

This includes claims by "Christians" that Latter-day Saints are not "Christian." It includes claims by non-Christians that the Restoration was based on the imagination or deception of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, the only two witnesses of the restoration of the Priesthoods and temple keys.

Helaman 9:2 even addresses conversations/debates among Latter-day Saints about the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon. 

The chapter begins with five men running to see if what the prophet Nephi had said about the death of the judge was correct.

Behold, now we will know of a surety whether this man be a prophet and God hath commanded him to prophesy such marvelous things unto us. 

Behold, we do not believe that he hath; yea, we do not believe that he is a prophet; 

nevertheless, if this thing which he has said concerning the chief judge be true, that he be dead, then will we believe that the other words which he has spoken are true.

Most people in the world come to the Restoration from a state of disbelief. The Restoration contradicts the beliefs they inherited from their parents, peers and society. Naturally, they do not believe the truth claims made by Joseph and Oliver.

Those who once accepted the Restoration come to disbelieve the truth claims for a variety of reasons, but mainly they lose their belief that Joseph and Oliver told the truth.

We can apply Helaman 9:2 to our day this way:

Behold, now we will know of a surety whether this man be a prophet and God hath commanded him to prophesy such marvelous things unto us. 

Behold, we do not believe that he hath; yea, we do not believe that he is a prophet; 

nevertheless, if this thing which he has said concerning the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon be true, that Joseph obtained the plates from the hill Cumorah/Ramah and translated them by means of the Urim and Thummim that came with the plates, then will we believe that the other words which he has spoken are true.

SITH and M2C both teach that Joseph and Oliver did not tell the truth about the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon. As these academic theories spread throughout the Church by means of certain professors and influencers at BYU and CES, members naturally grew increasingly skeptical about the reliability and credibility of Joseph and Oliver. 

We can learn from Helaman 9:2 what happens when people find Joseph and Oliver credible. 

We can also see the inverse. When people are taught by prominent LDS scholars and social media influencers that Joseph and Oliver misled everyone about the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon, it is a bridge too far for many people to split the hairs necessary to believe the other truth claims they made.

Jasmine explains the "Informed Saints" podcast

Someone sent me an explanation by Jasmine Rappleye (a fine scholar, exemplary Latter-day Saint, wonderful person, etc.) of the channel "Informed Saints" that changed my perspective on the channel. 

All along, I assumed the channel was intended to inform Latter-day Saints. But now I realize the name refers not to the audience, but to the hosts and their guests.

Now it all makes sense.

Of all the various podcasts, channels, and social media outlets, the most aptly named is "Informed Saints." 

That name is reminiscent of the Interpreter. The name Interpreter is apt for a group of scholars who purport to "interpret" the scriptures "correctly" so the rest of us aren't misled by such things as the prophets, where those teachings contradict the theories of the scholars.

What I realized about "Informed Saints" is that the name does not refer to viewers and listeners. 

It refers to the hosts and their like-minded guests.

Like the "Interpreters," the "Informed Saints" position themselves as so well "informed" that they can tell their viewers and listeners what to think. Like the Interpreters, the "Informed Saints" do not want people to be misled by such things as the teachings of the prophets, where those teachings contradict the theories of the scholars.

In the pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding, I assessed Jasmine's statement on my blog

https://claritycharityunderstanding.blogspot.com/2026/06/jasmine-explains-informed-saints-channel.html

But because that blog is new to some people, I'll post the main content here as well:

_____

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1386433376646974

This is my very brief crash course on why I think the Book of Mormon most likely took place in Mesoamerica.

This is a bit of a euphemism that conceals a major point. Jasmine is not merely saying that it took place in Mesoamerica, but also that the Hill Cumorah/Ramah must be in southern Mexico. That's why, to be clear, it is called M2C (the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory). Anyone who; promotes the "Mesoamerican theory" without clarifying by using the M2C acronym is obfuscating. 

There are other theories that include Mesoamerica which also include the New York Cumorah/Ramah, so they don't repudiate the teachings of the prophets the way the M2Cers do. 

This is not doctrine. This is just my opinion. 

Yet she presents herself as one of the "Informed Saints" who host and appear on this channel. By implication, anyone who disagrees with their opinions is "not informed."

But here it is.

First, what the text of the Book of Mormon says about its geography—the distances, the geological features, the relationships between cities—fits far, far better in Mesoamerica than any other proposed model. 

Obviously, what the text of the Book of Mormon "says" about its geography is how the reader interprets it. People read the text to fit their pre-conceived ideas. 

In Baja, the distances are too small, in the Heartland, they’re really large, but Mesoamerica is just right.

This is a good example. To an M2Cer such as Jasmine, "many days" can mean only a limited geography in Mesoamerica extending at most 1,000 km. But every reader can see that Nephi described the 3,000 km journey from Jerusalem to Bountiful as a trip of "many days." IOW, Lehi's family traveled farther in one journey than anyone in the M2C Nephite society traveled in 1,000 years. 

The M2Cers simply assume that Nephi and his descendants were fine crossing 3,000 km of desert but did not venture out of the jungles of Mesoamerica because it was "too far" to go elsewhere.  

Worse, we can all see that even sailing many thousands of kilometers to the promised land also took "many days." (1 Nephi 18:23) But again, the Nephites limited themselves to the "just right" distances in Mesoamerica.

Like other M2Cers, Jasmine doesn't apparently see the inconsistency of their interpretation of the text, such as the term "many days," because their entire theory consists of interpreting the text to fit Mesoamerica. 

I think you can more logically and methodically place pins on the map for Book of Mormon sites in Mesoamerica, but with the other models, you more often have to stretch or outright contradict the text of the Book of Mormon to make it work.

It is difficult to imagine how one can "stretch" the text more than by saying "many days" means only what we want it to mean at various places in the text. That "rubber band" interpretation extends to the entire M2C model. This is what I used to call the "Sorenson translation" which has become the "M2C interpretation" because they've added so many qualifiers and terms to the text. 

Here are two obvious examples. The Nephites did not mention the flora and fauna of Mesoamerica, so the M2Cers retranslate the text to substitute Mesoamerican plants and animals. Nephi predicted "earthquakes" in the last days (2 Ne. 27:2) but not in his time. The failure of any other Nephite to mention "earthquakes" in the entire 1,000 years of Mesoamerican existence is solved by M2Cers retranslating 3 Nephi to mean they had massive "earthquakes" but inexplicably forgot the term Nephi used. 

Second, the archaeology in Mesoamerica supports the kind of civilization the Book of Mormon talks about from 600BC to 400AD—large cities, fortifications, armies, social stratification, large battles, government.

This points to the basic misdirection at the foundation of M2C. There are civilizations all around the world that include "large cities, fortifications, armies, social stratification, large battles, government." These did not exist only in Mesoamerica during this time period. 

And the text never mentions Mesoamerica. 

So why do M2Cers look in Mesoamerica? 

Solely because of the teachings of the prophets that the events took place in "the Americas." [Note: "the Americas" is a modern spin on the historical record. Joseph and Oliver referred to "this country" and "this continent" but never to "the Americas."] 

Without the teachings of the prophets, the Book of Mormon could have taken place anywhere in the world reachable by boat from the Arabian peninsula. In fact, applying the M2C interpretation of "many days" meaning a limited area in Mesoamerica, to be consistent we should be looking for a site within 1,000 km, say in east Africa or maybe India. 

But the M2Cers look in Mesoamerica because of the teachings of the prophets. 

And at the same time, they explicitly reject what these same prophets said about Cumorah/Ramah in New York. 

So again, like they do with terms such as "many days," the M2Cers apply inconsistent logic to achieve their outcome-determined interpretation by accepting the teachings of the prophets that they think corroborate their theory, while rejecting the teachings of the prophets that contradict their theory. 

This is one reason why we love our fellow Book of Mormon scholars. We only ask that they be more clear about their positions.  

The available scholarship agrees that other models severely lack in this area.

This may be the most telling statement in this entire piece. What scholarship is "available" to the "Informed Saints" and other M2Cers? 

I once made a video of the Lee Library on the BYU campus. There are several shelves of books about Mesoamerica, each roughly 40 feet wide. Regarding the archaeology in North America, there was a small section about a foot wide.  

What Jasmine is referring to here is the "scholarship" produced by the M2Cers themselves. It is axiomatic that they "agree" the other model "lack" because otherwise they would have changed their minds. (And there are many former M2Cers who have changed their minds, but Jasmine and the other "Informed Saints" would never consider having them on the podcast.) 

Worse, the "available scholarship" about Mesoamerica soundly refutes the claims of the M2Cers. Zero non-LDS Mesoamerican experts believe the Book of Mormon describes ancient Mesoamerica. For example, one well-known General Authority told me his brother, an actual Mesoamerican scholar, left the Church over M2C because he knew M2C was absurd but he felt that the Church had endorsed it. 

Anyone who reads the work of John Sorenson, Brant Gardner, or the other M2Cers can see that their "interpretations" of the text are pure bias confirmation. Then they treat their interpretations as equivalent to a new, more correct translation, and tell everyone that this is what the text means. 

And we can all see that the M2C bias they are confirming is that the prophets lied about the New York Cumorah/Ramah, which they try to frame as merely ignorant speculation.  

But third, understanding the PreClassic maya cultural background of the Book of Mormon actually helps me understand the doctrine of Book of Mormon better.

Stop and think about this for a moment. Jasmine is saying that we can "understand the doctrine of the Book of Mormon better" by understanding the Mayan culture, which we should do along with rejecting the teachings of the prophets. 

There are two obvious fallacies here. First, no matter what "cultural context" you assume for the Book of Mormon, you will gain new "insights." This is the basic human psychology of pattern recognition. Second, if we remember that the Nephites came from a Hebrew/Egyptian background, including the scriptures they brought with them, we don't need to look elsewhere to understand the text. 

And corroborating, instead of repudiating, the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah/Ramah provides plenty pf useful extrinsic context.

Understanding Maya kingship rituals helps me understand the blood of Christ’s atonement discussed in King Benjamin’s speech.

Without resorting to Mayan culture, each of these examples can be understood profoundly by considering the Bible and the works of Christian authors familiar to Joseph Smith as translator. Getting into detail is beyond the scope of this post, but consider these examples: "Type" and "types" are nonbiblical terms. 

And many signs, and wonders, and types, and shadows showed he unto them, concerning his coming; and also holy prophets spake unto them concerning his coming; and yet they hardened their hearts, and understood not that the law of Moses availeth nothing except it were through the atonement of his blood... so the blood of Christ atoneth for their sins...salvation was, and is, and is to come, in and through the atoning blood of Christ

. (Mosiah 3:15)

Jonathan Edwards: 

The doctrine of Christ's satisfaction and righteousness, his ascension and glory, and the way of salvation was under the Old Testament in a great measure hid under the veil of types and shadows and more obscure revelations, as Moses put a veil over his face to hide the shining of it

the reason is plain: the blood of Christ did as much show his righteousness as his propitiation, and appeared as mainly in his blood as his propitiation did. So of old, in all the sacrifices, those great types of Christ, what they had that was to be offered to God was their blood

'Tis evident that God chose the blood or life of the creature to be offered to make atonement for the soul rather than the hair, because it has a greater resemblance of the life of a surety, which is a true atonement for the soul, as the prophecies of the Old Testament do represent. 

it demonstrates clearly that these shadows of atonement are appointed out of respect to the resemblance they have to the real atonement , and that they might be instead of it and as standing representations of it; or, which is the same thing, that they might be types of it. God appointed the suffering of the creature, rather than the feeding or fatting of it, for the making atonement, because the suffering of the creature has a greater resemblance of that suffering that makes a real atonement for sin. God in thus calling these shadows from time to time by the name of the thing resembled, 

Understanding Maya execution tactics helps me understand the power of Abinadi’s final testimony.

Understanding the Mayan pun in the Korihor story helps me understand stay strong in my testimony of Christ.

No other model has been able to provide the same level of explanatory value for enriching our understanding of the scriptures.

There are two obvious fallacies here. First, no matter what "cultural context" you assume for the Book of Mormon, you will gain new "insights." If someone placed the Book of Mormon in ancient China or India, similar "insights" would ensue. This is the basic human psychology of pattern recognition. 

Second, if we remember that the Nephites came from a Hebrew/Egyptian background, including the scriptures they brought with them, we don't need to look elsewhere to understand the text. 

So while everyone is welcome to their own opinions, and the church does not take a position on geography, this is why I have come to the conclusion that Mesoamerica is the most likely location for the primary events of the book of Mormon.

If we think of the podcast title "Informed Saints" as referring to the audience, then Jasmine's statement doesn't work because she does not allow other opinions on the podcast (except as caricatures).

But if we think of "Informed Saints" being the hosts and guests of the podcast, assuming for themselves the title of being "Informed Saints" by contrast to the "uninformed Saints" who have different perspectives, then her statement makes perfect sense. 

A more accurate term would be "Dogmatic Saints" or "Partly Informed Saints," but we can't expect that degree of clarity. 

Yet. 

To learn more about the compelling reasons to take this model seriously, watch this episode of Informed Saints.

Drop the mic. 

There is not even a pretense of seeking to "inform" the audience. This channel is pure propaganda that uses the "documentary effect" to persuade the audience to agree with the hosts and guests.

We love our fellow Book of Mormon scholars.