Apparently there is a discussion of Brant Gardner's series over on the
Interpreter. I don't read the comments because I'm doing a peer review of Brant's articles, which usually makes such comments moot, but someone sent me the comment below and asked for my response.
I won't mention the name of the author because, as is usual for this individual (who is no doubt awesome, faithful, smart, etc.) the comment is acerbic, arrogant and devoid of facts. But because someone asked, below are some thoughts.
Original in blue, my comments in red, original quotations in green.
_____
“I don’t know why anyone actually believes in a hemispheric model, resulting in Central America as the narrow neck.”
I don't know who the author is quoting, but it's easy to see why some early Church members speculated about Central America as the narrow neck. They were enamored with reports of ancient civilizations in Central America that they thought would motivate people to read the Book of Mormon. They knew little to nothing about the archaeology, anthropology, geology and geography they speculated about, as is evident from the anachronistic and implausible nature of their speculation.
The inconvenient truth for Heartlanders is that the Hemispheric Model was the de facto model for pretty much every single Latter-day Saint Church leader who has gone on the record with a view on Book of Mormon geography.
This isn't an "inconvenient truth" because Church leaders pointed out that there are two separate aspects of Book of Mormon geography:
(i) we know as a fact that the hill Cumorah/Ramah is in New York; and
(ii) we don't know the location of other places and events.
This duality was formalized in Orson Pratt's footnotes in the official 1879 edition of the Book of Mormon, as shown here:
There are some exceptions, but it was the prevailing paradigm far and away. Orson Pratt, Parley Pratt, Brigham Young, Oliver Cowdery, W. W. Phelps, B. H. Roberts, George Reynolds, and, yes, Joseph Smith—all of them pretty much defaulted to a Hemispheric view.
The "pretty much" phrase reveals the author's speculation and projection (mind-reading). As we saw from his footnotes, Orson Pratt readily admitted his theory about the hemispheric model was purely speculative, while Cumorah was a known fact.
More importantly, Joseph Smith rejected Orson's speculation about Central and South America when he adapted Orson's pamphlet for the Wentworth letter. Joseph replaced Orson's extensive speculation with the simple statement that
"the remnant are the Indians that now inhabit this country."
Predictably, M2Cers rationalize that when Joseph wrote "this country" he actually meant "this hemisphere" or "Central America." They are free to impose their own beliefs on Joseph's worldview if they want, but we can all read what Joseph actually wrote and published and decide for ourselves what makes the most sense.
Heartlanders embrace all the teachings of the prophets and comparisons between different assumptions, inferences and theories. M2Cers do not, as this author's comment demonstrates.
This is why it’s so frustrating when Heartlanders selectively cherry pick statements from Church leaders to create the impression they were Heartlanders. They were not. They were Hemispherists. It is fundamentally dishonest to pretend otherwise.
"Frustrating" is a key word here because M2Cers cannot tolerate the concept of multiple working hypotheses. That's why they resort to contentious rhetoric and, in this case, a straw man logical fallacy.
The simple, noncontentious approach is to simply lay out all the facts, then explain the respective assumptions, inferences and theories that lead to multiple working hypotheses. This type of comparison based on the FAITH model allows everyone to make informed decisions for themselves.
But so far, no M2Cers have agreed to engage in such a comparison.
It is the opposite of "cherry picking" to quote and incorporate all of the consistent teachings of the prophets and Joseph's contemporaries about Cumorah/Ramah in New York. These teachings are well established in the official record in Church publications, as well as in authentic historical sources available in the Joseph Smith Papers and elsewhere. For too long M2Cers have suppressed, censored, ridiculed, and outright repudiated these teachings
The straw man fallacy arises from the nonexistence of anyone who claims Church leaders were "Heartlanders." As we all know, there are innumerable variations of geography based on the New York Cumorah/Ramah, ranging from the hemispheric setting to the "limited geography" of western New York, and everywhere in between.
The clear distinction between the two separate issues--(i) Cumorah/Ramah in New York vs (ii) speculative other sites--has long been clear.
Yet M2Cers persistently conflate the two issues.
Apparently the M2Cers think they can elevate their own self-appointed "authority" as "scholars" by undermining the credibility of the prophets by ridiculing them as ignorant speculators who misled the Church about Cumorah because some of them also speculated about the hemispheric model. But we can all see that this is a rhetorical tactic, not legitimate scholarship.
So if we want to play this game of “my prophet checkmates your prophet on Book of Mormon geography” then I have bad news for Heartlanders, because without question the most statements from Church leaders favor a Hemispheric view.
This is more of this author's typically contentious rhetoric that conflates the two separate issues. This is the type of obfuscation that is exposed by the FAITH model.
This also explains why the end of M2C is near. In our day, people prefer transparency over dogmatism. We prefer to make informed decisions for ourselves instead of having academics tell us what to think.
Heartlanders embrace and promote transparency and enabling people to make their own informed decisions. M2Cers reject that approach. Instead, they expect "ordinary" Latter-day Saints to accept what they preach purely because of their academic credentials.
Which is why, in my judgement, John L. Sorenson’s methodology is so fundamentally important (despite the calumnies and well-poisoning of “TwoCumorahFraud”).
Sorenson's "methodology" consisted of borrowing the map created by RLDS author L.E. Hills in the early 1900s, as Sorenson noted in his Source Book. Hills rejected what the LDS prophets had taught about Cumorah, deeming it ignorant speculation (as modern M2Cers still do). Sorenson then found "parallels" ("correspondences") between Mayan culture and his interpretation of the text of the Book of Mormon.
To make the text fit his map, Sorenson came up with his own translation, such as "narrow strip of mountainous wilderness" and horses as "tapirs." He invented a method of determining how far a Nephite can travel based on what his map required, etc.
All of which is perfectly fine, so long as his followers are clear about what he was doing so we can all see his methodology and make our own informed decisions about it.
(Full disclosure: I had a class at BYU from John, I reviewed a pre-publication version of his Ancient American Setting with an archaeologist friend who was doing a peer review, and I was fully sold on John's approach for decades before I had time to reassess it with better information.)
We first need to begin with what the Book of Mormon describes and work from there.
This is the basis for M2C, but we can all see the dual logical fallacy.
(i) Nothing in the text mentions America, Americas, or the Western Hemisphere, so M2Cers are looking in Central America purely because of prophetic direction--which they paradoxically and adamantly refuse regarding Cumorah.
(ii) No two people can possibly interpret the text of the Book of Mormon identically because the text (like all ancient texts) is too vague regarding distances and directions. Having two or more people merge their own opinions to develop a "consensus" does not overcome the inherent problem of vagueness. It's a fool's errand to assume the ability to develop a single abstract "internal geography" because any such geography is based on assumptions and inferences about the text--not on the actual text itself, which is not self-executing.
Consequently, the only rational basis for constructing a model for the setting of the Book of Mormon is to have a starting place in the real world. Then the vague descriptions in the text can be interpreted to fit the chosen starting place.
For many Latter-day Saints, the starting place is the Hill Cumorah/Ramah, as taught by the prophets. From there, they derive a variety of settings, ranging from the entire hemisphere to the local area of western New York.
For M2Cers, the starting place is Central America, paradoxically because they think the prophets taught that the events took place in the Americas.
For other non-New York Cumorah believers, the starting place can be Baja, Panama, South America, Eritrea, Malaysia, or any number of other sites around the world.
In all cases, the proposed geography is not based on "the book itself" but on the respective interpretations of the text, formulated to fit the assumed setting.
Because it’s game over for pretty much everything except the Hemispheric Model if you’re going to insist that the statements of Church leaders or long-held tradition should take priority.
As we've seen, this is both counter-factual and irrational, but it's about all that's left for M2C's repudiation of the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah/Ramah in New York. As more Latter-day Saints come to realize what M2C is all about, they reject M2C in favor of the New York Cumorah/Ramah. This is why we're seeing the end of M2C.
