Ad hominem means you've won

The new Gospel Answer regarding Joseph Smith's character can be summarized by the observation that "if a critic makes an ad hominem argument, that means the critic has lost the debate."

That's why the other day I suggested that the Gospel Answer should also reference Oliver Cowdery's Letters II and VIII. Oliver addressed the ad hominem attacks on Joseph Smith that were circulating, such as in the 1834 book Mormonism Unvailed.

This is a good definition of ad hominem: 

An ad hominem fallacy occurs when someone rejects or undermines an argument by attacking the character, credentials, or other personal traits of the person presenting it, instead of addressing the issue at hand.

https://practicalpie.com/ad-hominem-fallacy/

The article gives a few examples of how it works:

Imagine you're in a debate about climate change. You present facts and figures, but your opponent simply says, "Why should we listen to you? You drive a gas-guzzling car!"

That's an ad hominem fallacy right there. Instead of talking about the data or the logic of the issue at hand, your opponent has shifted focus to you as a person.

An ad hominem fallacy happens when someone tries to discredit an argument by attacking the individual presenting it. They're not taking on the argument itself.

It's crucial to differentiate an ad hominem argument from genuine critique or feedback. Criticism is focused on the argument or the idea, not the person making it. Ad hominem shortcuts through rational discussion, making it a disruptive and often misleading tactic in debates and dialogues.

Ad hominem arguments are an example of a type of logical fallacy. Fallacies are logical errors, usually in arguments, that people make which lead to inconsistent reasoning.

 

Decades ago, Neal Maxwell made this observation:

Arrivés will come into the Church as its leaders are cruelly caricatured by some in the world. For perspective, imagine how television’s six o’clock news would have portrayed Noah as he worked on his ark day by day. Besides, attention from the Adversary is merely a cruel form of commendation, if we can but stand the “praise.”

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1980/10/the-net-gathers-of-every-kind?lang=eng

_____

After I made the post, I remembered that few Latter-day Saints today know anything about Oliver's essays, first published in 1834-5 in the Messenger and Advocate as letters. Many LDS are unfamiliar even with the note to Joseph Smith History 1:71 in the Pearl of Great Price, which is an excerpt from Letter I.

When Joseph was alive, Oliver's eight essays were well-known. These essays were the first formal history of the Restoration. Oliver wrote them with the express assistance of Joseph Smith. In 1835 Joseph had them copied into his journal as part of his life story, where we can read them in the Joseph Smith Papers. 

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/48

In 1841 they were republished in the Times and Seasons, the Millennial Star, and the Gospel Reflector. They were published as a special pamphlet in England. In 1844 Joseph's brother William republished them again in The Prophet, a New York newspaper.

The Latter-day Saints at the time knew these essays quite well.

Later in Utah, Joseph F. Smith republished the essays in the Improvement Era.  

_____

In Letters II and VIII, Oliver responded to criticisms of Joseph Smith's character, pointing out that critics use imperfections as excuses to reject the gospel. 

Excerpt from Letter II

...in reviewing the lives and acts of men in past generations, whenever we find a righteous man among them, there always were excuses for not giving heed or credence to his testimony. The people could see his imperfections; or, if no imperfections, supposed ones, and were always ready to frame an excuse upon that for not believing.

— No matter how pure the principles, nor how precious the teachings—an excuse was wanted—and an excuse was had. 

I asked Grok to outline Letter II.

Outline

1. Introduction to the Purpose
• Commitment to provide a detailed history of the Church of the Latter Day Saints.
• Aim to inform enquirers and those interested in learning about the church.
2. Characteristics of God’s Works
• God’s works are clear, intelligible, and never in vain, unlike human efforts.
• Human works may fade, but God’s endure due to His unchanging power.
3. Historical Context of God’s Church
• Reference to Enoch and Zion, reserved for future glory.
• Overview of Israel’s history under Moses and Aaron, their organization, and eventual dispersion.
• Mention of the Messiah’s advent and the apostles’ ministry until the church’s loss of visibility.
4. Uniformity in God’s Church
• God’s church exhibits precise uniformity in ordinances and manner across all ages.
• Acknowledgment that some may doubt this due to conflicts with popular systems.
• Defense of the church’s principles as truth, supported by Tertullian’s quote on the appeal of true religion.
5. Resilience of True Religion
• True religion withstands opposition, falsehood, and persecution.
• Its influence grows despite attempts to suppress it, as seen in its historical endurance.
6. Human Tendencies to Misjudge the Righteous
• People often fail to recognize the worth of righteous individuals during their lifetimes.
• Historical examples: Jews revered past prophets but rejected John the Baptist and Jesus.
• Excuses for rejection often stem from perceived imperfections or societal biases.
7. Examples of Rejected Righteous Figures
• Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus were not fully appreciated in their time.
• John the Baptist was dismissed as possessed, Jesus as a glutton and sinner.
• Apostles were later revered but faced rejection during their lives.
8. Human Imperfections and Divine Truth
• Prophets and apostles, though imperfect, delivered divine truth.
• People mistakenly assume prophets must be perfect, leading to rejection when flaws are perceived.
• Jesus, though perfect, was mocked and equated with evil, showing even perfection does not guarantee acceptance.
9. Conclusion and Transition
• Reflection on the human tendency to sacrifice the righteous based on rumor or bias.

I'll discuss Letter VIII in the next post.

_____

Learn More About Book of Mormon Translation, Joseph Smith and Plural Marriage?

Learn More About Book of Mormon Translation, Joseph Smith and Plural Marriage?

There are three new articles ("narratives") to discuss.

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/book-of-mormon-translation-joseph-smith-plural-marriage

I added the question mark to pose the question whether these narratives actually help us learn more.

I discussed the one on Book of Mormon translation in detail here:

https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/2025/07/church-and-gospel-questions.html

In that post, I made suggestions for improvement for the narrative. I included a table that illustrates how the narrative violates all of the Church's guidance and principles for seeking answers and understanding history.

_____

The narrative on Joseph Smith's character is well written. 

One suggestion for improvement is to cite and quote from Letters II and VIII, in which Oliver defended Joseph's character in the context of ancient prophets. That contemporary explanation by Joseph's closest associate is more useful than modern interpretations by people who never knew Joseph and who are relying on exactly the same sources as the modern critics.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/52

Excerpt: "in reviewing the lives and acts of men in past generations, whenever we find a righteous man among them, there always were excuses for not giving heed or credence to his testimony. The people could see his imperfections; or, if no imperfections, supposed ones, and were always ready to frame an excuse upon that for not believing.— No matter how pure the principles, nor how precious the teachings—an excuse was wanted—and an excuse was had...

When looking over the sacred scriptures we seem to forget that they were given through men of imperfections, and subject to passions. It is a general belief that the ancient prophets were perfect—that no stain, or blemish ever appeared upon their characters while on earth, to be brought forward by the opposer as an excuse for not believing. "

_____

The narrative on plural marriage is mostly fine, although it too ignores some of the Church's principles of answering gospel questions and understanding the past, such as stating the opinions of the anonymous author(s) as facts.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/plural-marriage?lang=eng

I'll just give one example of ignoring the Church's principles. This is the section that asks and answers an important question.

Original in blue, my comments in red.

What did Emma Smith know about Joseph’s practice of plural marriage?

Emma did not leave any contemporary record of her own thoughts, feelings, or experiences related to plural marriage. 

Note the qualification "contemporary" here. Most readers probably don't even notice that qualification, but it alerts knowledgeable readers that something is missing in this section. Obviously, what is missing is Emma's 1879 "Last Testimony," which we'll discuss below. 

In this case, the "contemporary" qualification is used selectively to exclude only the "Last Testimony." The qualification is odd because many of the references cited in the narrative to support the proposition that Joseph originated plural marriage are even less "contemporary" than Emma's 1879 "Last Testimony." See the citations in note 18 below.  

In the "Last Testimony," Emma is presented as having said 

There was no revelation on either Polygamy, or plur Spiritual wives. There were some rumors of some-thing of the sort, of which I asked my husband. He assured me that all there was of it, that in a chat about plural wives, he had said, "well such a system might possibly be, if every body was agreed to it and would behave as they should, but they would not; and besides it was contrary to the will of heaven." 

No such thing as polygamy, or Spiritual wifery, was taught publicly or privately before my husband's death, that I have now, or ever had any knowledge of. 

He had no other wife but me; nor did he to my Knowledge ever have. He did not have im-proper relations with any woman that ever came to my Knowledge.

At one time he came to me and asked me if I had heard certain rumors about spiritual marriages, or any thing of the Kind, and assured me that they were without foundation; that there was no such doctrine and never should be with his knowledge or consent. "I know that he had no other <wife or> wives than myself; in any sense; either spiritual or otherwise."

See the full version of "Last Testimony" here, along with the original manuscript:

https://www.mobom.org/emma-smiths-last-testimony

Obviously, the "Last Testimony" directly contradicts and refutes the claims in this narrative. 

[To be clear, despite the "Last Testimony" I agree with the conclusion that Joseph initiated plural marriage, but I don't agree with an apologetic explanation that ignores relevant evidence. The Church's principles of answering questions and understanding the past do not accommodate apologetic approaches that simply censor contradictory historical evidence. That apologetic approach compounds the problems that arise from a perception that the Church is "hiding" historical evidence, which is not true generally but is true in the case of this particular narrative.] 

The omission of Emma's 1879 "Last Testimony" violates the Church's principle that we should "Evaluate the reliability of sources." No one can evaluate the reliability of a source that is not quoted, cited, or even mentioned. 

So why did they censor Emma's "Last Testimony" here? 

We can infer that the anonymous authors of this narrative excluded the "Last Testimony" because Emma's statements there contradict their narrative. If they omitted the "Last Testimony" because they deem it unreliable, they should have explained that (pursuant to the Church's principles on evaluating sources).

But there may be another reason for censoring the "Last Testimony" here.

Church historians frequently cite the first part of Emma's "Last Testimony" to support their stone-in-the-hat narrative (SITH), deeming it accurate and reliable. E.g., Saints, vol. 1, chapter 6, notes 24 and 25, cite "Joseph Smith III, “Last Testimony of Sister Emma,” Saints’ Herald, Oct. 1, 1879, 290." 

They also cite Emma's "Last Testimony" as authoritative 16 times in the Joseph Smith Papers and 3 times in the essay on Book of Mormon translation.

But as seen in this narrative, by censoring Emma's "Last Testimony" they imply that they deem the second part of "Last Testimony" inaccurate and unreliable. This disparate, outcome-determined assessment of the credibility of the "Last Testimony" falls short of the standards of professional historians, as well as the Church's own advice on how to consult reliable sources.

In my view, Emma's "Last Testimony" is unreliable throughout for the reasons I've discussed elsewhere. Even Joseph Smith III, who conducted the interview with his mother and published, later concluded that Joseph did in fact translate the plates with the Urim and Thummim. But the scholars who promote SITH nevertheless stick with the "Last Testimony" as though it his highly credible about the translation. 

Readers should ask if historians deem the "Last Testimony" not credible for events from the 1840s Nauvoo because it was not "contemporary" enough, why do historians consider it to be credible for earlier events from the 1820s? 

According to accounts of others, Emma opposed plural marriage except for a short period of time when she consented to at least four of her husband’s plural sealings. Ultimately, she rejected the practice. 

We can all see from the "Last Testimony" that Emma did not merely "reject" the practice but she denied it ever took place, and she claims Joseph denied it also. The authors owe it to readers to explain, at least in a footnote, why the "Last Testimony" is not credible. Then they should extend that reasoning to the SITH narrative to be consistent. 

Despite emotional turmoil in their marriage over this practice, Emma and Joseph remained deeply committed to one another.17

Note 17: For more information, see Church History Topics, “Emma Hale Smith,” Gospel Library.

Emily Partridge, who was an early plural wife of the Prophet Joseph Smith, reflected toward the end of her life on Emma’s complicated feelings about plural marriage: “I know it was hard for Emma, and any woman, to enter plural marriage in those days, and I do not know as anybody would have done any better than Emma did under the circumstances.”18

Note 18: Emily Dow Partridge Smith Young, “Testimony That Cannot Be Refuted,” Woman’s Exponent, Apr. 1, 1884, 12:165; Emily Dow Partridge Young, “Incidents in the Life of a Mormon Girl,” circa 1884, Church History Library, Salt Lake City, 5; see also Saints: The Story of the Church of Jesus Christ in the Latter Days, vol. 1, The Standard of Truth, 1815–1846 (2018), 507–8.

The response to Emma's "Last Testimony" was vociferous and robust. The Deseret News published numerous accounts refuting the claims in "Last Testimony," some suggesting that Emma was lying or did not even say what the document claims. The authors of this essay have good reason to question the reliability of the "Last Testimony" but they owe it to readers to explain those reasons instead of simply censoring the document.

And they should apply the same reasoning to question the reliability of the first part of the "Last Testimony" about SITH. 

New podcast from France, etc.

People are asking about the new "Gospel Answers" on Book of Mormon translation, which I'll address in the next post in connection with the FAITH model.

_____

Recently I was a guest on Mormon Book Reviews. Check it out here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Phdk7bCOagw

Steve titled the podcast, "Mormon Godhood Revealed in France?" One of the topics we discussed is how so much art in France depicts the Godhead consistent with Doctrine and Covenants 130:22.

The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.

During the conversation, we discussed this piece of art by Reubens:

It's a massive painting. Here's how it looks in the Lyon museum.

The English wikipedia article gives only a brief explanation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saints_Dominic_and_Francis_Saving_the_World_from_Christ%27s_Anger

The French wikipedia article goes into far more depth, but if you don't know French you need to translated it into your own language.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Dominique_et_Saint_Fran%C3%A7ois_pr%C3%A9servant_le_monde_de_la_col%C3%A8re_du_Christ

Yesterday I took photos of another piece painted in the late 1400s that depicts God the Father with a tangible body separate from Christ.

People in France have been viewing these pieces for hundreds of years. We find that many people, once they hear what our missionaries are teaching, think it makes sense that God has a body, as taught in D&C 130. 

We are reminded of another passage, because people around the world "are only kept from the truth because they know not where to find it."

(Doctrine and Covenants 123:12)

Related to this is the doctrine of the pre-existence, which most people intuitively believe but never hear taught, but that's a topic for another day.

_____

BTW, during the conversation I pointed out that no one has produced any physical evidence that Hyrum Smith attended More's school (affiliated with Dartmouth) for more than one quarter in 1814. Lucy Mack Smith recalled that Hyrum attended, but she didn't say when or for how long.

And yet some people assume Hyrum attended for several years. 

This is another example of why the FAITH model is so important. Let's start with facts first, then make assumptions, draw inferences, articulate theories, etc.

I'm eager for more evidence on this point if anyone has some. Email it to me at lostzarahemla@gmail.com.

End of M2C-media edition

Before discussing the end of M2C, some comments.

- I posted more evidence to support Joseph Smith's claim that he translated the plates. See the annotations to Alma 41 and 42 here:

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

- On the Letter VII blog, we discussed why the plates were preserved.

https://www.lettervii.com/2025/07/why-were-plates-preserved.html

- Many interactions with scholars (and their followers) who promote M2C and SITH boil down to them referring to the Gospel Topics Essays to support their positions. These same scholars wrote the essays in the first place, so they are basically citing themselves. 

These essays were never intended to replace the scriptures, the teachings of the prophets, or authentic historical records. The essays are subject to change at any time without notice, as they have been in the past. Obviously, this is the opposite of reliable authority. The essays are merely useful references.

We can all hope that the essays will continue to be improved. I posted a page on that topic here:

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

______

Now, back to the end of M2C.

People often ask why the dominant LDS scholars and media, including podcasters, do not report about, interview, or feature Latter-day Saints who still believe what Joseph and Oliver taught about the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon. 

We can all understand why it would be difficult for people to explain that maybe they erred in repudiating what Joseph and Oliver taught. 

Imagine an M2Cer going through the process of even considering the possibility that the Hill Cumorah/Ramah is in New York after all. It is extremely difficult for them.

We should all be empathetic, supportive and encouraging as they jump on the "end of M2C" train.

The "end of M2C" train

A lesson from the NY Times:

NY Times Pulitzer winner Jeff Gerth: "The media isn't looking for Russiagate scoops nor will they fairly present the ones others get if they reflect poorly on their prior reporting. They're in a defensive posture & aren't inclined to report deeply on anything that helps Trump"

These LDS scholars and their media have a psychological barrier that prevents them from discussing anything that "reflects poorly on their prior reporting." 

Eventually the right thing happens.

Sooner or later, most Latter-day Saints will reach the conclusion that Joseph and Oliver taught the truth after all, despite what critics and certain LDS scholars say.

End of M2C - Daniel Peterson edition

Daniel Peterson is the well-known editor of the FARMS journals (33 volumes from 1989-2011) and the Interpreter (66 volumes from 2012-2025). He is also a regular and popular speaker at FAIRLDS. Dan is a thoughtful scholar, a great guy, and a faithful Latter-day Saint. 

To his credit, his newfound openness suggests he may be jumping on the "end of M2C" train.

M2Cers jumping onto the "end of M2C" train

[Note: to understand what "end of M2C" means, see 

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2025/06/end-of-m2c-what-we-mean.html]

_____

(click to enlarge)

As editor, Dan has promoted M2C (the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory) adamantly and exclusively in all of these journals. 

The FARMS journals he edited featured the infamous M2C logo that portrays the Book of Mormon with a Mayan glyph. 

(If you enlarge the image, you can see the explanation that the Hebrew character represents the Old Testament, the Greek character represents the New Testament, and the Egyptian represents the Pearl of Great Price.)

Of course, we all know that the actual language of the Book of Mormon is English. To represent the plates, maybe Egyptian could represent "Reformed Egyptian," but using a Mayan glyph is a not-at-all-subtle declaration about geography.

For decades, the FARMS M2C logo imprinted M2C on the minds of LDS students, scholars, and everyone else. That contributed to the wide-spread assumption that the M2C paradigm was quasi-official, having been the "consensus" among faithful LDS scholars, having been published in the Ensign, and having been depicted throughout Church-produced media.

The M2C logo made its way to Book of Mormon Central for several years until recently, when it was replaced by its much-improved starburst logo.

Amazingly, the M2C logo is still featured on Royal Skousen's books, including the one published in 2024.

On the other hand, that makes sense. Royal Skousen famously teaches that Joseph and Oliver intentionally misled everyone about the translation by claiming Joseph used the Urim and Thummim. M2C teaches that they intentionally misled everyone about the New York Cumorah. So what better logo to feature on Skousen's books than the M2C logo?

_____

Back to Dan.

Recently Dan wrote "Am I myself fundamentally committed to a Mesoamerican geographical model for the Nephites and the Jaredites?  I am not.  I’m open to alternative proposals."

After his decades of promoting M2C, this is a welcome change. I discussed it here: 

https://interpreterpeerreviews.blogspot.com/2025/07/dan-and-m2c-blowin-in-wind.html

Then, Dan wrote a piece about applying Ockham's Razor, which I discussed here:

https://interpreterpeerreviews.blogspot.com/2025/07/dan-and-occams-razor.html

That one is particularly interesting because my post about Ockham's Razor is one of the most popular on this very blog. 

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2016/05/simplicity.html

In my view, Ockham's Razor is a solid argument in favor of accepting what Joseph and Oliver taught about the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon.

Reasonable people can disagree, of course. People can believe whatever they want. 

But it is nice to see Dan attract attention to the Occam's Razor principle.

Let's all encourage Dan and other M2Cers to join the pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding, all with the objective of encouraging people to make informed decisions.

This is a big step forward in achieving "no more contention" and establishing Zion...

SITH, Skousen, Early Modern English, etc.

Readers of this blog know that I think Joseph actually translated the characters on the plates. After all, he said he did, as we can all read in Joseph Smith-History.

Some modern LDS scholars, including Royal Skousen but many others, reject what Joseph (and Oliver) taught in favor of the theory articulated in Mormonism Unvailed that instead of using the plates, Joseph merely read words that appeared on the stone-in-the-hat (SITH), the stone being one that he found while digging a well years earlier.

Last fall I posted comments about Royal Skousen's declaration, based on his "Early Modern English" theory, that 

"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."

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2024/11/thank-you-royal-skousen.html

I've been surprised at how many people seem to have embraced Skousen's "Early Modern English" theory. Maybe some of them did not realize the inevitable implications of that theory, which Skousen finally announced in the quotation above. 

But apparently many of Skousen's followers agree with his conclusion about the credibility and reliability of Joseph and Oliver as well.

That is predictable because many of those same people also reject what Joseph and Oliver said about the Hill Cumorah.

I had been skeptical of Skousen's theory because of the logical and factual fallacies he employed to develop and promote it. In my view, it makes more sense, and is more consistent with the historical record, to conclude that Joseph and Oliver told the truth when they said Joseph translated the plates.

But people will believe whatever they want to believe.

_____

I bring this up because William Davis recently published an article in Dialogue, which is also on academia.edu:

https://www.academia.edu/130179615/Joseph_Smiths_Spiritual_Language_The_Presence_of_Early_Modern_English_in_the_Book_of_Mormon?email_work_card=title

I like having multiple working hypotheses to consider. Although I don't agree with all of Davis' assumptions and inferences, I highly recommend his paper because he carefully and precisely explains some of the flaws that led to Skousen's conclusion that Joseph and Oliver misled everyone.

Davis' first paragraph sets the stage:

The question of whether or not Joseph Smith participated in the translation of the Book of Mormon as an actual translator, or merely as a transcriber, remains a point of debate in Mormon studies. Did Joseph receive spiritual impressions and visionary experiences by means of a translation device (seer stone, interpreters, and/or Urim and Thummim) and then articulate them into English by tapping into his own mental storehouse of English vocabulary, phraseology, and conceptualizations (the theory of “loose control”)? Or did Joseph simply read the words of a preexisting translation that appeared to him on the surface of the translation device, without any significant contributions of his own (the theory of “tight control”)? As Richard Bushman aptly observes, “Latter-day Saints themselves cannot agree on how the writings engraved on the gold surfaces relate to Joseph Smith’s oral dictation to his secretaries.”1

Davis addressed several specific claims made by Skousen (and his co-author, Stan Carmack). He pointed out that much of what Skousen claims was "Early Modern English" was actually readily available in Joseph Smith's own time, place and culture.

Which is basically my point when I discuss the influence of Jonathan Edwards.

(See https://www.mobom.org/jonathan-edwards and my book Infinite Goodness.) 

At one point, Davis mentioned the "ceremony" controversy:

When we expand the scope of analysis to include the possibility of scribal flaws and the pressures of a rapid dictation process, in which Joseph sought unsuccessfully to find the precise language to express an idea in the moment of performance, then such factors can further account for additional idiosyncratic or allegedly archaic usages, such as using “ceremony” instead of the more specific description of a council of peace, parley, or peace ceremony (Mosiah 19:24).

I discussed the "ceremony" issue here, showing that Jonathan Edwards used the term the same way it is used in the Book of Mormon:

https://scripturecentralpeerreviews.blogspot.com/2025/07/ceremony-in-mosiah-1924.html

To me, this evidence supports and corroborates what Joseph said from the beginning when he claimed he translated the plates. 

It also corroborates what Moroni told him the first time they met:

He said this history was written and deposited not far from that place, and that it was our brother’s privilege, if obedient to the commandments of the Lord, to obtain and translate the same by the means of the Urim and Thummim, which were deposited for that purpose with the record.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/69

_____

Davis also made an important point that corroborates my findings regarding the influence of Jonathan Edwards. Pay particular attention to footnote 42, which addresses a common claim by SITH sayers and others that Joseph was illiterate and/or uninterested in books and reading.

Joseph Smith’s New England and New York dialects, coupled with the language of the KJV and the registers of contemporary revivalism and religious discourse, have provided obvious locations of investigative research to identify possible sources of the archaic biblical-style language in the Book of Mormon. Meanwhile, another prominent resource remains neglected: the popular reading material of the day.

When we look into the family libraries of early nineteenth-century farmers and artisans, we find that they owned and read the works of a number of influential authors from the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries. Yet, with regard to Joseph, the availability of such materials and their popularity in working-class homes rarely receives attention, presumably due to his alleged illiteracy and purported lack of interest in reading.42 In the early American republic, however, regular reading—silent and aloud, by individuals, families, or groups in various gathering places (from literary and debate societies to local inns and taverns)—was a common and popular pastime.

42. Lucy Smith famously said that Joseph “seemed much less inclined to the perusal of books than any of the rest of our children,” which commentators often use to assert Joseph’s lack of interest in reading. See Lavina Fielding Anderson, ed., Lucy’s Book: A Critical Edition of Lucy Mack Smith’s Family Memoir (Signature Books, 2001), 344. [Note: here I would have cited the Joseph Smith Papers instead, including both versions of her statement.] Lucy’s comment does not, however, state that Joseph did not like to read. She simply makes a comparison of Joseph’s reading habits in relation to his siblings. Thus, without knowing how much the other Smith children were inclined to read, the comment remains an observation without a reference point. (comment and emphasis added)

To Davis' point I add that if (as I propose) Joseph was reading books at the T. C. Strong bookstore, Lucy would not have known about that unless Joseph told her. 

_____

Hopefully, Davis' conclusion may encourage Skousen and his followers to reconsider Skousen's claim that Joseph and Oliver deliberately misled everyone about the translation.

While this essay does not provide a comprehensive survey of every textual phenomenon that Skousen and Carmack employ to assert their theory of “tight control,” the information presented here nevertheless offers more than sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Joseph Smith’s participation in the translation work was far more involved than a simple process of transmitting a preexisting, pretranslated work to his scribes.

Ever learning... Shiz, M2C, etc.

Like Shiz, M2C seems to be making a last gasp effort to stay relevant. 

The usual suspects who promote M2C are at it again. The Interpreter has published Brant Gardner's 13-part series. Dan Peterson has promoted it. Meridian Magazine has republished it. FAIR LDS will probably incorporate it somehow, along with the other M2Cers. 

Nevertheless, I'm optimistic that things are changing.

Dan Peterson even expressed some openness about the topic.

Maybe the day will come when the Interpreter will (i) host a 13-part article that explains the Heartland position and (ii) allow a Heartlander to control the comments and editorial response.

Does that sound likely?

We all know it will never happen.

Which tells us all we need to know about the ongoing viability of M2C.

_____

Brant's series has generated a bit of earnest discussion about M2C. Brant deserves a lot of credit for publishing that series, which was probably about as good a defense of M2C as anyone has produced. But as usual, Brant avoided the core issues and resorted to mingling facts with his assumptions, inferences and theories to produce his overall hypothesis.

Some people apparently don't realize these debates have been going on for over 100 years. With some people, the topic generates contention, which is both foolish and unproductive. Church leaders have been wise to avoid the topic ever since it became contentious.

Arguments about this topic (like most arguments) arise from insecurity. Some people need others to agree with them as a sort of social proof; i.e., because they don't trust their own choices, they need others to validate their choices by agreeing with them. That creates the compulsion to convince or persuade, which leads to contention and all that follows.

A better course that leads to "no more contention" is the pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding. This both eliminates any compulsion to convince or persuade and enlightens everyone about how people think and view the world.

That's the spirit in which this post is written. We assume everyone is acting in good faith. We encourage people to understand one another, recognizing there are multiple working hypotheses.

The difficult element is that of clarity.

_____

It's a very simple debate, really. 

We can all see the actual facts. We all agree on the facts. And we can all see the ensuing assumptions about those facts. These assumptions constitute a bias that people then seek to confirm.

For example, everyone (M2Cers, critics, Heartlanders, and everyone else) agrees on the fact that Oliver Cowdery wrote that it is a fact that the hill in New York where Joseph found the plates is the very Hill Cumorah/Ramah described in the Book of Mormon. That fact is not in question. 

Where people diverge is with their assumptions about that fact. People assume either that Oliver was correct or that Oliver was wrong.

(click to enlarge)

One of the first problems with Brant's analysis is that he glides over the fundamental difference between the M2Cers and the Heartlanders. He jumps ahead to his interpretations of the text and what he considers extrinsic evidence that supports those interpretations. That is, he seeks to justify his assumption that Oliver was wrong.

This is problematic because every one of Brant's interpretations of the text relies on assumptions and inferences. None of those interpretations are facts. This is true of every interpretation of the text, of course, but this basic reality is at the core of the debates. 

When people such as Brant are so fixated on their own interpretations, they are blind to the reality that they are engaging in bias confirmation. But it's obvious to everyone who does not share his bias.

The same is true of Heartlanders, of course, as well as critics. 

Naturally, everyone seeks to confirm their biases. Otherwise they would change their biases. Actually, many people do change their biases. This happens when people are able to overcome the psychologically powerful confirmation bias so they can consider and evaluate evidence in a new way. People can "reframe" the evidence to reach entirely different conclusions. In a missionary context, we call that "conversion."

Having been an M2Cer for decades, I realize this may not be an easy or immediate process. Lots of former M2Cers have followed the same process I have. And no doubt there are some who have shifted toward M2C after being Heartlanders. That's all part of the process.

But it is essential to realize that people who have different assumptions and inferences end up creating different theories and hypotheses. This is axiomatic. There is nothing complicated about this.

What remains complicated, for many people, is clarity.

_____

Brant's series demonstrates both (i) the advantages of the FAITH model of analysis and (ii) the reasons why M2Cers (and SITH sayers) refuse to employ it.

Everyone interested in the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon wants to see all the facts laid out, separate from the various assumptions, inferences, and theories. The FAITH model enables everyone to understand the ancestry of the various models. It enables people to make informed decisions.

But M2Cers refuse to employ this model. And they don't want anyone else to, either. Which is why they oppose posts such as this:

https://www.lettervii.com/p/oliver-was-truthful-except.html 

_____

As we always say, people can believe whatever they want.

And we are fine with multiple working hypotheses.

But we encourage people to make informed decisions, and Brant (and the other M2Cers) provided more heat than light because they consistently refuse to allow other interpretations to surface.

Think of this debate from the perspective of an outside observer. What academic (or other) organization would even dream up a process that purports to be academic, analytical and objective by which the author of an article in an online journal is also the webmaster who controls the comments that are allowed on that journal?

It is a patently ridiculous process that demonstrates the intensity of the bias confirmation underway at the Interpreter, Meridian Magazine, etc.

But as I said at the outset, maybe that is changing.

What do you think?

_____

_____

A few scriptures come to mind.

Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. (2 Timothy 3:7)

22 ¶ Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars’ hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.

23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, To the Unknown God. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. (Acts 17:22–23)

a scene of great confusion and bad feeling ensued—priest contending against priest, and convert against convert; so that all their good feelings one for another, if they ever had any, were entirely lost in a strife of words and a contest about opinions. (Joseph Smith—History 1:6)

It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.

10 And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full.

11 And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; (Alma 12:9–11)