What constitutes an "expert"

In his analysis of a recent Supreme Court case, Jonathan Turley discussed Justice Thomas' concurring opinion. His observation reminds us of the self-appointed "experts" on the Book of Mormon who also "insulate" their M2C opinions as "self-evidently true."

The sentence bolded below applies to the M2Cers who continue to try to persuade Latter-day Saints to disbelieve the teachings of the prophets about the Hill Cumorah in New York.

In his concurrence in United States v. Skrmetti, a case upholding Tennessee’s ban on adolescent transgender treatments, Thomas called for his colleagues to stand against an “expert class” that has dictated both policy and legal conclusions in the United States.

The reference to “experts” is often used to insulate an opinion as self-evidently true on a given question when they speak as a group. It distinguishes the informed from the casual; the certifiably authoritative from the merely interested. Yet, what constitutes an “expert” can be little more than an advanced degree, and the “overwhelming opinion of experts” can be little more than groupthink.

https://jonathanturley.org/2025/06/26/the-icarian-gene-the-rise-and-fall-of-the-expert-class/

Turley went on to briefly review the reasons why the public generally has lost trust in these "experts." I can relate to that.

For decades, I trusted the LDS "experts" at BYU, such as John Sorenson and Jack Welch, regarding the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon. Life was busy, and we all defer to experts in various aspects of our lives.

But then I noticed some inconsistencies and delved into the topic. I discovered the fundamental fallacy of M2C and the rhetorical devices used by the M2C scholars to circumvent and repudiate the teachings of the prophets.  

In my experience, Latter-day Saints who take the responsibility for making their own informed decisions find, like I have, that the "experts" have not been open, transparent, and candid about these topics. Now that the Internet has made authentic Church history sources readily available, the premise of M2C is less credible than ever.

Here's how Turley explained it:

Over the years, the mystique took on a more menacing aspect for many in the country as they watched academic and scientific groups become more advocates than experts. ...

The result has been a dramatic change in trust for higher education and, by extension, the supremacy of the expert class. According to Gallup, only a third of Americans today have great confidence in higher education and roughly the same number have little or no confidence. That is a drop of over twenty percent in the last ten years.

Turley concluded with an important caveat that also applies in the LDS context. If/when such groups as the Interpreter, FAIRLDS, and Scripture Central decide to value open inquiry and a diversity of faithful viewpoints, Latter-day Saints generally will have more confidence in their work.

None of this means that courts or the public should disregard science or experts. Indeed, many experts still follow core principles of unbiased inquiry and discourse. However, good science requires open inquiry and a diversity of viewpoints. Citizens are rejecting science by plebiscite, the self-authenticating petitions where academics purported to speak for an expert class. 

End of M2C: Brant's series

In the ongoing pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding, let's provide some clarity to Brant Gardner's series comparing Heartland to M2C (which the M2C-obsessed Meridian Magazine faithfully republishes).

Brant, who is an awesome guy, careful scholar, faithful Latter-day Saint, etc., has written extensively about the Book of Mormon to promote his M2C (Mesoamerican/Two-Cumorahs) theory. 

But everything he has written reminds me of a talk by then-President Uchtdorf.

The difference between Heartland and M2C "comes down to an error of only a few degrees."

Suppose you were to take off from an airport at the equator, intending to circumnavigate the globe, but your course was off by just one degree. By the time you returned to the same longitude, how far off course would you be? A few miles? A hundred miles? The answer might surprise you. An error of only one degree would put you almost 500 miles (800 km) off course, or one hour of flight for a jet....

The longer we delay corrective action, the larger the needed changes become, and the longer it takes to get back on the correct course—even to the point where a disaster might be looming.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2008/04/a-matter-of-a-few-degrees?lang=eng

The "few degrees" in this case consist of whether or not we believe what the prophets have taught about Cumorah.

If we align with the prophets, the course is clear: Cumorah/Ramah is in New York.

If we're off by even one degree because we reject what the prophets have taught, we end up with theories such as M2C (the Mesoamerican/Two-Cumorahs theory), the Baja theory, the Peru theory, the Malaysia theory, or any number of other theories, including the "pious fiction" theory.

Every proponent can rationalize his/her theory by interpreting the text to fit while also citing extrinsic scientific evidence. People debate the relative credibility of their various interpretations and evidence, leading to "a strife of words and a contest about opinions." (Joseph Smith—History 1:6)

A solution would be pursuing clarity, charity and understanding instead of trying to persuade. People can believe whatever they want, and that's fine.

People want to make informed decisions, and we should be happy that Brant has made an effort in that direction. 

However, as always, clarity is the sticking point.

So let's start with clarity about 2 points.

_____

Point 1 

The location of Cumorah does not determine any other Book of Mormon sites. People who accept the teachings of the prophets can have a wide range of beliefs about the scope of the Book of Mormon setting, and that's all fine. The Gospel Topics entry on Book of Mormon geography recognizes this diversity. 

Note that the entry does not even mention Cumorah, which makes sense because Cumorah, as Oliver said, is a fact and well attested. The entry does not repudiate any teachings of the prophets. 

_____

Point 2

We can all see that Brant and his fellow M2Cers base their entire theory on one basic premise:

Oliver Cowdery misled everyone when he declared it was a fact that the final battles of the Nephites and Jaredites took place in the mile-wide valley west of the hill Cumorah/Ramah in New York where Joseph found the plates.

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/90

Because of this premise that leads them off by one degree, M2Cers even claim that Joseph Smith adopted this "false" Cumorah. (D&C 128:20)

M2Cers claim that Lucy Mack Smith falsely reported that it was Moroni who identified the hill as Cumorah when he first visited Joseph Smith, and that she falsely reported that Joseph referred to the hill as Cumorah even before he got the plates.

M2Cers claim that David Whitmer falsely reported that the messenger who had the abridged plates said he was going to Cumorah. 

M2Cers claim that Parley P. Pratt falsely reported that during the 1830 mission to the Lamanites, Oliver explained that it was Moroni who called the hill Cumorah.

M2Cers claim that all the prophets who have reiterated the New York Cumorah/Ramah, including members of the First Presidency speaking in General Conference, have been merely expressing their own opinions and that those opinions were wrong such that they were misleading the Latter-day Saints.

That President Uchtdorf used a volcano in his example is fitting because M2Cers, having veered off course by one degree, lead their followers to believe that the Book of Mormon describes the volcanoes in Mesoamerica.

That's not an unreasonable interpretation.

But it's far from the only reasonable interpretation.

Readers naturally wonder why a civilization living for a thousand years in a limited area of Mesoamerica described volcanoes only once, and didn't even use a term that Joseph would have translated as "volcano." 

Obviously there is much more we could say (and have said), but it is useful to see how one simple degree of variance from the teachings of the prophets can lead to a voluminous body of rationalization, such as Brant has been publishing.

And it's all good. People can believe whatever they want.

But every Latter-day Saint deserves to know exactly what the premise of M2C is and how every theory can be rationalized through interpretation of the text and use of extrinsic evidence.

We all just need to ask, are we on the course Oliver and Joseph and their successors mapped out for us, or have we veered off by one or more degrees?

Improving Church websites

I frequently meet faithful Latter-day Saints, including long-time "seasoned" members, who have no idea what the prophets have taught about Cumorah.

Seasoned members who attended seminary or institute learned at least some of what the prophets have taught because some of the materials were included in the lesson manuals. Some even remember President Romney's talk about Cumorah in 1975. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1975/10/americas-destiny?lang=eng

But that was eons ago for most current Latter-day Saints. 

Young and new Latter-day Saints have virtually no chance to learn about Cumorah.

This is why I put "clarity" as the first element of "no more contention" when I refer to the pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding.

Clarity enables people to make informed decisions. Clarity avoids the misunderstanding and mistrust that results from conflating assumptions and inferences with facts. Clarity shines a light on truncated and altered quotations.

That's why I appeal to everyone interested in these issues, including both apologists and critics, to focus on clarity. The FAITH model (Facts, Assumptions, Inferences, Theories, and Hypotheses) eliminates any basis for contention, all with the goal of No More Contention.

But as we'll see, clarity remains elusive...

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/learn/locations/hill-cumorah?lang=eng

_____

One reason why Latter-day Saints are both confused and ignorant about Cumorah is the way the topic is presented by the Church History Department.

The Church History Department is awesome. They are world-class historians, preservationists, authors, etc. The Joseph Smith Papers, the Church History Museum, the Church History Library, and everything else they do are easy to access, transparent, accurate, and outstanding in every way.

In some cases, however, narratives written by the historians are guided by unstated narratives that lead to unfortunate and unnecessarily incomplete and even misleading material.

In the pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding, and with the objective of "no more contention," I occasionally offer suggestions for improvement. Among the materials I've suggested improvements for are the Saints books, the Joseph Smith Papers, and various Church websites with content from the Church History Department.

While I recognize that many of these projects were completed in the past and have no staff currently assigned to them, I hope that someone at the Church History Department will take the time to correct the obvious errors for both (i) current members and (ii) future generations.

Even though printed materials cannot be revised, digital materials can (and should) be improved whenever errors are noted.

_____

Regarding Cumorah specifically, the entry on Cumorah on the Historic Sites page, which I linked to with the photo above, has lots of problems. I discussed that website here:

https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/2025/06/improving-church-websites-cumorah.html

The censorship of Cumorah in Saints, Volume 1, is well known. One example is my discussion here: https://saintsreview.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-historians-explain-censorship-in.html

Then there is the editorial content in the Joseph Smith Papers.

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

MOBOM updates

The Museum of the Book of Mormon (mobom.org) regularly adds new content and updates existing articles.

One of the most popular articles is the recently-revised analysis of the chapter in Rough Stone Rolling that covers the translation, which you can read here:

https://www.mobom.org/rsr-review

Although Rough Stone Rolling was published many years ago, it is often quoted/cited for the theory that Joseph Smith produced the Book of Mormon with the stone-in-the-hat (SITH) instead of using the Urim and Thummim, as Joseph and Oliver always claimed.

Some of the Church History articles have been revised as well.

https://www.mobom.org/church-history-issues

The page explaining the two sets of plates (abridged plates in Harmony, plates of Nephi in Fayette) has been revised and updated:

https://www.mobom.org/two-sets-of-plates

MOBOM continues to make incremental improvements in response to reader/user feedback.

End of M2C: what we mean

When we discuss the "end of M2C" on this blog, we don't mean M2C is going away. We don't mean most, or even many, M2Cers are going to change their minds. Confirmation bias* will persist.

People can and will believe whatever they want, and that's fine. 

We simply mean that M2C, as 

(i) the default assumption about the setting of the Book of Mormon and 

(ii) the dominant "consensus" among self-appointed Book of Mormon scholars, 

will be replaced with the more transparent, robust, and harmonious approach of "multiple working hypotheses." 

This is consistent with the Church's policy of neutrality on this issue, a position that every Latter-day Saint should embrace.

The pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding (and hence "no more contention") recognizes multiple working hypotheses because the objective is not unanimity or conformity, but intelligent, informed individuals making decisions for themselves. 

While everyone can (or should) agree on actual Facts, people diverge quickly when they formulate their own Assumptions, Inferences, Theories and ultimately their Hypotheses (the FAITH model). That's all good.

It's even better when people clearly articulate the differences between Facts on one hand, and Assumptions, Inferences, Theories and Hypotheses on the other.

It may not be easy for people to do, but it is essential to achieve no more contention.

As more and more Latter-day Saints and other believers in the Book of Mormon learn what Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and their contemporaries taught, they see this as a viable alternative to M2C. 

They come to recognize the viability of the New York setting for the the hill Cumorah/Ramah and how extrinsic evidence corroborates the teachings of the prophets.

But they don't expect, let alone require, everyone to agree. They are happy for everyone to make informed choices instead of having to adopt what certain scholars teach.

_____

The pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding recognizes that the psychology of confirmation bias is powerful. 

Those who believe there is one Cumorah/Ramah in New York confirm these biases:

(i) Joseph, Oliver, their contemporaries and successors told the truth about the New York Cumorah/Ramah.

(ii) The text of the Book of Mormon and extrinsic evidence corroborate what they taught. 

The M2Cers confirm these biases:

(i) Oliver Cowdery, Joseph Smith, and their contemporaries imagined or concocted their accounts of what Moroni himself told Joseph Smith, as well as the experiences with Cumorah that they described.

(ii) The prophets and apostles who corroborated what Joseph and Oliver said were all wrong about the New York Cumorah/Ramah.

(iii) Scholars who developed and taught M2C have shown that the text of the Book of Mormon and extrinsic evidence corroborate M2C.

The more that people recognize and respect these biases, the more people will achieve and embrace clarity, charity and understanding.

And then we will achieve "no more contention" about the setting of the Book of Mormon.

_____

*Confirmation bias:

Confirmation Bias is the tendency to look for information that supports, rather than rejects, one’s preconceptions, typically by interpreting evidence to confirm existing beliefs while rejecting or ignoring any conflicting data (American Psychological Association).

Dartmouth collection: graphics

Some readers want a concise version of my review of the article about Dartmouth, so I'll summarize it here with the key graphics.

This is the article that was published in the John Whitmer Historical Association Journal in 2006. The link is here:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/43200240

The author concludes that:

Hyrum’s exposure to Dartmouth’s theology, cosmology, ancient language studies, architecture, Ethan Smith’s son Lyndon, and Solomon Spaulding’s nephew James Spaulding from Sharon, Vermont, who was attending the Medical School, all provided discussion material for tutoring Joseph during his long recovery from leg surgery that kept Joseph at home on crutches until the Smith family reached Palmyra.

His conclusion relies on three main claims he makes (not in this order):

1. The members of the extended family of the prophet Joseph Smith, who were an integral part of that community from 1771 to 1817.

2. The early Dartmouth community organized in the 1770s and its expanding curriculum through 1815 provided a unique vantage point from which Hyrum, who entered the Dartmouth community in 1811 and left in 1816, could perceptively view as well as participate in future Mormon doctrinal and community development.

3. Early Dartmouth intellectual inquiry focused on philosophical and theological questions, which challenged America as it emerged from New England Puritanism to face the challenges of the Enlightenment. Many of these same questions would later be systematically answered by the prophet Joseph Smith.

_____

Point 1. Extended family.

UC copy
(click to enlarge)

The author (Behrens) writes, "John Smith was born December 21, 1752, in Rowley, Massachusetts, to Joseph Smith and Elizabeth Palmer[1], both cousins of Asael Smith and Mary Duty, the paternal grandparents of the prophet Joseph Smith." 

[Actually, even if Behrens was correct about the common ancestry going back four generations, the idea that such a family connection would be meaningful seems implausible, but Behrens used a lot of space in his paper to establish this connection, so it should be addressed.]

Footnote 1 reads:

Sketches of the Alumni of Dartmouth College, George T. Chapman, D.D., (1867, Cambridge: Riverside Press), 15.

The note doesn't explain which copy of Sketches Behrens used or where it is located.

There are at least versions of Sketches online.

One is from the Univ of California.

The other is from Dartmouth itself.

There is a significant difference between the two.

The UCLA copy has no annotations. You can see in the entry at the bottom of the page that John Smith is identified as "the son of Joseph and Elisabeth (Palmer) Smith," which is what Behrens wrote in his paper and genealogical chart (his Exhibit 1).

Sketches, UC version, page 15
(click to enlarge)

Behrens' Exhibit 1 shows Elizabeth Palmer as the cousin of Joseph Smith Sr's grandmother on his mother's side, who was named Mary Palmer. Elizabeth Palmer married a Joseph Smith who was a first cousin of Samuel Smith, Joseph Smith Sr.'s grandfather on his father's side. 

Behrens' genealogy table, Exhibit 1
(click to enlarge)

So far, Behrens' identification looks valid.

However, the version of Sketches that Dartmouth put online has an annotation that contradicts Behrens' genealogy table. The annotation in the Dartmouth version of the John Smith entry shows a handwritten "Sawyer (?)" above Elizabeth's last name (Palmer). 

Sketches, Dartmouth version, page 15
(click to enlarge)

If Elizabeth's maiden name was Sawyer and not Palmer, then the Behrens' identification is an error and John Smith was not related to Joseph Smith's family, at least not with the purportedly close connection as shown by Behrens.

In the Introduction to its online edition of Sketches, Dartmouth explained that George Chapman published Sketches in 1867. He did not include non-graduates of the undergraduate College, nor did he include students at Moor's school.

The copy of Sketches that Dartmouth put online includes additions and annotations made by John M. Comstock, Class of 1877, who served as the statistical secretary for the Association of Alumni of Dartmouth College.

Introduction to Dartmouth's online edition
(click to enlarge)

Comstock's annotation indicates that John Smith's mother Elizabeth was a Sawyer, not a Palmer. One source he may have relied upon was the memoir of John Smith written by his widow, Susan Smith (who does not show up on Behrens' genealogical chart).

In her memoir, Susan explains that John's mother Elizabeth was a Sawyer.

John Smith memoir by his widow Susan
(click to enlarge)

The document is on the Dartmouth website on page 64 of 74.

https://dartmouth.access.preservica.com/uncategorized/IO_aeaf2d11-6482-4d3f-9482-1a96ddef3c76/

The transcript of Susan's memoir: 

A Memoir of The Rev. John Smith D.D.

Professor of the oriental Languages

at Dartmouth College. 

The Rev. John Smith was born in Byfield Mass. Dec 21. 1752. It is not known by his descendents now living the date of the year his paternal ancestors emigrated to this country, but in examining Farmers Register we find the name of Joseph, which was his father's name, born in Newbury? in the year 1638, from him it is probable his father descended. His mother was a descendant of the Sawyer family, who came from England to this country in the year 1643, and settled in Rowley, Mass, where he was born and brought up. She was sister to Deacon Sawyer, who was among the first settlers of Hopkinton N. H. who was a man of much civil and religious influence in the town, respected, and beloved by all who knew him, he there lived and died at a very advanced age, leaving upward of 200 descendants. 

This evidence shows that the John Smith shown in Behrens' genealogy chart is not the same John Smith who taught at Dartmouth. Behrens made an understandable error.

The problem is that in his paper, Behrens actually referred to and cited Susan's memoir without telling readers that Susan's identification of John Smith's mother differed from what Behrens told his readers.

_____

Point 2. Hyrum's time in school.

The only record of Hyrum Smith's attendance (written as Hiram Smith) is for the first quarter of 1814.

Lucy Mack Smith's history relates that (i) sometime after the family moved to Lebanon in 1811, they enrolled Hyrum in the academy and (ii) when Hyrum got sick during an outbreak, he came home from school. She gave no specific dates and the records from Moor's school do not show Hyrum's name.

_____

Point 3. Early Dartmouth intellectual inquiry

The only known record of Hyrum's attendance, the list of students for the first quarter of 1814, shows Hyrum studying "Arithmetic" at Moor's school while his classmates were studying Virgil, Mathematics, Reading, English Grammar, Latin, and Greek. For Hyrum to be studying mere Arithmetic suggests he was behind his fellow students. 

While it's possible that the teenage Hyrum also "focused on philosophical and theological questions" discussed and debated at Dartmouth college, that seems far less likely than Hyrum struggling to keep up with his classmates at Moor's school.

 

 

Dartmouth connection: more irrationality

There's a well-known paper titled "Dartmouth Arminianism And Its Impact on Hyrum Smith And the Smith Family" published in 2006 by the John Whitmer Historical Association Journal, written by Richard K. Behrens.

In the pursuit of clarity, charity, and understanding, I did a detailed review, which you can see here:

https://interpreterpeerreviews.blogspot.com/2025/06/behrens-paper-on-dartmouth.html

In the spirit of charity I assume Behrens researched and wrote in good faith. In 2006 there were probably not as many online sources. Maybe detailed citations were not expected back then, although I used to require them from students and from myself...

The paper is replete with conclusions about how deeply Dartmouth affected Hyrum for the rest of his life, including science, architecture, and theology.

But unfortunately the paper is also replete with factual errors, compound assumptions and inferences, poor to nonexistent citations, and logical fallacies. 

Conclusion: Unless and until additional evidence comes forth, the connection between Joseph Smith and Dartmouth is tenuous at best. The only connection is through his brother Hyrum, who attended Moor's school as a "Charity Scholar" for one quarter to learn "Arithmetic" while his classmates studied Virgil and Mathematics. 

Hyrum apparently taught Joseph about the arithmetic he had learned at Moor's school. Joseph mentioned in his 1832 history that “I was mearly instructtid in reading and writing and the ground <rules> of Arithmatic which const[it]uted my whole literary acquirements.” 

Beyond that, the connections with Dartmouth appear illusory at best.