Over 6 million views

Garden in Toulouse, France

Google tells me I've had well over 6 million page views of my blogs. That surprises me because most people prefer YouTube, X, Instagram, Facebook, etc. 

Readers here know that I have done nothing to promote these blogs. They started out as my own sort of journal of thoughts and they continue to serve that role. Usually when people ask me a question I can refer them to a specific post.

Many of my posts arise from questions people ask by email, text, or in person. I aspire to answer questions by directing people to original sources to enable them to make informed decisions.

It's also interesting to see which posts and which pages are the most viewed. Some of the older posts continue to be the most popular.

Hopefully we're all helping Latter-day Saints to become better informed and more faithful, diligent, committed, prosperous and happy.

Annual SITH/M2C conference 5-7 August 2026

In the ongoing pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding, I encourage people to attend the annual SITH/M2C conference, aka FAIR Conference 2026, will take place 5-7 August 2026 at the Thanksgiving Point Showbarn | Lehi, Utah.

Here is the link to more info about the conference, including the schedule.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference_home/2026-fair-conferences/august-2026-fair-conference

Not surprisingly, nothing has changed at FAIRLDS since I commented on the 2024 conference here:

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2024/08/fair-lds-conference-this-week-12900.html

Sadly, I can't attend. But I hope lots of people go to see these scholars in action.

This is the annual conference where you will learn about how to "defend the faith" by employing all sorts of theories of scholars (mingled with scripture). But you will never learn what Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery actually taught about the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon, such as the sources here: https://www.mobom.org/church-history-issues

The scholars at the SITH/M2C conference think the teachings of Joseph and Oliver are unreliable and should not be shared with new and young Latter-day Saints.

Instead, these SITH/M2C scholars insist their theories are better than the teachings of these two prophets because (i) they have better academic credentials than Joseph and Oliver did and (ii) they have other like-minded scholar who agree their theories are better than the factual claims made by Joseph and Oliver.   

Obviously, I disagree. 

Clarity. At a minimum, all Latter-day Saints should be fully informed and conversant with the plain, unambiguous teachings Joseph and Oliver left us, especially those they recorded formally and in print. 

Charity. Like every reader of this blog, I think these scholars are fine people, solid Latter-day Saints, and effective communicators with the best of intentions.

Understanding. Readers of this blog know that our purpose here is not to persuade, convince, compel or convert anyone to any one way of thinking. We encourage everyone to make informed decisions for themselves, based on clarity and charity. The objective is to enhance understanding of different perspectives.

One would think that scholars would be happy to compare their theories to the teachings of Joseph and Oliver and explain why people should accept their theories instead of what Joseph and Oliver taught. In my experience, people appreciate such candor. It's the first element of "clarity, charity and understanding." 

But you won't see anything like this at the SITH/M2C conference. 

The only rational explanation for this is that the presenters don't trust their audiences to make informed decisions because they fear that most Latter-day Saints will agree with Joseph and Oliver instead of them.

That's why I encourage everyone to attend these conferences to see for themselves.

_____

SITH. SITH is the "stone-in-the-hat" narrative, which claims Joseph never really translated the plates or even used the plates, but instead read words that appeared on a stone he place din a hat. 

I encourage people to go to see for themselves at this conference how some of our LDS scholars promote Royal Skousen's claim that Joseph and Oliver "deliberately misled" everyone about the translation of the Book of Mormon.

See https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/2026/04/thank-you-royal-skousen.html

M2C. M2C is the "Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs" theory which claims the "hill in New York" where Joseph obtained the plates was not the Cumorah/Ramah of the Book of Mormon, but instead the "real" Cumorah/Ramah is in southern Mexico, or Baja, or Panama, or Colombia, or any number of other places except for New York.

I encourage people to go to see for themselves at this conference how some of our LDS scholars promote the FAIRLDS claim that Oliver lied about the location of Cumorah/Ramah, and that Joseph Smith ignorantly adopted this false narrative when he wrote D&C 128:20.

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

_____

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.