Real vs Rumor provides an explanation of excellent methodology for approaching history and several insights into methods of historical analysis, along with cautions about common logical and conceptual fallacies. The book is commendable for that content.
His website is here:
https://www.keitherekson.com/books/real-vs-rumor/
Erekson suggests a method for recognizing the "best scholarship available:" (Quotations from the book are in blue on this blog.) "My general advice is to seek for sources, stories and studies that are accurate, authentic, reliable, fair, and comprehensive."
That is excellent advice.
But the book also inexplicably contradicts its own guidance over and over. As we'll see, Real vs. Rumor would be a far more effective book if the author had applied his own "sniff tests" to his own writing.
It is common for historians to disagree about interpreting historical evidence. This is a healthy aspect of historical analysis, as recognized by the Historians' Standards of Professional Conduct published by the American Historical Association. In this post I'll explain why I disagree with some of Erekson's conclusions, while emphasizing that we share our convictions about the divinity of the doctrines of the Restoration.
_____
Erekson explains his concept of "sniff tests" by stating that
Every chapter ends with a 'You Try It" section that summarizes key concepts and introduces sniff tests, or clues that something just isn't right. You need not become an expert on every subject to recognize when good thinking is not being used.
No one needs to become an expert on any subject to recognize faulty reasoning. Yet this clumsy sentence infers that we must become experts on at least some subjects to recognize when good thinking is not being used, which is presumably not Erekson's intention.
At the end of chapter 2, Erekson offers these two "Sniff tests."
2. A single piece of evidence. Be wary of an author who takes a single source from the past and uses it to the exclusion of all other available and relevant sources.
3. Narrowly selected evidence. Sometimes authors distort by selecting a few facts to emphasize while ignoring others.... Authors who employ this technique typically emphasize loudly that their "facts" are "correct."
As we'll see in this review, Erekson regularly violates both of these "sniff tests" when he states his conclusions about various historical events.
At one point in his book, Erekson writes "good historical thinking requires a lot of work, and the antagonist hopes you will choose to be lazy." Because I agree with that premise, I'm going through some specific points in detail.
Along these lines, in Chapter 13 Erekson also provides an excellent explanation of arguments.
The best way to present clear information about the past is with an argument. An argument is not a "fight" between the author and others, nor is it simply an author's opinion. An argument is a reasoned way of presenting and evaluating information--a way of assembling the pieces of the past, using them as evidence in order to draw conclusions....
The best arguments are comprehensive, our final criterion for establishing trustworthiness. They seek out all of the accurate facts, authentic sources, and reliable stories... Arguments dive deeply into the complexities of the past and the relevant contexts... They present information logically in a way that makes sense, always recognizing our limitations in understanding the past from the standpoint of the present.
Space limits us to only a few examples of how a comprehensive argument exposes the logical and factual fallacies of some of Erekson's claims.
Appendix C summarizes the Sniff Tests.
"Sniff Tests are clues that something just isn't right. Like the Lamanite queen in the Book of Mormon, you can tell when something stinks or not (see Alma 19:1-12). You don't need to know every fact to recognize these warning signs."
Notice the difference between this explanation ("you don't need to know every fact"), which is reasonable, and his clumsy sentence in the introduction ("you need not become an expert on every subject"). Erekson then summarizes his lists of examples, such as these:
Survey the Situation
- No attempt at analysis
- No provenance
Analyze the Contents
- No evidence
- No source
- Vague attribution
- More emotion than evidence
- Oversimplification
Connect to Contexts
- "I read a book"
- Quoting out of context
etc.
Lamentably, Erekson repeatedly ignores his own guidelines and suggestions throughout the book, repeatedly violating most, if not all, of his own "sniff" tests.
Why he is blind to this problem is difficult to ascertain, but in many cases, he violates his own guidelines in an effort to promote SITH (the "stone-in-the-hat" narrative) and M2C (the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory). Throughout his book, Erekson explains why it is important to analyze historical sources, but then he repeatedly omits the historical sources that are directly relevant to his topics in favor of modern commentaries--and even then he refers vaguely to books by certain authors without naming even one.
This is a summary of some of my previous posts on this blog.
_____
The sword of Laban. We begin by discussing the "sword of Laban." This may appear to be an insignificant footnote in Church history, but Real vs. Rumor features it as a prime example of how to approach history.
And it is a disastrous example.
Brother Erekson, when he was Director of the Church History Library in Salt Lake City, claims that the most common question he receives is "Do you have the sword of Laban?"
This question reflects the ongoing confusion among Latter-day Saints about the early events surrounding the Hill Cumorah. Based on Erekson's explanation in his book, that confusion is destined to linger, if not intensify, because of the way he manipulates the historical record.
An answer based on actual historical accounts would be simple and clear.
"No, we don't have the sword of Laban. We don't know where it is now, but Joseph, Oliver, and others saw the sword of Laban in the repository in the Hill Cumorah in New York multiple times, and we assume it is still with the other Nephite records and artifacts. We don't know where those are now, except David Whitmer and Oliver Cowdery said they are no longer in the repository in the Hill Cumorah. David did say they are not far from there, however."
Instead of answering the question this way, Erekson answers with a misleading narrative that defies his own advice and standards regarding historical analysis.
"The short answer is 'No,' but there is more to the response. I don't know where the sword is now or whether it has even been used since the late 1820s, but I do know that Joseph Smith saw the sword in the box with the plates, that Moroni showed it to the Three Witnesses, and that Oliver reported seeing the sword unsheathed on a table in a vision about a cave of records."
All three of Erekson's claims here are merely his assumptions that contradict the historical evidence, including the accounts given by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery.
We are left to wonder why he makes these claims. The only apparent rationale is Erekson's desire to comply with particular interpretations of Church history that accommodate modern academic theories.
Erekson's answer is made worse because he employs a habit shared by many LDS historians, which is their penchant for declaring what they "know" instead of merely reporting the historical evidence and letting people make informed decisions for themselves. The sword of Laban is a dramatic example of this propensity.
While surprising given the solid principles of analysis in his book, Brother Erekson's approach is not unique. Many current LDS historians take for granted the twin theories of M2C (the "Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs" theory of Book of Mormon geography) and SITH (the "stone-in-the-hat" theory of Book of Mormon translation). They manipulate Church history and other evidence to support these theories.
To see why this is important, note that on page 2, Erekson writes, "Antagonists distort the Church's history, and some Saints abandon their faith because they can't make sense of the past or discern present manipulations."
But then he proceeds to do exactly what he accuses "antagonists" of doing.
On page 29, under the heading Show Me the Evidence, Erekson offers this important suggestion:
Every time we hear a quote or story or rumor we must respond with "Show me the evidence." After asking about what we know and what we don't, we should also ask "How do we know it?"
I couldn't agree more. But then look at the next paragraph in which he discusses the sword of Laban.
Let me illustrate this process by answering the most common question I receive when people learn that I'm the director of the Church History Library--"Do you have the sword of Laban?" The short answer is "No," but there is more to the response. I don't know where the sword is now or whether it has even been used since the late 1820s, but I do know that Joseph Smith saw the sword in the box with the plates, that Moroni showed it to the Three Witnesses, and that Oliver reported seeing the sword unsheathed on a table in a vision about a cave of records. Once we establish what we know, then we ask, "How do we know it?" (emphasis added)
Recall that this is the most common question people ask of the director of the Church History Library, and he gives them an answer based on his assumptions about the modern M2C narrative, not on the historical sources.
Next, Erekson writes, "Once we establish what we know, then we ask, 'How do we know it?'"
"Show Me the Evidence" rule.
Brother Erekson next applies his "Show Me the Evidence" rule with the table below (pages 30-31 in the book). For clarity, the text is reproduced to the right of the images.
Recall that he introduced this table by testifying "I do know that Joseph Smith saw the sword in the box with the plates."
How does he know that?
The only historical evidence he cites is an 1886 statement by Joseph's sister Catherine that doesn't even say what Brother Erekson claims.
In fact, none of what Brother Erekson claims "we know" is based on historical evidence. Instead, what he claims "we know" consists merely of his M2C-inspired interpretations of selected sources that contradict other, more credible sources.
This is stunning.
In Chapter 14, Erekson quotes Elder D. Todd Christofferson, who said that "a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, [is] not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church."
Yet here, Erekson tells testifies to visitors at the Church History Library that "Joseph saw the sword in the box with the plates," based solely on one ambiguous statement made by one person on a single occasion, in this case over 60 years after the fact.
Let's sort it out, with Erekson's text in blue, my comments in red.
What We Know | How We Know It |
Joseph Smith saw the sword in the stone box with the plates. This is not what Catherine said. She didn't even mention the stone box. Besides, Erekson's assertion doesn't make sense because both Joseph and Oliver described the contents of the stone box and it didn't include the brass plates or any sword. | His sister Catherine stated in 1886 that Joseph "went frequently to the hill, and upon returning he would tell us, 'I have seen the records, also the brass plates and the sword of Laban with the breast plate and the interpreters.' Going once a year for four years could not be described as "frequently." Catherine claimed Joseph saw the brass plates as well as the sword. By "records" she may have meant only the abridged record, but she could also have meant the repository of records, which leads to the most plausible assumption that she was referring to Joseph's visits to the repository, which we know Joseph and Oliver visited at least twice. |
Moroni showed the sword to the Three Witnesses We infer this from D&C 17:1, but that verse is prospective, not descriptive of what happened. And it gives zero support for Erekson's claim that the sword was in Moroni's stone box. | The Lord promised to show the sword to the Three Witnesses in a revelation (D&C 17:1), and in the late 1870s and early 1880s, David Whitmer told multiple interviewers that Moroni "exhibited to them the plates, the sword of Laban, the Directors which were given to Lehi (called Liahona), the Urim and Thummim, and other records." Neither Martin nor Oliver ever corroborated David's accounts, which he related 50+ years after the events. Instead, Oliver said he saw these items in the repository. |
Joseph and Oliver Cowdery saw the sword on a table in a cave in a vision. | Brigham Young related the story in a talk in June 1877, noting that Oliver and Joseph "walked into a cave" containing "more plates than probably many wagon |
This element directly contradicts what Erekson claims he "knows" about the sword of Laban. Furthermore, Erekson's "vision" narrative relies on a statement from Heber C. Kimball, not Brigham Young, whom Erekson quotes here. Kimball's use of the term, in context, referred to the "view" that Joseph and Oliver had. | loads." The first time they visited, the sword hung on the wall, but "when they went again it had been taken down and laid upon the table across the gold plates; it was unsheathed, and on it was written these words: 'This sword will never be sheathed again until the kingdoms of this world become the kingdom of our God and his Christ.'" Brigham said he heard this story from Oliver and from Joseph's brother Don Carlos. Three people recorded hearing Brigham Young tell this story, two people recorded hearing it from David Whitmer, and one reported hearing it from Martin Harris.12 Erekson's excerpt fails to inform readers that Brigham gave this sermon just two months before he died, emphasizing that "I relate this to you, and I want you to understand it. I take this liberty of referring to those things so that they will not be forgotten and lost." While Erekson did offer the excerpt, he effectively dismissed it as relating a "vision" Joseph and Oliver had. But Brigham had introduced the account be emphasizing it was literal. "I lived right in the country where the plates were found from which the Book of Mormon was translated, and I know a great many things pertaining to that country. I believe I will take the liberty to tell you of another circumstance that will be as marvelous as anything can be." |
Erekson continues:
In describing how we know, I named the source of the information and stated the year in which the source told the story.
That's obviously an important principle of relating historical accounts, but we can all see that none of the sources said what Erekson claims "we know." Worse, Erekson omits the far more credible and contemporaneous accounts that contradict his claims..
Our evidentiary rules of thumb illuminate two interesting observations. First, the second piece of information comes from a participant in the event (David Whitmer said he saw the sword) but the first and third facts come from people who heard the participants tell the story.
This is a bizarre statement because the "second piece of information" is not provided directly by David Whitmer but by people who heard him tell the story. Thus all three "pieces of information" are hearsay.
Second, all of the stories were told in the 1870s and 1880s, at least fifty years after the events.
While true about the stories Erekson cited, the first two "pieces of information" were not corroborated, while the third "piece of information" is corroborated by multiple accounts that contradict Erekson's "vision" narrative.
For example, in 1874, Jesse N. Smith recorded in his journal that Brigham Young visited Cedar City and described "an apartment in the Hill Cumorah that some of the brethren had been permitted to enter. He said there was great wealth in the room in sacred implements, vestments, arms, precious metals and precious stones, more than a six-mule team could draw."
In 1877 David Whitmer told Edward Stevenson that "Oliver Cowdery told him that the Prophet Joseph and himself had seen this room and that it was filled with treasure, and on a table therein were the breastplate and the sword of Laban, as well as the portion of gold plates not yet translated, and that these plates were bound by three small gold rings, and would also be translated."
https://archive.org/details/reminiscencesofj00stev/page/n17/mode/2up
Our evidence about the sword of Laban comes from persons close to the events (and one participant), but it also comes many years after the events. We would prefer sources created closer in time to the event, but these are the best available.
This solid preference for early, direct historical sources is axiomatic. However, Erekson has defined the issue to avoid the actual far more contemporaneous and authoritative sources (discussed below). When the question is "What was in the stone box?" the answer is definitive from Joseph himself. And accounts earlier than Katherine's referred to the sword itself being in the repository in Cumorah.
All of the sources describe only seeing the sword--it was never given to someone and thus could never have been handed down to eventually arrive in the Church History Library.
Note 12: Brigham Young, June 17, 1877, in Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. (Liverpool: F. D. Richards, 1855-86), 19:37-39; Cameron J. Packer, "Cumorah's Cave," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, 13, no. 1 (2004): 50-57.
While it would be better for Erekson to provide links to these references, especially in his digital editions, these citations can be found by most readers and anyone who takes the time to read them can see they do not support what Erekson claims. This is a common problem with academic authors who write to persuade readers to accept their own theories instead of writing to enable readers to make informed decisions.
Next, let's consider a comprehensive argument that, to use Erekson's own criterion for establishing trustworthiness, will "dive deeply into the complexities of the past and the relevant contexts."
Katherine's statement. Erekson's first piece of evidence, which is the only one that can be read to support what he "knows," consists of a letter published in the RLDS publication Saints' Herald in 1886, when she was 73 years old. (She was born on July 8, 1813, making her 14 years old when Joseph obtained the plates in 1827.)
This was more than 60 years after the events she claimed to recall and 20 years after Brigham Young was known to be relating Oliver's account of the repository in Cumorah. (See the accounts in "Cumorah's Cave").
For example, in 1855, William Horne Dame recorded in his Diary, 14 January 1855
Attended meeting a discourse from W. W. Phelps. He related a story told him by Hyrum Smith which was as follows: Joseph, Hyrum, Cowdery & Whitmere went to the hill Cormorah. As they were walking up the hill, a door opened and they walked into a room about 16 ft square. In that room was an angel and a trunk. On that trunk lay a book of Mormon & gold plates, Laban’s sword, Aaron’s brestplate.
In 1869 Wilford Woodruff recorded that
"President Young said in relation to Joseph Smith returning the Plates of the Book of Mormon that He did not return them to the box from wh[ence?] He had Received [them]. But He went [into] a Cave in the Hill Comoro with Oliver Cowdry & deposited those plates upon a table or shelf. In that room were deposited a large amount of gold plates Containing sacred records & when they first visited that Room the sword of Laban was Hanging upon the wall when they last visited it the sword was drawn from the scabbard and [laid?] upon a table and a Messenger who was the keeper of the room informed them that that sword would never be returned to its scabbard untill the Kingdom of God was Esstablished upon the Earth & untill it reigned triumphant over Evry Enemy. Joseph Smith said that Cave Contained tons of Choice Treasures & records."
Readers can assess the probability that Katherine's memory was influenced by these earlier accounts.
You can read Katherine's letter here, on page 260. https://www.latterdaytruth.org/pdf/100200.pdf. [Note that Erekson provides a reference that is difficult to find, without providing a link even in his online edition.]
The relevant excerpt:
I well remember the trials my brother had, before he obtained the records. After he had the vision, he went frequently to the hill, and upon returning would tell us, "I have seen the records, also the brass plates and the sword of Laban with the breast plate and interpreters."
Note here that she did not mention the stone box. It's easy to see how, 60 years after the fact, she would have conflated Joseph's visits before and after he obtained the plates. She may have written this letter to corroborate earlier accounts she had heard, or heard of, from David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, Brigham Young, etc.
He would ask father why he could not get them? The time had not yet come, but when it did arrive he was commanded to go on the 22d day of September I827 at 2 o'clock. We had supposed that when he should bring them home, the whole family would be allowed to see them, but he said it was forbidden of the Lord. They could be seen only by those who were chosen to bear their testimony to the world. We had therefore to be content until they were translated and we could have the book to read.
We can all see that this brief letter is vague on details. She claims Joseph went "frequently" to the hill before he obtained the plates. Yet Joseph specifically explained that he went once a year to the hill until he obtained the plates. That hardly qualifies as "frequently."
On another occasion in early 1827 he met with Moroni "as I passed by the Hill of Cumorah," but because that account identified the hill as Cumorah our historians rarely refer to it.
What could Katherine have meant when she said he went "frequently" here? Hold that thought.
Katherine also says Joseph asked his father why he could not get the plates, which contradicts Joseph's own contemporaneous account that Moroni told him why he could not get the plates.
Furthermore, there is no other source that states or even implies that Joseph saw the brass plates (or the sword of Laban) before he obtained the abridged plates to translate.
Joseph's own account, canonized in the Pearl of Great Price, differs from Katherine's in another respect. Moroni told Joseph there were three items in the stone box, which Joseph verified:
Having removed the earth, I obtained a lever, which I got fixed under the edge of the stone, and with a little exertion raised it up. I looked in, and there indeed did I behold the plates, the Urim and Thummim, and the breastplate, as stated by the messenger. The box in which they lay was formed by laying stones together in some kind of cement. In the bottom of the box were laid two stones crossways of the box, and on these stones lay the plates and the other things with them.
(Joseph Smith—History 1:52)
Joseph did not mention a sword or any other items. It is implausible that an 18-year-old male would find an exotic ancient sword in a stone box and not mention it when describing the contents of the box.
Oliver Cowdery, who wrote with the explicit assistance of Joseph Smith, published a formal, more detailed description in Letter VIII, with not even a suggestion that an ancient sword or other items were in the stone box.
This box was sufficiently large to admit a breast-plate, such as was used by the ancients to defend the chest, &c. from the arrows and weapons of their enemy. From the bottom of the box, or from the breast-plate, arose three small pillars composed of the same description of cement used on the edges; and upon these three pillars was placed the record of the children of Joseph, and of a people who left the tower far, far before the days of Joseph, or a sketch of each, which had it not been for this, and the never failing goodness of God, we might have perished in our sins, having been left to bow down before the altars of the Gentiles and to have paid homage to the priests of Baal! I must not forget to say that this box, containing the record was covered with another stone, the bottom surface being flat and the upper, crowning. But those three pillars were not so lengthy as to cause the plates and the crowning stone to come in contact. (emphasis added)
Erekson does not cite these published, contemporary sources from the two people most involved in the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.
Lucy Mack Smith also reported what Moroni told Joseph Smith:
"the record is on a side hill on the Hill of Cumorah 3 miles from this place remove the Grass and moss and you will find a large flat stone pry that up and you will find the record under it laying on 4 pillars"
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1845/86
Again, no mention of brass plates or a sword.
Aside from the way Katherine's brief statement (as interpreted by Erekson) contradicts the published accounts from Joseph and Oliver, we naturally wonder, why would Moroni put the brass plates, the sword of Laban (and the Liahona, presumably) in the stone box with the abridged plates, breastplate and interpreters? They would serve no purpose; they wouldn't even be meaningful to Joseph until he had translated the plates. Joseph never said or implied that Moroni explained such additional items.
Plus, as difficult as it is to believe (according to M2C) that Moroni hauled a 60-pound set of abridged plates from Mexico to New York, it's even less credible that he also hauled a set of brass plates with the sword of Laban and the Liahona.
Nevertheless, Brother Erekson disregards all these considerations and the historical evidence and instead testifies to visitors at the Church History Library that he "knows" Joseph "saw the sword in the box with the plates."
What could be more disturbing to faith than to have the Director of the Church History Library testifying to the truth of his interpretation of a 60-year-old account that
(i) contradicts what Joseph and Oliver taught about the contents of the stone box,
(ii) contradicts what others said about the sword being in the repository, and
(iii) doesn't make any sense?
While Erekson's interpretation is problematic at best, Katherine's statement can easily be reconciled with other historical accounts--including the account from Oliver regarding the repository of records in the Hill Cumorah that Erekson acknowledged but dismissed, which we'll discuss below. If, as Oliver claimed, he and Joseph entered the repository on multiple occasions, then Joseph would not only have seen the brass plates, sword of Laban, and Liahona but could have told his family about them as Katherine claimed 60 years later. The imprecision in her letter is easily attributed to her late recollection of events that took place when she was a teenager, combined with what others were saying about the sword in the repository.
There is no need for Erekson or anyone else to imply (let alone testify!) that the detailed narratives from Joseph and Oliver were wrong or incomplete.
No need, we should say, except for the need to support the M2C narrative.
BTW, whoever created the display of the "hill in New York" (the "false" Cumorah) in the North Visitors Center agreed with Brother Erekson's M2C narrative.
The diorama and associated video depicts Moroni putting the sword of Laban and Liahona into the stone box, along with the plates.
Except they forgot to show the brass plates...
It was one thing for the North Visitors Center to teach this bizarre contradiction to what Joseph and Oliver taught, but they actually replicated the same display at the Hill Cumorah visitors center in New York!
David Whitmer and the 3 witnesses.
Erekson's second statement of "What We Know" is that "Moroni showed the sword to the Three Witnesses." As evidence, he cites D&C 17:1 and late statements by David Whitmer.
This is not serious historical analysis.
First, D&C 17:1 was prospective. It was a promise of a future event, not an account of an event that had taken place.
Second, D&C 17:1 is bifurcated:
Behold, I say unto you, that you must rely upon my word, which if you do with full purpose of heart, you shall have a view of the plates, and also of the breastplate, the sword of Laban, the Urim and Thummim, which were given to the brother of Jared upon the mount, when he talked with the Lord face to face, and the miraculous directors which were given to Lehi while in the wilderness, on the borders of the Red Sea. (Doctrine and Covenants 17:1)
Logically, we could say that their testimony that they saw the plates doesn't necessarily mean they didn't also see the other objects at the same time. But given the bifurcated nature of D&C 17:1 and the absence of any record from Joseph Smith, Martin Harris or Oliver Cowdery that they saw these artifacts on this occasion, it is hardly viable to testify that we "know" they all saw all these objects on that occasion, based solely on David Whitmer's statements, particularly when David explained that Martin was not present on the occasion.
The first known statement by David about seeing the other objects (in addition to the plates) is from an interview he had with Joseph F. Smith and Orson Pratt in September 1878. He repeated the essence of that account in 1881 and 1882.
Here is the March 1, 1882, account from the Saints' Herald.
We then got up and sat on the log and were talking, when all at once a light came down from above us and encircled us for quite a little distance around; and the angel stood before us. He was dressed in white, and spoke and called me by name and said 'Blessed is he that keepeth His commandments.' This is all that I heard the angel say. A table was set before us and on it the records were placed. The Records of the Nephites, from which the Book of Mormon was translated, the brass plates, the Ball of Directors, the sword of Laban and other plates. While we were viewing them the voice of' God spoke out of heaven saying that the Book was true and the translation correct."
While this account doesn't directly contradict the official statement by the Three Witnesses, it includes details that had been discussed by others as early as 1855, but in a completely different context.
Other than David's accounts, all other accounts (accounts which preceded David's) of the table bearing the records, sword of Laban, and other artifacts involve the repository in the Hill Cumorah referenced in Mormon 6:6. Significantly, David's accounts all post-date the detailed 1877 account related by Brigham Young two months before his death.
Recall that the 1855 account has David accompanying Joseph, Hyrum and Oliver to the repository in the Hill Cumorah, where they saw the angel and the artifacts.
Ordinarily, historians prefer earlier accounts over later ones. Ordinarily, they prefer corroborated accounts by multiple witnesses over isolated accounts by one witness.
If we apply those preferences to David's account of seeing the artifacts on a table, the more plausible explanation is that David conflated two separate events; i.e., he related his experience as one of the Three Witnesses, consistent with the formal Testimony of the Three Witnesses, but he added his experience seeing the other artifacts in the repository in Cumorah.
This is not only plausible but justifiable, given that David sought to discourage treasure seekers from digging in the Hill Cumorah. In terms of the authenticity of his testimony, what mattered is his declaration that he physically observed the artifacts, not when and where he saw them.
At any rate, to state as a fact that the Three Witnesses saw these artifacts fails to account for the absence of Martin Harris from the event, regardless of when and where it took place.
This is all relevant to the question of M2C because if, as others related, the artifacts were actually observed in the repository inside the New York Cumorah, then the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah are corroborated and vindicated.
Erekson's vision narrative.
The third thing Erekson says we "know" is that "Joseph and Oliver Cowdery saw the sword on a table in a cave in a vision."
With all the sources relating the event as a physical experience, we naturally wonder why Erekson would frame the event as a mere "vision" of a cave somewhere else (presumably in southern Mexico). Notice also that this "vision" was shared by multiple people on multiple occasions.
The source for that framing is a statement in "Cumorah's Cave" from Heber C. Kimball, who, when responding to a comment about the handcart pioneers, said, "How does it compare with the vision that Joseph and others had, when they went into a cave in the hill Cumorah and saw more records than ten men could carry?"
M2C advocates portray the event as a "vision" based on Kimball's use of the term, reasoning that if it was not an actual physical event in New York, it could instead be merely some kind of spiritual sight of the actual repository which must, according to M2C, be located in southern Mexico.
There are several problems with this framing.
First, Kimball preceded this sentence with a very literal reference to the hill Cumorah.
Brother Mills mentioned in his song, that crossing the Plains with handcarts was one of the greatest events that ever transpired in this Church. I will admit that it is an important event, successfully testing another method for gathering Israel, but its importance is small in comparison with the visitation of the angel of God to the Prophet Joseph, and with the reception of the sacred records from the hand of Moroni at the hill Cumorah.
Second, Kimball said they had a vision "when they went into a cave in the hill Cumorah," another statement of physicality.
Third, while the term "vision" can refer to a revelation, or imaginary, other supernatural presentation, the 1828 Webster's dictionary offers as the first connotation "the act of seeing external objects; actual sight." That connotation is consistent with all the other accounts of the repository, none of which refer to a "vision."
Fourth, if the term "vision" can refer only to a metaphysical experience, then what can we make of the "First Vision" during which Joseph claimed he saw Christ and God in a literal, physical sense?
At any rate, the historical evidence doesn't support the "vision" framing.
Erekson cites Cameron Packer's important article, "Cumorah's Cave," which is online here:
https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1360&context=jbms
We've already considered Packer's first reference, the 1855 William Horne Dame Diary, which relates a physical reality, not a vision.
Heber C. Kimball gave his "vision" version in a sermon on 28 September 1856. Additional accounts from 1867, 1869, 1873, and 1874 corroborate the actual visit to the repository in the Hill Cumorah.
Finally, on 17 June 1877, Brigham Young related the account that Erekson excepts in the third panel of the table. The full account emphasizes the physical reality of the experience. More than one experience, actually; Brigham related at least two occasions when Joseph and Oliver entered the repository.
In light of this historical evidence, consider again Erekson's summary of "What We Know" here:
"Joseph and Oliver Cowdery saw the sword on a table in a cave in a vision."
That statement cannot be reasonably characterized as anything other than "distorting the Church's history... [so that Latter-day Saints] can't make sense of the past or discern present manipulations."
Summary.
Brother Erekson, as Director of the Church History Library, fields all kinds of questions, but his number one question is, "Do you have the sword of Laban?"
The question reflects the serious confusion among Latter-day Saints about the early events of the restoration, particularly those involving the plates and the Hill Cumorah.
Now we see why an answer based on actual historical accounts would be simple and clear.
"No, we don't have the sword of Laban. Joseph, Oliver, and others saw the sword of Laban in the repository in the Hill Cumorah in New York multiple times, but it remains with the other Nephite records and artifacts. We don't know where those are now, except David Whitmer and Oliver Cowdery said they are no longer in the repository in the Hill Cumorah. David did say they are not far from there, however."
Instead, Brother Erekson testifies of three "facts" that contradict the narrative given to us by Joseph and Oliver in favor of academic interpretations promoted by M2C advocates that are intended to accommodate M2C, even though they distort Church history and leave the Latter-day Saints unable to make sense of the past or to discern present manipulation.
We can all hope that Brother Erekson corrects his misleading historical analysis in future editions and especially in digital editions of Real or Rumor?
But we still want to understand why such a smart, faithful, qualified historian would engage in all of this sophistry.
The M2C narrative.
To understand how manipulative this paragraph is, we have to first understand that many current LDS historians embrace the premise of M2C; i.e., they agree with the M2C scholars that Joseph and Oliver misled everyone about the Hill Cumorah/Ramah being in New York. Among other things, they explicitly reject Oliver's declaration that it is a fact that the hill in New York is the very hill Mormon referred to in Mormon 6:6, and they also explicitly reject the teachings of every Church leader who reiterated or affirmed what Oliver wrote.
See http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/90
An essential element of M2C is the claim that the repository of records (Mormon 6:6) is actually somewhere in southern Mexico (or elsewhere--actually, anywhere in the world except western New York). This is critical for M2C because they also insist that the final battles of the Jaredites and Nephites could not have happened in New York.
Thus, our M2C scholars teach that the "hill in New York" where Moroni built the stone box was wrongly named Cumorah because of a false tradition that Joseph Smith inexplicably embraced (as in D&C 128:20).
This requires them to rationalize (and teach) that all the prophets and apostles who reiterated the New York Cumorah, including members of the First Presidency speaking in General Conference, compounded the error by misleading the Church, the Latter-day Saints, and the world at large for generations until the M2C scholars discovered the mistake and corrected the prophets by "finding" Cumorah in southern Mexico (although they disagree on exactly where their Cumorah is and have yet to find any hard evidence to support their theory).
While they expressly repudiate the teachings of the prophets as merely "erroneous opinions," these scholars mute their position with sophistry and laundry-list arguments about "correspondences" that are promptly rejected by every Mesoamerican expert and scholar outside the M2C bubble.
Distorting Church history.
To sustain the M2C narrative, these historians consistently (in the words of Brother Erekson) "distort the Church's history," causing an unnecessary faith crises among Latter-day Saints who "can't make sense of the past or discern present manipulations."
M2C is the reason why the Saints book, volume 1, created a false historical narrative present by depicting early Latter-day Saints as though they never heard of Cumorah.
M2C is the reason why the Gospel Topics entry on Book of Mormon geography ignores Cumorah completely, as if the historical record doesn't even exist.
 |
| Display in the North Visitors Center on Temple Square |
M2C is the reason why the North Visitors Center on Temple Square used to depict two Cumorahs: one in Mexico where Mormon supposedly abridged the records and kept the repository of all the Nephite records (Mormon 6:6), and one in New York where Moroni supposedly deposited the plates, the sword of Laban, and the Liahona after traveling thousands of miles from the Mexican Cumorah.
Note that this narrative directly contradicts what Moroni told Joseph Smith when he explained that "the history was written and deposited not far from" Joseph's home. See https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/69.
Thankfully, the North Visitors Center no longer exists, so visitors will no longer be indoctrinated into believing M2C is official Church doctrine. But plenty of Latter-day Saints and other visitors were subjected to M2C for many years.
M2C is the only plausible reason why Brother Erekson manipulates the historical sources as I've bolded above, as we'll see next.
