Brant Gardner FAIRLDS interview

Brant Gardner, who is a great guy, faithful LDS, and careful scholar, is promoting his new book published by FAIRLDS. You can see the interview here:

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2026/05/28/beyond-the-sandy-foundation

Brant makes some good points but also some not so good, especially when he tries to superimpose Mayan culture on our Hebrew text.

Brant emphasizes that he prioritizes the text over the teachings of the prophets, but sometimes he elevates his M2C theory over the text, as we see in this interview.

My comments in red.

Question

In the opening section of the book, you tackle some popular but problematic “evidences” for the Book of Mormon, such as the Michigan Relics, the Bat Creek Stone, and the Quetzalcoatl myth. Why is it so vital for defenders of the faith to let go of these well-loved but flawed artifacts, and how does discarding them actually strengthen our foundation?

Response: We believe that the Book of Mormon is true, and we want others to know it is as well. We turn to evidences that might help them believe – or that at least will support our own belief. When we turn to forgeries or wishful readings of history, we build on a sandy foundation. 

I agree with this approach, although I'd have to read his specific application to comment on this.

Such things cannot convince others, because they (unlike the Book of Mormon itself) are not true. The danger for believers is that we might eventually learn that these artifacts are fakes or that the stories misread the evidence. A house on sand too easily falls, and these things are sandy foundations at best.

This is exactly my problem with M2C (the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory).

Question

You argue that looking for a single “smoking gun” archaeological proof for the Book of Mormon is the wrong approach. Instead, you advocate for building a “web of interlocking evidence.” Can you explain how this methodology works and why it yields much richer results?

Response: Regardless of what the single thing might be, as an anomaly, it can be dismissed. To be considered a “smoking gun” it really has to be a big gun! Archaeology and historical analysis simply don’t work that way. What it requires is building a consistent case from multiple types of evidence which all converge in a single place at a single time. 

Good approach. Except Brant does not apply that when it comes to Church history, where we have multiple sources over many years that corroborate the New York Cumorah.

In the case of the Book of Mormon, those convergences add an additional layer of needing to converge with the Book of Mormon at that same time and place. That is quite difficult, but that is the way good archaeology and history work. Fortunately, the Book of Mormon works better in that more complicated method of connecting it to the real world that it does to producing a “smoking gun.”

Good point.

Question

You have spent a career situating the Book of Mormon within a Mesoamerican setting. 

This is an excellent question that goes to Brant's bias confirmation. Like Brant, I spent decades believing M2C based on what the experts (such as Brant) taught. I visited Mesoamerican sites, read the books, attended the FARMS and FAIR conferences, etc. I believed that Joseph Smith wrote the 1842 Times and Seasons articles about Mesoamerica. But in all that time, I never learned about the early Church history regarding Cumorah. I never learned that it was L.E. Hills who came up with the first M2C map, etc. 

Because I had not "spent a career" promoting M2C, I was open to alternative interpretations of the text and a full range of extrinsic evidence. And I became more interested in corroborating the teachings of the prophets instead of repudiating them.  

For a reader who might be new to this approach, what is one of the most striking “aha!” moments in the book where ancient Mesoamerican culture perfectly explains a confusing detail in the Nephite record?

Response: How ironic that this question should follow the one above. There isn’t any one thing. There are so many things. There is, however, a category that I can say I find most impressive. I call that category productivity. By that, I mean that the intersection of time and place (Mesoamerica at the appropriate time periods for the Book of Mormon) can enrich and expand our understanding of the Book of Mormon. Little things become “aha” moments. For example, Amulek taught: 

For it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice; yea, not a sacrifice of man, neither of beast, neither of any manner of fowl; for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice. Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for the sins of another(Alma 34:10–11).

Why would he add that it should not be a human sacrifice, or that one cannot shed one’s own blood to atone for others? Mesoamerica knows. Human sacrifice was standard. The king would ceremoniously shed his own blood for his people. As one of the small convergences that add up, we not only see why this sentence is there, we have a greater understanding of why it was important to Amulek’s audience.

This is a good example of how one's biases can be confirmed. M2Cers often find ubiquitous attributes of human societies that are common to both Mayan civilization and the Book of Mormon and then call that evidence of M2C. Brant sees this passage as evidence of a Mesoamerican setting. And it could be that.

However, it could also be evidence of the Hebrew/Egyptian origins of the Nephites. There are 16 verses in the Old Testament about human sacrifice. We can all read the Book of Abraham, which opens with child sacrifice. Then Abraham explains "at this time it was the custom of the priest of Pharaoh, the king of Egypt, to offer up upon the altar which was built in the land of Chaldea, for the offering unto these strange gods, men, women, and children." (Abraham 1:8) Abraham himself was rescued by God from the sacrificial table.

For that matter, human sacrifice is ubiquitous. There is evidence of such sacrifices not only in ancient Egypt and Israel, but in China, Hawaii, England, Rome, Korea, Iraq, and even North America (at Cahokia, which is later than Book of Mormon times). 

Then there is the language in the text. 

"Great and last" and "infinite and eternal" are nonbiblical BofM (and D&C) phrases used several times by Jonathan Edwards. Edwards wrote about human sacrifice as well. "God took great care that never any human sacrifice should be offered to him. Though he commanded Abraham to offer up his son, yet he would by no means suffer it to be actually done, but appointed something else with which he should be redeemed."

Edwards explained Gen. 8:20, which refers to beasts and fowls as Alma does: "The sacrifice of Christ was represented by Noah’s building an altar to the Lord, and offering a sacrifice of every clean beast, and every clean fowl."

Edwards also explained why the sacrifice of beasts was insufficient: "There God speaking of his coming to judgment, says, “Gather my saints together, those that have made a covenant with me by sacrifice:” And then, after shewing the insufficiency of the sacrifices of beasts, implying that that is a greater sacrifice by which these saints make a covenant with him, it is added, “But to the wicked” [that are not in the number of my saints] “God doth say, What hast thou to do, to take my covenant into thy mouth?” Approving of the covenanting of the former, but disapproving the covenanting of the latter."

I could go on, but these examples show that we do not need to invoke Mayan culture to explain the Hebrew/Egyptian background of the text combined with the linguistic and conceptual context Joseph lived in, including the works of Jonathan Edwards. 

Question

In your essay on the social history of the early Nephites, you discuss Jacob’s seemingly abrupt condemnations of wealth and polygyny. How does understanding the local trade and economic pressures of ancient Mesoamerica completely reframe what Jacob was dealing with?

Response: Most modern Book of Mormon readers read the text devoid of any historical context. It is simply there – without any actual reason for being there (perhaps other than to teach us something). Just as the Old and New Testaments, the Book of Mormon “grew up” in a time and place, and that time and place influenced the lives of the people who lived — but are rarely mentioned by name — in the Book of Mormon. Understanding history shows how the prophets responded to history and therefore helps us understand how modern prophets might respond to the history happening all around us.

This is all good, but we can look at ancient Israel/Egypt and 1820s New York to understand the text. We don't have to look at Mayan culture. 

The next example is another ubiquitous aspect of human society that Brant finds significant because it exists in Mayan culture as well.

For Jacob, he was not dealing with a few renegade Nephites who somehow decided that costly apparel and polygamy might be fun and they should try it. The Nephites lived in a region and absorbed material and mental culture from the surrounding regions (just as Israel did in their Old World homeland). 

"Costly apparel" is a non-biblical BofM term that Edwards also used in a sermon. It is a blending from 1 Timothy 2:9. 

"In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array."

We can't forget that Nephi quoted Isaiah 3-4, which talks about women and apparel. Jacob alluding to Isaiah makes sense. There is no need to invoke Mayan culture when pride from "costly apparel" is a ubiquitous human characteristic.

Nephites, as Hebrews, did not need to look at Mayan culture to adopt polygamy or know that the practice is problematic. The Old Testament discusses polygamy plenty for that. 

In fact, far from referring to "surrounding Mayans," Jacob explains that the Nephites were using Old Testament scriptures to justify their sins.

23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.

24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord. (Jacob 2:23–24)

If Brant prioritized the text over his M2C theory, he would see that the Nephites were using their Hebrew scriptures to justify polygamy. Jacob did not refer to "material and mental culture from the surrounding regions," Mayan or otherwise. 

These examples Brant cites contradict his Mayan theory, but no one seems to bring up these points in his interviews. 

This process of dealing with the influence of the world around us is clearly a continuing modern issue and we can learn from Jacob’s denunciation of certain parts of it.

Question

A significant portion of this collection explores Mormon not just as a compiler, but as a highly intentional historian and editor. When we start “looking over Mormon’s shoulder,” as you put it, how does it change the way we read the narrative flow of the Book of Mormon?

Response: Mormon was a genius, in my opinion. His masterwork was a synthesis of nearly a thousand years of history into a coherent theological story. It was a story that taught by example and Mormon had to make sure that all the right examples were highlighted. We cannot tell how much he left out, but it had to have been considerable. What he wrote, he crafted. Even when quoting, it was Mormon selecting and contextualizing what he quoted. How does this help us understand his text? It should give us a new perspective. We should move deeper into the text than the simplistic “he wrote what happened.” Mormon didn’t create unhistorical events, but he did mold them so that a much greater lesson was taught — not just in the verses we pull out to quote to each other, but in the reason for the longer arc of connected (and often paralleled) stories he told.

Excellent point. But what Mormon said he did leave out, such as their shipping and building of ships, undermines many of Brant's assumptions. And we can all see that Mormon did not mention volcanoes or even explain that he left out volcanoes. 

Question

You discuss the interplay between literacy and orality in Nephite culture. We often think of the Nephites solely as a literate people because of the gold plates, but how did their reliance on oral tradition shape the way sermons and histories were actually delivered and preserved?

Response: We moderns have a difficulty understanding a world where there was significantly less literacy than we experience. We do hear that there are those among us who are termed “functionally illiterate,” and it comes as a shock and surprise. We read our world back into the Book of Mormon and therefore expect our level of literacy when “functionally illiterate” might have been a generous assessment for most.

What the Book of Mormon represents is a culture with incipient literacy. There were literate elite who could read and write. As with other cultures at that stage of development, elite literacy did not replace concepts of orality, even in their writing. For the Book of Mormon, we can follow some of their arguments and note that they still employ techniques from oral discourse. They use parallelism as an important tool. In an oral culture, repeating something gave the listeners another chance to understand it. Artistic parallelism repeated the ideas with different words, which also enhanced understanding. When we see Nephi or Moroni complaining that they are better at speaking than writing, we are seeing artifacts of their participation in that oral literary world which has not gone away — even though they are writing.

This is a good point, but it also invokes the usage of parallelism in the Old Testament and Jonathan Edwards.

Question

Your chapters on the translation process delve into Joseph Smith’s use of seer stones and introduce the concept of “mentalese” (the brain’s pre-language). How does viewing the translation through the lens of cognitive linguistics help us understand the presence of King James phrasing and other unique linguistic features in the text?

Response: The included chapters don’t directly address the recent emphasis on Early Modern English as the language of the Book of Mormon, and I can’t do that here in this response. I will note that even in that hypothesis, a translator is required and that translator produced a text that includes language and references to New Testament phrases from the King James Bible that could not have been part of whatever language was on the plates. In other words, even though I disagree with removing Joseph Smith as the actual translator, the problem of the text we read is essentially the same. It includes language that could not have been a word for word translation of the plates. This is the reason that Royal Skousen has called the Book of Mormon a “cultural” translation. The translator’s mind was present.

I agree with Brant on this, except I think the "culture" involved was not Mayan but instead Old Testament Hebrews with 1820s English as spoken in western New York, influenced by Jonathan Edwards and others. It's interesting that Brant doesn't mention Skousen's conclusion that Joseph and Oliver were "deliberately misleading" about the translation.

The idea of mentalese is, I believe, a consistent model for how a text in any source language becomes the translated text in the target language. A mind is involved. When that mind is involved, the culture and vocabulary of that person provides the contexts in which the translation occurs. This means that even with divine assistance, the plate text was translated into language and idioms from Joseph Smith’s time. Similarly, even if there was a much better word to use in the translation, but it hadn’t entered English by Joseph Smith’s time, divine assistance didn’t presciently add that word.

100% agree.

Question

Some people are troubled by the idea of Joseph Smith using a seer stone in a hat to translate. How does your historical and cognitive analysis in the book help demystify this process and reaffirm the claim that it was done by the gift and power of God?

Response: I accept that Joseph used the interpreters and later a seer stone. 

Brant rejects Joseph and Oliver on the translation as well as on Cumorah, so he's consistent.

What both of those instruments have in common is that they are stones – rocks.

This false equivalence obfuscates the issue. We know the "seer stone" was a rock, but the Urim and Thummim was carefully prepared spectacles with a crystal or opaque lens. The descriptions are meager, but the interpreters were not merely a "rock."

They also have in common the fact that not everyone who uses them can see anything. My mobile phone is a modern miracle, and it shows me all kinds of wonders. I can have someone else look at the screen and share those wonders with them. The interpreters and seer stones didn’t work that way. Only some had the talent to use them, and those who did could actually see in them. Others in Joseph Smith’s community could also use seer stones, and those people and Joseph used them to “see” hidden things – often things which were lost.

This would require a longer answer, but one simple response is that Joseph could not "see" the lost 116 pages, which raises the question of how real these claims are.

God used Joseph’s understanding to shift his talent from seeing lost things in the seer stones to seeing a lost language and a lost text. The similarity of the medium helped Joseph have the confidence to engage with God in the task, but God and Joseph translated – not the stones.

The idea that Joseph "shifted" his talent is problematic, and I don't think anyone claims "the stones" translated anything. SITH requires a Mysterious Incognito Supernatural Translator (the MIST), which is one reason it doesn't make sense or align with the historical evidence.

Question

If a reader wants to truly understand the Book of Mormon on its own ancient terms, which specific essay in this collection do you think will challenge and expand their perspective the most?

Response: Probably “As Social History of the Early Nephites,” gives a good introduction in the concepts behind the way I place the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica and provides examples. Other chapters delve deeper, but this would probably be the best first article for that purpose.

Without having read this chapter, I suspect readers will see plenty more examples of Brant superimposing an unnecessary Mayan context onto the text of the Book of Mormon.

Question

You mention that after forty years of intense study, your curiosity about the text remains unquenchable. What is it about the Book of Mormon that continues to yield new insights after all this time?

Response: One could spend much of a lifetime attempting to learn the life principles in the Book of Mormon. It only becomes more complex and richer when one dives deeply into the writers and what — and why — they wrote. Nephi was a wonderful writer, Mormon was a wonderful writer, but the two are very distinct and write for very different reasons and therefore they can speak of similar things with very different meanings. My main example is how Nephi and Mormon see the Lamanites. Nephi is writing at a time when he must establish a new city-nation. One of the ways of doing this was to establish the unity of “us” against those who are not “us.” The use of this “us/then” dichotomy is well understood and Nephi is an excellent example. The Lamanites are the enemy. Modern readers tend to see them that way throughout the Book of Mormon because we read Nephi first.

Mormon’s Lamanites are different. They are not “us,” but they are no longer the targeted enemy. In Mormon, the “bad guys” are apostate Nephites who stir up the Lamanites. Then it is the Gadiantons who cause trouble. Mormon even lays the destruction of the Nephites at the feet of the Gadiantons. Why not the Lamanites? When Mormon is writing, he is writing to the Lamanites to tell them they are of the House of Israel – that they can repent. The Anti-Nephi-Lehies, the Lamanites later converted by Nephi and his brother Nephi, and Samuel the Lamanite are all specifically selected to show that Lamanites can repent – and that repentant Lamanites might even exceed the Nephites in righteousness. That is very different from the Lamanites in the small plates.

Excellent point. Although he didn't mention that Nephi said the Lamanites would eventually repent. "And the gospel of Jesus Christ shall be declared among them; wherefore, they shall be restored unto the knowledge of their fathers, and also to the knowledge of Jesus Christ, which was had among their fathers.

6 And then shall they rejoice; for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a pure and a delightsome people. (2 Nephi 30:5–6)

There is so much more. I read books about the Old Testament and see new ways to understand the Book of Mormon. Scholarly books on the New Testament similarly open new perspectives. The more I learn, the more there is to know.

We should all emulate Brant in this respect!

Torn between the apologists and the prophets

The book Torn is the topic of several podcasts lately. 

The book explains the reasons why people leave the Church in terms of four "waves." Several influencers, both pro-LDS and con, have focused on the cultural and social issues discussed in the book. 

But Church History is the largest wave.

"Wave II (Church History), the largest wave, is the main reason people are stepping away from the Church (approximately 42 percent). It is also a contributing factor for another 40 to 50 percent."

(click to enlarge)

This is not surprising. The question is how much of a "contributing factor" history may be for another 40-50 percent. If it is a significant factor (which is surely is), that means Church history issues lead 82-92% out of the Church.

That makes sense because the truth claims are historical. It is axiomatic that if the history is false, then the truth claims do not hold up.

By now, it is well established that the Book of Mormon is the "keystone of our religion." Just two years ago, Elder Bednar reminded us that President Benson "emphasized repeatedly that “the Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion—the keystone of our testimony, the keystone of our doctrine, and the keystone in the witness of our Lord and Savior.”

(David A. Bednar, ‘In the Space of Not Many Years,’ General Conference, October 2024, ¶ 3)

Other Christian churches teach faith in Christ, repentance, baptism, and the Holy Ghost. They, as well as other religions and secular groups, offer community, culture, social, emotional and psychological support, etc. 

It is the Book of Mormon that makes all the difference. Few people leave the Church while still accepting the Book of Mormon as an actual translation of ancient records that testify of the reality of Jesus Christ. 

And yet, our most prominent scholars (and internet influencers) are teaching their followers that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery lied about the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon. 

In our day, these faithful Latter-day Saints and the critics find common ground in attacking the credibility and reliability of Joseph and Oliver.

To be sure, the faithful scholars/influences often use euphemisms such as "speculated," "assumed," "guessed," "adopted a false tradition," etc. But Oliver declared it was a fact that Cumorah/Ramah is in New York, that Joseph translated the plates by means of the Urim and Thummim that came with the plates, that John the Baptist restored the priesthood, etc.

Nevertheless, Brant Gardner, Jasmine Rappleye and the other participants in the recent podcast on "Informed Saints" (each of whom is an awesome Latter-day Saint) showed how to repudiate the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah/Ramah. They do this solely because those teachings conflict with their M2C theory. They are so determined that they refuse to even present the case in favor of the prophets so viewers can make informed decisions.

This podcast and others like it do the same with the translation. They all embrace Royal Skousen's conclusion that Joseph and Oliver "deliberately misled" everyone about the translation, solely to prop up their "Early Modern English" theory that Joseph did not really translate anything.

In both cases, Joseph and Oliver explained the truth with plainness and simplicity. 

And in both cases, it has required considerable sophistry for the scholars to justify their repudiation of what Joseph and Oliver taught.

Although the scholars have so far prevailed (as we can see in the Saints book, the Gospel Topics Essays, and even the commentary in the Joseph Smith Papers), the original teachings are still available for anyone to read.

But you wouldn't know that if you watch "Informed Saints" and similar podcasts, or if you read the Interpreter and related content.

_____

Torn, on page 6, makes this observation:

"History, doctrine, and leadership are hugely consequential factors. Culture powerfully shapes how these things are taught, lived, and experienced, often in ways we do not intend, want, or even recognize. Culture can either deepen trust and discipleship—or erode them."

No one can watch "Informed Saints" and similar shows and then come away thinking these podcasters have deepened trust in Joseph and Oliver. Instead, the podcasters deepen trust in themselves and erode trust in Joseph and Oliver.

The Interpreter, FAIRLDS, and the rest do likewise because of the groupthink that naturally arises from an insular set of people who barricade themselves within their intellectual fortress.

This is the classic academic tendency to elevate one's own opinions. It's an especially egregious form of confirmation bias when perpetrated by people in a position of trust and influence. 

As I repeat frequently, I'm fine with people believing and teaching whatever they want. And all of these scholars and podcasters are no doubt wonderful people, faithful Latter-day Saints, well educated, etc.

But anyone who wants to encourage and enable Latter-day Saints to make informed decisions would not resort to sophistry, misinformation, and similar tactics to deprive the Saints of all the relevant historical records, including the teachings of the prophets and the evidence that corroborates those teachings.

_____

On page 23, Torn describes how this process works for many people.

These people encounter historical, doctrinal, or institutional information that conflicts with what they were taught or assumed about the Church’s origins and truth claims. For many, the deepest rupture is not learning of troubling things; it is concluding they no longer know who or what to trust. They are often less disturbed by the actual historical problems (although for many those are troubling enough) and more disturbed by how they believe Church leaders have handled them.

As a thought experiment, think how different the situation would be if faithful LDS scholars and podcasters embraced, instead of repudiated, what Joseph and Oliver taught about the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon.

We all know that critics can find things to attack. The 1834 book Mormonism Unvailed attacked both the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon exactly the same way the modern critics and the M2Cers and SITH sayers within the Church do.

Joseph and Oliver effectively responded to Mormonism Unvailed with facts, enabling people to make informed decisions. 

It was then, and is now, a binary decision.

Did Joseph and Oliver tell the truth, or did they not?

So long as prominent LDS scholars and influencers insist that Joseph and Oliver did not tell the truth about the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon, more and more faithful Latter-day Saints will find themselves "torn" as well.

Misinformed Saints and Mormon Stories: the documentary effect

The podcast "Informed Saints" has an aspirational title, but the hosts continually misinform their audience because they are determined to promote specific agendas instead of enabling their audience to make informed decisions. This is the same approach used by anti-Mormons with great success, such as the Mormon Stories podcast and the film "The Godmakers."

I've been curious about where the hosts of "Informed Saints" learned this behavior. 

Maybe they are simply mirroring Mormon Stories and other outcome-driven podcasts. After all, many other LDS podcasts, along with FAIRLDS, the Interpreter and the old Book of Mormon Central, have long employed this tactic, and young LDS scholars have been trained to think this way. I've observed several examples, including these:

https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/p/joseph-smith-papers-awesome-except-for.html

https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/p/the-sith-problem-1829-2024.html

https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/2017/12/opening-heavens-but-censoring-history.html

This problem is not unique to LDS/anti-LDS culture. As a recent DesNews article (see below) explains, it is systemic. 

The psychology of this outcome-driven content has been described as the "documentary effect." 

Documentaries can put us in a cognitively vulnerable state, and like lambs to slaughter, we can be misled about what is true.

The Documentary Effect is what happens after watching a one-sided documentary (or book, article, podcast, etc). We get a comforting feeling of being informed about the subject, but this feeling is often a misplaced one and we may end up less informed than we were before - more on this later.

The Documentary Effect puts us into a state of overconfidence. Experts are testifying, producing indisputable facts left and right with premises leading to undeniable conclusions and it’s hard to imagine they could be wrong. It’s all too convincing.

It’s like that by design....

... you may have come across documentaries that give arguments against what they're trying to convince you of. They do this to build credibility. They’ll show an assertion from the other side, but this is usually followed up by why those assertions are wrong. They won’t show you the good objections, only ones they can make look foolish. As a layman on a foreign topic, it’s difficult to know a good or bad argument, let alone the facts. They are able to present a case for each side and we as the viewers have no way of knowing the strength of each of those arguments.

It takes mental effort to undo a belief in an initial set of ‘facts’. After hearing and accepting them, one becomes anchored to them as truth, anything that contradicts these facts is viewed as suspect and makes it harder for us to change our minds.

It should be obvious that any serious conversation, debate, exchange, etc., starts with the common ground of facts. That is why I advocate the FAITH model of analysis, which starts with Facts and then proceeds to Assumptions, Inferences, etc.

But the "Informed Saints" podcast, like Mormon Stories, the Godmakers, and similar content, reject this approach.

Rather than establish facts at the outset, they start with their Hypothesis and then employ theories, inferences, and assumptions to filter out facts that don't fit.  

The recent podcast with Brant Gardner is a good example of how to employ the "documentary effect," including the use of "an assertion from the other side" which "they can make look foolish."

Brant is obviously convinced of his own M2C theory, which is fine. But it is also obvious that he doesn't want Latter-day Saints to know all the relevant historical facts. Instead, he advocates his own assumptions and inferences as facts, and his like-minded hosts and guests play along.

Consequently, viewers have no idea of the historical facts about Cumorah, nor of the logical and factual fallacies in Brant's presentation. The hosts and guests on "Informed Saints" not only do not invite representatives of other faithful interpretations, they don't even want their viewers to know about those faithful interpretations and the facts behind them.

Like Mormon Stories, Informed Saints leaves viewers convinced but uninformed.

_____

A recent DesNews article about civic dialogue offered insight into why intelligent, educated, and well-meaning LDS scholars might engage in these tactics. They've simply never learned the key skills. Either that, or they decline to use them.

A key quotation:

When 10% of the room has read the Federalist and the rest have not, the room is not really having a debate about federalism. It is staging an asymmetry: Some students are arguing from a tradition, while others are left to argue from fragments. 

https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2026/05/28/after-25-years-has-america-forgotten-how-to-argue/

In the case of the Brant Gardner podcast, we cannot tell whether Brant or the hosts of "Informed Saints" have read the relevant Church history sources, but they did not discuss them and they certainly did not inform their viewers about these sources.

The DesNews article made some good points but needed some editing for clarity, so I asked Grok.

_____

Here's a clearer, easier-to-understand rewrite of the article:

Main Idea

America is approaching its 250th birthday, but we've forgotten a key skill: how to argue with each other productively. A country that can't disagree constructively is a country that can't govern itself well. The author argues that we need to deliberately teach young people two essential things so they can become good citizens.

The Problem

• Many young people today (including college students) struggle to disagree without getting overly emotional or shutting down.
• They are good at expressing their feelings but often lack the ability to reason, persuade, or truly listen.
• This didn't start in college — the habits (or lack of them) are formed much earlier, in childhood and school.
• As a result, we have weaker public debate, less trust in institutions, and more division.

The Two Things We Need to Teach Young People

1. Civic Skills (How to Argue Well) These are practical skills that must be taught and practiced, just like reading or math. They include:

• Disagreeing respectfully
• Listening carefully
• Weighing evidence
• Changing your mind when proven wrong
• Building arguments with logic instead of just emotion

Examples of good approaches already working:

• Some schools (like Birch Wathen Lenox in New York) have created year-by-year programs to teach constructive dialogue starting in elementary school.
• Classical charter schools in states like Idaho, Wyoming, and Colorado emphasize structured debate, Socratic questioning, and studying founding documents.

2. Shared Knowledge (A Common Foundation) Skills alone aren't enough. People also need a shared understanding of America's history, ideas, and values. This includes:

• The Constitution and founding documents
• Key historical events
• Major philosophical and religious influences (Hebrew Bible, Gospels, Enlightenment thinkers, etc.)
• America's successes and failures

Without this common knowledge, "debate" becomes just people sharing feelings about a country they barely know. Real debate requires arguing from a shared foundation, not just personal opinions.

Why Both Matter Together

• Skills without knowledge → People argue eloquently but ignorantly.
• Knowledge without skills → People know facts but still reach angry stalemates.
• Both together → Citizens who can disagree, learn from each other, make decisions, and stay on speaking terms.

The Author's Core Suggestion

We need to focus on formation — the deliberate shaping of children into citizens — starting in elementary school, not waiting until college. This should happen through:

• Schools (especially K-12)
• Families
• Communities of faith
• Shared spaces where people can't just "mute" those they disagree with

The founders themselves were young (Jefferson was 33 when he wrote the Declaration) and were able to build America because they had both deep knowledge and strong skills in argumentation. Today's young people can do the same — but only if we give them the tools they’ve been missing.

Bottom Line

If we want America to thrive for the next 250 years, we must intentionally teach our children how to argue well and give them a rich, shared understanding of the country they're inheriting. This work starts now, in childhood.

_____

Becoming less informed.

The article about the "documentary effect" goes on to explain this. My emphasis:

How can someone end up being less informed after watching a documentary that’s supposed to inform them? Because hearing one side of an argument isn’t being informed. Throughout the documentary, you’ll gradually be guided towards a conclusion the creators intended rather than the conclusion you would have come to of your own volition.

If you watch a pro-vegan documentary, their aim is to turn you vegan. If you watch a climate change denial documentary, you’ll walk away with doubts about the climate. Why would they jeopardise their goal by showing strong arguments which disagree with them? The evidence and arguments they show will only be ones that bolster their point of view.

However, in saying that, you may have come across documentaries that give arguments against what they're trying to convince you of. They do this to build credibility. They’ll show an assertion from the other side, but this is usually followed up by why those assertions are wrong. They won’t show you the good objections, only ones they can make look foolish. As a layman on a foreign topic, it’s difficult to know a good or bad argument, let alone the facts. They are able to present a case for each side and we as the viewers have no way of knowing the strength of each of those arguments.

It takes mental effort to undo a belief in an initial set of ‘facts’. After hearing and accepting them, one becomes anchored to them as truth, anything that contradicts these facts is viewed as suspect and makes it harder for us to change our minds.

BYU M2C/SITH conference

I referred to the conference last weekend, sponsored by the Interpreter and others, as the M2C conference. I should have referred to it as the M2C/SITH conference.

https://interpreterfoundation.org/conferences/2026-small-plates-of-nephi-conference/program-abstracts

Among the presentations was one by Jeff Lindsay, who is an awesome Latter-day Saint, etc. It is based on his Interpreter article. I did a review of that article here:

https://interpreterpeerreviews.blogspot.com/2026/02/jeff-lindsays-moses-parallels.html

https://interpreterpeerreviews.blogspot.com/2026/02/more-on-jeff-lindsays-moses-parallels.html

https://interpreterpeerreviews.blogspot.com/2026/02/explanation-of-post-on-jeff-lindsays.html

Jeff, like the other Interpreters, is a SITH sayer, meaning he advocates the stone-in-the-hat (SITH) theory that, as Royal Skousen explains, means Joseph and Oliver deliberately misled everyone about the translation. It is easy to understand why critics seek to portray Joseph and Oliver as deceivers, but it is less easy to understand why Jeff and the other Interpreters do so. 

This is particularly puzzling because the evidence supports Joseph and Oliver. 

I look at the identical evidence offered by the SITH sayers and conclude that the evidence corroborates what Joseph and Oliver always said; i.e., that Joseph translated the engravings on the plates.

But the Interpreters won't tell their readers about this alternative interpretation of the data.

That's why I post my reviews.

This is Jeff's abstract:

The Influence of the Brass Plates Version of Genesis (Possible Precursor to the Book of Moses) on the Authors of the Small Plates

Jeff Lindsay

Unexpected connections between the Book of Moses and the Book of Mormon led to Noel Reynolds’s 1990 hypothesis that something much like our Book of Moses may have been on the brass plates and may have influenced Book of Mormon voices. Reynolds called this hypothetical text “the brass plates version of Genesis.” Those connections or parallels generally cannot be readily explained by Joseph Smith relying on KJV language and some point to a counterintuitive one-way connection from the Book of Moses to the Book of Mormon. Data comparing the small plates with the large plates show that the small plates provide a disproportionately large number of parallels to the Book of Moses. For example, Nephi1, Lehi1, and Jacob seem to frequently employ parallels to the Book of Moses. In 2 Nephi 2, the Book of Mormon chapter with the highest concentration of parallels to the Book of Moses, Lehi1 in v. 17 shows that he is interacting with a written record that appears to be a version of Genesis clearly different from the Masoretic text but similar to the Book of Moses.

We also consider David Calabro’s reasonable proposal that an early Christian version of the Book of Moses different in some ways from the brass plates version of Genesis may have been behind the translation of the Book of Moses. That proposal may explain why small plates voices did not seem to learn of the name Jesus Christ from a brass plates text similar to the Book of Moses, where that name appears four times. Also considered is the distribution of verses within the Book of Moses that are involved in the parallels, which can highlight topics that drew special attention in the Book of Mormon, especially in the small plates. Finally, an update is provided to the list of parallels, now totaling 186, with explanations of over 40 new parallels and several that have been withdrawn.

_____

Here is part of my initial review from the first link:

TLDR summary: As usual, the Interpreter publishes another "peer-reviewed" article to propose a narrative that most Latter-day Saints would like: the idea that the Nephites had access to a version of the Old Testament that contained what we have now as the Book of Moses.

However, in developing this narrative, Jeff promotes the SITH narrative while overlooking the logical and factual fallacies that contradict the SITH narrative. The evidence not considered in the article corroborates Joseph Smith's claim that he translated the plates.

At the conclusion of his article, Jeff writes: 

Alternate hypotheses and new questions are welcome as we explore the implications of the data, but for now, the connections between the Book of Moses and the Book of Mormon strike me as important evidence for the divinity, authenticity, and antiquity of both texts, and for their miraculous translation into English.

We doubt Jeff (or anyone else at the Interpreter) will actually welcome any alternate hypothesis that contradicts SITH, so we'll post this here.

Of course, I'd be happy to develop this into an actual article if the Interpreter was actually willing to publish alternative hypotheses, but that is highly unlikely. And if they did, they would hold the article until their editorial staff found someone to critique it, not as peer review suggestions ahead of publication, but in an effort to reassure their readers that SITH (and M2C) remain the only authorized explanation for the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon. And then of course I wouldn't be able to respond to the inevitably misleading criticism except in comments that no one reads.

Sigh...

_____

The M2C element of the conference included the presentation by Matt Roper, who is an awesome Latter-day Saint, a great guy, and a fine scholar. Here is the abstract: 

“A Mighty Nation Among the Gentiles”: Imperial Spain as a Precursor to the Restoration

Matthew Roper

Nephi taught his brethren that “the Lord God will raise up a mighty nation among the Gentiles; yea even upon the face of this land; and by them shall our seed be scattered” (1 Nephi 22:7). Some readers of the Book of Mormon have interpreted this as a reference to the United States. While many European groups have participated in scattering indigenous peoples of the New World, the event spoken of by Nephi in 1 Nephi 22:7-8 was to precede the Lord’s “marvelous work” in the latter-days, a matter which does not readily fit the United States in the early nineteenth century (1 Nephi 22:8). 

This paper will explore the role and significance of imperial Spain in this Pre-Restoration scattering of Lehi’s people. It will present historical evidence for Spain as a nation “raised up” for this purpose, the negative and positive impact of Spanish conquest and control of New World peoples during the three centuries of its governance, and ways in which these events transformed New World cultures. 

This paper will also discuss the possible significance of Spain’s loss of New World possessions in the early nineteenth century after more than three hundred years near the time of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. While other Gentile nations such as the United States also engaged in scattering Lehi’s people and have and will continue to fulfill a role in Book of Mormon prophecy, this paper will show that Spain is a remarkable fit for Nephi’s “mighty nation” in terms of broad impact and the timing of the Restoration.

Matt has written about this topic before, but each new generation needs to learn anew. One example is this bizarre, self-contradictory article published by Scripture Central back when they were trying to promote M2C.

https://scripturecentral.org/evidence/book-of-mormon-evidence-spain-the-mighty-nation

Here is the relevant passage:

7 And it meaneth that the time cometh that after all the house of Israel have been scattered and confounded, that the Lord God will raise up a mighty nation among the Gentiles, yea, even upon the face of this land; and by them shall our seed be scattered.

8 And after our seed is scattered the Lord God will proceed to do a marvelous work among the Gentiles, which shall be of great worth unto our seed; wherefore, it is likened unto their being nourished by the Gentiles and being carried in their arms and upon their shoulders.

9 And it shall also be of worth unto the Gentiles; and not only unto the Gentiles but unto all the house of Israel, unto the making known of the covenants of the Father of heaven unto Abraham, saying: In thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.

(1 Nephi 22:7–9)

The first thing to ask is, how can Spain fit the description of a "mighty nation" raised up "upon the face of this land," where "this land" means the place where Nephi lived at the time? Presumably Nephi lived in the New World. (Joseph Smith and Moroni referred to "this country" but let's set that aside for now.)

Spain was a "mighty nation" in Europe even before they sent ships to America. In no sense was it "raised up" in America. It is difficult to characterize any of the countries in Latin America as mighty nations raised up in America that scattered "our seed" because one reason for declaring independence was to cease the scattering of those people.

By contrast, the United States was clearly "raised up" in America in 1776. The same phrase appears here: "And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood."

(Doctrine and Covenants 101:80)

No similar phrase refers to Spain.

Then there is the question of whether "our seed" was scattered by the "mighty nation." It's not really a question. The removal of Indians from the eastern US is well documented. James Monroe removed all of the Indians north of the Ohio River, except in reservations. The infamous "Indian Removal Act" of 1830 coincided with the publication of the Book of Mormon, a specific fulfilment of Nephi's prophecy.

The "marvelous work and a wonder" began with the publication of the Book of Mormon and the first mission to the Lamanites (whom modern Church historians reframe as "Indians" or "Native Americans" as if we couldn't all read Sections 28, 30 and 32). Later, in Nauvoo, Joseph Smith met with the displaced Sac and Fox tribes, explaining that the Book of Mormon was a record of their ancestors.

All of this is so obvious that it takes a lot of sophistry to reframe this passage in 1 Nephi 22 as referring to a major European power.

That's why I referred to this conference as an M2C conference.

:)

M2C conference at BYU May 31 2026

The second day of the M2C conference at BYU is Saturday, May 31, 2026. 

https://interpreterfoundation.org/conferences/2026-small-plates-of-nephi-conference/program-abstracts

“For a Wise Purpose in Him”
The 2026 Small Plates of Nephi Conference
In Honor of President Jeffrey R. Holland

May 29-30, 2026</h4 >

BYU campus in Provo, Utah
The conference is open to the public. See below to register for the conference.
The conference will not be live-streamed, but will be recorded and the videos made available on this website.</h4 >

Sponsored by The Interpreter Foundation

Cosponsored by the BYU Department of Ancient Scripture, 

FAIR Latter-day Saints, 

Scripture Central, and 

the Ancient America Foundation (including the Faith Creators Alliance)</h4 >

M2C narrative from AAF

https://ancientamericafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Historical-Relevance-of-the-Archaeological-Observatory-site-of-Izapa-Sept-18-2020.pdf

History of Ancient America Foundation (AAF)

The roots of Ancient America Foundation reach back to the early efforts of faithful Latter-day Saint scholars who wanted to better understand the cultural and historical setting of the Book of Mormon. In the 1930s, Milton R. Hunter, Hugh W. Nibley, M. Wells Jakeman, and Thomas Stuart Ferguson met at UC Berkeley and began a more systematic study of the Book of Mormon’s ancient setting. Their work helped give rise to the Itzan Society, which later developed into the BYU University Archaeological Society in 1946, and then into the Society for Early Historic Archaeology in 1967.

Ancient America Foundation was formally incorporated in Utah on February 1, 1983, The founding Board of Trustees included Vaughn Hansen, Bruce Jensen, and Richard Hauck with Paul R. Cheesman encouragement and membership. . These men were guided by a deep love for the Book of Mormon and a desire to encourage serious study of the ancient context. When the Society for Early Historic Archaeology ended in 1988, its assets were transferred to Ancient America Foundation, helping AAF carry forward part of that earlier legacy.

Through the late 1980s and early 1990s, the board evolved. Many of the original board left and Garth Norman and Bruce Warren joined.  Along with Michael Smith, Macoy McMurry, and Richard Miner, this group helped guide the foundation through many years of faithful research, publication, and collaboration.

Over time, AAF supported and encouraged the work of these scholars. Garth Norman became one of the most enduring figures in the history of the foundation. Garth’s service was marked by devotion, academic seriousness, and a sincere desire to bring more light and truth to Book of Mormon studies. As one of the longest standing directors for over 30 years, and the longest standing president of 17 years, he cared deeply about the archaeology of Mesoamerica and its significance to the Book of Mormon. He sought to bring researchers together, encourage collaboration, and hold the work to high standards. Garth was sustained by friendship, shared purpose, and his deep conviction that this work mattered.

After the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies became part of BYU’s Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship in 2002, some former FARMS researchers began using AAF as a fiscal sponsor for selected projects. Kirk Magleby joined and helped lead AAF. In 2015, when Lynne H. Wilson and John W. Welch founded Book of Mormon Central, with Kirk Magleby contributing, it began under the AAF umbrella. That arrangement later changed, and Book of Mormon Central became a dba of the legal entity Book of Mormon Archaeological Forum. In 2023, Book of Mormon Central changed its name to Scripture Central.

When Garth Norman passed away at the end of 2021, Ancient America Foundation was preserved  through the work and contributions of Cheryl Norman, and Kirk Magleby.  In 2025, after a management change at Scripture Central, several people joined AAF and began helping build the organization into a renewed force for Book of Mormon advocacy, research, and digital publishing. Today, Ancient America Foundation is a nonprofit research and publishing organization dedicated to missionary productivity, gospel advocacy, informed testimonies, and faithful scholarship.

AAF now publishes new content regularly across multiple media channels in English, Spanish, and Portuguese. Its purpose is to help people become excited about the Book of Mormon, invite them to read it for themselves, and support creators who can become effective voices for the ongoing Restoration. The foundation continues to welcome friends who want to share time, treasure, or talent in advancing the cause of the Book of Mormon and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints throughout the world.

Across its history, Ancient America Foundation has been carried forward by people who believed that the Book of Mormon deserves faithful, serious, and generous study. From the early work of the Itzan Society, UAS, and SEHA, to the incorporation of AAF in 1983, to the long service of Garth Norman and others, to the renewed energy of the present day, AAF’s story is one of persistence, collaboration, and consecrated effort. Its mission remains rooted in the conviction that careful scholarship and sincere faith can work together to strengthen testimony, support missionary work, and bring greater understanding to the Book of Mormon.