A podcast, a debate, and the GTE (again)

When I write about the pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding, I hope for a day in which we have LDS scholars who readily acknowledge and accommodate multiple working hypotheses. 

A day in which LDS scholars openly embrace the idea of laying out all the facts for everyone to see, and then comparing the various assumptions, inferences, and theories so that every person can make informed decisions, without being expected (or required) to delegate their gospel study to the credentialed class.

Such a robust, thriving community of informed, enlightened Latter-day Saints, all around the world, would attract the sincere in heart who desire to be disciples of Christ, a peculiar people who are zealous of good works (Titus 2:14)

But we still face obstacles to that ideal future. Today we'll discuss some reasons why.

_____

Yesterday I had a fun conversation with Steve Pynakker at Mormon Book Reviews. We discussed Moroni's America 2.0, Royal Skousen's Part 7, the Jonathan Edwards annotation of the Book of Mormon, and much more.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5tV3cZqyEw

There are links in the description for more information on all those topics.

Enjoy!

_____

Last night Ward Radio sponsored a debate: "MesoAmerican vs. Heartlander Debate (feat. Rod Meldrum and Luke Hanson!)."

We happened to be in Utah so I attended.

The audio wasn't great, unfortunately. 

Both sides made the predictable points. Luke was well-prepared (and apparently well coached), but it was a little surreal watching him make the same old arguments for M2C.

If I get time I'll go through the entire debate in more detail, but here are some key points, all in the pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding.

Luke started off listing common attributes of human society that he said were in the Book of Mormon and in Mesoamerica, but, according to him, were not in North America during Book of Mormon times, including:

cities

monetary system

written language

wars

My overall point about this line of reasoning is that these features are ubiquitous among human societies around the world and throughout time. It makes no sense to cite Mayan civilization as evidence of the Book of Mormon, any more than it would to cite Chinese or Cambodian civilization. 

(Sure, the Mayans lived in the western hemisphere, but so did lots of other cultures. Besides, the text never mentions America so we have to rely on the teachings of the prophets, but all of Joseph's successors rely on what Joseph and Oliver taught, and they both taught Cumorah was in New York, but that's a point we've discussed many times.)

While the Book of Mormon mentions these common attributes of human civilization, it is also specific about only a few things, such as:

- what language they had (Hebrew and reformed Egyptian) and 

- the size of their armies (ranging from a few thousand to the largest enumerated Nephite army of 42,000 after they had gathered in all their people (Mormon 2:7). 

People still debate over how the monetary system worked in the real world, and no one knows how big or extensive any of the cities were.

But people make lots of assumptions. So let's separate known facts from assumptions.

Written language. Rod agreed the Mayans had a written language, but pointed out that it was the wrong language. That is obvious to everyone who engages in this conversation. It's also obvious that from the beginning (Enos) to the end (Moroni), the Lamanites were intent on destroying the written records of the Nephites. It was specifically to prevent the Lamanites from destroying all the records that Mormon moved the records from Shim to Cumorah. 

IOW, if we believe the text, the only evidence of written language among the Nephites that we could expect to exist are the records in that repository in Cumorah. And in fact, these are the very records that Oliver Cowdery reported seeing, as he related to David Whitmer, Brigham Young, and others. 

The M2C argument about language has two fun aspects:

(i) M2Cers deny that Oliver (and Joseph) ever saw any repository of records in Cumorah. They claim Oliver either lied about it or related a vision he had of a repository in southern Mexico, a vision he had multiple times and described as a physical experience.

(ii) M2Cers claim that Mayan glyphs are the true language of the Book of Mormon and that the references to Hebrew and reformed Egyptian are either incorrect or restricted to the elite class of Nephites. That's why FARMS used the Mayan glyph in their logo and why John Sorenson titled his book Mormon's Codex with Mayan artwork right on the cover. 

FARMS' Mayan logo used by Book of Mormon Central

[BTW, it's fun to see this FARMS Mayan logo on the spine of Royal Skousen's books about the Text of the Book of Mormon, including the one published within the last month.]

The M2Cers even persuaded the Church to put the Mayan glyphs on Temple Square!

"Two Cumorahs" on display at the visitors center
on Temple Square

Thankfully that display is long gone with the redevelopment on Temple Square, but it was a lot of fun when it was there.

Cities. Luke kept coming back to "cities," but he never defined what is a city and Rod didn't ask, that I remember or heard. (As I said, the audio was poor and they were talking over one another often.)

Regarding cities, no city is mentioned in the text until the book of Alma, and the text gives us the population and extent of no city. 

I've pointed out before that it's useful to compare the Book of Mormon to Old Testament cities:

The Old Testament uses two words for “city” (eer and kiriah ) and one for “village” (chatsair ). The Old Testament differentiation seems to be based not on size primarily, but on the presence or absence of a defense wall. Cities had walls, while villages were unwalled. Villages, being unwalled, were usually smaller than cities, but that was not always the case.

Size of cities. Ancient cities tended to be much smaller in both size and population than our typical understanding of a city. The oldest walled city at Jericho mentioned above covered less than ten acres....

Closely related to the area of a town is its population. Recent population projections based on the density of cities from cultures similar to those of biblical times along with a count of the number of house units found in excavations suggest that most cities could support 160-200 persons per acre. Thus Shechem might have had a population of 2,000 to 2,500 during the Old Testament period...

https://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/eng/hbd/c/cities-and-urban-life.html 

The text never describes the cities in detail, but the only mention in the entire Book of Mormon of constructing anything with stone is building walls:

8 Yea, he had been strengthening the armies of the Nephites, and erecting small forts, or places of resort; throwing up banks of earth round about to enclose his armies, and also building walls of stone to encircle them about, round about their cities and the borders of their lands; yea, all round about the land. (Alma 48:8)

That's a fine description of the civilized areas in North America during Book of Mormon times.

Years ago I found a published paper describing a modern dig in Ohio where the archaeologists dug a trench through a Hopewell site. They concluded that the ancient people had built a wall around the inhabited area long after the people had already been living there and they commented that it didn't make sense. 

But the Book of Mormon explains why.

The Nephites encircled their cities with banks of earth and stone walls to protect them in time of war.

These aspects of ancient cities makes me wonder how I ever fell for the Mesoamerican (M2C) narrative. I've visited sites in Mesoamerica. They are extensive, predominantly built of stone, and involved far greater populations than the Book of Mormon describes.

Nevertheless, the M2Cers at Scripture Central are spending millions of dollars to persuade Latter-day Saints to read Mayan civilization into the text. They even promote their "ScripturePlus" app to compete with the Church's Gospel Library app because they can imprint Mayan civilization on the minds of the youth who prefer graphics and videos over actually reading the scriptures.

Scripture Central's "ScripturePlus" app

As skeptical of M2C as I became ten years ago, more recent LIDAR discoveries have moved Mayan culture far, far away from what the Book of Mormon describes.

https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/lidar-scans-reveal-maya-were-far-bigger-and-more-complex-than-thought

None of this came up during the debate. 

_____

My final comment is on the Gospel Topics Essay (GTE).

Instead of quoting scripture or the teachings of the prophets, Luke repeatedly quoted a passage from the GTE on Book of Mormon Geography.

The Church does not take a position on the specific geographic locations of Book of Mormon events in the ancient Americas....  

Individuals may have their own opinions regarding Book of Mormon geography and other such matters about which the Lord has not spoken. However, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles urge leaders and members not to advocate those personal theories in any setting or manner that would imply either prophetic or Church support for those theories. All parties should strive to avoid contention on these matters.

It was fun to watch this after my post yesterday, when I thanked Brant Gardner for revealing the reverence the M2C/SITH scholars have for the GTE.

Brant Gardner: "The Church’s essay on the translation of the Book of Mormon is as close to canonical as the official Church gets." 

For the M2Cers, the essay on geography is equally "as close to canonical as the official Church gets."

[Full disclosure: I operate on the assumption that the GTE, as explained in the Introduction to the GTE, have not replaced the scriptures or the teachings of the prophets.]

But the M2Cers don't really follow the GTE anyway. Instead, they use it as a justification for elevating scholars above prophets under the guise of "epistemology."

In fact, during the debate, Luke started saying the GTE was President Nelson's statement, which is bizarre because the GTE actually quotes President Nelson at the end. Why would President Nelson quote himself if the entire statement was his?

At any rate, I fully agree with the GTE on Book of Mormon Geography. It reiterates what I've been saying for years, as I've explained before.

https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/p/book-of-mormon-geography-essay.html

 

IIRC (watch the video), Rod suggested that President Nelson may not have all the information about what Joseph Smith taught because everything he sees is filtered through the M2C gatekeepers. 

I have no way of knowing whether that is true. I doubt it, actually. 

Inquiries to Church leaders on Book of Mormon geography matters always seem to bounce back with the form letter response that I've posted before, presumably handled by a gatekeeper preventing Church leaders from learning how concerned Church members are about the way modern scholars reject rejecting well-established teachings and authentic historical sources, particularly about Cumorah.

Nevertheless, I operate on the assumption that Church leaders are fully aware of the various interpretations of the historical and extrinsic evidence and the teachings of the prophets. Some of them are close personal friends with the leading M2C scholars, which undoubtedly influences opinions.

They know that scholars disagree among themselves. They know there are M2Cers and Heartlanders. They have plenty of more important things to do than to intervene in these controversies, particularly when they are all looking at exactly the same evidence and arguments that everyone else is. None of them are claiming new revelation on any of this.

That's why they approved the GTE.

Particularly this sentence: 

All parties should strive to avoid contention on these matters.

So let's discuss contention a moment.

_____

Scripture Central is by far the dominant organization that deals with the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon. It spends more money on these topics than the Church itself. In many ways, it competes with the Church, not only through its ScripturePlus app, but also through its Come Follow Me podcasts (which constitute a diversion from personal scripture study and contemplation for members around the world), its "Kno-Why" essays that guide readers into M2C and SITH, etc. 

We've tried to work with them, but the scholars and management at Scripture Central think the way to avoid contention is to establish and enforce a single acceptable interpretation about the origin (SITH) and setting (M2C) of the Book of Mormon.

But the way to avoid contention is not to ignore and suppress alternative faithful perspectives. 

The way to avoid contention is not to spend millions of dollars promoting M2C in the hope that, eventually, all Latter-day Saints will join them in rejecting what the prophets have said about Cumorah (which is entirely separate from the geography issue addressed in the GTE.)

Meanwhile, Scripture Central's employees and volunteers are free to use social media to criticize and ridicule those faithful Latter-day Saints who don't agree with M2C. 

In my view, Scripture Central's approach is the antithesis of avoiding contention. Insisting on enforcing one opinion is the essence of contention. 

Even the Introduction to the GTE points out that "Seeking “out of the best books” does not mean seeking only one set of opinions..."

Scripture Central flagrantly violates that guidance.

Instead, the way to avoid contention is to pursue clarity, charity and understanding. 

Employing the FAITH model of analysis would clarify the issues for everyone and enable everyone to make informed decisions, all without contention and in the spirit of "unity through diversity" as the prophets have taught.

As we saw in this debate, M2Cers constantly flaunt their academic credentials.  However, the traditional liberal approach in academia was to open journals and conferences to all points of view under the ideal that free and open inquiry and discussion would weed out poorly vetted or researched arguments. Wouldn't it be nice to revive on this subject the old academic ideals of free ad open discussion?  How about panel discussions at open conferences at BYU?

In my view, the scholars and management at Scripture Central have betrayed the positions of trust and influence conferred on them originally because of their affiliation with BYU. They have created an intellectual climate in Latter-day Saint culture that is intolerant, dictatorial, and contentious.

 

I doubt that will change because they are training LDS students in the same group-think, top-down, credential-biased methodology.

Everywhere I travel throughout the world I meet Latter-day Saints who are disturbed by what Scripture Central is doing. This includes young and old, new and seasoned Latter-day Saints.

People in today's world don't like being told what to think. They don't like censorship, or even agenda-driven omissions of relevant information.

That's why the existing editorial position of Scripture Central is so destructive.

And it would be so liberating, productive, and harmonious for them to change course.

_____

To repeat what I wrote at the outset, I hope for a day in which we have LDS scholars who readily acknowledge and accommodate multiple working hypotheses. 

A day in which LDS scholars openly embrace the idea of laying out all the facts for everyone to see, and then comparing the various assumptions, inferences, and theories so that every person can make informed decisions, without being expected (or required) to delegate their gospel study to the credentialed class.

Such a robust, thriving community of informed, enlightened Latter-day Saints, all around the world, would attract the sincere in heart who desire to be disciples of Christ, a peculiar people who are zealous of good works (Titus 2:14)

Thank you Brant Gardner

'Tis the season for giving and gifts are flying around everywhere.

The latest comes from Brant Gardner.

In our pursuit of clarity, charity, and understanding, we recognize contributions from a range of views. We like people to know about multiple working hypotheses and we enjoy the diversity of opinions because we think unity comes from diversity. 

We encourage people to make informed decisions because we agree with President Nelson that good inspiration is based upon good information.

So we're happy to thank Brant Gardner for his recent contributions.

_____

Brant is a great guy, a diligent researcher, an effective writer, a faithful Latter-day Saint, and a prolific contributor to LDS scholarship. 

We assume he is always acting in good faith, with good intentions and with good will for all, even those who disagree with him. Together with Brant, we seek to understand one another. That's the spirit in which this post is written. 

Readers of this blog know that we like to feature and discuss multiple working hypotheses because we think the best way to make informed decisions is to know the facts in the context of the assumptions, inferences, and theories that people use to create their own narratives and worldviews. As the Introduction to the Gospel Topics Essays explains, "The Church places great emphasis on knowledge and on the importance of being well informed about Church history, doctrine, and practices."

Brant has long been one of my favorite M2C and SITH scholars because he owns his work. So far as I know, he doesn't publish things anonymously. He doesn't hide by having attractive young people read his scripts on social media the way the scholars at Scripture Central do. 

Brant takes responsibility. He engages with others more than most M2C and SITH scholars. That's awesome. And, as I said, he's a great guy.

Maybe at some level Brant would like to join in the pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding, which means rejecting the compulsion to insist on agreement with his own views. It's probably not easy to do so when you're one of the Interpreters, but if any of them could do it, Brant could. I hope he does someday. 

If he chose to, he could help elevate the discourse between the Interpreters and those Latter-day Saints whom the Interpreters typically look down upon because they don't have credentials and they don't march in lock-step with the Interpreters.

In other words, ordinary Latter-day Saints who still believe the scriptures and the teachings of the prophets.

_____

Another reason why Brant one of my favorites is that he provides lots of pithy, insightful quotations.

Recently he published a review of one of my books on the Interpreter. In doing so, he gave us some classics, such as this statement about the Gospel Topics Essays (GTE).

Brant Gardner: "The Church’s essay on the translation of the Book of Mormon is as close to canonical as the official Church gets." 

This gift of clarity is packed with meaning and implication.

Here Brant unmistakably announces the elevation of scholars over prophets--at least, in the minds of Brant and the other Interpreters.

We've long read between the lines that this is what the M2C and SITH scholars really believe, but until now, none have declared it so clearly and openly.

Most Latter-day Saints probably consider General Conference talks "close to canonical," particularly the talks given by whomever is President of the Church at the time he speaks.

But not so Brant and the Interpreters. Instead, the GTE are now "as close to canonical as the official Church gets." You can't get any more canonical than the GTE.

Brant's declaration provides clarity for much of what is going on among LDS scholars today, including Scripture Central and the Interpreter Foundation. Both organizations have adopted names that deflect from the prophets. The scholars at the Interpreter have set themselves up as "Interpreters" for the rest of us, with their self-appointed authority to declare what is and what is not "correct," who is and who is not an "apostate," what faithful views can and who cannot be heard, etc.

Scripture Central does the same, with the added bonus of having a multi-million dollar budget to employ young scholars and produce popular videos and thereby assure propagation of their narratives for future generations. 

Just look at the name: Scripture Central.

We used to think of the Church as the central place for scripture. 

Scripture Central even competes with the Gospel Library through its ScripturePlus app, promoting SITH, M2C, and other academic theories with attractive and popular graphics and videos.

All of this is summed up in Brant's declaration:

"The Church’s essay on the translation of the Book of Mormon is as close to canonical as the official Church gets."  

_____

Now, let's look at the GTE themselves.

For some apologists--particularly the ones who wrote or collaborated on the GTE, or whose close friends and fellow Interpreters did--the GTE have acquired an almost mystical aura of authority. People frequently cite me the GTE as if they were scripture, just as Brant does in his review. 

Brant's declaration explains why: he considers them "as close to canonical as the official Church gets."

The reason the scriptures are considered "canon" is because we know where they came from, the source is deemed authoritative, and they never change. They are "standard works." 

A common definition of canon: The collection of books received as genuine Holy Scriptures, called the sacred canon, or general rule of moral and religious duty, given by inspiration; the Bible; also, any one of the canonical Scriptures.

None of that definition fits the GTE. Unlike General Conference talks and other official statements by the First Presidency, where the authority and calling of the speaker is clear, the anonymous GTE do not fit within the direction given by the Lord here: "whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same." (Doctrine and Covenants 1:38)

The GTE are characterized by two elements:

(i) they were published anonymously, prepared by unnamed scholars who cited their own (or their friends') work throughout.

(ii) they are subject to change at any moment, without notice or documentation.

These two elements are the antithesis of canon.

That's why the GTE are provided as resources for further study and discussion only, and that's why the are subject to continual improvement. They were never intended to replace the scriptures, the teachings of the prophets, or authentic historical documents such as those provided in the Joseph Smith Papers.

_____

Let's look at the GTE on translation, which is the one Brant was specifically referring to. 

For starters, it does not quote or even cite what Joseph and Oliver said about the translation, apart from a brief excerpt that is used to contradict what Joseph and Oliver actually said.

I've discussed the GTE line-by-line here:

https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/2022/09/analysis-gospel-topics-essay-on-book-of.html

More importantly, the introduction to the GTE specifically warns against using the GTE or any other "one set of opinions" as the only approved opinions, which is how Brant and the Interpreters insist we should use them.

 Seeking “out of the best books” does not mean seeking only one set of opinions, but it does require us to distinguish between reliable sources and unreliable sources.

See the discussion here:

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

People can think whatever they want about the GTE. I'm fine if people such as Brant want to consider them scripture, or akin to scripture.

But that's an unstable, shaky foundation. 

Maybe Brant's opinions change whenever the GTE change, but I don't think the prophets want or expect us to delegate our own faith to the anonymous authors of whichever version of the GTE is currently on the website. 

So thank you, Brent, sincerely, for sharing this pithy, revealing declaration of academic arrogance.

_____

I'd like to take the time to discuss some of his other clever, concise statements, but let's just look at this revealing classic, which is the title of Brant's review.

Trust Us, We’re Lawyers: Lucas and Neville on the Translation of the Book of Mormon

Here's what I wrote in my review of Brant's review, which you can read here:

https://interpreterpeerreviews.blogspot.com/2024/12/review-of-brant-gardners-review-of-by.html

As Brant admits below, “Lucas and Neville didn’t really say ’trust us, we’re lawyers.’ I confess that is my translation of what they said.”

Nevertheless I like the title because it’s an example of Brant’s pithy statements that reveal far more than it seems at first glance.

As summarized by the title, the essence of Brant’s review is that readers should trust the “trained LDS scholars” (a phrase he repeats 10 times) instead of a couple of lawyers whose views diverge from the Interpreter orthodoxy.

This is the overall message, and objective, of not only Brant but the Interpreter Foundation itself. The principals want people to trust them because of their credentials. In their view, the credentialed class deserves (by virtue solely of their credentials) our deference, our appreciation, our awe, and ultimately our adherence to their opinions.

That’s why it’s called the “Interpreter” Foundation in the first place. They have set themselves up as the “interpreters” of Church doctrine, practices, and theology for those of us who (according to them) can’t properly think for ourselves and assess scriptures, teachings of prophets, and extrinsic evidence without their guidance.

The Interpreters’ self-appointed role strikes the rest of us as quaint, funny, and even absurd, but it’s all too real in their minds.

As Brant makes abundantly clear in his review.

But as I said at the outset, I like Brant and appreciate his style and thoughtfulness.

 

Review of Royal Skousen's methodology: Part Seven

The pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding leads to a place of tranquility, peace, harmony, and happiness. 

The goal is a Zion society where there is "unity in diversity." 

Where people are "determined in one mind and in one heart, united in all things." 

Where we are "of one heart and one mind," not because we all think alike but because we see clearly, have charity for one another, and enjoy understanding different perspectives and ideas instead of demanding uniformity through compulsory means and contention.

The first step is clarity, and for that we apply the FAITH model, which explains diversity in the spirit of charity and understanding. 

When everyone has access to the relevant FACTS, everyone readily agrees about those facts. Then we can distinguish facts from our respective ASSUMPTIONS, INFERENCES and THEORIES to clearly understand how people arrive at their multiple working HYPOTHESES. 

And voila, we all "follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another."

It's easy to articulate the goals and methodology.

Let's see how it works in practice.

_____

In this case, we'll look at Royal Skousen's Part Seven: The Early Transmission of the Text. This post is part of my longer review which I will post on Academia.edu tomorrow. (I'll provide the link on this blog.)

The charity and understanding elements are easy.

Royal Skousen is one of the most meticulous, careful, detailed and conscientious scholars in Church history. I can't think of anyone who comes close, actually. He is widely respected by both scholars and casual readers.

Stan Carmack is a perfect collaborator who uses his knowledge of linguistics and statistical analysis to enhance Royal's research.

They do phenomenal work. I rely on their exemplary research all the time.

They are both awesome people, and we can readily assume they act in good faith. 

They make their assumptions, inferences, theories and conclusions (hypotheses) clear so everyone can understand them. We can disagree with their conclusions without feeling any compulsion to have them or anyone else change their minds. We enjoy the different perspectives and seek unity in diversity. 

In my view they trip over basic assumptions and inferences, but that's fine. So long as we have access to the relevant facts, different assumptions, inferences, and theories make life interesting as we all pursue truth through clarity, charity and understanding.  

The challenge here is clarity, because clarity relies on a factual foundation.

In Part Seven, Royal has unwittingly or intentionally omitted highly relevant facts that deprive his readers of the ability to make informed decisions about his assumptions, inferences, and theories. Again, we assume he is acting in good faith, but we must build on a foundation of clarity, which means we want all the relevant facts.

_____

Here's one example from Part Seven: The Early Transmission of the Text. 

The specific topic is a section titled "Another Account of Mary Whitmer's Viewing of the Golden Plates," starting on page 43 and continuing through page 47. 

We will look at this in detail because the conclusion Royal presents here is a widely shared belief among many Latter-day Saints today. Actually, it's a nearly universal belief among young and new Latter-day Saints because it is conveyed in Saints, volume 1, and depicted in a famous painting.

_____

Royal writes, "For a long time we have known that Mary Whitmer was also shown the plates. These accounts are familiar and derive from David Whitmer and John C. Whitmer (the son of Jacob Whitmer)." (p. 43)

Then, on page 44, Royal gives us an excerpt of David Whitmer's 1878 account, recorded by Orson Pratt and Joseph F. Smith. This is all good. 

Next he gives us the John C. Whitmer 1878 account, recorded and published by Andrew Jenson. This is the infamous account in which Jenson rejects what Mary Whitmer herself said. Quoting John, Andrew writes:

I have heard my grandmother (Mary Musselman Whitmer) say on several occasions that she was shown the plates of the Book of Mormon by a holy angel, whom se always called Brother Nephi. (She undoubtedly refers to Moroni, the angel who had the plates in charge.)

Royal recognizes the problem when he writes at the end of this passage on page 45, "We should note here that there is some issue about the identity of the angel. Mary Whitmer referred to him as Nephi, but John C. Whitmer identifies him as Moroni."

When we look at the passage, it's obvious it was Andrew Jenson who inserted the parentheticals. John Whitmer would not have put his grandmother's name in a parenthetical. More importantly, John was likely familiar with his uncle David's earlier account identifying the messenger, which Royal hasn't shared. This omission is our first clue something is wrong here.

Next, on pages 45-47, Royal provides an extended discussion of a "third account" which amounts to mere family lore, first recorded in 1958, complete with a fabricated direct quotation of the messenger who, contrary to Mary's own account, arrives and says, "My name is Moroni." From then on, Royal refers to the messenger as Moroni.

Finally, on page 47 (reproduced at the left), Royal writes:

We should also add here the earliest record of the angel appearing to Mary Whitmer. This is found in Edward Stevenson's interview of David Whitmer on 22-23 December 1877 and is recorded as follows in Stevenson's diary [Cook 13, Vogel 5:31]:

& the next Morning Daivds Mother Saw the Person at the Shed and he took the plates from A Box & Showed them to her She Said that they Were fastened with Rings thus: D he turned the leaves over this was a Sattisfaction to her.

[Note: Vogel 5:31 is Vogel's Early Mormon Documents (EMD), Vol 5, page 31, shown below.] 

Quotation from Stevenson's diary, p. 47

Wait a minute. This is the "earliest record" but we don't get it until the end of this section? 

Royal had announced his own standards of evidence back on p. 42.

In selecting witnesses and their statements, we hunt for those accounts that are firsthand, preferably in the witness’s own hand or otherwise based on fairly recent interviews of the witness. As with all accounts of historical events, we will find that they tend to change over time, which means that the earliest accounts are the most reliable ones. Most importantly, we find that the most reliable accounts are supported by more than one witness and that they end up being quite consistent. [emphasis added]

Instead of starting with the earliest account, Royal dedicates three pages on a hearsay account first recorded in 1958. He saves the earliest account for last.

But worse, he omits the key part of the earliest account!

Just a few lines before the sentence Royal quoted from the Stevenson's diary (see the images from EMD below), David Whitmer explained that Joseph identified the messenger as one of the Three Nephites.

"I wish to mention an Item of conversation with David Whitmer in regard to Seeing one of the Nephites, Zina Young, Desired me to ask about it. David Said, Oliver, & The Prophet, & I were riding in a wagon, & an aged man about 5 feet 10, heavey Set & on his back, an old fashioned Armey knapsack Straped over his Shoulders & Something Square in it, & he walked alongside of the Wagon & Wiped the Sweat off his face, Smileing very Pleasant David asked him to ride and he replied I am going across to the hill Cumorah. Soon after they Passed they felt Strangeley and Stoped, but could see nothing of him all around was clean and they asked the Lord about it. He Said that the Prophet Looked as White as a Sheet & Said that it was one of the Nephites & that he had the plates." [emphasis added]

(It is significant that it was Zina who asked Stevenson to ask David about this account. She first met David Whitmer when he and his missionary companion, Hyrum Smith, baptized her family in 1832. She even remembered that she wanted Hyrum to baptize her because he was more handsome. She apparently asked Stevenson to ask David about it because she heard this account from David in 1832)

To restate the obvious, David told Stevenson that Joseph Smith himself identified the messenger as "one of the Nephites." That is highly relevant to the identity of the messenger, and by Royal's own evidentiary standard, should be considered "the most reliable." 

Yet Royal omitted this from his book.

Perhaps Royal reasoned that, well, Moroni was also a Nephite, so it could have been Moroni and Mary might have been wrong after all. But if that's his reasoning, he owes it to us to spell it out after first sharing the relevant facts. 

_____

Royal's citation to EMD also refers to Stevenson's published account, where he clarified by writing,   

David relates, the Prophet looked very white but with a heavenly appearance and said their visitor was one of the three Nephites to whom the Savior gave the promise of life on earth until He should come in power. After arriving home, David again saw this personage, and mother Whitmer, who was very kind to Joseph Smith, is said to have seen not only this Nephite, but to have also been shown by him the sealed and unsealed parts of the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated. (emphasis added) Edward Stevenson, “Visit,” Instructor 22 (1887):55 [emphasis added]

Royal doesn't inform his readers about any of this.

To be sure, Royal isn't writing an encyclopedia. We don't expect him to include every available source. But by his own standards, "the earliest accounts are the most reliable ones." In this case, he was not unaware of the earliest account.

He even quotes part of it.

But he omits the most directly relevant part of the earliest account (Stevenson's diary) and doesn't share the more detailed account Stevenson formally published.

This practice violates the first principle of clarity and misleads readers. While we assume Royal acts in good faith, we also observe that the facts he omitted contradict his conclusion that it was Moroni who showed the plates to Mary Whitmer. 

_____

To see how obvious this manipulation of history is, let's look at the page Royal cited from Vogel's Early Mormon Documents. Royal cited Volume 5, page 31, for the quotation from Stevenson's diary.

Below are images of pages 30-31 from EMD vol. 5. The passage Royal quoted from page 31 is the passage I outlined in yellow below. 

The passage I outlined in red is where David Whitmer relates Joseph's identification of the messenger.  Royal omitted this passage from his quotation, even though it is on the same page as the part he did quote.

Whether Royal omitted the relevant passage unwittingly or deliberately, he has misinformed his readers and should correct the error to rehabilitate the credibility of his work. 

He can retain his opinion that the messenger was Moroni if he wants by rejecting what David and his mother said (the way he rejects what Joseph and Oliver said about the translation), but he owes it to his readers to explain his reasoning after providing the relevant facts here. 

Especially when the facts he censored are those that, according to his own criteria, are "are the most reliable ones."

(click to enlarge)

(click to enlarge)

  

Footnote 13, outlined in red above, relates a subsequent interview that Stevenson had with David Whitmer on 9 Feb 1886. On this occasion, David reiterated his statement that "they asked the Prophet to enquire of the Lord who this stranger was. Soon David said they turned around & Joseph looked pale almost trans¬ parent Se said that [he] was one of the Nephites, and he had the Plates of the Book of Mormon in the knapsac[k]"

You can read this account here:

https://archive.org/details/volume-5_202011/page/159/mode/2up 

Footnote 15 is also interesting. This refers to the interview of John C. Whitmer by Andrew Jenson and Edward Stevenson together on 11 Oct. 1888.

Here we see how Jenson inserted the parentheticals, including John's name, the name of his grandmother, and the Moroni narrative. 

(click to enlarge)

Jenson published his account in Historical Record.

A few months later, Stevenson published his version of this interview. “The Thirteenth Witness to the Plates of the Book of Mormon,” Juvenile Instructor 24 (1 January 1889): 23

(click to enlarge)

In his version of the interview, Stevenson refers to the messenger as Moroni, having adopted Jenson's "correction" of what Mary Whitmer said.

(click to enlarge)

It's easy to see that Royal may not have wanted to go down this rabbit hole to get into all these interviews. But he provided considerable detail about the much later and less credible family lore on this topic, when these earlier sources were readily available right in the references he cited.

_____

Conclusion: If everyone involved with Church history research would join in the pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding, we could apply the FAITH model and agree on the facts. Then we could all understand and appreciate the various assumptions, inferences and theories that everyone uses to reach their conclusions (hypotheses).

And everyone would understand one another with no more contention.

_____

Additional Reference:

https://www.mobom.org/moroni-and-nephi

Ether 12 annotated

Sunday School classes around the world studied Ether 12 today as part of Come Follow Me. 

An annotated version of the chapter is here.

https://www.mobom.org/bm-kjv-and-je-ether-12

The annotations show how Joseph Smith, having been prepared from his youth by the Lord to be the translator, drew upon his own mental language bank that included the KJV of the Bible as well as the work of Jonathan Edwards and other Christian authors, with whom, as he said, he had "an intimate acquaintance." 

Thank you Royal Skousen

Tomorrow is Thanksgiving, a national holiday in the United States. Our first President, George Washington, issued a proclamation that started this way:

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor...

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-04-02-0091

The day became a National Holiday when President Abraham Lincoln issued another proclamation in 1863 during the Civil War. Lincoln implored Americans to “fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquility and Union..”

In that spirit, I hope this Thanksgiving will be a time when Latter-day Saints will pray for and implement greater peace, harmony, tranquility and union among themselves and with others.

This is the pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding that we discuss on this blog and at nomorecontention.com.

_____

Clarity is the predicate or foundation for unity. And, because so much contention arises from our LDS academics, their theories, and their obsession with seeking acceptance of their theories, we should all thank Royal Skousen for stating the obvious about the implications of SITH (the stone-in-the-hat narrative about the origin of the Book of Mormon).

The unity I refer to is not a unity of belief, but 

(i) unity in knowledge (clarity), 

(ii) unity in charity (love and good faith), and 

(iii) unity in understanding (acceptance and appreciation for differences without a compulsion to have everyone think the same).

Unity among Latter-day Saints on the questions of the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon will naturally follow once everyone recognizes that their opinions are based on their assumptions about whether Joseph and Oliver told the truth. We can all be faithful, productive, harmonious Latter-day Saints when we accept the reality that some of us accept what they taught, while others reject what they taught, without insisting everyone must do one or the other.

IOW, unity through diversity.

But for that to happen, we must all be crystal clear about the facts and their implications. And we must fully own our respective beliefs without trying to enforce our own through censorship, obfuscation, and sophistry.

_____

In his latest book, Brother Skousen makes plain this reality: everyone who teaches SITH is also teaching that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery deliberately misled everyone about the origin of the Book of Mormon.

"Joseph Smith’s claim that he used the Urim and Thummim is only partially true; and Oliver Cowdery’s statements that Joseph used the original instrument while he, Oliver, was the scribe appear to be intentionally misleading."

While this point has been obvious to those of us who still believe what Joseph and Oliver taught about the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon, the various scholars who promote SITH have managed to skirt the issue by simply not telling their followers what Joseph and Oliver taught.

It's amazing, really, that this tactic has succeeded for so long. The LDS scholars who wrote Saints (vol. 1), the Gospel Topics Essay on Book of Mormon Translation, innumerable articles, commentaries, Kno-Whys, videos, podcasts, etc., have carefully avoided Brother Skousen's point by simply omitting (I call it censoring) what Joseph and Oliver taught about the origin of the Book of Mormon.

But now Brother Skousen has "unvailed" the truth about SITH.

To be clear, I completely disagree with Brother Skousen's conclusion, which is based not on fact but on assumptions and inferences; but every Latter-day Saint should recognize that Brother Skousen's conclusion necessarily follows from the SITH narrative.

That's why E.D. Howe spelled it out in his 1834 anti-Mormon book titled Mormonism Unvailed in the first place.

Next week, we'll apply the FAITH model to examine Brother Skousen's claims. I'll show that he either was unaware of, or chose not to include, some of the most relevant facts regarding the translation of the Book of Mormon. This suggests he was more focused on confirming his bias than on fully informing his readers, but we'll let people decide for themselves about that.

_____

Brother Skousen's clarifying point also applies to the setting of the Book of Mormon. Those who accommodate and/or promote M2C (the Mesoamerican/Two-Cumorahs theory of Book of Mormon geography) necessarily reject, repudiate, and renounce what Joseph and Oliver said about the setting of the Book of Mormon hill Cumorah/Ramah. Like the SITH sayers, the M2C scholars skirt the issue by not telling their followers what Joseph and Oliver taught.

Thus, like the SITH sayers, the M2Cers reach a conclusion similar to Brother Skousen's SITH conclusion:

Both Joseph Smith’s claims about Cumorah and Oliver Cowdery’s statement that it is a fact that Cumorah/Ramah is in New York appear to be intentionally misleading.

 

The elephant in the room was born as M2C, which started a little over 100 years ago when faithful scholars began rejecting what Joseph and Oliver taught about Cumorah.

The elephant grew larger when faithful scholars adopted SITH by rejecting what Joseph and Oliver taught about the origin of the Book of Mormon.

Now, the mature elephant in the room is what Brother Skousen has finally articulated; i.e., the assertion by the credentialed class of academics of the authority to cancel what Joseph and Oliver plainly taught because, according to them, Joseph and Oliver deliberately misled us all.

_____

We usually attribute this assertion of authority to organizations, including Scripture Central, the Interpreter Foundation, FAIRLDS, and BYU.

But Brother Skousen has shown that it is not an organizational behavior problem. It's an individual problem.

Hence the new acronym JTDS that we'll discuss in upcoming posts.

Buckle up.

_____

Meanwhile, Happy Thanksgiving!

SITH interlude

We'll continue the popular discussion of Cumorah next week after Thanksgiving. I'm introducing a new acronym - JTDS - and we'll go through Scripture Central's videos, etc.

[For those who don't know, SITH = stone-in-the-hat narrative.]

Let's start today's SITH interlude by asking, Do you believe the following statement?

Joseph Smith’s claim that he used the Urim and Thummim is only partially true; and Oliver Cowdery’s statements that Joseph used the original instrument while he, Oliver, was the scribe appear to be intentionally misleading.

It's a serious question because this is the inevitable and obvious outcome of the SITH narrative. 

_____

To be clear, my answer to that question is no, I don't believe that statement. 

I, along with many Latter-day Saints, still believe what Joseph and Oliver said. 

But our friends at Scripture Central, the Interpreter, FAIRLDS, etc., along with their followers who believe SITH, do believe that statement. They actually think Joseph and Oliver misled everyone about the translations of the Book of Mormon.

The statement is a quotation from Royal Skousen's latest book.

Some time ago I uploaded a paper on Academia.org titled "Agenda-driven editorial content in the Joseph Smith Papers."

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

On page 4 I made this statement:

Skousen has explained that he not only rejects the claim that Joseph used the Urim  and Thummim to produce the text we have today [i.e., he may have used that instrument for the lost 116 pages but stopped after those pages were lost], but he believes Joseph and Oliver intentionally misled the world about the translation. “Joseph Smith’s claim that he used the Urim and Thummim is only partially true; and Oliver Cowdery’s statements that Joseph used the original instrument while he, Oliver, was the scribe appear to be intentionally misleading.” 7 

At a minimum, the editors of Volume 5 should alert readers to their biases in favor of M2C and SITH. Ideally, they would do so while acknowledging alternative interpretations of the same historical facts, including interpretations that corroborate instead of repudiate what Joseph and Oliver claimed.

Footnote 7 went to this link.

https://interpreterfoundation.org/blog-update-of-the-pre-print-of-a-discussion-of-the-book-of-mormon-witnesses-by-royal-skousen/

Yesterday I bought the recently released Part 7: The Early Transmission of the Text by Royal Skousen, with the collaboration of Stanford Carmack, so now I can update that footnote to page 62.

Royal Skousen's claim that Joseph and Oliver
"misled" everyone about the translation
(click to enlarge)

Brother Skousen is an amazing, awesome scholar whose detailed work is invaluable. On January 25, 2022, in the Church Administration Building on Temple Square, President Russell M. Nelson thanked those who helped make the volume of the Joseph Smith Papers that contains the Original Manuscript possible, including Brother Skousen.

(click to enlarge)

But despite his meticulous, professional research, Brother Skousen inexplicably makes questionable assumptions about source material and draws inferences that lead him to theories and hypotheses that strike many people as unreasonable.

In Part Seven, for example, he carefully itemizes the statements from the various witnesses, which is great. But he seems to simply take them at face value--except for the statements from Joseph and Oliver, which he rejects as misleading or only partially true.

This is the same approach taken by the currently dominant LDS historians and other scholars, as we'll see when I publish my paper(s) about Part Seven and other current developments in this area.

_____

So, what do you think? 

Do you agree with Brother Skousen and the other SITH sayers that Joseph and Oliver deliberately misled everyone about the translation of the Book of Mormon?

Or do you not know enough about Church history to say?

Stay tuned to this blog for more updates.

Ether, Edwards, and extras

Ether: LetterVII.com has a new post about Ether 5, here:

https://www.lettervii.com/2024/11/ether-5-answers-questions.html

Edwards: Mobom.org has new annotated chapters from the Book of Mormon, here:

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

Extras:

Overview of Joseph Smith's early years:

https://www.mobom.org/joseph-smith-early-years

Museum info. Because many museums in the United States are removing their artifacts related to ancient North America, MOBOM (Museum of the Book of Mormon) will offer information about the exhibits. For example, photos from the National Great Rivers Museum are available here.

https://www.mobom.org/archaeology

Updated analysis of Gospel Topics Essay on Book of Mormon Translation.

https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/2022/09/analysis-gospel-topics-essay-on-book-of.html