CFM D&C 10: Two sets of plates video

D&C 10 explains that the "other records" Oliver was promised he would help translate were the "plates of Nephi." 

Furthermore, Joseph was instructed that "you shall translate the engravings which are on the plates of Nephi, down even till you come to the reign of king Benjamin, or until you come to that which you have translated." (Doctrine and Covenants 10:41)

Joseph obviously couldn't "translate the engravings" if he wasn't looking at the plates. And the Lord would have no reason to tell him how much of the plates to translate if he wasn't looking at the plates.

Those who claim that Joseph didn't really translate the engravings, but instead read words that appeared on the stone-in-the-hat (SITH) usually avoid referring to D&C 10.

But Latter-day Saints should read D&C 10 carefully and thoughtfully.

_____

My publisher interviewed me about the two sets of plates Joseph translated. He uploaded the video to see how it works out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVJDFYJv8WY

For the explanation, see https://www.lettervii.com/p/the-two-sets-of-plates-schematic.html

Translation table of references

Joseph and Oliver on their way to
meet David Whitmer to go to Fayette

People are sending me more YouTube videos than I have time to watch, consisting mostly of LDS scholars trying to promote SITH.

This includes content from Scripture Central. 

Eventually I hope to post my reviews on https://scripturecentralpeerreviews.blogspot.com/. It would be cool if the podcasters challenged the SITH promoters, or at least informed their viewers about what Joseph and Oliver taught, but that rarely, if ever, happens.

It's fascinating to observe the origin, development, and promotion of historical narratives. 

Recently I posted about Cumorahphobia--the fear of mentioning the "hill that must not be named." It's comical, really, to see how M2C has permeated LDS scholarship so deeply that people are afraid to even use the word, let alone list and discuss the authentic historical records about Cumorah.

Equally comical is the recent phobia about the term "Urim and Thummim." 

UrimandThummimphobia is an awkward term. Maybe U&T Derangement Syndrome would be better (UTDS). 

Regardless, the fear of "Urim and Thummim" is obvious in the various Come Follow Me videos and articles.

Lots of people, including historians who should know better, have found a more innocuous way of handling their UTDS. They just say that Joseph translated "by the gift and power of God" without mentioning the Urim and Thummim.

It's clever because it's technically true, as is any quotation taken out of context, but it is misleading by what it omits. 

In the ongoing pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding, I posted a table of the known references to the translation of the Book of Mormon during the lifetime of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery.

https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/2025/02/translation-references-urim-and-thummim.html

Here is my introduction to the table:

The table below lists the known references to the translation of the Book of Mormon written, published or recorded during the lifetime of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, categorizing them by reference to “Urim and Thummim” only, “gift and power of God” only, and both.

It turns out that most references to the translation refer only to the Urim and Thummim. A few refer only to “gift and power of God,” while other refer to both.

Those who write or speak on this topic should consider whether it is accurate to say only that "Joseph Smith translated an ancient text “by the gift and power of God” to produce the Book of Mormon." [E.g., see the Gospel Topics Essay on Book of Mormon Translation, discussed here: https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/p/gospel-topics-essay-on-translation.html] 

When discussing the translation, Joseph and Oliver Cowdery most often referred to the Urim and Thummim. To omit the Urim and Thummim when discussing the translation is a disservice to readers.

Enjoy.

_____

For those reading this far, I posted a short peer review of a Facebook post by Stephen Smoot, here: 

https://interpreterpeerreviews.blogspot.com/2025/02/stephen-smoot-sith-and-missionaries.html

Scripture Central promoting SITH

We reiterate that we're fine with people believing whatever they want. And people can teach whatever they want. They can even raise and spend millions of dollars annually the way Scripture Central does to promote the personal opinions of its founders and management.

It's all perfectly legal and fine, and in the spirit of charity, we assume they are acting in good faith. We hope to understand why they promote the things they do, without expecting them to change their long-held beliefs and positions.

But in the pursuit of clarity, we hope Latter-day Saints want to make informed decisions. That means not deferring to--or delegating our beliefs to--scholars, no matter how much money they spend on content or what credentials they have.

The pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding involves the FAITH model of analysis, starting with Facts before moving on to Assumptions, Inferences, etc.

_____

I could just post this image from a recent X post without comment and everyone would know it is designed to promote the stone-in-the-hat theory (SITH).

But in the pursuit of clarity, I'll comment, briefly.

https://x.com/ScripturePlus/status/1889059287659642910

To be clear, this discussion is not a question of "which stone Joseph used" as some modern LDS scholars like to frame it dismissively. It's a question of the reliability and credibility of Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and the narrative established by the scriptures and the historical record that corroborates the foregoing. 

And to be clear, the script of the video contains some good, thoughtful content.

But the background of the image is BYU Professor Anthony Sweat's fictious illustration of the translation of the Book of Mormon in Fayette, NY., portrayed here as SITH. 

Well, I guess it's not fictitious if you believe 1834's anti-Mormon book Mormonism Unvailed instead of Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and the Doctrine and Covenants. 

See if you can tell which of the following wrote the quotation below: Mormonism Unvailed, Scripture Central, Royal Skousen, Gerrit Dirkmaat, FAIRLDS, the Interpreter, etc..

The plates, therefore, which had been so much talked of, were found to be of no manner of use. After all, the Lord showed and communicated to him every word and letter of the Book.  

Instead of looking at the characters inscribed upon the plates, the prophet was obliged to resort to the old "peep stone," which he formerly used in money-digging. This he placed in a hat, or box, into which he also thrust his face.  

Through the stone he could then discover a single word at a time, which he repeated aloud to his amanuensis, who committed it to paper, when another word would immediately appear, and thus the performance continued to the end of the book.

Although this excerpt reads nearly word-for-word like the work of Scripture Central and the others listed (as illustrated by Anthony Sweat), readers of this blog are informed enough to recognize that this is an excerpt from Mormonism Unvailed, subtitled "or, A faithful account of that singular imposition and delusion from its rise to the present time."

https://archive.org/details/mormonismunvaile00howe/page/18/mode/2up

On the first page, the author of the book, E.D. Howe, summarized his conclusion and objective:

He is fully persuaded, nevertheless, that sufficient, and more than sufficient, has been developed by unimpeachable testimony, to satisfy every rational person, whose mind has not already been prostrated by the machinations of the Impostors, that the Supreme Being has had as little agency in the prosperity of Mormonism, as in the grossest works of Satan.

Howe presented SITH as a preposterous alternative to the Urim and Thummim account that was then also circulating, He figured SITH would destroy faith, and in many instances it did. And it still does today. 

Yet many modern LDS scholars, including everyone at Scripture Central, have settled on SITH instead of what Joseph and Oliver taught about the translation. Scripture Central doesn't even accommodate, explain, or compare the dual narratives so Latter-day Saints can make informed decision.

They're "all-in" on SITH, as the X post demonstrates.

This is why the LDS scholar Royal Skousen and his followers claim that:

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.

In fact, when Mormonism Unvailed was published, Oliver promptly responded by claiming the Urim and Thummim narrative was correct in an essay on Church history that included this passage.

Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his mouth, as he translated with the Urim and Thummim, or, as the Nephites would have said, ‘Interpreters,’ the history or record called ‘The Book of Mormon.’

(Joseph Smith—History, Note, 1)

You likely won't see that passage repeated, even though we're studying early Church History, including Joseph Smith-History, in Come Follow Me curriculum or classes.

Ask yourself why.

_____

Again, we emphasize that people can believe whatever they want. Hopefully, Latter-day Saints will want to make informed decisions for themselves.

But if they're relying on the content produced by Scripture Central, they need to look elsewhere to be fully informed.

And they should start with what Joseph and Oliver taught, as well as the scriptures, before allowing their minds to be imprinted with the SITH narrative and artwork.

Maybe start here to get references with citations:

https://www.mobom.org/translation-references

Church cliques, peer reviews, D&C 9 and 10, etc.

The biggest problem with Scripture Central is the divisions it creates by insisting on promoting the personal opinions of its founders instead of recognizing and accommodating the full spectrum of thought among faithful Latter-day Saints. Instead, Scripture Central excludes the rational views of many faithful Latter-day Saints, solely because their founders disagree with those views.

We'll discuss this more in the next post.

_____

Updates over the last few days:

1. I posted a discussion of the Come Follow Me lesson on D&C 10:

https://www.lettervii.com/2025/02/d-10-2-sets-of-plates-and-u.html

2. I posted another peer review of Scripture Central, this time of Kno-Why #431, here:

https://scripturecentralpeerreviews.blogspot.com/2025/02/kno-why-431-where-did-book-of-mormon.html

People are sending me various videos from Scripture Central to review, which I'll do in upcoming posts to that blog. Some of those videos are astonishing...

3. I posted more suggestions for improvement in the Joseph Smith Papers.

https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/2025/02/2025-improvements-jsp-on-urim-and.html

4. An interesting X user posted an insightful comment about groups within the Church that claim special knowledge, etc. 

Readers here know that I strongly value transparency and openness, particularly in academia. That's why I post these blogs for anyone to read. And that's why I don't agree with the Scripture Central approach of enforcing a particular set of personal opinions, especially when those opinions don't at least follow the FAITH model (as we'll discuss soon).

Like Paul, Nephi, and both early and modern Church leaders, we should all "use great plainness of speech," "delight in plainness," and "glory in plainness" because "the Lord sent forth the fulness of his gospel, his everlasting covenant, reasoning in plainness and simplicity." (Doctrine and Covenants 133:57)

Hopefully, we will not be those who "will not search knowledge, nor understand great knowledge, when it is given unto them in plainness, even as plain as word can be." (2 Nephi 32:7)

The post is here (and the value of the post doesn't depend on who posted it):

https://x.com/slc_saint/status/1889331529601446273

The poster says, "I currently belong to no closed group, either on X or otherwise. It is best for me to stay completely 100% in the open and equally accessible to all LDXers."

That's good advice to follow. 

The whole post is worth reading and thinking about.

Peer review: Jack Welch on the timeline, etc.

Scripture Central released a "Church History Matters" podcast feature Jack Welch, along with Scott Woodward and Casey Griffiths. All great guys, faithful Latter-day Saints, smart scholars, effective teachers, etc. 

I enjoyed the podcast and recommend it.

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

However, it's weird that no one questions what Jack says. While most of the podcast was great, there are topics in the conversation that deserved more attention. In this post we'll make recommendations for improvement for the next time Jack does an interview on these topics.

I posted my detailed comments on Jack's translation timeline on my Scripture Central Peer Reviews blog, here:

https://scripturecentralpeerreviews.blogspot.com/2025/02/peer-review-of-jack-welchs-translation.html

The podcast covered three topic that I'll discuss briefly here: SITH, the trip to Fayette, and intertextuality.

Note: quotations from the podcast in blue, other quotations in green.

_____

1. SITH. 

It was surprising to watch Jack refer to Martin Harris' dubious "dark as Egypt" quotation to support the idea that Joseph used the seer stone-in-the-hat (SITH) while dictating the first part of the Book of Mormon (the 116 pages that were lost). 

https://youtu.be/HnyfgCrgREk?t=182

Although Martin's statement has long been used to support SITH, by now it's well known that the first known publication of the story was an 1881 article, published 52 years after the alleged events, eleven years after Martin allegedly related it to Stevenson on the train to Utah, and six years after Martin died in 1875. None of the many people who spoke with Martin after he came to Utah related the story.

During the train ride to Utah, Martin gave an interview to an Iowa newspaper in which he said nothing about a stone but instead said, "There was also found in the chest, the Urim and Thummim, by means of which the writing upon the plates was translated."

Jack also proposed that "Joseph learned a very stern lesson" from the supposed stone-swapping and that he determined that going forward, "he was going to do it precisely the way Moroni told him." Jack imagines that Joseph told Oliver 

"I'm going to use the Urim and Thummim and I need to put the clear Urim and Thummim stones in a hat because it's hard to see in this room, you need light in order to write, so I'm going to shelter that so it's not in the bright light so I can read these words as they're appearing on the stones."

https://youtu.be/HnyfgCrgREk?t=450

That's one way to reconcile the various accounts of the translation. Of course, neither Joseph nor Oliver talked about putting stones in a hat. The SITH narrative was popularized in 1834 by Mormonism Unvailed as an alternative to the Urim and Thummim narrative.

The translation finally commenced. They were found to contain a language not now known upon the earth which they termed "reformed Egyptian characters." The plates, therefore, which had been so much talked of, were found to be of no manner of use. After all, the Lord showed and communicated to him every word and letter of the Book. Instead of looking at the characters inscribed upon the plates, the prophet was obliged to resort to the old "peep stone," which he formerly used in money-digging. This he placed in a hat, or box, into which he also thrust his face. Through the stone he could then discover a single word at a time, which he repeated aloud to his amanuensis, who committed it to paper, when another word would immediately appear, and thus the performance continued to the end of the book.

Another account they give of the translation, is, that it was performed with the big spectacles before mentioned, and which were in fact, the identical Urim and Thumim mentioned in Exodus 28 - 30, and were brought away from Jerusalem by the heroes of the book... [Obviously the author misunderstood the origin of Moroni's U&T here.]

https://www.mormonismi.net/pdf/Mormonism_Unvailed_Howe.pdf 

The first paragraph is precisely what many modern LDS scholars teach today. Instead, Oliver and Joseph both repeatedly emphasized that Joseph used the Urim and Thummim that came with the plates.

Nevertheless, many modern scholars prefer SITH to the Urim and Thummim narrative. 

I find something Lucy Mack Smith (Joseph's mother) said persuasive because it is so "matter-of-fact," like everyone knew how Joseph used the Urim and Thummim. Plus, her statement corroborates D&C 10:41 and Oliver's statements: 

"In the mean time Joseph was 150 miles distant and knew naught of the matter e[x]cept an intimation that was given through the urim and thumim for as he one morning applied the<​m​> latter to his eyes to look upon the record instead of the words of the book being given him he was commanded to write a letter to one David Whitmore [Whitmer] this man Joseph had never seen but he was instructed to say him that he must come with his team immediately...

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1844-1845/100

It seems axiomatic that for Joseph to "translate the engravings which are on the plates" (D&C 10:41) he would "look upon the record" to translate the engravings. 

After all, Joseph explained that once he arrived in Harmony in December 1827, "I commenced copying the characters off the plates. I copied a considerable number of them, and by means of the Urim and Thummim I translated some of them." (Joseph Smith—History 1:62) When he copied and translated the characters, he was engaging with the plates. He never said or implied that at some point he stopped translating the engravings by merely reading words that appeared on stones in a hat.

But people can believe whatever they want. I would just like to see interviewers raise these points whenever guests talk about the stone-in-the-hat (SITH). Usually the SITH proponents just ignore what Joseph and Oliver said.

2. Trip to Fayette.

Jack mentions that at the end of May Joseph and Oliver finished their work in Harmony and went up to Fayette to the Whitmer farm. 

https://youtu.be/HnyfgCrgREk?t=665

He didn't mention, and neither Scott nor Casey asked him about, their encounter with the messenger who had the plates and was taking them to Cumorah.

Of course, we don't expect Jack to mention that. He censored it from Opening the Heavens, as we discussed here:

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

Jack (along with everyone else at Scripture Central) is heavily invested in the narrative that it was Moroni who showed the plates to Mary Whitmer, so he doesn't call attention to (or even tell readers about) David Whitmer's statement that Joseph identified the messenger as one of the Three Nephites. See https://www.mobom.org/trip-to-fayette-references

But still, any time he discusses the translation timeline, interviewers should ask him specifically about the messenger who took the plates to Cumorah before arriving in Fayette.

This account used to be in Church curriculum. It was in my old Seminary manual. It is well attested in at least two accounts David Whitmer gave to LDS leaders. Latter-day Saints everywhere should know about it.

3. "Swallowed up" in Isaiah 25 and 1 Cor. 15.

There was an interesting discussion about some textual details in the Book of Mormon, such as chiasmus and Hebrew connections. Naturally they didn't mention the Jonathan Edwards material, but one example they gave is a good example of why I think Edwards was influential on Joseph Smith as translator.

Jack pointed out that 1 Cor. 15:54 quotes from Isaiah 25:8.

https://youtu.be/HnyfgCrgREk?t=3091

then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. (1 Cor. 15:54)

He will swallow up death in victory (Isaiah 25:8)

Then he showed that Mosiah 16:8 is a bit different.

But there is a resurrection, therefore the grave hath no victory, and the sting of death is swallowed up in Christ. (Mosiah 16:8)

Isaiah 25:8 uses the Hebrew word netzach or neṣaḥ. Jack asks, 

"what does netzach mean? Well if you look in a Hebrew dictionary you can see that 

netzach means three different things. One is Victory but it can also mean the Victor and so in Mosiah 16 when Abinadi quotes Isaiah and is explaining it he says don't you guys get this? Death will be swallowed up in Christ. Who's Christ? He's the Victor and Isaiah is being used to substantiate that."

That sounds great. It's the topic of a BYU Studies article. Neither Scott nor Casey questioned it.

But if you look it up, most translations of Isaiah 25:8, in English and other languages, don't use "victory" at all. Some do (possibly influenced by the KJV, or an effort to match 1 Cor. because Paul used the Greek word nike, meaning victory), but most use "forever" instead. Examples from 

https://biblehub.com/isaiah/25-8.htm

New International Version
he will swallow up death forever. 

English Standard Version
He will swallow up death forever;

New King James Version
He will swallow up death forever,

International Standard Version
he has swallowed up death forever!

New Revised Standard Version
he will swallow up death forever.

American Standard Version
He hath swallowed up death for ever;

Louis Segond Bible
Il anéantit la mort pour toujours;

Isaías 25:8 Spanish: La Biblia de las Américas
El destruirá la muerte para siempre;

Jesaja 25:8 German: Luther (1912)
Er wird den Tod verschlingen ewiglich;

Jesaja 25:8 German: Textbibel (1899)
Vernichten wird er den Tod für immer,

If you look it up in Strong's as Jack suggested, the definitions are consistent with the concept of "forever," although "victory" is used twice in the KJV.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h5331/kjv/wlc/0-1/

So how did Jack get from "victory" to "victor" to "Christ" in Mosiah 16:8?

The analysis is a bit convoluted. Obviously Jack was merely summarizing the BYU Studies article, which is fine, so he didn't get into the detail. Anyone interested should read the article and see how it rationalizes the different wording in the Book of Mormon.

https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/death-being-swallowed-up-in-netzach-in-the-bible-and-the-book-of-mormon/

The BYU Studies article adds a third reference, this time to Alma 27:28; i.e., "death was swallowed up to them by the victory of Christ over it."

Thus the article discusses nuances of the Hebrew term netzach to explain the three instances in the Book of Mormon.

Swallowed up in Christ

Swallowed up in the hopes of glory

swallowed up to them by the victory of Christ over it

While the expansion of the Hebrew term seems like a stretch, it's not unreasonable. It's one of multiple working hypotheses.

But here's what the article, Jack's interview, and all the other content at Scripture Central doesn't discuss: the alternative working hypothesis that Joseph Smith translated the engravings on the plates with his own vocabulary and understanding; i.e., after the manner of his language.

I've proposed that Joseph, like every other translator, drew upon his own mental language bank to express the meaning of the engravings on the plates.

Besides the scriptural and historical evidence of this, there is the evidence from the non-biblical language in the text, both of the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants. Readers of this blog know that I've been annotating both texts to show the influence of Jonathan Edwards, whose 8-volume set of works, published in 1808, was on sale in the Palmyra bookshop that Joseph visited regularly.

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

The three examples that Jack and the BYU Studies article mentioned relate to Jonathan Edwards, and I think provide a much simpler explanation than the speculative excursion into possible Hebrew connections. 

All three examples are non-biblical.

Swallowed up in Christ

Swallowed up in the hopes of glory

swallowed up to them by the victory of Christ over it

To be sure, the phrase "swallowed up" appears in this frequency: OT (11) NT (4) BM (15). 

But "swallowed up in Christ" appears only once in the scriptures, in the Book of Mormon. 

"Hopes of glory" appears only once, again in the Book of Mormon, but "hope of glory" appears twice, once in Col. 1:27 and once in Jacob 4:11.

And "victory of Christ" appears only once, again in the Book of Mormon.

In my view, Joseph as translator naturally drew upon his own vocabulary, including "chunks" of language such as phrases. He would be familiar with "chunks" of language from Jonathan Edwards, James Hervey, and others readily available in the Palmyra bookshop.

1. Swallowed up in Christ-Mosiah 16:8

In the 1808 edition, Jonathan Edwards used the phrase "swallowed up in Christ" in one of the passages that, in my opinion, would have had particular significance to Joseph Smith because Edwards related his experience in the woods when he had "a view... of the glory of the Son of God."

His blood and atonement have appeared sweet, and his righteousness sweet; which was always accompanied with ardency of spirit; and inward struggling and breathings, and groanings that cannot be uttered, to be emptied of myself, and swallowed up in Christ.

Once, as I rode out into the woods for my health, in 1737, having alighted from my horse in a retired place, as my manner commonly has been, to walk for divine contemplation and prayer, I had a view that for me was extraordinary, of the glory of the Son of God, as Mediator between God and man, and his wonderful, great, full, pure and sweet grace and love, and meek and gentle condescension. This grace that appeared so calm and sweet, appeared also great above the heavens. The person of Christ appeared ineffably excellent with an excellency great enough to swallow up all thought and conception which continued as near as I can judge, about an hour; which kept me, the bigger part of the time, in a flood of tears, and weeping aloud. I felt withal, an ardency of soul to be, what I know not otherwise how to express, than to be emptied and annihilated; to lie in the dust, and to be full of Christ alone; to love him with a holy and pure love; to trust in him; to live upon him; to serve and follow him, and to be perfectly sanctified and made pure, with a divine and heavenly purity. I have, several other times, had views very much of the same nature, and which have had the same effects.

Edwards also used the phrase here: "So the soul, by a vital union with Christ and by the faculties being as it were swallowed up in Christ, are altered, sanctified and sweetened..." with other variations including "swallowed up in God" and "swallowed up in him."

In these instances, Edwards was not referring specifically to death, but that's not significant. Royal Skousen has pointed out how often the text blends different passages from the KJV, which seems natural for any translator to do. I'm just saying that the text also blends different passages from Jonathan Edwards, which is exactly what we should expect if Joseph actually translated the engravings on the plates. After all, he said he had an "intimate acquaintance with those of different denominations."

2. Swallowed up in the hopes of glory-Alma 22:14

As mentioned above, in Col. 1:27 Paul wrote "which is Christ in you, the hope of glory," equating Christ with the "hope of glory." This makes the phrase a synonym for Christ, making Alma 22:14 simply a restatement of Mosiah 16:8. 

Edwards used the phrase "hope of glory" several times, usually quoting Col. 1:27. 

Except Alma 22:14 uses the plural "hopes," which, if not a scribal error, changes the meaning from Christ specifically to a more aspirational set of hopes of salvation: "the sting of death should be swallowed up in the hopes of glory." (Alma 22:14) 

Edwards, too, used a plural form in a similar sense. Commenting on Stephen, he wrote, "that he might be encouraged, by the hopes of this glory, cheerfully to lay down his life for his sake. Accordingly he dies in the hope of this; saying, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." By which doubtless he meant, "Receive my spirit to be with thee, in that glory, wherein I have now seen thee..." 

Romans 5:2 has another variation: "rejoice in hope of the glory of God." Edwards commented that "The Apostle is here speaking of an hope of glory as the fruit of our justification and peace with God." This is the aspirational sense Alma may have meant by using the plural.

Jacob 4:4 uses yet another variation: "we knew of Christ, and we had a hope of his glory many hundred years before his coming; and not only we ourselves had a hope of his glory, but also all the holy prophets which were before us." Moroni 9:25 also uses the phrase "hope of his glory." These are variations on the biblical "hope of the glory of God" from Romans 5:2.

Separately, it's interesting that Jacob 4:11 also uses the phrase, except with an adjective: "having faith, and obtained a good hope of glory in him before he manifesteth himself in the flesh."

Edwards also used that specific phrase: "a true sense of the love of God, and a good hope of glory, are things worth taking pains for."

3. Swallowed up to them by the victory of Christ over it-Alma 27:28

Edwards used the phrase "victory of Christ" three times in the 1808 edition, usually referring to the victory of Christ and his church, along with other variations. Separately, he wrote this passage:

His bursting their bonds represents Christ's bursting the bonds of death when he rose from the dead. The victory he obtained afterwards represents the glorious victory of Christ.

This memorable non-biblical phrase would likely have been part of Joseph's mental language bank.

To summarize, when we're looking at the sources of the text of the Book of Mormon, especially when examining intertextuality, we should not overlook the works of Jonathan Edwards.

Dialogue lacking at Scripture Central

In the ongoing pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding, let's consider some recent observations by Elder Soares. He spoke at the Global Faith Forum in Washington, DC. Among other things, he said “Peace is not passive. It requires dialogue and action to protect it and spread it throughout society.”

Photo from https://x.com/Ulisses__Soares/status/1887253089436172646/photo/3

He also quoted a Swiss theologian, Hans Küng, who observed, “There will be no peace among the nations without peace among the religions. There will be no peace among the religions, without dialogue among the religions.”

https://www.deseret.com/faith/2025/02/03/apostle-faith-protecting-human-rights-pivotal-to-peacemaking-essential-for-believers/

The importance of dialogue should be obvious to everyone. Like most people, I strongly favor dialogue for the reasons Elder Soares listed. I posted about his comments here as well:

https://nomorecontention.blogspot.com/2025/02/three-benefits-of-friendship-ulisses.html

Plus, dialogue is fun and engaging.

But apparently not to the management, employees, and contributors at Scripture Central.

_____

Since its inception, Scripture Central (and Book of Mormon Central, FARMS, and BMAF before it) has refused to engage in dialogue with faithful Latter-day Saints who still believe the teachings of the prophets about the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon.

The reason? Because the founders and management of Scripture Central and its predecessors have convinced themselves that:

1. The prophets were wrong when they taught that the Hill Cumorah/Ramah is in western New York.

2. As Royal Skousen has declared, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery deliberately misled everyone about the translation of the Book of Mormon.

This is not a question of "Book of Mormon geography" or "which stone Joseph used." 

That is pejorative framing designed to dismiss those who disagree with Scripture Central's interpretations. 

Instead, these are questions directly related to the credibility and reliability of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery.

It's a simple dichotomy. 

- Scripture Central and its affiliates reject what Joseph and Oliver taught about the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon. 

- Other faithful Latter-day Saints still believe what they taught about the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon. 

But Scripture Central refuses to engage in dialogue with anyone who doesn't agree with their repudiation of the teachings of the prophets on these topics.

It's axiomatic that people can believe whatever they want.

In my view, though, people cannot make informed decisions without having access to all the relevant information. President Nelson taught that "Good inspiration is based upon good information." 

To be specific, how can any Latter-day Saint make an informed decision about the credibility and reliability of what Joseph and Oliver said about Cumorah without knowing both (i) what they said and (ii) the evidence that corroborates their teaching?

Yet Scripture Central, so far, has refused to provide its readers, viewers and listeners with this basic information.

_____

Here's hoping that Scripture Central will one day heed the advice of Elder Soares and engage in actual dialogue with faithful Latter-day Saints who don't share the Scripture Central narratives about the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon.

Cumorahphobia and cures

In the ongoing pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding, it may be helpful to think of the Cumorah issue as a psychological condition, which I call Cumorahphobia. 

No one is at fault. It's just a type of mind virus that can be easily cured. 

There are surely a variety of causes of Cumorahphobia. One may be the desire to avoid contention, which is laudable. But problems don't get resolved by ignoring them. 

There's no need to fear the name Cumorah so long as Latter-day Saints understand the context of the historical sources, the teachings of the prophets, and the corroborating evidence. Obviously Cumorah has been important in the history of the Church and the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. It's mentioned several times in the scriptures and in the teachings of the prophets.

Scholars and ordinary Latter-day Saints have a variety of opinions (multiple working hypotheses), but not mentioning the name Cumorah accentuates the differences, generates confusion, and prevents people from making informed decisions for themselves. Differences can be acknowledged and discussed in the spirit of clarity, charity and understanding, with zero contention or animosity.

_____

The pursuit of clarity leads us to make recommendations for improvements throughout Latter-day Saint scholarship and individual study materials, including curriculum, podcasts, books, websites, etc. 

I hope these recommendations will encourage Latter-day Saint scholars and their followers to discuss Cumorah more openly and frankly. Such a pursuit of clarity will help unify Latter-day Saints everywhere and align them with both authentic Church history and the teachings of the prophets.

_____

In 1842, Joseph Smith wrote "Glad tidings from Cumorah!" (D&C 128:20)

In 2025, the name Cumorah seems to have become anathema for many LDS scholars.

Cumorahphobia--the fear of mentioning the actual name of the "hill in New York" where the golden plates were deposited--is a mind virus that has spread widely among Latter-day Saints, thanks to the efforts of certain LDS scholars, particularly those affiliated with Scripture Central. 

It usually accompanies the condition of Mesomania (the virus that causes M2C).

Our friends at Scripture Central aren't the only ones who have Cumorahphobia, but they are the most prominent carriers.

Fortunately, Cumorahphobia is curable. Seriously, there's no need to fear the name "Cumorah." We can all read it in authentic Church history sources and the teachings of the prophets. We can all discuss Cumorah in a spirit of charity and understanding, based on clarity, and then we can make informed decisions for ourselves.

But to cure a disease, we first have to identify the symptoms.

In the Harry Potter books/movies, Voldemort is "He who must not be named." 

Among LDS scholars, historians and educators, Cumorah is the "Hill who must not be named"

Here are some examples.

_____

Scripture Central infamously repudiates the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah/Ramah in New York, as we've discussed here:

https://scripturecentralpeerreviews.blogspot.com/2025/01/kno-why-489-where-is-hill-cumorah.html

Cure: revise the Kno-Why with additional perspectives that corroborate the teachings of the prophets.

Recently Scripture Central posted a video titled "The Missing Evidence for the Book of Mormon Battle," which uses a series of logical fallacies to repudiate the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah/Ramah in New York, here (which we'll review soon on the peer review blog):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHxjIunNJ8M

Cure: edit the video with additional perspectives that corroborate the teachings of the prophets, and/or produce videos that specifically corroborate the teachings of the prophets.

For years, Scripture Central's affiliate Book of Mormon Central depicted Cumorah in southern Mexico, an explicit repudiation of the teachings of the prophets, on its affiliate page here:

Cure: delete the map, and/or use it in conjunction with multiple working hypotheses, such as maps that corroborate the teachings of the prophets.

_____

Other examples of Cumorahphobia include FAIRLDS, the Interpreter, the Saints book, volume 1, the Come Follow Me lesson manual, and even the Joseph Smith Papers.

Let's consider these in reverse order (chiasmus).

I've discussed Cumorah in my series on suggestions for improvement in the Joseph Smith Papers, here:

https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/2025/02/2025-improvements-jsp-on-cumorah.html

Cure: edit the material as suggested in that post.

The Come Follow Me lesson manual for the Book of Mormon, both in 2020 and 2024, never once mentions the name Cumorah. The manuals don't even include a reading from Mormon 6. The lesson manual for 2025 on the Doctrine and Covenants also doesn't mention Cumorah (D&C 128:20). This is appropriate in the sense that the manuals focus on individual spirituality, but the omission reflects the Cumorahphobia problem because Latter-day Saints can read for themselves how important Cumorah was both anciently and in modern times.

Cure: provide Latter-day Saints with references to authentic historical sources and the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah, without getting into the geography issue.

We've previously discussed the censorship of Cumorah in the Saints book. It's bizarre that a book about early Church history never mentions the name Cumorah, except in the , here:

https://saintsreview.blogspot.com/2018/10/saints-in-seminary-and-institute-classes.html

and here:

https://saintsreview.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-hill-in-new-york-problem.html

Cure: edit the material as suggested in those posts to provide an authentic, accurate historical narrative present.

The management of the Interpreter and FAIRLDS have long been adamant that the Hill Cumorah/Ramah cannot be in New York. Their repudiation of the teachings of the prophets is so well known that there's no need to cite specific examples here.

Cure: provide articles and other material from multiple working hypotheses, including perspectives that corroborate the teachings of the prophets.

_____

In some cases, the omission of Cumorah from the discussion is appropriate, such as in the Gospel Topics entry on Book of Mormon Geography, which we discussed here:

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

That essay appropriately addresses speculation about Book of Mormon Geography, which is a separate issue from Cumorah/Ramah. The teachings of the prophets have always distinguished between the known fact of Cumorah/Ramah in New York vs the multiple working hypotheses about the setting of the Book of Mormon events.

_____