David Brainerd's Christmas

David Brainerd was a Christian missionary to Native Americans in New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. He kept a detailed journal of his missionary work that became a popular guide for preachers and missionaries when Jonathan Edwards edited and published it in 1749.

David died at age 29 of tuberculosis after spending the last year of his life in the Edwards home. During that time, he fell in love with Jonathan Edward's daughter Jerusha. Edwards overheard David tell Jerusha, "If I thought I should not see you, and be happy with you in another world, I could not bear to part with you. But we shall spend a happy eternity together." 

Jerusha died a few months after David, at the age of eighteen, also of tuberculosis.

As wikipedia explains, David's life also played a role in the establishment of Princeton College and Dartmouth College.

_____

This excerpt about David's missionary experience at Christmas is a good example of how he described his work.

{Journal. December 25. The Indians having been used upon Christmas days to drink and revel among some of the white people in these parts, I thought it proper this day to call them together and discourse to them upon divine things: which I accordingly did from the parable of the barren fig tree, Luke 13:6-9. 

A divine influence, I'm persuaded, accompanied the Word at this season. 

The power of God appeared in the assembly, not by producing any remarkable cries, but by shocking and rousing at heart (as it seemed) several stupid creatures that were scarce ever moved with any concern before. 

The power attending divine truths seemed to have the influence of the earthquake rather than the whirlwind upon them. 

Their passions were not so much alarmed as has been common here in times past, but their judgments appeared to be powerfully convinced by the masterly and conquering influence of divine truths. 

The impressions made upon the assembly in general seemed not superficial but deep and heart affecting. 

Oh, how ready did they now appear universally to embrace and comply with everything they heard and were convinced was duty! 

God was in the midst of us of a truth, bowing and melting stubborn hearts! How many tears and sobs were then to be seen and heard among us! What liveliness and strict attention! What eagerness and intenseness of mind appeared in the whole assembly in the time of divine service! 

They seemed to watch and wait for the dropping of God's Word as the thirsty earth for the "former and latter rain".

Afterwards I discoursed to them on the duty of husbands and wives, from Ephesians 5:22-33. And have reason to think this was a "word in season". Spent some time further in the evening in inculcating the truths I had insisted upon in my former discourse respecting the barren fig tree, and observed a powerful influence still accompany what was spoken.}

Fake news and M2C/SITH

The current clamor about the federal budget and government shut downs reminds us of how fake news is generated in the media, but it also reminds us of how certain LDS scholars have created fake news of their own.

_____

Thanks to Jeff Lindsay, Brant Gardner, and Royal Skousen, anyone who is paying attention can see that the entire M2C/SITH narrative is fake news, a pile of sophistry and misdirection based on the underlying assumption that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery lied about the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon.

Royal spelled it out when he articulated the end point of SITH:

"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."

Over the years, Brant and Jeff have spelled it out for M2C in various ways through their books and blog posts, respectively. Scripture Central (Jack Welch), the Interpreter (Dan Peterson), and FAIRLDS (Scott Gordon) have spent decades trying to persuade Latter-day Saints to reject the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah/Ramah, but they succeed only to the extent they can keep Latter-day Saints ignorant.

And thanks to the Internet, the M2Cers and SITH scholars no longer have monopoly power over the sources of information. Latter-day Saints around the world can read the Joseph Smith Papers and other authentic sources for themselves. They can even go to www.mobom.org.

This all reminds us of how fake news is created by the media, such as this account by Sharyl Attkisson:

Sharyl Attkisson 

@SharylAttkisson

Quick story about govt. shutdowns and the theatrics behind them.

One year when I was reporting at CBS News during a govt. shutdown, I think 2013, we were sincerely searching for real life impact. When we couldn't find any, *that* should have been part of the story. Instead, we kept trying to create the appearance of an impact.

It wasn't really trying to be dishonest. It was, in my retrospective view, because the general editorial idea for the story was to show how bad the "Republican" shutdown was for ordinary Americans, and the answer simply couldn't be that it wasn't.

I've written quite a bit about this but we, as journalists, too often "decide" the story in advance and shape the facts to fit our narrative, rather than gathering information and letting that tell the story, whatever it may be.

[This is what Jeff and Brant accuse me of doing, which is fun. I invite everyone to compare our different approaches to the evidence and see who is setting out the facts and then distinguishing the facts from assumptions, inferences, and theories. They won't do that, and it's obvious why they won't.]

Anyway, the Ds were blaming Rs for the shutdown, so we were calling Ds and the Obama administration for ideas to report what was the real impact.

Taking our cue, these officials fabricated impact that we could report. For example, they cordoned off outdoor public monuments in Washington DC. We knew and even discussed in the newsroom that this made no sense. These monuments weren't "manned" to begin with. The only reason to cordon them off from the public was so that visiting tourists would see the "impact" of the shutdowns and the news media would have something to take pictures of and interview people about.

There are other examples but this is the one I remember the most.

FAITH vs confusopoly

Today we're going to contrast the FAITH model of analysis with the concept of a "confusopoly."

_____

In business, a "confusopoly" is defined as "confusing marketing designed to prevent the buyer from making informed decisions." Anyone who has tried to compare mobile phone plans has encountered a "confusopoly." 

A confusopoly is effective because "confusion within the targeted consumer group is purposefully maintained, so choices are based on emotional factors" and logical fallacies, such as appeals to authority, red herrings, etc. 

The director of the federal CFPB has explained that "If [the sellers] can confuse the consumer enough then the consumers won't necessary know what choice they're making and they can be talked into just about anything."

A "confusopoly" is the antithesis of "plainness" and the pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding.

So what does this have to do with LDS topics, including the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon?

Everything.

_____

The recent publications by Brant Gardner, Jeff Lindsay, and Royal Skousen that we've discussed on this blog are good examples of the confusopoly tactic.

Other prominent LDS apologists (Jack Welch, Dan Peterson, Tyler Griffin, Scott Gordon and their respective organizations and followers) and as well as critics (John Dehlin, Dan Vogel, etc.) have long employed the "confusopoly" strategy. 

None of them are willing to provide clear, cogent, side-by-side comparisons of their various assumptions, inferences, and theories because they don't want people to see clearly. They don't want people to make informed decisions. They don't trust people to make the "correct" decisions so they curate information to lead their followers to predetermined decisions and beliefs.

Like marketing experts in business, these apologists and critics know that it is easy to manipulate people through emotional appeals and logical fallacies. 

There are several reasons, such as:

- people are busy with careers and other concerns, hobbies, etc.

- people defer to "experts" in all aspects of their lives

- people react emotionally to their personal experiences and abandon a broader perspective

- people don't have the patience or interest to sort through confusing, inconsistent information

- people don't have the time to study and make informed decisions 

These and related factors enable the apologists and critics to skillfully employ "confusopoly" strategies to confirm the biases of their respective followers, all the while leading their followers into thinking they are "informed" because the "experts" have told them they are.

Thus, Scripture Central, FAIRLDS and the Interpreter pursue editorial policies that lead their followers to pre-determined outcomes, such as a belief in M2C and SITH. They refuse to provide comparisons or even to fully inform their followers about the teachings of the prophets on those topics.

John Dehlin and other critics pursue editorial policies that lead their followers to pre-determined outcomes, also without providing comparisons and without fully informing their followers.

Both groups are determined to avoid 

(i) setting out all the facts and 

(ii) providing comparisons of alternative views. 

They perpetuate their income and influence by isolating their followers and insulating them from inconvenient facts that would empower people to make informed decisions.

_____

The contrast between the confusopoly and the FAITH model is stark.

In The Rational Restoration, I explained the FAITH model along with the All/Some/None analytical framework. I also summarized it here:

https://nomorecontention.blogspot.com/p/the-faith-model-of-analysis.html

We're going to give more detailed applications of the FAITH model in the upcoming year (2025).

Below are two good examples. 

Compare the plainness of what Joseph and Oliver taught to the stream of sophistry employed by Scripture Central, FAIRLDS, the Interpreter, and Mormon Stories to justify their repudiation of these simple, clear, unambiguous statements about the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon.

Joseph Smith:

Question 4th. How, and where did you obtain the Book of Mormon?

Answer. Moroni, the person who deposited the plates, from whence the Book of Mormon was translated, in a hill in Manchester, Ontario County, New York, being dead, and raised again therefrom, appeared unto me and told me where they were and gave me directions how to obtain them. I obtained them and the Urim and Thummim with them, by the means of which I translated the plates and thus came the Book of Mormon.

(Elders’ Journal I.3:42 ¶20–43 ¶1)

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/elders-journal-july-1838/11

Oliver Cowdery:

At about one mile west rises another ridge of less height, running parallel with the former, leaving a beautiful vale between. The soil is of the first quality for the country, and under a state of cultivation, which gives a prospect at once imposing, when one reflects on the fact, that here, between these hills, the entire power and national strength of both the Jaredites and Nephites were destroyed.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/90

_____

Compare the confusopoly strategy with these declarations from the scriptures.

The Apostle Paul wrote, "Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: (2 Corinthians 3:12)

Nephi wrote, "my soul delighteth in plainness unto my people, that they may learn. (2 Nephi 25:4) 

"For my soul delighteth in plainness; for after this manner doth the Lord God work among the children of men. For the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding. (2 Nephi 31:3) 

"they 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)

Jacob explained: "But behold, the Jews were a stiffnecked people; and they despised the words of plainness, and killed the prophets, and sought for things that they could not understand. (Jacob 4:14)

Moroni: the way to judge is as plain (Moroni 7:15)

Jonathan Edwards: "so it is indeed as plain as words can make them," "The Scripture is as plain that 'tis the operative nature of love" "And the Scripture is as plain as it is possible it should be" "Job 15:16 v. expresses an exceeding degree of wickedness, in as plain and emphatical terms, almost, as can be invented"

Moroni 10 annotated

For more evidence that Joseph Smith translated the plates as he said he did, I added Moroni 10 to the annotated chapters of the Book of Mormon, here:

 https://www.mobom.org/bm-kjv-and-je-moroni-10

The full list of annotated chapters is here:

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

Monumental few weeks for SITH

The ongoing pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding continues to navigate some fascinating terrain.

A month ago I planned to review Scripture Central's video about Cumorah, which is full of misleading rhetoric and obfuscation, all in the ongoing, multimillion dollar effort by Jack Welch and his followers to impose their M2C theory upon Latter-day Saints everywhere. They're having difficulty because more and more Latter-day Saints are discovering what Joseph and Oliver taught, which was definitely not M2C, but that's a topic for another day.

Two things happened that diverted my attention to something even more important, this time regarding SITH (the stone-in-the-hat narrative).

The most prominent and influential LDS scholars today have formally proclaimed that 

(i) Joseph and Oliver intentionally misled everyone about the translation, and 

(ii) the Gospel Topics Essays they and their peers wrote have been quasi-canonized and therefore no further discussion of the topic is allowed. 

The elevation of the scholars over the prophets is complete--at least in the minds of these scholars.

Let's look at three.

Page 62
(click to enlarge)

- Royal Skousen published his Part Seven, in which he set out the inevitable conclusion of SITH shared by all the SITH scholars, from Jack Welch and Dan Peterson to the "younger generation of fine scholars."

"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."

Of course, "only partially true" is a euphemism for "false," particularly, as Skousen points out, with regard to the Book of Mormon we have today. 

I discussed his work here, with more to come.

https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/2024/12/creating-narrative-with-selective.html

https://interpreterpeerreviews.blogspot.com/2024/12/review-of-royal-skousens-part-vii-first.html

- Brant Gardner and Jeff Lindsay published their respective Interpreter reviews of By Means of the Urim and Thummim: Restoring Translation to the Restoration, in which Brant announced the quasi-canonization of the Gospel Topics Essays.

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

I discussed their work here:

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

https://interpreterpeerreviews.blogspot.com/2024/12/review-of-jeff-lindsays-review-of-by.html

_____

Interpreter bubble

These events have exposed for everyone to see some of the rhetorical tactics used by LDS scholars to promote SITH. It's easy to see why the SITH scholars are so deeply convinced of their own theories. They live in a bubble because they are so impressed by one another's work.

Here we will discuss what these events tell us about the Interpreter, always keeping in mind that we charitably assume everyone acts in good faith, thinks they're doing the right thing, etc.

The Interpreter, IMO, is a sham because it's just a group of self-appointed "Interpreters" who pat themselves on the back for citing one another's papers. 

This explains why they are highly defensive and emotionally attached to their theories. It's weird, really, but we can see it play out in the three publications referenced above. 

This is why I used to call the Interpreter part of the "citation cartel" along with FAIRLDS and Scripture Central, but because people objected, I stopped using that term. 

And yet, Jeff provided an outstanding example when he wrote:

"Here is another instance when Lucas and Neville would have done well to pay more attention to modern scholarship. In a 2016 paper at Interpreter, Stan Spencer provided detailed analysis of this commonly misinterpreted passage, yielding the following summary... 

They also fail to consider the convincing arguments of other scholars. For example, one work that needs to be considered for their arguments to be taken seriously is that of Stan Spencer in his 2017 publication, “Seers and Stones: The Translation of the Book of Mormon as Divine Visions of an Old-Time Seer.” 

Except Jeff forgot to tell his readers that (i) we cited that paper in our book and (ii) I did a detailed peer review of Stan's article 5 years ago:

https://interpreterpeerreviews.blogspot.com/2020/06/seers-and-stones-peer-review.html

Jeff's could have legitimately complained that we didn't agree with Stan, but instead he misinforms his readers that we ignored Stan's work. This is classic Interpreter reasoning. If you don't agree with them, they say you need to "pay more attention" to their work. 

What they don't realize is that when we do pay attention to their work, we keep seeing the same rhetorical tactics over and over, all in their effort to elevate their scholarship above the plain teachings of the prophets and scriptures.

Maybe Jeff didn't know about my peer review of Stan's paper. But that just reflects his poor scholarship and lack of peer review (unless his peer reviews are just as lackadaisical and blinded by their own arrogance, which they usually are). 

And to top it off, Jeff writes, "Many other errors evident in By Means of the Urim & Thummim could have been avoided with peer review."

That's what I've been saying about the Interpreter for years, but they keep publishing shoddy, poorly researched material such as Jeff's article. Naturally, I've offered to provide peer reviews for free, but they've never taken my offer because to the Interpreter, a peer review is a peer approval. That is, to be published an article must confirm the biases of the other Interpreters. 

_____

In another example of the citation cartel at the Interpreter, Jeff also cited Spencer Kraus' review of my previous book, A Man that Can Translate. Kraus' article infamously perpetrated the "Peter Pan" fraud. And when I submitted a response for publication, the Interpreter asked for editorial changes (which I accommodated) and then withheld publication to let Kraus publish a simultaneous "rejoinder." When I submitted a response to the rejoinder, the Interpreter refused to publish it. 

So naturally, Jeff quotes and cites the rejoinder as if I had no response.

But again, Jeff knows (or should know if his peer reviewers were any good), and should definitely inform his readers, that I did publish a response to the Kraus rejoinder. 

https://interpreterpeerreviews.blogspot.com/2022/11/my-response-to-kraus-rejoinder.html

_____

The third example from Jeff's piece is his incantation of Skousen's work, which itself manipulates the historical sources to confirm Skousen's biases. I've written enough about that elsewhere, but it's fun to see Jeff complain that I didn't discuss Skousen's work in this book.

Lucas and Neville’s work claims to be comprehensive in considering original sources, but clearly is lacking. Several relevant and important sources are neglected, and skewed interpretations are given to accounts that don’t fit their narrative.

Instead of telling us what original sources we "neglected," Jeff complains that we didn't defer to Skousen.

For example, in 2021, Royal Skousen released a 91-page pre-print of a chapter of his work on witness statements about the translation of the Book of Mormon.33 I wish that chapter had been carefully considered by the authors of By Means of Urim & Thummim. 

Jeff simply imagines that we didn't consider Skousen's chapter, (which in its own right is unbelievably inconsistent and outcome-driven). But Jeff forgot to inform his readers that I quoted from Skousen’s preliminary chapter in my paper about bias in the Joseph Smith Papers, here:

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

At any rate, Skousen's formal publication of his chapter wasn't published until long after our book was published. Although I quoted from the preliminary version in my paper, we decided not to use that reference in our book in case Skousen made some changes in his formal publication (which he should have but didn't). 

I encourage anyone who still reads the Interpreter to keep track for yourself of the number of times the authors cite one another. It's fun to see, especially when they insist this constitutes "scholarship."

_____

All of this is offered in the spirit of friendly collaboration, and in the pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding. I'm happy for people to believe whatever they want. Many times I've offered a cordial, friendly, open discussion about these issues, which the Interpreters have steadfastly refused to accept.

I'd love to see a mutually developed comparison of the various assumptions, inferences and theories about the translation, prefaced by full disclosure of all the facts.

But that, too, the Interpreters have refused to participate in (just as FAIRLDS and Scripture Central have refused).

Unity in diversity

Clarity remains the biggest obstacle, apparently. But clarity is what Latter-day Saints and other interested people all seek. 

Let's hope that this latest round of exchanges will move us all closer to the point where we can all seek unity in diversity as we pursue, together, the ideals of clarity, charity and understanding.

 

Thank you Jeff Lindsay

Recently Jeff Lindsay published a review in the Interpreter of a book that Jim Lucas and I wrote titled By Means of the Urim and Thummim: Restoring Translation to the Restoration.

Jeff's a great guy. We met in person when we were both living in China. He has published blog posts for a long time, often with useful insights.

I appreciate his attention to the book. He apparently spent a lot of time writing his review, and even collaborated with others. He sent me his review shortly before it was published, but I was traveling and had other commitments so I didn't look at it until a few days ago.

I thank Jeff for doing the review because it brings into focus some of the key issues about the translation of the Book of Mormon. Because Jeff relied so heavily on the work of Royal Skousen, it's fair to sum up the entire review as a question of whether or not we agree with what Royal Skousen concluded:

"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."

I disagree with Skousen. 

Jeff and the rest of the Interpreters agree with Skousen. 

And I'm fine with agreeing to disagree because I like "unity in diversity" and I think it's healthy for everyone to understand what others believe and why.

That's the pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding.

- I think that Jeff and I share the pursuit of charity; we each assume the other is acting in good faith.

- I'm less sure about the pursuit of understanding, though, because Jeff inserted his own spin in several places instead of accurately representing our reasoning. He seemed more intent on validating SITH than in understanding why we reject SITH.

- And I'm even less sure about the pursuit of clarity because Jeff muddied the waters throughout instead of making clear comparisons between our reasoning and his. He wasn't even clear about the facts, as he avoided quoting the most important sources that we discussed at length.

I hope that at some point, Jeff and the other Interpreters will join in the pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding so everyone interested can easily identify the facts, and then see how our respective assumptions, inferences and theories diverge. That's the FAITH model that apparently threatens so many LDS scholars who continue to resist the clarity of comparison.

_____

Because he spent so much time on it, I figured Jeff deserved careful consideration, so I did an interlinear "peer review" which you can read here. 

https://interpreterpeerreviews.blogspot.com/2024/12/review-of-jeff-lindsays-review-of-by.html

Full disclosure: I didn't even submit my review to the Interpreter because I knew they would never publish it, just like they didn't publish my rebuttal to the second review of another of my books on the same topic, A Man that Can Translate. For one thing, because my review is interlinear, it is too long (57 pages). For another, my review is too precise and detailed in showing where Jeff made errors of omission, logic, misrepresentation, etc.

Overall, I was not surprised that Jeff disagreed with our conclusions about the translation. That's to be expected. Jeff works with the Interpreter, and the stone-in-the-hat narrative (SITH) is a mandatory belief there (along with M2C, the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory).

What I was surprised about was the extent that Jeff followed the Dan Peterson school of apologetics that all the Interpreters follow: condescending rhetoric, obfuscation, "clever" quips, appeal to the authority of the citation cartel, misdirection, omission and censorship--basically the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture.

But despite all that, Jeff published a lively review that is encouraging in the sense that it is a step toward greater clarity, charity and understanding.

The question is, will he be willing to take another step and join with me in creating a clear, comprehensive comparison of our different perspectives?

Skousen's Part VII and John Clark on Cumorah

I posted the first half of my review of Royal Skousen's Part VII here:

https://interpreterpeerreviews.blogspot.com/2024/12/review-of-royal-skousens-part-vii-first.html

I'll post the second half in a few days. 

_____

Meanwhile, I was reminded of an article from 1994 in the FARMS Review of Books on the Book of Mormon. It was written by John Clark and titled "The Final Battle for Cumorah."

Here's the link:

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1211&context=msr

The abstract reads:

Review of Christ in North America (1993), by Delbert W. Curtis. Clark examines the scholarship and logic involved in assuming a one-Cumorah theory for Book of Mormon geography.

It was fun reading the type of rhetoric characteristic of FARMS. For example, the title itself. It implies that John was solving the Cumorah question with finality, once and for all, but in retrospect that title was obviously much too ambitious, if not overly arrogant.

John is a great guy and a careful scholar, but when we read this article we can see how John's views were driven not by the text or any facts, but by his own interpretations and assumptions. 

Someday I'll get around to interlinear comments on this article, but anyone interested can read it and see for themselves why FARMS was so widely discredited for its demeaning rhetoric.

Not that John did not make some good points. I happen to agree with much of his criticism of the Curtis book, for many of the same reasons. But this article is a good example for what passed at FARMS as "peer-reviewed," when it was actually merely "peer-approved."

We see the same practice today at the Interpreter. Which makes sense, since it's basically the same leadership and editorial bias at work.