Misinformed Saints: The podcast that opposes clarity, charity and understanding

There is an amazing YouTube channel to consider.  

In the pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding, we will take some time today to comment on their recent video about Book of Mormon geography.

The hosts are all awesome, faithful Latter-day Saints, wonderful in every way. Except they are determined to mislead their viewers to promote the personal beliefs of its founders, including both SITH and M2C, among other things.

Hence the Orwellian title: "Informed Saints."

This episode is an interview with Brant Gardner that, as usual, misleads its viewers. Except this one was even worse than usual. You can watch it here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHEAG87wh9Y

The video is quite long, so I had it summarized and added my comments. This is a preliminary draft for a chapter in my book on LDS apologists.

For viewers of the video, if any of the following is new to you, ask yourself why.

That should tell you all you need to know about how the M2Cers do not want you to make informed decisions.

_____

The AI-generated summary below captures the conversation, including direct quotations. 

I advocate the FAITH model of analysis, which this panel of podcasters declined to do. To apply the FAITH model, we start with Facts and separate Facts from the various Assumptions, inferences, and Theories that lead to the various overall Hypotheses.

In this case, we have a limited set of facts. We have (i) the text itself (presumably the Original Manuscript (28% of the entire text) supplemented with the Printer’s Manuscript), (ii) the relevant historical documents, and (iii) extrinsic evidence including physical facts regarding geology, anthropology, archaeology, etc.

Next we have the various assumptions and inferences people make about those facts, particularly about how to interpret the text, whether to accept or reject the historical evidence, and how to relate extrinsic evidence to the text.

In this case, the Facts are unambiguous. We can all see the text, the historical documents, and the extrinsic evidence. Everyone agrees to these facts.

Then we move to the Assumptions, which is where opinions begin to diverge. The first Assumption involves President Oliver Cowdery's (OC) declaration that it is a fact that Cumorah/Ramah is the same hill in New York where Joseph obtained the plates. 

People who assume he told the truth, such as me, pursue one line of evidence and reasoning.

People who assume he did not tell the truth, such as Brant Gardner and the M2C panel in the podcast, pursue a different line of evidence and reasoning.  

Everything else flows from that initial assumption.

The commentary below presents facts that the podcasters failed to include, making it impossible for their readers to make informed decisions.

_____

Chapter 1: Brant Gardner & Church BoM Geography Statement

Host: Opens the episode by framing the sensitive nature of the topic.

“One of the most controversial internal debates for members of the Church of Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints is if the Book of Mormon is a real ancient record, where did it take place?

It is strange to characterize this as a "controversial internal debate." The facts are not controversial; everyone agrees on the facts. People diverge solely because of their respective assumptions, inferences, and theories. Controversy arises only because some people oppose clarity, charity and understanding as they seek to persuade, convince, and even coerce others to agree with their own theories. To do so, they abandon clarity, as we see in this podcast.

Welcome to Informed Saints.

Everyone involved should be helping Latter-day Saints make informed decisions, which is why the name of this podcast is so ironic. As the panel in this episode demonstrates, the channel seeks to indoctrinate, not inform. While everyone involved is an awesome, faithful Latter-day Saint, this channel and the particular panel in this podcast would be better served to focus on clarity, charity and understanding instead of promoting their own theories by depriving their viewers of relevant facts.

Today we are tackling the question Heartland or Meso America specifically or more clearly why our guest here favors the Mesoamerican model and in his case for why this is he believes is the most likely place the Book of Mormon took place.”

This is a good example of why clarity is so important. To actually inform Saints, the panel should avoid euphemisms such as the “Mesoamerican model,” which is more accurately described as the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs model (M2C) because there are other models that include both Mesoamerica and the New York Cumorah.

It is good that they added the “more clearly” qualifier because they are definitely not “tacking the question” by having alternative perspectives represented. The entire panel (as well as their guest) have been promoting M2C for years. They’ve written papers and books, spoken at conferences, made podcasts, etc.

Here, they are obviously promoting a new book with zero interest in helping their viewers make informed decisions.

Host: Welcomes Brant Gardner and highlights his expertise.

“Welcome Brent Gardner. Um, we are excited to have Brandt here because he is a widely published Book of Mormon author specializing in the cultural context of the Book of Mormon.

More accurately, he specializes in promoting M2C by interpreting and modifying the text to fit Mesoamerican culture.

He has a master's degree in anthropology from the State University of New York. And he's also widely published on a number of things. Arguably your most famous book is probably your six volume commentary on the Book of Mormon, which is pretty much I mean the gold standard of commentaries even 20 years later.”

Definitely the gold standard for M2Cers.

Host: Summarizes the Church’s official statement.

“Before we like really get into the nitty-gritty... I want to start with the church's statement on Book of Mormon geography... the most important thing the church affirms is that this is an ancient record. And so it took place somewhere in the Americas, real people in a real place without saying where...

As the panel acknowledges, the first sentence in the statement refers to “the Americas,” a term that (i) is not in the text and (ii) was never used during Joseph Smith’s lifetime. This reference to “prophetic support” beyond the text itself is not mentioned by the panel. Instead, they pass right by it without explaining this to the audience.

The church does not take a position on the specific geographic locations of Book of Mormon events in the ancient Americas. Speculation on the geography of the Book of Mormon may mislead instead of enlighten; such a study can be a distraction from its divine purpose. Individuals may have their own opinions... However, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the 12 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.”

Hopefully all Latter-day Saints are familiar with this statement and its purpose, which is to eliminate contention. I’m 100% in favor of that. All faithful Latter-day Saints agree that the primary purpose of the book is to testify of Jesus Christ, and contention about the setting is counterproductive.

And yet, the panelists do not provide the audience with appropriate context.

First, the panel quotes the statement during a podcast in which they explicitly reject the guidance provided by the Church for the use of the Gospel Topics Essays, which also applies to these less complete statements.

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.

Our panelists in this video ignore (and even repudiate) reliable historical sources in favor of their own private opinions, but they don’t make that clear to their viewers.

Second, the panel does not explain that the Gospel Topics Essays are not scripture. They are subject to change at any time with or without notice. The podcasters here forgot to inform their viewers about that.

In fact, the very statement they quote here has been changed to, among other things, delete the original quotation by President Ivins, as I discussed here: https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/p/book-of-mormon-geography-essay.html

Third, the statement has led to confusion because some people have interpreted the term "Book of Mormon geography" to include the elements of "the Americas" and "Cumorah." But that contradicts the historical record as well as common sense.

We can all see that the essay simply incorporates, without explanation, the prophetic teachings about "the Americas." It also avoids mention of "Cumorah." That makes it plain that the term "Book of Mormon Geography," which the statement applies to speculative theories, does not include either element.

People who interpret the term "Book of Mormon Geography" to include Cumorah unnecessarily infer that the statement implicitly repudiates the past teachings of prophets and apostles, including Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, regarding the location of the Hill Cumorah/Ramah. Such an inference would contradict the plain purpose of the essay, which is to separate the known from the speculative and encourage all parties to avoid contention.

Fourth, the statement urges “leaders and members not to advocate personal theories in any setting or manner that would imply either prophetic or Church support for those theories.” Yet Church buildings contain the “Chichen Itza” painting of Christ appearing to the Nephites in Central America.

Host references President Nelson’s emphasis on focusing on the book’s primary purpose.

Host asks the key question:

“Clearly there's utility to understanding where the Book of Mormon take place. It's useful. There are things we can learn, but how do we make sure we're falling within the church's guidelines? How do we make sure we're crossing a line here?”

Brant Gardner:

“It is important to say that there's a very big difference between contention and discussion...

Excellent point. There is no reason to contend about the setting of the Book of Mormon because Latter-day Saints make informed decisions for themselves. If a fellow LDS chooses to believe something different, that is to be expected. We seek to understand and to be understood, not to persuade, coerce, or demand conformity.

We should be open to understanding. We should test all good things.

Instead of being “open to understanding” this panel of M2Cers does not seek to understand other perspectives. The panel instead offers caricatures and presents unchallenged assumptions as fact.

Now, the question then becomes, what model shall we use?... Well, you go to the sciences. You go to disciplines that have worked with history. You go to anthropology. You go to what we know about the world and then you say, ‘Okay, let me take all of that information, bring it to the Book of Mormon, and see what I can do with it.’”

This all sounds great, except as we see throughout the podcast, in practice the panel engages in confirmation bias, presenting the M2C interpretation of the text and extrinsic evidence as fact instead of assumption and inference.

 

Chapter 2: Methodology - Where to Start?

Host: Asks for a practical methodology.

“We've talked about the church's statement. Let's talk more about, you know, what how we actually what's our methodology? How do we actually determine where to start, how to look, how to determine what models we should be considering here?”

Brant Gardner: Describes his systematic framework.

“I actually thought about that a lot several years back and I said, ‘Okay, if I want to be fair to every model, I should come up with sort of a series of things that have to happen to fit the text.’ And I have to say that for many of us, the text is primary...

Most M2Cers make this claim, but their starting premise is that the events took place in the Americas, which the text never mentions. IOW, the text is secondary to the teachings of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery (and their contemporaries and successors). But the panelists don’t point this out in the podcast because their second premise is that JS and OC were wrong about Cumorah/Ramah.

This can be summarized this way:

Premise #1: Book of Mormon events took place “in the Americas” because that’s what Joseph and Oliver said and they were correct.

Premise #2: Cumorah cannot be in New York because even though that’s what Joseph and Oliver said, they were incorrect.

The logical fallacy is obvious, but the M2C panel never addresses that. Simple clarity requires them to so inform their viewers.

So when the Book of Mormon says like this site was number of days journey from that that's what you mean by what the text is saying right or that there was a river there and if for example I say there's a river and somebody comes up with the geography and there's no river okay you're wrong.”

This looks like a straw man fallacy because everyone agrees that there is one named river: Sidon. No one proposes a setting with no river. As for the distance traveled in a day’s journey, that’s a question of assumption and inference. The text is too vague to provide a specific answer, which is why this, like the other geography references, are so malleable. They can confirm any number of biases.  

The people who wrote that knew where they lived.

They said they were on “an isle of the sea,” a term that requires definition and interpretation. Some people think the destruction at the time of Christ changed everything so later writers would not have the same reference points. Others think that destruction left the overall terrain intact. Yet everyone agrees that Mormon and Moroni knew where they lived.

He emphasizes the ancient on-the-ground perspective:

“They never had a satellite uh imagery, bird's eye view, Google maps... They're talking about their geography from like an on-the-ground point of view.”

Again, everyone agrees with this perspective.

Brant Gardner outlines the required layers:

“One of them is you have to have a geography... I've got to have a river Sidon. If you don't have a river, you're in the wrong spot. I've got to have a narrow neck of land...

Here the panel is already diverging from the text to their interpretation of the text. The “narrow neck of land” is mentioned only once, in Ether 10:20. There are separate references to a “small neck of land” and a “narrow neck.” M2Cers interpret these three separate terms as referring to the identical location. Others, including me, think different terms mean different things.

This is a good example of why clarity, charity and understanding are so important. We all have access to the same facts, in this case the text. By clarifying our assumptions and inferences, we can see how and why people reach different hypotheses based on the identical facts.

there's topography. So, I've got the overall geography, but then I've got the ups and the downs... I've got to put people on the map.”

Good statement of how everyone who proposes a particular setting approaches the topic.

On population scale:

“The Book of Mormon is pretty consistent in talking about lots of people. By the time of Hill Cumorah, we've got so and so in his 10,000... This is a lot of people...

This is another unstated assumption that the panel does not discuss. The term “ten thousand” is obviously not an exact enumeration. So what is it?

In the Old Testament, the term referred to a large number. “And five of you shall chase an hundred, and an hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight.” (Leviticus 26:8) Same in the New Testament: “For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers.” (1 Corinthians 4:15)

Whether “ten thousand” in the Book of Mormon simply refers to a “large number,” a military unit, or something else, is a question of assumption and inference. There is historical precedent for a military unit to be referred to as “ten thousand” even when the actual number of warriors was half or less than that. https://www.lettervii.com/2021/03/ten-thousand.html

Furthermore, Mormon 6 relates that Mormon could see (behold) his “ten thousand" and the “ten thousand” of Moroni. But as for the others, Mormon changed the verb.

And we also beheld the ten thousand of my people who were led by my son Moroni.

And behold, the ten thousand of Gidgiddonah had fallen, and he also in the midst. (Mormon 6:12–13)

Verse 12 uses the past tense of “behold” as a verb, meaning “we also saw.” But verse 13 uses “behold” in the imperative mode, as a command or exhortation, to call attention to the fact that these men “had fallen” with their respective “ten thousand” at some point in the past. Whether their demise was recent or stretched back to the beginning of Mormon’s career as a military leader is unstated. It’s a matter of assumption and inference.

Another factor to consider is that the largest Nephite army in the text was only forty and four thousand. And this was after gathering the people together.

6 And we marched forth and came to the land of Joshua, which was in the borders west by the seashore.

7 And it came to pass that we did gather in our people as fast as it were possible, that we might get them together in one body....

9 And now, the Lamanites had a king, and his name was Aaron; and he came against us with an army of forty and four thousand. And behold, I withstood him with forty and two thousand. And it came to pass that I beat him with my army that he fled before me. And behold, all this was done, and three hundred and thirty years had passed away. (Mormon 2:6–7, 9)

This was in the year 330. Fifty-four years later, in the year 384, after a continual retreat from the Lamanites and scenes of blood and carnage, Mormon says they again "gathered in all the remainder of our people," this time "unto the land of Cumorah." (Mormon 6:5)

Some people think the text says 230,000 Nephites died at Cumorah. Maybe so. Maybe despite the warfare, destruction, and retreat, the Nephites managed to grow their population to support an army five times as large as Mormon managed to assemble when he gathered the people together 54 years earlier.

But that does not seem plausible to me and it is not what the text requires.   

See https://www.lettervii.com/2021/03/book-of-mormon-populations.html

Anthropologically, we know the answer to this... hunter-gatherer societies... maybe 300 at the most... incipient agriculture... up to a thousand... In order to really get large populations... you have to have crops that will provide sufficient calories... Meso America many... we keep finding more with LAR stuff right at least... if you had a big pyramid in Kansas, you would notice it from miles away.”

Again, Brant does not clarify that these population numbers are his own assumptions and inferences, not what the text requires.

He contrasts this with the Heartland model’s small villages and chronological mismatches (e.g., Cahokia being too late).

He doesn’t mention that there were over one million identified sites in North America, that the Illinois state archaeologist has mapped out sites with red dots that cover the state, etc.

Chapter 2: Methodology - Where to Start?

Host: Transitions from the Church’s statement and asks Brant Gardner to explain how one should actually evaluate different geography models.

“We've talked about the church's statement. Let's talk more about, you know, what how we actually what's our methodology? How do we actually determine where to start, how to look, how to determine what models we should be considering here?”

Brant Gardner: Explains that he spent considerable time developing a fair, systematic framework.

“I actually thought about that a lot several years back and I said, ‘Okay, if if I want to be fair to every model, I should come up with sort of a series of things that have to happen to fit the text.’ And I have to say that for many of us, the text is primary. We really want to, you know, if we aren't following what the text says, I think we're in the wrong place, right?”

He doesn’t explain the fundamental irony that he is looking in the “Americas” only because of what JS and OC taught, while at the same time categorically rejecting what they said about Cumorah.

He stresses that the original writers knew their geography intimately because they lived there, but they were not writing a modern travel guide.

Presumably everyone agrees that Mormon and Moroni knew where they lived. But Brant doesn’t mention that they lived in western New York, which we know because when Moroni visited Joseph Smith the first time, he told him that “this history was written and deposited not far from” Joseph’s home near Palmyra.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/69

Brant presumably thinks OC was wrong about that, too, but that’s not a legitimate reason for withholding it from the viewers. We can all read this in Joseph Smith’s own journal. It’s an uncontroverted fact that this account exists. Whether we believe it or not is an assumption.

“So when the Book of Mormon says like this site was number of days journey from that that's what you mean by what the text is saying right or that there was a river there and if if for example I say there's a river and somebody comes up with the geography and there's no river okay you're wrong [laughter] okay so I have to take the text as primary. The people who wrote that knew where they lived and they knew what they were doing now they were also not writing for our geographical information right? You know, there's other things they wanted to write for.”

 

Brant Gardner notes the challenge of ancient perspective:

“So, we have to be careful about going through the text and kind of reading carefully what they're saying because they weren't as interested in declaring the geography as we are trying to find it because they lived there. They didn't and wasn't a surprise to them. I think along those lines, it's also worth pointing out they never had a satellite uh imagery, bird's eye view, Google maps... They're they're talking about their geography from an like an on the ground point of view that never has that kind of global perspective that we can gain.”

He suggests a helpful exercise for modern readers:

“A fun exercise is to go and look at historical maps even just from a couple hundred just from just from the age of discovery, the age of Columbus, right? And to see how many successive generations of like specifically people that were dedicated to cartography were able to refine maps.”

Brant Gardner then lays out his core methodological layers:

Brant Gardner outlines the layers:

• Geography (rivers, narrow neck, topography)
• Population scale
• Chronology
• Culture

 

“Back to the question of methodology. So, what I looked at is I said, you know, there's several things that you can break down. One of them is you have to have a geography. I have to come up with a geography. If I'm going to put the Book of Mormon on a place, I've got to have a place to put it on. And the Book of Mormon has some information about what that place is like.

Again, Brant doesn’t explain why he assumes these events took place in the Americas because that would reveal his irrational approach to the topic. It is not surprising that the rest of the M2C panel does not call him out on it because they also know how their position is irrational. What is surprising is how few of the listeners recognized the fallacy, at least based on the comments.

Uh I mentioned a river. We've got to have a river siden. If you don't have a river, you're in the wrong spot. I've got to have a narrow neck of land. Now, just so happens that because we all know we need a narrow neck of land, every model has a narrow neck of land. You cannot have a model without a narrow neck of land. And everybody defines it differently and everybody puts it in different places, but you got to have one.”

Again, he simply assumes three different terms refer to one single location.

He continues with topography:

“And everybody realizes that. But beyond that, there's topography. So, I've got the overall geography, but then I've got the ups and the downs. There's ups and downs in the Book of Mormon and they should be logical. Uh, you know, so if it says I'm going down in elevation, my model better have a down.”

That’s a reasonable assumption, but still an unstated assumption stated as fact.

Next layer — Population

“And then once you've got a place, you say, ‘Okay, well, okay, I've got something that seems to fit. Now, what do you do?’ You say, ‘Well, I've got to put people on the map.’ And one of the first things you look at is, you know, does my model ever have people on it? And one of the biggest problems with the Baja is that they never have very many people there.

That is a good point, but Baja is just as irrational as M2C anyway.

Well, you can say that we just haven't found them, but archaeologically, yeah, we kind of know, you know, we would expect, I think, at this point, there are there are things that we know about civilization, and if you have a large number of people, it does leave a trace.”

Brant’s assumption about “a large number of people” is stated as a fact again.

Brant Gardner emphasizes the scale required by the text:

“Well, how many people do I have to put on? Go back to the text. How many people do I have to have? Well, the Book of Mormon is pretty consistent in talking about lots of people. I got to have lots of people. By the time of Hill Cumorah, we've [clears throat] got so and so in his 10,000 and so and so in his 10,000 and so and so and they were outnumbered by the Lamanites that were against them, right? Yeah. This is a lot of people, right?”

Again, these are Brant’s assumptions, not anything required by the text.

Anthropological principles He explains the progression of societal scale:

“The next thing is if you have a lot of people, how do you get a lot of people? Anthropologically, we know the answer to this... if you're a hunter gatherer, you're going to have maybe 300 at the most people in the group... and then you have incipient agriculture which says okay there's I'm now able to stay in one place for a while but I don't have sufficient calories... In order to really get large populations, and this goes anywhere in the world, China, Egypt, you know, ancient near anywhere, you have to have crops that will provide sufficient calories that you can support a large population and have an excess.”

This is why ancient peoples lived along rivers, as we see in North America.

Application to the models

“Okay, going back to the question of heartland Meso America, right?... the really important thing I think for me is you start putting people on the map and you say, ‘Okay, how many?’ Well, Meso America many [laughter] I mean in the last 10 years we keep finding more with LAR stuff right at least... In theory, um if you had a big pyramid in Kansas, you would notice it from miles away.”

Ironically, Brant doesn’t seem to realize, nor does the M2C panel mention, that the larger the civilizations they find in Mesoamerica, the less likely they were Book of Mormon people.

Lehi explained, “And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance.” (2 Nephi 1:8)

Jacob described their life this way: ”the time passed away with us, and also our lives passed away like as it were unto us a dream, we being a lonesome and a solemn people, wanderers, cast out from Jerusalem, born in tribulation, in a wilderness, and hated of our brethren, which caused wars and contentions; wherefore, we did mourn out our days. (Jacob 7:26)

“Lonesome” means solitary and secluded from society, but Brant assumes they had a large population in the midst of millions of Mayans.

Host and Brant Gardner discuss the Heartland’s population limitations and chronology problems:

“Because it's incipient agriculture, you don't get large populations. You will get villages and the village maybe you'll get up to a thousand people in a village but that's really big really big... What about there are some sites um in the Mississippi River Valley that heartland proponents will point to like Cahokia... It seems to me though... that sort of the the drawback with that is... chronology... a lot of the time it's well past Book of Mormon times... roughly 600 BC to AD 400, right? Cahokia of these places I understand is well past that period.”

The large mound has never been excavated, but there is evidence of human habitation in the area since around 1,200 BC. New civilizations commonly build over old ones.

Brant Gardner concludes the methodological point:

“You start with the geography. Okay. Well, this has to fit good.

Except he did not start with the geography. He started with his assumption the events took place in “the Americas” because of what Joseph and Oliver said. Their contemporaries and successors relied on what they said. If not for what Joseph and Oliver said, the entire world was in play for the geography. But Brant doesn’t explain it and the M2C panel doesn’t bring it up.

Now I've got to have population. Good. I've got to have population there at the right time. Okay... Those things all have to converge together.”

The population size is Brant’s assumption, not a fact. The timing is correct, except that archaeologists have a range of possible time frames for the sites they study. The range is large enough to confirm most biases.

 

Chapter 3: Examining Culture

Brant Gardner: Moves from geography and population to the next critical layer — culture.

“Well, the next thing is you've got another layer of information, which is culture. You say, ‘Okay, I' I've got a culture. Does the culture fit?’ Well, let's talk about an aspect of culture, which is political organization.”

He immediately contrasts small-scale societies with the Book of Mormon’s descriptions:

“Villages that have five houses do not have kings. That would be really strange. [laughter] Really strange. Get 25 houses and you have a king. Not going to happen. You have to have a fairly large population before you can have a king. And the Book of Mormon talks about kings over kings, right?”

Brant’s comment here is driven by Mesoamerican culture, not the text.

Contrary to Brant’s assertion of fact, the first "king” among the Nephites involved far fewer than 25 houses. Laman and Lemuel claimed Nephi “thought to make himself a king and a ruler over us” (1 Nephi 16:38) when they were still in the desert and their company consisted of two families (plus possibly servants). They were not talking about “a fairly large population.”

Brant Gardner explains the implications for the Heartland model:

“So if if I'm comparing again, you know, what happens in the woodland culture in the heartland uh woodland cultures are simply not large enough to have anything other other than a village headman... They'll have a village headman. You might get up to chief if you have, but you kings require a larger population and they simply didn't have them.”

Whatever the Nephites meant by the term Joseph translated as “king” does not require a large population. Even when Lamoni encounters his father on the way to Middoni, the entourage (if there was one) was so small that the father king himself drew his sword to smite Ammon. Ammon instead “smote his arm” and the king pleaded for his life. (Alma 20:20). Instead of implying a large population in a sophisticated Mayan society, this encounter with a “king over kings” implies a small, family-based society.

 

He then shows how the Mesoamerican setting makes better sense of a key early event:

“Um, now you compare that to Meso America. What do we have? Well, we've got Nephi where the people are asking him to be a king. Well, this is when they first show up. [laughter] You know, let's say there's only 30 people. Yeah. If there's only 30 people and somebody says, ‘I think you should be king.’ You go, ‘Wait a minute.’ Yeah. [laughter] a little little premature here. I may be a branch president. I don't know about King, right?”

Brant surely knows that Laman and Lemuel thought Nephi wanted to be a king even before they left the old world, but he doesn’t tell his viewers about that because it undermines his argument, which after all is based purely on his own assumptions and inferences.

Brant Gardner continues:

“But if you know we place their arrival in Meso America, they're coming into a place that is already extremely well populated and they're taking a portion of that and making a new city. [snorts] And it's the people who are in the new city that are requesting the king.

All of that is Brant’s private interpretation of the text. Actually, it is Brant’s addition to the text, because nothing in the text even suggests this. Brant is reading into the text his own ideas of Mayan civilization.

In fact, the first time a city is even mentioned in the text in the new world is in Mosiah 7:1, dated to about 121 B.C. Brant’s version of the text creates a city in the New World “about 588–559 B.C.” (2 Nephi 5, Heading) solely because that’s what his geography requires.

 

Well, why would they do that? Well, in Meso America and again location, population and chronology. Now, we drop culture on top of it and we say what's all happening at that point in time for the hundred years before and maybe a hundred years later in that time period is when the Mesoamerican cities are developing kingships. Everybody's creating a king.

Here Brant claims the people wanted Nephi as a king because everyone around them wants a king, but we already saw his brothers thought he wanted to be a king even before they left the Old World. The Old Testament features kings as the head of government. Naturally the people would want a king. They didn’t need Mayans to explain what a king (or ruler, or protector, depending on the verse) was.  

Why do they ask Nephi to be a king? Well, they've got a king. We want a king. Interesting.”

Host: Shares how this resonated with his own research:

“I actually that's one of the insights I gained from reading your work that I really appreciated... when I actually started reading other textbooks about the Maya or things like that not just reading you know you or whatever that's exactly what I found... That was a huge kind of moment for me in my own personal development to realize, okay, I can rely on these guys. They're giving me credible information.

The panel should explain more how Brant’s imaginative additions to the text are more credible than the text itself.

Whereas, when I've gone to dig in a little deeper into Heartland stuff... I have not found it to be consistent with what people in the field are actually saying.”

Naturally the panel doesn’t explain this.

Host and Brant Gardner expand on social stratification:

“I was just going to say on that point of culture we have the political structure... the Book of Mormon describes complex stratified society right? In hunter-gatherer cultures everybody is chipping in to go gather berries and hunt the deer...

This offensive caricature and put down of native people is pure stereotype. Meanwhile the actual ancient inhabitants of North America were constructing massive, sophisticated earthworks, repeating specific designs over long distances, aligning to the lunar cycles, etc.

Um, if you get big enough, you have the peasants do that work and you can go and be a judge or a lawyer or a priest or or a scribe, right? You have and suddenly we'd see develop stratified social class and specialization of skills.”

Meanwhile, the actual inhabitants of North America had a variety of specialized skills, including agriculture, earthworks, metal working, shipping, building of ships, and all the rest.

Brant Gardner on costly apparel:

“And the other thing is you know Book of Mormon talks about costly apparel a lot. Well you get costly apparel by trade with somebody else uh because costly means that it's something I can't normally create myself... it always comes as a sign of social stratification and people saying, ‘I'm better than you are,’ which is the reason why uh the Book of Mormon says you shouldn't have costly apparel. They really don't matter what kind of clothes we wear. That it's not an argument about clothing. It's an argument about status... And in antiquity, textiles are far more valuable than they are today in our world of fast fashion.”

That Mayan culture also cared about apparel demonstrates the universality of human nature. There are few themes more common to human psychology than the desire to feel superior in some way to others. (We observe this demonstrated in the behavior and rhetoric of this panel itself toward so-called “heartlanders” and native people in North America.)

Apparel is a distinguishing item in both the Old and New Testaments. The “costly apparel” language is a blending of New Testament language:  In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; (1 Timothy 2:9) James 2:2 compared “goodly apparel” with “vile raiment.” Kings and rich people in the Old Testament used apparel to honor people. The Isaiah passages (2 Ne. 13-14) referred to apparel. The Book of Mormon does not need Mayan culture to explain itself.   

Chapter 4: Mesoamerican Model vs Heartland Model

Host: Contrasts the fundamental difference in how the two models approach evidence.

“So you mentioned that messameanists, they'll look at the archaeology and then say this is how we understand the Book of Mormon whereas in the Heartland they will um look at the Book of Mormon and say this is why archaeologists are wrong. So could you speak a little bit more to the differences in how these two paradigms are working?”

The M2C panel creates another straw man to attack. Again, it’s the opposite of seeking understanding and avoiding contention.

Brant Gardner: Identifies the core issue that the debate often revolves around.

“Yeah, really it boils down to the Hill Cumorah, right? The hill Cumorah has traditionally been seen as the location of the final battles and there have been prophets, there have been apostles who have said that this was the location.

The M2C panel avoids specifics here.

This is the site where Joseph Smith got the gold plates in upstate New York and it's the site where we've had the Hill Cumorah pageant for years.”

He acknowledges the emotional and historical weight of the New York Cumorah for many Latter-day Saints:

“Yes. And nobody disputes that that's where the plates came from.

Although they didn’t bring it up for obvious reasons, the M2C panel disputes that there were two sets of plates. Moroni put the abridged plates in the stone box on the hill, as we can see from the Title Page. Joseph translated these in Harmony. But the original plates of Nephi were not included there, again as we see from the Title Page. D&C 9 explains that there were “other records” Oliver would assist to translate. D&C 10 explains that these other records were the original plates of Nephi, also called the “small plates,” which Joseph translated in Fayette. Historical evidence indicates that the plates of Nephi came from the repository in Cumorah, which was in a “separate department of the hill as Orson Pratt explained. But the M2C panel won’t discuss any of this, leaving their viewers ignorant.

That's right... you know, Mesoamericanists, everybody says, ‘Yeah, we agree plates came from there. That one's that one's solid.’ [laughter]

The M2C panel laughs at this, but the only reason “that’s one’s solid” is because of what Lucy Mack Smith and Oliver Cowdery said. There is no independent record of Joseph identifying that specific hill as the one where the plates were. Yet this panel rejects what both Lucy and Oliver said and don’t even tell their audience what they said.

It's it's where was the final battle?”

Brant Gardner explains the Heartland commitment:

“And traditionally, uh, it has been thought, uh, until people really started looking at the Mesoamerican model. Uh, it was thought that that was where the final battle took place.

They try to frame this as a “tradition.” Notice the passive voice here. The M2C panel does not want the audience to know who and why the hill in New York was identified as Cumorah/Ramah. Viewers are unable to make informed decisions without this information, and that’s exactly how the M2Cers want it.

Uh, and so what happens with the Heartland is they said, ‘No, we're not backing away from that. where this is the hill we will die on.’ Yeah. Literally.

“Literally.”

Right. And and so it becomes the pin in the map and and frankly it is the strongest piece of evidence they have. Yeah. Yeah. The strongest.”

Remember what they’re saying here because we’ll reprise it in a moment.

Host plays devil’s advocate for the Heartland position:

“That raises a question because it's their strongest piece of evidence... specifically in the context of the assumption that um when prophets speak about Book of Mormon geography, at least some prophets... their words carry prophetic weight.

First, to frame the New York Cumorah/Ramah as “prophets speaking about Book of Mormon geography” is a red herring. Even with Cumorah/Ramah in New York as an established fact, that does not determine “the geography.” It tells us only one location, and that was significant because Moroni himself identified it as Cumorah.  

.. we do have Joseph Smith, we do have Oliver Cowrdey, we do have Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball and plenty of other prophets who have said, ‘Yeah, this is where the battle took place.’ But that seems to really only work if you prioritize modern statements from prophets over the text... So, it seems to become a question of whose statements do we prioritize, the text or the prophet?”

It would be exasperating to listen to this if it was not so ridiculous. The M2Cers’ entire Mesoamerican model is based not on the text but on the teachings of the prophets that the events took place in the “Americas” as they said in the first part of the podcast. Yet here they want people to believe they are not even relying on the prophets.

The reality is they accept the prophets only when the prophets confirm their biases, but when the prophets say something that contradicts their theories, they reject the prophets. We can all see this, plain as day.

Brant Gardner responds by emphasizing historical methodology and the timeline of the name “Cumorah”:

“And and even there you have to say... we're now into history... we have the cannons of how you do historical research... And we find out that Joseph Smith himself does not recognize Cumorah as the name for the hill until about 10 years after the translation of the Book of Mormon.

First, this is false from a historical perspective. The historical record shows it was Moroni who identified the hill as Cumorah and that Joseph referred to it by name even before he got the plates, which he corroborated in D&C 128:20.

Second, the argument that Joseph did not “recognize Cumorah as the name of the hill until about ten years after the translation of the Book of Mormon” is merely an assumption, not a fact. Brant nevertheless states it as a fact. Brant presumably is referring to the published statement from Joseph about Cumorah in D&C 128:20. But that’s entirely different from claiming Joseph did not recognize the name. The most Brant can legitimately claim is that no first-person writing by Joseph has survived using the word Cumorah prior to D&C 128:20.

But think about that argument for a moment. D&D 128:20 is also the first time Joseph mentioned Peter, James and John. Brant’s reasoning would have us conclude that someone else made that up, too.

Next Brant compounds his fallacy.  

So he's not calling it the Hill Kamura. He's not the one that originates this.

Now Brant makes an assertion without any historical evidence.

Who is? Well, it looks like it was Oliver. Well, Oliver got it from Joseph. Well, if Oliver got it from Joseph, why doesn't Joseph say so?

Oliver was also the first to describe John the Baptist. By Brant’s reasoning, Oliver made that up, too. Only later did Joseph adopt that.

Yeah. And he never he doesn't. Now why does he eventually do it? Well, because Joseph picked up the vocabulary that everybody else was using. Uh why does Joseph call the seer stone a Urim and Thummim? Because everybody was calling it the Urim and Thummim. And so that's what he called it.

This is a good example of a debunked historical narrative that persists because it confirms the bias of certain scholars, in this case the SITH sayers (those who claim Joseph and Oliver deliberately misled everyone about the translation because, according to them, Joseph used the “stone-in-the-hat” (SITH) instead of the Urim and Thummim. For many years, some scholars credited W.W. Phelps with coining the term “Urim and Thummim” because an article he wrote in 1833 was the first known reference. A well-known example is the book From Darkness Unto Light. A note in the Joseph Smith Papers repeated this false narrative.

But then a thorough historian discovered a reference to the Urim and Thummim in a Boston newspaper from the summer of 1832. Joseph’s brother Samuel and Orson Hyde were missionaries there and they explained that Joseph translated the Book of Mormon by using the Urim and Thummim. See Note 5 here: https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/topic/urim-and-thummim

Suddenly, Phelps’ article made sense not as coining a new term, but as an effort to explain the Urim and Thummim to Bible-literate readers. (Some notes in the JSP reflect this, but for unexplained reasons the JSP has left the Phelps narrative intact.)

Here, Brant and the M2C panel want their viewers to believe that Samuel Smith did not learn about the Urim and Thummim from his brother but instead invented the Urim and Thummim narrative while a missionary in Boston in 1832. People can believe whatever they want, but Latter-day Saints should at least have all the information so they can make informed decisions.

 

That's how it became uh the vocabulary of the time. That is not theology, you know, that is not revelation. That's human.”

Brant and the M2C panel are careful to keep their viewers ignorant of the historical facts. Instead, they promote their own assumptions and inferences as fact.

It’s shameless, really.  

Host and Brant Gardner circle back to the Church’s official statement:

“One is the church's geography statement... the church does not take a position on the specific geographic locations of Book of Mormon events in the ancient Americas. They don't make an exception there. They don't say, ‘Well, except the final battle, we know the Hill Cumorah, we know where that is.’ There's no exception.

As I pointed out above, the statement doesn’t mention Cumorah at all, but it does mention the Americas, which is not a Book of Mormon term. So while it supports prophetic input by referring to the Americas, it does not repudiate the prophetic input regarding Cumorah. It simply ignores the issue to avoid contention. But Latter-day Saints are expected to study these things for themselves, and the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah have never been repudiated by Church leaders.

Only the M2C scholars, such as the panel in this podcast, repudiate the teachings of the prophets.

.. And so when when you turn around you say well Joseph Smith said and Oliver Cowdery said... that line of argumentation is starting to creep into this territory that the church says we don't do that... They're telling us not to do that.”

Not satisfied with his additions to the text and his own interpretations he states as fact, Brant now presumes to interpret the “geography statement” contrary to the express instructions in the introduction to the Gospel Topics Essays.

Host reinforces the importance of primary sources:

“I like your point about historical methodology because if we're going to do historical methodology about Book of Mormon geography, well, who are our firsthand witnesses, right? Mormon, Moroni, Alma, so forth. They're not Joseph Smith. It's not Oliver Cowdery... The only geographic information we know Moroni ever revealed to Joseph Smith, though, was where the plates were buried, not where any particular event took place.”

This is true only if you ignore the historical record (as the M2C panel does), which demonstrates that it was Moroni himself who identified the hill as Cumorah.

Brant Gardner adds nuance about Joseph Smith’s early visionary experiences, noting that some details appear influenced by the text itself or contemporary assumptions, and that Joseph, like anyone, interpreted what he saw through his own cultural lens.

Brant seems oblivious to what every non-M2Cer can see: he is interpreting the text through a Mayan cultural lens. That’s why he has to add information and make assumptions and inferences to make it fit.

Chapter 5: The Hill Cumorah

Host: Directly addresses the emotional and doctrinal centerpiece of the Heartland model.

“Okay. But what I'm very interested to know is like why couldn't the Hill Cumorah be in upstate New York? Why do you feel like it has to be somewhere else? Is there something in the Book of Mormon that kind of insists that?”

Brant Gardner: Answers with two main reasons — distance/logistical geography and archaeological evidence — and explains them thoroughly.

Reason 1: Distance and Days’ Journey

“Uh two reasons. One, if you start with a geography that says we're building a logical geography, and one of the things you want to do in a logical geography is get some concepts of distance. There are no mileage markers in the Book of Mormon. The only markers we have are days journey. And so this is, everybody's gone through this when we look at day's journey because that's how we measure how far away something would be.”

He addresses travel realities described in the text:

“So how far do people go in a day? And you can argue this and one of the reasons why Neville's model for the heartland has had some influence is because he says those days travel are on rivers and so they go farther in a day than they would have if they're on foot. Now the Book of Mormon never mentions how you travel it, you know, they just assume.

Now Brant is blaming Mormon for not talking more about the rivers, but Mormon explicitly explained that “a hundredth part of the proceedings of this people… their shipping and their building of ships… cannot be contained in this work.” (Helaman 3:14)

Mormon’s reasons for not talking more about shipping are unknowable. Presumably he had to conserve space on the plates. He also probably figured readers would know that ancient people used the rivers as highways. But the fact that he took the time to explain what he was omitting tells us that there is a lot more to the Nephite setting than M2Cers assume, if only because they don’t have such an extensive river system in Mesoamerica.

Uh it does say frequently however as they're going here that they're driving, you know, herds with them, right? Uh and if they're doing that, it's really hard to figure out how you're doing that on canoes. Drive a drive a flocks of herds on rivers.”

Mormon said he didn’t talk about their “building of ships,” not their building of canoes. If the Nephites built ships and were shipping, the ships were not empty. Naturally they would transport food, animals, maybe timber, and people. Maybe not in Mesoamerica, but it makes sense in the North American river systems.

Brant Gardner cites John Sorenson’s analysis:

“And what Sorenson pointed out is you're limited to an area that's maybe 600 miles long by about 200 miles wide. And he said, oddly enough, same area as ancient Israel... there's no reason why the Book of Mormon could not have happened.

While Sorenson’s assumptions are not unreasonable assuming a purely land-based society, ships make a big difference.

Unlike the Nephites, the Israelites did not build ships or engage in shipping except along the coasts. The “ships of Tarshish” became a generic term for sea-going vessels. Tarshish was in southern Spain (over 2,000 miles from Israel), or maybe Sardinia (over 1,500 miles).

So from the only information we have for getting distances in the Book of Mormon, days travel, that limits us.

We have only a few references to days of travel that do not justify extrapolating the term to the entire Nephite history.

If everything else is happening in Meso America, Hill Cumorah is just plain too far away. It just takes too long to get there and because everything else works and it doesn't work up in that area from the culture, the geography, etc.”

There are some models that include both Mesoamerica and the New York Cumorah, based on different assumptions but using the exact same text (without the Sorenson/Gardner gloss). This is why knowing Cumorah/Ramah is in New York does not determine the rest of the geography.

Reason 2: Archaeology and the Scale of the Final Battle

“Okay, distance is one of the reasons why it couldn't be there. But it's not the only reason. Not the only reason because then you go to archaeology. Ah, if you're going to have that many people die on the hill, you should know. There should be indications.”

This gets back to the number issue.

Gardner highlights the sheer number of people involved:

“First of all, if you have that many people, I'm not sure that many people fit on the hill Cumorah. The hill isn't that big.

First, President Cowdery explained the final battles took place in the mile-wide valley west of Cumorah. Second, during pageant thousands of visitors sat comfortably in the small seating area at the base of the hill that did not even reach the road. Third, Brant’s assumptions about numbers are not required by the text and don’t make sense anyway.

And to be clear about how many people we're talking, there were 24 Nephite commanders who had 10,000 men. Yeah.

To reiterate, Brant is assuming Mormon was referring to these 24 commanders in proximity to Cumorah instead of referring to his commanders who had fallen throughout his career, or at least during the several years of war leading up to Cumorah. Other assumptions could be made as well. People need to know about the multiple working hypotheses to make informed decisions, but yet again, the M2C panel and Brant do not mention the alternatives.

So, we're talking like 240,000 people approximately, assuming no exaggeration... the order of magnitude is... multiple thousand right yeah we're not talking the difference between 10,000 and 10 right... there were a lot more than 10 people there... well the hill Cumorah you're stepping on people if you're trying to be on the hill Cumorah with that many people.

Nothing in the text says they were all on the hill. To the contrary, Mormon explains “we did pitch our tents around about the hill Cumorah” (Mormon 6:4). This should be obvious—people don’t pitch tents on steep slopes—but Brant and the M2C panel have passed rational discussion into absurdity.

If they're there for any length of time, there's going to be, you've got to have civilizations going to leave a trace. And the archaeologists who've worked at that area, this is a clean hill. There was nothing there. There's nothing around.”

The text does not say how long they were there, but the Nephites were in retreat for years. Western New York has plentiful rudimentary fortifications, including many with Hopewell artifacts dating to around 400 AD. Heber C. Kimball visited the hill Cumorah after he was baptized in 1832 and said he saw the embankments still there, 1400 years after the final Nephite battle.

If we believe President Cowdery it should be a “clean hill” because he explained the battles took place in the valley between the hills (which makes common sense). Besides, farmers still occasionally dig up arrowheads and other items of warfare in the area. The report the M2Cers usually cite involved students doing digs on the east and north sides of Cumorah, where we wouldn’t expect to find much if we believe President Cowdery. I discussed this in detail years ago, along with other studies that showed how common war implements are in that area.   

Brant Gardner addresses the common claim about arrowheads:

“Well, we have the room, you know, all the stories of arrowheads. Bushels of arrows. Well, first of all, we don't know how accurate it is. We don't have them. And because we don't have them and we don't have them in situe, we can't date them. We don't know. We do know that there were plenty of Native Americans who were there for a very long period of time hunting. Uh so yeah, there could be lots of them around that had nothing to do with war.”

This is a valid point. The area around New York was the scene not only of the final battles of the Jaredites and Nephites, but other activities for at least 1400 years. For over 200 years the area has been farmed, including the Hill Cumorah itself. Successors to the Nephites would naturally reuse any useful tools or weapons they found. We would not expect to find burials because the text says they left the bodies to “molder upon the land.” Besides, there were no survivors to bury the Nephites.

In summary, the actual archaeology in western New York is exactly what we should expect to find if we believe the text. President Cowdery’s explanation is even more detailed.

He then connects this to the nature of warfare in the Book of Mormon:

“Now let's go to warfare. Okay, warfare is an important one. Book of Mormon talks about warfare. If you have kings, you have large populations.

We’ve already seen that is merely an assumption, and an assumption that contradicts the text.

If you have large populations, you can have enough population that you can pull off a portion of them, still have food for the people home, and still have food to send to the army. And you can have armies that will fight each other, and you can have war. You can't have war if my village only has 500 people...

There are ancient villages in France and Germany with fewer people than that who remained at war for decades, if not centuries.

Small places like that, like the woodland territory, don't have warfare. You can have a raid... but you don't have warfare. It's economically infeasible.”

This is pure assumption, not historical reality.

Host adds supporting research on fortifications:

“This is actually something when I was at Scripture Central, I wrote... on fortifications in the Book of Mormon... the fortifications that match Book of Mormon descriptions in in the North America territory are all late. They're all after about a thousand AD... during the specific time periods where Book of Mormon talks about massive warfare... archaeologists were saying there's no... a relatively peaceful existence. Yeah. For the Hopewell during that time.”

So many problems with this claim that we won’t take the time to go through it, but it’s all bias confirmation.

Brant Gardner critiques Heartland “forts”:

“They have places that were called forts because there somebody in the late 1800s called them a fort. They called them forts because there were walls... And the modern archaeologists look at it and say... if they are forts, you would find occupation inside... Nobody was living there. So you got a wall that's not protecting anything... when you build fortifications... you have what's called a borrow pit... And there is a borrow pit for these forts on the inside of the wall. [laughter]

The laughter is telling. The Book of Mormon refers to these as “places of resort.” In fact, the only place in the entire text where people were building with stone involved “small forts” which our M2C panel ridicules.

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)

Years ago I posted about an article in the Ohio Archaeology journal that described an excavation of a Hopewell site. The archaeologists determined that a wall had been constructed around the site many years after the site was already inhabited, and they commented that this did not make sense.

But they hadn’t read Alma 48:8.

Neither, apparently, have the M2C panel.

Okay, which is not where it's supposed to be. Not very useful for defense. It's not logical. And there's no evidence that it defended anybody.”

He concludes that placing the Book of Mormon in a real place requires respecting both real geography and real chronology.

Obviously I agree with the point of respecting both real geography and real chronology, but I also encourage people to have open minds and seek all the information. They cannot rely on the M2C podcasters at all, as we’ve seen.

Chapter 6: Heartland Model and the Seas

Host: Transitions from the discussion of the Hill Cumorah to another significant textual and geographical challenge for the Heartland model.

“Yeah. Okay. Well, I'm curious, Brandt, because in addition to the differences of the um the difficulties with the distances described in the Book of Mormon to get you up to upstate New York for the Hill Cumorah, there seems to be an indication in the text itself that uh the Hill Cumorah, meaning where the battle happened, is not the place where we should expect Joseph Smith to find the plates that Moroni entrusts to him. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.”

Host: Reads Mormon 6:6 aloud for the listeners:

“Um, so this Mormon, and it came to pass that when we had gathered in all our people in one to the land of Cumorah, behold, I Mormon began to be old, and knowing it to be the last struggle of my people, and having been commanded of the Lord, that I should not suffer the records which had been handed down by our fathers, which were sacred, to fall into the hands of the Lamanites, for the Lamanites would destroy them. Therefore, I made this record out of the plates of Nephi, and hid up in the hill, all the records which had been entrusted to me by the hand of the Lord, save it were these few plates which I gave unto my son Moroni.”

Host: Seeks clarification from Brant Gardner.

“Correct me if I'm wrong here, Brent, but what it sounds like what Mormon is saying, “this record out of the plates of Nephi,” that's the plates of Mormon, right? That's Mormon's abridgement of the record of Nephi... It sounds like what it's saying in other words is literally all the records except the one that Joseph Smith got he hid up in quote the hill Kamora at the final struggle in battle. Am I reading that wrong or what's happening?”

Brant Gardner: Affirms the host’s reading and emphasizes the clear implication of the text.

“There's no way the gold plates even could be in the same site because he literally talks about taking them away... the one the only thing you can say for sure is that according to the Book of Mormon, the only information we have is that the plates were not in Cumorah.”

This is a little awkward as stated, but M2Cers claim that because Mormon said he put the original records of the Nephites in the hill Cumorah, Moroni could not have put them in the same hill. They say we know it “for sure.”

It’s an irrational argument, as we’ll see below, but Orson Pratt answered the argument when he explained that there were two departments in the hill: (i) the great sacred depository and (ii) Moroni’s stone box.

https://www.lettervii.com/p/two-departments-in-hill-cumorah.html

Years ago an M2Cers challenged me on this by asking why Moroni would build a separate stone box. Joseph could have just entered the depository. I replied that it took Joseph 4 years to overcome the temptation to sell the plates or any artifacts in the box. He couldn’t have overcome the temptation of the entire depository until he had much more experience. But even then, when he realized the depository was in the hill because the messenger who had the abridged plates said he was going to Cumorah, Joseph turned white as a sheet.

 

Brant Gardner addresses common Heartland counterarguments:

“Now, I've talked to people who support a heartland theory and they say, ‘Well, Mormon brought them back or Moroni brought them back and buried them in that.’ Well, yeah, you can say that, but the Book of Mormon doesn't say that. The text does not say that.

In the text, Moroni never says where he deposited the plates. That might sound significant, but actually it is obvious; otherwise he would have to record where he deposited them before he deposited them. Nothing in the text states or implies that Moroni built the stone box elsewhere.

But when he first met Joseph, he explained that the history was “written and deposited not far from” Joseph’s home, and that the hill was named Cumorah.

Also seems counterintuitive because the whole point was to get the records out of the land of Cumorah so the Lammonites wouldn't destroy them, right?

Nothing in the text states or implies that. To the contrary, Mormon explicitly says he put the depository in Cumorah to protect it from the Lamanites. (I infer that Mormon knew about the Jaredite bunker at Ramah and, given the state of his people, he figured that would be the safest and quickest possible way to protect the depository.)

Mormon recorded that Cumorah was the safest place. Naturally Moroni would agree.

Well, not only that, but if he's fleeing northward to get away from the people who are trying to kill him, going back south to where the people are trying to kill him, right, seems a little counterintuitive.”

Moroni doesn’t say he was “fleeing northward.” That’s another Sorenson/Gardner gloss. In Ether Moroni recorded that he was writing about the people “in this north country,” but that’s the same country where he wrote and deposited the abridged plates, as he explained to Joseph Smith.

Host adds important interpretive context:

“And this is also a comment that I think John Clark made that I resonate with very greatly. Joseph Smith is an interpreter of the Book of Mormon as much as he is the translator of the Book of Mormon... he and others around him have to like anybody else use their deductive reasoning as they're reading the text to figure out how it works.”

This “interpreter” concept defies the historical record, but it’s about the only way the M2Cers can justify their repudiation of the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah.

The host notes that early assumptions (Cumorah in New York, narrow neck in Panama, Lehi landing in Chile) were understandable but should not override a careful reading of the text itself.

There’s an enormous difference between Cumorah and the other sites mentioned here. Even Orson Pratt knew the difference, as we can all read in his footnotes. He states it’s a fact that the hill in New York is Cumorah/Ramah, but merely that “it is believed” that the narrow neck is in Panama, that Lehi landed in Chile, etc.

The M2C panelists all know this but they don’t care enough about their viewers to tell them the truth.

The Discussion Turns to the Seas

Host: Raises the issue of the east sea and west sea described in the Book of Mormon.

“And then the Book of Mormon also talks about having like a sea east and a sea west. And in Meso America at least, that's fairly self-explanatory. You've got the big giant Atlantic Ocean on one side, the big giant Pacific Ocean on the other side. Um, how do they make that work in the heartland where the heartland is taking place kind of landlocked with great difficulty?”

Except their “sea west” is actually south and their “sea east” is actually north, unless they’re on the Yucatan peninsula, which most M3Cers reject.

Brant Gardner: Explains the difficulties Heartland models face.

“Um, east sea they do I mean there's an east sea because they they use the Atlantic and because they don't really worry about distances. The fact that the Book of Mormon has wars that occur along the eastern seaboard and that people are easily moving back and forth there.”

Brant’s unstated assumption is that the term “sea east” is a proper noun instead of a generic term for any sea east of the speaker/writer.

Host points out logistical problems with military campaigns:

“All those cities that that are captured by Moroni and then Malachi, right? Those like there's like seven cities on the east sea in the first Amalachia. I think it's important to note that the whole purpose of that military maneuver to go along the east sea is to try to get up into the land northward... Uh and I don't know how that functionally works when all your geography all like the center of your action, your cities and everything are over in the Mississippi River Valley. What's the point of this military action all the way over to go capture New Jersey and Connecticut or whatever.”

This is a straw man argument that no one makes.

Brant Gardner addresses the West Sea problem:

“It becomes even more complicated when you get to the West Sea because they're Pacific's really far away and and even the Heartland model understands that the Pacific is far away. And so when Neville uh tries to figure that one out, the upper Mississippi is the River Sidon and then the lower Mississippi is the West Sea. So it's one river is two bodies of water. Yes. [laughter]

The laughter shows how the M2Cers are uninterested in understanding and thus remain ignorant on this topic. The Upper Mississippi has always been separate from the lower Mississippi because they are two separate systems, as the Army Corps of Engineers recognizes even today. Only the name is the same today, which is why our M2C panel is confused.

The Lower Mississippi is much larger than the upper because the Ohio River joins it at Cairo, Illinois, after also receiving all the water from the Tennessee river and other tributaries. The Ohio river has more flow than the upper Mississippi, even after the Missouri and Illinois rivers flow into the upper Mississippi.

Defined in different ways for different purposes.

No, one is a river and one is a sea. In the Old Testament, “sea” means a “mighty river” such as the Nile as well as a large lake (the Sea of Galilee) and the Mediterranean. The lower Mississippi qualifies as a “mighty river” by any measure. Historically it would exceed 100 miles across at times, as anyone can see on Google maps.

 

But isn't one of the Great Lakes also one of the West seas in this model? Yes, you have multiple West seas. Yes. And he actually has two sidens... two West Seas and he has two river sidens.”

I don’t know where he comes up with two River Sidons, but there are two west seas, one north and one south, as the text explains here: “the armies of the Lamanites, on the west sea, south, while in the absence of Moroni…” (Alma 53:8)

The punctuation, inserted by the printer, makes the passage more confusing than it is in the original.

Host encourages listeners to examine the text directly and highlights inconsistencies:

“If you're listening and you disagree with any of this, here's what I would do. I encourage you to read Alma 22 and and reason from there how there isn't a continuous west sea all going from land of Nephi to the land of Zarahemla up to Bountiful. Like there is it seems pretty clear, not just from Alma 22, but from so many other references that there needs to be a continuous west sea along the western coast.

It is far from clear. That’s why so many people reach different conclusions about the geography. This is the M2C interpretation because it fits Mesoamerica (except that in Mesoamerica the “sea west” is actually south).

And here's the other catch here is all of those west seas are east of Zarahemla in in the Heartland model... because Zarahemla is supposed to be in Iowa allegedly, right?

Notice how they conflate the land of Zarahemla with the city of Zarahemla. The “land of Zarahemla” appears in Omni and throughout Mosiah, but the “city of Zarahemla” does not appear until Alma 2 (around 87 BC). This makes sense because they developed a city well after they inhabited the land.

... The account I think it's Alma 55 where it talks about the strippling warriors and they're supposed to be near the west sea south west of Zarahhemla...

Again conflating the city with the land.

And you cannot put anything between Manti and the West Sea in any heartland model that I've ever seen and have it be south of their homeland like that.”

Hard to tell what he’s referring to here. The irony in all of this is they are referring to global maps instead of viewing it from the perspective of people on the ground, which they previously purported to be doing.

Host reflects on the conceptual challenge:

“One thing that struck me as I was learning more about the heartland model is how often they employ rivers specifically like the Mississippi... Even the Mississippi is a very wide river and you can you know it's it's hard to even see across it at points.

That’s why they called the lower Mississippi a “sea.”  

But at the same time like these are people who actually crossed an ocean. And so I personally had a hard time conceptualizing them counting a river as an actual sea.

It’s much easier to conceptualize if you read the Old Testament, where the Nile River, the Sea of Galilee and the Mediterranean are all called “seas.”

Whereas like in Meso America... you've got your east and your west sea that are big oceans, but then they also have the river siden... it's a fairly simple straightforward way of saying okay you've got seas and you've got rivers.”

Except those seas are north and south and M2Cers disagree about which river in Mesoamerica is the Sidon.

Brant Gardner delivers a key methodological conclusion:

“It is forcing the text onto the geography rather than reading the text against a geography.

This is unbelievably ironic, given that the M2C sea west is South and the sea east is north, as anyone can see by looking at a map. Not to mention their arguments over which river is Sidon, where the “narrow neck” is, etc.

I have this and therefore I've got to find a way to make the geography fit. And so you manipulate your geography to the text.

That’s how everyone does it because the text is too vague to allow any two people to reach the same conclusions. In the M2C case, they started with the assumption based on the 1842 Times and Seasons articles, adapted in the 1917 map by L.E. Hills that showed Cumorah in southern Mexico because he rejected President Cowdery’s declaration and didn’t know about the other historical references, then Sorenson’s translation (the narrow strip of mountainous wilderness, etc.) modified Hills, and now Brant’s latest spin is a further modification.

Uh which is not the way it should be done as a historian.

This, again, is backwards. A historian looks at the historical evidence. People can reject it if they want, but there is an unambiguous, specific, and clear chain of historical evidence that it was Moroni who identified the hill as Cumorah, that Joseph and Oliver visited the repository in that hill, etc. Not a single historian has ever uncovered evidence that Cumorah was anywhere other than New York. The only reason the M2Cers have repudiated the prophets is because the New York Cumorah does not fit their theories about geography, including their subjective interpretations of the text.

You you a scientist, a geographer, anybody, you're going to start with the text and then work out. Uh if you start with saying, ‘Well, I know I have to be here and therefore I'm going to make the text fit, you're going the wrong way.’”

Unbelievable. Brant and the other M2Cers all start with “I know these events took place in the Americas, so I’m going to make the text fit.” But they only “know” the events took place in the Americas because of the prophets, whom they proceed to reject because the New York Cumorah/Ramah doesn’t fit their own interpretation.

Chapter 7: Destruction in the Land

Host: Addresses a common objection that destroys the usefulness of geography:

“One of the most common comments I get whenever I bring up geography on my own content is, ‘Isn't this all futile anyway?’ Because in Third Nephi, it talks about how there's so much destruction. It changed the whole face of the land. So, wouldn't we not even be able to tell where this takes place based on that?”

Brant Gardner: Pushes back against overly literal interpretations.

“The problem again there is that we bring to the text some ideas. We say, ‘Oh, the whole face of the land changed. That must mean that everything was different.’ Well, the whole face of Mount Etna changed dramatically. [laughter] It doesn't look the same anymore. M it didn't move, right?”

He clarifies that “the face of the land” refers to the surface appearance, not a total reordering of geography:

Throughout this podcast, Brant claims he’s sticking with the text. But here he imposes his own subjective interpretation because the plain meaning of the text does not fit with his theory of geography.

“So, yeah, the face of face of the land is the top. It's what you see. Well, the face can change because you'll have an earthquake and you'll have some problem. I mean, buildings being knocked down is changing the face. hurricanes sweeping out trees. The city is being sunk in the sea... But north doesn't become south.”

That’s not an unreasonable assumption, but it’s merely an assumption. He forgot to mention this during his discussion of the rivers because the course of those rivers has changed dramatically.

Brant Gardner notes that Mormon and Moroni wrote after the destruction and still described consistent geography.

This is a rational argument, but the other argument, that they could discuss consistent geography even when it changed because they had the records, is also plausible.

Host and Brant Gardner then compare explanations for the destruction in 3 Nephi.

Brant Gardner critiques the Heartland model:

“The Heartland has it an earthquake and they point to the Madrid earthquake uh that was extensive and it was you know it was dramatic. Here's the problem with the saying it was uh an earthquake. Again, if you go to the Book of Mormon text, what does it say? Well, it says that these groanings and loud things and the rumblings and all of these things are lasting for hours. Earthquakes last for a minute at most... They just don't last for hours. And this isn't me saying it. This is geologists saying this.”

The point of the description in the text was that the destruction was unusual. “it came to pass that when the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the storm, and the tempest, and the quakings of the earth did cease—for behold, they did last for about the space of three hours; and it was said by some that the time was greater; nevertheless, all these great and terrible things were done in about the space of three hours—and then behold, there was darkness upon the face of the land.” (3 Nephi 8:19)

The text does not say these things were continuous for three hours. No one has documented lightning lasting three hours, for example. We can reasonably infer that the great storm continued for three hours featuring these various elements, but not that each element continued nonstop for the three hours.

Brant Gardner presents the volcanic explanation:

“Well, what does fit the description? And we have had, let's see, I think at least three Latter-day Saint geologists who have looked at that. Uh, Terry Ball, Bar Kowalis, uh, Jerry Grover, and all three of them independently say this is a volcanic eruption.

Brant abandons the text yet again for extra-textual information to add to the text. Nowhere does the text mention volcanoes (which in itself is surprising for a Mesoamerican setting). His entire argument about Cumorah boils down to the absence of a first-person account from Joseph using the word soon enough to satisfy Brant. Now he blames Mormon for omitting the word “volcano” so he resorts to outside experts—definitely not prophets—to supply it for him.

That's what fits... If I'm taking a professional geologist whose training is knowing how to interpret these things and they're all telling me that this is it can't be anything except massive volcanic eruption, I kind of got to go with the geologists.”

We can all agree that it is rational to make these assumptions; i.e., that the text inexplicably omitted references to volcanoes despite its authors having lived their entire lives in Mesoamerica, that even when describing a volcano without using the word they forgot to mention lava, fire, or other common elements of volcanic action, and that because the text is inadequate, we need to rely on outside experts who “know how to interpret these things” although they don’t interpret other scriptures. But ultimately the only reason to go so far beyond the text is to confirm the M2C bias.

He mentions thick vapor preventing fires, prolonged darkness, and historical parallels (including Pompeii and an Egyptian stela).

Brant Gardner on specific evidence:

“Gary Grover is the one who who actually went through this... he points to one. And he says, ‘Yeah, here is this particular volcano that is known to have erupted in the correct time period... I believe it's San Martin. Yeah. Uh, in Veraracruz.’”

He also explains why Bountiful was spared:

“Remember the story is being told from people who are up in Bountiful, and they don't have the problem... He says, because it's on a different kind of plate. And if you go to that region... the place where we think Bountiful was was on a different plate than would be stable. And that tells you why Bountiful survived.”

The people gathered in Bountiful nearly a year after the destruction and yet they were still “showing one to another the great and marvelous change which had taken place.”

Brant Gardner concludes:

“When you can put those kinds of factors together, you start layering pieces of information on top of pieces of information and everything fits. It becomes much more parsimmonious to explain what's in the text.”

The more layers you put on top of the text, the less the text matters. The interpretation replaces the text.

 

 

Chapter 8: Artifacts & Archaeological Evidence

Host: Acknowledges the lack of direct evidence while asking about claimed artifacts.

“So in Meso America we've got complex civilizations we've got political structures we've even got like writing systems that aren't necessarily existing in the heartland...

The writing systems in Mesoamerica have nothing to do with what the text describes. In the text, we have a largely illiterate population with a priestly/governing class who can read, and the Lamanites are determined to destroy the Nephite records from the beginning to the end. The last thing we should expect to find is a Nephite writing system that survived outside of the depository in Cumorah. The writing systems in Mesoamerica are evidence that the Book of Mormon could not have taken place there.

However, what we don't have is any Stila or pottery shard that says I Nephi was here or Zarahhemla is here...

That’s a silly caricature of the more serious problem that there is zero evidence of any Hebrew civilization in Mesoamerica, despite what the Book of Mormon claims, particularly because the M2Cers have to claim that Lehi landed among a large Mayan civilization and that the Nephite kings ruled over at least some segment of the Mayan people.

But in the heartland they have a few artifacts that they do claim kind of shows evidence of Hebrew writing of Christian worship and iconography. Can you tell us a little bit about that?”

Brant Gardner: Emphasizes scholarly authority.

“Here is a question of what authority do we cite when we look at these things? Who knows? You have people who are scholars who have studied these things, who know the languages, know the scripts, and know the stories. And all of those scholars who know what they're talking about will tell you that the things that have the Hebrew scripts are all fake. Every one of them.”

Brant Gardner gives specific examples:

“Of course, that doesn't fit the story that the Heartland would like to tell...

“The Heartland” encourages people to learn about these artifacts and the various opinions about them.

I think it's one of the New York stones that has an authentic Hebrew script inscription on it. Uh, which really looks pretty interesting until you realize that it was copied straight out of a Masonic book.”

On the Los Lunas Stone:

“One of them that I really like because it's not far from where I live in Albuquerque is the Las Luna Stone... my first clue that there was a problem with the Los Luna stone is not too long after I moved to Albuquerque... there was an article in the Albuquerque Journal that had a photograph of the stone without any writing on it... And then uh it turned out that one of the professors at uh University of New Mexico was caught forging a few other things. Happened to be LDS.”

Brant Gardner on the Michigan Relics:

“Now in that particular case uh they actually did subject them to scientific uh examination... they found the saw marks on them... there was a prominent Latter-day Saint scientist... Fellow by the name of James E. Talmage... the unfortunate conclusion he came to was these are modern forgeries.”

Everyone agrees that many of the Michigan relics were forgeries, but the question is, what were the forgers copying? That remains unanswered.

He adds a striking detail from later testing:

“Here's my favorite one out of all of that... the chisel that had the mushroomed head... but the edge the cutting edge showed no wear whatsoever... one of them still had a fly wing in it. Oh no. Wow. Because the fly had his wings stuck in it. This isn't a natural way to get that color.”

I don’t know what he’s talking about here.

Host asks about legitimate metal artifacts in the Hopewell culture.

Brant Gardner:

“Yeah, the Book of Mormon requires metallurgy and metallurgy is a manipulation of the ores where you're combining metals and you're bringing heat... What happened with Michigan copper is that it was naturally found copper and it was pounded. They never did any metallergy with it... So it doesn't fit with the descriptions that we have in the Book of Mormon... Does Messameica have that kind of metallergy happening? Not that we have yet found in the correct time period... that is a gap for both models... If metallurgy is your hang-up, by the way, then the place to go is South America... Tumbaga is an alloy of gold, silver, and copper.”

There’s no need to smelt copper when it is pure on the ground. But there is evidence in ancient North America of smelting other metals.

Brant Gardner ends on a hopeful note for the Mesoamerican model:

“I know one uh Mesoamerican archaeologist... he says he expects within our lifetime that we're going to find it based on the trends of the discoveries we're finding it.”

Maybe so. Maybe so throughout “the Americas.”

Chapter 9: Reasons for the Mesoamerican Model

Brant Gardner: Shifts to one of the most powerful explanatory strengths of the Mesoamerican model — why the Book of Mormon ends exactly when and how it does.

“Now, we've talked about, you know, fitting the Book of Mormon in, and we've talked about some of these comparisons. Let me give you one that has nothing to do with heartland because there is no heartland uh counterpoint to it or uh or explanation.”

He poses a fundamental historical question:

“The Book of Mormon ends it ends with the destruction of the Nephi people. Why? They lived to they fought Lamanites for a thousand years. For a thousand years they were able to fend off the Lamanites. Even in Mormon's time, his father was able to fight Lamanites and fend them off and there was no problem. They won their wars.

They won and lost wars throughout the account, but remember that we don’t have even one percent of “their wars, and contentions, and dissensions.” (Helaman 3:14)

Brant merely assumes that we have a full account of their wars and that “there was no problem.” That’s not following the text.

And then all of a sudden, the Gadiantons show up and the world ends.

That’s a concocted chronology. The Gadiantons showed up before the massive destruction that destroyed the Nephite civilization, which was rebuilt after Christ visited them. Another 260 years passed before the Gadiantons showed up again to make trouble.

And why does the Book of Mormon end at all? And why, if it's going to end, does it end when it does? Why didn't it end a hundred years earlier? Why didn't end a hundred years later?”

Brant Gardner explains that a serious historical approach demands real-world causes, not just “it happened because the text says so.”

“Okay. Well, you could say, well, it because it did. You know, the Book of Mormon just says it ended and so it did. And you can not ask the question. But if you are an historian, you're saying, ‘Oh, this this Book of Mormon really happened to real people in a real place and in real time.’ As a historian, I've got to know why. Not just it happened, but what what were the conditions that make that happen?”

The text explains that the people had become wicked. That was the point. But naturally Brant can find a “parallel” in Mesoamerica (as he could pretty much anywhere in the world if he looked). For example, the Romans suffered civil war and invasions in the 3^rd century, then split into two parts, then were invaded by the Visigoths who sacked Rome in 410 AD.  

He then presents a compelling historical correlation with Mesoamerican events:

“Well, what we happen to know is that at the time period where the Book of Mormon is going to end, uh, we have a very powerful citystate of Tatiwakan in central Mexico. We have very large city states in Guatemala. One of the major ones being Tekal. Teal is in Guatemala, south of the ismas of Tuantipek, the narrow neck of land. Mexico City, north of, right? Who's sitting across that narrow neck of land? Who's in between those two people? Nephites.”

We haven’t even discussed the problems with this version of “the narrow neck of land,” which requires some imaginative reframing of the text.

Brant Gardner references a key archaeological discovery:

“And now I don't remember how long ago it is. Probably 20 years, less than 20... they found a stella that says that Khan uh invaded and basically took over Tikall in 378 AD. 378 AD. Wow. That's a date that seems to resonate with the Book of Mormon.”

He explains the likely geopolitical and economic motivations:

“And what happens is you now have this very powerful uh citystate in the north wanting to create trade relations with the South. and you have a potentially hostile uh group that doesn't believe in the gods or whatever sitting right on the trade route where they have a chance to throttle it. Wars of extermination are expensive. They're expensive in people and time and money and you just don't do that unless you have a good economic reason and to establish and protect that trade route now that they have that ti has come down. That's now a good reason to do it.”

Instead of staying with the explanation in the text, that the people were wicked and bloodthirsty, Brant changes the narrative to an economic dispute. This modification of the text teaches a much different lesson than Mormon had in mind. Perhaps now we should oppose tariffs because that’s what caused the final battles instead of iniquity?

Brant Gardner connects this to the text’s terminology:

“And I believe that Mormon points Gadant towards the north in ways that I really think he's pointing it directly and pointedly uh at Teatiwakan. Now, Teatiwakan is an Aztec word. It's after it's a post post Book of Mormon name that's been applied. It's a post Book of Mormon name. We don't know what they called themselves. So we call it we don't know what they called themselves. We're not even 100% certain that we know their language... but I think Mormon calls them gadons.”

The M2C panel wants us to reject the prophets about Cumorah but accept Brant’s musings such as this?

He describes how recognizable these invaders would have been:

“Well, the takam were the consmate warriors of the time. They were the people that were dominating everything. And they had very distinctive uniforms, if you will. You could, you know, when you see the art, you see, yeah, that's Sati Wakano. You know, that's one of those warriors. So, yeah, of course, they recognize them.”

Brant Gardner highlights Mormon’s own statement about who ultimately destroyed the Nephites:

“What does Mormon say about who is responsible for ending the Nephites? not the Lamanites. He says, ‘In the end of this book, not the book of Helaman, but the end of this book that I'm writing, you will see that it was the Gadant that destroyed us.’ Well, I think if he was pointing to Teot Wakan, he would see absolutely right. Wow.”

The lesson Mormon teaches about the Gadiantons is their iniquity, not their trade disputes.

He concludes this section powerfully:

“Now, that tells us why, when, and you know, in in that location, specifically that location, at that time period, these conditions were the reason why the Book of Mormon ended. find that anywhere in North America. [laughter]”

Why would we look for trade disputes as the cause of the war when the text tells us exactly why there was the war?

This correlation — powerful northern empire expanding trade routes through the narrow neck, clashing with a group (the Nephites) sitting in the middle — provides a coherent historical explanation that fits both the text and the archaeological record of the period.

 

 

Chapter 10: Brant’s Testimony & Works

Host: Shifts the conversation from scholarly analysis to personal belief, asking a heartfelt question about the foundation of Brant Gardner’s faith.

“Brent, what about your testimony? Why do you believe in the Book of Mormon? Is it because of archaeology in Meso America?”

Brant Gardner: Responds thoughtfully, making a clear distinction between intellectual evidence and spiritual conviction.

“You know, that's a really hard one to answer. Do I believe that the New Testament was a real book? Because I because it fits in the culture. Well, yeah, kind of. [laughter] Yeah, that's that's part of it. Now, do I think that because I think it's a real book that happened at a real point in time with real people that I don't get anything spiritual out of it? No, no, that's that's not it at all.”

He explains how the historical and cultural fit enhances, rather than replaces, his testimony:

“So, yeah, I I certainly think that putting the Book of Mormon in a real place enriches my testimony that I already had. Um I I think there's so many things in the Book of Mormon that it teaches us about how to live. uh you know what kinds of things to to understand about faith um you know those things are are really important [snorts] but yeah I think it's a real book um and that strengthens my testimony of Joseph Smith where I know that he didn't make it up you know I mean there are any number of reasons why I could say you know as a scholar I could decide that maybe I don't have to believe what the church says because you know it scholars might not want to do said, ‘I can't get around the Book of Mormon. I I can't.’ That is a real book. It really happened. Everything I know about the ancient world, about how they wrote, what they wrote, uh how it fits into the time periods and the location, I can't get around it. You know, I cannot say I would leave the church for any reason because dog gone it, that Book of Mormon, it just draws me back in. It says, ‘Yep, that's a real book. That means that Joseph Smith was a prophet.’ Joseph Smith was a prophet and speaking for God.”

Host: Recognizes the power of Gardner’s testimony and connects it to a well-known talk.

“Sounds like you've been listening to Elder Holland. I remember his famous talk about how if you're going to leave the church, you have to do it crawling over or under around the Book of Mormon. And I'm right there with him.”

Host: Closes the interview by recommending Gardner’s work.

“Well, Brent, thank you so much for sharing all your knowledge with us. Clearly, there's a lot more we could be discussing and go into, and so we'll have to do another episode where we go into more detail at some other point. Um, this is a big debate, though. So if you want to learn more about the specifics of like geography or heartland versus meamerica, Brent Gardner recently published a series of articles with the interpreterfoundation.org called Heartland versus Meso America and it goes through all sorts of different points. You can learn a lot from those articles. We highly recommend you check them out and we will see you next time.”

Host (closing remarks):

“Hey guys, if you enjoyed this discussion with Brandt Gardner, then we thought you'd be interested to know about his brand new book, The Record and the Reading: Explorations in Book of Mormon Authenticity, recently published by Fair. This book is kind of a greatest hits of his last 25 years of presenting and publishing on the Book of Mormon, and it also includes some previously unpublished material. It's available on Amazon and in the fair bookstore...

And if you use the discount code informed15, you can get 15% off. So go check it out and we hope you have a nice day.”