Like Shiz, M2C seems to be making a last gasp effort to stay relevant.
The usual suspects who promote M2C are at it again. The Interpreter has published Brant Gardner's 13-part series. Dan Peterson has promoted it. Meridian Magazine has republished it. FAIR LDS will probably incorporate it somehow, along with the other M2Cers.
Nevertheless, I'm optimistic that things are changing.
Dan Peterson even expressed some openness about the topic.
Maybe the day will come when the Interpreter will (i) host a 13-part article that explains the Heartland position and (ii) allow a Heartlander to control the comments and editorial response.
Does that sound likely?
We all know it will never happen.
Which tells us all we need to know about the ongoing viability of M2C.
_____
Brant's series has generated a bit of earnest discussion about M2C. Brant deserves a lot of credit for publishing that series, which was probably about as good a defense of M2C as anyone has produced. But as usual, Brant avoided the core issues and resorted to mingling facts with his assumptions, inferences and theories to produce his overall hypothesis.
Some people apparently don't realize these debates have been going on for over 100 years. With some people, the topic generates contention, which is both foolish and unproductive. Church leaders have been wise to avoid the topic ever since it became contentious.
Arguments about this topic (like most arguments) arise from insecurity. Some people need others to agree with them as a sort of social proof; i.e., because they don't trust their own choices, they need others to validate their choices by agreeing with them. That creates the compulsion to convince or persuade, which leads to contention and all that follows.
A better course that leads to "no more contention" is the pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding. This both eliminates any compulsion to convince or persuade and enlightens everyone about how people think and view the world.
That's the spirit in which this post is written. We assume everyone is acting in good faith. We encourage people to understand one another, recognizing there are multiple working hypotheses.
The difficult element is that of clarity.
_____
It's a very simple debate, really.
We can all see the actual facts. We all agree on the facts. And we can all see the ensuing assumptions about those facts. These assumptions constitute a bias that people then seek to confirm.
For example, everyone (M2Cers, critics, Heartlanders, and everyone else) agrees on the fact that Oliver Cowdery wrote that it is a fact that the hill in New York where Joseph found the plates is the very Hill Cumorah/Ramah described in the Book of Mormon. That fact is not in question.
Where people diverge is with their assumptions about that fact. People assume either that Oliver was correct or that Oliver was wrong.
 |
| (click to enlarge) |
One of the first problems with Brant's analysis is that he glides over the fundamental difference between the M2Cers and the Heartlanders. He jumps ahead to his interpretations of the text and what he considers extrinsic evidence that supports those interpretations. That is, he seeks to justify his assumption that Oliver was wrong.
This is problematic because every one of Brant's interpretations of the text relies on assumptions and inferences. None of those interpretations are facts. This is true of every interpretation of the text, of course, but this basic reality is at the core of the debates.
When people such as Brant are so fixated on their own interpretations, they are blind to the reality that they are engaging in bias confirmation. But it's obvious to everyone who does not share his bias.
The same is true of Heartlanders, of course, as well as critics.
Naturally, everyone seeks to confirm their biases. Otherwise they would change their biases. Actually, many people do change their biases. This happens when people are able to overcome the psychologically powerful confirmation bias so they can consider and evaluate evidence in a new way. People can "reframe" the evidence to reach entirely different conclusions. In a missionary context, we call that "conversion."
Having been an M2Cer for decades, I realize this may not be an easy or immediate process. Lots of former M2Cers have followed the same process I have. And no doubt there are some who have shifted toward M2C after being Heartlanders. That's all part of the process.
But it is essential to realize that people who have different assumptions and inferences end up creating different theories and hypotheses. This is axiomatic. There is nothing complicated about this.
What remains complicated, for many people, is clarity.
_____
Brant's series demonstrates both (i) the advantages of the FAITH model of analysis and (ii) the reasons why M2Cers (and SITH sayers) refuse to employ it.
Everyone interested in the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon wants to see all the facts laid out, separate from the various assumptions, inferences, and theories. The FAITH model enables everyone to understand the ancestry of the various models. It enables people to make informed decisions.
But M2Cers refuse to employ this model. And they don't want anyone else to, either. Which is why they oppose posts such as this:
https://www.lettervii.com/p/oliver-was-truthful-except.html
_____
As we always say, people can believe whatever they want.
And we are fine with multiple working hypotheses.
But we encourage people to make informed decisions, and Brant (and the other M2Cers) provided more heat than light because they consistently refuse to allow other interpretations to surface.
Think of this debate from the perspective of an outside observer. What academic (or other) organization would even dream up a process that purports to be academic, analytical and objective by which the author of an article in an online journal is also the webmaster who controls the comments that are allowed on that journal?
It is a patently ridiculous process that demonstrates the intensity of the bias confirmation underway at the Interpreter, Meridian Magazine, etc.
But as I said at the outset, maybe that is changing.
What do you think?
_____
_____
A few scriptures come to mind.
Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. (2 Timothy 3:7)
22 ¶ Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars’ hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.
23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, To the Unknown God. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. (Acts 17:22–23)
a scene of great confusion and bad feeling ensued—priest contending against priest, and convert against convert; so that all their good feelings one for another, if they ever had any, were entirely lost in a strife of words and a contest about opinions. (Joseph Smith—History 1:6)
It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.
10 And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full.
11 And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; (Alma 12:9–11)
.jpg)
