Easter video

Here's one that deserves more views:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8gWGbjUZOw

The FAITH model and more Dartmouth

The FAITH model of analysis (Facts, Assumptions, Inferences, Theories and Hypotheses) works in most fields of research, debate, conversation, etc., including apologetics. It's an ideal way to avoid contention in the pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding. Once we separate facts from the other elements of a hypothesis, we can all see why we have different views and we can understand one another clearly, all in the spirit of charity. 

The FAITH model eliminates the compulsion to contend. We can achieve "no more contention."

I posted an example on my apologetics blog, here:

https://ldsapologists.blogspot.com/2026/04/multiple-working-hypotheses-at-work.html

_____

Given the topic of this blog, we can see how people derive a variety of hypotheses about the setting of the Book of Mormon. I call these "multiple working hypotheses."

Every one of them starts with the identical facts, in this case the text of the Book of Mormon.

Then people make assumptions and inferences about the text that are consistent with their respective theories. On this blog we've given lots of examples.

Here are two main ones. 

1. Cumorah. 

Facts. We can all read what the text says about Cumorah/Ramah. Those passages are a fact. We can also all agree that Oliver Cowdery declared it is a fact that the hill Cumorah in western New York where Joseph got the plates is the identical hill Cumorah/Ramah mentioned in the text.

Assumptions. Some Latter-day Saints assume Oliver told the truth. Others (such as M2Cers) assume he did not. 

Inferences. Some Latter-day Saints infer that Oliver knew it was a fact because he had visited the repository in the hill (as Brigham Young explained), because he interacted with one or more of the 3 Nephites, or for other reasons. Others infer that Oliver had no reason to make his declaration and thus infer he spoke from pure speculation.

You can see how these elements lead to multiple working hypotheses.

2. Narrow neck. We can all read the text. Some Latter-day Saints assume that there is one "narrow neck" described by three different terms: "narrow neck," "small neck of land" "narrow neck of land." Other Latter-day Saints assume that different terms refer to different things. Those assumptions drive the multiple working hypotheses we all see.

All the other debates/discussions/interpretations of the text follow the same type of analysis.

When we apply the FAITH model it is easy to separate facts from assumptions, inferences, etc.

_____

Speaking of the FAITH model, the Dartmouth topic generated some excellent work by Stephen Kent Ehat, which I posted here:

https://www.mobom.org/dartmouth-collection-stephen-ehat

For background on the Dartmouth topic, see 

https://www.mobom.org/dartmouth-college-and-moors-school

Baja and Dartmouth

Recently the theoretical Baja setting for the Book of Mormon has attracted attention on the Stick of Joseph channel, where it is characterized as a "NEW THEORY on Book of Mormon Geography."

The Baja theory has been around for a long time. I discussed it 10 years ago on this and other blogs. 

Here's the link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIeBFtP7XZA&t=5238s

The Baja theory website: https://achoiceland.com/

I welcome multiple working hypotheses, pending more information, and these are great guys, faithful Latter-day Saints who have put a lot of time and effort into their Baja theory. 

However, we have to all understand the underlying premises.

Like M2C, the Baja theory (B2C) rejects what the prophets have taught about the New York Cumorah. Specifically, they reject what Oliver Cowdery explained in Letters IV, VII, and VIII. For more on that, see https://www.lettervii.com/2023/02/the-cumorah-issue-is-simple.html.

In one of my posts 10 years ago I commented on the Baja theory, although they had a different website then that I referenced: https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2016/05/why-abstract-models-don-can.html

After observing the Baja and other theories, I posted comments about how it is easy to create a setting for the Book of Mormon anywhere in the world. Once we repudiate the New York Cumorah, any location in the world is a viable candidate. Or even an imaginary world such as the BYU map. 

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2018/01/getting-real-about-cumorah-part-2.html

All you have to do is:

1) reject the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah

2) establish assumptions and inferences that support the setting you want to promote.

Ten years ago I also commented in the logic of rejecting what Oliver said about Cumorah.

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2016/11/distinguishing-between-anti-mormon-and.html

_____

Dartmouth. I recently posted comments about the theory that, when Joseph was around 8-11 years old, he learned Hebrew literary styles and sophisticated Christian theology from his brother Hyrum, who had attended a boy's charity school located on the campus of Dartmouth college. 

I forgot to mention that the original attendance records are available for anyone to see here:

https://www.mobom.org/dartmouth-college-and-moors-school

Recent claims about chiasmus

The story of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon is well known by most people who study the Book of Mormon, including both believers and critics.

For a summary, see the articles here:

https://scripturecentral.org/search?q=chiasmus

Critics have a variety of responses, but one of the most creative is being promoted by Randy Bell. 

Randy is known for his obsession with Hyrum Smith's alleged connection with Dartmouth. Lately he has extended his Dartmouth conspiracy theory to include chiasmus.

He finally found a podcaster to promote his bizarre claims about Dartmouth, hyped by click-bait.  

Although he was not on Mormon Stories, I commented on the podcast here:

https://mormonstoriesreviewed.blogspot.com/2026/03/randy-bells-delusional-dartmouth.html

Even more interesting than Randy's conspiracy theory is the psychology that drives people to develop such theories. That might make for an interesting topic some day.

Alma 24:7-10

Jonah Barnes pointed out something in Alma 24:7-10 on Ward Radio.

https://youtu.be/eVsplMUutsA?t=1709

if you look in verse uh seven, okay, it says and and you can apply this to

27:44

that. I thank my God that God in his goodness has sent us our brethren to preach to us to convince us of the

27:51

traditions of our wicked fathers. If you believe in the Mesoamerican model, you

27:56

can repent. There's forgiveness for you. Okay? You can repent of that wicked

28:04

tradition of your father.  And look, it says, "We might repent of the

28:10

of these things, these wicked traditions, and be forgiven of the many sins that we've committed."

28:16

See, look at this. And we can come into the fold of the Heartlanders. This is so great. It's so meta, right? It's so meta

28:23

that Mormon foresaw the skepticism of those of those guys and he knew it was

28:29

coming and he prepared this version just for just for y'all. So, you can repent of that. 

:)

Back when I believed M2C

I empathize with BYU students, institute and seminary students, and everyone who was taught the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory (M2C) because I, too, used to believe all of that when I was a student.

I didn't know there were any other scenarios.

It was many years before I even heard of an alternative.

Now, in our day, the people who taught M2C and their followers all know about the alternative interpretations of the text that are faithful to what Joseph and Oliver taught all along. But few of them tell their students, readers, and listeners about the alternatives to M2C.

They should do so.

This all reminds me of a famous statement:

“One of the bittersweet things about growing old is realizing how mistaken you were when you were young. As a young political leftist, I saw the left as the voice of the common man. Nothing could be further from the truth.” — Thomas Sowell

More SITH stories and the end of M2C

More and more Latter-day Saints are discovering that the historical evidence corroborates and supports what Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery claimed about the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon.

We empathize with the scholars who have long promoted their theories that Joseph and Oliver misled everyone. Their M2C (Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs) theory is based on the premise that they were wrong about the New York Cumorah. Their SITH (stone-in-the-hat) theory is based on the premise that Joseph didn't really translate the engravings on the plates by means of the Urim and Thummim that came with the plates, as he said, but instead read words out loud as they appeared on a seer stone (aka the "peep stone") that he put into a hat, as described in the 1834 anti-Mormon book Mormonism Unvailed. See, e.g., https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/p/the-sith-problem-1829-2024.html,

M2C. Oliver explained it is a fact that the hill Cumorah/Ramah in New York is the same hill where Joseph found the plates. He had good reasons to make that declaration, which Joseph endorsed multiple times. Once we understand that Joseph translated two separate sets of plates, we can see how the historical evidence validates what Joseph and Oliver taught. 

I did another interview about the two sets of plates on Mormon Book Reviews, here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bCVFCOVdfg

_____

SITH. Royal Skousen's claim that Joseph and Oliver deliberately misled everyone about the translation has been embraced by several prominent LDS scholars and organizations. For example, recently the Interpreter published two articles in their ongoing effort to promote SITH. They were written by Jeff Lindsay, who is a great guy but whose SITH filters, along with the SITH filters of the editorial board of the Interpreter, prevent them from seeing that the evidence they cite for SITH is actually evidence that Joseph and Oliver told the truth about the translation of the Book of Mormon.

I discussed the articles here:

https://interpreterpeerreviews.blogspot.com/2026/02/jeff-lindsays-moses-parallels.html

In a separate post, I introduced the topic:

https://interpreterpeerreviews.blogspot.com/2026/02/explanation-of-post-on-jeff-lindsays.html

Thursday, February 12, 2026

Explanation of post on Jeff Lindsay's Moses article

 

To understand Jeff's argument in the articles discussed in my previous two posts, it helps to understand his underlying framework.  

Jeff is an acolyte of Royal Skousen and Skousen's argument that Joseph and Oliver were misleading everyone when they repeatedly wrote that the Book of Mormon was translated by means of the Nephite interpreters which came with the plates. Instead Jeff and Royal believe David Whitmer's claims that Joseph only read off exact words from Joseph's old scrying stone in a hat (SITH = stone-in-the-hat) - with Royal's further claim that much of that was for some reason in Early Modern English (EME). This was the claim made in the 1834 anti-Mormon book Mormonism Unvailed, presented there as an alternative to the Urim and Thummim explanation that Joseph and Oliver gave.

Jeff, Royal, and other modern LDS scholars who promote SITH have adopted the Mormonism Unvailed "peep stone" narrative based on their belief that Joseph and Oliver were not telling the truth about the translation.

I have discussed the many problems with these views elsewhere.  The only alternate theory Jeff considers is that Joseph was the sole author of both the Book of Mormon and the Book of Moses with only the KJV as an external source.  Any similarity between the Book of Mormon and the Book of Moses not exactly as found in the KJV is then ascribed to them both being from a common ancient source such as the brass plates. 

The immediate obvious problem is that this assumes that in the year between the translation of the two books Joseph forgot everything in the Book of Mormon and never read it either.  This appears ridiculous on its face, even if one believes Joseph only saw the text once on the scrying stone.

The larger problem is that Jeff ignores a much better alternate hypothesis.  This is that Joseph told the truth that he actually translated the "engravings on the plates" (D&C 10) to produce the Book of Mormon "after the manner of [his] language" (D&C 1:24) and thus both works reflected Joseph's own vocabulary and phrasing.  In the tables in the posts I showed that most of Jeff's "parallels" actually reflect language that either actually is in the KJV, is seen in parts of the Book of Mormon unrelated to the Book of Moses story, used by Joseph in D&C revelations or is found in contemporary sources accessible to Joseph such as the writings of Jonathan Edwards.  

Now it is possible that the Book of Moses was on the brass plates and known to the Book of Mormon authors.  As I pointed out, Moroni alluded to that.

A few of Jeff (and Noel Reynold's) parallels may suggest that this is the case.  

However, Jeff obscures this possibility by way overstating his argument and ignoring a better alternate explanation of Joseph as active translator.  While I appreciate Jeff's apologetic motive, it is no service to that cause to build an argument on runaway parallelomania and ignoring better explanations because they challenge his biases.

And, as usual, readers of the Interpreter will never learn about this alternative explanation that supports and corroborates what Joseph and Oliver claimed because the editorial position of the Interpreter uniformly promotes SITH.