Monday, June 27, 2022

Under the Banner of the Interpreter, episode 1

Under the Banner of the Interpreter
As expected, Dan "the Interpreter" Peterson published a review of Infinite Goodness last Friday under the banner of the Interpreter.

[I don't know whether they will also publish a review of my book Between these Hills: a case for the New York Cumorah (although they should).]

It's fitting that these reviews were published "Under the Banner of the Interpreter" during June 2022, the month when the final episode of FX's Under the Banner of Heaven first aired.* 

The Interpreter has again revealed itself as the self-appointed arbiter of permissible thought that it has been since its inception.


With these two reviews, we've now come full circle with the Interpreter, as I'll explain below after my introduction to this series of discussions about LDS apologetics. 

As always, this post is subject to revision pending better information and ideas.


In all my writings, building Zion is my primary interest. 

There are many ways to accomplish this. For example, yesterday I participated in an awesome zoom training with President Brian K. Ashton of BYU Pathway Worldwide. He emphasized that the Pathway program is an important part of building Zion. 

He quoted this passage, with which I completely agree: 

If we would establish Zion in our homes, branches, wards, and stakes, we must rise to this standard. It will be necessary (1) to become unified in one heart and one mind; (2) to become, individually and collectively, a holy people; and (3) to care for the poor and needy with such effectiveness that we eliminate poverty among us. We cannot wait until Zion comes for these things to happen—Zion will come only as they happen.

(2008, October, D. Todd Christofferson, ‘Come to Zion,’ Ensign, November 2008, ¶ 18)

My wife and I are Pathway missionaries. We conduct weekly gatherings and we train Pathway missionaries throughout South America (except Brazil). Separately we teach Institute classes on zoom, serve in our ward and stake callings, etc.

Another important aspect of building Zion is becoming unified in one heart and one mind. How can we do that when there are so many different beliefs and backgrounds, even among faithful Latter-day Saints?

President Dallin H. Oaks has explained that "we seek unity in diversity." Elder Quentin L. Cook taught "With our all-inclusive doctrine, we can be an oasis of unity and celebrate diversity. Unity and diversity are not opposites. We can achieve greater unity as we foster an atmosphere of inclusion and respect for diversity." 

Such unity flourishes when people who have a diversity of views and backgrounds unite through mutual respect and even enjoyment of alternative perspectives while pursuing a common goal--the establishment of Zion. I feature aspects of this on my HowToZion blog.

Unity comes from seeking to understand and exchange views instead of insisting on compliance with someone's particular interpretation of history and doctrine. For that reason, I encourage people to consider a wide range of views--multiple working hypotheses--including those published by the citation cartel. As I've said, around 80% of what the cartel publishes is great. Even the Interpreter sometimes publishes good work.

I'm happy for people to believe whatever they want. I trust people to make the best decisions for themselves when they have "good information."

In my experience, most Latter-day Saints--actually, most people everywhere of whatever religious persuasion--feel the same way. While confirmation bias is a ubiquitous obstacle to achieving unity of belief, it doesn't prevent people from allowing others to think whatever they want without feeling compelled to demand compliance with their own beliefs.

After all, it's one of our articles of faith: "11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

The exceptions arise when motivated reasoning sets in. 

In the arena of politics, we see tremendous efforts to create narratives to elicit support for one political agenda or another. Businesses use advertising to tout the benefits of their products and services compared with the competition.

In the context of the Restoration, we have critics who are highly motivated to reject the truth claims for various reasons. But we also have intellectuals who are highly motivated to defend their own theories and agendas, particularly when they are reinforced by insular groupthink.

That's inimical to both the 11th Article of Faith and the establishment of Zion.


By assuming for themselves the title and role of "the Interpreter," the intellectuals in the Interpreter Foundation have formally declared their opposition to the very concept of "unity in diversity." 

That said, we can't fault them for their sincerity. Some of them I've met, others I haven't, but I assume they are all awesome, faithful, devoted Latter-day Saint who want to help build Zion. 

I just disagree with their approach, which in my opinion is counterproductive. Instead of strident advocacy, they could hosts respectful exchanges among faithful Latter-day Saints who have a variety of interpretations. That would be a valuable service that would contribute to unity in diversity.

But they won't.  


Here's what I mean about coming full circle. It was the work of certain LDS apologists involved with these articles that led me to embark on a detailed study of Church history and Book of Mormon historicity. While I thought they made some good points worthy of consideration and discussion, I was appalled at both the tone and content of their publications. 

Most disturbing was the way their work led people I know to question their faith and, in some cases, leave the Church. 

A surprising aspect of the work of these apologists was (and remains) how they agree with the harshest critics; i.e., that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery misled everyone about the New York Cumorah and the translation of the Book of Mormon.

Thus, we have both John Dehlin (Mormon Stories) and the Interpreter agreeing that Joseph never really translated anything and never even used the plates or the Nephite interpreters that came with the plates.  

I thought there must be a better path through the thickets of controversy, with clearer, more rational reconciliation of what appeared to be inconsistencies in the historical record. 

Soon enough, I found what, for me, was a much better path than the one the apologists and critics shared. I wrote my first book about it, titled The Lost City of Zarahemla. The apologists, particularly those at the Interpreter, objected vociferously. And they still do, as we've seen in the last two weeks.

Which is fine. I'm happy to have a discussion and exchange of views with just about anyone. As I frequently reiterate, I favor the presentation and consideration of multiple working hypotheses.

But the "credentialed class" at the Interpreter don't. They claim, like the Lafferty brothers, to be doing the work of God by exterminating what they perceive to be threats to their agenda.


As I mentioned above, we have the prevailing narrative from both the Interpreter and Mormon Stories that Joseph and Oliver misled everyone about the New York Cumorah and the translation of the Book of Mormon. 

I disagree with the prevailing narrative because I believe Joseph and Oliver both told the truth and that the historical record, as well as extrinsic evidence, corroborates what they taught.

I'm fine with people disagreeing with me; after all, I'm not trying to persuade anyone. I just share what I've found because people ask me about these things all the time. I eagerly embrace better information and explanations whenever I encounter them. 

A healthy market for ideas depends on competition. I emphatically favor the idea of multiple working hypotheses. As a starting point, everyone should be able to agree on the basic facts. Based on any given set of facts, however, people have various assumptions, inferences, theories, and hypotheses (the FAITH model). When the alternatives are laid out for everyone to see, people can intelligently and fairly choose among them, or offer yet another alternative.

As President Nelson taught, "Good inspiration is based upon good information." People can only make informed decision when they have good information. This is why I object only to censorship and other efforts to control narratives by depriving people of the ability to make informed decisions.

It's on that basis, and that basis alone, that I object to the citation cartel, including the self-appointed "experts" at the Interpreter.


It was a decade ago this month when Dan Peterson was dismissed as editor of Mormon Studies Review, then published by the Maxwell Institute.

His colleague, William Hamblin, who was deeply offended by the action, explained:

I note, for the record, that none of the editors except Dan has had any direct communication with Bradford about this decision.  They were never informed that they have been dismissed.  Indeed, Lou Midgley is out of the country on vacation, and does not have internet access, and has no idea what’s going on.  Even if this change is a good idea, treating people this way, after years of service, is simply shameful.

Gregory L. Smith, whose draft article about John Dehlin and Mormon Stories apparently was a major factor in Peterson's dismissal, later published his version of the events in the Interpreter. In that account, he described the tactics employed by Dehlin. 

Not knowing either individual personally, I assume Dehlin is well-intentioned from his perspective, the same way I assume Smith is well-intentioned from his perspective. That's not to say I consider them equivalent; I'm far more aligned with Smith than with Dehlin, based on Smith's analysis of Mormon Stories that was withheld from publication. It makes a lot of good points and holds up pretty well. 

In my view, however, Smith has assumed a role as a "defender of the faith" that leads to friendly fire.

Looking back over the ensuring decade, Smith's explanation of what happened served instead as a roadmap for the editorial course of the Interpreter

In the following quotation from his article, I've substituted some of the names to show how he set out the agenda.

Mormon Stories’ [the Interpreter's] need for a foil against which to define itself, however, can be amply filled by a subgroup within Mormonism—the apologists [Heartlanders] for whom Dehlin Smith makes his disdain so clear.20 Those who support the Church and offer substantive disagreement with Dehlin’s [the Interpreter's] claims can play the oppositional role for Mormon Stories [the Interpreter], many of whose sympathizers are certainly engaged in a disturbing period of change as they navigate their own individual crises of faith. Marginalizing those who differ also protects Dehlin’s [the Interpreter's] narrative from challenge. Silencing members of the putative opposition is not just excusable by Dehlin’s [the Interpreter's] account, but sometimes good and noble.21

Such tactics are hardly unique to Mormon Stories [the Interpreter]. Sociologists have long described “cult awareness groups” and their tactics. Such groups can be either sectarian or secularist, and aim—as Mormon Stories [the Interpreter] does—to align themselves in the public mind with science, reason, rationality, and socially approved views. They attempt to shape the public discussion and narrative surrounding a religious group and its views, and so prefer to silence or discredit any who differ with their portrayal.

Readers can review Smith's article to see for themselves how well the Interpreter has followed his roadmap. 

For the Interpreter and its affiliates in the citation cartel (Book of Mormon Central, FAIRLDS, etc.), the target "subgroup within Mormonism" consists of faithful Latter-day Saints who still believe what the prophets have taught about the New York Cumorah and the translation of the Book of Mormon. They portray this subgroup of "Heartlanders" as delusional, ignorant, and even apostate, and they assiduously "prefer to silence or discredit any who differ with their portrayal" of this subgroup of faithful Latter-day Saints. 

In additional excerpt, Smith complains about Dehlin's attacks on "Mormon apologists" including himself, Dan Peterson, and other followers whom Dan took with him to the Interpreter. In so doing, however, Smith acknowledged that Dehlin's point was valid--that "mean-spirited or ad hominem-laden review is clear an ill"--albeit inadequately demonstrated. 

In the same vein, Dehlin repeatedly attacks Mormon apologists—his oppositional foil—for being mean-spirited, nasty, and engaging in ad hominem. Writing a mean-spirited or ad hominem-laden review is clearly an ill—to society and scholarship generally, and particularly within the micro-society of the Saints. Some apologists somewhere have likely done so. But, if it is pervasive, institutionalized, or systemic, this must be demonstrated, not just asserted. My review ought not to be condemned simply by association, even though such condemnation may prove convenient to those being reviewed.

In the ensuing decade, however, the Interpreter has demonstrated exactly what Smith claimed would be "clearly an ill."

Smith claimed that "the evils of defamation, nastiness, ad hominem, and the rest are not nearly as widespread in Mormon apologetics as Dehlin’s narrative implies and requires."

Yet it was actually Gregory Smith's own "mean-spirited, ad hominem-laden review" that prompted me to start looking into the work of the M2C apologists in the first place.

BMAF logo depicting M2C

Smith published an article in the FARMS Review in 2010, which is now found on the infamous site. [Note that BMAF is the corporate owner of Book of Mormon Central, another example of the Potemkin village nature of the citation cartel.]

The title of Smith's article exemplifies his approach: 

"Often in Error, Seldom in Doubt: Rod Meldrum and Book of Mormon DNA"

While I hardly recommend the article, if you're interested in seeing his tone and approach you can read it here:

Thus, we don't have to condemn Smith's review "simply by association." We can read his work for ourselves.


In his article about Mormon Stories, Smith wrote something that I completely agree with:

My working assumption has been that readers’ judgment about Mormon Stories—or any topic—will be more nuanced when they have accurate information which they can verify for themselves.

Neither Smith nor the Interpreter (nor the rest of the citation cartel) embraces this "working assumption" in practice. 

Not to belabor the point, but the name of the journal speaks for itself: the Interpreter. Readers of the Interpreter have long been conditioned to defer to the "experts" and the credentialed class. 

If you've a regular or even occasional reader of the Interpreter, ask yourself why you've never read an article making a case for the New York Cumorah. Ask why you've never read an article making a case for Joseph Smith as the actual translator of the plates, or making a case that Joseph did actually use the Nephite interpreters and not the stone he found in a well.

Maybe I'm wrong about this. I don't read everything published by the Interpreter. As I've shown in my blog InterpreterPeerReviews, much of the work they publish is a waste of time. 

If the Interpreter has published articles that make a case for the New York Cumorah and/or the translation of the plates with the Nephite interpreters, someone send me a link. I'll happily edit this post accordingly.


In the decade since Dan Peterson took those who followed him and started the Interpreter, and in the five year since Gregory Smith published his "Review of 'Mormon Stories,'" what has happened to LDS apologetics?

That will be the topic of episode 2 in Under the Banner of the Interpreter.


*NOTE: the phrase "under the banner of heaven" was attributed to John Taylor by the Salt Lake Tribune, but that may have been a paraphrase because the phrase does not appear in the Journal of Discourses.  See


Continuing the Interpreter peer review

I've heard from lots of people who want me to continue my peer review of the latest Interpreter articles. Several have sent suggestions, etc. 

Because the Interpreter is well known and because they would never publish my response, I'll work on my review as I have the opportunity. I'll post it on the InterpreterPeerReviews blog:

When I update or expand the peer reviews I'll announce it here.

Because these articles open the door to a serious discussion about the state of LDS apologetics and the totalitarian approach taken by the citation cartel, I'll post a few episodes of what I call Under the Banner of the Interpreter so we can look at the issues and offer a better solution.

Thursday, June 23, 2022

Interpreting the Interpreter

Last week Dan "the Interpreter" Peterson directed his blog readers to an article in his Interpreter journal that purports to review my popular book, A Man that Can Translate

I was happy to see the Interpreter publish this review for several reasons. Even better, they plan to publish a second review, perhaps as soon as tomorrow, this time of Infinite Goodness.

We welcome their interest and attention. I don't mind criticism and analysis; I welcome it. I'm a truth seeker who doesn't defer to the opinions of academics, partly because I'm not an academic with a long record to defend at all costs, nor a student who seeks to defend his mentors, nor a member of the citation cartel eager to please or at least support my peers. I'm willing and eager to change my mind about anything once I find better information and interpretations. 

I'm just a faithful Latter-day Saint who is interested in these topics and who finds the apologetics emanating from the Interpreter and the rest of the citation cartel unpersuasive. 

Particularly when alternative interpretations make more sense to me.


Readers of this blog know that I find the very name "Interpreter" ridiculous as applied to an academic journal. It doesn't matter whether it's a reference to the actual Nephite interpreters, or merely a declaration that the "credentialed class" of the intellectuals who run the Interpreter Foundation assert the authority to "interpret" Church history and scripture for the rest of us. Either way, they enforce their "interpretations" through peer approved articles that tell everyone what to think, with allowance for some variation only within the narrow boundary of M2C and SITH, and usually featuring the rhetorical apologetic style Dan made famous.  

Again, I thank Dan, the Interpreter, and the various critics who take the time to read this little blog and my books and articles. I'm optimistic that the day will come when they and the rest of the citation cartel will recognize that (i) there are multiple faithful working hypotheses based on the same facts, (ii) most people in and out of the Church don't find your style of apologetics interesting, useful or attractive, and (iii) we can all work together to build Zion with faith in Christ regardless of differences of opinions.

Someday, the citation cartel may come to embrace the concept of unity through diversity. 


Naturally, the review takes a critical position, predictably framing my book as "unfortunate." And that's fine, even great, because that's what Interpreter readers expect. But at least Interpreter readers will see that there exists an alternative faithful interpretation of Church history that supports what Joseph and Oliver always said.

Readers of the Interpreter are rarely exposed to anything that challenges M2C or SITH. Like the rest of the citation cartel, the Interpreter enforces adherence to the M2C and SITH dogmas.

My position that Joseph actually translated the plates, and that he used the Nephite interpreters to do so, may shock readers of the Interpreter. They have been indoctrinated into accepting M2C and SITH, two theories which lead inevitably to this classic claim published in the Interpreter by Royal Skousen:

“Joseph Smith’s claim that he used the Urim and Thummim is only partially true; and Oliver Cowdery’s statements that Joseph used the original instrument while he, Oliver, was the scribe appear to be intentionally misleading.”

That is what passes for the scholarly "consensus" at the Interpreter and the rest of the citation cartel.

Because I disagree with Brother Skousen and instead advocate in favor of the traditional fact claims made by Joseph and Oliver, the Interpreter labels my position "historical revisionism." This is a clever reversal of history, as you'll see if you read the article (link below). 

According to the Interpreter, because I still believe Joseph translated the plates, I'm the one who "fails to deal with the historical record seriously or faithfully." It's awesome. In a sense, I love the predictability of the Interpreter

As readers of this blog know, I'm just an old retired artist living on the Oregon coast. I'd rather be fishing, kayaking, playing golf or tennis, biking, painting, reading, teaching my Institute or Pathway classes, ministering and serving in my callings, or doing anything other than doing a peer review of yet another Interpreter article. Particularly one full of the type of logical and factual fallacies typical of Interpreter articles.

However, people have asked me about it, and I suppose I owe it to readers to comment.

The author, unsurprisingly an earnest student and researcher for Book of Mormon Central which also enforces M2C and SITH, spent a lot of time on his article. 

I respect his time and effort. He merits some feedback, so I started a peer review of the article. You can read it here:

If enough people are interested, I'll wade through the rest of his review and comment further. Email me at if you would like to see more.


Wednesday, June 22, 2022

Dealing with critics

Recent criticisms in comments and publications by the SITH-sayers and M2Cers have led people to ask how I respond.

Last General Conference, we were taught how to respond to critics. "How does a peacemaker calm and cool the fiery darts? Certainly not by shrinking before those who disparage us. Rather, we remain confident in our faith, sharing our beliefs with conviction but always void of anger or malice."

That's the approach I like to take. As readers here know, I don't think anger or malice has any place in discussions about Church history or Book of Mormon historicity. There's no cause for anger or malice when we are discussing different interpretations of facts.

Anger and malice arise from a sense of threat, arising from insecurity or fear of loss of status, income, or reputation, as when an academic/apologist sticks with and defends a theory he/she has taught for decades, to the point of censoring contrary information. 

We seek "good information" because, as President Nelson has taught, "good inspiration is based upon good information." 

This is why censorship is so destructive, and why I disagree with the censorship approach taken by the M2C and SITH citation cartels, including the Interpreter, Book of Mormon Central, and FairLDS.


I prefer enabling people to make informed decisions, and I'm fine with people believing whatever they want because any set of facts accommodates multiple working hypotheses. In an ideal world, or even just a better world, the citation cartel would acknowledge and accommodate multiple working hypotheses that are faithful, without disparaging faithful Latter-day Saints who simply interpret the evidence differently.

We were also reminded that "There are times when being a peacemaker means that we resist the impulse to respond and instead, with dignity, remain quiet."

The question, then, is when to "not shrink" and share our beliefs, and when to remain quiet.

For example, recently I was reminded of an episode of Midnight Mormons titled "The TRUTH about Book of Mormon Geography | Oh Zelph! + The Heartland Model(s)."*

The performers on this show are entertaining but poorly informed on many of the topics they discuss, and this is no different. Here is simple example.

7:31 i want to shoot that down and just say so then what was the narrow neck of land that shows up in like 20 different books 

Of course, the only place in the Book of Mormon where the "narrow neck of land" shows up is Ether 10:20, but people who follow the M2C scholars don't know that.


One approach would be to let it go. The Midnight Mormons don't seem interested in accuracy or in correcting errors, any more than FAIRLDS does,** so long as they can promote their agendas.

I don't suppose many people turn to these shows for information anyway. They are mere entertainment.

But they do reinforce the dogma of the citation cartels, so ignoring them leaves audiences without "good information" upon which to make informed decisions.

That also leaves people vulnerable to the arguments of the critics who take advantage of SITH and M2C to lead people into faith crisis.

Stay tuned...



*I discussed this episode previously: 

** For an example of a FAIRLDS video that is full of errors that they refuse to correct, see

the end 

Monday, June 20, 2022

The Phoenicia ship

Most readers here are probably familiar with the Phoenicia. This is the ship that was built based on an ancient Phoenician ship and sailed first from Arabia around Africa toward North America before they managed to turn it back toward Africa (Lehi's route).

On the second voyage, they sailed from the Mediterranean to Florida (Mulek's route).

The captain, Philip Beale, recently gave a presentation to the Explorers Club in Southern California at the Bowers Museum. He discusses the second voyage.

The video is on youtube here:


Painting by Danielle Eubank (

Here's a website documenting the second voyage, the Atlantic crossing.

One of the participants wrote a fairly detailed blog about her experience circumnavigating Africa on the first voyage:

Another account of the first voyage:

Here's a website on the current status of the Phoenicia:

Friday, June 17, 2022

Interview on SITH vs U&T

The single most important question in Church history involves the translation of the Book of Mormon. 

I recently did an interview about this topic on Mormon Book Reviews, which you can see here:

Here I'll summarize the question and the alternative working hypotheses. 

At the outset, I recognize that for many people, the origin of the Book of Mormon doesn't matter. 
- Some faithful LDS say the words themselves are evidence of their divine origin, regardless of how Joseph produced them. 
- Others (most critics including both unbelievers and Christian ministers) say the words themselves are evidence that their origin is not divine.

I'm fine with people believing and teaching whatever they want to. I write this blog simply to explain how I approach these questions. I don't care about persuading anyone or winning any arguments. Such a motivation would be pointless anyway, because people make up their own minds. I just encourage people to make informed decisions, based on all the available facts and after considering multiple working hypotheses.

The origin of the Book of Mormon affects everything about the Book of Mormon because if Joseph Smith translated it (as he and Oliver said), then the criticisms are moot. For example, it's a foolish argument to say that a 19th century translation is not an ancient text. No one claims the Book of Mormon is an ancient text; instead, it's a translation of an ancient text. A 19th century translator would naturally use 19th century language, references, and concepts, including anachronisms, just as the KJV refers to candles and other elements that the original ancient texts don't.

Although Joseph and Oliver always described the process as a translation with the Urim and Thummim (the Nephite interpreters), there are many historical references to Joseph use of a stone-in-the-hat (SITH). For some, these are irreconcilable alternatives. Others accept one and reject (or redefine) the other. For me, the simplest, most practical and most reasonable reconciliation is the demonstration scenario that I've discussed many times, including in the interview linked above; i.e., that Joseph translated the plates by means of the Urim and Thummim, but he also used SITH to satisfy the awful curiosity of his supporters, which they inferred was a translation experience that they later expanded for apologetic reasons. IOW, bad apologetics in the 19th century has led to worse apologetics today.

The topic has many threads, with dozens if not thousands of articles, books, blogs, etc. Here I attempt to summarize and systematize the issues.

The translation narrative is a combination of naturalistic and supernaturalistic elements. Supernatural, because Joseph obtained the plates from a resurrected being (Moroni) and used divinely prepared instruments to learn the characters on the plates (as he explained), and natural because Joseph used his own lexicon and worldview to articulate the literal translation of the characters (except for the Title Page, which he explained was a literal translation). 

There are two alternatives to the translation narrative: (i) a purely naturalistic explanation, that Joseph composed or copied the text he dictated, and (ii) a purely supernatural explanation, that Joseph merely dictated words that appeared on the stone-in-the-hat (the SITH theory).  

The criticisms of the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon depend on SITH; i.e., the idea that Joseph merely read words provided by a Mysterious Incognito Supernatural Translator (MIST).  

And yet, LDS scholars such as Royal Skousen, Dan Peterson and Jack Welch agree with critics such as John Dehlin and CES Letter that Joseph Smith didn't translate the plates but instead dictated words with his face looking at a stone in the hat (SITH). They disagree only about whether Joseph (i) read words that appeared supernaturally on the stone, or (ii) dictated words he composed or memorized. 

Besides contradicting what Joseph and Oliver said, SITH creates a false set of expectations. If the MIST provided the words, they were divine and presumably should not have errors, anachronisms, etc.

The faithful SITH argument goes like this: We don't know why the MIST provided errors and anachronisms (or why the text supposedly includes artifacts from Early Modern English).

SITH has generated various apologetic responses. Skousen claims Joseph and Oliver intentionally misled everyone by referring to the Urim and Thummim. Peterson's movie on the Witnesses portrays Joseph using SITH as a fact. Welch and his Book of Mormon Central "Kno-Whys" teach SITH as a feature, not a bug. Other apologists have used variations of these.

The critical SITH argument has two branches: 

(i) The presence of errors and anachronisms proves that the words were not divine in origin; i.e., the MIST was not divine but a deception from the adversary.

(ii) The presence of errors and anachronisms proves that SITH was a ruse used by Joseph to claim a supernatural origin for a text he composed/copied.

Dehlin has done numerous episodes based on the SITH narrative, claiming that SITH is one of the major causes of the faith crises he documents. Most of the CES Letter objections to the Book of Mormon depend on SITH.  

Bottom line: there is evidence to support multiple working hypotheses, but in my view the best sources are Joseph and Oliver, and all the historical evidence can be reconciled by accepting what Joseph and Oliver said; i.e., that the Book of Mormon is a translation of an ancient record. 

Wednesday, June 15, 2022

Revisionist fake history on the Church's website

This latest gem was recently brought to my attention. 

Our historians are at it again, changing Church history to accommodate M2C.

In the 1820s, the hill did not have a name. It later became known as the Hill Cumorah because Moroni, the Book of Mormon’s final author and the angel who met with Joseph Smith, wrote that he had hidden the golden plates in a hill called Cumorah (see Mormon 6:6).

To make the declarative statement that "the hill did not have a name," the historians have to ignore the accounts we have, or assume they are false and thus unworthy of consideration. They also have to assume that the absence of contemporaneous records from the 1820s means that anything we don't have a contemporaneous record of didn't happen.

By this logic, the First Vision didn't happen, because that was also not reported until after the 1820s. 

Notice that the historians don't bother to state their assumptions. They certainly don't link to the actual historical accounts.

Because the Saints books have created a false historical narrative by censoring Cumorah from the record to accommodate M2C, most Church members will never know the actual Church history. 

This latest website compounds that error by inventing a fake explanation for the name Cumorah. The historians claim the hill was later named Cumorah because of Mormon 6:6, which is a flat contradiction to the historical record. But because this is what our M2C scholars want people to believe, their peers in the Church History Department have accommodated them.


Regarding Cumorah, we have Lucy Mack Smith reporting two specific, distinct references to Cumorah from the 1820s. Anyone who has read the Saints book, volume 1, knows that the historians relied primarily on Lucy's account for much of the early history. Yet when it comes to Cumorah, they've concluded that her memory was wrong so they changed Church history, not for any rationale based on actual history, but instead purely to accommodate the modern opinions of the M2C scholars.

This revisionist history is literally unbelievable. It's yet another step toward fictionalizing the Book of Mormon.


According to Lucy, when Moroni first appeared to Joseph Smith in 1823, he identified the hill as Cumorah:

the record is on a side hill on the Hill of Cumorah 3 miles from this place remove the Grass and moss and you will find a large flat stone pry that up and you will find the record under it laying on 4 pillars of cement— then the angel left him

Lucy also remembered Joseph referring to the hill as Cumorah in 1827 when he came home late from a trip to Manchester.

Presently he smiled, and said in a very calm tone, “I have taken the severest chastisement, that I have ever had in my life”. My husband, supposing it was from some of the neighbors, was quite angry; and observed, “I would would like to know what business any body has to find fault with you.”

“Stop, father, Stop.” said Joseph, “it was the angel of the Lord— as I passed by the hill of Cumorah, where the plates are, the angel of the Lord met me and said, that I had not been engaged enough in the work of the Lord; that the time had come for the record to <be> brought forth; and, that I must be up and doing, and set myself about the things which God had commanded me to do: but, Father, continued he, give yourself no uneasiness concerning the reprimand that I have received; for I now know the course that I am to pursue; so all will be well.”

It was also made known to him at this interview, that he should make another effort to obtain the plates on the 22d. of the following September; But this he did not mention to us at that time.

David Whitmer remembered the first time he heard about Cumorah, which was in early June 1829 when he picked up Joseph and Oliver from Harmony. Before leaving Harmony, Joseph had given the plates to a divine messenger. On the way back to Fayette, they encountered the messenger along the road.

"When I was returning to Fayette with Joseph and Oliver all of us riding in the wagon, Oliver and I on an old fashioned wooden spring seat and Joseph behind us, while traveling along in a clear open place, a very pleasant, nice-looking old man suddenly appeared by the side of our wagon who saluted us with, “good morning, it is very warm,” at the same time wiping his face or forehead with his hand. We returned the salutation, and by a sign from Joseph I invited him to ride if he was going our way. But he said very pleasantly, “No, I am going to Cumorah.’ This name was something new to me, I did not know what Cumorah meant. We all gazed at him and at each other, and as I looked round enquiringly of Joseph the old man instantly disappeared, so that I did not see him again."

REPORT OF ELDERS ORSON PRATT AND JOSEPH F. SMITH to President John Taylor and Council of the Twelve.