This is the third part of the Mike Parker clarification. Again, I appreciate Mike's willingness to discuss these issues, and I think he has done a good job summarizing the M2C position. I welcome any additional input by other M2C advocates, if any.
For Part I, see
https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2023/04/mike-parker-clarifies-part-i.html
For Part II, see
https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2023/04/mike-parker-clarifies-part-ii.html
BTW, I know this may seem tedious to some people, but it's important to have a complete record that people can refer to. I'm going through these in detail because some Book of Mormon scholars seem to think I've never thought of these objections/criticisms and if I don't respond, others may infer I have no response. Apparently a lot of people don't realize I was once an enthusiastic M2C advocate myself because, as a student, I deferred to the M2C scholars and trusted them. But when I eventually realized they were agenda-driven apologists instead of legitimate scholars, I looked into the issues from a fresh perspective. Then I discovered that they had suppressed and changed Church history to promote their M2C theories, persuading Latter-day Saints through sophistry and obfuscation to reject the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah.
And they're still doing it, as the "Peter Pan" fiasco exemplified.
Jonathan Neville | Jonathan Neville’s synopsis of | Mike Parker |
|
Origin
of M2C. Scholars starting with RLDS scholars Stebbins and Hills,
and continuing with LDS scholars Sorenson, Welch, Peterson, et al, decided
JS, OC and their successors were wrong about Cumorah. Instead, these scholars
determined that the real Cumorah is somewhere in southern Mexico
(Mesoamerica). Hence the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory, or M2C, which
repudiates the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah and is merely the
speculation of intellectuals. |
Origin
of M2C. Scholars starting with RLDS scholars Stebbins and Hills,
and continuing with LDS scholars Sorenson, Welch, Peterson, et al, decided
JS, OC and their successors were wrong about Cumorah. Instead, these scholars
determined that the real Cumorah is somewhere in southern Mexico
(Mesoamerica). Hence the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory, or M2C, which
repudiates the mere false speculation of the prophets about Cumorah and is
the truth that must be defended against those who still believe the teachings
of the prophets. |
1. Framing the issue as “scholars decided the prophets were wrong about Cumorah” both dishonestly misrepresents the people involved and unfairly accuses them of “repudiating the teachings of the prophets.” No one began or ended with the conclusion that “the prophets were wrong” about anything. 2. Since there has been no revelation about Book of Mormon geography—including the location of the hill Cumorah—the question has been entirely one of finding a location in the Western Hemisphere that best fits, geographically and anthropologically, the descriptions given in the Book of Mormon. 3. Beginning in the late 19th century, careful readers of the Book of Mormon began to realize that the action it describes could not have taken place across the entire Western Hemisphere and must have happened in a much more limited area. Latter-day Saints and members of the Reorganized Church were working along parallel lines (similar to how Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz both independently discovered calculus), but there is no evidence that Saints in Utah were aware of RLDS publications. 4. In 1880, Latter-day Saint George Reynolds proposed the first limited geography model, with Desolation—the land where the hill Cumorah was—located in Central America. (This was published by the Church in their periodical The Juvenile Instructor.) The anonymous 1886 Latter-day Saint publication Plain Facts for Students of the Book of Mormon situated the entire text of the book in northern South America and Central America. In 1909 Elder B.H. Roberts wrote, “The question of Book of Mormon geography is more than ever recognized as an open one by students of the Book,” and that the lands of the Book of Mormon might “be found between Mexico and Yucatan with the isthmus of Tehuantepec between.” 5. During the 20th century, many Latter-day Saint scholars and students of the Book of Mormon developed and refined several competing Mesoamerican Book of Mormon geographical models. (Daniel Peterson and John W. Welch are not key individuals in this and haven’t published any independent research on Book of Mormon geography.) None of these scholars and students has ever written or spoken anything resembling the assertion that a Cumorah in Mesoamerica “is the truth that must be defended against those who still believe the teachings of the prophets.” 6. Those
who favor a Mesoamerican geography remain open to serious, reliable evidence
that it took place elsewhere. The fraudulent artifacts and implausible geographical models proposed by followers of
the Heartland movement fail in every way to meet that standard. |
Discussion.
Mike: 1. Framing the issue as “scholars decided the prophets were wrong about Cumorah” both dishonestly misrepresents the people involved and unfairly accuses them of “repudiating the teachings of the prophets.” No one began or ended with the conclusion that “the prophets were wrong” about anything.
My response: Mike has a legitimate point to consider so let's unpack this. I don't want to misrepresent anyone's views or make unfair accusations.
Start with the last sentence. If no one concluded that "the prophets were wrong" about Cumorah, there would be no ongoing debate over the location of Cumorah. But that debate persists. Mike's claim is false.
Everyone can see that the prophets have long taught that there is one Cumorah and it is in New York. Letter VII, written by the Assistant President of the Church who is also named as an Apostle in the scriptures (D&C 20:3), is clear and unambiguous. The New York Cumorah has been reaffirmed many times by Church leaders, including in General Conference. Anyone who contradicts the New York Cumorah is, by definition, saying the prophets were wrong.
Even when M2C scholars frame Letter VII and corroborating teachings as "opinions," they still insist these opinions are wrong. Otherwise they wouldn't be preaching "two Cumorahs."
Mike's point boils down to whether the scholars "began" with the conclusion that the prophets were wrong.
In his first sentence, Mike says my framing "dishonestly misrepresents the people involved and unfairly accuses them of 'repudiating the teachings of the prophets.'” By "people involved" we have to infer he means those I named; i.e., Stebbins, Hills, Sorenson, Peterson, and Welch. I don't want to Each of them teach M2C, which by definition repudiates the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah. I showed that history here: https://www.lettervii.com/p/origin-and-rationale-of-m2c.html.
If I'm incorrect--if any of the named individuals (or other M2C advocates)--has accepted the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah, I'll be the first to acknowledge that.
Just provide a quotation and citation.
_____
Mike: 2. Since there has been no revelation about Book of Mormon geography—including the location of the hill Cumorah—the question has been entirely one of finding a location in the Western Hemisphere that best fits, geographically and anthropologically, the descriptions given in the Book of Mormon.
My response. This is a rehash of Mike's first point, which we discussed here:
https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2023/04/mike-parker-clarifies-part-i.html
Notice the internal fallacy of his approach. He says we have to find "a location in the Western Hemisphere" that fits the descriptions in the text. But the text never mentions the Western Hemisphere. Confining the search to the Western Hemisphere requires going outside the text to the teachings of the prophets. But then Mike (like all M2Cers) rejects the teachings of those same prophets about Cumorah!
And, of course, the descriptions in the text are far from precise. Finding a "fit" is an exercise in circular reasoning. That's why there are so many variations, all of which claim to "fit" the text.
_____
Mike: 3. Beginning in the late 19th century, careful readers of the Book of Mormon began to realize that the action it describes could not have taken place across the entire Western Hemisphere and must have happened in a much more limited area. Latter-day Saints and members of the Reorganized Church were working along parallel lines (similar to how Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz both independently discovered calculus), but there is no evidence that Saints in Utah were aware of RLDS publications.
My response. Even assuming it wasn't until the late 19th century that people rejected the hemispheric model (an assumption I don't share), a limited geography doesn't exclude a New York Cumorah.
Mike claims there is "No evidence that Saints in Utah were aware of RLDS publications," yet the RLDS send missionaries to Utah and converted thousands of Latter-day Saints. Heber J. Grant discussed the RLDS in General Conference?
I have done it because there is a question, and an active labor now being carried out among the Latter-day Saints by what is known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but as Brother Richards, I think it was, said, there is no such thing, as the Church was never disorganized.
(1890s1898, October, 4th Session, Elder Heber J. Grant, ¶9 • CR90)
When Joseph Fielding Smith denounced M2C in the 1920s, the only ones who had proposed M2C were RLDS scholars Hills and Gunsolley, as Sorenson shows in his chart here:
https://www.lettervii.com/p/origin-and-rationale-of-m2c.html.
_____
Mike: 4. In 1880, Latter-day Saint George Reynolds proposed the first limited geography model, with Desolation—the land where the hill Cumorah was—located in Central America. (This was published by the Church in their periodical The Juvenile Instructor.) The anonymous 1886 Latter-day Saint publication Plain Facts for Students of the Book of Mormon situated the entire text of the book in northern South America and Central America. In 1909 Elder B.H. Roberts wrote, “The question of Book of Mormon geography is more than ever recognized as an open one by students of the Book,” and that the lands of the Book of Mormon might “be found between Mexico and Yucatan with the isthmus of Tehuantepec between.”
My response. None of these proposed Cumorah outside of New York, as Sorenson's table shows us. The official text of the Book of Mormon at the time (through 1920) acknowledged speculation about "Chili" and other possible locations, but reaffirmed that the New York Cumorah was a fact.
_____
Mike: 5. During the 20th century, many Latter-day Saint scholars and students of the Book of Mormon developed and refined several competing Mesoamerican Book of Mormon geographical models. (Daniel Peterson and John W. Welch are not key individuals in this and haven’t published any independent research on Book of Mormon geography.) None of these scholars and students has ever written or spoken anything resembling the assertion that a Cumorah in Mesoamerica “is the truth that must be defended against those who still believe the teachings of the prophets.”
My response. Focusing on Dan Peterson and John W. (Jack) Welch is important. Let's discuss whether they are "key individuals" in this.
There are no more "key individuals" in the Cumorah question than Dan and Jack.
Jack founded FARMS in 1979, represented by the pervasive M2C logo, discussed here:
https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2022/12/narrative-poisoning.html.
Nothing has done more to imprint M2C on the minds of the Latter-day Saints than that logo, which uses a Mayan glyph to represent the Book of Mormon. For over 40 years, the M2C logo was featured on most LDS scholarship, including Royal Skousen's series of books on the text of the Book of Mormon.
FARMS promoted M2C exclusively and aggressively. For over 20 years, Dan Peterson served as editor of the Mormon Studies Review (formerly the FARMS Review) and, after he was removed from his position, he continued promoting M2C through the Interpreter.
https://www.templestudy.com/2012/06/25/rise-fall-farms/
Meanwhile, as editor of BYU Studies, Jack published his M2C maps in BYU Studies (and they persist there, unfortunately).
And is Mike really unaware of the M2C orientation of Book of Mormon Central, which is owned by BMAF (http://bmaf.org/) and which shamelessly promotes M2C to its unsuspecting Spanish readers?
https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2023/02/bilingual-deception-bmc-misinforms-and.html
As to Mike's point that Dan and Jack "haven’t published any independent research on Book of Mormon geography," they both have carefully preserved plausible deniability by acting through surrogates and anonymous publications, as we'll discuss in more detail separately.
If that isn't obvious to everyone already, just think about the way Dan Peterson promoted Mike Parker's fraudulent and racist "Peter Pan" pseudonym in his own blog and even in the Interpreter journal.
Finally, Mike writes "None of these scholars and students has ever written or spoken anything resembling the assertion that a Cumorah in Mesoamerica “is the truth that must be defended against those who still believe the teachings of the prophets.”
Mike's categorical claim is easy to refute just by reading anything published by FARMS, Book of Mormon Central, and the Interpreter about Cumorah and the work of those who still believe what the prophets have taught about Cumorah.
Of course, a recent example of the aggressive defense of M2C is Mike's own "Peter Pan" persona.
_____
Mike: 6. Those who favor a Mesoamerican geography remain open to serious, reliable evidence that it took place elsewhere. The fraudulent artifacts and implausible geographical models proposed by followers of the Heartland movement fail in every way to meet that standard.
My response. First, in terms of evidence, there is zero evidence for tolerance, let alone consideration, by M2C advocates of an alternative setting. Mike could have provided a quotation or citation of such an openness if he had one. The history of M2C apologetics (including Mike's comments) has demonstrated tremendous antipathy toward any evidence that contradicts M2C--including not only the evidence from the teachings of the prophets, but extrinsic evidence from archaeology, anthropology, etc.
Second, while I agree that some questionable artifacts have been used to promote various theories, the same is true of M2C theories. Fake antiquities are pervasive worldwide. That's not a reason to reject the teachings of the prophets.
Third, whether a model is implausible is a subjective question. For some readers, a plausible model requires volcanoes because they infer the text describes volcanoes; for others, a plausible model could not have volcanoes because the text never mentions them and the text doesn't describe them.
_____
It is tedious, but that is not a negative. I, for one, seriously appreciate the great care and comparison and discussion of differing points of view, and the different assumptions, and the back and forth with which kind of philosophy we are using to see the evidences. This is a well done comparison and clarifies a lot in a tremendous way.
ReplyDelete