History of FAIR (now LDS, formerly Mormon)

In the ongoing pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding, with the objective of "no more contention" (Mosiah 1:1), I recently co-hosted a podcast about the history of FAIR, which you can see here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CH22p-pX1DY

Steve and I interviewed Kerry Shirts (the Backyard Professor) who was the original Director of Research for FAIR. He had fond memories of FAIR and the people he worked with there. He explains the editorial decisions that led him to leave, but that was not the focus of the interview. 

The interview expanded on the brief history found on the FAIR website:

FAIR was formed in late 1997 by a group of LDS defenders of the faith who frequented the America Online Mormonism message boards. There, they defended the Church against detractors. This small group realized that they had no way of sharing their information with each other, much less the rest of the Church. As a result of this, FAIR was born. FAIR incorporated as a non-profit organization in the state of New York on December 19, 1997, as The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, Inc. The fledgling organization put up its first website in March 1998. In 2013, the group became known as FairMormon. In 2021 the name was changed back to FAIR, which now stands for Faithful Answers, Informed Response.

Whenever people get together voluntarily to pursue laudable objectives, good things can happen.

An interesting aspect of the interview is how FAIR evolved into a tool to promote the personal beliefs and theories of its management instead of offering resources to enable Latter-day Saints and other interested people to answer questions with all the relevant information.

I hope this interview and related commentary (such as this post) will prompt FAIR to apply the FAITH model of analysis by first laying out all the facts, then specifically identifying the various assumptions, inferences and theories about those facts in an organized, accurate comparison of different faithful approaches to Church history and doctrine. 

That would enable Latter-day Saints to make fully informed decisions, which would greatly strengthen faith in the Restoration and thus in Jesus Christ.

_____

FAIR (https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/) claims it has "the world’s largest database of faithful answers to critical questions." 

Much of the content at FAIR is excellent. I've used it many times because the site is well organized and contains lots of useful links to original sources. I recommend it for many topics.

However, as we'll see below, on some topics FAIR is unreliable and even misleading.

_____

Scott Gordon has been President for many years. He and his team are all awesome, faithful Latter-day Saints, with the best of intentions. Plus, they're nice people. And they claim they want to use faithful scholarship in their work.

FAIR's content is mostly anonymous (like the Gospel Topics Essays), but it parallels the content at Scripture Central and the Interpreter Foundation. The organizations have considerable overlap.

Thus FAIR, like the others, is inexplicably dedicated to impugning the integrity, credibility and reliability of Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith regarding the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon.

People are free to disagree about the reliability and credibility of Joseph and Oliver regarding the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon. Many disagreements arise because people are simply uninformed about all the relevant facts. Or they are confused because the management of FAIR, Scripture Central, and the Interpreter Foundation conflate their respective assumptions, inferences and interpretations with the facts, to the detriment of all truth seekers.

That editorial position leads FAIR, like Scripture Central and the Interpreter Foundation, to some strange rhetorical machinations. It's a real shame that such a potentially valuable and productive resource is being manipulated by FAIR management to mislead Latter-day Saints and other interested people.

Let's look at three examples.

_____

FAIR is an adamant promoter of SITH (stone-in-the-hat theory of Book of Mormon translation). They have a webpage dedicated to persuade readers that: 

Joseph Smith used the same "rock in hat" seer stone for translating that he used for "money digging"

https://fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Joseph_Smith/Seer_stones/%22Rock_in_hat%22_used_for_Book_of_Mormon_translation

The page is a series of assumptions, inferences and theories, misleadingly stated as facts. It's impossible to have a rational, credible analysis and discussion when we don't start with the facts and then clearly state our assumptions, inferences and theories that lead to our overall hypotheses (FAITH model).

Look at this series of assumptions, inferences and theories, all stated as facts:

After the loss of the 116 pages, contemporary accounts are very clear that Joseph continued the translation using his seer stone. In later years, the term "Urim and Thummim" was retroactively applied to both the Nephite interpreters and to Joseph's seer stone. Thus the use of "Urim and Thummim" tends to obscure the fact that two different instruments were employed.

When FAIR refers to "contemporary accounts" here, they (i) completely omit what Joseph, Oliver and Lucy Mack Smith said and (ii) emphasize statements from critics, detractors, and decades-later accounts from David Whitmer and (allegedly) Martin Harris and Emma Smith.

But they don't spell that out.

They don't give us all the relevant facts.

Instead, the entire page omits what Joseph, Oliver and Lucy Mack Smith said about the translation because they know those three explicitly and repeatedly said Joseph translated the plates by means of the Urim and Thummim that came with the plates.

This is significant because Joseph and Oliver were responding to critics (such as the 1834 Mormonism Unvailed) who were making exactly the same claims that FAIR is making today.

Look specifically at FAIR's claim that "In later years, the term 'Urim and Thummim' was retroactively applied to both the Nephite interpreters and to Joseph's seer stone." What FAIR doesn't tell you is that Mormonism Unvailed (Oct 1834) clearly distinguished between the "peep stone" and the "Urim and Thummim" as two separate, competing accounts of the translation. This confusion generated by critics explains why both Joseph and Oliver specifically taught that Joseph used the Urim and Thummim (aka the Nephite interpreters, aka the spectacles) that came with the plates.

But FAIR and other SITH sayers try to confuse Latter-day Saints with this modern theory of "retroactive" application of terms. 

FAIR also doesn't tell you that in the summer of 1832, missionaries were publicly teaching that Joseph translated the plates by means of the Urim and Thummim.

There are lots of other problems with FAIR's approach to SITH, but no legitimate, faithful academic resource would purport to discuss the translation of the Book of Mormon without at least including what Joseph and Oliver taught about the translation.

It's fine that FAIR wants to persuade Latter-day Saints to agree with 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."

This ongoing, determined effort to undermine the credibility and reliability of what Joseph and Oliver taught is all-too pervasive among modern LDS scholars. Obviously, that effort is unappealing to most Latter-day Saints. 

And that probably explains why FAIR refuses to explicitly state their position by informing us of what Joseph, Oliver, and Lucy Mack Smith said, and then explaining clearly why they disagree.

But that editorial approach is a disservice to all Latter-day Saints, not to mention the disservice they are giving to Joseph and Oliver.

_____

FAIR is also an adamant promoter of M2C, again just like Scripture Central and the Interpreter Foundation.

M2C (the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory) is based on the assumption that Oliver Cowdery lied when he explicitly taught it is a fact that the hill Cumorah/Ramah is the same hill in New York where Joseph found the plates. 

See http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/90

Readers of this blog are familiar with all the historical and extrinsic evidence that supports and corroborates what Oliver and Joseph said about the hill Cumorah.

But readers of FAIR are not so well informed.

FAIR purports to offer "Faithful Answers, Informed Response."  

Instead, FAIR offers up pages of distraction, obfuscation, misinformation and disinformation on this topic. Just look at the entries on this page, for example:

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/The_Hill_Cumorah

If FAIR actually sought to inform Latter-day Saints to help them make informed decisions instead of seeking to persuade them to accept M2C, FAIR would implement the FAITH model of analysis.

FAIR would start by providing all the facts from Church history. 

Then FAIR would spell out the different assumptions, inferences and theories about those facts that lead people to the various hypotheses, the two major being Heartland and M2C. This would include interpretations of the text, the teachings of the prophets, and extrinsic evidence.

The clarity of such a comparison would enlighten Latter-day Saints.

Then people would be able to make informed decisions.

But FAIR continues to refuse to do this, which makes their website on this topic unreliable and misleading and, ultimately, unusable.  

It's a shame that this potentially awesome resource is employed in such a disreputable manner. 

_____

The third example is more specific.

FAIR has a page that discusses the 1990 letter about Cumorah from the Office of the First Presidency.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Question:_Did_the_First_Presidency_identify_the_New_York_%22Hill_Cumorah%22_as_the_site_of_the_Nephite_final_battles%3F

Because confusion about that letter persists, Elder Watson issued a public statement in 2022 about the context. That letter was sent to FAIR, but FAIR has refused to post it on their website.

FAIR's refusal is a fundamental violation of basic ethics of journalism and scholarship. 

But it is consistent with FAIR's editorial approach to other topics, such as the two we discussed above, where FAIR's management (i) omits relevant facts and (ii) promotes their theories as facts.

Very strange.

Anyone interested can read Elder Watson's statement here:

https://www.mobom.org/1990-letter-on-cumorah

_____

BTW, the Museum of the Book of Mormon (MOBOM.org) offers original sources along with diverse assumptions, inferences, etc. to enable readers to make informed decisions.

Ideally, FAIR and Scripture Central would do likewise and all Latter-day Saints would find "unity in diversity."

But that apparently won't happen until and unless current management of those organizations (Scott Gordon for FAIR and Jack Welch for Scripture Central) trust their readers enough to provide all the relevant facts, along with a comparison of the various assumptions, inferences and theories. 

Instead, their divisive, dogmatic editorial approach of enforcing their personal opinions through the guise of "scholarship" continues to plague Latter-day Saints everywhere.

Modified Translation Essay comments

Thanks to Brant Gardner and Royal Skousen, there has been a renewed interest in the Gospel Topics Essay on Book of Mormon Translation.

Related to this is the revised, shorter version of the essay found here:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/book-of-mormon-translation?lang=eng

I provided an analysis here:

https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/p/gospel-topics-essay-on-translation.html

For ease of reference, here's that analysis:

Book of Mormon Translation	My comments
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org‌‌/study/history/topics/book-of-mormon-translation?lang=eng
Joseph Smith translated an ancient text “by the gift and power of God” to produce the Book of Mormon.	This is an excerpt from what Joseph actually said. It omits his reference to the Urim and Thummim.
His early work on the translation, with Emma Smith and Martin Harris serving as the main scribes, was lost in 1828.	Neither Emma nor Martin ever said which parts, exactly, they scribed.
Almost all of the present Book of Mormon text was translated during a three-month period between April and June 1829 with Oliver Cowdery as the scribe.	Joseph said he resumed translating after he received the plates and Urim and Thummim in September 1828. David Whitmer said it took 8 months, which suggests Joseph started translation in November. The earliest extant Original Manuscript has Oliver’s handwriting starting in Alma 11, which suggests Emma and/or Martin may have scribed Mosiah and the first part of Alma before Oliver arrived in Harmony.
Much can be known about the coming forth of the English text of the Book of Mormon through a careful study of statements made by Joseph Smith, his scribes, and others closely associated with the translation of the Book of Mormon.	Particularly what Joseph and Oliver said.
The manuscript Joseph Smith dictated to Oliver Cowdery and others is known today as the original manuscript, about 28 percent of which still survives. This manuscript corroborates Joseph’s statements that he dictated the text from another language within a short time frame. For example, it includes errors that suggest the scribe heard words incorrectly rather than misread words copied from another manuscript. In addition, some grammatical constructions more characteristic of Near Eastern languages than English appear in the original manuscript, suggesting the base language of the translation was not English.1	All good points.
Joseph and his scribes wrote of two instruments used in translating the Book of Mormon.	This is misleading because of how it is written. Joseph never once “wrote of two instruments” as the article claims. Neither did Oliver. They both explained that Joseph used the Urim and Thummim as directed by Moroni. Other scribes, such as David and Emma, did write about two instruments, but they always made the distinction between the Urim and Thummim and the seer stone perfectly clear.
One instrument, called in the Book of Mormon the “interpreters,” is better known to Latter-day Saints today as the “Urim and Thummim.” Joseph found the interpreters buried in the hill with the plates.	This was better known to Latter-day Saints as the “Urim and Thummim” during Joseph’s lifetime than it is today. Modern LDS scholars have retroactively and anachronistically redefined the term “the Urim and Thummim” to apply to both the Nephite interpreters and the seer stone Joseph supposedly used to translate the plates.
The other instrument, which Joseph discovered in the ground years before he retrieved the plates, was a small oval stone, or “seer stone.” As a young man during the 1820s, Joseph, like others in his day, used a seer stone to look for lost objects and buried treasure. As he grew to understand his prophetic calling, he learned he could use this stone for the higher purpose of translating scripture.2	This is a combination of hearsay and speculative rationalization, all stated as fact.
Scribes and others who observed the translation left accounts giving insight into the process. Some accounts indicate Joseph studied the characters on the plates.	Joseph himself said he copied and translated the characters. He and Oliver said Joseph translated the engravings (D&C 10).
Most of the accounts speak of Joseph’s use of the interpreters or the seer stone. According to these accounts, Joseph placed either the interpreters or the seer stone in a hat, pressed his face into the hat to block out extraneous light, and spoke aloud the English words inspired by the instrument. The process as described brings to mind a passage from the Book of Mormon that speaks of God preparing “a stone, which shall shine forth in darkness unto light.”3	The number of accounts is irrelevant because “most” of them came from one person: David Whitmer.
The scribes who assisted with the translation unquestionably believed Joseph translated by divine power. Joseph’s wife Emma believed the text of the Book of Mormon surpassed her husband’s writing abilities.	This is a euphemism for what Emma actually wrote. She claimed that Joseph couldn’t even write a good letter at the time, but Joseph’s cursive handwriting on the Original Manuscript is clear and legible, suggesting he had practiced.
Oliver Cowdery testified under oath in 1831 that Joseph “found with the plates, from which he translated his book, two transparent stones, resembling glass, set in silver bows. That by looking through these, he was able to read in English, the reformed Egyptian characters, which were engraved on the plates.”4	This is consistent with other accounts from Oliver.
Questions raised during the translation process led to many of the earliest revelations now recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants and to significant events like the restoration of the priesthood. The translation and publication of the Book of Mormon immediately preceded the organization of the Church in the spring of 1830.	All good.
Church Resources “Book of Mormon Translation,” Gospel Topics, topics.lds.org. “The Gold Plates and the Translation of the Book of Mormon,” josephsmithpapers.org. Royal Skousen and Robin Scott Jensen, eds., Revelations and Translations, Volume 3, Part 1: Printer’s Manuscript of the Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 1–Alma 35, facsimile ed., vol. 3 of the Revelations and Translations series of The Joseph Smith Papers, eds. Ronald K. Esplin and Matthew J. Grow (Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2015). Royal Skousen and Robin Scott Jensen, eds., Revelations and Translations, Volume 3, Part 2: Printer’s Manuscript of the Book of Mormon, Alma 36–Moroni 10, facsimile ed., vol. 3 of the Revelations and Translations series of The Joseph Smith Papers, eds. Ronald K. Esplin and Matthew J. Grow (Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2015).	The first reference goes to a SITH-promoting essay. The article in the JSP offers a list of all the references in the JSP, none of which state or support either SITH or M2C.   As noted previously, some of the JSP editorial content supports SITH and M2C, but none of the actual historical documents n the JSP do. They all reaffirm what Joseph and Oliver said about the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon.

Moroni 6-7, Nibley and Vogel works, Brant Gardner, etc.

For those interested in evidence that Joseph Smith actually translated the plates I've added annotations of Moroni 6 and 7 to the MOBOM page, here:

https://www.mobom.org/jonathan-edwards

_____

I've added some new Pages to the Letter VII blog, including links to the collected works of Hugh Nibley here:

https://www.lettervii.com/p/collected-works-of-hugh-nibley.html

And links to Dan Vogel's Early Mormon Documents series, here:

https://www.lettervii.com/p/early-mormon-documents-dan-vogel.html

Links are also at https://www.mobom.org/booksblogs

_____

My peer review of Brant Gardner's review of By Means of the Urim and Thummim is available here:

https://interpreterpeerreviews.blogspot.com/2024/12/review-of-brant-gardners-review-of-by.html

My peer review of Jeff Lindsay's review will be posted soon.

_____

Eventually we'll get back to our discussion of Scripture Central's Cumorah videos....

A podcast, a debate, and the GTE (again)

When I write about the pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding, I hope for a day in which we have LDS scholars who readily acknowledge and accommodate multiple working hypotheses. 

A day in which LDS scholars openly embrace the idea of laying out all the facts for everyone to see, and then comparing the various assumptions, inferences, and theories so that every person can make informed decisions, without being expected (or required) to delegate their gospel study to the credentialed class.

Such a robust, thriving community of informed, enlightened Latter-day Saints, all around the world, would attract the sincere in heart who desire to be disciples of Christ, a peculiar people who are zealous of good works (Titus 2:14)

But we still face obstacles to that ideal future. Today we'll discuss some reasons why.

_____

Yesterday I had a fun conversation with Steve Pynakker at Mormon Book Reviews. We discussed Moroni's America 2.0, Royal Skousen's Part 7, the Jonathan Edwards annotation of the Book of Mormon, and much more.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5tV3cZqyEw

There are links in the description for more information on all those topics.

Enjoy!

_____

Last night Ward Radio sponsored a debate: "MesoAmerican vs. Heartlander Debate (feat. Rod Meldrum and Luke Hanson!)."

We happened to be in Utah so I attended.

The audio wasn't great, unfortunately. 

Both sides made the predictable points. Luke was well-prepared (and apparently well coached), but it was a little surreal watching him make the same old arguments for M2C.

If I get time I'll go through the entire debate in more detail, but here are some key points, all in the pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding.

Luke started off listing common attributes of human society that he said were in the Book of Mormon and in Mesoamerica, but, according to him, were not in North America during Book of Mormon times, including:

cities

monetary system

written language

wars

My overall point about this line of reasoning is that these features are ubiquitous among human societies around the world and throughout time. It makes no sense to cite Mayan civilization as evidence of the Book of Mormon, any more than it would to cite Chinese or Cambodian civilization. 

(Sure, the Mayans lived in the western hemisphere, but so did lots of other cultures. Besides, the text never mentions America so we have to rely on the teachings of the prophets, but all of Joseph's successors rely on what Joseph and Oliver taught, and they both taught Cumorah was in New York, but that's a point we've discussed many times.)

While the Book of Mormon mentions these common attributes of human civilization, it is also specific about only a few things, such as:

- what language they had (Hebrew and reformed Egyptian) and 

- the size of their armies (ranging from a few thousand to the largest enumerated Nephite army of 42,000 after they had gathered in all their people (Mormon 2:7). 

People still debate over how the monetary system worked in the real world, and no one knows how big or extensive any of the cities were.

But people make lots of assumptions. So let's separate known facts from assumptions.

Written language. Rod agreed the Mayans had a written language, but pointed out that it was the wrong language. That is obvious to everyone who engages in this conversation. It's also obvious that from the beginning (Enos) to the end (Moroni), the Lamanites were intent on destroying the written records of the Nephites. It was specifically to prevent the Lamanites from destroying all the records that Mormon moved the records from Shim to Cumorah. 

IOW, if we believe the text, the only evidence of written language among the Nephites that we could expect to exist are the records in that repository in Cumorah. And in fact, these are the very records that Oliver Cowdery reported seeing, as he related to David Whitmer, Brigham Young, and others. 

The M2C argument about language has two fun aspects:

(i) M2Cers deny that Oliver (and Joseph) ever saw any repository of records in Cumorah. They claim Oliver either lied about it or related a vision he had of a repository in southern Mexico, a vision he had multiple times and described as a physical experience.

(ii) M2Cers claim that Mayan glyphs are the true language of the Book of Mormon and that the references to Hebrew and reformed Egyptian are either incorrect or restricted to the elite class of Nephites. That's why FARMS used the Mayan glyph in their logo and why John Sorenson titled his book Mormon's Codex with Mayan artwork right on the cover. 

FARMS' Mayan logo used by Book of Mormon Central

[BTW, it's fun to see this FARMS Mayan logo on the spine of Royal Skousen's books about the Text of the Book of Mormon, including the one published within the last month.]

The M2Cers even persuaded the Church to put the Mayan glyphs on Temple Square!

"Two Cumorahs" on display at the visitors center
on Temple Square

Thankfully that display is long gone with the redevelopment on Temple Square, but it was a lot of fun when it was there.

Cities. Luke kept coming back to "cities," but he never defined what is a city and Rod didn't ask, that I remember or heard. (As I said, the audio was poor and they were talking over one another often.)

Regarding cities, no city is mentioned in the text until the book of Alma, and the text gives us the population and extent of no city. 

I've pointed out before that it's useful to compare the Book of Mormon to Old Testament cities:

The Old Testament uses two words for “city” (eer and kiriah ) and one for “village” (chatsair ). The Old Testament differentiation seems to be based not on size primarily, but on the presence or absence of a defense wall. Cities had walls, while villages were unwalled. Villages, being unwalled, were usually smaller than cities, but that was not always the case.

Size of cities. Ancient cities tended to be much smaller in both size and population than our typical understanding of a city. The oldest walled city at Jericho mentioned above covered less than ten acres....

Closely related to the area of a town is its population. Recent population projections based on the density of cities from cultures similar to those of biblical times along with a count of the number of house units found in excavations suggest that most cities could support 160-200 persons per acre. Thus Shechem might have had a population of 2,000 to 2,500 during the Old Testament period...

https://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/eng/hbd/c/cities-and-urban-life.html 

The text never describes the cities in detail, but the only mention in the entire Book of Mormon of constructing anything with stone is building walls:

8 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)

That's a fine description of the civilized areas in North America during Book of Mormon times.

Years ago I found a published paper describing a modern dig in Ohio where the archaeologists dug a trench through a Hopewell site. They concluded that the ancient people had built a wall around the inhabited area long after the people had already been living there and they commented that it didn't make sense. 

But the Book of Mormon explains why.

The Nephites encircled their cities with banks of earth and stone walls to protect them in time of war.

These aspects of ancient cities makes me wonder how I ever fell for the Mesoamerican (M2C) narrative. I've visited sites in Mesoamerica. They are extensive, predominantly built of stone, and involved far greater populations than the Book of Mormon describes.

Nevertheless, the M2Cers at Scripture Central are spending millions of dollars to persuade Latter-day Saints to read Mayan civilization into the text. They even promote their "ScripturePlus" app to compete with the Church's Gospel Library app because they can imprint Mayan civilization on the minds of the youth who prefer graphics and videos over actually reading the scriptures.

Scripture Central's "ScripturePlus" app

As skeptical of M2C as I became ten years ago, more recent LIDAR discoveries have moved Mayan culture far, far away from what the Book of Mormon describes.

https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/lidar-scans-reveal-maya-were-far-bigger-and-more-complex-than-thought

None of this came up during the debate. 

_____

My final comment is on the Gospel Topics Essay (GTE).

Instead of quoting scripture or the teachings of the prophets, Luke repeatedly quoted a passage from the GTE on Book of Mormon Geography.

The Church does not take a position on the specific geographic locations of Book of Mormon events in the ancient Americas....  

Individuals may have their own opinions regarding Book of Mormon geography and other such matters about which the Lord has not spoken. However, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve 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.

It was fun to watch this after my post yesterday, when I thanked Brant Gardner for revealing the reverence the M2C/SITH scholars have for the GTE.

Brant Gardner: "The Church’s essay on the translation of the Book of Mormon is as close to canonical as the official Church gets." 

For the M2Cers, the essay on geography is equally "as close to canonical as the official Church gets."

[Full disclosure: I operate on the assumption that the GTE, as explained in the Introduction to the GTE, have not replaced the scriptures or the teachings of the prophets.]

But the M2Cers don't really follow the GTE anyway. Instead, they use it as a justification for elevating scholars above prophets under the guise of "epistemology."

In fact, during the debate, Luke started saying the GTE was President Nelson's statement, which is bizarre because the GTE actually quotes President Nelson at the end. Why would President Nelson quote himself if the entire statement was his?

At any rate, I fully agree with the GTE on Book of Mormon Geography. It reiterates what I've been saying for years, as I've explained before.

https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/p/book-of-mormon-geography-essay.html

 

IIRC (watch the video), Rod suggested that President Nelson may not have all the information about what Joseph Smith taught because everything he sees is filtered through the M2C gatekeepers. 

I have no way of knowing whether that is true. I doubt it, actually. 

Inquiries to Church leaders on Book of Mormon geography matters always seem to bounce back with the form letter response that I've posted before, presumably handled by a gatekeeper preventing Church leaders from learning how concerned Church members are about the way modern scholars reject rejecting well-established teachings and authentic historical sources, particularly about Cumorah.

Nevertheless, I operate on the assumption that Church leaders are fully aware of the various interpretations of the historical and extrinsic evidence and the teachings of the prophets. Some of them are close personal friends with the leading M2C scholars, which undoubtedly influences opinions.

They know that scholars disagree among themselves. They know there are M2Cers and Heartlanders. They have plenty of more important things to do than to intervene in these controversies, particularly when they are all looking at exactly the same evidence and arguments that everyone else is. None of them are claiming new revelation on any of this.

That's why they approved the GTE.

Particularly this sentence: 

All parties should strive to avoid contention on these matters.

So let's discuss contention a moment.

_____

Scripture Central is by far the dominant organization that deals with the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon. It spends more money on these topics than the Church itself. In many ways, it competes with the Church, not only through its ScripturePlus app, but also through its Come Follow Me podcasts (which constitute a diversion from personal scripture study and contemplation for members around the world), its "Kno-Why" essays that guide readers into M2C and SITH, etc. 

We've tried to work with them, but the scholars and management at Scripture Central think the way to avoid contention is to establish and enforce a single acceptable interpretation about the origin (SITH) and setting (M2C) of the Book of Mormon.

But the way to avoid contention is not to ignore and suppress alternative faithful perspectives. 

The way to avoid contention is not to spend millions of dollars promoting M2C in the hope that, eventually, all Latter-day Saints will join them in rejecting what the prophets have said about Cumorah (which is entirely separate from the geography issue addressed in the GTE.)

Meanwhile, Scripture Central's employees and volunteers are free to use social media to criticize and ridicule those faithful Latter-day Saints who don't agree with M2C. 

In my view, Scripture Central's approach is the antithesis of avoiding contention. Insisting on enforcing one opinion is the essence of contention. 

Even the Introduction to the GTE points out that "Seeking “out of the best books” does not mean seeking only one set of opinions..."

Scripture Central flagrantly violates that guidance.

Instead, the way to avoid contention is to pursue clarity, charity and understanding. 

Employing the FAITH model of analysis would clarify the issues for everyone and enable everyone to make informed decisions, all without contention and in the spirit of "unity through diversity" as the prophets have taught.

As we saw in this debate, M2Cers constantly flaunt their academic credentials.  However, the traditional liberal approach in academia was to open journals and conferences to all points of view under the ideal that free and open inquiry and discussion would weed out poorly vetted or researched arguments. Wouldn't it be nice to revive on this subject the old academic ideals of free ad open discussion?  How about panel discussions at open conferences at BYU?

In my view, the scholars and management at Scripture Central have betrayed the positions of trust and influence conferred on them originally because of their affiliation with BYU. They have created an intellectual climate in Latter-day Saint culture that is intolerant, dictatorial, and contentious.

 

I doubt that will change because they are training LDS students in the same group-think, top-down, credential-biased methodology.

Everywhere I travel throughout the world I meet Latter-day Saints who are disturbed by what Scripture Central is doing. This includes young and old, new and seasoned Latter-day Saints.

People in today's world don't like being told what to think. They don't like censorship, or even agenda-driven omissions of relevant information.

That's why the existing editorial position of Scripture Central is so destructive.

And it would be so liberating, productive, and harmonious for them to change course.

_____

To repeat what I wrote at the outset, I hope for a day in which we have LDS scholars who readily acknowledge and accommodate multiple working hypotheses. 

A day in which LDS scholars openly embrace the idea of laying out all the facts for everyone to see, and then comparing the various assumptions, inferences, and theories so that every person can make informed decisions, without being expected (or required) to delegate their gospel study to the credentialed class.

Such a robust, thriving community of informed, enlightened Latter-day Saints, all around the world, would attract the sincere in heart who desire to be disciples of Christ, a peculiar people who are zealous of good works (Titus 2:14)

Thank you Brant Gardner

'Tis the season for giving and gifts are flying around everywhere.

The latest comes from Brant Gardner.

In our pursuit of clarity, charity, and understanding, we recognize contributions from a range of views. We like people to know about multiple working hypotheses and we enjoy the diversity of opinions because we think unity comes from diversity. 

We encourage people to make informed decisions because we agree with President Nelson that good inspiration is based upon good information.

So we're happy to thank Brant Gardner for his recent contributions.

_____

Brant is a great guy, a diligent researcher, an effective writer, a faithful Latter-day Saint, and a prolific contributor to LDS scholarship. 

We assume he is always acting in good faith, with good intentions and with good will for all, even those who disagree with him. Together with Brant, we seek to understand one another. That's the spirit in which this post is written. 

Readers of this blog know that we like to feature and discuss multiple working hypotheses because we think the best way to make informed decisions is to know the facts in the context of the assumptions, inferences, and theories that people use to create their own narratives and worldviews. As the Introduction to the Gospel Topics Essays explains, "The Church places great emphasis on knowledge and on the importance of being well informed about Church history, doctrine, and practices."

Brant has long been one of my favorite M2C and SITH scholars because he owns his work. So far as I know, he doesn't publish things anonymously. He doesn't hide by having attractive young people read his scripts on social media the way the scholars at Scripture Central do. 

Brant takes responsibility. He engages with others more than most M2C and SITH scholars. That's awesome. And, as I said, he's a great guy.

Maybe at some level Brant would like to join in the pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding, which means rejecting the compulsion to insist on agreement with his own views. It's probably not easy to do so when you're one of the Interpreters, but if any of them could do it, Brant could. I hope he does someday. 

If he chose to, he could help elevate the discourse between the Interpreters and those Latter-day Saints whom the Interpreters typically look down upon because they don't have credentials and they don't march in lock-step with the Interpreters.

In other words, ordinary Latter-day Saints who still believe the scriptures and the teachings of the prophets.

_____

Another reason why Brant one of my favorites is that he provides lots of pithy, insightful quotations.

Recently he published a review of one of my books on the Interpreter. In doing so, he gave us some classics, such as this statement about the Gospel Topics Essays (GTE).

Brant Gardner: "The Church’s essay on the translation of the Book of Mormon is as close to canonical as the official Church gets." 

This gift of clarity is packed with meaning and implication.

Here Brant unmistakably announces the elevation of scholars over prophets--at least, in the minds of Brant and the other Interpreters.

We've long read between the lines that this is what the M2C and SITH scholars really believe, but until now, none have declared it so clearly and openly.

Most Latter-day Saints probably consider General Conference talks "close to canonical," particularly the talks given by whomever is President of the Church at the time he speaks.

But not so Brant and the Interpreters. Instead, the GTE are now "as close to canonical as the official Church gets." You can't get any more canonical than the GTE.

Brant's declaration provides clarity for much of what is going on among LDS scholars today, including Scripture Central and the Interpreter Foundation. Both organizations have adopted names that deflect from the prophets. The scholars at the Interpreter have set themselves up as "Interpreters" for the rest of us, with their self-appointed authority to declare what is and what is not "correct," who is and who is not an "apostate," what faithful views can and who cannot be heard, etc.

Scripture Central does the same, with the added bonus of having a multi-million dollar budget to employ young scholars and produce popular videos and thereby assure propagation of their narratives for future generations. 

Just look at the name: Scripture Central.

We used to think of the Church as the central place for scripture. 

Scripture Central even competes with the Gospel Library through its ScripturePlus app, promoting SITH, M2C, and other academic theories with attractive and popular graphics and videos.

All of this is summed up in Brant's declaration:

"The Church’s essay on the translation of the Book of Mormon is as close to canonical as the official Church gets."  

_____

Now, let's look at the GTE themselves.

For some apologists--particularly the ones who wrote or collaborated on the GTE, or whose close friends and fellow Interpreters did--the GTE have acquired an almost mystical aura of authority. People frequently cite me the GTE as if they were scripture, just as Brant does in his review. 

Brant's declaration explains why: he considers them "as close to canonical as the official Church gets."

The reason the scriptures are considered "canon" is because we know where they came from, the source is deemed authoritative, and they never change. They are "standard works." 

A common definition of canon: The collection of books received as genuine Holy Scriptures, called the sacred canon, or general rule of moral and religious duty, given by inspiration; the Bible; also, any one of the canonical Scriptures.

None of that definition fits the GTE. Unlike General Conference talks and other official statements by the First Presidency, where the authority and calling of the speaker is clear, the anonymous GTE do not fit within the direction given by the Lord here: "whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same." (Doctrine and Covenants 1:38)

The GTE are characterized by two elements:

(i) they were published anonymously, prepared by unnamed scholars who cited their own (or their friends') work throughout.

(ii) they are subject to change at any moment, without notice or documentation.

These two elements are the antithesis of canon.

That's why the GTE are provided as resources for further study and discussion only, and that's why the are subject to continual improvement. They were never intended to replace the scriptures, the teachings of the prophets, or authentic historical documents such as those provided in the Joseph Smith Papers.

_____

Let's look at the GTE on translation, which is the one Brant was specifically referring to. 

For starters, it does not quote or even cite what Joseph and Oliver said about the translation, apart from a brief excerpt that is used to contradict what Joseph and Oliver actually said.

I've discussed the GTE line-by-line here:

https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/2022/09/analysis-gospel-topics-essay-on-book-of.html

More importantly, the introduction to the GTE specifically warns against using the GTE or any other "one set of opinions" as the only approved opinions, which is how Brant and the Interpreters insist we should use them.

 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.

See the discussion here:

https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/p/gospel-topics-essays-do-not-supersede.html

People can think whatever they want about the GTE. I'm fine if people such as Brant want to consider them scripture, or akin to scripture.

But that's an unstable, shaky foundation. 

Maybe Brant's opinions change whenever the GTE change, but I don't think the prophets want or expect us to delegate our own faith to the anonymous authors of whichever version of the GTE is currently on the website. 

So thank you, Brent, sincerely, for sharing this pithy, revealing declaration of academic arrogance.

_____

I'd like to take the time to discuss some of his other clever, concise statements, but let's just look at this revealing classic, which is the title of Brant's review.

Trust Us, We’re Lawyers: Lucas and Neville on the Translation of the Book of Mormon

Here's what I wrote in my review of Brant's review, which you can read here:

https://interpreterpeerreviews.blogspot.com/2024/12/review-of-brant-gardners-review-of-by.html

As Brant admits below, “Lucas and Neville didn’t really say ’trust us, we’re lawyers.’ I confess that is my translation of what they said.”

Nevertheless I like the title because it’s an example of Brant’s pithy statements that reveal far more than it seems at first glance.

As summarized by the title, the essence of Brant’s review is that readers should trust the “trained LDS scholars” (a phrase he repeats 10 times) instead of a couple of lawyers whose views diverge from the Interpreter orthodoxy.

This is the overall message, and objective, of not only Brant but the Interpreter Foundation itself. The principals want people to trust them because of their credentials. In their view, the credentialed class deserves (by virtue solely of their credentials) our deference, our appreciation, our awe, and ultimately our adherence to their opinions.

That’s why it’s called the “Interpreter” Foundation in the first place. They have set themselves up as the “interpreters” of Church doctrine, practices, and theology for those of us who (according to them) can’t properly think for ourselves and assess scriptures, teachings of prophets, and extrinsic evidence without their guidance.

The Interpreters’ self-appointed role strikes the rest of us as quaint, funny, and even absurd, but it’s all too real in their minds.

As Brant makes abundantly clear in his review.

But as I said at the outset, I like Brant and appreciate his style and thoughtfulness.

 

Review of Royal Skousen's methodology: Part Seven

The pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding leads to a place of tranquility, peace, harmony, and happiness. 

The goal is a Zion society where there is "unity in diversity." 

Where people are "determined in one mind and in one heart, united in all things." 

Where we are "of one heart and one mind," not because we all think alike but because we see clearly, have charity for one another, and enjoy understanding different perspectives and ideas instead of demanding uniformity through compulsory means and contention.

The first step is clarity, and for that we apply the FAITH model, which explains diversity in the spirit of charity and understanding. 

When everyone has access to the relevant FACTS, everyone readily agrees about those facts. Then we can distinguish facts from our respective ASSUMPTIONS, INFERENCES and THEORIES to clearly understand how people arrive at their multiple working HYPOTHESES. 

And voila, we all "follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another."

It's easy to articulate the goals and methodology.

Let's see how it works in practice.

_____

In this case, we'll look at Royal Skousen's Part Seven: The Early Transmission of the Text. This post is part of my longer review which I will post on Academia.edu tomorrow. (I'll provide the link on this blog.)

The charity and understanding elements are easy.

Royal Skousen is one of the most meticulous, careful, detailed and conscientious scholars in Church history. I can't think of anyone who comes close, actually. He is widely respected by both scholars and casual readers.

Stan Carmack is a perfect collaborator who uses his knowledge of linguistics and statistical analysis to enhance Royal's research.

They do phenomenal work. I rely on their exemplary research all the time.

They are both awesome people, and we can readily assume they act in good faith. 

They make their assumptions, inferences, theories and conclusions (hypotheses) clear so everyone can understand them. We can disagree with their conclusions without feeling any compulsion to have them or anyone else change their minds. We enjoy the different perspectives and seek unity in diversity. 

In my view they trip over basic assumptions and inferences, but that's fine. So long as we have access to the relevant facts, different assumptions, inferences, and theories make life interesting as we all pursue truth through clarity, charity and understanding.  

The challenge here is clarity, because clarity relies on a factual foundation.

In Part Seven, Royal has unwittingly or intentionally omitted highly relevant facts that deprive his readers of the ability to make informed decisions about his assumptions, inferences, and theories. Again, we assume he is acting in good faith, but we must build on a foundation of clarity, which means we want all the relevant facts.

_____

Here's one example from Part Seven: The Early Transmission of the Text. 

The specific topic is a section titled "Another Account of Mary Whitmer's Viewing of the Golden Plates," starting on page 43 and continuing through page 47. 

We will look at this in detail because the conclusion Royal presents here is a widely shared belief among many Latter-day Saints today. Actually, it's a nearly universal belief among young and new Latter-day Saints because it is conveyed in Saints, volume 1, and depicted in a famous painting.

_____

Royal writes, "For a long time we have known that Mary Whitmer was also shown the plates. These accounts are familiar and derive from David Whitmer and John C. Whitmer (the son of Jacob Whitmer)." (p. 43)

Then, on page 44, Royal gives us an excerpt of David Whitmer's 1878 account, recorded by Orson Pratt and Joseph F. Smith. This is all good. 

Next he gives us the John C. Whitmer 1878 account, recorded and published by Andrew Jenson. This is the infamous account in which Jenson rejects what Mary Whitmer herself said. Quoting John, Andrew writes:

I have heard my grandmother (Mary Musselman Whitmer) say on several occasions that she was shown the plates of the Book of Mormon by a holy angel, whom se always called Brother Nephi. (She undoubtedly refers to Moroni, the angel who had the plates in charge.)

Royal recognizes the problem when he writes at the end of this passage on page 45, "We should note here that there is some issue about the identity of the angel. Mary Whitmer referred to him as Nephi, but John C. Whitmer identifies him as Moroni."

When we look at the passage, it's obvious it was Andrew Jenson who inserted the parentheticals. John Whitmer would not have put his grandmother's name in a parenthetical. More importantly, John was likely familiar with his uncle David's earlier account identifying the messenger, which Royal hasn't shared. This omission is our first clue something is wrong here.

Next, on pages 45-47, Royal provides an extended discussion of a "third account" which amounts to mere family lore, first recorded in 1958, complete with a fabricated direct quotation of the messenger who, contrary to Mary's own account, arrives and says, "My name is Moroni." From then on, Royal refers to the messenger as Moroni.

Finally, on page 47 (reproduced at the left), Royal writes:

We should also add here the earliest record of the angel appearing to Mary Whitmer. This is found in Edward Stevenson's interview of David Whitmer on 22-23 December 1877 and is recorded as follows in Stevenson's diary [Cook 13, Vogel 5:31]:

& the next Morning Daivds Mother Saw the Person at the Shed and he took the plates from A Box & Showed them to her She Said that they Were fastened with Rings thus: D he turned the leaves over this was a Sattisfaction to her.

[Note: Vogel 5:31 is Vogel's Early Mormon Documents (EMD), Vol 5, page 31, shown below.] 

Quotation from Stevenson's diary, p. 47

Wait a minute. This is the "earliest record" but we don't get it until the end of this section? 

Royal had announced his own standards of evidence back on p. 42.

In selecting witnesses and their statements, we hunt for those accounts that are firsthand, preferably in the witness’s own hand or otherwise based on fairly recent interviews of the witness. As with all accounts of historical events, we will find that they tend to change over time, which means that the earliest accounts are the most reliable ones. Most importantly, we find that the most reliable accounts are supported by more than one witness and that they end up being quite consistent. [emphasis added]

Instead of starting with the earliest account, Royal dedicates three pages on a hearsay account first recorded in 1958. He saves the earliest account for last.

But worse, he omits the key part of the earliest account!

Just a few lines before the sentence Royal quoted from the Stevenson's diary (see the images from EMD below), David Whitmer explained that Joseph identified the messenger as one of the Three Nephites.

"I wish to mention an Item of conversation with David Whitmer in regard to Seeing one of the Nephites, Zina Young, Desired me to ask about it. David Said, Oliver, & The Prophet, & I were riding in a wagon, & an aged man about 5 feet 10, heavey Set & on his back, an old fashioned Armey knapsack Straped over his Shoulders & Something Square in it, & he walked alongside of the Wagon & Wiped the Sweat off his face, Smileing very Pleasant David asked him to ride and he replied I am going across to the hill Cumorah. Soon after they Passed they felt Strangeley and Stoped, but could see nothing of him all around was clean and they asked the Lord about it. He Said that the Prophet Looked as White as a Sheet & Said that it was one of the Nephites & that he had the plates." [emphasis added]

(It is significant that it was Zina who asked Stevenson to ask David about this account. She first met David Whitmer when he and his missionary companion, Hyrum Smith, baptized her family in 1832. She even remembered that she wanted Hyrum to baptize her because he was more handsome. She apparently asked Stevenson to ask David about it because she heard this account from David in 1832)

To restate the obvious, David told Stevenson that Joseph Smith himself identified the messenger as "one of the Nephites." That is highly relevant to the identity of the messenger, and by Royal's own evidentiary standard, should be considered "the most reliable." 

Yet Royal omitted this from his book.

Perhaps Royal reasoned that, well, Moroni was also a Nephite, so it could have been Moroni and Mary might have been wrong after all. But if that's his reasoning, he owes it to us to spell it out after first sharing the relevant facts. 

_____

Royal's citation to EMD also refers to Stevenson's published account, where he clarified by writing,   

David relates, the Prophet looked very white but with a heavenly appearance and said their visitor was one of the three Nephites to whom the Savior gave the promise of life on earth until He should come in power. After arriving home, David again saw this personage, and mother Whitmer, who was very kind to Joseph Smith, is said to have seen not only this Nephite, but to have also been shown by him the sealed and unsealed parts of the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated. (emphasis added) Edward Stevenson, “Visit,” Instructor 22 (1887):55 [emphasis added]

Royal doesn't inform his readers about any of this.

To be sure, Royal isn't writing an encyclopedia. We don't expect him to include every available source. But by his own standards, "the earliest accounts are the most reliable ones." In this case, he was not unaware of the earliest account.

He even quotes part of it.

But he omits the most directly relevant part of the earliest account (Stevenson's diary) and doesn't share the more detailed account Stevenson formally published.

This practice violates the first principle of clarity and misleads readers. While we assume Royal acts in good faith, we also observe that the facts he omitted contradict his conclusion that it was Moroni who showed the plates to Mary Whitmer. 

_____

To see how obvious this manipulation of history is, let's look at the page Royal cited from Vogel's Early Mormon Documents. Royal cited Volume 5, page 31, for the quotation from Stevenson's diary.

Below are images of pages 30-31 from EMD vol. 5. The passage Royal quoted from page 31 is the passage I outlined in yellow below. 

The passage I outlined in red is where David Whitmer relates Joseph's identification of the messenger.  Royal omitted this passage from his quotation, even though it is on the same page as the part he did quote.

Whether Royal omitted the relevant passage unwittingly or deliberately, he has misinformed his readers and should correct the error to rehabilitate the credibility of his work. 

He can retain his opinion that the messenger was Moroni if he wants by rejecting what David and his mother said (the way he rejects what Joseph and Oliver said about the translation), but he owes it to his readers to explain his reasoning after providing the relevant facts here. 

Especially when the facts he censored are those that, according to his own criteria, are "are the most reliable ones."

(click to enlarge)

(click to enlarge)

  

Footnote 13, outlined in red above, relates a subsequent interview that Stevenson had with David Whitmer on 9 Feb 1886. On this occasion, David reiterated his statement that "they asked the Prophet to enquire of the Lord who this stranger was. Soon David said they turned around & Joseph looked pale almost trans¬ parent Se said that [he] was one of the Nephites, and he had the Plates of the Book of Mormon in the knapsac[k]"

You can read this account here:

https://archive.org/details/volume-5_202011/page/159/mode/2up 

Footnote 15 is also interesting. This refers to the interview of John C. Whitmer by Andrew Jenson and Edward Stevenson together on 11 Oct. 1888.

Here we see how Jenson inserted the parentheticals, including John's name, the name of his grandmother, and the Moroni narrative. 

(click to enlarge)

Jenson published his account in Historical Record.

A few months later, Stevenson published his version of this interview. “The Thirteenth Witness to the Plates of the Book of Mormon,” Juvenile Instructor 24 (1 January 1889): 23

(click to enlarge)

In his version of the interview, Stevenson refers to the messenger as Moroni, having adopted Jenson's "correction" of what Mary Whitmer said.

(click to enlarge)

It's easy to see that Royal may not have wanted to go down this rabbit hole to get into all these interviews. But he provided considerable detail about the much later and less credible family lore on this topic, when these earlier sources were readily available right in the references he cited.

_____

Conclusion: If everyone involved with Church history research would join in the pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding, we could apply the FAITH model and agree on the facts. Then we could all understand and appreciate the various assumptions, inferences and theories that everyone uses to reach their conclusions (hypotheses).

And everyone would understand one another with no more contention.

_____

Additional Reference:

https://www.mobom.org/moroni-and-nephi