It doesn't matter?

I keep hearing that the location of the Hill Cumorah "doesn't matter."

Usually I hear this from advocates of the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory who realize their theory contradicts the teachings of the prophets and apostles. They handle their cognitive dissonance by telling themselves--and others--that the geography doesn't matter.

This is an avoidance mechanism.


But by claiming it doesn't matter, they are aggravating and prolonging the problem that is causing members to become confused and disturbed in their faith. The mixed messages about Cumorah are an impediment to investigators. People leave the Church when they lose faith in the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon, as the surveys show.

Maybe worst of all, every year thousands of students at BYU and in CES are being taught to disbelieve the prophets and apostles, and this will continue until the issue is resolved. 
_____

For Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, the location of Cumorah mattered.

A lot.

When confronted with the 1834 anti-Mormon book Mormonism Unvailed [sic], the book that claimed the Book of Mormon was fiction based on the writings of Solomon Spaulding, did they respond by saying the geography doesn't matter?

No.

In Letter VII, they declared the authenticity of the Book of Mormon by affirming that it was a fact that the final battles of the Nephites and Jaredites took place in the mile-wide valley west of the hill in New York where Joseph found the first set of plates in Moroni's stone box.

The Hill Cumorah, as Moroni called it.

They declared this was also the site of Mormon's depository (Mormon 6:6)

Joseph Smith made sure every member of the Church in his day knew this truth. Letter VII was reprinted in the Times and Seasons, the Gospel Reflector, the Millennial Star, the Prophet (the New York newspaper), and the Improvement Era.

Joseph's own brothers, Don Carlos and William, both reprinted it. It was included in a special pamphlet in England.

Joseph himself referred to it again in D&C 128.
_____

Why are so many active LDS eager to reject not only what Joseph and Oliver declared about Cumorah, but also their emphasis on its importance?

Joseph and Oliver knew the location of the Hill Cumorah mattered, because a claim that it didn't matter would amount to conceding the argument that the Book of Mormon was fiction; i.e., that Mormonism Unvailed was correct.

The latest iteration of the claim that the Book of Mormon is fiction is the "abstract map" being taught at BYU and CES.

Look at this location of Cumorah. It doesn't exactly look like New York, does it?

It doesn't look like anywhere on planet Earth.

That's because it's not. It's a fantasy map, teaching the students that the Book of Mormon took place in a fictional world.

It's unbelievable that it is BYU/CES teaching this.

One would expect something like this to come out of an anti-Mormon ministry. It's the modern equivalent to Mormonism Unvailed.

And I think we should respond the same way Joseph and Oliver responded to Mormonism Unvailed; i.e., we should reaffirm the consistent teachings of the prophets and apostles that Cumorah is in New York.
_____

Let's return to the question, Why are so many active LDS eager to reject not only what Joseph and Oliver declared about Cumorah, but also their emphasis on its importance?

For many active LDS, the geography of the Book of Mormon may not matter. They have faith that the book is true. End of story. That's a gift of the Spirit, but those who have that gift can't expect everyone to have the same gift. Everyone has different spiritual gifts. (Moroni 10, D&C 46, 1 Corinthians 12)

[Besides, it's an ironic argument. Religious people everywhere have implicit faith in their beliefs. We send missionaries to them precisely because we know faith alone can lead people to believe in things that aren't true.]

Other active LDS don't believe the Book of Mormon is a literal history. Instead, they think it's a sort of inspired parable, teaching correct principles like the parables in the New Testament.

Still other LDS believe in the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon and it is for that reason that they seek evidence of its reality. The same reason why people learn about Israel and Egypt, whether through books or travel, lead faithful LDS to want to know more about the setting and context of the Book of Mormon.

The only reason there is confusion about the Hill Cumorah is that intellectuals in the Church have decided the prophets and apostles are wrong, and they've been teaching students at BYU/CES for decades to believe this.

These intellectuals are causing cognitive dissonance for members and investigators alike.

Overall, IMO, it is the confusion about the Hill Cumorah that leads members of the Church to resolve their cognitive dissonance by saying the location of the Hill Cumorah doesn't matter.

But Joseph and Oliver knew otherwise.

I think by now it is obvious that they were right.

We ought to accept them as the prophets and apostles they were, and as the two witnesses of the restoration of the Priesthood, the translation of the Book of Mormon, and the visitation of Moses, Elijah, Elias, and the Savior Himself.

Case study--Using art to prove Mesoamerican setting and failing the scholarship test

Two days ago I posted an observation about how the intellectuals in the Church seek to prove their Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory by citing Church artwork.

Here's a prime example.

It's based on the mural I posted yesterday, the one showing the "sons of Mosiah" approaching a Mayan pyramid city.

According to a blog post titled "Mesoamerican MTC Mural," the message of the mural is repeated in several places at the MTC. "Multiple copies of this particular mural showing the four sons of Mosiah about to enter a Lamanite city are on display throughout the buildings."

Here's an image from that blog post:

Missionaries studying by mural depicting Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory. Photo by LDS Church News!

Continuing from the blog post: "The scene portrays the land of Nephi with stepped pyramids, in a tropical or sub-tropical setting with palm trees and low-latitude shrubs, beside a lake, surrounded by spectacular, densely-forested mountains.... Tropical Kaminaljuyú (KJ), our candidate for the city of Nephi, was built on Lake Miraflores and is surrounded by imposing, densely-forested volcanoes. See the article "Kaminaljuyu" for dozens of correspondences between KJ and the Book of Mormon text. These parallels are convincing enough that KJ is on our list of outstanding archaeological evidences."

The blog post notes the promoters of the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory:

"All nine contemporary Mesoamerican correlations of which I am aware (Joe & Blake Allen, Ric Hauck & Joe Andersen, Kirk Magleby & Javier Tovar, Elder Clate W. Mask, Jr., Garth Norman, Bob Roylance & Richard Terry, Shelby Saberon & Mark Wright, John L. Sorenson, Aric Turner) place the city of Nephi within 85 air kilometers of Kaminaljuyú in the Guatemalan highlands."

These intellectuals don't even notice the deep irony of their internal confusion; i.e., they can't agree even on their Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs interpretation of the text. This is exactly the kind of confusion we expect when we reject the clear, consistent, and enduring teachings of the prophets and apostles about the New York Cumorah.

Then the post includes this map of Mesoamerica:

Proposed Locations for the City of Nephi

So far as I know, this map hasn't made it to the walls of the Provo MTC--yet. But it is implicit in all of these Mesoamerican murals, and every missionary knows that.

Especially if they've been taught the "abstract map" at BYU/CES, which depicts the Book of Mormon in a fantasy land designed to resemble Mesoamerica.

Here's the most astonishing part of the blog post:

"It is gratifying to know that hundreds of thousands of missionaries entering the field in coming years will leave the MTC with a striking mental image derived from the best current LDS and Restoration Branch (formerly RLDS) scholarship on Book of Mormon lands.... Kudos to the Missionary Department."

Think about that one for a moment.

These Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs advocates feel "gratified" that their ideology is being actively promoted at the MTC--including their repudiation of what Joseph, Oliver, and all their contemporaries and successors have taught about the Hill Cumorah in New York.

If I had been responsible for promoting this ideology to the point that it is enshrined at the MTC, I would be working as hard as I could to undo the damage and instead reaffirm what the prophets and apostles have consistently and explicitly taught for over 150 years.
_____

There are two more elements of this that should be noted.

First, it was the RLDS (aka, "Restoration Branch") who started the whole limited geography Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory in the 1920s. At the time, Church historian and 20-year Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith denounced it. But LDS scholars ignored him and instead embraced the RLDS position.

Now, the RLDS are ambivalent about the Book of Mormon. Some still believe in its divine authenticity and actual historicity, but others do not.

At the 2007 Community of Christ World Conference, President Stephen M. Veazey ruled as out of order a resolution to "reaffirm the Book of Mormon as a divinely inspired record." He said, "While the Church affirms the Book of Mormon as scripture, and makes it available for study and use in various languages, we do not attempt to mandate the degree of belief or use."

BYU is following a similar pattern by first, repudiating what the prophets and apostles have consistently taught about Cumorah, and second, by requiring students to learn the Book of Mormon by using an "abstract map" (a euphemism for a fantasy map) that reinforces the repudiation of the prophets and apostles by depicting Cumorah in a Mesoamerican-type setting as far from New York as possible.
_____

The second point is the claim that the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory, depicted throughout the MTC, is "derived from the best current LDS and Restoration Branch (formerly RLDS) scholarship on Book of Mormon lands."

There are actually groups from LDS and RLDS who regularly travel to southern Mexico in a quixotic search for Cumorah. It's comical, really, but serious in the sense that these intellectuals are teaching not only BYU and CES students, but missionaries at the Provo MTC that the prophets and apostles are wrong.

But my favorite part of this is the claim that this is the "best current scholarship."

Everyone knows that the Mormon Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs advocates have painted themselves into a tiny corner. 

Not only are they repudiating the prophets and apostles, but the best actual Mesoamerican scholarship uniformly rejects the Mormon claims. None of these Mormon intellectuals have managed to publish their theories in actual peer-reviewed journals.

BYU Studies and the Interpreter are peer-approved, not peer-reviewed. They don't seek or accept input from scholars who don't already share their ideology. (I've had some of them tell me they are "diverse" because of the disagreements about details such as where in Guatemala the City of Nephi is located, as alluded to in the quotation above. That's the extent of the "diversity of views" they allow.)

In fact, I know one actual Mesoamerican scholar who has written textbooks on the topic and who left the Church because he realized there was no possible connection between Mesoamerican history/culture and the Book of Mormon.

I've said for years that the "correspondences" between the actual Mayan civilization and the Book of Mormon are illusory. The idea that Lehi's colony was completely absorbed into a massive Mayan culture is preposterous on its face, without even considering all the textual reasons why that would be impossible. That's why these intellectuals have to use their own translation of the text (by "seeing" volcanoes, pyramids, tapirs, and other things Joseph forgot to translate correctly) to make their theories work.

IOW, the "best current LDS scholarship on Book of Mormon lands" is a joke to actual Mesoamerican scholars. 

As it should be, given that this "scholarship" is nothing more than a repudiation of the prophets and apostles who have consistently taught that Cumorah is in New York.

Confusing messages at the MTC

National flags at Provo MTC

A few months ago I toured the MTC in Provo, a wonderful campus that trains thousands of missionaries to go into the world to teach about the Restoration and bring people to Christ.

The campus is beautifully decorated with inspiring art and murals, such as these:






Some of the murals depict prophets, apostles, and missionaries in various settings. Here's one of Nephi in the Old World, for example:

Buildings are named after famous missionaries, such as LeGrand Richards, who taught that the Hill Cumorah was in New York.

"It was at this time that Mormon deposited in the Hill Cumorah all the records that had been entrusted to him except a few plates that he gave to his son Moroni. (See Mormon 6.) About A.D. 420, Moroni placed these plates with those his father, Mormon, had already deposited in the hill. (See Moroni 10:1-2.)" A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, p. 73.

Another building is named for Parley P. Pratt, who also taught that Cumorah is in New York.

"This Book, which contained these things, was hid in the earth by Moroni, in a hill called by him, Cumorah, which hill is now in the State of New York, near the village of Palmyra, in Ontario County.” Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt, p. 43.

The administration building is named for Wilford Woodruff, who among other things taught that Cumorah was in New York:

"[Joseph] went [into] a Cave in the Hill Comoro with Oliver Cowdry & deposited those plates upon a table or shelf. In that room were deposited a large amount of gold plates Containing sacred records...  Joseph Smith said that Cave Contained tons of Choice Treasures & records." 

Another building is named after Heber C. Kimball, who also taught that Cumorah was in New York:

"Joseph and others... went into a cave in the hill Cumorah, and saw more records than ten men could carry... There were books piled up on tables, book upon book. Those records this people will yet have, if they accept of the Book of Mormon and observe its precepts, and keep the commandments."

There is a building named after Edward Stevenson, who also taught that Cumorah was in New York:

"At one time a fierce battle was fought near where Buffalo, N.Y., now stands, wherein two million were lying strewn upon the earth, slain in battle and no one to bury them, till the stench drove them southward to the Hill Ramah, which was called Cumorah by the Nephite race."

Stevenson also related David Whitmer's statement that Oliver and Joseph had visited the room in Cumorah that contained the portion of gold plates not yet translated, etc.
______________

Missionaries studying in these MTC buildings are never told that the men for whom the buildings are named taught that there is one Hill Cumorah and it is in New York. 

They are never told that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery taught the same thing.

The missionaries are never told that members of the First Presidency, speaking in General Conference, have reaffirmed this basic teaching.

Instead, they are subjected to images of Mesoamerica.

Probably the most famous one is this:

The sons of Mosiah depicted in Guatemala

I zoomed in on the image so you can see the destination for the "sons of Mosiah."

Mayan pyramid city, the destination for the "sons of Mosiah."

It's a Mayan city of stone pyramids, reflecting the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory promoted by LDS intellectuals who have repudiated the consistent teachings of modern prophets and apostles.

There are other depictions of Mesoamerica in the MTC that I won't show here.

And there are exactly zero depictions of Cumorah in New York.
_____

I've been told by multiple sources that around 40% of returned missionaries leave the Church or go inactive after their missions. I can't independently verify that statistic, but that's about the percentage of my own missionary companions who have left the Church.

Imagine being a missionary at the Provo MTC, studying and eating and living in buildings named for valiant missionaries you want to emulate.

But only after you get into the mission field, or after you get home, do you learn that the setting for the Book of Mormon you were taught--a setting promoted by LDS intellectuals and reinforced by Church media and even the artwork in the MTC--repudiated the teachings of the very men for whom those buildings were named.

Imagine how you would feel to have believed and taught this Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory, only to later discover Letter VII's explicit, detailed teaching about the New York Cumorah and all the supporting statements by prophets and apostles for over 150 years.

You would feel you've been lied to misled at the MTC, at BYU, in CES, and even in your Church classes.

At a minimum, you would feel confused and disturbed, as Joseph Fielding Smith warned when he discussed this Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory.

But for many such missionaries, they lose their faith in the Book of Mormon, and that leads them out of the Church or into inactivity.

All because LDS intellectuals insist on promoting their pet theories, even to the point of telling the youth--and the missionaries--that the prophets and apostles are wrong.
_____

How intellectuals "prove" their theories

The intellectuals in the Church who support the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory have a final argument they are making.

They openly acknowledged that they repudiate every prophet and apostle who has spoken about Cumorah for the last 150 years.

They also admit that while they insist their interpretation of the text is the "correct" one, they can't agree among themselves about such basics as the location of Cumorah, the narrow neck of land, or even the river Sidon.

Nevertheless, they insist the Church has endorsed their position because of Church art.

They sometimes state that the Church is "neutral" on Book of Mormon geography, but they wink at that because they, like everyone else, know the Church's media department has depicted the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory since at least 1981.

Here's a graphic that shows the cycle:

Here's how it works.

1. Mesoamerican advocates such as the old FARMS (morphed into the Interpreter), FairMormon, BMAF, and now BMAF's corporate subsidiary Book of Mormon Central (BOMC), develop a theory of Book of Mormon geography that repudiates the prophets and apostles by insisting that the Hill Cumorah (Mormon 6:6) "cannot" be in New York.

Instead, these intellectuals persuade themselves that Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and all of their contemporaries and successors were ignorant speculators who misled the Church about Cumorah's location. This includes members of the First Presidency speaking in General Conference.

2. The intellectuals teach the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory to students at BYU and in CES. Lately, they've begun presenting the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory as an "abstract map" based on the standard Mesoamerican interpretation of the text.

I've blogged about this here:
http://bookofmormonwars.blogspot.com/2017/08/alarming-news-from-byu-education-week.html,
here:
http://bookofmormonwars.blogspot.com/2017/04/update-on-abstract-maps.html
and here:
http://bookofmormonwars.blogspot.com/2016/06/abstract-maps-revisited.html

Obviously, this abstract map is a ruse to evade the new prohibition at BYU against using a real-world geography. Except it's even worse, because they're depicting Cumorah in a fantasy land. Apparently, as long as we don't show Cumorah in New York, any other geography is fine to teach at BYU/CES now.

3. With the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory firmly imprinted on their minds by teachers they trust, these BYU/CES students graduate and enter the workforce. Some become artists; others become Church employees. They depict the Book of Mormon just as they've been taught by the intellectuals; i.e., as a story of people living in southern Mexico and Guatemala, the area of Mesoamerica which they claim is the location of the promised land and the great nation that would be the site of the restoration and that would fulfill Isaiah's prophecies and that would send missionaries throughout the world, etc.

4. The Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs artwork and media gain widespread acceptance in the Church by default, including the two-Cumorahs display on Temple Square in the North Visitors Center and the illustrations in the missionary edition of the Book of Mormon itself.

Then the Mesoamerican proponents use this artwork and media as evidence that the Church approves their theory.

Tomorrow I'll give a recent example of this approach.

Brilliant plan, isn't it?

Except in my opinion, teaching students that the intellectuals are right and the prophets and apostles are wrong is exactly the opposite of what these BYU/CES faculty should be doing.

This plan, well-executed by the intellectuals, is based on a premise that I question.

They claim the Brethren (meaning the highest leaders of the Church) have approved of this artwork because of its content; i.e., that the Brethren endorse the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory.

Maybe that's the case.

But the premise relies on this basic assertion: that the Brethren have repudiated all prior prophets and apostles who have spoken about Cumorah in New York without a more official statement than a series of artists' conceptions.

Instead, at least in my opinion, the far more likely explanation is that the Brethren delegate the artwork to experts whom they trust because they were educated by BYU/CES. To the extent the Brethren "approve" this artwork, it is not because they are making an official statement about the Church's position on the Hill Cumorah.
_____

That said, the impact of this artwork and media is powerful. In my view, it has misled generations of youth, missionaries, investigators, and even mature members of the Church. It is the fulfillment of Joseph Fielding Smith's early warning that because of this theory, members of the Church would become confused and disturbed in their faith in the Book of Mormon.

These intellectuals are teaching their students to believe them, the intellectuals, whenever their opinions differ from what the prophets and apostles have said. This problem extends far beyond the question of Cumorah, of course, but this is a specific application that everyone can see and that the intellectuals openly admit.
_____

BTW, I think the Brethren also rely on the expertise of the intellectuals who are trusted enough to teach at BYU/CES. At least, that's what the intellectuals have told me.

The fact that these intellectuals have not informed the Brethren about all the facts, or even about all the alternatives to their Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory, is a serious problem that I'll be discussing more in the future.

update on watching General Conference with your BYU/CES teacher

A few days ago I posted a comment about watching General Conference with your BYU/CES teacher. http://bookofmormonwars.blogspot.com/2017/10/watching-general-conference-with-your.html

It turns out, there are some BYU/CES teachers who support and sustain the united and consistent position of the prophets and apostles who have spoken about the New York Cumorah for over 150 years.

These teachers just are not well known because the people who control FairMormon, Book of Mormon Central, BYU Studies, the Interpreter, the Maxwell Institute, and Meridian Magazine don't allow them to publish or even comment about their beliefs. As we all know by now, those groups censor anything that threatens their Mesomania editorial stance.

There are also many Church employees who support and sustain the prophets and apostles.

A reader sent in this correction.

Well I don't know about Church employees who work for public relations, media, magazines, etc., but as a Church employee in the Family History Department (and formerly in the ICS department), I can tell you there are a LOT of employees and senior missionaries who are completely on board with what the prophets and apostles have said about Cumorah. It has been my experience (repeatedly) that they recognize the truth when they hear it, just as they did when first reading the Book of Mormon--it resonates in their souls.

I have yet to meet anyone who sincerely studied the Heartland Model who rejected it. All those I have met who still wallow in Mesomania have never given any serious thought to the Heartland and the research done about it, except for scholars whose livelihood and reputation rely on the furthering of their Mesoamerican pseudo-theory.

I appreciate this comment and I apologize to any Church employees who I inadvertently may have lumped in with Mesoamerican advocates. I know of many Church employees who support and sustain the prophets and apostles regarding the New York Cumorah.

The problem really is with a handful of intellectuals who run FairMormon, Book of Mormon Central, BYU Studies, the Interpreter, and the Maxwell Institute, as well as some faculty at BYU and CES who contribute to and support those groups. These people are determined to continue foisting the Mesoamerican dogma on their students and readers, as they have been doing for decades. They openly repudiate the prophets and apostles about the New York Cumorah, which, in my opinion, is a breach of their fiduciary responsibility as teachers at BYU/CES.

I also agree with the reader's comment about those who assess the two scenarios with an open mind. You will notice if you engage in any discussions with Mesoamerican proponents that they have a Groupthink interpretation of the text that drives everything they think, say, and write. Even though they can't agree among themselves, they insist their interpretation is the only viable one, and their Groupthink is so powerful they have no problem repudiating the prophets and apostles whenever they contradict their Mesoamerican dogma. 

Few Church members (apart from the Mesoamerican proponents) knowingly reject the prophets and apostles. 

That's why the Mesoamerican proponents refuse to publish any fair comparisons between the North American and Mesoamerican settings. They don't want Church members to realize how fully they have repudiated the prophets and apostles regarding the New York Cumorah.

From the outset of this blog, I've freely and openly linked to the Mesoamerican proponents' publications. I want more Church members to realize what these intellectuals are teaching our youth. I don't think their sophistry can withstand even cursory scrutiny, but they have been getting away with it for years because they control the "scholarly" publications.

I invite those who have seen through the fog of the Mesoamerican arguments to speak out more openly. I think we'll find that the vast majority of members of the Church support the prophets and apostles, and they reject the intellectuals once they realize what has been going on.

Why the scholars stick with Meso

the restored house in which Joseph translated the Harmony plates

I've been in upstate New York for a few days. Here's a photo I took at the Aaronic Priesthood Restoration Site in Pennsylvania.

This is one of my favorite Church history sites for several reasons, but one is the humble nature of the location where Joseph and Oliver translated the Harmony plates. It's pretty cool to think that the book which is destined to change the world was translated in such an unassuming and remote area.

And it's a stark contrast to the great and spacious intellectual buildings from which our LDS educators teach our youth to disbelieve what Joseph and Oliver said about Cumorah; i.e., that it was a fact that the final battles of the Jaredites and Nephites took place in western New York.
__________

A lot of people wonder why our LDS scholars stick with their Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory.

I've addressed this before, such as in my book Mesomania and in several blog posts, but here's another angle to consider.

Our educators are unlikely to change their minds about Cumorah until their friends do. It's not a matter of facts or rational thinking; it's a matter of peer pressure, groupthink and psychology.

At this point, they have a fortress or seige mentality. Their barricade consists of a system of intertwined publications  that includes Meridian Magazine, BYU Studies, the Intepreter, FairMormon, BookofMormonCentral, BMAF.org, and related groups (what I used to call the "citation cartel").

They use these outlets to reinforce and comfort one another by repeating the same basic premises. They all think alike, and that's why they formed these publications and web pages that refuse to let readers know what the prophets and apostles have taught.

The greatest risks to their ideology come from (i) members of the Church who read Letter VII and the general conference addresses about Cumorah and (ii) members of the Church who actually believe the prophets and apostles.

Just in the last week I've seen some of this fortress mentality at work .

Anyone who walks into a visitors center will see displays that teach the two-Cumorahs theory, as I've shown many times.

It is tragically unimaginable, and yet true, that the hundreds of thousands of people who have visited the Hill Cumorah in the last few years have left without even learning what Joseph and Oliver said about that sacred site (apart from edited comments about the stone box*).

Why?

Because of the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs dogma that our intellectuals have foisted on their students--students who have grown up to become Church employees who implement the dogma through every channel possible.

My post about watching General Conference with your BYU/CES teacher had a lot of readers, but not enough. I think every student at a BYU campus or in CES should be aware that their instructors reject the teachings of the prophets and apostles about the Hill Cumorah. I think every parent and donor should know this as well.

But don't think these instructors who support the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory are going to change their opposition to the prophets and apostles just because students ask questions.

As many readers here have observed, it is difficult to understand how these educators justify their position. Mostly they do it by claiming that Cumorah "cannot fit" their imaginary "requirements" for Cumorah, such as the "requirement" that there be volcanoes in the area and their imaginary belief that there are no artifacts in New York that corroborate what Joseph and Oliver taught.

Our intellectuals rely on their own learning. Like the great and spacious building of Lehi's dream, these intellectuals have no foundation except their own imagination. Because they have rejected the ordained prophets and apostles, they stand "as it were in the air, high above the earth."

They even mock those who believe the prophets and apostles, as I pointed out in that post.

The Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory is among the best examples of this basic principle: "When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not." (2 Nephi 9:28)

Most members of the Church know that we "receive no witness until after the trial of [our] faith" (Ether 12:6). Those who trust and have faith in the words of the prophets and apostles receive the witness that what they teach is true.

As long as our intellectuals distrust the prophets and apostles, they will continue to be "ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." They will continue taking expeditions to southern Mexico in a search for their imaginary Cumorah; they will continue debating over which Mesoamerican river is the Sidon; and they will continue searching for a "narrow neck of land" that they think is the same as a narrow neck and a small neck, etc.

Meanwhile, members of the Church and investigators will continue to visit Cumorah in New York and be kept in ignorance about the significance of that location as taught by Joseph, Oliver, and all of their contemporaries and successors.

_____

*No visitors center that I know of shows visitors quotations from Letter VIII, the most detailed description of Moroni's stone box that we have.

Sympathy for unbelievers at BYU, FairMormon, etc.

NOTE: This is an edidted cross-post from the Consensus blog, here.
_____

One way to obtain consensus is through sympathy and understanding for opposing viewpoints.

We might think that most people, given the same information and background, would reach the same conclusions. However, our beliefs depend on the filters through which we perceive information. If you put on the filters of someone who has taught the Mesoamerican theory his/her entire life, you would probably see things the same way that person does.

It's extremely difficult to admit you have taught false theories to thousands of faithful Latter-day Saint youth.

But having done so, you have even greater responsibility to correct the mistake.

Especially when you're still teaching them!

I propose that a more sympathetic understanding of others' views could lead to a consensus, so long as people are willing to rethink their positions.
___________________

By now, it is well known that the Mesoamerican theory of Book of Mormon geography is based on the premise that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were wrong about Cumorah in New York.*

In other words, our LDS intellectuals who still teach the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory disbelieve what Joseph and Oliver taught in Letter VII. That's why I refer to them as unbelievers.

"Unbelievers" in this context is not intended as a pejorative label. It's purely a description. And the promoters of the Mesoamerican setting don't disagree with it.

They openly admit they don't believe Letter VII.

I've outlined the history of Mesomania before, such as here, but today I want to emphasize that we should have sympathy and patience for the unbelievers among us.

Put yourself in their places. They have been teaching the Mesoamerican setting for decades. They have even ridiculed those who accept what Joseph and Oliver taught about Cumorah. For example, John Sorenson, in his oft-quoted and admired book Mormon's Codex, goes so far as to say that what Joseph and Oliver taught is "manifestly absurd."

These faithful, well-meaning LDS scholars and educators have taught generations of Latter-day Saints to think the Book of Mormon took place in Mesoamerica. We should not criticize them for what has happened in the past.

We're trying to thread the needle here by focusing on the present and the future. To do so, we have to explain how we got to this point, but we don't criticize the intellectuals for what they've taught before.

Instead, we are sympathetic and understanding. They thought they were doing the right thing, and their influence is pervasive.

But now they know better. 

Or at least most of them do.

They are experiencing cognitive dissonance, as I explained in this cartoon:

Mesomania scholar encounters Letter VII - h/t Scott Adams

We can be sympathetic and understanding regarding the past, and acknowledge the difficulty of dealing with cognitive dissonance.

But at this point, every time someone teaches the Mesoamerican theory (as well as the "abstract map" at BYU which teaches the Mesoamerican theory by applying the Mesoamerican interpretation of the text to a fantasy map), he or she is knowingly teaching LDS youth that Joseph and Oliver were wrong.

I think it is inexcusable for anyone to continue teaching that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were wrong about Cumorah. 

And anyone who is teaching that the real Cumorah of Mormon 6:6 is not in New York is teaching that Joseph and Oliver were wrong.

When fully informed, most LDS students, missionaries, and ordinary members side with Joseph and Oliver instead of our LDS scholars and educators who claim Joseph and Oliver were wrong.

The scholars know this. That's why they have refused to tell their students and readers about Letter VII and the related context.

If the scholars and educators who teach the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory want to continue to believe that theory, fine. If the people at FairMormon, Book of Mormon Central, BYU Studies, the Interpreter, Meridian Magazine and the rest want to continue to believe Joseph and Oliver were wrong, fine.

But they should no longer impose that theory on their students.

And they should no longer suppress what Joseph and Oliver taught.

They should not seek to skirt the issue by using a fantasy map that incorporates the Mesoamerican interpretation of the text and shows Cumorah outside of the real-world New York.

Every LDS scholar and educator has, at a minimum, a duty of full disclosure.

They should tell their students about Letter VII and its historical context so students can make fully informed decisions. They should tell their students that all of Joseph's contemporaries, and all of his successors who have discussed the topic, including members of the First Presidency in General Conference, have affirmed that there is one Cumorah and it is in New York.

The Mesoamerican advocates can continue to say the prophets and apostles are wrong, but they should no longer hide the facts from their students.
__________________

*A basic tenet of Mesomania is that Joseph and Oliver were ignorant speculators who misled the Church when they taught Cumorah was in New York. Instead, according to Mesomaniacs, there are "two Cumorahs." The "real Cumorah" is somewhere in Mexico. The one in New York was named by mistake out of ignorance and speculation by unknown early Church members (possibly Oliver Cowdery) and then Joseph Smith adopted this false tradition. Mesomaniacs think every prophet and apostle who has identified Cumorah as the hill in New York, including members of the First Presidency speaking in General Conference, were also wrong and therefore also misled the Church.