More thoughts on Church history

On another blog, I'm continuing the series on the Real vs. Rumor book. It's important because people should know how and why the narratives about Church history have been changes in recent years, and the tactics our scholars use to implement those changes.

Today we look at a few inexplicable errors. Tomorrow we'll look at SITH specifically. 

http://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/2022/05/real-vs-rumor-part-5-inexplicable-errors.html

_____

It's all good to have multiple working hypotheses. People should be aware of the way both critics and apologists interpret the historical evidence. That helps people make informed decisions--provided they look at the actual evidence and not merely the spin provided by the critics and apologists.

A few decades ago, LDS scholars embraced a new approach to history that was developed in the secular world. The change was labeled "New Mormon History." You can read a good summary on wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Mormon_history

The New Mormon History has both positive and negative elements. Perhaps the most negative is the way the New Mormon Historians substituted a "new" consensus interpretation to replace the "old" consensus interpretation. Basically, they revised Church history in such as way as to undermine the credibility and reliability of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, particularly on the translation and historicity of the Book of Mormon, including Cumorah.

Because the Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion, we'll look more in upcoming days at the impact of the New Mormon History, which includes M2C and SITH. 

Clarifying Church history and Church growth

Issues of Church history and Book of Mormon historicity involve a combination of historical facts, assumptions, interpretations, theories and hypotheses. Apart from the facts, these elements are highly subjective. 

Some people embrace the concept of multiple working hypotheses; i.e., they recognize there are multiple ways to interpret a given set of historical facts. They set out the facts and then explain how they derived their hypotheses so everyone can see them and make informed decisions. That's the ideal approach. It's what most people want. We want to make informed decisions and don't want people to hide or obscure or twist historical facts and related evidence.

However, critics and apologists tend to orbit their respective spheres of groupthink. They advance their respective beliefs, hoping to persuade others.

This leads many such advocates to focus more on persuasion than on explanation. 

For example, MormonStories has repeatedly cited informal comments made years ago by Richard Bushman about Church history. Richard is one of the most open and forthright LDS scholars. He is open to multiple working hypotheses.

In a recent interview on Gospel Tangents, Richard clarified (again) what he meant and asked these critics to stop misrepresenting what he said. 

I discussed this interview on my blog that reviews MormonStories, here:

https://mormonstoriesreviewed.blogspot.com/2022/05/richard-bushman-clarifies-his-comments.html

_____

In my book about the golden plates, I wrote this:

How do we know the history of the Church?

We are fortunate to have lots of records, including journals, documents, correspondence, newspaper reports, and official histories. But none of these tells a complete story unless put in context, which introduces subjectivity....

The evidence is ambiguous or even contradictory, and we end up with multiple theories about what happened and why. 

The ideal approach would be for everyone to agree on the facts, then state their assumptions, explain their interpretations, describe their theories (explanations), and finally articulate their hypotheses. (This is the FAITH model I discuss in my book, The Rational Restoration, out soon).

Critics and apologists alike ought to trust people to make informed decisions. If they did, they would adopt the multiple working hypotheses approach. Everyone should be able to agree on objective facts. Then we can each assess the extrinsic evidence by applying the FAITH model.

_____

Separately, the always useful blog LDSchurchgrowth posted its April 2022 newsletter here:

https://ldschurchgrowth.blogspot.com/2022/05/april-2022-monthly-newsletter.html 

He also did an interview with the Salt Lake Tribune, here:

‘Mormon Land’: How, where and why LDS membership is booming in some places and shrinking in others (sltrib.com)

New readers and various topics

There are many new readers of this blog, so I'm reviewing a few topics today.

Cumorah circa 2022. Update on the changes at the Hill Cumorah near Palmyra, New York. 

https://www.lettervii.com/2022/05/cumorah-circa-2022.html

_____

Witnesses movie. People ask what I think about the Witnesses movie from the Interpreter Foundation. I wrote my review last summer, which is here:

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2021/06/witnesses-movie-review.html

Summary: Witnesses is a movie that E.D. Howe would have made, or at least admired, because he basically wrote the script in 1834.

[Note: E.D. Howe wrote the 1834 book Mormonism Unvailed which discussed SITH (the stone-in-the-hat theory) just the way Witnesses portrays--except Howe ridiculed the idea, while Witnesses portrays it as historical fact.]

_____

Book of Mormon decision tree. Lots of people, both LDS and otherwise, wonder about Book of Mormon geography. Here's a decision tree that is easy to follow.

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2017/12/2017-year-end-decision-tree.html

_____

Topic pages. The sidebar on this blog includes several topic pages, including these:

Acronyms used in this blog

Answers to common M2C claims

Oliver was truthful except...

The Two Sets of Plates schematic

A/B test on explaining Cumorah

Confirmation bias and evidence

Delusion of forming opinions based on "the evidenc...

Where bias originates

Curing confirmation bias

Tolstoy on M2C and SITH

Translation theories summary

Video summary of SITH and New Mormon History

I added a new one on the Wentworth letter, here:

https://www.lettervii.com/p/wentworth-letter-vs-orson-pratt-pamphlet.html

_____

Museum of the Book of Mormon (MOBOM)

There are innumerable websites that discuss the Book of Mormon. Most take one approach, whether faithful or critical. Within each category, there is a wide range of belief and advocacy.  

MOBOM is intended to be an online museum that simply presents facts for consideration. The overall editorial approach is that the Book of Mormon is for the entire world, regardless of one's religious beliefs or background. While MOBOM has a generally faithful approach, it also recognizes critical perspectives. 

It's a work in progress with frequent additions and revisions. 

https://www.mobom.org/home

Burying M2C along with Benjamin Winchester

Six years ago, I discussed an error in the editorial content in the Joseph Smith Papers. 

Here's the gist. In his 1840 pamphlet, Orson Pratt speculated about a Mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon. 

In the Wentworth letter, Joseph adopted much of Orson's explanation, but he specifically deleted Orson's speculation about Central America.

Instead, Joseph explained that, contrary to what Orson wrote, "The remnant are the Indians that now inhabit this country."

Most Latter-day Saints today don't know that Joseph wrote that in the Wentworth letter because that passage was deleted from the lesson manual Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith. 

It was also omitted from the Saints book and other curriculum.

As I've pointed out before, when Joseph wrote the Wentworth letter, he started by writing "As Mr. Bastow has taken the proper steps to obtain correct information all that I shall ask at his hands, is, that he publish the account entire, ungarnished, and without misrepresentation."

It turns out, Joseph didn't need to worry about Mr. Bastow.

It is the Curriculum Department, the Correlation Department, and the Church History Department that have refused to "publish the account entire, ungarnished and without misrepresentation."

_____

Here was my original post:

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2016/08/error-in-joseph-smith-papers.html

When I wrote that comment, I cited the printed book. Here's a link to the online comment now, which retains the errors I discussed:

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/appendix-orson-pratt-an-interesting-account-of-several-remarkable-visions-1840/1#historical-intro

_____

Two years ago I visited Benjamin Winchester's grave in Iowa. I wrote about it here:

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2020/05/visit-to-benjamin-winchesters-grave.html

Winchester's legacy endures.

We'd all be better off if our M2C scholars would bury M2C...

Intellectual wrecking crews

This reminded me of our LDS intellectuals who teach M2C and SITH.

Thomas Sowell

@ThomasSowell

·

1h

The more I study the history of intellectuals, the more they seem like a wrecking crew, dismantling civilization bit by bit — replacing what works with what sounds good.

More on M2C groupthink

I've often explained that I think everyone involved with Book of Mormon studies has good intentions.

Members of the M2C citation cartel promote M2C because they actually believe it and they want to use their evidence to persuade people to accept the Book of Mormon. 

And that's fine with me.

It's the same for those who promote all of the multiple working hypotheses, whether it's Baja, Panama, South America, Heartland, Malaysia, New York, or even the BYU fantasy map. For that matter, many critics are also well-intentioned. It's easy to be confused by the various claims, particularly when leading LDS scholars explicitly reject the teachings of the prophets.

My problem with the M2C citation cartel is they don't want Latter-day Saints to make informed decisions. It seems obvious by now that they know most Latter-day Saints prefer to accept the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah. 

But because they repudiate those teachings, they don't like anyone to focus on those teachings. They don't want Latter-day Saints to even know what the prophets have taught about the New York Cumorah.

Incredibly, the efforts of the M2C citation cartel seeped into the groupthink among many Church historians as well. 

For example, see my latest installment of my review of Real vs. Rumor, here:

http://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/2022/05/real-vs-rumor-part-4-loyalty-to.html

_____

I'm one of many who changed my mind about M2C after decades of accepting what the "experts" taught, including specifically Jack Welch (FARMS/Book of Mormon Central), Dan Peterson (FARMS/Interpreter), and Scott Gordon (FairLDS). They're all great people, faithful Latter-day Saints, etc., but they share a distrust of the ability of Latter-day Saints to make informed decisions.

They don't want people to make informed decisions. M2C thrives only in an environment of ignorance and control.

In fact, if you reject M2C in favor of the teachings of the prophets, M2Cers will accuse you of apostasy. It's awesome.

A much simpler, wholesome, and productive approach would be for everyone to lay out all the facts, state assumptions, inferences, and threads, and they explain hypotheses. With multiple working hypotheses, everyone could make informed decisions harmoniously. 

There is zero need for or utility in contention over these issues.

But the M2C citation cartel continues to refuse to adopt this model of multiple working hypotheses.

For years, the M2C citation cartel has downplayed the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah. They consistently refuse to inform Latter-day Saints about the evidence that corroborates those teachings. 

Because the "Heartlanders" still believe the teachings of the prophets, the M2C promoters have been trying to persuade people that the "Heartlanders" are motivated by a political agenda.

It's a ridiculous claim. Everyone who knows the "Heartlander" working hypothesis knows it is based on the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah, not on any political agenda. There are Heartlanders among the Latter-day Saints throughout the world. Non-American Latter-day Saint Heartlanders couldn't care less about American politics, but the M2C proponents don't care about that reality.

_____

At this point, the best we can do is continue to educate ourselves and those around us, encouraging them to make fully informed decisions. 

Ramps vs steps

According to the law of Moses, altars are supposed to have ramps, not stairs.

26 Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon. (Exodus 20:26)

Recently, the discovery of an ancient Hebrew inscription, written on a lead plate and dating to the 14c BC, was published. This video discusses the significance of the find because it corroborates the Biblical account of Joshua.

https://youtu.be/wWlKg9g1IXs?t=860

One key to the discovery was the presence of a ramp, not stairs, leading to the altar.

This shows it was an Israelite site.

The divine name YHV from Mount Ebal, written in proto-alphabetic script.

 

14:20

remember in the torah it prescribed that this you could not have steps going up to the altar right it had to be a ramp

14:26

right and so a kosher altar had to be a ramp not steps now pagan

14:32

altars were always steps right so this is huge it's huge it's a ramp up to and

14:38

you have ash piles of only kosher animals i mean how much on the nose could you be and then for

14:45

so so that was you know it's it's a huge discovery but people know people here and i grew up in israel people didn't talk about this

14:52

people didn't know i mean this is probably one of the biggest discoveries in the land and people don't

14:58

know about it why why people won't know about this because

15:04

there's so much politics and so much oppression to this and he he speaks about this in his book

15:11

first of all uh it was with archaeologists if the if the whole

15:17

science of archaeology and and biblical history say that joshua never existed

_____

One reason scholars are skeptical that Nephites ever lived in Mesoamerica is that Mayan culture used steps, not ramps, for their altars. In North America, at least in Book of Mormon times, the ancient people built ramps.