M2C and Saints - the hand in the glove

We've seen how the pretexts given for censorship in Saints don't hold up to even cursory scrutiny.

Saints is an attractive book in terms of design and content. It is very well done. It's a nice glove. But I think M2C is the hand in the glove of Saints.
_____

It's apparent to everyone now that the editors of Saints censored the term Cumorah solely to "uphold" their idea of "neutrality" regarding Book of Mormon geography, an intellectual construct from the late 20th century that has no place in Saints.

This concept of "neutrality" was articulated by M2C scholars in their effort to justify erasing the New York Cumorah from the record. That's why the Saints editors invoked it to justify censoring the term Cuomrah.

While we all want to give the historians the benefit of the doubt, the pretexts they've given so far merely confirm their interdependence with M2C ideology. Recent actions by the M2C intellectuals demonstrate how they are adding Saints to the academic cycle they have been using to impose M2C on members of the Church.

Here's the academic cycle.

Saints was written to fit right in.

We have to add it to the circle labeled "Meso Art & Media."

Now, it's not only students at BYU and CES who are being taught that the prophets and apostles are wrong about the New York Cumorah.

Thanks to Saints, everyone in the Church is being taught that the prophets are wrong. 

Saints is even using an intentionally false historical narrative to do it!
_____

This false historical narrative is what the M2C intellectuals have been promoting for years, but until Saints, they didn't have the full, explicit cooperation of the historians the way they do now.

After all, the Introduction to the Book of Mormon still refers to the New York Cumorah:

After Mormon completed his writings, he delivered the account to his son Moroni, who added a few words of his own and hid up the plates in the Hill Cumorah.

If there is no course correction to return to the teachings of the prophets and apostles about the New York Cumorah, that language will certainly be changed to read something such as this:

After Mormon completed his writings, he delivered the account to his son Moroni, who added a few words of his own and hid up the plates in a large hill in Manchester township, Ontario County, New York.

Actually, I suspect the Introduction has already been changed for the 2020 edition of the Book of Mormon. Don't be surprised when that edition comes out.

Which is a tremendous irony, to put it mildly.
_____

Back to the hand-in-the-glove relationship between the M2C advocates and Saints.

Book of Mormon Central Censor BOMCC is an integral part of the M2C citation cartel. BOMCC is famous for its corporate goal of proving the Book of Mormon is a Mesoamerican codex and its policy of censoring anything that contradicts M2C.

Actually, it goes further than that; BOMCC censors anything that doesn't support, promote, or at least accommodate M2C--except when it criticizes those views without giving an opportunity to respond.

On its blog, BOMCC posted the essay by the historians that justified their censorship of Cumorah.  People read BOMCC to confirm their M2C biases, and the essay fits their M2C narrative perfectly. No BOMCC readers will recognize the logical and factual fallacies n the essay because they want to believe M2C.

But BOMCC is pushing Saints even more than that.

Now they're citing Saints as authority for their M2C ideology, exactly as the Academic Cycle predicts. I discussed an example here:

https://bookofmormoncensor.blogspot.com/2018/10/no-wise-477.html

You'll say that Saints was not intended as an academic reference, and I agree, but BOMCC is hardly known for academic rigor. None of their material is peer-reviewed, in any real sense. It is reviewed solely for adherence to M2C ideology.

Don't be surprised to see BOMCC cite Saints more and more in the future. And don't be surprised to see more and more "hand-in-glove" cooperation between M2C intellectuals and the historians.

(I already have more examples I don't have time to describe here.)

The "hill in New York" problem

One of the pretexts offered by Church historians for censoring the term "Cumorah" in the first volume of Saints is that Joseph Smith's 1838 history does not use the term "Cumorah."

Here's how the passage (now JS-H 1:51) reads:

51 Convenient to the village of Manchester, Ontario county, New York, stands a hill of considerable size, and the most elevated of any in the neighborhood. On the west side of this hill, not far from the top, under a stone of considerable size, lay the plates, deposited in a stone box. 

The historians point out that this history was not dictated by Joseph Smith but was instead compiled by Mulholland from records available to him but which we don't have now. That's how they explain why the 1838 history says it was Nephi who visited Joseph in 1823 instead of Moroni.

I discussed that in my analysis of their statement about Cumorah, but people have more questions, so I'll answer a couple of them.

1. Why didn't the 1838 history refer to Cumorah?

The long-held answer was that we don't know, because none of the participants left an explanation. All we could do was make inferences based on the evidence and our own perspectives (biases).

It turns out that we do have an explanation, and it is right in the 1838 history. I'll show you below, after we review how the editors of Saints handled the 1838 history.

Without citing any evidence, the Saints editors claimed the omission from the 1838 history reflected Joseph Smith's uncertainty about the New York Cumorah and this in turn justified their censorship of the term in Saints.

They claim the omission also justified their creation of the false historical narrative about Cumorah in Saints. That is, they created characters in Saints who had never having heard of the word Cumorah or its connection to the New York hill.

I think this was a post hoc pretext, invented after the Book was published because they had been asked for an explanation for the censorship of Cumorah. To understand why they came up with this pretext, you need to know more of the intellectual genealogy of their claim.

The only way M2C (the Mesoamerican/two Cumorahs theory) can retain any credibility whatsoever among Latter-day Saints is by destroying belief in what the prophets have taught about the New York Cumorah. 

Consequently, M2C intellectuals, their followers, and the historians who accommodate them (including the producers of Saints) claim the omission of Cumorah from the 1838 history reflects  Joseph's uncertainty about the New York Cumorah and/or his "evolving views" about that setting.

You'll notice, though, that they never cite any evidence to support this view. It's the worst kind of confirmation bias--the kind that doesn't even claim to have evidence.

The best they can do is advocate the following logic:

(i) point to the anonymous editorials in the 1842 Times and Seasons that describe ruins in Central America as having been left by Nephites;
(ii) attribute these anonymous articles to Joseph Smith; and
(iii) argue that a New York Cumorah doesn't fit their belief in a limited geography Mesoamerican setting that requires a Mesoamerican Cumorah, so therefore Joseph Smith, too, came to reject the New York Cumorah.

If I have misunderstood or misstated the position of the M2C intellectuals and their followers and facilitators, I'd be happy to correct any errors immediately. They all have my contact information.

But I don't expect them to contact me because they really have no better explanation.

That's what makes the Saints book so fundamentally dishonest the way it portrays this issue.
_____

For an alternative explanation of the omission of Cumorah from the 1838 history, I have a much simpler explanation. Actually, the history itself explains why it did not include the term Cumorah.

The 1838 history was intended for an audience other than members of the Church.

Notice the introduction:

1 Owing to the many reports which have been put in circulation by evil-disposed and designing persons, in relation to the rise and progress of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, all of which have been designed by the authors thereof to militate against its character as a Church and its progress in the world—I have been induced to write this history, to disabuse the public mind, and put all inquirers after truth in possession of the facts, as they have transpired, in relation both to myself and the Church, so far as I have such facts in my possession.

The intended audience had never heard of the Book of Mormon. They had never read it. They wouldn't recognize the term Cumorah. Without a detailed explanation far beyond the scope or intention of the history, the term would have only caused confusion to readers.

The term Cumorah was simply irrelevant to the purpose of the 1838 history.

In fact, recall that Mulholland, who compiled the history, mentioned to Joseph that he needed to provide a physical description of the hill to make the history complete. That makes sense because the general public was not familiar with Joseph's story--unlike members of the Church.

Now, consider the 1838 history in the context of 1842, when it was published in the Times and Seasons in Nauvoo.

The year before, Joseph's brother Don Carlos had published President Cowdery's eight historical letters. Joseph had characterized them as essays on Priesthood when he had given them to Don Carlos in the fall of 1840 with instructions to publish them. Don Carlos published them in serialized form. Letters VI and VII overlapped, but the portion of Letter VII that described the New York Cumorah was published in the Times and Seasons under the heading "Rise of the Church" on April 15, 1841.

During the following year, 1842, the 1838 history was serialized. The section describing the "hill of considerable size" was published in the May 2, 1842, Times and Seasons under the heading "History of Joseph Smith."

There may have been some Church members in 1842 who were unaware of the previous year's publication of Letter VII's identification of the hill as Cumorah, but as we just saw, the primary audience for the 1838 history was the public, not members of the Church.

(Some articles were published in the Times and Seasons with the hope that other newspapers would pick them up. Sometimes this succeeded. For example, a few years ago I was doing historical research in Massachusetts when I found an 1842 newspaper that had republished the Times and Seasons material on the Book of Abraham.)
_____

A few months later, Joseph Smith wrote a letter to members of the Church. It is now D&C 128, except the way it's published in the scriptures omits a key detail.

Here's how the letter originally appeared in the Times and Seasons:

TIMES AND SEASONS.
CITY OF NAUVOO,
SATURDAY, OCTOBER 1, 1842.

LETTER FROM JOSEPH SMITH.

Nauvoo, September 6, 1842.

TO THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS, SENDETH GREETING:—
As I stated to you in my letter before I left my place, that I would write to you from time to time, and give you information in relation to many subjects, I now resume the subject of the baptism for the dead; as that subject seems to occupy my mind, and press itself upon my feelings the strongest, since I have been pursued by my enemies.
(Times and Seasons III.23:934 ¶1–5)

This letter was not addressed to the general public. It was an intimate letter written specifically for members of the Church about a topic that involved members of the Church, not the general public.

In that context, verse 20 makes perfect sense:

20 And again, what do we hear? Glad tidings from Cumorah! Moroni, an angel from heaven, declaring the fulfilment of the prophets—the book to be revealed. 

The audience for D&C 128 was members of the Church who all knew what Joseph meant by the term Cumorah. They had read Letter VII in various Church publications. They had heard Lucy Mack Smith's accounts. They knew what Parley P. Pratt, Orson Pratt, W.W. Phelps, and others had taught. After he joined the Church, Heber C. Kimball had personally visited the hill Cumorah in New York and remarked that the embankments were still there. Brigham Young knew that Joseph and Oliver had visited the depository of Nephite records inside the hill.

The difference in the intended audience for the two documents explains why one refers to Cumorah and the other does not. 

The 1842 letter written to members of the Church refers to Cumorah without further explanation because members of the Church all understood the reference to Cumorah without needing any further explanation.

The 1838 history written to the public does not refer to Cumorah because the public wouldn't understand a reference to Cumorah without further explanation, and such an explanation would have detracted from the point of the history.

This, to me, is the most plausible explanation for the omission of Cumorah from the 1838 history. And it's based on actual facts, including the words of the documents themselves.

Does anyone disagree? If so, I'd like to hear your rationale.

M2C people need not reply unless they offer a additional facts. You don't need to repeat the same semantic arguments you've been making for years.
_____

2. The second question people have is, why did the 1838 history refer to Nephi as the individual who visited Joseph Smith in 1823? 

You can read the original 1838 history here.
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-a-1-23-december-1805-30-august-1834/5

Notice the insertion on the original manuscript: <​*Moroni​>. <​*Evidently a clerical error; see Book Doc &amp; Cov., Sec 50, par 2; Sec 106, par 20; also Elder’s Journal Vol. 1, page 43. Should read Moroni.​>

It was published with the Nephi name in the Times and Seasons on April 15, 1842. It had been previously published this way in the Millennial Star in 1841.

The normal explanations by LDS scholars are sort of plausible, but they don't really make sense. Basically they blame a clerical error.

E.g., see https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Moroni%27s_visit/Nephi_or_Moroni

We've already seen how the 1838 history was not written or dictated by Joseph Smith; instead, it was compiled from other documents that are no longer extant.

In 1876, Orson Pratt offered this explanation:

The discrepency in the history … may have occurred through the ignorance or carelessness of the historian or transcriber. It is true, that the history reads as though the Prophet himself recorded [it, that he] was [doing the] writing: but … many events recorded were written by his scribes who undoubtedly trusted too much to their memories, and the items probably were not sufficiently scanned by Bro. Joseph, before they got into print.

In my view, this explanation alone undermines the reliability and credibility of the 1838 history, at least when parsed word-by-word and relied on as a "main historical source" as a pretext for censoring Cumorah from the Saints book.

The problem with the 1838 history also undermines the theory that Joseph Smith was the acting editor of the Times and Seasons in 1842, but that's another topic.

The key question here is, why would Joseph's scribes, historians, or transcribers have come up with the name Nephi in the first place?

The answer implicates the phony story in the Saints book of Mary Whitmer being shown the plates by Moroni.
_____

Mary Whitmer sees the plates.
Painting from Book of Mormon Central Censor.
M2C scholars say this old, heavy-set man
was Moroni. The actual participants said
he was one of the Three Nephites.

As I've previously discussed, Mary said the messenger was "Brother Nephi." David Whitmer said it was the same messenger who he met on the road from Harmony to Fayette, the old man who said he was taking the Harmony plates to Cumorah.

David remembered the event specifically because it was the first time he had ever heard the word Cumorah.

Of course, the description of the old man by David and Mary completely contradicts the description we have of Moroni.

Plus, David said Joseph identified the messenger as one of the Nephites. Joseph's mother Lucy said Joseph got the plates to show the eight witnesses from one of the Nephites.

We know from 3 Nephi that one of the Twelve was named Nephi. We don't know the names of the three who were chosen to remain in mortality, but there's a 25% chance (at least) that Nephi was one of the three.

If one of the Three Nephites was named Nephi (as Mother Whitmer called him), and Nephi was as involved with the plates as these witnesses related (both the Harmony and the Fayette plates), it makes sense that Joseph's scribes could have become confused about whether it was Nephi or Moroni who originally visited Joseph Smith.

IOW, they would have known that both Moroni and Nephi visited Joseph on multiple occasions, and these visits often (or always) had something to do with the plates.

At least, for me, this is the most plausible explanation, and one supported by evidence.

The long-repeated explanation that Joseph's scribes just somehow erroneously invented the name Nephi is nonsensical.
_____

3. Bonus question: Why did Saints use the phony story about Moroni visiting Mary Whitmer?

Based on the pretexts they gave us for censoring Cumorah in the Saints book, we can infer they had a similar motive for writing a phony story about Moroni.

Here's the rationale.

The editors have admitted they had a policy to "uphold" their concept of "neutrality" regarding Book of Mormon geography. To do so, they had to create a false historical "narrative present."

As we've seen, the actual people living as Joseph's contemporaries had no such "neutrality" in mind. They all believed Cumorah was in New York. Several of them wrote about it, and no one questioned it--ever.

The Mary Whitmer story presented a dilemma. It's a great story--a female witness of the gold plates--but as related by the actual participants, it affirms the New York Cumorah. That narrative contradicts the editors' policy of "upholding" the anachronistic "neutrality" narrative.

What to do?

Trusting that most members would neither know nor discover what David Whitmer said about the events, the editors found an article by Royal Skousen that explained how Mary Whitmer's descendants invented the Moroni version--complete with phony dialog that made its way into the Saints book.

Here was the perfect solution.

The editors of Saints now had an actual citation to support their phony narrative present. None of the reviewers would know about David Whitmer's statements. Nor would most readers.

[BTW, the encounter with the messenger going to Cumorah is also being systematically scrubbed from Church history, as I explained here:
http://bookofmormonwars.blogspot.com/2017/12/opening-heavens-but-censoring-history.html]

Consequently, millions of readers around the world who read Saints will learn a phony story about Church history, purely because the editors wanted to accommodate their M2C peers.
_____

Most of you already know how the phony Mary Whitmer story impacts M2C, right?

For those who don't know, it's simple.

If the messenger (presumably Nephi) was taking the Harmony plates to Cumorah, as he said, what possible explanation could there be?

The only viable explanation is that there were two sets of plates: the original plates (the "Original Book of Mormon" as Joseph described it), and the plates of Nephi (D&C 10) that Joseph didn't get until he got to Fayette.

This, in turn, corroborates what Oliver Cowdery said about Mormon's depository in the Hill Cumorah in New York.

But that means Letter VII is correct.

See the problem for M2C?

The M2C intellectuals, their followers and their facilitators, all have to discredit David Whitmer's account of the messenger taking the plates to Cumorah.

The phony Mary Whitmer story is part of that effort.

Of course, our historians are telling us they had no such thing in mind. They simply omitted the actual history and replaced it with a phony account because they wanted to "uphold" "neutrality."
_____

If you're like me, you still have one question.

Does anyone really believe the explanations given to us by the editors of Saints?

Prophets vs Saints: Pres. Romney

Some people think the book Saints should not be subject to criticism. Maybe they think criticism of the book is equivalent to criticism of the authors, the Church, or something else apart from the words on the page. However, I don't think Saints has been, or ever will be, canonized as scripture.

I think Saints is an awesome book, but deeply flawed because of the way it imposes late 20th century M2C ideology onto figures in Church history who had never heard of, let alone contemplated, the idea that Joseph and Oliver and their contemporaries were ignorant speculators who misled the Church about the New York Cumorah. 

Because I think the flaws in Saints could be easily corrected, I've offered some suggestions, both before and after the book was published. So far, all my suggestions have produced is the bizarre list of justifications for censorship that I wrote about in the previous post on this blog.
_____

To someone well informed about Church history, the revisionist Church history in Saints is not anything new. We've seen a pattern of Church history revisionism, driven largely by M2C ideology. We've come to expect that M2C intellectuals and their followers will censor references to the New York Cumorah at every opportunity.

Those familiar with Church history have shrugged our shoulders and laughed off these academic games because we know what the prophets and apostles have taught. We sustain prophets, not intellectuals.

But this is no longer a laughing matter.

Many Church members are ignorant of the teachings of the prophets and apostles about the New York Cumorah. This ignorance is growing, an inevitable development now that employees at BYU and CES teach students that the prophets were wrong.

In its current form, Saints not only contributes to that ignorance; it insures that this ignorance will be passed on to current and future generations around the world.

In this post, I provide an example of the teachings of the prophets and apostles that contradict the false historical narrative in Saints. This is an important General Conference address by President Marion G. Romney. You can read or watch the original here.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1975/10/americas-destiny?lang=eng

As you read these excerpts, realize that the intellectuals who promote M2C, and the historians behind Saints who are revising Church history to accommodate M2C, are teaching their students and readers that President Romney was merely expressing his own opinion--and that he was wrong. They are teaching people that President Romney and other prophets and apostles were misleading members of the Church about the New York Cumorah.

Four Presidents of the Church were in attendance when President Romney gave this talk and not one ever corrected the supposedly wrong teachings about the New York Cumorah.

To the contrary, a member of the Twelve reiterated the New York Cumorah three years later, also in General Conference. We'll look at some of these additional affirmations of the New York Cumorah in upcoming posts.

I've highlighted key passages in red.
____

America’s Destiny


President Marion G. Romney 
of the First Presidency

My beloved brothers and sisters, I invite you to join in a prayer that while I speak you and I may both enjoy the Spirit. I will give you a lesson today that the Lord has taken great pains to bring to us.

Among the questions frequently raised in connection with our upcoming national bicentennial is “Can we maintain our basic freedoms, peace, and prosperity for another 200 years?”

The answer to this question is yes, if we shall individually repent and conform to the laws of the God of this land, who is Jesus Christ....

It is my purpose in making these remarks to point out from the record of ancient inhabitants of America that the foregoing decrees have been carried out.

In the western part of the state of New York near Palmyra is a prominent hill known as the “hill Cumorah.” (Morm. 6:6.) On July twenty-fifth of this year, as I stood on the crest of that hill admiring with awe the breathtaking panorama which stretched out before me on every hand, my mind reverted to the events which occurred in that vicinity some twenty-five centuries ago—events which brought to an end the great Jaredite nation.

You who are acquainted with the Book of Mormon will recall that during the final campaign of the fratricidal war between the armies led by Shiz and those led by Coriantumr “nearly two millions” of Coriantumr’s people had been slain by the sword; “two millions of mighty men, and also their wives and their children.” (Ether 15:2.)

As the conflict intensified, all the people who had not been slain—men “with their wives and their children” (Ether 15:15)—gathered about that hill Cumorah (see Ether 15:11).

“The people who were for Coriantumr were gathered together to the army of Coriantumr; and the people who were for Shiz were gathered together to the army of Shiz. …

Thus perished at the foot of Cumorah the remnant of the once mighty Jaredite nation, of whom the Lord had said, “There shall be none greater … upon all the face of the earth.” (Ether 1:43.)

As I contemplated this tragic scene from the crest of Cumorah and viewed the beautiful land of the Restoration as it appears today, I cried in my soul, “How could it have happened?”

The answer came immediately as I remembered that some fifteen to twenty centuries before their destruction, as the small group of their ancestors was being divinely led from the tower of Babel, the Lord “would that they should come forth even unto [this] land of promise, which was choice above all other lands, which the Lord God had preserved for a righteous people.

“And he had sworn in his wrath unto the brother of Jared [their prophet-leader], that whoso should possess this land … from that time henceforth and forever, should serve him, the true and only God, or they should be swept off when the fulness of his wrath should come upon them.

“And now, we can behold the decrees of God concerning this land,” wrote the ancient prophet-historian, “that it is a land of promise; and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall serve God, or they shall be swept off when the fulness of his wrath shall come upon them. And the fulness of his wrath cometh upon them when they are ripened in iniquity.

“For behold, this is a land which is choice above all other lands; wherefore he that doth possess it shall serve God or shall be swept off; for it is the everlasting decree of God.” (Ether 2:7–10.)

Pursuant to this decree concerning the land of America, the Jaredites were swept off in the manner we have reviewed, because, rebelling against the laws of Jesus Christ—the God of the land—they “ripened in iniquity.”

Nor were they the only people who anciently were divinely led to this choice land to grow in righteousness to be a mighty nation and then to deteriorate in wickedness until they ripened in iniquity and were, pursuant to God’s decree, swept off.

I emphasize “divinely led” because, as above indicated, the Lord told them that they were being so led, and “that there shall none come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord....

This second civilization to which I refer, the Nephites, flourished in America between 600 B.C. and A.D. 400. Their civilization came to an end for the same reason, at the same place, and in the same manner as did the Jaredites’. From the account of their death struggle, I quote:

“And now,” says Mormon, their historian, “I finish my record concerning the destruction of my people, the Nephites. And it came to pass that we did march forth before the Lamanites … to the land of Cumorah. … And when … we had gathered in all the remainder of our people unto the land of Cumorah, … my people, with their wives and their children, did … behold the armies of the Lamanites marching towards them; and with that awful fear of death which fills the breasts of all the wicked, did they await to receive them....

The tragic fate of the Jaredite and the Nephite civilizations is proof positive that the Lord meant it when he said that this “is a land of promise; and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall serve God, or they shall be swept off when the fulness of his wrath shall come upon them. And the fulness of his wrath cometh upon them when they are ripened in iniquity.” (Ether 2:9.)

This information, wrote Moroni, addressing himself to us who today occupy this land, “cometh unto you, O ye Gentiles” (now, Gentiles is the term used by the Book of Mormon prophets to refer to the present inhabitants of America and to the peoples of the old world from which they came), “[this] cometh unto you, O ye Gentiles, that ye may know the decrees of God—that ye may repent, and not continue in your iniquities until the fulness come, that ye may not bring down the fulness of the wrath of God upon you as the inhabitants of the land have hitherto done....

God gave us victory in the Revolutionary War. We are indebted to him for our nation’s independence. He has prospered us in every righteous endeavor. He established the Constitution of the United States “by the hands of wise men whom [he] raised up unto this very purpose.” (D&C 101:80.)

He himself with his Beloved Son appeared to the Prophet Joseph Smith to open a new dispensation of the gospel of Jesus Christ here in this land. He has established his Church here and has sent and is sending representatives thereof into every nook and corner of the land—and as far as possible to all the earth—to declare and teach the laws of Jesus Christ, the God of this land.

He has revealed anew and repeated over and over again the ancient decree: “This is a land which is choice above all other lands; wherefore he that doth possess it shall serve God or shall be swept off; for it is the everlasting decree of God” concerning this land. (Ether 2:10.)

This knowledge has been revealed to us that we “may know the decrees of God—that [we] may repent, and not continue in [our] iniquities until the fulness come, that [we] may not bring down the fulness of the wrath of God upon [us] as the inhabitants of the land have hitherto done.” (Ether 2:11.)

We are living in the dispensation of the fulness of times, which will be climaxed by the second advent of the Lord Jesus Christ. Concerning the approach of that event and what is in store for the inhabitants of the earth between now and then, the Lord said 144 years ago:

“The wrath of God shall be poured out upon the wicked without measure. …

“Wherefore the voice of the Lord is unto the ends of the earth, that all that will hear may hear.”...

Now my beloved brethren and sisters everywhere, both members of the Church and nonmembers, I bear you my personal witness that I know that the things I have presented to you today are true—both those pertaining to past events and those pertaining to events yet to come. The issue we face is clear and well defined. The choice is ours. The question is: Shall we of this dispensation repent and obey the laws of the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ, or shall we continue to defy them until we ripen in iniquity?

That we will repent and obey and thereby qualify to receive the blessings promised to the righteous in this land, I humbly pray in the name of Jesus Christ, our Redeemer. Amen.

The historians explain censorship in Saints

When the book Saints was published, I noted that the term Cumorah had been censored from the text. I attributed this censorship to an effort by Church historians to revise Church history to accommodate their M2C* colleagues.

Recently the editors publicly acknowledged the censorship of Cumorah. In this post we'll examine their statement.
_____

Many readers prefer short posts, so here are four twitter-length summaries:

1. Saints creates a false narrative present; i.e., characters in the book do not have the 1827-1844 ideas about the New York Cumorah that are well established in original sources, including direct statements by Oliver Cowdery, Lucy Mack Smith, David Whitmer, and Joseph Smith. 

2. Instead, the characters in Saints know nothing about Cumorah, a reflection of the late 20th century "two Cumorahs" theory created by M2C intellectuals.

3. In responses to criticism, the editors of Saints published an essay that seeks to explain their censorship of Cumorah with a series of inconsistent and counterfactual justifications.

4. The editors of Saints ultimately admit they censored the term Cumorah to "uphold" so-called "neutrality," a euphemism for accommodating the M2C theory of Book of Mormon geography.
_____

Over a year ago I anticipated this outcome in Saints, which is part of a well-established a pattern by LDS intellectuals to erase the New York Cumorah from the historical record and from the knowledge of members of the Church.**

There is additional related revisionist editing in Saints, such as replacing  terms from original sources ("this continent" and "this country") with the M2C-approved term "the Americas." Another problem is the phony 20th century story about Mary Whitmer being shown the plates by Moroni.

For thousands of members of the Church, the censorship of Cumorah has become a serious enough issue that the editors of Saints responded publicly (although they haven't yet responded  to the other revisionist problems in Saints).

Their response confirmed that they've been revising Church history to accommodate M2C.  They now characterized their editorial policy as their effort to "uphold" what they perceive to be "neutrality" regarding Book of Mormon geography, a euphemism for accommodating 20th century theories about two-Cumorahs.
_____

All along, I've emphasized that the censorship of Cumorah is an issue of accuracy in Church history, not a question of Book of Mormon geography. 

The New York Cumorah says nothing about where the other events took place. In fact, for decades, Church leaders have consistently taught two things:

1. The hill Cumorah of Mormon 6:6 is in New York.
2. We don't know where the other events took place (i.e., neutrality).

M2C intellectuals (including the historians) confuse members of the Church by conflating these two teachings. What they now characterize as "neutrality" is actually an explicit repudiation of the prophets and apostles, including members of the First Presidency speaking in General Conference.

Because M2C contradicts the plain teachings of the prophets and apostles, M2C intellectuals don't want Church members to know what the prophets and apostles have taught.

Saints is just the latest iteration of this effort.
_____

I emphasize that I greatly admire and respect everyone involved with the Saints project, as well as all the historians and staff responsible for the Joseph Smith Papers, the Church History Library and Museum, and all the other wonderful resources available today. I encourage everyone to learn as much as possible about Church history and to read Saints.

My comments are intended to improve the book and to eliminate the misinformation it contains so that current and future generations will be accurately informed about Church history.
_____

Below, I consider the justification essay in full. As you read it, keep in mind that these are professional, experienced writers who chose their words carefully.

In fact, you might want to read their essay first and see how many logical and factual errors you can find. Then compare your analysis with mine.

https://history.lds.org/content/saints-and-book-of-mormon-geography?lang=eng
_____

Original in blue, my comments in red.

Saints and Book of Mormon Geography
Jed Woodworth and Matt Grow

12 October 2018

Since the publication of Saints, Volume 1: The Standard of Truth, 1815–1846, some concern has been expressed online and to us personally that the text of the book has expressed a preference against a “heartland” model of Book of Mormon geography. 

No doubt they have heard concerns--thousands of Church members are concerned about Saints for many reasons--but "a preference against a "heartland" model is not the point I've raised. 

The censorship of Cumorah is a serious problem because it undermines the accuracy of Church history as conveyed in Saints. It creates a false historical narrative as I explain below.

This is not a question of Book of Mormon geography because the New York Cumorah accommodates many models of geography, just as the prophets have taught. The invocation of a "heartland" model in this essay is merely an effort to deflect from the real issue.

We have been disappointed to read online commentary from individuals favoring a “heartland” model of Book of Mormon geography that asserts Saints works in subtle (and even conspiratorial) ways to suppress their views. This is not true.

Again, this does not respond to my concerns because I don't think Saints suppresses anything other than the truth about Church history. Plus, the censorship of Cumorah is anything but subtle.

Much of the concern has resulted because the word “Cumorah” does not appear in Saints. 

Skillful writers use passive voice this way to disclaim responsibility, as if it's the word's fault it doesn't appear.

As I mentioned above, the censorship of Cumorah is only one of several editorial decisions to revise Church history in Saints. In this essay they avoid the other problems.

This omission has led some to believe that we left out that word in order to speak against a “heartland” model. We assure you that this is simply not the case. 

I readily accept this assurance because it's irrelevant.

So far, the justification given for censoring Cumorah amounts to a straw man fallacy. A straw man argument is "giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent."

I've asserted that the editors of Saints censored Cumorah not to "suppress" or "speak against" a "heartland" model, but to accommodate (make room for) M2C. As you'll see in a moment, they admit that's exactly what they did. 

It's an enormous difference, consistent with the pervasive effort to accommodate M2C by other intellectuals, as I describe in my footnotes below.

We have worked on Saints for many years, Matt as a general editor of Saints and Jed as a review editor of Volume 1. In those capacities, we have read all the draft chapters and editorial comments accompanying these drafts. No one under our observation—writers, editors, external reviewers, General Authority reviewers—has expressed any concern about the word “Cumorah” or articulated any need to expunge it from the record. 

This purported justification for censorship demonstrates exactly the problem I raised about current LDS scholarship.

Notice the wording: no one involved "has expressed any concern about the word "Cumorah."

How could a term as significant in the history of the Church as "Cumorah" never once come up in a conversation in years of working on Saints?

The obvious answer is that the claim is untrue. 

First, as I've shown, the editors had to carefully circumvent Lucy Mack Smith's quotation of Joseph referring to the hill of Cumorah in 1827 before he even obtained the plates. If there were no "concerns" about Cumorah, there is no excuse for what they did. They quoted a passage that Lucy lined out when she revised her history because her revision included her direct quotation of Joseph referring to Cumorah in 1827.

Second, as we'll see in a moment, the editors give as an alternative justification specific research they conducted about the term "Cumorah." If no one ever expressed any concern about the word "Cumorah," why would they have conducted the research to see when the term was first used?

Let's assume, alternatively, that the claim is true: no one discussed Cumorah. The censorship happened without anyone discussing the term Cumorah because everyone simply understood the term was not to be used. That, actually, makes sense--but it's precisely the problem I've sought to call attention to.  

The M2C ideology has been deeply imprinted on students at BYU and CES for decades. Consequently, it is highly believable that everyone involved with Saints has incorporated the belief that there are two Cumorahs. An easy way to understand it is they are all inside the M2C bubble. 

If everyone on the team thinks the same way, it is self-evident why no one "articulated any need to expunge it from the record." Everyone was on the same page. There was no one on the team who even thought to include Cumorah in the book because the idea that Cumorah is in New York is unthinkable to modern LDS intellectuals.

It makes no difference whether this groupthink arose because no one on the team knew what the prophets and apostles have taught, or because they have all rejected what the prophets and apostles have taught. The result is the same: censorship of the term "Cumorah."

To our knowledge, there have been no discussions about the need to put down one theory of Book of Mormon geography in order to promote another.

This is another expression of the straw man argument we saw above. No one suggested they "put down" a geography theory. The problem is revising Church history to accommodate M2C.

The purpose of Saints is to present a compelling narrative of the faith and sacrifice of early Latter-day Saints, not to weigh in (subtly or otherwise) on the various theories of Book of Mormon geography. 

This is axiomatic, really. That's why I pointed out the Cumorah issue is one of accuracy in Church history, not a question of Book of Mormon geography. No one expected Saints to "weigh in" on Book of Mormon geography. All we expected was accurate history and characters in an honest narrative present.

We have sought to uphold the Church’s position of neutrality on these theories: “Though there are several plausible hypotheses regarding the geographic locations of Book of Mormon events, the Church takes no official position except that the events occurred in the Americas.”1

Note: This justification contradicts everything they've written up to this point. Far from never even discussing Cumorah, now they admit they had an editorial policy to "uphold" what they consider "the Church's position of neutrality."

Their objective was not solely or purely to report accurate Church history in a narrative form, after all. 

This editorial agenda reveals that the historians realized that the original documents in Church history actually do have something to say about the geography of the Book of Mormon that, in their view, is not "neutral." 

Think about this for a moment.

They realized that the teachings of the founding prophets of the restoration about the New York Cumorah contradicted their version of the "position of neutrality" they wanted to "uphold," so they changed the wording of those documents and censored the term "Cumorah."

Now you see why this is such a serious problem.
_____

You might wonder, how does "upholding" a policy of "neutrality" justify censoring the term Cumorah?

This iteration of "neutrality" is involved less with geography than with the teachings of the prophets and apostles. The "neutrality" policy, as articulated by the intellectuals, conflates the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah with the teachings of the prophets that we don't know where the other events took place. 

This is how the intellectuals justify their claim that there are "two Cumorahs." 

IOW, these historians are "neutral" on the question of whether or not to accept the teachings of the prophets. 

Actually, they're not even neutral on that. They've chosen not to tell readers what the prophets and apostles have taught about Cumorah.

Footnote 1 in their essay cites a Gospel Topics essay that was written by M2C scholars who cite M2C scholars exclusively, with no input from anyone who still supports what the prophets have taught. The Gospel Topics essay reflects the same M2C groupthink that prevailed during the creation of Saints.

For example, if you read the cited Gospel Topics essay, you'll see it quotes President Ivins' 1929 Conference address to support the alleged "neutrality" policy. However, the essay does not mention President Ivins' 1928 Conference address that specifically identifies the New York Cumorah. 

There is no contradiction between President Ivins' two discourses. He was articulating the well-established teachings that I itemized above; i.e., that Cumorah is in New York but we don't know for sure where the other events took place.

The M2C scholars (and Saints) conflate the two teachings because they don't want members of the Church to know what the prophets and apostles have taught.

The preface to Saints explains that the book is a narrative history. Narrative histories are governed by rules, and one of the rules implemented by our writing team is that characters are to live in the “narrative present” and not be burdened by the understanding of later time periods. 

The censorship of Cumorah directly violates this purported rule.

As a matter of historical reality, every character mentioned in Saints shared a belief that the Hill Cumorah was in New York. Letter VII was ubiquitous from 1835 through 1844. The letter that became D&C 128 was well known. 

The editors even admit that, at least as of 1835, the New York Cumorah was commonly accepted. (They know it was published in 1833, but they don't acknowledge that.) 

However, as presented in Saints, these characters have never heard of Cumorah.

Consequently, contrary to their own rule, the editors have created a deliberately false narrative history. 

The characters in Saints are burdened by the M2C understanding of modern time periods, just like the current generation who is being taught at BYU and CES (and by Saints) that Joseph got the plates from "a hill in New York" but not from Cumorah. 

Our rule states: “The whole story as we understand it will be told, but readers will be following that story scene-by-scene, or even volume-by-volume, as the narrative progresses. If readers desire a broader view of the story or want additional information, extensive footnotes are included, and other in-depth material is available online, including links to essays, videos, and other sources.”

I've discussed some of these footnotes here. https://saintsreview.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-saints-footnote-on-cumorah-packers.html. If you read the cited reference, you'll see it reflects late 20th century ideas.

Good luck to anyone who wants to understand what the prophets and apostles have taught about the New York Cumorah. You won't find these teachings easily available anywhere in the work of current LDS intellectuals, and the Gospel Topics essay is a good example of how the intellectuals have confused Church members with their selective quotations from President Ivins.

Thus, as Saints tells it, Joseph Smith walks into the “woods,” not the Sacred Grove, in 1820. There he has a “vision” of God and Christ, not the First Vision.2 In the same way, Joseph walks to a “hill” not far from his father’s home, not to the Hill Cumorah.3 

This is another straw man fallacy. No one is saying that Saints should have called the woods the Sacred Grove. Neither Lucy Mack Smith nor Oliver Cowdery, the two major sources cited in the early chapters of Saints, referred to the Sacred Grove or First Vision, but they both explicitly referred to Cumorah as the hill where Joseph got the plates.

Furthermore, Joseph himself identified the hill as Cumorah before he even got the plates. Joseph was present when he, David and Oliver encountered the messenger taking the Harmony plates to Cumorah. Joseph collaborated on Letter VII and had it republished multiple times. Joseph referred to Cumorah explicitly in D&C 128.

Censoring Cumorah creates an explicitly false narrative history for each of these important figures in Saints.

The reason for omitting “Cumorah” is not that the writers wanted to expunge it in order to promote a geographical theory. 

Notice how their excuses have evolved. First, no one even discussed or had a concern about Cumorah. Now they have given several justifications for their censorship, all of which amount to pretexts.

We can easily accept that they didn't do it "to promote a geographical theory," because no one has claimed they did. To that extent, this is another straw man fallacy.

However, they've already admitted they had an editorial agenda to "uphold" the "position of neutrality." That's not technically promoting a theory, but it is definitely revising Church history to accommodate M2C.  

Notice that nowhere in this essay do they ever deny seeking to accommodate M2C.

The reason is that there is no historical evidence that Moroni called the hill “Cumorah” in 1823.

This is a very carefully written sentence. It's both another straw man fallacy and a deflection.

The straw man is whether or not Moroni called the hill "Cumorah" in 1823. It's an irrelevant point. Joseph could have learned the term from Moroni at any point between 1823 and 1827.

What is important is that there is historical evidence that in 1827, before he got the plates, Joseph referred to the hill as "Cumorah." These historians know this, but they word their statement here to deflect from that evidence, without overtly denying it exists. 

Joseph's mother, Lucy Mack Smith, quoted Joseph referring to the hill Cumorah in 1827, in a passage these editors deliberately avoided when they wrote Saints, as I showed here.

From whom could Joseph have learned that term other than Moroni? It doesn't matter, really; he could have learned it from other angelic messengers or visions that he never mentioned. The point is, Joseph himself referred to the hill as Cumorah at that early date, before he could have read it from the plates which he hadn't yet obtained.

Therefore, it is not a lack of historical evidence that drove the decision to censor Cumorah. 

The historians relied on Lucy Mack Smith's history throughout the early chapters of Saints. They also know that Parley P. Pratt reported, in 1831, that he and Oliver Cowdery were teaching that the hill was called Cumorah by Moroni anciently.

The censorship of Cumorah was an editorial decision by these historians to not use the evidence they had, solely because it contradicted their editorial agenda to "uphold" what they consider to be a "position of neutrality." And by "neutrality" they mean accommodating M2C.

Of course, early Latter-day Saints, including Joseph Smith, later called the hill Cumorah, but the best research on the subject puts the term into common circulation no earlier than the mid-1830s.4 

Here is the research they did about the word Cumorah. Remember when they started this list of justifications by claiming no one was ever concerned about the term?

Recall also their claim that they were writing a narrative history, with characters in the "narrative present." Here they acknowledge the narrative present for early Latter-day Saints included the New York Cumorah, but they've deliberately chosen to replace that narrative present with the modern notion of "neutrality" developed by M2C intellectuals in recent decades.

On this point, we will undoubtedly see the same false narrative present in future volumes of Saints. 

Through at least 1990, Church leaders have spoken about the New York Cumorah. The purchase of the hill was a major event in Church history, as explained by President Ivins in 1928. But the editors of Saints will expunge all mention of Cumorah, draining characters in all four volumes of an important part of their reality.
_____

Let's consider this latest justification based on what was not in "common circulation" until the mid-1830s.

By this standard, Saints should not relate any of the history found in the early chapters of the book, except for what is contained in the brief 1832 history (assuming that does not qualify as mid-1830s). 

Of course, that wouldn't work; most of their citations in the early chapters of Saints are to records created in the mid-1830s.

Although they don't tell you, these historians know the hill from which the plates were retrieved was identified openly as Cumorah in January 1833, in The Evening and the Morning Star, about six months after the 1832 history was recorded. 

Is it this six-month period that constitutes the critical dividing time between what is credible Church history and what is not?

If so, Saints needs a lot more revision than I've proposed.
_____
Note that the 1832 history does not mention the name of the "angel of the Lord" who came to Joseph Smith, but Saints reports, on p. 22, that "The angel called him by name and introduced himself as Moroni." 

The name Moroni was not in common circulation earlier than the mid-1830s, when Oliver Cowdery explained the angel's name was Moroni in Letter IV in 1835, and when verses were added to D&C 27, also in 1835. 

On the same page 22, Saints reports that "the angel wore a seamless white robe," but that description comes from Oliver Cowdery's Letter IV, also published in 1835.  

The editors of Saints freely rely on mid-1830s sources (including Oliver's letters) to support the earlier narratives they approve of. 

That makes their latest justification for censoring Cumorah--"common circulation no earlier than the mid-1830s"--a mere pretext. 

It's true that Lucy dictated her history after Joseph's death in 1844, but Saints relies on her history throughout the early chapters because she is considered a reliable eye-witness. As we've seen, Lucy's account has Joseph identifying the hill as Cumorah well before many of the events covered in the first few chapters of Saints. But Saints doesn't want readers to know that.
_____

Let's explore this in more detail.

When it's a topic the editors like, such as Joseph translating the plates by looking at a stone in a hat, they happily cite references from as late as 1879 (cited several times in Chapter 4). 

But when it's a topic the editors don't like, such as the term Cumorah, suddenly the very sources they rely on most are not credible. 

Look at the citations in Chapters 3-5. Most of them fall within three categories:

(i) Oliver Cowdery's letters (1834-5)
(ii) Joseph Smith-History (1838)
(iii) Lucy Mack Smith's History (1844-5).

Of these, Joseph Smith's history is the shortest. It's also the only one that doesn't explain that the hill Cumorah is in New York, the only one that says it was Nephi who visited Joseph instead of Moroni, etc.

The editors of Saints want us to believe that when they cite President Cowdery's letters and Lucy Mack Smith's History, those sources are credible. But those same sources are not credible when they refer to the New York Cumorah because...

They don't explain why. 

These unpersuasive post hoc rationalizations only make the censorship problem more apparent.

The main historical source concerning events at the hill between 1823 and 1827 comes from the history Joseph Smith began in 1838. There Joseph uses the term “hill,” never “Hill Cumorah.”5 

Recall, in the previous sentence they argued that earlier sources are more credible than later ones (i.e., Cumorah was not in "common circulation" until documents showed up in the mid-1830s). 

Now they're telling us a later source is more credible than an earlier source.

And what does it mean to say a source is "the main historical source" anyway? The editors did not rely exclusively or even principally on the 1838 history. That history was so sparse that they supplemented it with many other sources--including Oliver Cowdery's letters and Lucy Mack Smith's history. 

Joseph's history never referred to Moroni as the name of the angel. It doesn't describe his robe as seamless. It lists only a few of the scriptures Moroni quoted. It doesn't include the dialog between Joseph and Moroni quoted on page 26 of Saints.

All of that information and more comes from Oliver's letters.

The editors want us to believe they omitted Cumorah because Joseph's 1838 history is the "main historical source," even though in Chapter 3 most of their citations were to Oliver's letters and Lucy Mack Smith's History, both of which explain the hill where Joseph found the plates was Cumorah.
_____

There's another problem with this justification. The 1838 history says it was Nephi, not Moroni, who visited Joseph Smith in 1823. If the editors really thought the 1838 history was the "main historical source," they should have stuck with its Nephi narrative.

But they didn't.

Why?

Because they know Oliver's letters and other evidence identifying the angel as Moroni are more credible than the 1838 history. Censoring Cumorah because the word doesn't appear in the 1838 history is the weakest justification offered so far._____

As senseless as this justification appears, it has a long intellectual genealogy. A standard assertion by the proponents of M2C and the historians who agree with (or accommodate) them is that Oliver Cowdery's letters are not reliable.

This presents a problem for the producers of Saints because they had to rely on these letters for several important historical details. But since they are justifying their censorship of Cumorah by telling us the letters are not all that important after all, let's compare them to Joseph's 1838 history and see why they are cited so often in Saints for everything except Cumorah.

Joseph helped write Oliver's letters. He referred to them as President Cowdery's letters (since Oliver was Assistant President of the Church when he wrote letters IV through VIII). 

The letters were copied into Joseph's own journal as part of his life story. These letters provide more detail about many of the events than Joseph's 1838 history. 

Oliver's letters were first published in 1834-5. Joseph's history was recorded in 1838, but it was not published until 1842, when it was published once in the Times and Seasons.

Between the time when Joseph's 1838 history was recorded and when it was published in the Times and Seasons, Oliver's history was republished at least 3 times, at least twice with Joseph's approval. They were published in the Gospel Reflector, the Times and Seasons, and the Millennial Star, all in 1840-1841. The next year, Joseph's history was published in the Times and Seasons. Then, in 1844, Joseph's brother William republished Oliver's letters again, this time in the New York City paper The Prophet. (Letter VII appeared two days after Joseph's martrydom.) 

When parts of Joseph's 1838 history were canonized as Joseph Smith-History, an excerpt from Oliver's Letter I was included as a footnote.

The historians know all of this history, but they're confident you don't, so they don't address this larger context in this essay.

Saints follows Joseph’s lead.

This sentence is clever rhetoric. Maybe they hope it's the "take-home" quotation from their essay. But it is contrary to the historical record. 

The record shows us that Joseph led on this issue when he told his mother about the name Cumorah before he even got the plates.

Joseph led by helping Oliver write the eight historical letters, including Letters VII and VIII.

Joseph led by having the letters copied into his personal history.

Joseph led by having them republished multiple times so all the members of the Church in his day could learn Church history. 

Joseph led by writing D&C 128:20.

20 And again, what do we hear? Glad tidings from Cumorah! Moroni, an angel from heaven, declaring the fulfilment of the prophets—the book to be revealed.
_____

Thanks to Saints, current and future generations will have no idea what Joseph Smith, his contemporaries, and his successors as prophets and apostles were referring to when they spoke and wrote about the New York Cumorah.

As our rule states, additional material connected with Saints contains “a broader view of the story.” In the Church History Topics, where the rules of narrative history do not apply, the term “Cumorah” can be found (see topics entitled “Angel Moroni” and “Sacred Grove and Smith Family Farm” at saints.lds.org or on the Gospel Library App).

Of course, this explains nothing about the censorship of Cumorah in Saints. Proper nouns are used throughout Saints. Referring to the name of the hill the way their own sources did would have simplified and clarified, not confused or slowed down, the narrative. 

Furthermore, it would have fulfilled instead of violated the purported narrative rule:  "characters are to live in the “narrative present” and not be burdened by the understanding of later time periods."

Every single character described or quoted in Saints believed Cumorah was in New York. 

Falsely conveying the impression that people thought the plates were found in a nameless "hill in New York" is not honest history.  

I hope everyone involved with producing Saints will reconsider the censorship of Cumorah and the other revisionist elements designed to "uphold" a concept of "neutrality" on the geography issue.

Censorship and revision of original documents is a matter of Church history, integrity, and clarity. 
_____
Conclusions:

When none of the pretexts given in the essay make sense except one, we are left with the only rational reason given for the censorship of Cumorah; i.e., the editors' decision to "uphold" their version of "neutrality on Book of Mormon geography."

IOW, the essay concedes that my criticisms are correct. 

They did not revise Church history to attack any so-called "heartland" model of geography, a claim I didn't make, but they did revise Church history to accommodate the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs setting in the pursuit of what they think is neutrality.

I consider such revisionism unjustified and unconscionable.

Unless Saints is revised to more accurately teach actual Church history, current and future generations throughout the world will be:

(i) kept ignorant of the teachings of the prophets and apostles about the hill Cumorah and other issues,

(ii) confused by references in both the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants, and

(iii) susceptible to critics who use this ignorance and confusion to undermine the faith of members of the Church and to deter investigators.
_____

[1] “Book of Mormon and DNA Studies,” note 6, Gospel Topics, topics.lds.org.

[2] See Saints, volume 1, chapter 2.

[3] See Saints, volume 1, chapters 3 and 4.

[4] See Cameron J. Packer, “A Study of the Hill Cumorah: A Significant Latter-day Saint Landmark in Western New York,” (master’s thesis, Brigham Young University, 2002), chapter 3.

[5] This history initially refers to it only as “the place,” but Joseph’s scribe James Mulholland appended a slip of paper to the volume describing “a hill of considerable size, and the most elevated of any in the neighborhood.” The back of the slip of paper explains that he made the addition in consultation with Joseph. See Joseph Smith History, 1838–56, volume A-1, 7 and attached slip, in Karen Lynn Davidson and others, eds., Histories, Volume 1: Joseph Smith Histories, 1832–1844, volume 1 of the Histories series of The Joseph Smith Papers, edited by Dean C. Jessee and others (Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2012), 232–33 (draft 2).

Oliver, too, described the hill by its physical attributes in Letter VII. Like Mulholland, Oliver wrote that the hill "is as large, perhaps, as any in that country... I think I am justified in saying that this is the highest hill for some distance round." 

Mulholland's note explained "“I mentioned to President Smith that I considered it necessary that an explanation of <​the location of​> the place where the box was deposited would be required in order that the history be satisfactory." He did not suggest that the name of the place be included.

In light of D&C 128:20 (Joseph's lead that the historians chose not to follow), is it legitimate to claim that the 1838 history is the lead they should follow, just because Mulholland did not name the hill in that history? Here's what the essay on the Angel Moroni says as it explains the error in Joseph's 1838 history:

This reference [to Nephi] likely originated with Joseph Smith’s clerk James Mulholland, who began in 1839 to combine various manuscripts of Joseph Smith’s history into a single narrative. Evidence suggests Mulholland did not take dictation from Joseph Smith but rather worked from sources available to him that have not survived. Mulholland could easily have been confused about the identity of the angel since many of Joseph’s earlier accounts before Mulholland’s draft did not mention the angel’s name.

Since Joseph didn't dictate the 1838 history, how is it a legitimate excuse for censoring Cumorah from the historical record? 


_____
*M2C is the acronym for the Mesoamerican/Two-Cumorahs theory that teaches the "real" Hill Cumorah of Mormon 6:6 is not in New York but instead is somewhere in southern Mexico. M2C is based on the assertion that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were ignorant speculators who misled the Church when they taught that Cumorah was in New York. M2C has been accepted by many LDS intellectuals, and is being taught at BYU and CES.

**Certain LDS intellectuals recognize that the New York Cumorah taught by the prophets and apostles for decades contradicts their M2C theory. While they have long claimed the prophets and apostles are wrong, most members of the Church don't realize this, and the M2C intellectuals don't emphasize the point. Instead, they have been carefully erasing the New York Cumorah. Examples of their efforts include:

- The censorship of a critical portion of the Wentworth letter in the lesson manual Teachings of the Presidents of the Church--Joseph Smith, discussed here:

https://www.lettervii.com/2018/07/editing-wentworth-letter.html

- Manipulating the search engine in the Joseph Smith Papers so a search for "Cumorah" does not produce critical references to the New York site.

- Censoring the David Whitmer account of meeting the messenger who was taking the Harmony plates to Cumorah. See, e.g., Jack Welch's book Opening the Heavens.

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2017/12/opening-heavens-but-censoring-history.html

- Creating a display in the North Visitors Center that depicts Mormon abridging the Nephite records from a cave in Mesoamerica, while Moroni is burying the plates off in the distance in New York.

[Fortunately, this was removed during the renovation of Temple Square.]

- Creating confusion about the actual teachings of the prophets and apostles by taking certain teachings out of context and censoring teachings about the New York Cumorah (M2C citation cartel, including FairMormon, Book of Mormon Central, BYU Studies, etc.).

- Teaching the Book of Mormon at BYU and CES with fantasy maps that depict Cumorah in an area that resembles Mesoamerica and is anything but New York.

Of course, in the Internet age, censorship is a fool's errand. No matter how much the intellectuals seek to scrub the record of the New York Cumorah, anyone can read Letter VII, the General Conference reports, and all the historical references to the New York Cumorah.

How does it build faith for Church members to be kept ignorant of the teachings of the prophets and apostles?

How will current and future generations react when the first they hear of the New York Cumorah is when critics of the Church make them aware of it?
E.g., http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/cumorah.htm

The real tragedy here is that the extrinsic evidence corroborates the teachings of the prophets, while M2C is based on illusory correspondences that lead people to disbelieve the teachings of the prophets.