Opacity instead of clarity

Everyone agrees that we have more access to Church history materials than ever before. The Joseph Smith Papers are a phenomenal resources. The Church History Library has been digitizing records that were largely unknown just a few years ago.

All of this openness is refreshing.

However, modern Church history--the events taking place right now--are opaque.

The Saints books, for example, are anonymous. We don't know who wrote or edited them, we don't have access to editorial decisions, and despite the numerous footnotes, readers can't tell what was omitted or spun unless they have extensive background in the source materials.

Steven Harper was one of the most important figures behind the creation of the Saints book, volume 1. He also wrote First Vision: Memory and Mormon Origins.

Much of that book is an examination of the creation of the narrative about the First Vision that we have today. 

Such a book could never be written about the creation of the narrative in the Saints book because of the lack of openness.

For example, Harper has a chapter on B. H. Roberts' work on preparing Church history. He writes, "Roberts experienced dissonance when he came to Smith's account of what happened when he saw the divine beings... [after listing the well-known discrepancy in the 1842 version of JS history] The two lines seemed a contradiction to Roberts.... So Roberts silently elided the line "for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong."

It could be that Harper is merely mindreading, but even if so, at least the history Roberts prepared was Roberts' work. This level of detail is possible because of the records Roberts left.

There is no comparable source material behind Saints, at least not that anyone can see.

Harper continues. Roberts "felt licensed to edit as his predecessors in the Church Historian's Office did--redacting with no hint to readers that the end result was anything other than Smith's voice."

He next points out that "the editorial practices of B. H. Roberts made no difference to Latter-day Saints in the early decades of the twentieth century."

That's similar to the case today, when most Latter-day Saints don't care about the editorial decisions made when compiling Saints. 

But some of us do care, because we see in Saints a deliberate effort to change the narrative about Church history.

Opacity prevents us from studying the editorial decisions that produced Saints. We are left to infer the agenda of the editors and authors.

It's understandable why current historians prefer opacity. But it's not acceptable from a historian's perspective.

SIFTing Saints

The Saints books are wonderful, important resources for Church members throughout the world. But surely readers of Saints, volume 1, realize they're reading a restatement of history, not always actual history. 

The editors had specific goals in mind that they achieved by careful editing and rewriting. 

To their credit, the editors provided numerous citations to original sources. That enables readers to "trust but verify" what they read in Saints.

There's an easy formula to follow to assess restatements of history such as the Saints book, volume 1. It goes by the acronym SIFT, as in "sift the opinions from the facts." 

1. Stop.

2. Investigate the source.

3. Find better coverage.

4. Trace claims, quotes and media to the original context.

Otherwise known as SIFT.

If you follow this approach, you soon find that Joseph, his family, and all of his contemporaries knew that the Hill Cumorah of Mormon 6:6 was in western New York. You find that Joseph, his mother, and Oliver Cowdery always said Joseph translated with the Urim and Thummim, not with any stone in a hat. You find that the actual history, contained in the original sources, makes more sense than much of the revisionist restatement of history in Saints. 

Saints and the crumbling pillar of social trust

In a comment on the Mark Hoffman Netflix series, Patrick Mason wrote this great insight:

The evilest thing Hofmann did was to kill two innocent people in cold blood. But perhaps the second most sinister thing he accomplished was to undermine our collective confidence in facts. Hofmann was a master forger, yes, but even more deeply he was a master manipulator of one of the pillars of social trust — the ability to agree on what the facts are. When that pillar begins to crumble, it’s not just the Saints and the nerds who have reason to worry.

https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2021/3/9/22315949/murder-among-the-mormons-netflix-review-reaction-mark-hofmann-latter-day-saint-history-scholars

That concept of "social trust" expresses my disagreement with the way the current correlated history has been edited to accommodate M2C.

For example, the Saints book quotes Lucy Mack Smith's history 127 times. That's a legitimate and emphatic endorsement of her credibility and reliability, as well as her unique relationship with Joseph Smith and the insights that ensued.

But Saints omitted every reference to Cumorah, even though Lucy's account of what Joseph told her Moroni told him includes some important details available nowhere else.

As Patrick Mason pointed out, everyone interested in Church history should at least agree on what the facts are.

But Church members can't agree on the facts when they don't even know the facts.

_____

Here are two examples of what I'm referring to.

A common theme among LDS scholars lately is that Joseph never identified the hill as Cumorah, or at least not until he wrote the letter that became D&C 128:20, by which time, according to the scholars, Joseph had adopted the false tradition that Cumorah was in New York. This false tradition, supposedly, was created by unknown persons in the early days of the Church. 

Yet we have David Whitmer claiming repeatedly that he first heard about Cumorah directly from the divine messenger who had the abridged plates. This was in June 1829 before he had ever read a word in the Book of Mormon. We have Parley P. Pratt saying in 1831 that Moroni called the hill Cumorah anciently. We have Martin Harris referring to the hill as Cumorah in 1829.

What explains these accounts?

It's actually very simple and clear.

Lucy explained that Moroni identified the hill as Cumorah during his first visit to Joseph Smith. 

Now Joseph beware or when you go to get the plates your mind will be filled with darkness and all manner of evil will rush into your mind. To prevent you from keeping the commandments of God that you may not succeed in doing his work…

the record is on a side hill on the Hill of Cumorah 3 miles from this place remove the Grass and moss and you will find a large flat stone pry that up and you will find the  record under it laying on 4 pillars of cement— then the angel left him.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1844-1845/41 

Certainly, historians and everyone else can debate whether Lucy accurately remembered what Joseph told her, or whether her memory was "tainted" by a false traditions started later by Oliver Cowdery or someone else.

But to erase this important account from Church history, as presented in Saints, just to erase and de-correlate the New York Cumorah for ideological reasons is just as destructive to the pillar of social trust as Hoffman's effort to create new history through forged documents.

Censoring actual history is the mirror image of forging new history.

Apart from the Cumorah element, Lucy's recollection is significant because of the detail about the grass and moss. We don't get that detail anywhere but in Lucy's account. Such a detail helps explain why the stone remained hidden for all these centuries. Plus, it would help inform LDS artists. In the painting above, for example, we have a large boulder with no moss on it. Such a stone would not have concealed the stone box but would have called attention to it over the centuries.

_____

BTW, this reference brings up an anomaly in the Joseph Smith Papers. I did a search for "moss" and the reference above did not appear in the results. The only result from Lucy's history was this page:

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1844-1845/44

On that page, the section about moss is lined out, although it's not lined out on the original manuscript. I'm sure there's a reason for that, but I can't tell what it is.

The point here is that the above reference to moss in connection with Cumorah is not indexed in the search function. 

Actually, if you search in the Joseph Smith Papers for "Cumorah" several of the references don't show up. Try it yourself. (click to enlarge)

I have found similar gaps in other databases, where a search term does not produce a result even when I'm looking at a document in the database that includes the search term. It's impossible to tell whether this was an oversight, a programming error, or intentional. 

Regardless, this situation leaves us with a double problem involving the pillar of social trust.

(i) Saints omits important information about Moroni's visit to Joseph Smith.

(ii) The Joseph Smith Papers don't index this information even if you search for specific terms such as "Cumorah" and "moss."

How can we possibly have social trust when such important information is censored, withheld, unindexed, and undiscussed?

_____

A second example is the one I've brought up before, about the re-telling of the time when Moroni chastised Joseph Smith when he was coming home from Manchester. This event took place in January 1827, before Joseph obtained the plates. He referred to the hill as Cumorah on this occasion. Obviously, he could have learned the name Cumorah only from Moroni.

The Saints editors simply omitted the reference to Cumorah. It's unbelievable.

https://saintsreview.blogspot.com/2018/09/chapter-4-be-watchful.html

Here, I'm putting it in a side-by-side comparison so you can see how deliberate this editing was. Note how the section in the 1844-5 version was lined out on the original document, yet the Saints editors chose to use it instead of the revised 1845 version. In the 1845 version, Joseph referred to Cumorah to explain where he was when the angel chastised him. This is an important detail not only to explain where the event took place, but to show that Lucy and her husband knew exactly where the hill was when Joseph referred to Cumorah.

Readers of Saints never learn this. 

Nor do readers of the Joseph Smith Papers. This reference to Cumorah also does not show up in their results if you search for "Cumorah."

Saints, Vol. 1, p. 36	Lucy History 1844-5	Lucy History 1845
The Smiths liked having Joseph and Emma with them. But their son’s divine call made them anxious. People in the area had heard about the gold plates and sometimes went looking for them.18 One day, Joseph went to town on an errand.   Expecting him back for dinner, his parents were alarmed when he did not return. They waited for hours, unable to sleep. At last Joseph opened the door and threw himself into a chair, exhausted.     “Why are you so late?” his father asked.                   “I have had the severest chastisement that I ever had in my life,” Joseph said.   “Who has been taking you to task?” demanded his father.           “It was the angel of the Lord,” Joseph replied. “He says I have been negligent.”   The day of his next meeting with Moroni was coming soon. “I must be up and doing,” he said. “I must set myself about the things which God has commanded me to do.”19	<​Soon after​> this Mr. Smith had occasion to send Joseph to Manchester on buisness he set out in good season And we expected him <​to be​> at home as soon as 6 oclock but he did not arrive…. he did not return home till the night was considerably advanced his Father and myself were together I no one else was present   when he entered the house he seemed threw himself into a chair seemingly much exhausted he was <​as​> pale as ashes his Father exclaimed Joseph why have <​you​> staid so late has anything happened you we have been in distress about you these 3 hours after Joseph recovered himself a little he said Father I have had the severest chastisement that I ever had in my life   Chastisement indeed! said Mr Smith Well upon my word I would like to [know?] who has been takeing you to task and what their pretext was its pretty well too if you are to be detained till this time of night to take lectures for your bad practises— Joseph smiled to see his Father so hasty and indignant. Father said he it was the angel of the Lord. he says I have been negligent  that the time has now come when the record should be brought forth and that I must be up and doing that I must set myself about the things which God has commanded me to do but Father give yourself no uneasiness as to this	Not long after this his father had occasion to send him to Manchester on business. <​And,​> as he started quite early in the morning, we expected him home, at the outside, by 6. o clock in the evening. But when 6. came he did not arrive.— we always had a peculiar anxiety about him whenever he was absent from us; for, it seemed as if something was always taking place to jeopardize his life. But to return, he did not get home till the night was far spent.  On coming in, threw himself into a chair, apparently much exhausted.    My husband did not observe his appearance, and immediately exclaimed, “Joseph, why have you staid so late? has anything happened you? we have been much distressed about you these three hours.  As Joseph made no reply, he continued his interrogations until I finally said: now, father, (as that was the manner in which I commonly addressed him) let him rest a moment— dont touble him now— you see he is home safe, and he is very tired; so pray wait a little…. Presently he smiled, and said in a very calm tone, “I have taken the severest chastisement, that I have ever had in my life”.  My husband, supposing it was from some of the neighbors, was quite angry; and observed, “I would would like to know what business any body has to find fault with you.”       “Stop, father, Stop.” said Joseph, “it was the angel of the Lord— as I passed by the hill of Cumorah, where the plates are, the angel of the Lord met me and said, that I had not been engaged enough in the work of the Lord;  that the time had come for the record to <​be​> brought forth; and, that I must be up and doing, and set myself about the things which God had commanded me to do: but, Father,’ continued he, ‘give yourself no uneasiness concerning the reprimand that I have received; for I now know the course that I am to pursue; so all will be well.”

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1844-1845/59

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1845/111

Fake Moroni story, Zina Diantha Young, and the Three Nephites

The fake story that it was Moroni instead of Nephi who showed the plates to Mary Whitmer requires people to (i) ignore David Whitmer's account that Joseph said the messenger was one of the Nephites, (ii) ignore what Mary Whitmer herself said, and (iii) believe that resurrected bodies can change shape. While that narrative fits the ubiquitous shapeshifter legends, it contradicts basic teachings about the resurrection. 

Certain scholars promote the Moroni/Mary Whitmer story solely because of its implications for M2C (the Mesoamerican/two Cumorahs theory). 

These scholars (and their followers and employees) don't want people to believe what David Whitmer said about the messenger taking the abridged plates from Harmony to Cumorah and then bringing the "small plates" of Nephi to Fayette. That account corroborates the New York Cumorah, which contradicts M2C. Instead, these scholars and the revisionist historians who collaborate with them want people to believe the "true" Cumorah of Mormon 6:6 is somewhere in southern Mexico.

_____

There's another thread of the account that corroborates what Joseph told David about the messenger being one of the Nephites.

Among the stories about the Three Nephites, one of particular interest involves Zina Diantha. At the time of the 1832 visit described below, she was 11 years old. She would be baptized in August, 1835, after her family was taught by Hyrum Smith and David Whitmer, who were serving as missionary companions. 

Zina was the one who, many decades later, told Edward Stevenson to ask David Whitmer about his encounter with the messenger who was taking the abridged plates from Harmony to Cumorah. 

(That encounter occurred when David was taking Joseph and Oliver from Harmony to Fayette after Joseph had finished translating the abridged plates.)

When Stevenson visited David in Missouri, he asked about the event. His record of David's statements is one of two we have that clearly explain the messenger was one of the Nephites, not the Angel Moroni. 

We've discussed that before here:

http://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2016/05/more-on-david-whitmer-zina-young-and.html

and here:

http://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2016/05/note-on-cumorah-david-whitmer-and-zina.html

As you read the excerpt below, pay attention to how the messenger is described. 

Excerpt from the book Four Zinas: A Story of Mothers and Daughters on the Mormon Frontier

by Martha Sonntag Bradley and Mary Brown Firmage Woodward

When Zina Diantha was eleven, the Huntington family received an unusual visitor. They treated it as a significant occurrence, but the experience assumed heightened importance when the family joined the Mormons and heard the mysterious story of Three Nephites, ancient Americans promised by a resurrected Jesus they would live until the Second Coming. As told by Zina Diantha’s daughter, Zina Young Card, the visit occurred on a cold November evening in 1832. The family had gathered for their customary scripture study followed by a musical evening with Zina Diantha playing the cello. After they had finished a piece of music, they heard a knock at the door and opened it to a man of medium height, dressed in old-fashioned clothing, and carrying a bundle under his arm. He stepped into the room and inquired, “I usually bend my steps to some sequestered vale. May I find lodging here tonight?” They pulled up a chair for him, served him some supper, and read with him a section from the New Testament. Zina Baker commented wistfully that they would like to “hear the Gospel in its fullness as explained by the Saviour. The stranger immediately took up the subject and began explaining the scriptures and quoting the sayings of the Saviour. It seemed to them that his words held a new light and were clearer than they had ever thought of before. The stranger filled them with awe and reverence, such as they had never before felt.”33 He left the next morning.

[p.42] A few years later, when Joseph Smith spoke to a group of Latter-day Saints about the Three Nephites, William recounted this visit. Joseph laid his hand on William’s shoulder and said, “My dear brother, that man was one of the Three Nephites who was sent by the Lord to prepare your family to receive the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.”34

http://signaturebookslibrary.org/4-zinas-02/

An article titled "Questions and Answers, 8 May 1838" from the Elders' Journal: includes a couple of key points that Saints, volume 1, skews.

_____

Question 20th. What are the fundamental principles of your religion.

Answer. The fundamental principles of our religion is the testimony of the apostles and prophets concerning Jesus Christ, “that he died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended up into heaven;” and all other things are only appendages to these, which pertain to our religion.

But in connection with these, we believe in the gift of the Holy Ghost, the power of faith, the enjoyment of the spiritual gifts according to the will of God, the restoration of the house of Israel, and the final triumph of truth.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/questions-and-answers-8-may-1838/3

Although the resurrection is the fundamental principle of our religion, and although the resurrection is clearly explained in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, Saints teaches that we aren't really restored our bodies in the resurrection. 

Instead of what Alma 40:23 teaches, we receive a body that we can transform to look like whatever we want. Thus, Moroni, a resurrected being, could change his shape and appearance from a glorious personage taller than average into an short, stout old man to fool David Whitmer and his mother.

_____

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/questions-and-answers-8-may-1838/1

Question 4th. How, and where did you obtain the book of Mormon?

Answer. Moroni, the person who deposited the plates, from whence the book of Mormon was translated, in a hill in Manchester, Ontario County New York, being dead, and raised again therefrom, appeared unto me, and told me where they were; and gave me directions how to obtain them. I obtained them, and the Urim and Thummim with them; by the means of which, I translated the plates; and thus came the book of Mormon.5

That is consistent with every other statement by Joseph and Oliver; i.e., that Joseph Smith translated the plates with the Urim and Thummim that came with the plates.

However, look at note 5 in the Joseph Smith Papers, which Saints follows. They change what Joseph said so that it was W.W. Phelps who coined the term, not Moroni, and that Joseph himself used "seer stones" he found in a well to translate the plates. Except the scholars now tell us that Joseph didn't really translate anything; he merely read the English words off the seer stones and didn't even use the plates, after all.

By now, we've all see that it wasn't Phelps who first used the term, but they don't update these notes because it's important for the scholars to claim it wasn't Moroni (or even Joseph) who first referred to the Nephite interpreters as the Urim and Thummim. 

According to the scholars, this is another example of Joseph passively adopting a misleading (a euphemism for false) tradition started by others, in this case Phelps. That's their explanation of why Joseph adopted the false tradition of the New York Cumorah as well, which is why the censored Cumorah from Saints, volume 1.

Note 5. The Book of Mormon describes revelatory stones, or “interpreters,” that could be used to “translate all records that are of ancient date.”a JS recounted finding such instruments with the plates and using them to translate the record on the plates into English.b Extant documents suggest that the biblical term Urim and Thummim was first applied to the interpreters by William W. Phelps in 1833 and that JS adopted the term thereafter.c JS also used other seer stones to translate the plates.d After 1833, JS at times referred to seer stones as Urim and Thummim.e   

(aBook of Mormon, 1830 ed., 172–173 [Mosiah 8:13].

b“Urim and Thummim,” in the glossary.

c“The Book of Mormon,” The Evening and the Morning Star, Jan. 1833, [2]; Exodus 28:30; Leviticus 8:8; Numbers 27:21; “Printer’s Manuscript of the Book of Mormon;”; JS, Journal, 9–11 Nov. 1835.

dSee “Urim and Thummim,” in the glossary.

eWoodruff, Journal, 27 Dec. 1841; Historian’s Office, Brigham Young History Drafts, 60.)

The end

Changing history

 "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."

"And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth." George Orwell, 1984

More on the fake Moroni/Mary Whitmer story

Saints, volume 1, is an awesome account of Church history that would have been even more credible and reliable if the editors were not focused on accommodating M2C (the Mesoamerican/Two Cumorahs theory) and SITH (stone-in-the-hat). 

I still hope they correct and revise the book for future readers, but until they do, the problems aren't going away. Instead, they're getting worse.

Over two years ago I pointed out that Saints, volume 1, contains an easily debunked claim that it was Moroni who showed the plates to Mary Whitmer. Definitely, Mary saw the plates, but just as definitely, it was not Moroni who showed them to her.

https://saintsreview.blogspot.com/2018/09/the-mary-whitmer-problem.html

In that post, I listed a series of repercussions that I anticipated:

This has several repercussions.

- the inclusion of this false account undermines the credibility of Saints.
- people who read Saints and believe this account will be confused when they read the actual history.
- the false account in Saints will undermine belief in the reliability and credibility of David Whitmer, one of the Three Witnesses.
- readers will wonder why Joseph and Oliver described Moroni so much differently than Mary Whitmer did.
- readers will miss the far more fascinating aspect of the account that links the Book of Mormon to Church history.
- the false account enables Saints to omit a key event in Church history that teaches us about the Hill Cumorah and the two sets of plates.

This can all be ignored, of course. Many will say it doesn't matter, it's a minor point of Church history that was confusing anyway, we can't question what the scholars publish, we have to relate the fake history to accommodate M2C, etc. Some of my M2C critics, including employees of Book of Mormon Central, reject what Oliver and Joseph taught anyway, so they easily reject what David and Mary said.

Plus, people can and will believe whatever they want. If people want to believe the Moroni/Mary Whitmer story, that's fine with me. 

But there are still some Latter-day Saints who want to know accurate Church history, and I don't think it's a good idea to falsify Church history purely to accommodate someone's theory of Book of Mormon geography, in this case M2C.

Anyone who cares to look at the footnotes to Saints will see this is a fake story. Worse, Saints omits the reference in which David explains that Joseph specifically identified the messenger who was taking the abridged plates to Cumorah as one of the Nephites, not as Moroni.

_____

The issue has resurfaced because in the October 2020 General Conference, one of the speakers repeated the story, citing Saints as authority. (I won't mention the speaker's name out of respect.) 

Right in the same talk, the speaker described Moroni as "as a glorious messenger from God," which is consistent with the description of Moroni in Letter IV. 

By contrast, the individual who showed the plates to Mary Whitmer was a "strange person" she called "Brother Nephi" who, according to David Whitmer, was a heavyset man with white hair and beard, wearing a brown wool suit, around 5'8" tall.  

There are lots of problems with this, but here we'll just discuss one. Thanks to the fake history in Saints, we now have General Conference precedent for the principle that resurrected beings don't really have restored bodies, but instead can change their bodies at will for inexplicable reasons. 

Here's how Alma explained it:

Alma 40:23 The soul shall be restored to the body, and the body to the soul; yea, and every limb and joint shall be restored to its body; yea, even a hair of the head shall not be lost; but all things shall be restored to their proper and perfect frame.

M2C scholars are eager to explain how Joseph didn't translate the Book of Mormon correctly because he omitted all the indicia of Mayan culture, so I suppose it's consistent to say he didn't translate Alma 40:23 correctly, either. Or maybe he omitted an important clause, such as the one bolded below:

Alma 40:23 The soul shall be restored to the body, and the body to the soul; yea, and every limb and joint shall be restored to its body; yea, even a hair of the head shall not be lost; but all things shall be restored to their proper and perfect frame; nevertheless, the soul can cause the body that it can take a different form.

This is an example of our scholars providing bad information to Church leaders. Consequently, we're left with two alternatives, assuming (i) David and Mary Whitmer were credible and reliable witnesses and (ii) we're allowed to believe a woman's account instead of her grandson's revision.

Alternative 1. Moroni and the messenger who interacted with David and Mary Whitmer were the same person, just in different bodies. Resurrected bodies might be restored to their proper and perfect frame, but they can change their bodies in size, appearance, age, etc. When they change their shape, they also use different names; in this case, Moroni and Nephi.

Alternative 2. Moroni and the messenger who interacted with David and Mary Whitmer were not the same person. Moroni was a resurrected being, taller than average and glorious in appearance. The messenger was Nephi, one of the 3 Nephites, who was promised he would not taste of death. Resurrected bodies really are restored to their proper and perfect frame, as Alma taught.

In my view, Alternative 2 fits the historical evidence and the doctrine about the resurrection. Alternative 1 does not. But Alternative 1 accommodates M2C, so that's what Saints presents.

_____

Some might argue that the angel who showed the plates to the Three Witnesses was not Moroni, that Oliver's description of Moroni in Letter IV was incorrect, that the resurrected Moroni is, in fact, a heavyset man with white hair and beard about 5'8" tall, that Mary Whitmer was wrong to call him "Brother Nephi," etc.

Those arguments are as plausible as what we usually hear from M2C advocates who try to persuade us that Lucy Mack Smith was unreliable, that the Three Witnesses were all wrong about Cumorah, that Joseph and his contemporaries and successors in Church leadership merely speculated about the New York Cumorah and were wrong, etc. I don't find any of that plausible. 

Again, everyone is free to believe whatever they want. As the saying goes, we're entitled to our own opinions but not our own facts, but in today's world, facts don't matter. 

_____ 

For those few remaining Latter-day Saints who still believe the teachings of Joseph and Oliver and others on these issues, here's something else to consider that I didn't bring up before.

Saints includes a footnote to the interview of David Whitmer by Joseph F. Smith and Orson Pratt. They asked him to describe the messenger, which he did (as I related above). Shortly prior to that question, though, they asked David if he really saw the angel who showed him the plates. He affirmed that he did, that the angel stood just a few feet away, etc. Oddly, they didn't ask David to describe the angel, or if they did they didn't mention it in their account. But David clearly did not say the angel and the messenger were the same person.

In 1884, B.H. Roberts interviewed David Whitmer. Here's one account he related in General Conference, October 1926:

Shortly after breakfast the four named went out into the woods, as I have said, and there supplicated the Lord with the result that they beheld the plates and the engravings thereon, and they heard the voice of God proclaim that the translation was true and he commanded them to bear witness of it to all the world.

In my interview with David Whitmer, in 1884, as he went over this ground, led by my questions, when we came to this part of it he said to me that in the progress of turning the leaves, or having them turned by Moroni, and looking upon the engravings, Moroni looked directly at him and said: “David, blessed is he that endureth to the end.” When David Whitmer made that remark it seemed to me rather a peculiar thing that he should thus be singled out for such a remark, and I remember reporting it as such to President John Morgan, then president of the Southern States mission. I stated to him the peculiar feelings I had when I learned that from the lips of David Whitmer; but the subsequent history of these three witnesses led me to conclude that there was indeed a hidden warning in the words of the angel to David, “Blessed is he that endureth to the end.” And it is rather a sad reflection that of these three witnesses he was the only one who died outside of membership in the Church. I wonder if Moroni was not trying to sound a warning to this stubborn man, that perhaps whatever his experiences and trials might be, that at the last he, too, might have been brought into the fold, and might have died within the pale of the Church.

David's encounter with Moroni occurred in June 1829, within a month of his encounter with the messenger who was taking the abridged plates to Cumorah. If Moroni spoke this directly to David, does it seem plausible that, when asked about the messenger, David would forget to explain that the messenger was the same person who showed David the plates?

Of course not. 

The only people who saw both Moroni and the messenger were David Whitmer, Joseph Smith, and Oliver Cowdery. David apparently related the incident as early as 1832, as we've discussed before.

We have no record of Joseph or Oliver describing the messenger, although we do have multiple accounts of Oliver and Joseph visiting the repository of Nephite records in the Hill Cumorah--the destination of the messenger. 

(Needless to say, our M2C friends also insist Oliver was wrong about the repository, too.) 

What we do have is Oliver's description of Moroni in Letter IV, which he wrote with the assistance of Joseph and which Joseph made sure was republished several times so all the Saints could learn about Moroni's visit.

We also have the original version of Joseph Smith--History 1:33, published in the Times and Seasons in 1842, which identified the angel as Nephi. That reference (which was compiled by Joseph's scribes, not written by Joseph in the first place) was later changed to Moroni, and Brigham Young explained that both Nephi and Moroni ministered to Joseph. They were not one individual in two different bodies. One was resurrected. The other was changed so he wouldn't taste death, as we learn in 3 Nephi. 

_____

In my previous post, I included an image of the page from the Historical Record cited by Saints as authority for the Moroni claim, but I apparently didn't include the link. Here's the link:

https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets?id=02b33f96-077a-47c7-b434-c45ee2f89897&crate=0&index=638

Here's a larger image:

Everyone can see that Mary herself called the messenger, or holy angel, "Brother Nephi." 

It was her grandson (or Andrew Jenson, who compiled the Historical Record) who decided "she undoubtedly refers to Moroni, the angel who had the plates in charge."

Thanks to our M2C scholars and revisionist Church historians who seek to accommodate M2C, Saints preferred the speculation of the grandson (or Jenson) over the express statements of Mary Whitmer herself.

We would like to think that in this enlightened age, we wouldn't see our historians dismissing Mary's identification of the messenger because she was a woman, but we can all see that's exactly what happened here. 

What's worse: Mary's identification makes sense historically and doctrinally, while her grandson's "correction" makes no sense.

It makes sense that Mary "always called" the messenger "Brother Nephi" because Nephi was the name of one of the disciples from whom the group of three were granted their desire to never taste of death.

1 And it came to pass when Jesus had said these words, he spake unto his disciples, one by one, saying unto them: What is it that ye desire of me, after that I am gone to the Father?

2 And they all spake, save it were three, saying: We desire that after we have lived unto the age of man, that our ministry, wherein thou hast called us, may have an end, that we may speedily come unto thee in thy kingdom.

3 And he said unto them: Blessed are ye because ye desired this thing of me; therefore, after that ye are seventy and two years old ye shall come unto me in my kingdom; and with me ye shall find rest.

4 And when he had spoken unto them, he turned himself unto the three, and said unto them: What will ye that I should do unto you, when I am gone unto the Father?

5 And they sorrowed in their hearts, for they durst not speak unto him the thing which they desired.

6 And he said unto them: Behold, I know your thoughts, and ye have desired the thing which John, my beloved, who was with me in my ministry, before that I was lifted up by the Jews, desired of me.

7 Therefore, more blessed are ye, for ye shall never taste of death; but ye shall live to behold all the doings of the Father unto the children of men, even until all things shall be fulfilled according to the will of the Father, when I shall come in my glory with the powers of heaven.

8 And ye shall never endure the pains of death; but when I shall come in my glory ye shall be changed in the twinkling of an eye from mortality to immortality; and then shall ye be blessed in the kingdom of my Father.

9 And again, ye shall not have pain while ye shall dwell in the flesh, neither sorrow save it be for the sins of the world; and all this will I do because of the thing which ye have desired of me, for ye have desired that ye might bring the souls of men unto me, while the world shall stand.

(3 Nephi 28:1–9)

This makes sense also because of the accounts of the three men who prepared David's fields so he could go pick up Joseph and Oliver from Harmony. Saints omits that account too, which is not surprising, but people can read it in my Saints supplement.

_____

What doesn't make sense is that Moroni, a resurrected being, would (or could) change his body size and appearance, including his age.

We all know that David Whitmer explained that after he picked up Joseph and Oliver, he was driving them to Fayette when they encountered the messenger who was taking the abridged plates to Cumorah. 

Well, I should clarify: we don't all know that. Those who read Saints don't know that. And those who rely on M2C publications such as Opening the Heavens won't know that because the editor of that book censored the reference to Cumorah and instead wrote "The plates were carried to Fayette by Moroni in a bundle on his back." 

Opening the Heavens, Second Edition, p. 108, note 84.

That's a ridiculous revision of actual history because the point of David's account was that the messenger did not want to ride with them to Fayette because he was going to Cumorah first.

But of course, M2C scholars have to censor actual history to maintain the M2C hoax that the "real Cumorah" is in Mexico. 

That's why they perpetuate the Moroni/Mary Whitmer hoax.

BTW, the Joseph F. Smith, Statement 3, in the above note refers to anonymous typewritten minutes of a meeting that claim it was Moroni, but I've addressed that before.

David described the messenger to Joseph F. Smith and Orson Pratt. You can see the handwritten statement here (click to enlarge):

https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets?id=dca15baa-a0ac-4fc1-b2ec-7f3cd75e4906&crate=0&index=44

Summary:

Saints, volume 1, is an awesome, accessible book about Church history that could be improved with more accurate information. The fake Moroni/Mary Whitmer story accommodates M2C, but also raises doubts about the doctrine of the resurrection as explained by Alma.