I've updated this post from one of my other blogs to incorporate Baja.
Check your biases!
One obstacle to consensus about any issue is confirmation bias. People see what they want to see. As one scholar put it, Mesoamerican proponents "can't unsee" Mesoamerica when they read the Book of Mormon. It's the same with the Baja proponents, the Heartland proponents, etc.
Advocates of every alternative generally feel the same way--including those who don't accept the Book of Mormon as an authentic translation of ancient records. Everyone is confirming their biases.
For many years, I, too, could not "unsee" Mesoamerica in the text because I trusted the "experts" at BYU and CES and so I deferred to them. But that changed once I learned about a few critical facts and re-examined the text and Church history from another perspective.
Critics could say my biases changed, and all I'm doing is confirming my new biases.
Fair enough.
So how do we build consensus to achieve "no more contention" on this topic?
Advocates of every alternative generally feel the same way--including those who don't accept the Book of Mormon as an authentic translation of ancient records. Everyone is confirming their biases.
For many years, I, too, could not "unsee" Mesoamerica in the text because I trusted the "experts" at BYU and CES and so I deferred to them. But that changed once I learned about a few critical facts and re-examined the text and Church history from another perspective.
Critics could say my biases changed, and all I'm doing is confirming my new biases.
Fair enough.
So how do we build consensus to achieve "no more contention" on this topic?
The obvious solution is the FAITH model, where we all lay out all the facts and then separate them from our respective assumptions, inferences and theories that lead to our overall hypotheses or worldview. This eliminates contention because we can clearly and charitably understand one another. This is the pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding.
But that obvious solution seems difficult for LDS and anti-LDS podcasters, so let's try this step of identifying our respective biases.
We can all lay out our biases and let others see which biases they most closely identify with.
_____
Below are the respective biases as I understand them, based on writings, speeches, presentations and conversations. If I'm wrong about any of these, please let me know. Notice that the Meso/Baja bias is basically the same as the anti/former LDS bias, at least with respect to these issues.
Put a checkmark next to the bias that is closest to yours.
___________________
Letter VII (which unequivocally declares that the New York Cumorah is the scene of the final battles of the Nephites and Jaredites):
__ My bias: Oliver Cowdery was credible and reliable because of his personal experience, as well as for the many reasons I've explained. I also think Joseph Smith helped him write the letters, including Letter VII, and subsequently endorsed them fully on multiple occasions. D&C 128:20 corroborates other accounts that Moroni himself identified the hill in New York as Cumorah even before Joseph obtained the plates.
__ Meso/Baja bias: Oliver Cowdery was not credible or reliable about Cumorah/Ramah and he was an ignorant speculator who misled the Church. Lucy Mack Smith, David Whitmer, and others adopted Oliver's speculation. Even Joseph Smith passively accepted this false tradition about the New York Cumorah when he wrote D&C 128:20.
__ Anti/Former LDS bias: Oliver Cowdery was not credible or reliable about Cumorah/Ramah and he was an ignorant speculator who misled the Church. Lucy Mack Smith, David Whitmer, and others adopted Oliver's speculation. Even Joseph Smith passively accepted this false tradition about the New York Cumorah when he wrote D&C 128:20.
____________________
The Golden Plates
__ My bias: Joseph translated all the abridged plates (except the unsealed portion) in Harmony, returned them to a heavenly messenger who took them back to Cumorah (David Whitmer account) and got the plates of Nephi from the repository, which he then took to Fayette and gave to Joseph, which is why Joseph translated those plates in Fayette.
__ Meso/Baja bias: David Whitmer was not credible or reliable so he made up or misremembered the experience with the messenger going to Cumorah. Although they are not mentioned in the Title Page, the plates of Nephi were always in the set of plates Joseph originally got from Moroni in New York because the repository described in Mormon 6:6 is in Mexico (Meso or Baja). Witnesses described the plates differently because they were confused or just wrong.
__ Anti/Former LDS bias: Basically the same as the Meso/Baja bias, except neither Oliver, nor Joseph nor any of the witnesses were credible or reliable because there were no plates to begin with.
____________________
The repository in Cumorah
__ My bias: Brigham Young and others accurately reported what Oliver and others said about entering the records repository in the Hill Cumorah in New York. David Whitmer accurately explained that the plates were no longer in Cumorah but were not far from there.
__ Meso/Baja bias: Brigham Young and others may have accurately reported what Oliver and others said about entering the records repository in the Hill Cumorah in New York, but Oliver was not credible and if anything, he described a vision of a hill in Mexico (either Meso or Baja), which he and Joseph shared multiple times. David Whitmer was unreliable and not credible when he explained that the plates were no longer in Cumorah but were not far from there.
__ Anti/Former LDS bias: Basically the same as the Meso/Baja bias, except neither Oliver nor Joseph nor any of the witnesses were credible or reliable because there were no plates to begin with, and no repository except, maybe, a "visionary" one.
____________________
Statements about Central America
__ My bias: Orson Pratt, Benjamin Winchester, WW. Phelps, William Smith, and others invoked the discovery of ancient ruins in Central America as evidence of the Book of Mormon to support their zealous missionary efforts. In addition, anonymous articles appeared in the Times and Seasons during 1842, when Joseph was the nominal editor. Joseph had nothing to do with these articles. Joseph never made a single direct link between the Book of Mormon and Central America, and actually made specific statements repudiating that theory. Alleged correspondences between the Book of Mormon and Central America are illusory because they are characteristics of most ancient societies. Joseph's statements about North America fit the text and relevant anthropology, archaeology, geology, and geography.
__ Meso/Baja bias: Orson Pratt, Benjamin Winchester, WW. Phelps, William Smith, and others invoked the discovery of ancient ruins in Central America as evidence of the Book of Mormon to support their zealous missionary efforts. In addition, anonymous articles appeared in the Times and Seasons during 1842, when Joseph was the actual editor. Joseph actually wrote these articles, or at least edited and approved of them, because he didn't know where the Book of Mormon took place and he expected scholarship to answer the question. Modern LDS scholars and educators know more about the Book of Mormon than Joseph did. Joseph's statements about the North American setting are ambiguous and reflect his confusion and adoption of an early false tradition. Alleged correspondences between the Book of Mormon and Central America/Baja are reliable, especially when we realize that Joseph Smith used the wrong terms to translate the plates and thereby missed the Central American/Baja connections. The Mesoamerican/Baja models fit the text and relevant anthropology, archaeology, geology, and geography.
__ Anti/Former LDS bias: Basically the same as the Meso/Baja bias, except modern LDS scholars and educators can't point to any evidence directly connecting the Book of Mormon text to Central America, Baja, or anywhere else.
____________________
Statements by Joseph's successors
Facts: Every one of Joseph's contemporaries expressed or accepted the New York setting for the Hill Cumorah. Orson Pratt's 1879 footnotes in the official edition of the Book of Mormon specified, unequivocally, that the Hill Cumorah was in New York, while he acknowledged his identification of other sites was speculative, or "believed to be." Beyond Joseph's contemporaries, Joseph Fielding Smith, Marion G. Romney, Mark E. Peterson and others reaffirmed the New York Cumorah, including in General Conference addresses, while no General Authority has ever contradicted the New York Cumorah in General Conference.
__ My bias: Every one of these prophets and apostles was correct about Cumorah.
__ Meso/Baja bias: Every one of these prophets and apostles was speculating about Cumorah and was wrong.
__ Anti/Former LDS bias: Basically the same as the Meso/Baja bias, except the prophets and apostles were not only speculating and were wrong about Cumorah, but about everything else as well.
Below are the respective biases as I understand them, based on writings, speeches, presentations and conversations. If I'm wrong about any of these, please let me know. Notice that the Meso/Baja bias is basically the same as the anti/former LDS bias, at least with respect to these issues.
Put a checkmark next to the bias that is closest to yours.
___________________
Letter VII (which unequivocally declares that the New York Cumorah is the scene of the final battles of the Nephites and Jaredites):
__ My bias: Oliver Cowdery was credible and reliable because of his personal experience, as well as for the many reasons I've explained. I also think Joseph Smith helped him write the letters, including Letter VII, and subsequently endorsed them fully on multiple occasions. D&C 128:20 corroborates other accounts that Moroni himself identified the hill in New York as Cumorah even before Joseph obtained the plates.
__ Meso/Baja bias: Oliver Cowdery was not credible or reliable about Cumorah/Ramah and he was an ignorant speculator who misled the Church. Lucy Mack Smith, David Whitmer, and others adopted Oliver's speculation. Even Joseph Smith passively accepted this false tradition about the New York Cumorah when he wrote D&C 128:20.
__ Anti/Former LDS bias: Oliver Cowdery was not credible or reliable about Cumorah/Ramah and he was an ignorant speculator who misled the Church. Lucy Mack Smith, David Whitmer, and others adopted Oliver's speculation. Even Joseph Smith passively accepted this false tradition about the New York Cumorah when he wrote D&C 128:20.
____________________
The Golden Plates
__ My bias: Joseph translated all the abridged plates (except the unsealed portion) in Harmony, returned them to a heavenly messenger who took them back to Cumorah (David Whitmer account) and got the plates of Nephi from the repository, which he then took to Fayette and gave to Joseph, which is why Joseph translated those plates in Fayette.
__ Meso/Baja bias: David Whitmer was not credible or reliable so he made up or misremembered the experience with the messenger going to Cumorah. Although they are not mentioned in the Title Page, the plates of Nephi were always in the set of plates Joseph originally got from Moroni in New York because the repository described in Mormon 6:6 is in Mexico (Meso or Baja). Witnesses described the plates differently because they were confused or just wrong.
__ Anti/Former LDS bias: Basically the same as the Meso/Baja bias, except neither Oliver, nor Joseph nor any of the witnesses were credible or reliable because there were no plates to begin with.
____________________
__ My bias: Brigham Young and others accurately reported what Oliver and others said about entering the records repository in the Hill Cumorah in New York. David Whitmer accurately explained that the plates were no longer in Cumorah but were not far from there.
__ Meso/Baja bias: Brigham Young and others may have accurately reported what Oliver and others said about entering the records repository in the Hill Cumorah in New York, but Oliver was not credible and if anything, he described a vision of a hill in Mexico (either Meso or Baja), which he and Joseph shared multiple times. David Whitmer was unreliable and not credible when he explained that the plates were no longer in Cumorah but were not far from there.
__ Anti/Former LDS bias: Basically the same as the Meso/Baja bias, except neither Oliver nor Joseph nor any of the witnesses were credible or reliable because there were no plates to begin with, and no repository except, maybe, a "visionary" one.
____________________
__ My bias: Orson Pratt, Benjamin Winchester, WW. Phelps, William Smith, and others invoked the discovery of ancient ruins in Central America as evidence of the Book of Mormon to support their zealous missionary efforts. In addition, anonymous articles appeared in the Times and Seasons during 1842, when Joseph was the nominal editor. Joseph had nothing to do with these articles. Joseph never made a single direct link between the Book of Mormon and Central America, and actually made specific statements repudiating that theory. Alleged correspondences between the Book of Mormon and Central America are illusory because they are characteristics of most ancient societies. Joseph's statements about North America fit the text and relevant anthropology, archaeology, geology, and geography.
__ Meso/Baja bias: Orson Pratt, Benjamin Winchester, WW. Phelps, William Smith, and others invoked the discovery of ancient ruins in Central America as evidence of the Book of Mormon to support their zealous missionary efforts. In addition, anonymous articles appeared in the Times and Seasons during 1842, when Joseph was the actual editor. Joseph actually wrote these articles, or at least edited and approved of them, because he didn't know where the Book of Mormon took place and he expected scholarship to answer the question. Modern LDS scholars and educators know more about the Book of Mormon than Joseph did. Joseph's statements about the North American setting are ambiguous and reflect his confusion and adoption of an early false tradition. Alleged correspondences between the Book of Mormon and Central America/Baja are reliable, especially when we realize that Joseph Smith used the wrong terms to translate the plates and thereby missed the Central American/Baja connections. The Mesoamerican/Baja models fit the text and relevant anthropology, archaeology, geology, and geography.
__ Anti/Former LDS bias: Basically the same as the Meso/Baja bias, except modern LDS scholars and educators can't point to any evidence directly connecting the Book of Mormon text to Central America, Baja, or anywhere else.
____________________
Facts: Every one of Joseph's contemporaries expressed or accepted the New York setting for the Hill Cumorah. Orson Pratt's 1879 footnotes in the official edition of the Book of Mormon specified, unequivocally, that the Hill Cumorah was in New York, while he acknowledged his identification of other sites was speculative, or "believed to be." Beyond Joseph's contemporaries, Joseph Fielding Smith, Marion G. Romney, Mark E. Peterson and others reaffirmed the New York Cumorah, including in General Conference addresses, while no General Authority has ever contradicted the New York Cumorah in General Conference.
__ My bias: Every one of these prophets and apostles was correct about Cumorah.
__ Meso/Baja bias: Every one of these prophets and apostles was speculating about Cumorah and was wrong.
__ Anti/Former LDS bias: Basically the same as the Meso/Baja bias, except the prophets and apostles were not only speculating and were wrong about Cumorah, but about everything else as well.
______________
How did you do?
No comments:
Post a Comment