All, Some, None and the FAITH model

In light of the controversy over the Baja model, and the ongoing M2C and SITH models, I'm posting here a chapter from my book The Rational Restoration, which explains the FAITH model and offers a simple application.

_____ 

This chapter applies the FAITH model by presenting a simplified method of analysis to clarify different beliefs.

Two basic narratives have arisen about the truth claims made by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery regarding the foundational events of the Restoration. These truth claims offer a binary choice.

(i) The truth claims demonstrated divine intervention, OR (ii) The truth claims were not divine because they were (a) unproven and delusional or deceitful claims that have naturalistic explanations or (b) the product of sinister supernatural influences.

 

Within category (i), believers accept all or some of what Joseph and Oliver taught, leaving them free to entertain a range of narratives depending on how closely they adhere to what Joseph and Oliver taught.

Within category (ii), nonbelievers accept none of the truth claims made by Joseph and Oliver, and they object on either naturalistic or supernatural grounds.

Relative belief in what Joseph and Oliver claimed
All	Some	None
Believe all of what Joseph and Oliver claimed.	Believe some, but not all, of what Joseph and Oliver claimed.	Believe none of what Joseph and Oliver claimed.

Advocates of each narrative can find historical evidence to support their respective interpretations. Everyone is looking at the same facts, but then people diverge based on assumptions, inferences and theories.

For example, consider this post from well-known critic:

The leaders of the Mormon church continue to blame the youth leaving on them having 'anti-Christ' teachings when in reality it's because the youth are not as afraid of looking at information about the LDS church as older generations are... and they're finding out it's not true.

When we run this post through the FAITH model, we can quickly isolate facts from assumptions, inferences, and theories. There are no clear facts stated—even though the post claims it is giving us facts. When it says “in reality,” that’s a rhetorical opinion, not a fact.

Is it a fact that youth “are not as afraid” as older generations? 

Aside from the overgeneralization, the substance of the claim is dubious. To the youth, everything is new under the sun. They’re naturally curious and uninformed. Many in the older generation have seen and heard the critical narratives so many times that they don’t feel a need to rehash them yet again. They may be “weary” rather than “afraid.” Labeling them as “afraid” is pejorative and argumentative, not factual.

Besides, today every generation has equal access to the Internet and thus the same information.

When the post says the youth are “looking at information about the LDS church,” information can be supportive or critical. Presumably people are looking at both categories. And if so, which category are they “finding out” is “not true” here?

The author, as a critic, presumably wants readers to infer that young people are “looking at” critical information and “finding out” the church’s truth claims are “not true.” That would be his framing.

But what he actually wrote supports the opposite conclusion; i.e., that the youth are looking at the information the author promotes and are finding out that his critical information is not true. That would be my framing.

We start with the identical facts, but after applying our assumptions, inferences, etc., we reach completely opposite conclusions or hypotheses.

When viewed with that degree of clarity, charity, and understanding, there is no incentive to contend about our differences. We can understand exactly how we reached our respective conclusions (hypotheses) and proceed from there. We feel no compulsion to convert, convince, or compel because we realize we are not disagreeing about fact, but about opinion.

_____

Because we start with a focus on issues involving the Restoration, particularly those related to the keystone of our religion (the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon), we've identified three broad categories of people who have engaged with these issues.

In doing so, we recognize everyone is different. These categories serve as analytical tools only. Any individual may find affinity with any group on a given specific topic.

The objective is to seek greater understanding by enabling side-by-side comparison. Comparisons facilitate greater clarity and charity.

Important: the tool does not impose a value judgment on which approach is better or worse, but it assists others who assess a particular issue to make their own informed decisions.

Under the right circumstances—the alternatives are available for comparison side by side, and the wording of the alternatives leaves nothing to the imagination—people can think their way out of the fallacy. Steven Pinker[1]

 

Clarity requires isolation of facts, assumptions, inferences, theories, and hypotheses (the FAITH model). The understanding process is nonjudgmental. If anyone brings factual errors to our attention, they will be promptly noted and appropriate corrections made.

These are the three broad categories, using terminology familiar to those involved with these discussions. The groups are organized as a continuum, but there is no implied preference for “All” just because A is the first letter in the alphabet.

The order could be reversed just as easily.

Believe what Joseph and Oliver claimed
All	Some	None
Believe all of what Joseph and Oliver claimed about the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon	Believe some, but not all, of what Joseph and Oliver claimed about the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon	Believe none of what Joseph and Oliver claimed about the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon

 

Each of these groups is overbroad. People who generally identify themselves within the description in one box may have a variety of views about how to interpret the teachings of Joseph and Oliver that puts them in one or two of the other boxes on some issues. But the classifications are useful for analytical and clarity purposes.

Application – Lucy Mack Smith

The all/some/none model can be applied to any historical evidence. In the following example, everyone agrees on the facts, but they divide into three categories because of their assumptions, inferences, and theories, which lead them to reach entirely different hypotheses (multiple working hypotheses). To repeat, obviously the all/some/none classification is a generalized summary. Any individual may have a different set of assumptions, inferences, etc.

Fact (an objective fact everyone agrees upon): Because we can all see the original document in the Joseph Smith Papers, everyone agrees that the document exists. We can all see that the handwriting is by Martha Jane Knowlton Coray and Howard Coray, who later reported they acted as scribes for Lucy’s dictation. Lucy Mack Smith wrote a letter to her son William, explaining that

People are often enquiring of me the particulars of Joseph’s getting the plates seeing the angels at first and many other thing which Joseph never wrote or published I have told over many things pertaining to these matters to different persons to gratify their curiosity indeed have almost destroyed my lungs giving these recitals to those who felt anxious to hear them I have now concluded to write down every particular as far as possible and if those who wish to read them will help me a little they can have it all in one piece to read at their leasure—[2]

With this historical background, presumably we can all agree that Lucy dictated her history in 1844. That’s the easy part.

We can also agree to the fact that she reported that the first night he appeared to Joseph Smith, the divine messenger told Joseph that

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.”[3]

People diverge over how to handle what Lucy reported; i.e., is her report factual or not? Did she hear this directly from Joseph or did she compose the exchange from her imagination? We can examine the typical assumptions, inferences, theories and hypotheses employed by three different categories of people, grouped according to their pre-existing beliefs about Cumorah.

Relative acceptance of what Lucy Mack Smith said
Assumption
All	Some	None
Lucy was correct because Cumorah is in New York.	Lucy was mistaken because Cumorah is not in New York.	Lucy was mistaken because Cumorah is imaginary.
Inferences and interpretations
All	Some	None
We infer that Lucy heard this directly from Joseph Smith, that Joseph heard it correctly in the first place, and that Lucy accurately reported what Joseph told her. The words speak for themselves; i.e., Moroni identified the hill where the plates were deposited as Cumorah.	This is not a direct quotation so we infer Lucy paraphrased what she heard or added anachronistic details years after the fact. She said “hill of Cumorah” which is not the same as the Hill Cumorah, so we interpret it to mean a hill “like” Cumorah, reminiscent of Cumorah, etc.	We infer that Lucy probably wanted to believe it, and wanted others to believe it, because she naturally trusted her own son. But there’s nothing believable about this account because resurrected beings don’t come to earth to convey messages.
Theory/explanation
All	Some	None
Because Lucy was generally a reliable witness, there is no reason to doubt her claim in this case. Even though Lucy related this 20 years after the fact, she had a good memory and she repeated the account many times during the lifetime of Joseph Smith and he never corrected or contradicted her. Lucy related a similar account about Cumorah that took place about 3 years later.	Although Lucy was generally a reliable witness, she was not in all cases. Lucy related this 20 years after the fact so she must have heard the Cumorah theory from someone other than Joseph Smith, but even if she heard it from Joseph, Joseph was speculating along with Oliver Cowdery.	Lucy was generally a reliable witness, but at best, Lucy is relating hearsay (what Joseph told her), so it’s not even admissible in court. Her belief in resurrected beings doesn’t make her belief a reality. Besides, even scholars who believe the Book of Mormon is “true” don’t accept what Lucy said here.
Hypothesis
All	Some	None
The actual Hill Cumorah is in western New York.	The actual Hill Cumorah is in southern Mexico or somewhere else.	Any hill Cumorah is fictional, whether it’s in New York or anywhere else.

Predictably, the concluding hypothesis confirms the beginning assumption held by each of the three groups. 

As we discussed previously, this is called “confirmation bias,” defined as a cognitive bias “that results from the tendency to process and analyze information in such a way that it supports one's preexisting ideas and convictions.”[4]

But that doesn’t matter because the FAITH model is not designed to produce a convergence of ideas. Instead, it solves for clarity, charity and understanding. 

To review:

Clarity. The FAITH model enables everyone to see exactly what are the assumptions, inferences and theories which lead to the hypothesis or conclusion. Often, it clarifies these elements for the proponent of a particular hypothesis as well.

With the “ancestry” of each hypothesis clearly spelled out, everyone can understand alternative working hypotheses. People can make informed choices without the confusion that typically results from argument and contention.

Charity. The FAITH model also promotes charity, meaning we assume everyone is acting in good faith and is sincere. Instead of speculating about possible ulterior motives, everyone can see exactly how others reached their conclusions.

Understanding. The FAITH model brings people together based on mutual understanding and respect without requiring agreement, adherence, or conformity to one particular outcome.

This approach is far beyond merely agreeing to disagree. Once people understand one another with clarity and charity, we can all work together without underlying suspicions, distrust, or animosity; i.e., we can have “no more contention.”

And we can work together for the common good despite (or even because of) our different worldviews.

---

[1] Rationality at 584

[2] https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1844-1845/41#historical-intro

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

[4] https://www.dictionary.com/browse/confirmation-bias

Delusion of forming opinions based on "the evidence" or "the text"

The recent Baja videos reminded me of one of the most popular pages on my setting blog titled 

Delusion of forming opinions based on "the evidence" or "the text"

You can see it here:

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/p/psychology-of-central-american-theory.html

For convenience, I'm reposting it below with some minor edits.

_____

It is fascinating to observe how the psychological power of confirmation bias has led people to form strong opinions on the topic of Book of Mormon geography. Anyone who thinks he/she has taken a position based on "the evidence" or on "the text" is living in a delusion.

Everyone involved in this discussion has the same faith and testimony.

Everyone is reading the same text.

Everyone has access to the same physical and scientific evidence.

Everyone has access to the same teachings of the prophets.

Yet people reach completely contradictory conclusions. Why?

The truth is, we are all interpreting "the evidence" and "the text" through filters that confirm our biases. And our bias is driven by whether we accept (i) the prophets who teach a New York Cumorah or (ii) the intellectuals who teach a non-New York Cumorah. 

Everything else is confirmation bias. 

Our psychology is such that, once we make the choice about which expert to follow, we automatically reject the other category of expert.

We defer to experts (prophets or intellectuals, respectively) precisely because there is physical and scientific evidence to support both positions. Both positions rely on subjective interpretations of the text that confirm our respective biases, which in turn are determined by our initial choice of which expert we follow.

Those who accept the prophets reject the intellectuals who contradict the prophets, while those who accept the intellectuals reject the prophets who contradict the intellectuals. It's axiomatic. It's an irresistible psychological reality.

The fun comes when those who accept the intellectuals, and yet also claim they want to follow the prophets (such as BYU/CES employees teaching Book of Mormon or Church History classes), try to rationalize their choice by claiming the prophets haven't actually taught the things they have declared. 

They stare at the words and deny they are there--the power of confirmation bias.

Tomorrow we'll assess the origin of these powerful biases. Friday I'll offer some suggestions for cognitive debiasing. Next week we'll look at more of the physical and scientific aspects of the Hill Cumorah.

But today I want to point out how, because of confirmation bias , the New York Cumorah has been treated uniquely among all the other teachings of the prophets and apostles. 
_____

Before getting started with examples, I need to explain my purpose here.

Psychological studies have shown that information rarely, if ever, overcomes bias confirmation. People always interpret new information so that if it confirms their bias, they accept it, but if it contradicts their bias, they reject it as unreliable or otherwise flawed.

If you think the Hill Cumorah is in New York, evidence regarding other theories will have no impact on your beliefs. You will dismiss it out of hand because it contradicts the experts you've chosen (the prophets). Because of your confirmation bias, the information in this post will make you even more perplexed at the rejection of the prophets and apostles by faithful members of the Church.

Because your bias is based on the words of the prophets, however, if, say, President Oaks came out today and declared that the Hill Cumorah is somewhere else, accepting that teaching would be consistent with your bias, even if it conflicted with your previous beliefs about Cumorah. 

You might have to work out the inconsistencies between past and present prophets, but your bias in favor of accepting the prophets would lead you to accept the new teaching. You would suddenly see the evidence differently to confirm your stronger bias of following the prophet.

Likewise, if you think the Hill Cumorah is not in New York--if you accept the M2C (Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs) theory or another non-New York theory such as Baja--none of the information in this post will change your mind. You have already accepted the proposition that the prophets and apostles were wrong, so no matter how many times they repeated the teaching and no matter the purpose or context, you are convinced they are wrong and bias confirmation will make sure any new data fits the M2C/Baja paradigm.

Because of the psychology of bias confirmation, there is literally nothing any Church leader can say that will change your mind on this topic. 

Even if President Oaks came out today and read Letter VII and said he stands by it, your bias confirmation would have you believe that was just his opinion and he was wrong because you've already interpreted past statements by the prophets and apostles that way.

The corollary, of course, is that because your bias is based on teachings of intellectuals you respect, if those same intellectuals began teaching a New York Cumorah, it would be consistent with your bias to adopt that view, even though it contradicted your past beliefs. You would suddenly see the evidence differently to confirm your stronger bias of following the intellectuals you respect.

Bottom line: I'm offering this information not to convince anyone of anything, but to (i) show the power of bias confirmation and (ii) illustrate how deeply bias confirmation has seeped into the Church.

Let me re-emphasize that last point.

Bias confirmation on the part of Church employees has always led to decisions about curriculum, media, artwork, visitors' center displays, etc., that confirm their bias. Until about 1980, the bias was in favor of the prophets and opposed to the intellectuals. Since about 1980, that bias has been in favor of the intellectuals and opposed to the prophets.

The question for today is which bias will prevail in the future.
_____

Let's look at three examples of how confirmation bias operates to treat the teaching (doctrine) of the New York Cumorah uniquely.

1. Official LDS Doctrine. The Church has published guidelines so people can know what is and what is not official Church doctrine. See https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

[Note: this site has been redirected to the main Church page, but it quoted President Christofferson's message that President Oaks later quoted: " As to all of these, the wise cautions of Elders D. Todd Christofferson and Neil L. Andersen in earlier general conference messages are important to remember. Elder Christofferson taught: “It should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church.” (2010s, 2019, October, Dallin H. Oaks, Trust in the…, ¶11 • CR) ]

The New York Cumorah seems to fit the criteria, as I've explained in these posts:

http://www.lettervii.com/2017/11/what-is-official-mormon-doctrine.html

http://www.lettervii.com/2017/12/mormon-doctrine-letter-vii-and-apostles.html

http://www.lettervii.com/2017/12/more-on-mormon-doctrine.html

As far as I have discovered, and as far as anyone else has told me, the New York Cumorah is the only teaching that (i) meets these criteria, yet (ii) people nevertheless deny is Church doctrine.

Some people say the location of Cumorah is not a doctrinal issue because locations are not doctrinal in nature. "Doctrine" is defined as "a set of beliefs. The word comes from the Latin doctor for “teacher,” so think of a doctrine is the teachings of a school, religion, or political group." By that definition, locations of sacred events are doctrines when they are what a religion teaches.

Would we say the location of the Sacred Grove is not Church doctrine? If it is not doctrine, why do we have a Visitors' Center in Palmyra? Unquestionably, the Church teaches that the First Vision took place there, so it is a teaching--a doctrine--of the Church.

It's certainly true that, as the Mormon Newsroom article points out, "Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice." The example given there is extreme to make the point clear, but what about closer cases?

For example, could we say that it doesn't matter whether the First Vision took place near Palmyra or somewhere else?

I think not. The reason: it goes to the credibility of Joseph Smith, the only witness to the event. He said it happened in what we now know was the Sacred Grove. If someone produces evidence that it actually occurred in Pennsylvania, that might not change the reality of the visitation, but it would raise a serious issue about the credibility of Joseph Smith that would carry over to other things he claimed.

Another point about the relative importance of doctrines is how often they are taught, and for what purposes. Letter VII was written partly in response to the claim in Mormonism Unvailed that the Book of Mormon was fiction. President Cowdery emphasized the physical reality of the Book of Mormon by stating it was a fact that the final battles of the Jaredites and Nephites took place in the mile-wide valley west of the New York hill where Joseph found the plates. The teaching served a very important purpose then, and it continues to do so today. That's why it was repeated so often.

It is indisputable that for over 150 years, leaders of the Church have consistently and specifically taught that the Hill Cumorah of Mormon 6:6 is the same hill in Western New York from which Joseph Smith obtained the set of plates that he translated in Harmony, PA. This was no isolated statement; it was proclaimed openly in General Conference by members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It was published repeatedly in official Church publications. It has never been contradicted by any member of the Twelve or First Presidency.

The only ones who oppose this teaching are certain intellectuals in the Church and their followers.

I know of no other such teaching that has been so often repeated by Church leaders yet is openly repudiated by LDS scholars and Church staff.  

I'd like to know if anyone can think of another one. This is not like the so-called Adam-God theory or Priesthood restrictions that were expressly repudiated by later Church leaders.
_____

Some may say the New York Cumorah is an unimportant doctrine.

We've already seen why President Cowdery formally published Letter VII. We've seen how many times the teaching was repeated. Now let's look at one example of how important previous prophets and apostles have considered the teaching.

In October 1975, President Marion G. Romney of the First Presidency spoke in General Conference on the topic of "America's Destiny." Present at the time were President Spencer W. Kimball and Elders (and future Presidents) Ezra Taft Benson, Howard W. Hunter, Gordon B. Hinckley, and Thomas S. Monson.

President Romney said this:

I will give you a lesson today that the Lord has taken great pains to bring to us.... 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.... 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?”... 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’.... 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 language here is unambiguous. Can anyone say President Romney did not think his teaching was important? He bore his personal witness that the things he told about past events were true. And yet, confirmation bias is so strong among the M2C/Baja intellectuals that they have convinced themselves and their followers that President Romney did not say what he said; instead, he was merely expressing his personal opinion and that he was wrong.

Because of confirmation bias, they honestly believe that 5 Presidents of the Churchsat there and listened to false doctrine being preached without saying anything.

In fact, far from opposing President Romney's teaching, 15 years later President Hinckley himself personally approved of a letter that stated, “The Church has long maintained, as attested to by references in the writings of General Authorities, that the Hill Cumorah in western New York state is the same as referenced in the Book of Mormon.”

As I indicated at the outset, if you believe Cumorah is not in New York, none of this will change your bias one iota because you've chosen the intellectuals as your experts, not the prophets. But if you believe Cumorah is in New York, than all of this strongly confirms your bias.
_____

2. Brigham  Young. As the second President of the Church, Brigham Young has been enormously influential--and controversial, both inside and outside the Church. But as far as I've been able to discover, and as far as anyone else has explained, there is only one time he described a historical incident about which people say he was either lying, mistaken, or describing a vision.

Of course, I'm referring to his observations about Mormon's depository in the Hill Cumorah in New York.

This is a core issue because if President Young was telling the truth about what he knew, then Oliver Cowdery and at least Don Carlos bore witness to him that they and others had actually entered Mormon's depository in the Hill Cumorah in New York. This means that when President Cowdery wrote Letter VII, he was speaking from personal experience, not from speculation, rumor, or even revelation. I've discussed this several times, including here: http://www.lettervii.com/2016/06/the-room-in-cumorah-why-its-important.html

Knowing this, the M2C/Baja intellectuals claim that Brigham was merely describing a vision that Oliver had of a hill in southern Mexico. This alleged vision was shared with Joseph on multiple occasions. During this alleged vision, Joseph and Oliver returned the plates to the cave and saw the other plates and artifacts. Don Carlos and others either shared the same vision or were a witness to Oliver and Joseph having the vision.

The detailed account is here: http://www.lettervii.com/2016/06/the-room-in-cumorah-brigham-young.html

When you read the account, ask yourself, was Brigham Young relating a vision or an actual experience? Note these statements:

I lived right in the country where the plates were found from which the Book of Mormon was translated, and I know a great many things pertaining to that country.

Oliver Cowdery went with the Prophet Joseph when he deposited these plates.

Oliver says that when Joseph and Oliver went there, the hill opened, and they walked into a cave, in which there was a large and spacious room.

They laid the plates on a table; it was a large table that stood in the room. Under this table there was a pile of plates as much as two feet high, and there were altogether in this room more plates than probably many wagon loads; they were piled up in the corners and along the walls. 

I tell you this as coming not only from Oliver Cowdery, but others who were familiar with it, and who understood it just as well as we understand coming to this meeting, enjoying the day, and by and by we separate and go away, forgetting most of what is said, but remembering some things. 

I relate this to you, and I want you to understand it. I take this liberty of referring to those things so that they will not be forgotten and lost. Carlos Smith was a young man of as much veracity as any young man we had, and he was a witness to these things.

Normally, a historian would be thrilled with such testimony. Here is a President of the Church, nearing the end of his life (he would die 2 months later), relating an event he thought was so important that he didn't want the Church to forget about it. He cited specifics. He named other witnesses. The event corroborated not only Letter VII but the teachings of all the other prophets and apostles who had also claimed that the Hill Cumorah was in New York.

Those who choose to follow the prophets readily accept this account. It passes right through their confirmation bias filter.

Even those who choose to follow the intellectuals would normally accept Brigham Young's statements about historical events, but this one presents a problem. It contradicts their bias about the New York Cumorah. To accept this statement as an accurate account of an actual event would obliterate their belief that Cumorah cannot be in New York, but worse, it would destroy the credibility of their chosen expert, the intellectuals who teach M2C/Baja.

Therefore, once again, the Prophet cannot be correct.

Confirmation bias requires them to interpret President Young's account as something other than literal.

Inferring that President Young was describing a dream here is pretty much impossible. We have Oliver, Joseph, and at least Don Carlos as participants.

We can tell ourselves that maybe Mormon's depository was magically transported to New York for Joseph, Oliver, Don Carlos and others to experience. Or we could tell ourselves that these brethren were magically transported to southern Mexico to have these experiences.

To an outside observer, no matter which of these alternatives we choose, we're straining. Our confirmation bias is at full strength, but even then, the magical thinking causes more problems than it solves.

So we tell ourselves that Brigham Young was wrong, or that Oliver and Don Carlos lied about what happened; i.e., it was completely made up or it was merely a vision or dream.

Even though we accept the intellectuals over the prophets, we don't want to base our position on the premise that the prophets are liars. We can't say Brigham Young was expressing a false opinion here, either; he was simply relating what others told him.

So the only solution is to frame this as a dream, as improbable as that is.

Fortunately, we have other accounts (about 10 of them). Unfortunately, they all speak in literal terms the way President Young did.

But we can turn to Heber C. Kimball's separate account and focus on a single term he used.

When he was discussing the handcart pioneers, Kimball said, "How does it compare with the vision that Joseph and others had, when they went into a cave in the hill Cumorah, and saw more records than ten men could carry? There were books piled up on tables, book upon book. Those records this people will yet have, if they accept of the Book of Mormon and observe its precepts, and keep the commandments."

On another occasion, Brigham Young noted that "President [Heber C.] Kimball talked familiarly
to the brethren about Father Smith, [Oliver] Cowdery, and others walking into the hill Cumorah and seeing records upon records piled upon table[s,] they walked from cell to cell and saw the records that were piled up. . . ."

That account sounds literal, but it doesn't matter. Our confirmation bias has seized on that term "vision" and that's the only thing that matters. Everything in every one of these accounts must be interpreted as a vision.

Someone who doesn't share our bias may point out that the term "vision" is a synonym for "view," but that, too, doesn't matter. Our bias will not allow this account of walking into Mormon's depository on the Hill Cumorah to be true, so our minds will latch onto one connotation of one term and dismiss everything else.

And it doesn't matter that this interpretation of Brigham Young's statement is unique to this account because it involves the New York Cumorah.
_____

3. Oliver Cowdery. In a previous post, I pointed out that most LDS agree that Oliver Cowdery, as one of the 3 Witnesses, was truthful.

Those with the M2C/Baja bias, however, cannot accept what he wrote in Letter VII. Consequently, they have to tell themselves that on this unique topic, he was lying or mistaken. I demonstrated their confirmation bias with a table that shows how they accept everything except this one teachings.

Oliver was truthful about everything except...

Letter VII from Messenger and Advocate, July 1835

Those who reject Letter VII cite no reasons other than their preference for a different location for the Hill Cumorah.

It is interesting to take a look at Oliver Cowdery's participation in the Church to put Letter VII in context. When he wrote it, he was the Assistant President of the Church. He had been commanded by revelation to select materials to publish. All eight of Oliver's letters about history are accepted by Church historians as important insights into the early events of the Church.

The only ones who object to any of Oliver's writings are the Mesoamerican advocates who reject just a few paragraphs out of one of the eight letters.

Oliver published Letter VII in July 1835. In February 1835, he, as one of the Three Witnesses, had selected the first members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. He gave them their aspostolic charge. In April 1836, he, along with Joseph Smith, was visited in the Kirtland temple by Moses, Elias, Elijah, and the Savior Himself. Oliver and Joseph were given the keys of the gathering of Israel and the dispensation of the gospel of Abraham.

Mesoamerican advocates expect you to believe that Oliver Cowdery could faithfully record the entire Book of Mormon, most of the Book of Moses, and much of Church history. Oliver could faithfully edit and publish two Church newspapers, the Book of Commandments, and the original Doctrine and Covenants. He could accurately write the statement for the Three Witnesses. Of all the writing he did, you're supposed to believe he was faithful and accurate except for a few paragraphs in one letter, solely because those paragraphs contradict the opinions of the scholars.

Here is the chronology. Everything that is okay is marked green. The items the scholars object to is marked red.

	Date	Event
	1829 April	Transcribes Book of Mormon as Joseph dictates
	1829 May	Receives Aaronic Priesthood from John the Baptist, baptizes Joseph and is baptized by him
	1829 May	Receives Melchizedek Priesthood from Peter, James and John
	1829 June	Sees the plates and angel as one of the Three Witnesses
	1829 June	Completes Book of Mormon and makes a printer’s copy, supervises printing and publication
	1830 April	Helps organize the Church as a Second Elder and apostle, ordains Joseph Smith as First Elder
	1830 June	Transcribes Book of Moses 1:1 through 5:43
	1830 Oct.	Leaves on mission to the Lamanites
	1830 Nov.	Baptizes Sidney Rigdon
	1831 Jan.	Arrives in Jackson County, Mo.
	1831 Summer	Meets Joseph in Jackson County
	1831 Nov.	Takes revelations from Ohio to Missouri for publication
	1832	Helps Phelps with printing operation in Missouri
	1832 Apr.	Approves Book of Commandments
	1833 Nov.	Sets up printing press in Kirtland, reprints Evening and Morning Star
	1833 Dec.	Begins editing Evening and Morning Star
	1834 Feb.	Chosen as founding member of Kirtland Council
	1834 May-Aug.	Leader in Kirtland after Zions Camp left
	1834 Oct	Edits LDS Messenger and Advocate and Northern Times
	1834 Oct	Publishes Letter I about Church history, part of which is in the current Pearl of Great Price
	1834 Nov	Publishes Letter II about Church history
	1834 Dec	Publishes Letter III about Church history
	1834 Dec	Ordained by Joseph Smith as “Assistant President of the Church”
	1835	Publishes Letter IV about Church history
	1835 Feb	With David Whitmer and Martin Harris, selects first members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles
	1835 Feb	Gives apostolic charge to the Twelve Apostles
	1835 Mar	Publishes Letter V about Church history
	1835 Apr	Publishes Letter VI about Church history
	1835 May	Resigns from Messenger and Advocate
	1835 July	Publishes Letter VII about Church history
	1835 Aug.	Gets Doctrine and Covenants approved for printing
	1835 Oct.	Publishes Letter VIII about Church history
	1836 Mar.	Resumes editing the Messenger and Advocate
	1836 Apr.	Visited in Kirtland temple by Moses, Elias, Elijah, and Christ, receives the keys of the gathering of Israel and dispensation of gospel of Abraham
	1836 July	Accompanies Joseph to Salem, MA
	1837 Feb.	Turns over printing company to Joseph and Sidney
	1838 July	“Excluded from fellowship” for accusations against Joseph
	1848 Nov.	Rebaptized into the Church
	1850 March	Dies in Richmond at home of David Whitmer