Oliver's character attacked by M2C and SITH scholars

Oliver Cowdery highly valued his reputation and integrity, as he explained in an 1846 letter we will look at below.

There are still many Latter-day Saints who believe what Oliver Cowdery said and wrote about the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon. It seems rational and logical to us to accept what he taught when we also accept what he said and wrote about the restoration of the Priesthood and temple keys. 

However, there is a well-financed and determined effort among certain LDS scholars to undermine the credibility of Oliver Cowdery regarding the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon.

We're fine with people believing whatever they want, but we also want people to make informed decisions and not delegate their beliefs to a handful of scholars who, because of their positions at BYU and CES, feel justified in teaching their students that the prophets were wrong.

We are optimistic that as more Latter-day Saints learn about the teachings of the prophets and compare them with the teachings of the scholars, they will make informed decisions and embrace the teachings of the prophets.

_____

Scripture Central (aka Book of Mormon Central) alone spends millions of dollars to promote the narrative that Oliver was wrong when he

(i) corroborated Joseph Smith's claim that he translated the plates by means of the Urim and Thummim (spectacles, or Nephite interpreters) that came with the plates, and

(ii) emphasized it was a fact that the hill in New York where Joseph obtained the plates is the same hill Cumorah/Ramah referred to in Mormon 6:2, thereby corroborating what Lucy Mack Smith, David Whitmer, and others said about Cumorah, including Joseph himself in D&C 128:20.

Let's look at how much Oliver cared about his reputation and integrity.

_____

On March 23, 1846, Oliver Cowdery wrote a letter to Phineas Young, his brother-in-law and a brother of Brigham Young. 

(click to enlarge)

https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/5872fad7-abbb-4387-8bf2-c26d20fcf1ac/0/1?lang=eng

Among other things, Oliver wrote:

I have cherished a hope, and that one of my fondest, that I might leave such a character as those who might believe in my testimony, after I shall be called hence, might do so, not only for the sake of truth, but might not blush for the private character of the man who bore that testimony. 

I have been sensitive on this subject, I admit; but I ought to be so—you would be, under the circumstances, had you stood in the presence of John, with our departed brother Joseph, to receive the Lesser Priesthood—and in the presence of Peter, to receive the Greater, and look down through time, and witness the effects these two must produce,--

You would feel what you have never felt, were wicked men conspiring to lessen the effects of your testimony on man, after you should have gone to your long length rest.

During Oliver's lifetime and ever since, critics have questioned his veracity regarding the translation of the Book of Mormon, the restoration of Priesthood and temple keys, etc. Critics have no choice but to question his veracity, because if Oliver was honest and told the truth about what he claimed were facts, then the critics themselves are deceiving people.

We all understand that there is "opposition in all things." People observe the identical facts and reason a variety of theories based on their own assumptions and inferences.

The New Testament summarizes this phenomenon perfectly:

 19 ¶ There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings.

 20 And many of them said, He hath a devil, and is mad; why hear ye him?

 21 Others said, These are not the words of him that hath a devil. Can a devil open the eyes of the blind?

(John 10:19–21)

While we expect critics to reject the credibility and reliability of Oliver Cowdery, it remains alarming and even shocking when faithful Latter-day Saint scholars do so.

The scholars at Scripture Central, along with their donors and followers, explicitly and proudly reject the reliability and credibility of Oliver Cowdery regarding the hill Cumorah/Ramah in New York.

Why?

Solely because Oliver's declaration of fact about Cumorah/Ramah contradicts the personal views of these scholars regarding the geography of the Book of Mormon.

Convinced that Oliver's declaration of fact is nothing but "a scenario worthy only of a witless sci-fi movie" (to quote John Sorenson), these LDS scholars teach their students and followers to believe their own claims that the "real Cumorah" is somewhere in southern Mexico. Hence, the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory (M2C).

BYU has even developed a map to teach M2C to every BYU student.

See, e.g., https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2022/02/classic-post-5-if-byu-believed-joseph.html

_____

But it is not only Oliver Cowdery whose reputation and integrity they undermine with M2C. 

Oliver's declaration was corroborated by his contemporaries, some of which are listed here:

https://www.mobom.org/cumorah-overview 

Oliver's declaration has been reiterated and endorsed by subsequent Church leaders, including members of the First Presidency speaking in General Conference.

These LDS scholars who promote M2C elevate their own theories above the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah because, in their view, they have "credentials" that are more relevant and authoritative. Thus they are empowered (in their minds) to declare that the teachings of the prophets are merely ignorant (and incorrect) speculations of men speaking as men.

As effective as they have been in promoting M2C, there remain many Latter-day Saints who reject the teachings of the scholars because we prefer the teachings of the prophets.

And, in our view, the teachings of the prophets are corroborated by extrinsic evidence.

____

To reiterate: We are optimistic that as more Latter-day Saints learn about the teachings of the prophets and compare them with the teachings of the scholars, they will make informed decisions and embrace the teachings of the prophets.