Dumb politicians, or dumb voters?

The idiocy shown in this video compares with the crazy SITH-promoting videos on YouTube. The question is are the politicians really this dumb, or do they just think the voters are?

https://x.com/BreitbartNews/status/1895102702377427276

Breitbart News

@BreitbartNews

JB Pritzker: "The prices at the grocery store are going up because democracy is being taken away." Impossible to parody this.

SITH vs U&T: Why does it matter?

This podcast does a great job showing why it matters whether people accept or reject what Oliver and Joseph said about the translation.

Seerstone in a hat translation ! Why does it matter Oliver Cowdery is key.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1w-_U4D3g6M

Hannah Stoddard's view

Hannah is awesome. I don't always agree with her interpretations, but she's an outstanding defender of the faith. 

For example, her framing of "traditionalist vs progressive" unduly implicates political issues. SITH is not a new or progressive theory. It was articulated first in 1829 by Jonathan Hadley, and then in 1834 in Mormonism Unvailed as an alternative to the Urim and Thummim narrative. 

That's why Oliver Cowdery wrote Letter I (JS-H note) and why Joseph and Oliver emphasized that Joseph used the Urim and Thummim that came with the plates.

In my view, SITH is a question of the reliability and credibility of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery (the same as M2C). But Hannah makes good points as well.

Here's her Facebook post.

Hannah Stoddard

SteonopsrdarF1au r6het3ca04t6f4u4f2f7 h3aPb:7i64lm1 fyfM4 0g  · 

Over the last week, I have seen heated debates over the translation of the Book of Mormon, and through those conversations, a few misunderstandings that are easy to clarify! Here are two simple reasons why traditionalist members often have a problem with the seer stone translation hypothesis (simplified ):

A) Promoters of the seer stone translation hypothesis almost always accuse Joseph Smith of being involved in folk magic or worse. It's not seer stones that are the problem, but stones used for occultic/magic/non-God ordained purposes. Traditionalists never deny seer stones exist (this is a straw man argument that progressives use to manipulate the traditionalist case), but traditionalists do draw a clear distinction between instruments God ordains through priesthood order and covenants, versus dark and evil counterfeits. Joseph Smith never dabbled or used power from the adversary. Period. No, Joseph Smith did not have a career in treasure digging, and no, he was not a "village seer" running around using occultic tools to prepare him for the priesthood.

B) Adopting the progressive narrative requires you to accept claims made by individuals who were either apostates or anti-mormons when they made their claims. Their own statements contradict Joseph Smith's personal and repeated testimony, and sometimes they even contradict themselves. If you lived in Jesus Christ's day, would you believe Herod's testimony over Peter's or John's? Would you really accept Caiaphases' narrative over Jesus Christ? Apparently many progressive members, who are historians and scholars, would.

No, Joseph Smith did not translate the Book of Mormon using a seer stone in a hat. He used the plates, the Urim & Thummim (a Jaredite-Nephite instrument prepared specifically for this purpose), and the breastplate.

And these, my friends, are two reasons why traditionalist members of the Church have a problem with the new progressive narrative. It's not because we don't have faith, we're limiting God, or are history and science deniers. We simply believe in God's ordained Priesthood order, and trust men and women with character and faith, over slanderers and enemies. And that position I am happy to meet the Lord with on the other side.

(I'm leaving some links in the comments to podcasts and other articles to back up the information above, for those interested.)

Hank Smith's translation video

Hank Smith, a great guy in every way, did a podcast about the Translation of the Book of Mormon with Gerrit Dirkmaat (who is also a great guy) recently. 

https://t.co/HOdGVtI2gV

Brother Dirkmaat is one of the most outspoken proponents of SITH. He even published an imaginary version of early Church history to promote SITH (see the discussion of that here:

https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/2023/10/update-on-jonathan-hadley-and-sith.html

Brother Dirkmaat won't respond to questions about why he invented this history about Jonathan Hadley, or why he rejects what Joseph and Oliver said about the translation.

And yet, Hank is puzzled by the reaction to his podcast. 

Here's his post on X.

https://x.com/hankrsmith/status/1886975384039907568

Hank Smith

@hankrsmith

Help me understand, you’re okay with Joseph Smith seeing God and Jesus, talking with an angel every year for four years, translating the plates, but using a seerstone goes too far? I’ve had a dozen emails over an episode which published yesterday.

Hoping that Hank really does want to understand, let's discuss this further.

Hank posted a follow up about "about the emails I’ve been receiving from believing members who are upset that we’re discussing the seer stone on the podcast. They feel it makes Joseph & the Book of Mormon seem weird."

The comments on his video and posts are all over the place, of course, but the main problem with SITH is not that it "seems weird," but that SITH was articulated in Mormonism Unvailed in 1834 as an alternative to the Urim and Thummim narrative.

Immediately when Mormonism Unvailed was published, Oliver Cowdery wrote the statement that is now canonized in JS-History as a note at the end, explaining that "Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his mouth, as he translated with the Urim and Thummim, or, as the Nephites would have said, ‘Interpreters,’ the history or record called ‘The Book of Mormon.’"

(Joseph Smith—History, Note, 1)

When read in context, in juxtaposition to Mormonism Unvailed, Oliver clearly repudiated SITH. Yet SITH persisted.

To refute SITH further, Joseph published a response in the Elders' Journal, in the form of a Q&A:

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.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/elders-journal-july-1838/11

There is no room in Joseph's unambiguous, clear statement for some stone he found in a well.

As if that wasn't enough, Joseph reiterated the point in the Wentworth letter.

Scholars who promote SITH, such as Brother Dirkmaat, reject the plain words of what Joseph and Oliver taught. 

But many Latter-day Saints still believe what Joseph and Oliver taught and reject the SITH narrative from Mormonism Unvailed, which Emma and David eventually adopted (probably thinking they were refuting the Spalding theory; i.e., as apologists).

That's why so many faithful Latter-day Saints object to SITH.

_____

Hank also showed that he's been misled by certain scholars.

Hank Smith

@hankrsmith

Hear me out. From what I understand, no one involved used the term “Urim and Thummim” until 1832, when W.W. Phelps introduced it, likely because it sounded more biblical than “spectacles,” “peep stone,” or “seer stone.” Joseph and Oliver seem to adopt the term afterward, using it to refer to any tool (seerstone and spectacles) used in the translation process. In fact, when Joseph later gave the seer stone to Wilford Woodruff, he referred to it as “Urim and Thummim.”

 

Actually, Phelps used the term Urim and Thummim in 1833 in an article explaining the term in a biblical context. But in the summer of 1832, Orson Hyde and Samuel Smith explained the Urim and Thummim to audiences in Boston, as reported in local papers. See note 5 in the Joseph Smith Papers here:

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/topic/urim-and-thummim

We would have to believe that it was Joseph's brother and the future Apostle who invented the term and misled everyone. Either that, or they heard it directly from Joseph Smith and/or Oliver Cowdery, which is far more likely.

There are few historical records from this period, so we can't say for sure. But we can say for sure that Phelps did not invent the term when he published it in 1833.

From MOBOM:

The earliest known reference to the Urim and Thummim was published in the Boston Investigator on August 10, 1832. The article, titled "Questions proposed to the Mormonite Preachers," related an interview with Orson Hyde and Samuel Smith that included these questions and answers:  

Q. -- In what manner was the interpretation, or translation made known, and by whom was it written?

A. -- It was made known by the sporit of the Lord through the medium of the Urim and Thummim; and was written partly by Oliver Cowdery, and partly by Martin Harris.

Q. -- What do you mean by Urim and Thummim?

A. -- The same as were used by the prophets of old, which were two crystal stones, placed in bows, something in the form of spectacles, which were found with the plates. 

https://www.mobom.org/translation-references