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.
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.)
No comments:
Post a Comment