Tomorrow is Thanksgiving, a national holiday in the United States. Our first President, George Washington, issued a proclamation that started this way:
Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor...
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-04-02-0091
The day became a National Holiday when President Abraham Lincoln issued another proclamation in 1863 during the Civil War. Lincoln implored Americans to “fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquility and Union..”
In that spirit, I hope this Thanksgiving will be a time when Latter-day Saints will pray for and implement greater peace, harmony, tranquility and union among themselves and with others.
This is the pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding that we discuss on this blog and at nomorecontention.com.
_____
Clarity is the predicate or foundation for unity. And, because so much contention arises from our LDS academics, their theories, and their obsession with seeking acceptance of their theories, we should all thank Royal Skousen for stating the obvious about the implications of SITH (the stone-in-the-hat narrative about the origin of the Book of Mormon).
The unity I refer to is not a unity of belief, but
(i) unity in knowledge (clarity),
(ii) unity in charity (love and good faith), and
(iii) unity in understanding (acceptance and appreciation for differences without a compulsion to have everyone think the same).
Unity among Latter-day Saints on the questions of the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon will naturally follow once everyone recognizes that their opinions are based on their assumptions about whether Joseph and Oliver told the truth. We can all be faithful, productive, harmonious Latter-day Saints when we accept the reality that some of us accept what they taught, while others reject what they taught, without insisting everyone must do one or the other.
IOW, unity through diversity.
But for that to happen, we must all be crystal clear about the facts and their implications. And we must fully own our respective beliefs without trying to enforce our own through censorship, obfuscation, and sophistry.
_____
In his latest book, Brother Skousen makes plain this reality: everyone who teaches SITH is also teaching that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery deliberately misled everyone about the origin of the Book of Mormon.
"Joseph Smith’s claim that he used the Urim and Thummim is only partially true; and Oliver Cowdery’s statements that Joseph used the original instrument while he, Oliver, was the scribe appear to be intentionally misleading."
While this point has been obvious to those of us who still believe what Joseph and Oliver taught about the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon, the various scholars who promote SITH have managed to skirt the issue by simply not telling their followers what Joseph and Oliver taught.
It's amazing, really, that this tactic has succeeded for so long. The LDS scholars who wrote Saints (vol. 1), the Gospel Topics Essay on Book of Mormon Translation, innumerable articles, commentaries, Kno-Whys, videos, podcasts, etc., have carefully avoided Brother Skousen's point by simply omitting (I call it censoring) what Joseph and Oliver taught about the origin of the Book of Mormon.
But now Brother Skousen has "unvailed" the truth about SITH.
To be clear, I completely disagree with Brother Skousen's conclusion, which is based not on fact but on assumptions and inferences; but every Latter-day Saint should recognize that Brother Skousen's conclusion necessarily follows from the SITH narrative.
That's why E.D. Howe spelled it out in his 1834 anti-Mormon book titled Mormonism Unvailed in the first place.
Next week, we'll apply the FAITH model to examine Brother Skousen's claims. I'll show that he either was unaware of, or chose not to include, some of the most relevant facts regarding the translation of the Book of Mormon. This suggests he was more focused on confirming his bias than on fully informing his readers, but we'll let people decide for themselves about that.
_____
Brother Skousen's clarifying point also applies to the setting of the Book of Mormon. Those who accommodate and/or promote M2C (the Mesoamerican/Two-Cumorahs theory of Book of Mormon geography) necessarily reject, repudiate, and renounce what Joseph and Oliver said about the setting of the Book of Mormon hill Cumorah/Ramah. Like the SITH sayers, the M2C scholars skirt the issue by not telling their followers what Joseph and Oliver taught.
Thus, like the SITH sayers, the M2Cers reach a conclusion similar to Brother Skousen's SITH conclusion:
Both Joseph Smith’s claims about Cumorah and Oliver Cowdery’s statement that it is a fact that Cumorah/Ramah is in New York appear to be intentionally misleading.
The elephant in the room was born as M2C, which started a little over 100 years ago when faithful scholars began rejecting what Joseph and Oliver taught about Cumorah.
The elephant grew larger when faithful scholars adopted SITH by rejecting what Joseph and Oliver taught about the origin of the Book of Mormon.
Now, the mature elephant in the room is what Brother Skousen has finally articulated; i.e., the assertion by the credentialed class of academics of the authority to cancel what Joseph and Oliver plainly taught because, according to them, Joseph and Oliver deliberately misled us all.
_____
We usually attribute this assertion of authority to organizations, including Scripture Central, the Interpreter Foundation, FAIRLDS, and BYU.
But Brother Skousen has shown that it is not an organizational behavior problem. It's an individual problem.
Hence the new acronym JTDS that we'll discuss in upcoming posts.
Buckle up.
_____
Meanwhile, Happy Thanksgiving!
A correct assesment as usual in my opinion. Reality of understanding the words and position of Joseph and Oliver is critical in this discussion. Thanks Johathan.
ReplyDeleteWait, is your opinion correct? Or is the assessment correct? Are both correct? Or is Jonathan correct as usual, in your opinion? Are your opinions Jonathan’s correct assessments, as usual? Or is your opinion that Jonathan just makes correct assessments?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePage # of quote in part seven?
ReplyDelete