I had forgotten about this stunning post from Hank Smith, in which he tries to defend Gerrit Dirkmaat's SITH narrative:
https://x.com/hankrsmith/status/1886975384039907568
It is difficult to believe that Hank does not realize the logical fallacy he presents here.
Believers are fine with what Joseph Smith claimed about the first vision, Moroni's visit, and the translation. But what he said about the translation--that he did it by means of the Urim and Thummim that came with the plates--directly contradicts what Dirkmaat is teaching.
Like Dirkmaat, Royal Skousen teaches that Joseph used SITH instead of the Urim and Thummim that came with the plates. Except Royal is more direct and clear about the implications because he admits that SITH means Joseph (and Oliver) deliberately misled everyone about the translation.
https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2024/11/thank-you-royal-skousen.html
Every Latter-day Saint--and every BYU professor--should understand the implications of SITH. Back in 1834, Mormonism Unvailed spelled it out. Which was why Joseph and Oliver clarified the point repeatedly.
But now our scholars, including Royal Skousen, Hank Smith, and Gerrit Dirkmaat, prefer Mormonism Unvailed over Joseph and Oliver.
Hank's post illustrates the logical fallacy of SITH. It's not translating with stones that is the problem--it is rejecting what Joseph and Oliver wrote that is the problem.
This repudiation of the prophets started among faithful Latter-day Saints with Cumorah, and then extended to SITH.
Hank should have received more than a dozen emails. He should have received tens of thousands.
But BYU students are (i) ignorant of the teachings of the prophets, (ii) agree with their professors that the prophets were wrong, or (iii) don't care because they just want to get an education and a good job and have to pass their religion classes so they accept whatever the professors say.
No comments:
Post a Comment