long ago ideas

“When we are tired, we are attacked by ideas we conquered long ago." - Friedrich Nietzsche. Long ago, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery conquered false claims that the Book of Mormon was fiction or that it came through a stone in a hat. But these old claims have resurfaced in recent years. To conquer them again, we have to return to what Joseph and Oliver taught.

Tuesday, October 7, 2025

Misleading BYU students part 1: "Informed Saints" video with Dirkmaat and crew

Because of other commitments, I'll have to post my comments on the infamous video piecemeal. Here is part 1.

As always, this post is in the pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding. Clarity is necessary for people to make informed decisions. We assume everyone is acting in good faith (charity) and we don't seek to persuade anyone, but instead we seek understanding.

People can believe whatever they want, and we're fine with that. But most Latter-day Saints seek clarity about the Facts, as distinguished from assumptions, inferences, theories and hypotheses. This is the FAITH model that few LDS scholars seem to embrace.

This video is a prime example of how easy it is to create a narrative by omitting relevant facts in the guise of being "historically grounded."

Here is the link to the Dirkmaat panel's SITH video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiAx1CVPlc0

The panel did everything they could to promote SITH.

At the conclusion, they said, “If anyone wants to learn more about this topic, I'd recommend reading From Darkness Unto Light or let's talk.”


Both of those books contain deliberately misleading information, just like this entire video.

Bottom line: Joseph, Oliver, their contemporaries and successors in Church history had access to all of the information Dirkmaat et al have now. Yet Joseph, Oliver, John Whitmer, Martin Harris reaffirmed the Urim and Thummim, while Joseph’s successors in Church leadership reiterated Joseph’s testimony in spite of the SITH witnesses they were completely familiar with. 

Even JS III came to reject SITH. Yet these modern historians continue to manipulate and obfuscate the historical record to persuade people to accept SITH exactly the way E. D. Howe set it out in Mormonism Unvailed.

Original in blue, my comments in red.

_____

 

Introduction - Gerritt Dirkmaat and Book of Mormon translation

0:00

The reliability of the restoration rests on the Book of Mormon. Yet time and time again, critics claim that the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be. That its translation was more deceptive than it was divine. So, was Joseph Smith using a Seers stone? Was he looking into a hat with his head? Is this a real translation? Or is this just a figment of his imagination?

Welcome to Informed Saints, where we love to study the gospel, but we also bring receipts. I'm

0:25

Jasmine Rapley, and I'm joined in studio today by researchers Neal Rappleye and Steven Smoot. And we're also joined by a special guest, BYU professor Garrett Dirkmaat. So, welcome. Thanks for having me. Garrett is a professor of church history and doctrine at Brigham Young University, specializing in 19th century American expansionism. He is also the

0:42

editor of the academic journal Latter-day Saint Historical Studies, and he is a host of the podcast Standard of Truth.

0:48

So, we're really excited to talk about this. The other thing he's done is he's written a couple books on the Book of Mormon Translation. So, there's really no one better to talk about this than Garrett.

The books

This is a book you wrote quite a number of years ago. This

1:01

is From Darkness unto Light, Joseph Smith's translation and the publication of the Book of Mormon. And this was published with Desert Book and the Religious Study Center at BYU. Really, really great. But then recently, this one just came out, a much more palatable one for those of us who struggle with reading. So, this is Let's Talk About the Book of Mormon. 


This is just like a very short introduction to Book of Mormon Translation. And so I'm really excited to talk about the work you've done in both of these. So let's just dive in.

Clarity note: Both of these books seek to repudiate what Joseph and Oliver said, ignore historical sources that contradict Dirkmaat’s SITH theory, and create false historical narratives.

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

https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/2022/07/from-darkness-unto-light-omitting.html

 

1:29

What is Oh, well I was just gonna say before we dive in, let's acknowledge he has a co-author on both of these. Mike McKay. Let's, you know, no Mike McKay eraser here. Mike McKay is the Ringo star of this duo. No, I'm just kidding. We all love Mike McKay. We Mike, we see you. We recognize we acknowledge you. You are valid

1:46

Can I say real quick, too? um your book from darkness unto light. It was like one of the first things I read like this was in the throws of the Joseph Smith papers, right? Coming out very early on. But like I remember reading this and in fact I remember I bought a copy for Neil. I got a copy for myself at Desert Book and I thought this is so cool. I ran and got a copy for Neil and we just nerded out about it for like a whole week. I was going to I was going to tell that story too. 

Clarity note: This degree of enthusiasm, combined with a complete lack of critical thinking about the contents of the book, explain the ongoing enthusiasm for SITH on this channel and Jasmine's other videos.

2:18

Like this is this book was like so monumental uh in like as a publication. it like it really was kind of the floodgates like the first time all the data that Joseph Smith papers

Clarity note: "all the data" includes plenty of material omitted in this video, as well as the book.

2:24

had been putting together on something had come together in like a Jasmine says this book's more palatable but this is actually a pretty palatable narrative it's a very readable book and it it like people who had been complaining about

2:34

like the sear stone in the hat uh stuff like this this integrated it in and it showed that like no you can actually still believe all of this and be historically grounded.

Clarity note: It is not “historically grounded” to use edits and omissions to promote a narrative, especially when that narrative directly contradicts what the principals explicitly, formally, and unambiguously published, in this case Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery.


No comments:

Post a Comment