Baja, Edwards, SITH, etc.

The pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding never ends.

:)

I like to follow the FAITH model of analysis that I explained in The Rational Restoration. This starts with Facts and then articulates the Assumptions, Inferences and Theories that lead to the various Hypotheses. The FAITH model facilitates transparency so people can make informed decisions.

That's why I try to do in these blogs and reviews, all in the interest of understanding one another and to thereby avoid the contention that arises from misinformation, sophistry, ignorance and trying to persuade, convince, coerce, etc.

It is far more peaceful and productive to help people make informed decisions for themselves than it is to insist that everyone agree on a particular theory or opinion--especially when people have to obfuscate to achieve their goal.

After all, people can and will believe whatever they want to believe. That's a basic gospel principle, as well as common sense psychology.

_____

People send me lots of emails about things they see on YouTube or social media involving the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon. There are thousands of Latter-day Saints with similar questions about these topics--not to mention the friends missionaries are teaching around the world.

For example, regarding the setting of the Book of Mormon, the Stick of Joseph podcast (one of my favorite podcasts) recently released a video about the Baja theory that has had over 170,000 views. A follow-up has had 45,000 views in only 3 days.

I commented on the Baja theory here:

https://www.lettervii.com/2026/05/cumorah-and-baja.html

with a clarification/correction here:

https://www.lettervii.com/2026/05/clarification-on-rosenvalls-baja-video.html

_____

Regarding the origin of the Book of Mormon, I continue to annotate the text here:

https://www.mobom.org/jonathan-edwards

I've done 38 chapters of the Book of Mormon, 11 sections of the Doctrine and Covenants, and Moses 1. Every chapter/section I look at follows the same pattern, which from my perspective corroborates what Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery always said about the origin of the Book of Mormon; i.e., that Joseph translated the engravings on the plates by means of the Urim and Thummim.

Occasionally I post specific items of interest here:

https://dailyjonathanedwards.blogspot.com/

_____

Also regarding the origin of the Book of Mormon, I reviewed yet another Interpreter article that promotes SITH.

https://interpreterpeerreviews.blogspot.com/2026/05/review-of-carmack-comparative-view-of.html

To me, it seems obvious that the evidence of "Early Modern English" syntax and phrasing in the Book of Mormon supports two entirely different theories:

(i) SITH, on the theory that Joseph merely read words that appeared on the "stone-in-the-hat" because he was uneducated and incapable of translating anything sophisticated using his own language, so he dictated the text under "tight control."

(ii) U&T, on the theory that Joseph actually translated the engravings on the plates "after the manner of [his] language" that he acquired by studying the Bible and a having "an intimate acquaintance with those of different denominations" including Jonathan Edwards.

I prefer U&T because (i) it is the most parsimonious explanation, (ii) it is what Joseph and Oliver always said, (iii) it is what the scriptures claimed, (iv) it shows how the Lord prepared Joseph from a young age for his future role as prophet and translator, and (v) it explains aspects of the text that SITH does not. 

By contrast, SITH relies on a mysterious incognito supernatural translator (MIST) who for unexplained reasons combined elements of Early Modern English with terminology, phrasing and concepts found in the works of Jonathan Edwards and others that were readily available to Joseph Smith.

Carmack, Skousen, and other proponents of SITH understandably focus on interpretations of the EME evidence to support their theory. But they inexplicably assign zero probability to what Joseph and Oliver (and others) said about the translation. Instead, as Skousen memorably put it, they teach that

"Joseph Smith’s claim that he used the Urim and Thummim is only partially true [i.e., regarding the 116 pages]; and Oliver Cowdery’s statements that Joseph used the original instrument while he, Oliver, was the scribe appear to be intentionally misleading."

Most Latter-day Saints, and certainly all the critics and the missionaries' friends around the world, understand the implications of having prominent LDS scholars insist that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery intentionally misled everyone about the origin of the Book of Mormon. 

Similar implications arise from the M2C teaching that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery intentionally misled everyone about the Hill Cumorah in New York.

While everyone can believe whatever they want, the pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding requires us to assess the multiple working hypotheses so we can all make informed decisions. 

To repeat, I like to follow the FAITH model of analysis, which starts with Facts and then articulates the Assumptions, Inferences and Theories that lead to the various Hypotheses.

That's why I try to do in these blogs and reviews, all in the interest of understanding one another and to thereby avoid contention.

:)