20/60/20, FAITH model, and podcast with Randy Bell

The early years of Joseph Smith provide another example of the 20/60/20 principle.

We've seen the 20/60/20 principle regarding the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon. 

Conceptually, while 100% of faithful Latter-day Saints (including me) sustain modern Church leaders, about 20% of Latter-day Saints still believe what the prophets have taught about the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon, 20% reject what the prophets have taught, and 60% don't know or care. 

We can break it down like this:

Origin.

- 20% still believe what Joseph and Oliver taught about the translation of the plates with the Urim and Thummim that came with the plates. 

- 20% reject what Joseph and Oliver taught in favor of the Royal Skousen/Interpreter view that Joseph and Oliver deliberately misled everyone about the translation because Joseph used SITH (the stone-in-the-hat).

- 60% don't know or care about the issue and can lean either way.  

Setting.

- 20% still believe what Joseph and Oliver taught about the setting of the Book of Mormon with Cumorah/Ramah in New York. 

- 20% reject what Joseph and Oliver taught in favor of the Jack Welch/Scripture Central view that Joseph and Oliver deliberately misled everyone about the setting because Cumorah/Ramah is actually in southern Mexico.

- 60% don't know or care about the issue and can lean either way.  

Regarding young Joseph Smith, it breaks down like this:

Young Joseph Smith.

- 20% believe the Lord prepared Joseph from a young age to become a translator and prophet by allowing the leg infection and surgery that incapacitated him so he could acquire "an intimate acquaintance with those of different denominations" by reading the Bible and the works of Christian authors such as Jonathan Edwards. 

- 20% believe Joseph was an ignorant farm boy who was essentially a blank slate when God appeared to him, when the stone in the hat displayed the words he read out loud, and when he received revelations.

- 60% don't know or care about the issue and can lean either way.   

In all these cases, the Facts are there for everyone to see. People reach different conclusions because of their respective Assumptions, Inferences, and Theories (the FAITH model of analysis).

This principle applies not only to faithful Latter-day Saints, but to those who choose alternatives, including former LDS and never LDS.

Which brings us to the podcast.

_____

Steve Pynakker (Mormon Book Reviews) does an amazing job bringing people together and hosting a variety of perspectives about the Restoration. He released a new podcast yesterday that I did with Randy Bell titled "Who Influenced Joseph Smith?" 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eTcrqXSyhk

Randy is an awesome guy and a careful and candid researcher. I really enjoyed getting to know him off-camera, and I enjoyed our discussion about Joseph Smith's early years.

It's an important topic because we can all benefit by learning more about Joseph Smith. In my view, the Lord prepared Joseph Smith from a young age to become a future translator and prophet. I've discussed this in books and articles linked in the show notes.

As we discussed in the podcast, others can look at the same evidence and reach different conclusions.

I encourage people to pursue the FAITH model of analysis, where we can all agree on the facts and they apply our various assumptions, inferences, and theories to reach the hypotheses (world view) that we embrace. Then we can compare multiple working hypotheses clearly, with charity, as we seek to understand one another.

The pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding replaces contention with courtesy and mutual respect.

Thanks for all you do, Steve! And thanks for the conversation, Randy!

St. Patrick and Cumorah

Me & St. Patrick

Last year we visited the Hill of Slane/Sláine in Ireland where there is a statue of St. Patrick. The Hill overlooks the prehistoric passage-mounds of the Boyne Valley, such as Newgrange.

Traditionally, this hill is the place where Saint Patrick lit the paschal fire, bringing Christianity to Ireland. Naturally, some scholars disagree (as scholars usually do).

The Irish do a good job preserving and commemorating their history. There are excellent signs posted, nice visitors centers, and careful preservation of historic sites and structures. Exhibits show original documents and explain different interpretations of evidence.

At Newgrange, they even preserve the post-molds to show where ancient structures once stood.

_____

The Church also does an excellent job of preserving sites, structures, documents and artifacts related to Church history. The visitors centers are all informative, with attractive graphics, dioramas, maps, etc. Visitors learn a great deal and are offered resources to learn more.

With one exception.

At the Hill Cumorah, there is not a word about what early Church leaders said about the site, apart from it being the location of Moroni's stone box. No placard with the text from Letter VII on it. Nothing from Lucy Mack Smith's history about Cumorah, nothing from David Whitmer, Martin Harris, Brigham Young, Orson Pratt, Heber C. Kimball, Wilford Woodruff, etc. Not even anything about Ramah.

It's all very strange.

And it's the same at the Church History Museum in Salt Lake City, except they have one small exhibit that at least tells people where the Hill Cumorah is located. Kudos to them for that.

But still, no mention of Letter VII or any of the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah/Ramah.

Very strange...

SITH and Royal Skousen's Part Seven (2nd half of my paper)

In the ongoing pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding, I'll continue to occasionally review important book on LDS topics. 

Royal Skousen's Part Seven is definitely an important book, partly because of the detailed, useful scholarship it contains. 

But that's not all the book contains.

I'm happy for people to believe whatever they want, and I'm sure Skousen is a great guy, a careful scholar, a faithful Latter-day Saint, and that he had plenty of resources and time to produce this book.

However, another reason why this book is important is because of the way the book manipulates Church history to support Skousen's foregone conclusion that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery deliberately misled everyone about the translation of the Book of Mormon.

_____

Last December I posted the first half of my review at the InterpreterPeerReviews blog. 

https://interpreterpeerreviews.blogspot.com/2024/12/review-of-royal-skousens-part-vii-first.html 

I was reminded recently that I never posted the second half, so here it is.

https://interpreterpeerreviews.blogspot.com/2025/03/review-of-royal-skousens-part-vii.html

Overall conclusion. I spent the time to go through Skousen’s book because of the significance of his conclusion that Joseph and Oliver intentionally misled everyone about the translation; i.e., Skousen is so convinced of SITH (the stone-in-the-hat narrative) that he claims Joseph and Oliver intentionally misled everyone when they repeatedly, publicly and consistently taught that Joseph translated the plates by means of the Urim and Thummim that came with the plates.

I credit Skousen for finally articulating the inevitable conclusion of the SITH narrative, as discussed here:

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2024/11/thank-you-royal-skousen.html

In Part Seven, Skousen has finally accomplished the objective that E.D. Howe set for himself in 1834 when he published Mormonism Unvailed and ridiculed the "peep-stone" narrative. 

In my view, Skousen did a cursory, outcome-determined analysis of the witness statements to support his conclusion. He also omitted relevant sources that contradict his conclusion.

The FAITH model requires a careful, consistent consideration of all the Facts, distinguished from Assumptions, Inferences, and Theories that lead to the overall Hypotheses.  My analysis leads me to the conclusion that Joseph and Oliver told the truth about these events, and that others who disagreed with them had various motives to do so (both apologetic and critical), relied on hearsay, mingled assumptions and inferences with facts, and for these reasons reached unreliable conclusions about SITH.

Hopefully other scholars will avoid the outcome-driven approach that Skousen used in his book and instead adopt the principles of the FAITH model of analysis--or any other legitimate academic method.

Dirkmaat, Givens, Harper and Jonathan Edwards

It's good to see the attention people are paying to Jonathan Edwards lately. In addition to public podcasts, articles, etc., I've had several private conversations on the topic.

From my perspective, the influence of Edwards on Joseph Smith is apparent, as I discussed in a preliminary way in my book Infinite Goodness. We're adding more information to the Edwards page on Mobom.org, here:

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

I see this influence as part of the Lord's preparation of young Joseph Smith to become a translator, revelator, and prophet.

As President Nelson has taught, "Good inspiration is based upon good information."

The narrative of Joseph Smith as an ignorant farm boy who ushered in the Restoration by saying a prayer out loud contradicts Joseph's own 1832 history. The Lord prepared Joseph from a young age. He was a religious seeker who applied himself to the scriptures and had an "intimate acquaintance with those of different denominations."

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-circa-summer-1832/2 

In my view, the influence of Edwards corroborates Joseph's claim that he translated the plates (instead of merely reading words that appeared on a stone in the hat), that he received revelations "after the manner of his language," and that he sought "out of the best books words of wisdom."

This understanding of Joseph Smith is an example to each of us who are religious seekers. We all need to study for ourselves and hear the voice of God in our own language.

_____

There is an unfortunate thread among some LDS scholars, however. They have taught caricatures of Jonathan Edwards, framing him as teaching a false Christianity that contradicts the Restoration.

I posted an example of this here:

https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/2025/03/dirkmaat-and-jonathan-edwards.html

Hopefully in the future LDS scholars will be more careful and accurate as we explore Edwards' influence on the Restoration.

Me, Welch, Peterson, Dirkmaat, Dehlin, Griffin, etc.

From time to time people ask me how my approach differs from the well-known LDS scholars, critics, podcasters, pundits, etc.

I answer that there are two frameworks that I use that they do not seem to agree with, as discussed below. 

_____

1. Clarity, charity and understanding. 

In my work, I pursue these three objectives. I start with clarity because so much disagreement arises from the lack of clarity. If everyone is crystal clear about what they believe and advocate, we can all make informed decisions. Charity is important because we can all assume everyone acts in good faith. And seeking understanding instead of persuasion is a key to avoiding contention, arrogance, credentialism, and other errors.

Everyone who pursues clarity, charity and understanding welcomes comparisons of different perspectives because that's how we achieve clarity, charity and understanding. 

We can all see that leading LDS scholars and critics avoid comparisons of different perspectives. Scripture Central is notorious for refusing to engage in open dialog and comparisons of different perspectives about the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon, but the Interpreter, Mormon Stories, and other content creators also avoid making comparisons to enable people to make informed decisions.

In many cases, LDS scholars and critics don't even disclose all the relevant information, which leads to the second framework.

_____

2. The FAITH model.

The model is simple. 

Everyone should be able to agree on the Facts. This is axiomatic, but there is tremendous resistance from LDS scholars and critics on this point.

The reasons seems to be a misunderstanding of the difference between a fact and an assumption, inference, and theory.

It's easy to see the difference. The existence of an historical document, say a letter, is a fact. The content of the letter is a fact. Everyone can agree on these.

Whether the content of the letter is factual, however, is a separate matter. Sometimes the content can be corroborated, but even then, corroboration involves assumptions, inferences, and theories. 

This is why the FAITH model separates Facts from Assumptions, Inferences, and Theories. When we isolate these elements for inspection and analysis, we can see how different people arrive at different overall Hypotheses or worldviews, and then we can make informed decisions about which set of Assumptions, Inferences, and Theories make the most sense to us.

_____

One of the best examples of the FAITH model is in the New Testament.

A group of people observed Christ and heard what he taught. 

 19 ¶ There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings.

 20 And many of them said, He hath a devil, and is mad; why hear ye him?

 21 Others said, These are not the words of him that hath a devil. Can a devil open the eyes of the blind?

(John 10:19–21)

Both groups had the identical facts before them. But they reached completely opposite conclusions because of their respective assumptions, inferences, and theories. 

_____

Over the last few years, I've had a variety of interactions with some LDS scholars and critics. Others have refused to even meet or have a conversation.

I welcome engagement and dialog with anyone, which few LDS scholars or critics do. Which is very strange to me, but seems to follow from their insecurity and defensiveness.

MOBOM content

When people ask me questions, I usually just send a link to a page on the Museum of the Book of Mormon site.

https://www.mobom.org/home

MOBOM exists to help people everywhere become familiar with the Book of Mormon an make informed decisions for themselves.

We have sections on the Origins, Teachings, and Evidences of the Book of Mormon. And we regularly update content based on feedback from a variety of people, including critics. 

For example, we recently updated the one on the Urim and Thummim in 1832.

https://www.mobom.org/urim-and-thummim-in-1832

We regularly add annotated chapters and sections:

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

Look at all the topics we cover just on Church history issues:

https://www.mobom.org/church-history-issues

Topics related to the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon

_____

Origin of the Book of Mormon (translation)

The History of SITH: 1829-2024

Urim and Thummim in 1832

Urim and Thummim in LDS General Conference

U&T vs Seer Stone in Rough Stone Rolling

Translation references

Gospel Topics Essay on Book of Mormon Translation

Oliver returning to the Church-Reuben Miller journal

Words of Mormon analysis

Emma Smith's "Last Testimony"

Origin of SITH (stone-in-the-hat)

Truman Coe account (explains how U&T worked)

Setting of the Book of Mormon (geography)

Cumorah overview

Two sets of plates explanation

Trip to Fayette references

BYU-CES packet on Cumorah

Two departments in the hill Cumorah

Orson Pratt's 1879 footnotes in the Book of Mormon

Moroni and Nephi clarified

Zelph account

Rationality comparison chart - Cumorah

Wentworth letter vs Orson Pratt pamphlet

Letter IV in Joseph Smith Papers (written and deposited in New York)

Letter VII in Joseph Smith Papers (fact that Cumorah is in New York)

1835 letter by Joseph Smith in the Messenger and Advocate

Cumorah photos

President Ivins on the New York Cumorah

Cumorah's Cave by Cameron Packer

Brigham Young on the New York Cumorah

Narrow and small necks and other geographical terms

Ancient People Joseph Knew

Benjamin Benson letter to Joseph Smith

John Sorenson's Sourcebook Annotated

Origin and rationale of M2C (Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory)

Oliver was truthful except...

Mormonism Unvailed: 1834 to 2023

Chiasmus and parallelism: a chiastic geography

Ancient Manti in Missouri

Scripture Central: Kno-Whys

Latter-day Prophets on the Promise Land

Only an Elder

The 20/60/20 principle: SITH and U&T

In the pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding, we all seek to eliminate contention (nomorecontention.com). In this post, we'll discuss multiple working hypotheses by seeing how Latter-day Saints group themselves according to their beliefs. 

There is no need for anyone to feel compelled to "convert" others to their own perspectives and interpretations. 

Through clarity and charity, we can all simply understand one another and live in harmony as we seek to live and share the Gospel.

But clarity is often the hard part.

_____

Latter-day Saints around the world recently reviewed the translation of the Book of Mormon during their Come Follow Me study. Numerous podcasts, articles, and blogs promoted SITH (the stone-in-the-hat narrative), leading many Latter-day Saints to wonder, what's going on?

Obviously Church leaders want us all to avoid contention about the topic. One way to do this is to teach that it doesn't matter how Joseph produced the Book of Mormon, so don't worry or even think about the historical sources. Let's just say we don't know, or that Joseph used both SITH and the Urim and Thummim.

That's probably an acceptable approach for many, if not most, Latter-day Saints who have busy lives and frankly don't care about the historical sources and the ongoing controversies about the translation. Let's say 60% of LDS are in that middle ground.

The problem with this approach is obvious in the curriculum, the Gospel Topics essays, and other media. To promote SITH, these materials simply ignore what Joseph and Oliver taught and the relevant scriptures, leaving Latter-day Saints uninformed. Sort of an "ignorance is bliss" approach that, in the long term, can cause cognitive dissonance when people eventually learn what Joseph and Oliver taught.

There are 40% of LDS who do care about the historical sources, the claims of critics and scholars, etc. 

Everyone can agree on the facts, consisting of specific statements by Joseph and Oliver regarding the Urim and Thummim vs specific statement by others who promoted SITH. We can all see that the two narratives contradict one another, just as Mormonism Unvailed set forth in 1834. 

E.g., https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/p/the-sith-problem-1829-2024.html

[Some LDS scholars try to reconcile the contradictions by claiming the Joseph and Oliver were referring to the seer stone when they said "Urim and Thummim," but we can all see this is a ruse that contradicts what Joseph, Oliver, David, Emma and other said.]

With the facts clearly spelled out, we can all see that differences of opinion arise from different assumptions, inferences, and theories. (This is the FAITH model of analysis.)

Of the 40% who care about the historical sources, about half, or 20%, follow the SITH scholars, such as those at Scripture Central, and agree with Royal Skousen that Joseph and Oliver intentionally misled everyone about the translation, presumably because they were "embarrassed" about the seer stone.

https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/2024/09/the-embarrassed-narrative-and-sith.html

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2024/11/thank-you-royal-skousen.html

The other 20% (including me) reject the SITH scholars and stick with what Joseph and Oliver said. This group has multiple working hypotheses to explain SITH. Some say the SITH witnesses were lying. Others (including me) say the SITH witnesses were not lying, but they observed a demonstration Joseph conducted (because he could not show the actual U&T or the plates) and they used the demonstration as an apologetic argument against the Spalding theory. 

__________

I like the 20/60/20 principle because it explains, in general terms, many social, political, and religious divisions. 

But we don't have to think of this as "division" in the Church. 

We just have different assumptions, inferences, and theories.

And so long as we are clear about our views, and all rely on the full facts, it's all good.