Jacob Hansen jumps the SITH shark

In the ongoing pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding, we can't avoid clarity. Someone brought a video by Jacob Hansen to my attention. Jacob is awesome, and he usually explains his positions clearly so everyone can understand him. But sometimes he lacks a little clarity, so this post focuses on clarity.

We'll look at screenshots and text below after reviewing the SITH (the stone-in-the-hat narrative) problem.

Here's the link to his video: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/o8SxwgK56H4

_____

For those unfamiliar with the phrase "jump the shark", it means the point where something has gone beyond its peak of quality or popularity and started to decline. It originated with an episode of the popular American TV show "Happy Days" in which Fonzie, dressed in his leather jacket, jumps over a shark on water skis. It was absurdly ridiculous.

Just like the SITH narrative.

_____

Jacob Hansen has been a courageous LDS apologist. We applaud his efforts overall and wish him all the best. He's an effective advocate, a great guy, articulate, etc.

But when he embraces SITH, he undermines his own defense of the Restoration. He doesn't say whether he has done his own research or is merely relying on the claims fo the SITH sayers in the Church, but either way, it's weird to see him promote Mormonism Unvailed this way.

I posted the following at my funwithSITH blog, but I'm reposting it here for a wider audience. 

_____

While making a case for the Book of Mormon, Jacob Hansen makes the case for the critics who wrote Mormonism Unvailed and published SITH before our latter-day scholars latched onto it.

Whether he promotes SITH intentionally or ignorantly, Jacob should study the history of SITH before promoting it on his channel. 

Jacob could start here: 

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

(We could say the same for Royal Skousen, Gerrit Dirkmaat, Jasmine Rappleye, the Interpreters, and other SITH sayers, but they are too firmly attached to SITH to consider the possibility that Joseph and Oliver told the truth.)

_____

click to enlarge

The SITH narrative was spelled out in the 1835 anti-Mormon book Mormonism Unvailed:

Instead of looking at the characters inscribed upon the plates, the prophet was obliged to resort to the old "peep stone," which he formerly used in money-digging. This he placed in a hat, or box, into which he also thrust his face.  

Through the stone he could then discover a single word at a time, which he repeated aloud to his amanuensis, who committed it to paper, when another word would immediately appear, and thus the performance continued to the end of the book.

We can all see that Joseph and Oliver rejected this narrative and explained, repeatedly, that Joseph translated the engravings on the plates by means of the Urim and Thummim that came with the plates.

But the SITH sayers prefer the Mormonism Unvailed narrative. As Royal Skousen famously claims,

"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."

According to professor Skousen, Joseph only used the Urim and Thummim for the lost 116 pages. Skousen uses a euphemism--"appear to be intentionally misleading"--to soften his assertion that Joseph and Oliver lied.

Which was exactly the point Mormonism Unvailed tried to make.

And now Jacob Hansen has joined the SITH sayers to repudiate what Joseph and Oliver clearly taught.

_____

Jacob starts his video by saying, "I want him to stick his head in a hat."

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/o8SxwgK56H4

Later in the video, Jacob claims Joseph Smith produced the Book of Mormon "all with his face buried in a hat."

While most of the SITH sayers are hopelessly invested in promoting SITH, let's all hope Jacob does more research and begins to support, instead of undermine, Joseph and Oliver.

Pattern of paradigm shifts: end of M2C

In the pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding, it's useful from time to time to review the history of ideas. In this case, we have an example of greater unity among Latter-day Saints regarding the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon.

_____

Recently I've had several interactions with people from a range of backgrounds who have accepted the "two sets of plates" scenario and say it not only makes sense, but is obvious. 

It wasn't always like that, but things are changing fast. 

We can all observe how this shift back to what the prophets always taught about Cumorah follows the "Innovation Adoption Curve."

The "innovation" in this case seems to be the "two sets of plates" that people now recognize as the best explanation for the historical evidence involving Joseph Smith's translation of the plates. 

See the diagram here: http://www.lettervii.com/p/the-two-sets-of-plates-schematic.html

My original book about the two sets of plates was published about 9 years ago. I discussed it with lots of people and in various conferences. Early adopters were mostly among the "Heartlanders" who had already embraced the New York Cumorah/Ramah.

Perceiving it as a threat to their Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory, many prominent LDS scholars resisted and even fought against the idea. To their credit, a few BYU/CES teachers began teaching it as an alternative explanation. A few podcasts picked it up. It reached the early majority stage.

Then Richard Bushman mentioned it in his book on Joseph Smith's Gold Plates, and more scholars paid attention. 

Earlier this year, BYU Studies published Don Bradley's article, making it mainstream. 

By now, we're somewhere between the early majority and late majority stage.

Naturally there are still laggards, particularly among M2Cers, and that's fine.

We should all be happy to consider multiple working hypotheses. The fact that the hill Cumorah/Ramah is the hill where Joseph Smith got the plates does not determine whether other events took place. Lots of people have different ideas. 

But we can clearly assess whether someone's theory incorporates the New York Cumorah/Ramah and make decisions accordingly.

_____

On this blog we've previously discussed the end of M2C, meaning the re-acceptance of the New York Cumorah/Ramah that was well established for the first 100 years of the Restoration. 

The NY Cumorah was declared to be a fact by President Oliver Cowdery, which anyone can read in Joseph Smith's own journal, as well as in the Times and Seasons, Millennial Star, Messenger and Advocate, and the Improvement Era, among others. It was in our hymnbooks and numerous General Conference addresses, as well as D&C 128:20. 

So what happened?

Almost 100 years after the Restoration began, RLDS scholar L.E. Hills decided that Oliver Cowdery, Joseph Smith, and everyone else was wrong about Cumorah because New York did not fit his theory of Book of Mormon geography based on Mesoamerica. He published a map in 1917 that showed Cumorah in southern Mexico. Eventually LDS scholars, including John Sorenson, Jack Welch, and Kirk Magleby, latched on and even published their version of the Hills map in BYU Studies, along with innumerable articles, books, presentations, etc.

They rationalized their repudiation of the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah by saying there were "two Cumorahs" to support their Mesoamerican setting. Hence, the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory (M2C). 

They claimed (and taught thousands of BYU/CES students) that the traditional New York Cumorah was a mere speculative assumption and that President Cowdery, Joseph Smith, Lucy Mack Smith, David Whitmer, and everyone else who discussed Cumorah was wrong. 

Why?

Solely because it did not fit their Mesoamerican theory, which required the "real" Cumorah to be in southern Mexico, just as L.E. Hills had claimed.

But now we're all glad to see a refocus on what President Cowdery and others said all along.

No more need to rationalize away the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah.

_____

On an individual basis, the diffusion of innovations follows a five-stage process. We may continue to see individuals go through this process, but overall, most Latter-day Saints readily accept the two-sets-of-plates explanation because they did not have the M2C baggage.

American sociologist Everett Rogers tied these findings together in his 1962 book Diffusion of Innovations.9 In it, Rogers offered a clear definition: diffusion is the process by which an innovation is communicated through specific channels over time among members of a social system. Innovations don’t spread in isolation. They move through conversation, observation, and relationships. They gain ground not when people are convinced by a single argument, but when enough small signals accumulate to tip the balance. 

Rogers also outlined a five-stage process describing how individuals adopt something new:

1. Awareness: You’re exposed to a new idea, but the details are vague. You know it exists, but not much more.
2. Interest: Curiosity kicks in. You start asking questions or casually researching.
3. Evaluation: You consider the idea in context, including how it might fit your needs or solve a particular problem.
4. Trial: You test it out, either through a free trial, a small purchase, or by observing someone else’s experience closely.
5. Adoption: You commit. The innovation becomes part of your routine, possibly replacing whatever came before.

Easter video

Here's one that deserves more views:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8gWGbjUZOw

The FAITH model and more Dartmouth

The FAITH model of analysis (Facts, Assumptions, Inferences, Theories and Hypotheses) works in most fields of research, debate, conversation, etc., including apologetics. It's an ideal way to avoid contention in the pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding. Once we separate facts from the other elements of a hypothesis, we can all see why we have different views and we can understand one another clearly, all in the spirit of charity. 

The FAITH model eliminates the compulsion to contend. We can achieve "no more contention."

I posted an example on my apologetics blog, here:

https://ldsapologists.blogspot.com/2026/04/multiple-working-hypotheses-at-work.html

_____

Given the topic of this blog, we can see how people derive a variety of hypotheses about the setting of the Book of Mormon. I call these "multiple working hypotheses."

Every one of them starts with the identical facts, in this case the text of the Book of Mormon.

Then people make assumptions and inferences about the text that are consistent with their respective theories. On this blog we've given lots of examples.

Here are two main ones. 

1. Cumorah. 

Facts. We can all read what the text says about Cumorah/Ramah. Those passages are a fact. We can also all agree that Oliver Cowdery declared it is a fact that the hill Cumorah in western New York where Joseph got the plates is the identical hill Cumorah/Ramah mentioned in the text.

Assumptions. Some Latter-day Saints assume Oliver told the truth. Others (such as M2Cers) assume he did not. 

Inferences. Some Latter-day Saints infer that Oliver knew it was a fact because he had visited the repository in the hill (as Brigham Young explained), because he interacted with one or more of the 3 Nephites, or for other reasons. Others infer that Oliver had no reason to make his declaration and thus infer he spoke from pure speculation.

You can see how these elements lead to multiple working hypotheses.

2. Narrow neck. We can all read the text. Some Latter-day Saints assume that there is one "narrow neck" described by three different terms: "narrow neck," "small neck of land" "narrow neck of land." Other Latter-day Saints assume that different terms refer to different things. Those assumptions drive the multiple working hypotheses we all see.

All the other debates/discussions/interpretations of the text follow the same type of analysis.

When we apply the FAITH model it is easy to separate facts from assumptions, inferences, etc.

_____

Speaking of the FAITH model, the Dartmouth topic generated some excellent work by Stephen Kent Ehat, which I posted here:

https://www.mobom.org/dartmouth-collection-stephen-ehat

For background on the Dartmouth topic, see 

https://www.mobom.org/dartmouth-college-and-moors-school

Baja and Dartmouth

Recently the theoretical Baja setting for the Book of Mormon has attracted attention on the Stick of Joseph channel, where it is characterized as a "NEW THEORY on Book of Mormon Geography."

The Baja theory has been around for a long time. I discussed it 10 years ago on this and other blogs. 

Here's the link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIeBFtP7XZA&t=5238s

The Baja theory website: https://achoiceland.com/

I welcome multiple working hypotheses, pending more information, and these are great guys, faithful Latter-day Saints who have put a lot of time and effort into their Baja theory. 

However, we have to all understand the underlying premises.

Like M2C, the Baja theory (B2C) rejects what the prophets have taught about the New York Cumorah. Specifically, they reject what Oliver Cowdery explained in Letters IV, VII, and VIII. For more on that, see https://www.lettervii.com/2023/02/the-cumorah-issue-is-simple.html.

In one of my posts 10 years ago I commented on the Baja theory, although they had a different website then that I referenced: https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2016/05/why-abstract-models-don-can.html

After observing the Baja and other theories, I posted comments about how it is easy to create a setting for the Book of Mormon anywhere in the world. Once we repudiate the New York Cumorah, any location in the world is a viable candidate. Or even an imaginary world such as the BYU map. 

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2018/01/getting-real-about-cumorah-part-2.html

All you have to do is:

1) reject the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah

2) establish assumptions and inferences that support the setting you want to promote.

Ten years ago I also commented in the logic of rejecting what Oliver said about Cumorah.

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2016/11/distinguishing-between-anti-mormon-and.html

_____

Dartmouth. I recently posted comments about the theory that, when Joseph was around 8-11 years old, he learned Hebrew literary styles and sophisticated Christian theology from his brother Hyrum, who had attended a boy's charity school located on the campus of Dartmouth college. 

I forgot to mention that the original attendance records are available for anyone to see here:

https://www.mobom.org/dartmouth-college-and-moors-school

Recent claims about chiasmus

The story of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon is well known by most people who study the Book of Mormon, including both believers and critics.

For a summary, see the articles here:

https://scripturecentral.org/search?q=chiasmus

Critics have a variety of responses, but one of the most creative is being promoted by Randy Bell. 

Randy is known for his obsession with Hyrum Smith's alleged connection with Dartmouth. Lately he has extended his Dartmouth conspiracy theory to include chiasmus.

He finally found a podcaster to promote his bizarre claims about Dartmouth, hyped by click-bait.  

Although he was not on Mormon Stories, I commented on the podcast here:

https://mormonstoriesreviewed.blogspot.com/2026/03/randy-bells-delusional-dartmouth.html

Even more interesting than Randy's conspiracy theory is the psychology that drives people to develop such theories. That might make for an interesting topic some day.

Alma 24:7-10

Jonah Barnes pointed out something in Alma 24:7-10 on Ward Radio.

https://youtu.be/eVsplMUutsA?t=1709

if you look in verse uh seven, okay, it says and and you can apply this to

27:44

that. I thank my God that God in his goodness has sent us our brethren to preach to us to convince us of the

27:51

traditions of our wicked fathers. If you believe in the Mesoamerican model, you

27:56

can repent. There's forgiveness for you. Okay? You can repent of that wicked

28:04

tradition of your father.  And look, it says, "We might repent of the

28:10

of these things, these wicked traditions, and be forgiven of the many sins that we've committed."

28:16

See, look at this. And we can come into the fold of the Heartlanders. This is so great. It's so meta, right? It's so meta

28:23

that Mormon foresaw the skepticism of those of those guys and he knew it was

28:29

coming and he prepared this version just for just for y'all. So, you can repent of that. 

:)