Hank Smith, SITH and BYU students

I had forgotten about this stunning post from Hank Smith, in which he tries to defend Gerrit Dirkmaat's SITH narrative:

Hank Smith

@hankrsmith

Help me understand, you’re okay with Joseph Smith seeing God and Jesus, talking with an angel every year for four years, translating the plates, but using a seerstone goes too far?

I’ve had a dozen emails over an episode which published yesterday.

youtube.com

Voices of the Restoration #2 • Translation of the Book of Mormon •...

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/seer-stonesTRANSCRIPTSEnglish: https://tinyurl.com/DCPodcastVOR2French: https://tinyurl.com/DCVOR2FR...

4:09 AM · Feb 5, 2025

·

161.6K

Views

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.

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.

Why we discuss M2C

Sometimes people ask why we continue to discuss M2C when everyone can see it is evaporating as more and more Latter-day Saints learn what the prophets have taught about the New York Cumorah/Ramah and all the corroborating evidence.

Although the end of M2C is coming, there are plenty of hold outs.

We thought it would be obvious to Latter-day Saints that there was no reason to reject the teachings of the prophets in the first place, but there was a lot of inertia because the M2Cers have had a few decades to promote their theories, to the point where most Latter-day Saints lost the knowledge about Cumorah, just as Brigham Young feared in 1877.

This sign from Macrohard kind of explains what is going on.

Dirkmaat and crew: "Joseph didn't say much..."

Another fun part of the "Informed Saints" video about the translation of the Book of Mormon is where they 

(i) admit people hear what they're expecting

(ii) claim Joseph didn't say "a while lot about" the translation

(iii) misquote what Joseph actually did say.

It's incredible that any informed Latter-day Saint believes what these scholars (and they're all awesome, faithful Latter-day Saints with good intentions) have to say.

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

Look at these excerpts.

people hear sometimes what they're

10:06

expecting. 

This is a good description of confirmation bias, and this entire video is a prime example of confirmation bias. The people on this panel are either in denial or are oblivious to the reality that they are so obsessed with promoting SITH that they misquote, omit and mislead throughout.

And so, so we we try to get to what the actual sources say.

If only they would!

10:13

In this case, with the translation of the Book of Mormon, our best primary source, our closest primary source, Joseph Smith,

10:21

doesn't say a whole lot about it.

But what Joseph did say completely contradicts the SITH narrative, so Dirkmaat and crew do not quote or explain what Joseph Smith said. Instead, they ignore what Joseph wrote and instead misquote him, as here.

Now he he does in Joseph Smith history explain

10:27

you know what the the that the angel tells him right from the beginning that God has prepared two stones

10:34

That are going to be used in the translation uh that the that those stones are you know what constituted seers in ancient times.

They simply cannot quote Joseph referring to the Urim and Thummim. Compare that misleading paraphrase to what Joseph actually explained:

Joseph Smith History 1:35 Also, that there were two stones in silver bows—and these stones, fastened to a breastplate, constituted what is called the Urim and Thummim—deposited with the plates; and the possession and use of these stones were what constituted “seers” in ancient or former times; and that God had prepared them for the purpose of translating the book. . . .

JS-H 1:42 Again, he told me, that when I got those plates of which he had spoken—for the time that they should be obtained was not yet fulfilled—I should not show them to any person; neither the breastplate with the Urim and Thummim; only to those to whom I should be commanded to show them; if I did I should be destroyed. 

For more, see https://www.mobom.org/translation-references

Misleading BYU students?

The recent video from the ironically named "Informed Saints" youtube channel suggests that professors at BYU are not educating their students about the facts regarding the translation of the Book of Mormon. Instead, they are misleading them to promote SITH (SITH = stone-in-the-hat theory)

The panel members in this video, like other SITH promoters, ignore the FAITH model and mingle their own assumptions, inferences and theories with actual facts so that it is difficult for people who are not fully aware of the facts to distinguish between the two categories.

My detailed response to the video will come out soon, but for now, here is an example.

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

At the outset, we noted that the American Historical Association Standards for Professional Conduct include these standards. 

Professional integrity in the practice of history requires awareness of one’s own biases and a readiness to follow sound method and analysis wherever they may lead. Historians should document their findings and be prepared to make available their sources, evidence, and data, including any documentation they develop through interviews. Historians should not misrepresent their sources. They should report their findings as accurately as possible and not omit evidence that runs counter to their own interpretation.

Listeners can watch this video and see this panel create and attack straw men while omitting evidence that counters their interpretations. 

They come across as perfectly comfortable with their approach, as though they talk the same way in other settings--including classes at BYU.

Here is Gerrit Dirkmaat relating what he teaches his students in his religion classes at BYU

28:48

I was just rereading for my class on the Book of Mormon I'm teaching this semester, the accounts from Emma Smith and Martin Harris and Emma's accounts 

28:58

especially are some of my favorites because to your point, she explicitly says, you know, my husband would put the 

29:04

stone in his hat and he would look at it and the words would appear and he would dictate hour after hour without any breaks or interruptions. 

Emma's "Last Testimony" is one of Gerrit's favorites, presumably because it confirms his SITH bias. 

We cannot tell from the video whether Gerrit explains to his students the credibility problems with the "Last Testimony" pursuant to the AHA standards, but seeing that this is one his "favorites," he surely relates the "Last Testimony" the same way he presented it in this video and in his books; i.e., as a completely credible account on its face.

Everyone who hears or reads Emma's "Last Testimony" should be aware of at least some of the relevant facts. Emma's son Joseph Smith III ("JS III") visited his mother in Nauvoo from February 4-10, 1879. This was 50 years after the translation took place. There is no known record of Emma relating these so-called details prior to this "Last Testimony."

JS III He recorded the questions and answers. JS III had prepared the questions in advance and avoided follow-up questions for more specificity, possibly in light of Emma's health. She died 10 weeks later on April 30, 1879 (age 74). The "Last Testimony" was published posthumously on Oct 1, 1879.  

In an 1886 article in the Saints' Herald reviewing the evidence about the translation, JS III did not even mention his mother's "Last Testimony." Instead, he relied on what Joseph and Oliver said all along. 

He also rejected the SITH statements from David Whitmer.

Consider this irony: while Joseph Smith III did not cite his own mother's "Last Testimony" as authoritative or even persuasive on how Joseph produced the Book of Mormon, modern SITH proponents such as Gerrit and the other panelists in this video cite the "Last Testimony" as conclusive evidence.

When Gerrit teaches his students about one of his "favorites," he does not have to explain the problems with the "Last Testimony." He does not have to do so when he does podcasts.

But no doubt his students and listeners trust him to do so. As do the professional standards of the AHA.

And we can all see that he does not do it.

For more problems with the "Last Testimony," see 

https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/2023/08/credibility-of-emma-smiths-last.html

Consider another irony. Among other problems with the "Last Testimony," it has Emma denying that Joseph practiced plural marriage. This generated considerable reaction in Utah at the time, with numerous people denouncing the "Last Testimony" as false, possibly not even Emma's actual statement, etc. Nevertheless, the "Last Testimony" is one of the ""favorites" among the polygamy deniers.

Most if not all LDS historians reject Emma's "Last Testimony" regarding plural marriage, but then SITH-promoting historians such as those on the panel in this video consider those parts of the "Last Testimony" as the gospel truth.

This intellectual schizophrenia is common among SITH scholars.

_____

Similar omissions of relevant facts are found throughout the video, which we will see next.

 

Cumorah confusion, Saints book errors, SITH

We live in fun times. 

I'm fine with people believing whatever they want, but people in positions of trust and responsibility have an obligation to be open, transparent, and accurate. They should separate facts from their assumptions, inferences, theories, and hypotheses (the FAITH model).

And they should pursue clarity, charity and understanding.

Instead, our SITH and M2C scholars continue to promote their theories by misleading their Latter-day Saint students and followers.

They keep repeating the same mantras as they seek to persuade Latter-day Saints to embrace their theories instead of what Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery taught. 

Lazy learners simply accept what these scholars say. But Latter-day Saints who accept responsibility for their own decisions and education can see how SITH and M2C 

_____

Saints book. Latter-day Saints around the world rely on the Saints book as their primary, and basically only, source of information about Church history. But volume 1 is replete with misinformation. 

For the first of several suggestions for improvement on the Saints books, see my comments here:

https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/2025/09/improving-saints-example-1.html

M2C (the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory). The Hill Cumorah dedication has generated considerable online comments. Here is an example of the confusion and ignorance produced by our M2C scholars:

(click to enlarge)

As exemplified in these Instagram comments, few current Latter-day Saints know what Joseph, Oliver and their contemporaries taught about Cumorah. Joseph Smith and his contemporaries had no confusion about the Hill Cumorah. Everyone knew it was a fact that the hill where he found the plates was the same hill referred to in the text as Cumorah/Ramah.

But, as Brigham Young feared, this knowledge has been lost to modern generations, thanks to the efforts of the M2C scholars who have repudiated what Joseph, Oliver, and their contemporaries and successors taught.

_____

SITH. People have sent me links to an audacious SITH-promoting video by the usual suspects, now on a channel ironically called "Informed Saints." I'll have more detailed commentary in a few days.

Your jaw will drop when you watch the way they manipulate the historical sources in the guise of "following the sources."

Here's the link:

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

The video includes bragging about teaching these things to BYU students who are defenseless against the onslaught of SITH and M2C.

In my opinion, this is shameful. People can believe whatever they want, but it would be more useful for BYU professors to teach facts and then let students make informed decisions instead of promoting their own theories by omitting facts that contradict their theories--facts such as what Joseph and Oliver explicitly taught.

Stay tuned.

Countdown to Cumorah - September 2025

Some readers here don't know about my blog on Cumorah on www.lettervii.com.

On that blog, we're doing a countdown to the rededication of the Hill Cumorah in New York on September 21st. 

Check it out.