JSJr's Face-in-the-Hat: Troubling to the Faithful

[_thews]

1. Write a manuscript (or get it from somewhere else).
2. Dictate it to a scribe.
3. When the scribe or others want to see you in action, put your head in a hat just long enough to convince them that you're doing the whole thing that way.

How could anyone conclude that such is not an amazing feat?

And Joseph Smith never said he did it that way.

Note the ignorance in failing to acknowledge Emma Smith, Harris and Whitmer all stated that is how it was done.

But, speaking as one basically writes every day and often writes very long and complicated briefs, it used to be that my initial drafts were dictated. I can't imagine anybody having a clue as to what I said if I had my face in a hat. It can't be done, it can't be heard, especially hour after hour with scribes being forced to use fountain pens.

Translation: I need to ignore the truth and historical record to maintain my testimony, so I'll discount what is known and appease my cognitive dissonance by concocting a way to ignore the truth.

No, the Book of Mormon came a different way. I like the artwork.

Translation: Blue KoolAid tastes yummy!

[_Radex]

So, let's see: claiming to score a point by ignoring the plain dictionary meaning of the word "contemporary".......mischaracterizing the issue.......arguing from ignorance based on vague statements by non-witnesses who were not addressing the translation method (merely the alleged source of its power).......relying on circular reasoning (the inaccurate paintings are honest because they are based on inaccurate history).....evading the issue......proclaiming victory when you have provided no evidence to refute the OP......calling eyewitness statements by believing early Mormons "critical documents"..........

Dear Darth J: If you will take a moment to leave the goalposts at the location in which they were originally planted we could get somewhere.

In my response (the one that linked to four PDF files), I was addressing specifically your statement that read

No, the information we have is the only information we have, all of which is the head-in-the-hat thing

My response was more than crushing to that statement. We (by "we" I mean those who bother to do a little research) can find numerous examples of historical documents which describe the translation process as something other than the "head-in-the-hat thing."

Sorry, old bean, but what I am telling you is the truth.

I'd say you have a bright future in Mormon apologetics.

Because I bother to read a little?

Now, issues aside from my post which was a specific response to your statement above.

Correlated church paintings are based upon official Church publications combined with correlated materials. In the Joseph Smith translation case, it's based on the account in Joseph Smith history which I quoted earlier. Paintings, admittedly, show things in a better light then they probably were (see my King George III example above). Any reasonable person understands these things, and any reasonable person knows that the church does not deny the seer stone method; one only need look at the BYU website where a simple search for "seer stone" turned up about 374 results. On LDS.org it turned up 14 results.

[_ldsfaqs]

JSJr's Face-in-the-Hat: Troubling to the Faithful

LDS aren't "troubled" at all by it.....

When it comes to scholarly treatment, it's plenty well mentioned, including the some 5 other methods used to also complete the translation.

Then when it comes to artist renditioning, plates at a table with Joseph is the most simple, basic, and reasonable way to show Joseph as translating the plates.

[_Quasimodo]

JSJr's Face-in-the-Hat: Troubling to the Faithful

LDS aren't "troubled" at all by it.....

When it comes to scholarly treatment, it's plenty well mentioned, including the some 5 other methods used to also complete the translation.

Then when it comes to artist renditioning, plates at a table with Joseph is the most simple, basic, and reasonable way to show Joseph as translating the plates.

And, of course, the least disquieting to objective viewers. Imagine if that rendition had Joseph Smith's face in a hat. How foolish would that look to non Mormons? Or even to believing Mormons. It's only a reasonable rendition if one is trying to hide the truth.

[_why me]

And Joseph Smith never said he did it that way.

But, speaking as one basically writes every day and often writes very long and complicated briefs, it used to be that my initial drafts were dictated. I can't imagine anybody having a clue as to what I said if I had my face in a hat. It can't be done, it can't be heard, especially hour after hour with scribes being forced to use fountain pens.

No, the Book of Mormon came a different way. I like the artwork.

I have said the same exact thing. If it was done with a hat his face would be close to the hat but not in it. Between the light coming from the hat, breathing, and speaking and then being heard by the scribe would be impossible with the head in a hat.

[_why me]

Then when it comes to artist renditioning, plates at a table with Joseph is the most simple, basic, and reasonable way to show Joseph as translating the plates.

And this account comes from samual richards a friend of Oliver's which is where the artist may have taken his or her inspiration.

[_why me]

I'd say you're not putting on the critical thinking hat far enough. Here's a more accurate test of the endeavor:

1. Write a manuscript (or get it from somewhere else).
2. Dictate it to a scribe.
3. When the scribe or others want to see you in action, put your head in a hat just long enough to convince them that you're doing the whole thing that way.

How could anyone conclude that such is not an amazing feat?

But unfortunately it didn't happen that way. I haven't seen any witnesses relate the process as you have related it. Emma saw no manuscript. Neither did oliver, david or martin. And if there were a manuscript, it must have at least a thousand pieces of paper. Not to mention the scraps from rough drafts and ink blots. Too much crumbling going on with such a load to get away with it.

[Guest]

JSJr's Face-in-the-Hat: Troubling to the Faithful

LDS aren't "troubled" at all by it.....

I agree with ldsfaqs - but only because LDS generally have no idea that this is how Joseph produced the Book of Mormon.

When it comes to scholarly treatment, it's plenty well mentioned, including the some 5 other methods used to also complete the translation.

What about official Church treatment of it? Send a survey out to all the members in your ward asking if they are aware of Joseph Smith translating the Book of Mormon by putting a stone he used (unsuccessfully) to seek treasure, in a hat, and reading the words off of it when he has his head in the hat - then see what actual percentage are aware of it being truthful.

Then when it comes to artist renditioning, plates at a table with Joseph is the most simple, basic, and reasonable way to show Joseph as translating the plates.

This statement is complete nonesense. How many eye witnesses to the translation method describe the method in the artist renditioning and how many the stone in the hat method?

If the stone in the hat method isn't troubling to the faithful why isn't it taught in Primary, Seminary, Institute. Why isn't it mentioned whenever and wherever the Church talks about translation methods? Why do they avoid mentioning it at each and every opportunity?

[_sock puppet]

JSJr's Face-in-the-Hat: Troubling to the Faithful

LDS aren't "troubled" at all by it.....

When it comes to scholarly treatment, it's plenty well mentioned, including the some 5 other methods used to also complete the translation.

Then when it comes to artist renditioning, plates at a table with Joseph is the most simple, basic, and reasonable way to show Joseph as translating the plates.

And, of course, the least disquieting to objective viewers. Imagine if that rendition had Joseph Smith's face in a hat. How foolish would that look to non Mormons? Or even to believing Mormons. It's only a reasonable rendition if one is trying to hide the truth.

Exactly.

[_sock puppet]

How many eye witnesses to the translation method describe the method in the artist renditioning and how many the stone in the hat method?

If the stone in the hat method isn't troubling to the faithful why isn't it taught in Primary, Seminary, Institute. Why isn't it mentioned whenever and wherever the Church talks about translation methods? Why do they avoid mentioning it at each and every opportunity?

Because young people today would not be as easily taken in by Mormonism if the translation were portrayed the way it actually happened. Nor would investigators, so it is not portrayed accurately in any missionary materials either. And even stalwart members would suffer shaken faith syndrome or get angry as did many members after PBS aired DCP's interview on 4/30/2007, wherein he described the face in the hat method.

The Mormon Church has had to sanitize its past, its history, considerably to get to the point it has on the respectability scale. It is not about to go back to being a small tribe, a peculiar people. None of that in the Post-Hinckley era.