Fence Sitter wrote:you omit the numerous other first hand accounts that agree with the face in the hat description like Emma's, the Whitmers, and Issac Hale. You seem to put so much store in these same people when it comes to defending Joseph Smith Jr but conveniently forget about them when they cast Joseph Smith Jr in a light you do not like.
That is an inconsistency of Mormonism that why me buys 'hook, line and sinker'.
There's a lot of that going around.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
harmony wrote:What's the point of the plates at all (with the angel and the hole in the ground, the running from Satan while carrying the plates, the witnesses, the cloth, etc) if they were not necessary for the book... if all Joseph needed was a hat and a rock, the plates are reduced to being just props for Joseph's theater performances.
harmony, you touch on a very important point, one that was exacerbated in the BoAbr situation. If it was a non-papyrus/non-Egyptian character linguistic 'translation', but rather the papyrus etc. were just props elohim/jehovah used during an object-free inspiration to get the text of the BoAbr into JSJr's head and then him speak it to the scribes who wrote it down in English, why does elohim/jehovah go to all these unnecessary steps? Was JSJr such an unbeliever that he had to have these props from elohim/jehovah before he could get in tune with them or believe that he was doing something he was not, just being a radio receiver for elohim/jehovah?
It seems the gold plates were just a prop--maybe not so much for JSJr, but for his scribes, the 11 'witnesses', etc.
Fence Sitter wrote: Additionally you omit the numerous other first hand accounts that agree with the face in the hat description like Emma's, the Whitmers, and Issac Hale. You seem to put so much store in these same people when it comes to defending Joseph Smith Jr but conveniently forget about them when they cast Joseph Smith Jr in a light you do not like.
I am not excluding this at all. What I am saying is that his head was not in the hat. It may have been close to the hat but not in the hat. I have with me a cowboy hat. If I stick my head in that hat, I can't breathe very well. Nor can I speak clearly. So, his head was near the hat but not in the hat. That is my point. Also, others told a different story than the head in the hat. Martin had a curtain and oliver claimed that he sat next to him. No hat mentioned.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
Absence of mention of hat does not mean hat was not present.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
why me wrote: I am not excluding this at all. What I am saying is that his head was not in the hat. It may have been close to the hat but not in the hat. I have with me a cowboy hat. If I stick my head in that hat, I can't breathe very well. Nor can I speak clearly. So, his head was near the hat but not in the hat. That is my point. Also, others told a different story than the head in the hat. Martin had a curtain and oliver claimed that he sat next to him. No hat mentioned.
You have not explained why this makes a difference at all. What is the difference between face in the hat and face just above the hat? Why it was necessary to keep his face in the hat while he spoke? Why was it necessary for him to leave his face in the hat to breathe? How does he keep the light out of the hat if his face was not covering it? What Martin and Oliver did not mention is not proof of anything. Your conclusion does not follow from any thing you have said.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
Yes, current COB obfuscation against what the scribes and other first hand witnesses said was the magic parchment, face-in-the-hat method.
Since COB has no first hand accounts for the image it wants to portray, and does not like the image that emerges from the first hand accounts it has, COB kicks into the "we don't know" mode, trying to claim that the historical record is fuzzy, not clear. However, the first hand accounts are that the magic parchment, face-in-the-hat method was the one used.
But, why me, if it is necessary for you to keep you faith (belief in the absence of supporting facts) intact, you go for it and just keep repeating the mantra that COB wants you to, "we just don't know".
harmony wrote:What's the point of the plates at all (with the angel and the hole in the ground, the running from Satan while carrying the plates, the witnesses, the cloth, etc) if they were not necessary for the book... if all Joseph needed was a hat and a rock, the plates are reduced to being just props for Joseph's theater performances.
Harmony I believe the plates started out as something entirely different, that their use evolved over time. They were always a prop of some sort. Initially their claimed existence was used to attract attention to his treasure seeking exploits and maybe even a way to attract Emma. Then when he finally produced what ever was under the cloth on the table they evolved into a provenance prop that could be used to create a book from which he could make money by selling. Finally they were used as a prop to convince those around him that the Book of Mormon was inspired and he wasn't just pulling something out of his hat so to speak. As the Book of Mormon developed he realized it was not necessary and probably risky to keep the plates around. I would suspect that part of the reason they were hidden in the woods was to prevent a careful examination of them by those around him who were not privy to the deception.
On a side note it was interesting to find out that all those 'evil' men who were out to get the plates away from Joseph when he first got them were also the same people with whom he dug for treasure. It turns out they were only looking for the fair share that had been promised them.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
harmony wrote:What's the point of the plates at all (with the angel and the hole in the ground, the running from Satan while carrying the plates, the witnesses, the cloth, etc) if they were not necessary for the book... if all Joseph needed was a hat and a rock, the plates are reduced to being just props for Joseph's theater performances.
In Harmony, the couple moved into a two-room house owned by Jesse, another of Emma’s brothers, about 150 yards from Isaac Hale’s house. The Prophet was ready to begin the translation. On at least six different occasions, Joseph Smith gave brief descriptions of how he translated the Book of Mormon. All six accounts agree that he translated them by the gift and power of God, through the Urim and Thummim. 23
Such a statement does not mean, though, that Joseph Smith did nothing but read to his scribe the English appearing in that instrument. He first began to translate by copying a considerable number of characters off the plates. He then studied them out in his mind and finally, by using the Urim and Thummim and his faith, translated them.
The scriptures indicate that translation involved sight, power, transcription of the characters, the Urim and Thummim or a seerstone, study, and prayer. David Whitmer and Martin Harris testify that if the Prophet made the proper preparation, sentences would appear, which he dictated to his scribe. If the scribe wrote them correctly, the words would disappear, and others would take their place. 24
The plates were also necessary as proof that the Book of Mormon was true. Which is why they were shown to at least twelve people.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
Harmony I believe the plates started out as something entirely different, that their use evolved over time. They were always a prop of some sort. Initially their claimed existence was used to attract attention to his treasure seeking exploits and maybe even a way to attract Emma. Then when he finally produced what ever was under the cloth on the table they evolved into a provenance prop that could be used to create a book from which he could make money by selling. Finally they were used as a prop to convince those around him that the Book of Mormon was inspired and he wasn't just pulling something out of his hat so to speak. As the Book of Mormon developed he realized it was not necessary and probably risky to keep the plates around. I would suspect that part of the reason they were hidden in the woods was to prevent a careful examination of them by those around him who were not privy to the deception.
.
Ummmm... quite some speculation going on here. But it would seem it is just speculation when it is compared to my previous post and link.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith