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

[_Drifting]

Why don't these Missionaries know enough to tell the truth?

Welcome to Mormon.org chat.
A missionary will be with you shortly.
Agent [July] is ready to assist you.
Agent [Diana] has joined the chat.

Me: July. Is that boy or girl?
Diana: hola
Diana: We are sister missionaries.
July: girl
Me: Hi, OK, two girls.
Diana: Yes
Diana: How are you today?
Me: A question on the Book of Mormon after reading about it. OK? (and reading some of it too)
Diana: OK
Me: I was told of translating it with a urim and thummim an that is what was used.
Me: Is that how it was done?
Diana: Yes through revelation and the power of God
Diana: ANd tell us how do you get the Book of Mormon?
Me: Joseph smith stuff says this urim and thummum but I heard a PBS show of a Bishop Peterson that said he used a stone in a hat. Black Magic? Which is right?
Me: Got the book from a friend.
Me: Mr Peterson is a Mormon Bishop which I guess is pretty high up. So I listened and he said that is how it was done.
Diana: Good Is he a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
Me: His story and the Joseph Smith stuff are way different.
Me: He teaches at BYU and is a Mormon bishop.
Diana: You know what there are many dofferent stories about it but what is relly important is that the Book is another testament of Jesus Christ
Me: From what I saw a fat guy with glasses.
Me: Which story is the truth?
Me: Is this really black magic with peepstones and stuff like that?
Diana: David we as missionaries teach the basic beleives of the church
Diana: We invite people to come unto Christ
Me: Isn't joseph smiths story and how he did this a basic belief?
Diana: We can teach you more about it
Diana: acctually there are missionaries they can visit you and teach you more
Me: If he did not do it like he said how can any of it be true? You don't lie and expect people to believe you are telling the truth. How did he translate this stuff?
Me: Is this Bishop peterson right? Was it with magic rocks in a hat?
Diana: David something is really helpful when we read the scriptures
Diana: is to pray
Me: Or a rock?
Diana: Have you ever prayed
Diana: ?
Me: Forget praying for a minute. Is the rock in a hat real or not?
Diana: We can not forget the basics
Me: It is history, is that how it happened?
Diana: that is what help us too understand
Me: You don't know, is that it?
Me: How much more basic can you get than how this was done?
Diana: We told you at the begining
Diana: throug the power of God
Diana: Do you want us to send this missionaries to your home?
Me: Diana, you are not reading my question. Did this book get done with the urim and thummim or with a magic rock in a hat like this BYU gu says?
Me: If you can't answer the question why would I want missionaries to visit?
Diana: With the urim and tummim
Diana: The Book of Mormon explain that at the very begining
Diana: Before the introduction
Diana: So probably you want to read the Book from the begining
Me: If it was with the urim and thummim(UM?), why does this Bishop and others say it was with a magic rock in a hat?
Me: He is obviously a Mormon authority being on PBS and all. Why is his story different?
Diana: Well we don't know David people said different things
Diana: but you can find out the trith by your self
Diana: but you need an open heart and mind
Diana: We recomend you to keep reading and pray
Diana: But have a wonderful day
Me: I am finding out the truth by myself. Your church magazine even says a rock in a hat. So does oliver cowdery.
Me: A google search turns up a lot on it.
Me: Why isn't the Mormon book accurate?
Diana: Just ask God
Me: Ask God, in a matter of history?
Diana: he has the wisdom you need
Diana: He knows everything
Me: You don't really know how it was done, is that it?
July:1 Nephi 11: 17 And I said unto him: I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things.

Me: Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man."David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887, p. 12.

Me: A David Whitmer who wrote for Joseph Smith says it was a rock in a hat. Black Magic comes from the Devil. Your belief is that this is from
Diana: You are right: " Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man"
Me: God? using magic?
Me: I think someone here is mistaking the devil for God. I don't think it is me.
Diana: OK David have a good day
Agent [Diana] has left the chat.

Note: 'Me' isn't me.

[_zeezrom]

Well, my cuz and I were going at this Facebook discussion pretty steadily, posting every few hours. Ever since my Ensign quote of the rock in hat, it has been dead silence.

[_sock puppet]

Well, my cuz and I were going at this Facebook discussion pretty steadily, posting every few hours. Ever since my Ensign quote of the rock in hat, it has been dead silence.

Time needed to re-adjust his 'world view' to accommodate this new factoid. He or she is probably experiencing what I call 'brain hurt' right now.

[_Runtu]

Well, my cuz and I were going at this Facebook discussion pretty steadily, posting every few hours. Ever since my Ensign quote of the rock in hat, it has been dead silence.

That's probably because, as why me has told us, this is old news and not shocking at all, so he's not responding out of boredom.

[_Fence Sitter]

Well, my cuz and I were going at this Facebook discussion pretty steadily, posting every few hours. Ever since my Ensign quote of the rock in hat, it has been dead silence.

I had a similar incident with my brother in law. We have a good relationship but when I mentioned that Joseph Smith had been involved in treasure hunting, he reacted visibly. "Those are lies that have multiplied based on a few false stories". It was evident that a discussion would not be a good idea so instead I loaned him my extra copy of RSR. I have not heard back from him yet except for one comment on what a great book it is.

Next time we talk I am going to ask about the 'head in the hat translation' to see what he knew about it before he read RSR.

Frequently I hear from members the "we just don't know' mantra when confronted with an uncomfortable aspect of early Church history. I find that just showing them the voluminous footnotes in RSR is a quick way to graphically illustrate how much we actually do know from back then. Also a quick tour of the Joseph Smith papers or Wilford Woodruff's journals seems to do the trick.

[_Equality]

I commend to all interested in this topic the chapter in the book The Word of God, available online at Signature Books.

If you commend it, let it be so, but not without a reference to the review of the book from an LDS perspective.

Review of: The Word of God: Essays on Mormon Scripture, by Dan Vogel. Reviewed by Stephen E. Robinson.

Radex, thanks for linking to the MI review, which is essentially a harangue against Vogel and Signature books. The chapter I linked to in the book was written by James Lancaster. In his review, Robinson does not address any of the substance of that chapter. He says only that Lancaster is excepted from the criticisms Robinson levels against the rest of the book:

However, three exceptions to this criticism would be the essays by Lancaster and Bush, who have done good historical work apparently without the Korihor agenda, and the essay of Curtis, who, though she takes the naturalistic approach, does not appear to have an interest in attacking or modifying the religion of the Saints.

So, um, yeah, it looks like even the frothing-at-the-mouth mopologists at the Maxwell Silver Hammer Institute have nothing but a big bag of hot air with which to counter the solid historical scholarship that Lancaster produced in the chapter I linked to. Have YOU found any eyewitness testimonies that contradict the numerous eyewitnesses attesting to the stone-in-hat method of "translation"? Have you found any eyewitness testimonies that support the Studious Joe depiction repeatedly used in official church materials?

Didn't think so.

As to whether this is a small issue. Yes, in isolation, it is. I don't expect anyone would ever leave the church over this alone. But it is emblematic of much bigger issues. It serves a synechdocical function: to illustrate the church's fundamental, continuing, institutional, systematic disregard for truth, honesty, openness, and integrity.

[_Runtu]

Radex, thanks for linking to the MI review, which is essentially a harangue against Vogel and Signature books.

That seems totally out of character for an MI review.

[_Equality]

It looks like Midgley also did a review of the book I linked to. His lengthy review touches on Lancaster only in a footnote, which I quote here in its entirety:

Lancaster shows that the accounts provided by those seemingly situated to know indicate that Joseph Smith did not use the Nephite interpreter (later called "Urim and Thummim") to translate portions of the the Book of Mormon that we now have (see pp. 97-107). Instead, he employed a stone which he placed in a hat, with which he was able to dictate the text of the Book of Mormon. Lancaster lists some eight "facts" about which "all witnesses agree" (see pp. 105-6). But after setting out the contents of the available accounts, Lancaster draws conclusions that run against the evidence he presented; he flatly denies that Joseph Smith did what the witnesses reported. "In some of the testimonies witnesses stated that Smith saw, or said he saw, English words appear to him in the translation process." "But regardless of this," Lancaster insists, "Joseph Smith did not regard the process as mechanical" (pp. 107-8). Instead, he holds that "the inspiration Smith received involved general concepts rather than literal information. Smith had to express in his own words and phrases the concepts which passed through his mind" (p. 108), though none of the witnesses describes such a vague "inspiration." Instead they describe a "seeing" that produced a dictation of the text of the Book of Mormon. Lancaster justifies his opinion on the grounds that Joseph Smith later changed or authorized changes in the Book of Mormon (and Doctrine and Covenants), but he neglects to explain why that fact somehow yields his conclusions. One wonders why an early and perhaps inferior essay by Lancaster was included in Essays on Mormon Scripture when more complete and accurate, and much less tendentious and speculative accounts are available. See Stephen Ricks, "Joseph Smith's Means and Methods of Translating the Book of Mormon," F.A.R.M.S. paper, 1986 and John W. Welch and Tim Rathbone, "The Translation of the Book of Mormon: Basic Historical Information," F.A.R.M.S. paper, 1986. Edward H. Ashment has also covered essentially the same ground as Lancaster. See his "The Book of Mormon—A Literal Translation?" Sunstone 5/2 (March-April 1980): 10-14. Perhaps Vogel declined to include Ashment's essay because, when it was first published, he found it objectionable. See Vogel's criticism in "Is the Book of Mormon a Translation? A Response to Edward H. Ashment," Journal of Pastoral Practice 5/3 (1982): 75-91; and his remarks in Indian Origins, 75 n. 5.

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publications/review/?vol=3&num=1&id=73

Midgley's beef with Lancaster seems to be with Lancaster's assumption that Smith used a "loose" translation. Midgley appears to be arguing that the eyewitness accounts Lancaster quotes do not allow for a loose translation. So Midgley's criticism is not directed at the accuracy of the eyewitness accounts, but with Lancaster's assumptions about why Smith would have edited the text of the Book of Mormon if it had been translated in the manner in which the witnesses testified.

[_Chap]

It seems to be getting clearer and clearer that:

(a) The eye-witness accounts of the way the Book of Mormon was dictated point consistently to the 'rock in the hat" method, as part of which Joseph Smith read off words that appeared on the rock, so that his scribe could take them down. What we have in the Book of Mormon are the actual words provided directly by 'the gift and power of God'.

(b) Not only is there no credible scholarly opposition to this position from the LDS side, but it is even openly adopted as a favored position by some - as in the broadcast by Daniel Peterson that earned him the label of 'anti-Mormon' from some LDS who had been raised on the 'studious Joseph' pictures common in church sources, that show him looking at the plates as if he was reading from them.

So ... since we are stuck with the rock, here are some thoughts on interfacing technology.

1. Why couldn't the scribe look directly at the rock and copy the words off it without having to have Joseph Smith read to him, with the resultant chances of dictation errors that might have to be corrected? Possible answers:
(a) The words glowed too faintly to be visible in a light bright enough to write by. (But surely the Lord could have just upped the wattage?)
(b) Joseph Smith had special 'seer superpowers' honed during his treasure-seeking days and no-one else could have worked the stone. (OK, that will do as a let-out.)

2. Why did the output from the rock have to be purely visual, so that a rock-reader was essential? Leaving aside the fact that nowadays we might expect the Lord to have provided a direct printer interface, couldn't the thing simply have had audio output so the scribe could have listened to it directly? Of course it would also have done punctuation, and letter-by letter spelling of proper names.

Of course I only mention these points to underline the fact that the whole story seems to be so bizarre and pointless that one asks how it could be anything else but a deliberate distraction from how the text actually was produced.

And that was?

[_Runtu]

Of course I only mention these points to underline the fact that the whole story seems to be so bizarre and pointless that one asks how it could be anything else but a deliberate distraction from how the text actually was produced.

That's how I see it. It's the only explanation that makes sense.

And that was?

I think we are left with two options: writing or copying. Take your pick.