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

[_thews]

Facts:

The lost 116 pages was supposedly translated using the Nephite interpreters. They were taken back (per D&C10:1) after the supposd evil-doers stole them.

Darling thews, I don't dispute this.

But you have claimed the Book of Mormon was translated using both seer stones and the Urim and Thummim. In making this argument, what you are saying is that they (seer stones and Urim and Thummim) are different things.

The term "Urim and Thummim" was not used until three years after the Book of Mormon was published.

The Old Testament books of Nehemiah and Samuel both make reference to the Urim and Thummim, and they were written well before the Book of Mormon was published, if I've calculated correctly.

Let me be a little more succinct as you've missed the point entirely. The use of "Urim and Thummim" was not used unti three after the Book of Mormon was published to describe Joseph Smith's seer stones.

Let's weed through some information from Joseph Antley:

http://trevorantley.com/2012/01/08/seer ... ow-part-1/

Are “seer-stones” different from an “Urim and Thummim”?

Joseph Smith possessed at least two seer-stones before he recovered the Book of Mormon plates in 1827, and these stones were markedly different from the Nephite “interpreters” that Joseph Smith received later. What the Book of Mormon calls “the interpreters” (Mosiah 8:13, 19; 28:20; Ether 4:5), and what we might traditionally think of as the “Urim and Thummim,” were a special set of seer-stones that consisted of two transparent stones set in a “bow,” which would have resembled a large pair of eye-glasses, and which were apparently somehow attached to a breastplate, much like the biblical description of the priestly Urim and Thummim. This set, buried by Moroni with the gold plates, seems to have been barely used by Joseph Smith.

In modern Mormonism, Joseph Smith’s former seer-stones are now often referred to as an “Urim and Thummim.” For example, the section heading of Doctrine & Covenants 3 states that the revelation was “given through the Urim and Thummim,” when in fact it was received through Joseph’s previously-obtained seer-stone, not the Nephite “interpreters.” Most of the Book of Mormon seems to have been translated with Joseph’s single stone as well, although the lost 116 pages were likely done with the Nephite “interpreters.”

So Radex, while you claim to not have a problem with the translation method being head in hat, what you do have a problem with is what exactly was in the hat. What was in the hat were seer stones, and every single word of the Book of Mormon was translated using seer stones. These exact same seer stones existed before the Book of Mormon and were used to "see" evil treasure guardians. If you wish to draw your parallel arguments to connect "Urim and Thummim" to the Bible, please explain where in the Bible occult objects used to contact evil were then used by God.

So Radex, while you continue to assert the translation method of the Book of Mormon is accurately depicted by the LDS church, what you fail to acknowledge is there are but two cards in your game. The lost 116 pages was done supposedly using the Nephite spectacles/Urim and Thummim, and the Book of Mormon was done using seer stones.

Well now, that's interesting. I thought, mistakenly, that the lost 116 pages were part of the gold plates and therefore part of the Book of Mormon. Who knew?

You don't seem to know much about Mormon history Radex. God was so angry with Joseph Smith for losing the 116 pages the Nephite interpreters/Urim and Thummim were taken back. Having the pages lost, Joseph Smith then reverted to using his seer stones placed in hat, so the end result of every single word to the published Book of Mormon was done using head-in-hat with seer stones, just as all witness accounts explain... explicitly and consistently.

In the end, dear fellows, they're just pictures. There are much more troubling things in the world about which to bunch up your britches than mere artwork.

I can see why you need to discount and minimize to appease the dissonance you feel in holding conflicting beliefs, but the translation method used by the LDS church is an outright lie. If the depicted art was used while claiming it's how the lost 116 pages were translated, then it would be honest. Throwing out "bunch up your britches" to mock a blatantly deceiving lie perpetrated by an organization to keep its members from finding the truth may seem trivial to you, and I understand you need it to be trivial, but it's clearly not honest nor "scholarly" as LDS apologists claim to be. If the LDS church were not attempting to hide its past, there would be art depicting what the credible witnesses described, which is head-in-hat with seer stone.

You just keep responding to questions asked without addressing the content nor arguments presented. Again Radex, do you concede the fact that the Urim and Thummim/Nephite interpreters were lost (per LDS doctrine), and every single published word of the Book of Mormon was translated using Joseph Smith seer stones placed in his stove-pipe hat?

[_thews]

I don't think that the LDS church is explaining just how it was done at all. I think that the bottom line is still the same. It was done by the power of god. What we do hear, I believe, is that it was done in various of ways but we don't know much about it because Joseph Smith said very little. And all that is true.

But yea, I can agree that it should have been mentioned more often in the past. It is all not that difficult to comprehend and since it was with the urim and thummin what should it matter?

Do you subscribe to the notion that if you just continue to parrot the same incorrect argument you can outlast your opposition? What you simply cannot acknowledge is what is known by people close to Joseph Smith. They aren't "anti" as the usual retort embraces to reject factual information, but are all the same and reference "seer stones" very specifically. The "various ways" you continue to parrot are simply the lies used to create distortion. If the lie isn't backed up with truth, then a reasonable person would discount it. You have continued to prove you are not reasonable, as your ridiculous arguments that it's impossible to translate with head-in-hat while rejecting Emma's words defines your agenda.

[_Radex]

The term "Urim and Thummim" was not used until three years after the Book of Mormon was published.

The Old Testament books of Nehemiah and Samuel both make reference to the Urim and Thummim, and they were written well before the Book of Mormon was published, if I've calculated correctly.

See: Red Herring

My good Darth,

Again I am reading things as plainly as possible, but perhaps I am missing the larger context of how thews' statement fits in with, I don't know, something else that you're contemplating but that I am completely oblivious to. It may be a function of my age or station, but I read a sentence and, being a native English speaker, interpret it how such a speaker would.

I beg your forgiveness, but thews was asking about the history and the use of the term "Urim and Thummim". As he understood it, the term hadn't been used "until three years after the Book of Mormon was published". I replied that it was used several times in the Old Testament, which is much older than the Book of Mormon. I see no red herring here, just two gentlemen discussing history and one interjecting with Sesame Street rubbish.

So Radex, while you continue to assert the translation method of the Book of Mormon is accurately depicted by the LDS church, what you fail to acknowledge is there are but two cards in your game. The lost 116 pages was done supposedly using the Nephite spectacles/Urim and Thummim, and the Book of Mormon was done using seer stones.

Well now, that's interesting. I thought, mistakenly, that the lost 116 pages were part of the gold plates and therefore part of the Book of Mormon. Who knew?

Thews is obviously talking about the Book of Mormon that was actually published, but thanks for dispelling that ludicrous idea I mentioned earlier about being deliberately obtuse!

When we're talking about the methods Joseph Smith employed while translating the gold plates, the entire gold plates must be within the context of the conversion. Surely you understand that and are simply being "deliberately obtuse".

Hey, you know, some gnat strainers and nit pickers out there don't find it very encouraging that The One True Church is disingenuous in how it depicts its foundational events. But as long as the Church is true!!!, who cares about things like integrity and honesty?

Luckily for all of us, the church is honest in its depiction of one of the translation methods.

In summary:

When critics of the Church refer to firsthand accounts and want history to be told accurately, they are virulent anti-Mormon liars who are persecuting the Church.

I'm sure you can point out where I've asserted such an absurd thing.

When the Church misrepresents its history and instead presents a sanitized pseudo-history that ignores firsthand accounts by people who were actually there, the Church's honesty and integrity are unassailable.

I have shown, repeatedly, that we have multiple accounts from various sources which describe more than one translation method. The Urim and Thummim, and the seer stones were the two primary methods. Both are true. Both are accurate. The pictures of the church are true and accurate.

But you have claimed the Book of Mormon was translated using both seer stones and the Urim and Thummim. In making this argument, what you are saying is that they (seer stones and Urim and Thummim) are different things.

I do agree that some of the early followers were confused by the two terms, but the Urim and Thummim and the seer stones were distinct items.

Let me be a little more succinct as you've missed the point entirely. The use of "Urim and Thummim" was not used unti three after the Book of Mormon was published to describe Joseph Smith's seer stones.

The Urim and Thummim was a breastplate with some type of spectacles or "looking glass". The seer stones were different items (one was found by Joseph in Sally Chase's garden, if I'm not mistaken). I do agree that early followers confused the terms from time to time.

So Radex, while you claim to not have a problem with the translation method being head in hat, what you do have a problem with is what exactly was in the hat.

No, I don't. There was a stone in the hat.

These exact same seer stones existed before the Book of Mormon and were used to "see" evil treasure guardians. If you wish to draw your parallel arguments to connect "Urim and Thummim" to the Bible, please explain where in the Bible occult objects used to contact evil were then used by God.

I don't believe "evil treasure guardians" exist. The discussion about the Bible and the occult is one that you don't want to have, thews.

[_zeezrom]

You know how in the story Lord of the Rings, you get the ring warm in the fire and elvin words show up?

Maybe the seer stone was like that.

You warm it up by feeling the spirit really powerfully in your mind. Just close your eyes and let the feeling grow. It starts like a ripple then a swelling motion begins. Be careful you don't go the erotic path from this point onward. There is a fork in the road here, I believe. Take a right turn and head toward thoughts on pearly gates and whatnot. Then comes the tidal wave. Then you open your eyes. Then you read the blazing words on the rock.

Awesome!

[_thews]

But you have claimed the Book of Mormon was translated using both seer stones and the Urim and Thummim. In making this argument, what you are saying is that they (seer stones and Urim and Thummim) are different things.

I do agree that some of the early followers were confused by the two terms, but the Urim and Thummim and the seer stones were distinct items.

Actually, the early followers (before 1833) had never heard of Joseph Smith's Urim and Thummim. Once again, you respond to the discussion without acknowledging the point. To claim the Urim and Thummim and Joseph Smith's seer stones are distinct items is valid if you also acknowledge the Nephite interpreters and Urim and Thummim are not distinct items. Regarding the translation method of the Book of Mormon, you are incorrect in making this statement:

I have shown, repeatedly, that we have multiple accounts from various sources which describe more than one translation method. The Urim and Thummim, and the seer stones were the two primary methods. Both are true. Both are accurate. The pictures of the church are true and accurate.

Not only have you failed to show there is even one witness to the translation of the Book of Mormon using glasses, you reject multiple accounts of those close to Joseph Smith that specifically state it was done with seer stone placed in hat. The Urim and Thummim/Nephite interpreters were taken back according to D&C 10, leaving only Joseph Smith's seer stones. Your statement above that the translation method of the Book of Mormon is accurately depicted by the LDS church is incorrect, as you cannot produce one LDS source that shows Joseph smith using seer stone placed in his stove-pipe hat.

Let me be a little more succinct as you've missed the point entirely. The use of "Urim and Thummim" was not used unti three after the Book of Mormon was published to describe Joseph Smith's seer stones.

The Urim and Thummim was a breastplate with some type of spectacles or "looking glass". The seer stones were different items (one was found by Joseph in Sally Chase's garden, if I'm not mistaken). I do agree that early followers confused the terms from time to time.

Not sure why you continue to use "early followers" to describe who was/is confused, but again you miss the point regarding what was used to translate every single published word of the Book of Mormon.

Regarding how Joseph Smith found his first seer stone, he "saw" it using the green stone of Sally Chase, making the mother of all Mormon seer stones the green stone owned by a necromancer. The brown stone he found while digging a well and it didn't belong to him. He was allowed to borrow it, and when asked to give it back, Joseph Smith decided to steal it.

So Radex, while you claim to not have a problem with the translation method being head in hat, what you do have a problem with is what exactly was in the hat.

No, I don't. There was a stone in the hat.

What word would you use to describe the stone?

These exact same seer stones existed before the Book of Mormon and were used to "see" evil treasure guardians. If you wish to draw your parallel arguments to connect "Urim and Thummim" to the Bible, please explain where in the Bible occult objects used to contact evil were then used by God.

I don't believe "evil treasure guardians" exist. The discussion about the Bible and the occult is one that you don't want to have, thews.

It doesn't matter what you believe, what matters is that Joseph Smith believed in treasure guardians. Unless you're prepared to claim Joseph Smith was a liar, I fail to see your point.

The question i asked you Radex is the crux of what you're attempting to skirt. Please answer this one question:

Again Radex, do you concede the fact that the Urim and Thummim/Nephite interpreters were lost (per LDS doctrine), and every single published word of the Book of Mormon was translated using Joseph Smith seer stone(s) placed in his stove-pipe hat?

[_zeezrom]

I'm returning and reporting back.

Guess what? It turns out my cuz is NOM. He sent me a private message telling me he already looked into all this church history stuff and pretty much decided Mormonism isn't true but he just continues to attend and maintain a personal belief system of sorts. He is sort of like a Consig SS teacher.

Another one bit the dust... but didn't throw out all the bathwater like I did.

[_hobo1512]

You know how in the story Lord of the Rings, you get the ring warm in the fire and elvin words show up?

Maybe the seer stone was like that.

You warm it up by feeling the spirit really powerfully in your mind. Just close your eyes and let the feeling grow. It starts like a ripple then a swelling motion begins. Be careful you don't go the erotic path from this point onward. There is a fork in the road here, I believe. Take a right turn and head toward thoughts on pearly gates and whatnot. Then comes the tidal wave. Then you open your eyes. Then you read the blazing words on the rock.

Awesome!

This approach only works if you wrap it in "light cotton" first.

Just sayin....

[_ldsfaqs]

I'm STILL not "troubled".....

Head in the Hat as ONE of the 5 or so Methods used to translate the Book of Mormon doesn't bother me at all. It wasn't the only method, and not only that, it WAS NOT the "dominate" method used.

haa haa.... You anti's are a joke.

[_Runtu]

I'm STILL not "troubled".....

Head in the Hat as ONE of the 5 or so Methods used to translate the Book of Mormon doesn't bother me at all. It wasn't the only method, and not only that, it WAS NOT the "dominate" method used.

haa haa.... You anti's are a joke.

Want a joke?

There was a mix-up in heaven, and the Pope was sent to hell, while Joseph Smith went to heaven. After a day of Joseph running amok, God called the devil and said, "Look, there's been a mistake, and we need to send Joseph Smith to you in exchange for the Pope." The devil agreed.

On his way to heaven, the Pope met Joseph Smith, who introduced himself. The Pope asked him what heaven was like, and Joseph said it was amazing.

The Pope said, "More than anything else, I can't wait to meet the Virgin Mary."

Joseph replied, "Oh, sorry about that. You're a day late."

[Guest]

Head in the Hat as ONE of the 5 or so Methods used to translate the Book of Mormon doesn't bother me at all. It wasn't the only method, and not only that, it WAS NOT the "dominate" method used.

Shouting in upper case will of course make your point much stronger.

What was the dominant method used to translate the Book of Mormon, according to you? Did any eye-witnesses see this method being used, and if so who?

I don't mind whether you are 'troubled' or not. All that interests me is the evidence in favor of your point of view. Care to tell us what that evidence is?