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

[Guest]

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.

This is news to me. What are the other 4 or so methods used to translate the Book of Mormon? The U&T/Interpreters were used by Smith during the production of the Book of Lehi, which was lost after Smith gave the manuscript to Harris. The stone in hat was then used for the production of the English text of what was published as the Book of Mormon. None of the eyewitness statements indicates any other translation being used, as has been pointed out on this thread multiple times with, you know, actual quotes and references (i.e., facts and evidence). Got anything other than hot air to support your naked assertions that there were 4 or so other methods used?

[_Equality]

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 so. You have not shown anything of the sort, let alone "repeatedly." Show me one eyewitness account that supports this depiction of the Book of Mormon "translation":


You haven't, and you won't, because there isn't one. Unless you can get a certain infamous inmate at the Utah State Pen to forge you one.

[_sock puppet]

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?

Radex, please tell us given how much you have protested in this thread that you've proven the Studious Joe version that the Church clings to that you have some eye-witness testimony that backs up this account. Please tell us that you have more than just clicking the heels of your ruby slippers together three times, repeating after each time "It must have been the Studious Joe method".

Please tell us you have not stuck your neck out so far without so much as one eye-witness account of the Studious Joe method. We want to give you credibility and respect. So give us even just one eye-witness account that we can 'hang that hat on'. Please.

[_Radex]

Radex, please tell us given how much you have protested in this thread that you've proven the Studious Joe version that the Church clings to that you have some eye-witness testimony that backs up this account. Please tell us that you have more than just clicking the heels of your ruby slippers together three times, repeating after each time "It must have been the Studious Joe method".

The only things I have maintained in this thread are:

• There is a wealth of information out there, from various sources, which describe other methods than the seer stone.
• The seer stone was a method, it was even the most used method, and it shouldn't bother anyone. It certainly doesn't bother me.
• Images commissioned by the church correspond to the official documentation located in Joseph Smith History (part of the "quad"). For outside reference, membership should be referred to current LDS scholarship - specifically, the Institute, where I have shown the term "seer stone" produces 167 results. Likewise, the Harold B. Lee Library has hundreds (perhaps thousands) of 19th century publications about the Book of Mormon. These are just two of the resources available.

[Guest]

Radex,

if I promised you I could find buried treasure in the lands surrounding your house by placing my head into a hat and seeing the location of the treasure revealed to me on an light emitting rock, would you pay me money to locate the treasure for you?

Would I be more or less credible if I offered to do the same thing using an ouija board?
How about a crystal ball?

Would it help if someone you knew witnessed to you that I could do so, because they saw me use the rock, crystal ball, or ouija board to locate a pin?

Isn't a crystal ball essentially the same thing as a seer stone?

[_Radex]

Radex,

if I promised you I could find buried treasure in the lands surrounding your house by placing my head into a hat and seeing the location of the treasure revealed to me on an light emitting rock, would you pay me money to locate the treasure for you?

That depends on the time and place. In the early nineteenth century, I would be moderately interested. In modern days, it would be like you selling small electrics, door to door, and promising me lifetime warranties or something.

Would I be more or less credible if I offered to do the same thing using an ouija board?
How about a crystal ball?

Would it help if someone you knew witnessed to you that I could do so, because they saw me use the rock, crystal ball, or ouija board to locate a pin?

Ins't a crystal ball essentially the same thing as a seer stone?

I don't think that's a slippery slope I want to ride on.

.ooO(Crystal ball - seer stone - stone - bottom of the river - water - posideon)

[_SteelHead]

Why are you willing to believe this ability in Joseph Smith but you will not give me the same opportunity to remove from you your money while never producing a treasure, while I receive direction from an inanimate yet supernatural revelatory object?

Would it help if I was being guided by a magic 8 ball? Would that make it more palatable?

A scrying pool?

What unproductive method of treasure location is sufficient for you to give me your money as I chase it?.... But never quite find it.

[Guest]

I would not be claiming to receive revelation for the Church so I would not be violating the order of the priesthood (contradicting the economy of heaven) by claiming to receive revelation for those of higher authority than myself.

I would merely be providing you a service with the supernatural revelatory inanimate object of your choosing.

Come now I have proffered several, surely there is one that suits the task.

--EDIT--

Failing to get an affirmative from Radex, I now extend this offer to anyone who believes that Joseph translated the Book of Mormon through revelation scried through a seer stone.

I feel equal to Joseph in this endeavor.

For some nominal fee + travel costs, room, board, etc etc I will travel to your, or the house of some widow in Salem, or other property that does not belong to you, and use the inanimate revelatory object of your choosing to not find treasure.

And no, taking an unknown (to the property holder) treasure from off of their property does not constitute larceny (or stealing depending upon jurisdiction). You have my word on this.... **wink, wink, nudge, nudge**

[_Equality]

Radex, please tell us given how much you have protested in this thread that you've proven the Studious Joe version that the Church clings to that you have some eye-witness testimony that backs up this account. Please tell us that you have more than just clicking the heels of your ruby slippers together three times, repeating after each time "It must have been the Studious Joe method".

The only things I have maintained in this thread are:

• There is a wealth of information out there, from various sources, which describe other methods than the seer stone.
• The seer stone was a method, it was even the most used method, and it shouldn't bother anyone. It certainly doesn't bother me.
• Images commissioned by the church correspond to the official documentation located in Joseph Smith History (part of the "quad"). For outside reference, membership should be referred to current LDS scholarship - specifically, the Institute, where I have shown the term "seer stone" produces 167 results. Likewise, the Harold B. Lee Library has hundreds (perhaps thousands) of 19th century publications about the Book of Mormon. These are just two of the resources available.

So you don't have any eyewitness testimony that supports the church's inaccurate Studious Joe depictions of the Book of Mormon "translation." Why is it so hard for you just to admit it? Why all the spinning, evading, dodging, misdirection? The term seerstone gets 167 results on some search of something. What's that supposed to prove? And the HBL has lots of publications about the Book of Mormon. Yes, there is a wealth of information out there and none of it supports the Studious Joe depictions. None of it describes methods other than the seer stone (just to be clear, again: a source that says the Book of Mormon was translated by "the gift and power of God" without any more detail is not a source describing another method of translation.) Instead of just repeating your assertions, and citing irrelevant facts about the number of hits on an Internet search or the number of volumes in a library, why don't you try backing up the assertions you make with some, you know, actual evidence? Because you can't, that's why, or you already would have.

The apologist's argument schematic:

[_Equality]

Images commissioned by the church correspond to the official documentation located in Joseph Smith History (part of the "quad").

Show us where in the JS-H the text describes the scene depicted in the image below (i.e., where does it mention that the plates were on the table in full view of both Joseph Smith and his scribe as the Book of Mormon was being "translated":