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

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_bcspace
_Emeritus
Posts: 18534
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:48 pm

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

Post by _bcspace »

The Correlation Committee continues to whitewash out the fact that JSJr's face being planted in the crown of his hat was a mechanism for translation.


I think as long as antiMormons continue to make hay out of it, especially without explaining my wife's stated reason as to why Joseph Smith put his head in the hat, this is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. The account, if true, says nothing whatsoever about the truthfulness of the the Church's Book of Mormon claims so why place a stumbling-block unless one is an antiMormon?
Machina Sublime
Satan's Plan Deconstructed.
Your Best Resource On Joseph Smith's Polygamy.
Conservatism is the Gospel of Christ and the Plan of Salvation in Action.
The Degeneracy Of Progressivism.
_sock puppet
_Emeritus
Posts: 17063
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:52 pm

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

Post by _sock puppet »

bcspace wrote:
The Correlation Committee continues to whitewash out the fact that JSJr's face being planted in the crown of his hat was a mechanism for translation.


I think as long as antiMormons continue to make hay out of it, especially without explaining Dear Wife's stated reason as to why Joseph Smith put his head in the hat, this is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. The account, if true, says nothing whatsoever about the truthfulness of the the Church's Book of Mormon claims so why place a stumbling-block unless one is an antiMormon?

You think it is perfectly reasonable for god, the author of all truth, to have his church continue to lie?
_sock puppet
_Emeritus
Posts: 17063
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:52 pm

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

Post by _sock puppet »

bcspace wrote:
The Correlation Committee continues to whitewash out the fact that JSJr's face being planted in the crown of his hat was a mechanism for translation.


I think as long as antiMormons continue to make hay out of it, especially without explaining Dear Wife's stated reason as to why Joseph Smith put his head in the hat, this is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. The account, if true, says nothing whatsoever about the truthfulness of the the Church's Book of Mormon claims so why place a stumbling-block unless one is an antiMormon?

And the illustrations in the correlation committee manuals and Church propaganda does say something about the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon? A lie to support the truth?

You do realize how illogical and unreasonable that sounds, right bcspace?
_Themis
_Emeritus
Posts: 13426
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm

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

Post by _Themis »

why me wrote:
Stick your head inside a hat and write a book as the process was decribed by the people who witnessed it. And then get back to us.

The head in the hat trick is quite faith promoting.


LOL If that were true then the church would have been telling it's members about it, and many members who do find out about it would not have a problem with it. The fact that you could post here for all these years and not learn things like this doesn't say much about your ability to be open minded.

Now why should I write a book? Almost everyone knows one can speak to others while having their face in a hat. Most of us have done so on a number of occasions that had nothing to do with religion. And if people described what they witnessed then what is your problem?
42
_Fence Sitter
_Emeritus
Posts: 8862
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 3:49 pm

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

Post by _Fence Sitter »

why me wrote:
The drawing that the critics use to show the head in the hat process are misleading. That is my point. They are misleading people when they show Joseph Smith's head inside the hat.


The drawing the "critics" use would not change if his face were close to the hat or buried in it. You are trying to make a meaningless distinction and at the same time are showing why some of the faithful do find it troublesome.
"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."
_Equality
_Emeritus
Posts: 3362
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 3:44 pm

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

Post by _Equality »

Just when I thought why me couldn't post anything dumber, he tops himself.

Let me get this straight: the critics' drawings that show Joseph Smith with his head buried in his hat are not accurate (which, I guess, makes liars out of, at least, Emma Smith and David Whitmer) because his face was really just above the brim of the hat. Umm, ok. And the Church's depictions that show Smith sitting next to Cowdery with the plates right in front of them both (which is not supported by any first-hand account) is somehow more accurate?

And, according to why me, the face-in-hat story is "faith-promoting." But then he says this "faith-promoting" depiction is "misleading." Why would why me complain about the depiction of the face-in-hat method of translation if it is faith promoting? And if it's faith promoting, why does the church insist on continuing to use depictions in its official publications that are different from the one that why me claims is faith promoting? And why does bcspace chime in and say that the "face-in-hat" depictions are "anti-Mormon"? Why would "anti-Mormons" want to advance depictions that are faith promoting?
"The Church is authoritarian, tribal, provincial, and founded on a loosely biblical racist frontier sex cult."--Juggler Vain
"The LDS church is the Amway of religions. Even with all the soap they sell, they still manage to come away smelling dirty."--Some Schmo
_bcspace
_Emeritus
Posts: 18534
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:48 pm

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

Post by _bcspace »

So when have the Church's critics fully quoted the account in their rants and made note of why my wife thought Joseph Smith put his head in the hat? Could it be that they are just as guilty of what they accuse the Church of?
Machina Sublime
Satan's Plan Deconstructed.
Your Best Resource On Joseph Smith's Polygamy.
Conservatism is the Gospel of Christ and the Plan of Salvation in Action.
The Degeneracy Of Progressivism.
_Fence Sitter
_Emeritus
Posts: 8862
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 3:49 pm

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

Post by _Fence Sitter »

bcspace wrote:So when have the Church's critics fully quoted the account in their rants and made note of why Dear Wife thought Joseph Smith put his head in the hat? Could it be that they are just as guilty of what they accuse the Church of?


You are correct BC, the critics and the Church are guilty of misinformation, intentional omissions and partial truths.
"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."
_Equality
_Emeritus
Posts: 3362
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 3:44 pm

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

Post by _Equality »

bcspace wrote:So when have the Church's critics fully quoted the account in their rants and made note of why Dear Wife thought Joseph Smith put his head in the hat? Could it be that they are just as guilty of what they accuse the Church of?


I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Are you saying that critics do not acknowledge that Emma claims she believed in Joseph Smith's ability to translate by the gift and power of God? If so, you are barking up the wrong tree. This critic will readily acknowledge it. I'll even copy one of her accounts here:

Emma Hale Smith Bidamon was born on July 10, 1804, to Isaac and Elizabeth Hale. She grew up in Harmony, Pennsylvania, along the banks of the Susquehanna River on a 13 acre farm. She attended school, and was well educated for a girl of that day. She met Joseph while he and his father were boarding at her father's house in 1827. It must have been love at first sight because they eloped and were married on January 18th of that same year.

Joseph shared his stories about the First Vision, the Angel Moroni and the gold plates with her. She trusted and believed him. She was with him the night he was finally allowed to take the plates. She saw him walking down the hill with a large bundle in his arms wrapped in cloth, making her the first person, other than Joseph, to see evidence of the reality of the plates, without actually seeing them.

Emma's father had not approved of their marriage, refusing give his blessing to their union. Tensions must have eased between Mr. Hale and Joseph because when Joseph and Emma's tormenting in New York got to be too much, they were allowed to move back into Emma's childhood home in Pennsylvania. There, Emma and Oliver Cowdery helped Joseph with the translation of the Book of Mormon. They remained there until it became necessary to relocate again. By invitation of the Whitmer Family, they moved themselves and the plates to Fayette, New York. It was also there, along the banks of the Susquehanna River, that the Priesthood was restored.

Emma stood by Joseph through the organization of the church; through his bogus arrests; through the loss of multiple children; through moving from state to state; through mobs, violence, and forced expulsions; right up until the end when Joseph was murdered in Carthage. Like I said, it must have been love at first sight because the two of them went through hell and back and still adored each other. The poor woman was pregnant at the time of Joseph was martyred in Carthage, Illinois in June 1844.

Emma remained in Nauvoo, Ill. with her children and Joseph's Mother after Joseph's death, instead of moving with the rest of the church to the Salt Lake Valley. She had major disagreements with Brigham Young over church policy, finances, and certain practices, namely polygamy. On December 23, 1847, almost 3 and a half years after the death of Joseph, she remarried to a nonMormon named Major Lewis C. Bidamon. Major Bidamon had been Abraham Lincoln's commanding officer in the Black Hawk Indian War.

In her later years the only contact she had with the church were old friends who would stop by when they traveled through Illinois, or when her sons were campaigning against polygamy. On April 30, 1879, a few months before her death, her son Joseph Smith III, (then the head of a new Reorganized church, now called Community of Christ), interviewed her about the events of the restoration one last time. He thought it important to have her testimony on record. The following are excerpts from the transcript of that interview. Keep in mind, she was 76 years old and it had been 50 years since she had helped pen the translation of the Book of Mormon. Her final account gives some details about how the plates were translated, and why it wasn't possible for Joseph to have made up the book. I also find her account amazing because she describes the plates the same way the Eight Witnesses did so many years after the fact. This would be highly unlikely if they had all been making the story up, nearly impossible since she hadn't had contact with any of the witnesses in some time.

Question. What of the truth of Mormonism?

Answer. I know Mormonism to be the truth; and believe the Church to have been established by divine direction. I have complete faith in it. In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us.

Question. Had he not a book or manuscript from which he read, or dictated to you?

Answer. He had neither manuscript nor book to read from.

Question. Could he not have had, and you not know it?

Answer. If he had had anything of the kind he could not have concealed it from me.

Question. Are you sure that he had the plates at the time you were writing for him?

Answer. The plates often lay on the table without any attempt at concealment, wrapped in a small linen tablecloth, which I had given him to fold them in. I once felt of the plates, as they thus lay on the table, tracing their outline and shape. They seemed to be pliable like thick paper, and would rustle with a metallic sound when the edges were moved by the thumb, as one does sometimes thumb the edges of a book.

Question. Where did father and Oliver Cowdery write?

Answer. Oliver Cowdery and your father wrote in the room where I was at work.

Question. Could not father have dictated the Book of Mormon to you, Oliver Cowdery and the others who wrote for him, after having first written it, or having first read it out of some book?

Answer. Joseph Smith [and for the first time she used his name direct, having usually used the words, "your father" or "my husband"] could neither write nor dictate a coherent and well-worded letter, let alone dictate a book like the Book of Mormon. And, though I was an active participant in the scenes that transpired, and was present during the translation of the plates, and had cognizance of things as they transpired, it is marvelous to me, "a marvel and a wonder," as much so as to anyone else.

Question. I should suppose that you would have uncovered the plates and examined them?

Answer. I did not attempt to handle the plates, other than I have told you, nor uncover them to look at them. I was satisfied that it was the work of God, and therefore did not feel it to be necessary to do so;

Major Bidamon here suggested: Did Mr. Smith forbid your examining the plates?

Answer. I do not think he did. I knew that he had them, and was not specially curious about them. I moved them from place to place on the table, as it was necessary in doing my work.

Question. Mother, what is your belief about the authenticity, or origin, of the Book of Mormon?

Answer. My belief is that the Book of Mormon is of divine authenticity - I have not the slightest doubt of it. I am satisfied that no man could have dictated the writing of the manuscripts unless he was inspired; for, when acting as his scribe, your father would dictate to me hour after hour; and when returning after meals, or after interruptions, he could at once begin where he had left off, without either seeing the manuscript or having any portion of it read to him. This was a usual thing for him to do. It would have been improbable that a learned man could do this; and, for one so ignorant and unlearned as he was, it was simply impossible.


Reference: http://www.moroni10.com/witnesses/Emma_Smith.html (Not exactly an anti'Mormon site).

Again, your point? The fact is that critics are willing to let the facts--all the facts--out, and let people form judgments and reach conclusions after rigorous analysis of the same. It's the church and church apologists who rarely want all the facts out there. Critics are not afraid of facts and free discussion of the same.
"The Church is authoritarian, tribal, provincial, and founded on a loosely biblical racist frontier sex cult."--Juggler Vain
"The LDS church is the Amway of religions. Even with all the soap they sell, they still manage to come away smelling dirty."--Some Schmo
_why me
_Emeritus
Posts: 9589
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 8:19 pm

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

Post by _why me »

Fence Sitter wrote:
The drawing the "critics" use would not change if his face were close to the hat or buried in it. You are trying to make a meaningless distinction and at the same time are showing why some of the faithful do find it troublesome.


Here is the problem: when I stick my head in a hat and attempt to breathe and speak I find it very nearly impossible to do both. Plus, my voice would be muffled inside the hat. My scribe would not be able to hear me clearly and I would have to get my head out of the hat, remember what I saw in the hat and hope that I got it right when I repeated it.

This is the kind of picture the critics draw of Joseph Smith when they show his head in a hat. It could not be this way. His head would need to be near the hat so he could breathe and speak without too much trouble. But not in the hat.

The faithful never found it troublesome. The church magazines had articles about the possiblity of the hat in the past. One can be read from the ensign in 1977. So, I knew about the hat for a long time. No one had a problem when they read it back then.
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
Post Reply