LDS.org posts Book of Mormon translation that opposes Peterson's PBS one

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I take it you haven't deeply examined many aspects of art criticism.

And how should I know what the artist "knew" when they painted that picture? I don't even know who painted these Joseph Smith translating pictures. It could be argued that the only solid flaw in them is that the plates are in eye-shot of the scribe. Sure, Joseph Smith didn't always (maybe not even often) use the plates in this way, of course. You have a lot of questions, so I'll as ksome of you.

Do we know that Joseph Smith never looked at the plates as depicted in these common images, (other than the scribe's presence)?

Do we know every word of the Book of Mormon was translated by the seer stone in the hat method?

Do you rely on paintings of, say, George Washington crossing the Delaware in order to grasp a solid understanding of the historical reality?

[_Wheat]

I wonder if an artist were to paint a nice enough picture of "head in the hat" if the Church would feel comfortable using it in place of the more inaccurate art....

What do you think?

I'm all for it.

I don't think it would affect the average believer in the Book of Mormon one iota. Their __and my__ conviction in its historicity and truthfulness is not based at all in a *testimony* of how it was brought forth. ONly in what it is.

[_Henry Jacobs]

Whew! What was all that for? I was wondering if we agreed on a basic definition of deceit.

Maybe this is the wrong thread, since art was part of the OP.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Whew! What was all that for? I was wondering if we agreed on a basic definition of deceit.

Maybe this is the wrong thread, since art was part of the OP.

Shoe-horning art into a discussion about deceit is something that requires a lot more time than I am willing to currently devote. I will say, as I have said before, I think a picture of Joseph Smith translating from a hat would be awesome to see in the Ensign, or conference, or a lesson manual. As the issue seems to have taken on more prominence in the last decade or so (actually longer) I think the future holds the possibility. At the Bushman seminar I told the group that I may consider art school if for nothing else than to paint the best "stone in hat" picture I could and see if it could get published!

Richard Lloyd Anderson discussed the "stone in the hat" in 1977, Russell M. Nelson quoted David Whitmer's account in an address to new mission presidents in 1992. This was later printed in the Ensign. Other sources include the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies (1993), and the FARMS Review (1994). Dan Peterson, as is widely known here, described it in Whitney's PBS documentary.

And interestingly, 2 authors whom I view as conceptually fitting more in the "chapel Mormon" category as commonly applied on this message board have published about the stone in the hat. See Joseph Fielding McConkie and Craig J. Ostler's Revelations of the Restoration as published 8 years ago by none other than Deseret Book.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I've also been told that Jack R. Christianson's Setting the Record Straight: The Book of Mormon also discusses the translation with stone in hat. It can also be purchased at Deseret Book.

http://deseretbook.com/store/product/4996326

[_SatanWasSetUp]

Is there a reason why the "official version" of the translation (using a urim and thummim, which are essentially magical glasses) is more believable than a seer stone in the hat. Both require a belief in the supernatural, and one isn't any less believable than the other.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I'd say.

[_bcspace]

Where is the conflict?

Have you read this post in the thread by harmony?

The website says: "Scribes helped Joseph by writing the words as he translated them from the gold plates."

You said (in the Ensign): "Peterson said the Book of Mormon was revealed to Smith through a seer stone. Smith never went through the golden pages of the ancient record, but instead put the seer stone in a hat, then buried his head in the hat to shut out ambient light.

- "Joseph Smith translated by revelation, professor says", Deseret News, Apr. 11, 2008"

Someone's not accurate.

Conflict is one source says translated from the gold plates.
The other says never went through the golden plates.

Except for one thing. In the Deseret News article, Peterson is quoted as saying afterwards.......

The stone lit up a line of text, about 30 words at a time, which Smith then dictated to his scribe. Once the text was transcribed correctly, the line disappeared and a new line came into focus, Peterson said, quoting eye witnesses who were 19th Century farmers associated with Smith.

So the text was used in both. No conflict. At least not as stated.

[_harmony]

So the text was used in both. No conflict. At least not as stated.

What text? There was no text in the hat. The text was the plates, and they weren't in the hat either.

[_Daniel Peterson]

What text? There was no text in the hat. The text was the plates, and they weren't in the hat either.

There was most likely text in the hat, just as, if you click on the link below, there will be text on this screen:

http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/arabicscript/1/1.htm