DiscussMormonism.com

The Ivy League historian comes closer than most to admitting the truth about one of church history's most bizarre facts. He steps to the ledge of full disclosure, then seems to wet his pants and back away, in this case spinning a very cleverly worded sentence.

According to witnesses and scribes, some part of the Book of Mormon creation process involved Joseph holding a hat over his face while dictating the words. Hearing this for the first time is a shock for members who grow up with a steady diet of Del Parson paintings showing Joseph Smith pouring over gold plates by candlelight.

OK, so how does a cunning linguist describe this scene, live up to his professional historical credentials and still maintain a temple recommend? He crafts the following sentence which says one thing to those in the know, and another thing to the tender testimonied members who trust Rough Stone Rolling because Bushman is an active member.

Quote, page 71: "The plates lay covered on the table, while Joseph's head was in a hat, looking at the seerstone which by this time had replaced the interpreters"

Head was in a hat, you say? So the unsuspecting member goes on with a mental picture of Joseph simply wearing a hat while he translated. No big shock, Brother Bushman's temple recommend intact.

But this is a pattern he follows on a lot of subjects. He lays out part of the problematic information, then sweeps it aside and say's everything is OK, for one reason or another.

Old Joe was god's second favorite son, therefore he had much more latitude while wearing his tabernacle of clay.

I have heard the following from several old men in my ward, "It does not matter WHAT he did.. he was the prophet of the restoration.. that's all that matters"

Bushman seems to take a similar view.

It's a very useful skill to mince words.

One of my most beloved "HUH?" quotes over the years has been:

DCP wrote:The evidence is trending nicely in favor of the Book of Mormon.

Yeah. "Nicely" is exactly the word I would use about the "evidence".

There is no reason to think that Bushman is sidestepping the issue here, especially given the much tougher issues he deals with head-on.

Also, Russell M. Nelson mentioned the translation via head-in-hat in an old Ensign issue. I can certainly share your hope that the church will be more straightforward about this, if only so we can get on to more substantive issues. Because honestly, head in a hat versus reading magic spectacles? It's spectacles by a nose.

CE_Digger wrote:Because honestly, head in a hat versus reading magic spectacles? It's spectacles by a nose.

You raise an intersting point. Because, growing up in the church, and through my mission, I never had a problem with some of the wierder parts of Mormonism:

- God and Jesus visting a 14 year old
- Translation of gold plates through the urim and thummim
- BY's polygamy
- Priesthood ban

So why didn't I have a problem with those things, but i have a problem with all the other wierd stuff that i had never heard of? Because I had never heard of them, and they were a surprise to me, and I feel like i was mislead.

I tend to think that if i had grown up knowing about the Book of Abraham problems, Joseph Smith's marrying of teenage girls, the head in the hat translation process, the treasure digging, etc., then I'd still be in the church.

So why isn't the church up front about these things? Teach them to the kids when they're young, and they shouldn't have a problem with them as they grow up.

I guess we're starting to see more and more of that, but it's also a double edged sword - since the church will end up losing some of the old timers along the way.

It’s this tendency to be deceptive without outright lying that is so repugnant now that I see it from the outside. Bushman follows the lead of so many Mormon commentators since the beginning who’ve thought it their right to twist things in order to make the story believable, to do their part to hold the kingdom together. Head in hat, face in hat, it’s only one little word, but why change it at all if that is really the way God did things?

It’s like renaming the seer stone, Urim and Thummim
Like Oliver’s witching stick becoming the rod of aaron
Like talking about Brigham Young’s wife

There are a million examples lipsticking this pig. They take enough liberty with the facts to avoid spooking the tithepayers, but still maintain a plausible deniability as to outright lying.

And for all Bushman’s willingness to take on other issues in RSR, I do sort of think he purposely sidestepped this one. Why else invent an original descriptive such as “head in a hat” for a scene that eyewitnesses described as “face in his hat”?

I've never heard the term "head in hat" in normal discourse.
It's usually "hat on head".

If you need a conspiracy there to fuel your dislike for Bushman and Mormonism, more power to you.

CE_Digger wrote:I've never heard the term "head in hat" in normal discourse.
It's usually "hat on head".

If you need a conspiracy there to fuel your dislike for Bushman and Mormonism, more power to you.

I don't dislike Bushman. I just found his book kind of annoying in its propensity to step just to the edge of the logical conclusion, only to step back and offer some lame explanation.

For example, in his discussion of polygamy, he tells us that Joseph approached Helen Mar Kimball's parents for their permission to wed their daughter. He omits the important fact that Joseph told the parents that their family's exaltation depended on their agreeing to the marriage. Instead, he says that Joseph's approach was almost "old-fashioned" in a quaint sort of way. I nearly through the book across the room when I read that.

I think Bushman did a lot of good in tackling some issues that most Mormons would find uncomfortable, but he never quite gets to an honest and thorough accounting of Joseph's life, in my opinion.