Crockett Challenges Scratch to a Debate

[_rcrocket]

. . . identify one single example of the Church's suppression of its history? Just one?

Okay, here's a try: When the church commissions artwork that depicts the translation of the plates, doesn't it actively suppress the true method of translation by only publishing works that show Joseph with his face over the plates, sans hat, looking at and concentrating on them directly?

This wasn't' Scratch's selection.

Remember, Joseph Smith never himself described the translation process except to say that he was provided the Urim & Thummim, and he gave a pretty decent description of them and their purpose He was told specifically not to talk about the translation process. HC 1:220. William Smith believed Joseph translated them by looking at the plates directly with the Urim & Thummim; William's testimony came at a time when he was hostile to the Church. David Whitmer said that Joseph used a seer stone in a hat. (Address to all Believers, etc.) Harris said Joseph used a seer stone. But none of these three actually saw the translation in process, although Whitmer may have seen part of the process.

David Whitmer's "face in the hat" story is of suspect quality. It first surfaced in 1875. He didn't mention this before that time. Thus, his story depends upon what he was told, not what he had seen.

Cowdrey, who did claim to see the translation process, gave a famous quote: “I wrote with my own pen the entire Book of Mormon (save a few pages) as it fell from the lips of the Prophet as he translated it by the gift and power of God by means of the Urim and Thummim, or as it is called by that book, holy interpreters. I beheld with my eyes and handled with my hands the gold plates from which it was translated. I also beheld the Interpreters. That book is true. … I wrote it myself as it fell from the lips of the Prophet.”

We do know, however, these details. These details are consistent. (1) The plates existed and were seen. (2) The Urim & Thummin existed and was seen. (3) There was a seer stone.

Details which are not very well corroborated, but are possibilities from the evidence: (1) Joseph translated from a face in the hat. [Query whether anybody could be heard in a 500-page book with a face in the hat the entire time; seems that if that occurred, we'd hear a lot from Emma, Oliver and Harris. We haven't.] (2) whether Joseph needed a stone or Urim & Thummim at all, or whether he could translate by looking at the plates. (3) Whether Joseph didn't need the plates at all.

Given the details which are fairly consistent, with those details that are not corroborated, the artwork that we see from the Church is a reasonable interpretation of what likely occurred.

We have lots of artwork about the face of Jesus and events during Jesus' ministry, even though no known depiction of Jesus could possibly exist Religious artwork has its spiritual purpose.

[_rcrocket]

Cf. the thread dealing with Gee's latest FARMS piece.

I have never heard that the Church has imposed an "off limits" edict on anything except disciplinary or temple content matters.

Two more instances of Church suppression of history.

Could I please have a specific, rather than a vague, reference to evidence that the Church has an off-limit policy with respect to the history of the Book of Abraham. I do not negotiate these boards all that well; just point me to original evidence that you have that I can verify. Or original evidence that can be checked even if you don't have it.

I'm sure that you would agree that in a debate, evidence and legitimate inferences from them are important. Hand-waves and vagaries aren't all that compelling, right? Don't be afraid to be pinned down with evidence; I will be as fair as possible.

So, you really consider "suppression" is the right descriptor for refusing to release disciplinary matters or temple content matters?

[_Scottie]

Is this at all misleading?

[_Mister Scratch]

Cf. the thread dealing with Gee's latest FARMS piece.

I have never heard that the Church has imposed an "off limits" edict on anything except disciplinary or temple content matters.

Two more instances of Church suppression of history.

Could I please have a specific, rather than a vague, reference to evidence that the Church has an off-limit policy with respect to the history of the Book of Abraham.

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=670

Scroll down to the article's end to see the parts I'm talking about.

[_Mister Scratch]

. . . identify one single example of the Church's suppression of its history? Just one?

Okay, here's a try: When the church commissions artwork that depicts the translation of the plates, doesn't it actively suppress the true method of translation by only publishing works that show Joseph with his face over the plates, sans hat, looking at and concentrating on them directly?

This wasn't' Scratch's selection.

You're right. I actually selected the history of Church finances in the 2nd half of the 20th Century. You've completely ignored that. I wonder why, counselor?

[_Mister Scratch]

That's fine. But the odd thing is that only the one mode of translation seems to have ever made it into official Church materials. The rock in the hat is conspicuously absent.

Down at my local (Columbia) LDS bookstore, there's plenty of "meat" available, with all of these issues aired and analyzed one way or another. There's no dearth of materials on these issues available to Latter Day Saints who wish to access and gain some expertise on them.

The claim of Church "suppression" is just plain hokum, as any LDS who can see the shelves of LDS authored material at any LDS bookseller can attest. I've known about the hat since youth, and it didn't come from anti-Mormon sources but from faithful LDS authors writing about Church history.

This is missing the point. Sure, plenty of LDS *could* "go out" and get this stuff. The problem is that the debate here has virtually nothing to do with the agency of individual LDS. Rather, the question is whether or not the Church itself suppresses history. Thus, we'd need to see the "meat" in correlated, "official" LDS materials which get circulated to each and every member.

Anyways, you can see clear evidence of "suppression" on the Church's own Deseret Book website. Go ahead and try typing in the titles of controversial works on LDS history. See how many you find.

But what, one must wonder, is the point of this fixation on the face in the hat? If the Book of Mormon is the word of God, why does it matter the manner in which that translation came?

It is because the face in the hat seems less "magical." It seems more like some kind of humdrum, run-of-the-mill legerdemain / deception.

Is it the case that you would all like a more Cecil B. Demilleesque rendition of the translation process?

Or do you just wish to poke fun at it? Could the folks at Lucasfilm done Joseph one better?

That fact that so many TBMs (including, presumably, the Brethren) fear that people would "poke fun" at the face in the hat basically explains why they've tried to bury this embarrassing bit of history.

[_Coggins7]

David Whitmer's "face in the hat" story is of suspect quality. It first surfaced in 1875. He didn't mention this before that time. Thus, his story depends upon what he was told, not what he had seen.

An interesting variable here. I'll have to keep that in mind as this preoccupation keeps recurring.

[_Coggins7]

That fact that so many TBMs (including, presumably, the Brethren) fear that people would "poke fun" at the face in the hat basically explains why they've tried to bury this embarrassing bit of history.

Yes, every bit as embarrassing as a bunch of filthy, illiterate, uneducated fisherman going about claiming to understand the mysteries of the universe.

Interesting where hostility to the truth inevitably leads one.

[_Coggins7]

And, for the anti-Mormon tin foil hat crowd here, of which Scratch is the Grand Poobah, google "fJoseph Smith face in hat" and you'll get 1,690,000 hits.

If this is suppression, I'd like to see full disclosure.

But, again, this is all readily available in pro-Church sources that have been available forever and a day.

Scratch dives head first into the poop yet again...

And...loving it...

[_harmony]

And, for the anti-Mormon tin foil hat crowd here, of which Scratch is the Grand Poobah, google "fJoseph Smith face in hat" and you'll get 1,690,000 hits.

If this is suppression, I'd like to see full disclosure.

But, again, this is all readily available in pro-Church sources that have been available forever and a day.

Scratch dives head first into the poop yet again...

And...loving it...

Is it in the Joseph Smith manual? What page?