Crockett Challenges Scratch to a Debate

[_harmony]

We...

We? You're sitting 2nd chair for Bob?

[_Coggins7]

As much as I'd like to try my hand, this was Bob's idea, and I think he probably has some detailed knowledge here that I don't, so I'd like to see someone step up to bat with him on the issues he's mentioned.

And many of us, I assume, will be following the debate (assuming it ever gets going, which I doubt...)

[_Dr. Shades]

. . . 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?

[_Coggins7]

. . . 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?

Isn't this a bit like asking Michaelangelo why he painted The Creation of Man on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel showing the fingers of God and Adam touching?

1. Was Michaelangelo's purpose a historically literal rendering of what actually happened (assuming the historical reality of Adam's personal relationship with God in the Garden, as taught by the Church), or was art there intended to capture, not literal occurrences, but the nature of the relationship itself as understood in the scriptures?

2. Could not Joseph Smith, during the translation process, have sat or stood and gazed at the plates without his hat? If so, why not represent that, as opposed to a scene with his face in a hat? A piece of artwork can be a snapshot rendition of historical occurrences, or, like the famous picture of Jesus knocking at a door, a symbolic personification of a principle or leitmotif.

3. Admittedly, a picture of Joseph with his face in his hat is not particularly inspiring. Neither, however, would be a picture of Jesus Christ blowing his nose. How much artwork of a religious nature have you seen depicting that, or of Paul in his face to face confrontation with Peter? We have always seen John the Baptist portrayed as a wild looking, disheveled ascetic with unruly, filthy hair and wearing animal skins.
While this doesn't make John look like a particularly grand character, has it ever, for Christians, diminished his significance or spiritual stature?

Some questions for consideration...

[_Coggins7]

Further, I really do not see how choosing one scene of an innumerable number of other possibilities in a piece of artwork counts as "suppression of history" The use of the hat is well represented in official church sources and texts.


You also seem to have conveniently forgotten the following, from a personal statement by Samurl P. Richards recounting Oliver Cowdery's testimony:

He represented Joseph as sitting at a table with the plates before him, translating them by means of the Urim and Thummim, while he (Oliver) sat beside him writing every word as Joseph spoke them to him. This was done by holding the "translators" over the hieroglyphics, the translation appearing distinctly on the instrument, which had been touched by the finger of God and dedicated and consecrated for the express purpose of translating languages. Every word was distinctly visible even to every letter; and if Oliver omitted a word or failed to spell a word correctly, the translation remained on the "interpreter" until it was copied correctly.

Or Martin Harris:

By the aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin, and when finished he would say, "Written," and if correctly written that sentence would disappear and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used.

Oh David Whitmer:

I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph would put the seer stone into a hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.

It appears that there were at least two means of translation, neither of which was exclusive.

[_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?

Another is the "off-limits" policy, as described by Prof. Gee, concerning the Book of Abraham materials. (Of course, I already mentioned this and rcrocket completely ignored it, as did Coggins.)

[_Mister Scratch]

Further, I really do not see how choosing one scene of an innumerable number of other possibilities in a piece of artwork counts as "suppression of history"

It counts because Church materials are rigorously controlled by Church leaders. (That's what correlation is for: it's to make absolutely certain that no "unsavory" material---or "meat"---gets leaked to the membership.) Thus, any material that makes it into Church circulation---or any material that *doesn't* make it in, for that matter---can be said to "count," since all of this has been decided by officially-appointed committee.

The use of the hat is well represented in official church sources and texts.

It's an awfully big stretch to claim that those quotes support the claim that "the hat is well represented." Where, aside from the Ensign piece, is there any mention of it in official, correlated Church material? (And I am referring to the stuff where the typical, lazy Church member would be likely to see it. Some hobbyist who reads extensively about Church history doesn't count.)

It appears that there were at least two means of translation, neither of which was exclusive.

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.

[_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?

Another is the "off-limits" policy, as described by Prof. Gee, concerning the Book of Abraham materials. (Of course, I already mentioned this and rcrocket completely ignored it, as did Coggins.)

So, this is the topic you have selected. Could I have a reference to a specific statement of Dr. Gee describing the Church's policy on this point? I have never heard that the Church has imposed an "off limits" edict on anything except disciplinary or temple content matters.

Or, is this just Dr. Gee's personal policy?

[_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?

Another is the "off-limits" policy, as described by Prof. Gee, concerning the Book of Abraham materials. (Of course, I already mentioned this and rcrocket completely ignored it, as did Coggins.)

So, this is the topic you have selected. Could I have a reference to a specific statement of Dr. Gee describing the Church's policy on this point?

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.

[_Coggins7]

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.

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?

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?