More on the head in the hat thing:

[_brade]

Not fun.

I use to hate em' but in a weird kind of way I've grown to sort of enjoy those sleep paralysis/hypnogogic hallucination experiences. The episode last night woke me up but wasn't really the reason I couldn't get back to sleep. I just had a lot on my mind.

[_why me]

"As Joseph read out loud from the plates, Oliver wrote down the words."

Demonstrable fib.

And this is where the artist takes his cue for drawing the translation process:

Later Brother Richards told of his extended visit with Oliver Cowdery, who freely talked of the spectacular events in the founding of the Church. When Brother Richards was eighty-two, he dictated a statement reporting Oliver Cowdery’s recollections of Book of Mormon translation:

“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.” 10

http://LDS.org/ensig...slation+process

Not according to this account.

[Guest]

"As Joseph read out loud from the plates, Oliver wrote down the words."

Demonstrable fib.

And this is where the artist takes his cue for drawing the translation process:

Later Brother Richards told of his extended visit with Oliver Cowdery, who freely talked of the spectacular events in the founding of the Church. When Brother Richards was eighty-two, he dictated a statement reporting Oliver Cowdery’s recollections of Book of Mormon translation:

“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.” 10

http://LDS.org/ensig...slation+process

Not according to this account.

Why Me,
this

Show me a church picture that displays this.

[_sock puppet]

"As Joseph read out loud from the plates, Oliver wrote down the words."

Demonstrable fib.

And this is where the artist takes his cue for drawing the translation process:

Later Brother Richards told of his extended visit with Oliver Cowdery, who freely talked of the spectacular events in the founding of the Church. When Brother Richards was eighty-two, he dictated a statement reporting Oliver Cowdery’s recollections of Book of Mormon translation:

“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.” 10

http://LDS.org/ensig...slation+process

Not according to this account.

So the Church prefers the second hand account related decades after the fact to those closer in time, by the scribes themselves? Forensically, sound, very sound--not.

[_brade]

So the Church prefers the second hand account related decades after the fact to those closer in time, by the scribes themselves? Forensically, sound, very sound--not.

Also, that account raises even more issues:

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.

[_sock puppet]

So the Church prefers the second hand account related decades after the fact to those closer in time, by the scribes themselves? Forensically, sound, very sound--not.

Also, that account raises even more issues:

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.

Good forensic point, brade. The more vague, oblique account by Brother Richards is preferred by the LDS Church to the more specific, detailed account by Oliver Cowdery.

So, according to why me, the LDS Church prefers Brother Richards' account over Oliver Cowdery's, even though,

1-Oliver Cowdery was an eye witness, being one of the scribes; Brother Richards was not.

2-Oliver Cowdery's accounts were decades closer in time to the actual events than Brother Richards' account.

3-Oliver Cowdery's account detailed the mechanics of the Book of Mormon translation, where Brother Richards' account was more vague.

Why does the term 'revisionist history' pop into my head about what the LDS Church is doing here?

[_why me]

So the Church prefers the second hand account related decades after the fact to those closer in time, by the scribes themselves? Forensically, sound, very sound--not.

An artist took this account and painted a picture. However, since you guys were claiming the LDS church misrepresented the translation process, I had to prove that the artist most likely used this account of the translation process. It wasn't misleading.

[_why me]

Good forensic point, brade. The more vague, oblique account by Brother Richards is preferred by the LDS Church to the more specific, detailed account by Oliver Cowdery.

Since various accounts of the translation process have been in the Ensign, I can not say which the LDS church prefers. However, the artist gave his or her interpretation of the translation process and he most likely drew his or her inspiration from the Richards account. Now since we do not know that Richards lied or did not exactly remember the LDS church can also use his interpretation. As can an artist.

[Guest]

So the Church prefers the second hand account related decades after the fact to those closer in time, by the scribes themselves? Forensically, sound, very sound--not.

An artist took this account and painted a picture. However, since you guys were claiming the LDS church misrepresented the translation process, I had to prove that the artist most likely used this account of the translation process. It wasn't misleading.

Sorry, I'm confused, where is the picture of Joseph using an object of divination during the Book of Mormon translation? Even the account you're suggesting is the inspiration behind the depiction doesn't depict what's described in the account you've brought up.



I imagine if we show that picture to somebody unfamiliar with Mormonism they will not look at it and say something like "Oh, hey, that's a picture of somebody with a gold book reading it with an ancient mystical instrument/magic rock."

That picture does not depict this:

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.

[_Chap]

Sorry, I'm confused, where is the picture of Joseph using an object of divination during the Book of Mormon translation?

Joseph Smith was holding it in his right hand, so at the moment the camera went off it was out of sight on the other side of his head.

But it was there all right.