JSJr's Face-in-the-Hat: Troubling to the Faithful

[_why me]

Then why do so many say it is troublesome?

The church brings it up so little in comparison to showing it done in other ways that most members will miss what really happened. It's to bad you can't be a little open minded when it comes to LDS issues. You consistently come up with the craziest ideas.

If members do find it troubling they have not thought it all the way through. Also, they may have been influenced by the critic websites on the internet. But like I said, I brought it up in last weeks sunday school and one couple did not know about it. But once I explained the process, I think that they were impressed. For after all, not everyone can write a book with their head in a hat. And when we know just what the scribes and witnesses said about the process, it is all the more remarkable.

But I do agree that the LDS church should mention it in the ensign again. It is no big deal once one knows the complete process.

But I will still contend that his head was not buried in hat. It would be nearly impossible to work in that condition: first the breathing problem, then the sight problem of seeing a light close to the eyes, then the voice problem and eventually the back problem. I would tend to believe that his face was close to the hat so he could breathe, his eyes would not be troubled and his voice would be audible.

[_Drifting]

If it isn't troubling then why isn't it the default image used in the Ensign and teaching manuals? It was by far the most prevalent means of translation as witnessed by three or more people directly involved (three witnesses makes it fact, right?)

[_Fence Sitter]

Here is the problem: when I stick my head in a hat and attempt to breathe and speak I find it very nearly impossible to do both. Plus, my voice would be muffled inside the hat. My scribe would not be able to hear me clearly and I would have to get my head out of the hat, remember what I saw in the hat and hope that I got it right when I repeated it.

This is the kind of picture the critics draw of Joseph Smith when they show his head in a hat. It could not be this way. His head would need to be near the hat so he could breathe and speak without too much trouble. But not in the hat.

The faithful never found it troublesome. The church magazines had articles about the possiblity of the hat in the past. One can be read from the ensign in 1977. So, I knew about the hat for a long time. No one had a problem when they read it back then.

I have already responded to all of these points. Here is a refresher.

You have not demonstrated that:

1. One cannot breath inside a hat-they can.
2. One cannot be heard talking from inside a hat and especially at the range that the scribes sat. The can again.
3. Even if 1 & 2 were correct you have not explained why he had to leave his face inside the hat the whole time. Nothing prevents him from lifting his head out of the hat to speak or breathe. Hence your point is moot in either case. Joseph Smith would be perfectly able to remember what he read 2 seconds ago and in any case he could just look again. He was not allowed to proceed until it was correct.
4. How one excludes the light from inside the hat without covering it entirely with his face.
5. Why the distinction of face just above the hat or inside the hat makes any difference at all.

#4 is especially trouble some for you as the description of excluding light with his face clearly proves his face was IN THE HAT.

There is a lot of irony that you would mentioning the 1977 Ensign article in the same thread you are trying to deny he had his face fully in the hat. Here is a quote from that article.

“Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light

The Ensign author tries to dismiss this description by distancing David Whitmer, who he is quoting, as a secondary source but fails to mention that Whitmer's account matches several primary sources, which have already been posted in this thread by the way.


CFR that LDS members were not troubled by the 1977 Ensign article mentioned above. I would estimate that at least half the Church members I ask now about the process are surprised and skeptical of the face in the hat description. When a similar article written by James Lancaster and Lloyd Young, published in the 60's in the RLDS Saints Herald "explained that the original story regarding the translation of the Book of Mormon by
Joseph Smith involved a ―seer stone, which Smith used by looking into it in the bottom
of a hat while the plates were under cover on a nearby table" the idea was such a shock to many of the RLDS that a followup article was issued to reassert the more traditional view of the use of the Urim & Thummin.

In the end Why Me I really don't care if his face was above the hat or buried to his ears. Either way it is not being represented in the majority of the descriptions provided by the church, visually or in writing, which shows the church is still troubled by the image of a hat being used as part of the translation process.

[_Jonah]

Well, let's see. During my 40 years as a TBM in the church, I heard about the "head-in-the-hat" (or "head -nearly-in-the-hat") reading a rock translation process in -

- Nursery, Primary, Sunday School, YM, Priesthood lessons, etc. - 0 times
- Four years of early Seminary lessons - 0 times (although I did miss two days so it might have been taught then)
- Ward Conference, Stake Conference, General Conference, Devotionals, Firesides, etc. - 0 times
- Four years of religion classes at BYU - 0 times
- Any church teaching or instruction manual - 0 times
- In the MTC - 0 times (although I walked out after five weeks so it might have been taught after I left)
- Discussions with teachers, home teachers, missionaries, leaders, etc. - 0 times
- Portrayed in church related artwork, films, filmstrips, slides, etc - 0 times

Apparently it was "troubling" enough to someone as to not have it mentioned even ONCE in my 40 years as a member. I was taught the "whitewashed" version all of the time though.

Amazing.

[_consiglieri]

harmony, you touch on a very important point, one that was exacerbated in the BoAbr situation. If it was a non-papyrus/non-Egyptian character linguistic 'translation', but rather the papyrus etc. were just props elohim/jehovah used during an object-free inspiration to get the text of the BoAbr into JSJr's head and then him speak it to the scribes who wrote it down in English, why does elohim/jehovah go to all these unnecessary steps?

I agree with sock puppet that the actual method of translation used by Joseph Smith is most often "troubling" to Mormons, and that this is the case simply because it is viewed as "odd."

Additionally, what was the purpose in having those gold plates smelted, engraved, preserved, lugged around, hidden, exhumed by angelic direction, waited four years to obtain, and then having them in the same room, if they were never looked at for translation purposes?

This is a question those who have promoted the artwork depicting the Book of Mormon translation in a more standard, less supernatural process, have decided to obfuscate.

By doing so, they have ultimately shot themselves in the foot, I think.

1. Having Joseph Smith dictate a book with his face in a hat is eminently more impressive than dictating a book from behind a curtain.

2. Insisting on a more standard translation process with the Book of Mormon has led members to expect the same sort of process with the Book of Abraham, setting them up like bowling pins when they learn the papyrus from which the Book of Abraham was translated is a breathing permit.

It is possible these are the types of thorny ramifications to be had when well-meaning curators of a religious tradition normalize the miraculous.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_consiglieri]

Apparently it was "troubling" enough to someone as to not have it mentioned even ONCE in my 40 years as a member. I was taught the "whitewashed" version all of the time though.

Amazing.

Nobody in my Gospel Doctrine class a few years back had heard of it either until I decided to devote a sizeable portion of one period to dispensing greater light and knowledge.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_Themis]

If members do find it troubling they have not thought it all the way through.

That is your opinion, but my point was only that many do find it troubling. Most if not all do not stop believing on that issue alone, only that it is troubling to find out how he really did it and that the church has been deceptive with it's history. Now deceptive does not mean that they have never mentioned it, only that they have avioded it and presented a different method that is incorrect.

Also, they may have been influenced by the critic websites on the internet.

Not really. Members do not accept information they get from what they view as being critical of the church or it's claims. Members almost always need to confirm information from friendly sources or at least viewed as neutral.

But like I said, I brought it up in last weeks sunday school and one couple did not know about it. But once I explained the process, I think that they were impressed.

Never having been a TBM you don't really understand how members view you. They will ignore anything you say that they don't agree with, although they will usually not bring it up due to your oddity and status as a less active member. Each ward has a variety of these kind of members. You don't see this because you have never been a TBM.

For after all, not everyone can write a book with their head in a hat. And when we know just what the scribes and witnesses said about the process, it is all the more remarkable.

Ah now you are saying that some can write a book this way. Most don't because they are not trying to write a book and pass it off as non-fiction.

But I do agree that the LDS church should mention it in the ensign again. It is no big deal once one knows the complete process.

The church is at fault since they mention it a handful of times such that most members will not know about it, and it does conflict with what they actually teach members about it.

But I will still contend that his head was not buried in hat.

What is the point. It changes absolutely nothing, and you are being disingenuous to critics saying they are misrepresenting it when we both know this is not true.

It would be nearly impossible to work in that condition: first the breathing problem,

Why keep bringing this up when everyone knows you can breath just fine and communicate more then easily enough. I have done both. How many people take naps on hikes or the beach in which we put our hats over our face. We can both breath and even talk to others while doing it. Simply amazing isn't it. :)

then the sight problem of seeing a light close to the eyes, then the voice problem and eventually the back problem. I would tend to believe that his face was close to the hat so he could breathe, his eyes would not be troubled and his voice would be audible.

You need to remember that you are arguing against the apologists on this one. The critic position is not that Joseph translated anything. You can also keep repeating the can't breath or talk thing, but no one, and I mean no one is buying it, TBM or otherwise.

[_consiglieri]

I agree with Themis that the most troubling aspect for most Mormons is the realization that the LDS Church has been deceptive in portraying its history.

At least I know it is for me.


All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_schreech]

Nobody in my Gospel Doctrine class a few years back had heard of it either until I decided to devote a sizeable portion of one period to dispensing greater light and knowledge.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Just so you know (and this is part of my NY resolution to try to be nicer in my online interactions)...I love your posts and your attitude considering you, or someone like you, might actually be teaching my wife and kids at church. The LDS church needs way more people like you. Keep it up and happy NY!

Also, Whyme...you just need to stop. Nobody takes some inactive, hypocrite, like yourself, seriously...SO, You have a crush on Joseph Smith and his man-love Brigham...nobody cares. When you actually start attending the Mormon church, like most of the people here, you might become relevant....just an fyi and Happy NY!

[_Themis]

I agree with sock puppet that the actual method of translation used by Joseph Smith is most often "troubling" to Mormons, and that this is the case simply because it is viewed as "odd."

For many it is more then just odd. Most would view it easily as fake, fruad, etc if they saw someone else doing it before knowing that Joseph did.

Additionally, what was the purpose in having those gold plates smelted, engraved, preserved, lugged around, hidden, exhumed by angelic direction, waited four years to obtain, and then having them in the same room, if they were never looked at for translation purposes?

Agreed , especially if they know how the BoMoses came about.