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

[_Radex]

So you take issue with the concept of 'supernatural', right? To you, everything is natural?

It is quite possible that there is a supernatural realm, but it seems to me that once something from said realm crosses into the realm in which we exist, it becomes natural.

I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, the Mormon God chooses to make himself obscure and unobservable--or, "unnatural". It's a mental cat-and-mouse game at best.

Except for a few cases of which I am aware, God is unobservable to human sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch. Does that, in your estimation, prove His nonexistence?

[_Jonah]

like winnie the pooh and a bucket of honey.

Hmmmmmm...there is a joke here somewhere.

I never imagined Pooh having his face totally in the bucket. It would have been tough to breathe, talk, eat, let alone see what he was slurping. Unless he had illuminated rocks in there too.

[_Radex]

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?)

A good question, sir.

Pictures are symbols; they are representative of something and often are meant to remind us of an event or a person.

Here is a link to a painting of King George III. How likely is it that King George III actually looked like this? I think we both know that these sorts of paintings are meant to remind us of a monarch's majesty and power, not of what he actually looked like.

The symbol of the swastika carries with it an evil connotation (it frankly gives me the collywobbles), because of its use by the Nazi Party during the war. It is actually an ancient symbol and not inherently evil. The qualities of a symbol depend on what the symbol symbolizes.

[_consiglieri]

like winnie the pooh and a bucket of honey.

Hmmmmmm...there is a joke here somewhere.

I never imagined Pooh having his face totally in the bucket. It would have been tough to breathe, talk, eat, let alone see what he was slurping. Unless he had illuminated rocks in there too.

BRILLIANT!!!

[_DrW]

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?)

A good question, sir.

Pictures are symbols; they are representative of something and often are meant to remind us of an event or a person.

Here is a link to a painting of King George III. How likely is it that King George III actually looked like this? I think we both know that these sorts of paintings are meant to remind us of a monarch's majesty and power, not of what he actually looked like.

The symbol of the swastika carries with it an evil connotation (it frankly gives me the collywobbles), because of its use by the Nazi Party during the war. It is actually an ancient symbol and not inherently evil. The qualities of a symbol depend on what the symbol symbolizes.

Radex,

While your explanation (excuse) may make you feel better about the face in the hat, it has not been really accepted by any Mormon I have talked with about this, including members of my large and TBM family.

The face in the hat translation is definitely a faith eroding disclosure. It is right up there with Joseph Smith's 30+ wives, multiple versions of the first vision, etc. none of which have been represented honestly in LDS teaching materials.

If "symbolism" is the apologetic card you wish to play on this, fine. But you need to understand that nobody is buying it. The SEC, Commerce Department, and other agencies require truth in advertising. People in the US have come to know what to expect in representations from a truthful organizations and credible institutions - and this isn't it.

[_Darth J]

Pictures are symbols; they are representative of something and often are meant to remind us of an event or a person.

Here is a link to a painting of King George III. How likely is it that King George III actually looked like this? I think we both know that these sorts of paintings are meant to remind us of a monarch's majesty and power, not of what he actually looked like.

The symbol of the swastika carries with it an evil connotation (it frankly gives me the collywobbles), because of its use by the Nazi Party during the war. It is actually an ancient symbol and not inherently evil. The qualities of a symbol depend on what the symbol symbolizes.

The reason this is a false analogy is that paintings/drawings from official LDS sources of Joseph Smith translating the golden plates are purporting to depict a historical event. They are not representing an abstract concept (like a swastika does). But if your point about the painting of George III is that the artist was commissioned to make things look better than they appeared in real life, you are not refuting the OP. You are conceding it.

[_thews]

Your thread title reads JSJr's Face-in-the-Hat: Troubling to the Faithful. Do you mean to say that all faithful LDS people are troubled by Joseph Smith putting his face in a hat and the depictions thereof? It isn't troubling to me, and I consider myself faithful. Perhaps I am an exception to the rule, as is often the case I'm finding. I don't see what is so troubling about it: it's a hat, a stone, and a man putting his face into the hat to block out light. Well, when any of us wear head clothing, do we not all put our heads in a hat? Have you tried to put your head in a hat, in the dark, and accidentally put your face in it first? I have, but again, I might be an exception to the rule.

Are you now changing your stance Radex? Here is your previous argument:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=21529&hilit=radex&start=21

In my opinion, it seems there was (and still may be) some confusion about the translation process, and tools used in that process. This is because little is actually known about the process, and scribes and associates may have been misusing terms.

In the end, we do know that Joseph Smith used both the Urim and Thummim and a seer stone in the translation process. Discussion of these can be found in official church materials, though perhaps not for primary aged children.

So on one hand you have no issues with seer stones and head-in-hat, and on the other you argue that little is known of the process (which isn't true) while continuing to assert there was an Urim and Thummim separate from Joseph Smith's seer stones. Please explain when Joseph Smith obtained the Urim and Thummim, and what happened to them?

[_Radex]

Radex,

While your explanation (excuse) may make you feel better about the face in the hat, it has not been really accepted by any Mormon I have talked with about this, including members of my large and TBM family.

Admittedly, I am often some sort of exception to the rule in any given scenario. My experience with my faithful family (all converts) is quite different from yours. We, and especially I, do not see an issue with any hat being used as any of the below examples:

• Head wear to keep the head warm.
• Head wear to hide a balding spot.
• Head wear to look more like Connery-esque James Bond.
• An object in which to contain an emergency vomit.
• A plaything for children of all ages.
• A thing which blocks light so that glow-in-the-dark objects are more visible.

Those are just uses for hats that I've found. I am sure that, throughout the world, there are many creative uses for such a hat. None of them bother me.

The face in the hat translation is definitely a faith eroding disclosure. It is right up there with Joseph Smith's 30+ wives, multiple versions of the first vision, etc. none of which have been represented honestly in LDS teaching materials.

If "symbolism" is the apologetic card you wish to play on this, fine.

From my reading of posts here, it seems that the term "apologist" or its variants is used as an epithet. Are you so using it here? I was unaware that I was behaving in such a contemptible manner.

But you need to understand that nobody is buying it. The SEC, Commerce Department, and other agencies require truth in advertising. People in the US have come to know what to expect in representations from a truthful organizations and credible institutions - and this isn't it.

Yes, well, of course you understand that the advert with that perfectly positioned and studio-lit Big Mac -- the one showing its visibly juicy colours and flavours -- looked exactly like the one you received at the drive-through window last night.

The reason this is a false analogy is that paintings/drawings from official LDS sources of Joseph Smith translating the golden plates are purporting to depict a historical event.

And they accurately depict one method of the translation process, in my belief. They are no more false or misleading than the Big Mac example above. The difference might be that, when I see an advert for food, I understand that the truth of the matter is that the plate won't look like the photograph on the advert. It might have some similar properties, but any reasonable person might understand that an advert is an advert, and a painting is a painting.

They are not representing an abstract concept (like a swastika does). But if your point about the painting of George III is that the artist was commissioned to make things look better than they appeared in real life, you are not refuting the OP. You are conceding it.

Yes, the swastika example was a false analogy. I was attempting to make use of my dastardly "symbol apologetic" that DrW pointed out.

Good catch.

So on one hand you have no issues with seer stones and head-in-hat, and on the other you argue that little is known of the process (which isn't true) while continuing to assert there was an Urim and Thummim separate from Joseph Smith's seer stones. Please explain when Joseph Smith obtained the Urim and Thummim, and what happened to them?

I do not see where my statements are in contradiction with one another. We would definitely like to have more information about the translation processes employed, and there is relatively little out there. As I said, we know about the two primary: stone in hat, and Urim and Thummim. We don't know much about what happened to the Urim and Thummim; moreover, we don't have a photograph of Joseph Smith doing any of the translation. A shame, but true. Instead we have artist interpretations, and they'll have to do.

(Go Fulham!)

[_Darth J]

The reason this is a false analogy is that paintings/drawings from official LDS sources of Joseph Smith translating the golden plates are purporting to depict a historical event.

And they accurately depict one method of the translation process, in my belief. They are no more false or misleading than the Big Mac example above. The difference might be that, when I see an advert for food, I understand that the truth of the matter is that the plate won't look like the photograph on the advert. It might have some similar properties, but any reasonable person might understand that an advert is an advert, and a painting is a painting.

Uh huh. Anyway, where might I find an account from a contemporary witness who describes the golden plates being translated as shown in the LDS paintings we are discussing?

We would definitely like to have more information about the translation processes employed, and there is relatively little out there. As I said, we know about the two primary: stone in hat, and Urim and Thummim. We don't know much about what happened to the Urim and Thummim; moreover, we don't have a photograph of Joseph Smith doing any of the translation. A shame, but true.

Yeah, we've only got accounts from several contemporary witnesses. But we don't know!

Odd how that same type of evidence is sufficient for us to know about faith-promoting things, isn't it?

How is it that we know the Melchizedek Priesthood was restored? Or the keys to the sealing power? Or that the Three Witnesses saw something? I keep forgetting.

Instead we have artist interpretations, and they'll have to do.

Here's a picture of the First Vision:



We don't have a photograph of the First Vision, so this will have to do. You can't object to it. It's just an artist's interpretation and cannot be said to be misleading or inaccurate.

[_Runtu]

Yeah, we've only got accounts from several contemporary witnesses. But we don't know!

It is odd, isn't it? As you said, multiple witnesses confirm the head-in-hat method, but as far as I know, there are no church illustrations that show the translation thus, and the only time I have ever heard it mentioned is in a single Ensign article almost 20 years ago. It makes me think that those who publish church materials are uncomfortable depicting the translation method, for some reason.

Can you imagine something like this in the Gospel Art Picture Kit?