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

[_Darth J]

And now, a selection of artists' depictions of the First Vision, all of which are equally valid (because they are artists' depictions). All of these depictions are interchangeable, since they all purport to depict the First Vision, and any fair-minded believing Mormon should agree that any one of them is as good as any other.

[_Runtu]

I think the most accurate illustration of the First Vision is shown in the following illustration:

[_ludwigm]

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.

compare with (from http://LDS.org/churchhistory/presidents ... ultimedia# )


********************************************************************

[_Themis]

And as I said before on a different thread, most former Mormons here were no different as a member: they were extremely judgemental of less actives.

LOL Funny that you judge former members this way since you can't know how they judged less active members when they were active. Do you not see your hypocrisy and that you are making conclusions that you can't really know.

Sad. But such is the way it is. I do attend church. I have said it many times but like rockslider, I am just talking to myself. No one is listening.

People here have seen to much of your posts and know they are not well thought out or reasonable, so it may seem to you that no one is listening, but then my expereince with you is that you are not listening to what people are trying to tell you. I know you attend church, but I also know how TBM will most likely view you and what you say at church. It is not something you understand, and that's ok.

[_why me]

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.

Now if Pooh were a real bear, he would suffocate in the honey. There is no way that Joseph Smith could have had his head in a hat and expect to do all the things that is claimed he did. It is not possible. Here is my guess about the hat trick: his face was near the rim. No problem then. But to think that someone could have there head in a cowboy type hat, see light, breathe, and speak clearly as in the text that became the Book of Mormon must be a real superman. And the scribe must have had great patience. The head could not have been in the hat. Try it with a dull flash light shining into your eyes.

[_why me]

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?

Now take this picture. Here we have Joseph Smith with his head in his hat. He see a light shining into his eyes but experiences no problem. And he also has to breathe and speak clear enough into the hat to be heard by the scribe. Try it and see what happens. I will bet a penny that you can't do it for a long time. Try it with a dull small flash light and place it in your hat. And keep looking into it. But make sure that your head is in the hat. Good luck.

[_sock puppet]

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.

So you think COJCOLDS is on the same level as a fast-food chain? Well, me too. Only McDonald's actually gives you something in return for your money.

Unfortunately, the rhetoric from the Brethren/out of the COB tries to mislead people into thinking that COJCOLDS is or aspires to being something more than a fast-food chain. But I am glad you see COJCOLDS for what it is.

[_sock puppet]

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.

Why, runtu, do you suspect that those who publish church materials are uncomfortable depicting the translation method attested to by scribes and other JSJr contemporaries?

[_sock puppet]

I think the most accurate illustration of the First Vision is shown in the following illustration:

Runtu, what the artist you are! That's profound and thought provoking. Faith promoting? not so much.

[_thews]

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.

If you used this analogy and received a taco instead it would be valid, but the point you're attempting to make misses the issue. When the witnesses to the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon state how it was translated using seer stones with head-in-hat, the artist's depiction is incorrect and intentionally misleading.

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.

This is a typical Mormon apologist's tactic, which is to broaden the scope of the issue to make the basket so large it can fit your analogy. Again, the point isn't that it's a painting, it's a painting that's historically inaccurate. What we know to be true (head-in-hat) is not represented, and what you wish to be true (finger on book) is, so you claim both are true.

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.

I think a more accurate statement would be you'd like some information to legitimize the artist's depiction, which contradicts the historical record. The reason this issue is hidden by the LDS church is that it brings to the surface who Joseph Smith was as a man. Before the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, a believer in occult magic, used his head-in-hat with the seer stones he already obtained when he was a glass-looker. This method of "seeing" treasure and the evil treasure guardians guarding it doesn't bode well for his truth claims, as those exact same seer stones were used to also translate the Book of Mormon. You didn't answer the question I asked you, as you specifically stated there were both the Urim and Thummim and seer stones used. If it doesn't bother you that head-in-hat with seer stone were used, why can't you just admit that the so-called Urim and Thummim are in fact a conflated term to describe Joseph Smith's seer stones? If they are separate things, when and how did Joseph Smith obtain them?