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

[_Radex]

Nor should you!

In a world where the flood was local, or maybe not. Native Americans are Jewish, or maybe not. The Hill Camorah was in upstate New York, or maybe not. The Kinderhook plates were translated from Egyptian, or maybe not. The Book of Abraham was a translation from Egyptian, or maybe not.

Rocks in a hat should be an easy pill to swallow.

Well taken, friend. None of the above oversimplifications affect my testimony and devotion to the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.

[_Quasimodo]

Nor should you!

In a world where the flood was local, or maybe not. Native Americans are Jewish, or maybe not. The Hill Camorah was in upstate New York, or maybe not. The Kinderhook plates were translated from Egyptian, or maybe not. The Book of Abraham was a translation from Egyptian, or maybe not.

Rocks in a hat should be an easy pill to swallow.

Well taken, friend. None of the above oversimplifications affect my testimony and devotion to the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.

I'm glad you're still a friend. I don't think the above were oversimplifications, though. More like concise descriptions.

I can appreciate your devotion to your beliefs. I do think these may all be hard questions for you. Honest answers to them might be difficult.

[Guest]

Here's one (PDF) that states that Joseph Smith didn't need to look at anything to translate the plates.

It's not there, but what if it was? Wouldn't you be pissed if you were Moroni? God makes you stick the tumbaga plates on your tapir-driven sled, and then take the plates all the way from Guatemala to upstate New York, just in case Joseph Smith would live there 1,400 years later. And he doesn't even need the plates to translate!

[_Darth J]

Well taken, friend. None of the above oversimplifications affect my testimony and devotion to the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.

The things is, you don't have a testimony, and neither does any other believing Mormon. You have no personal knowledge of anything about Joseph Smith, about the existence of a Nephite civilization, or of any of the other of the Church's truth claims.

What you have personal knowledge of is that you have had certain feelings, and you think that the way the Church tells you to interpret those feelings is correct.

[_Darth J]

Thanks for joining us on today's episode of "Deliberate Obtuseness By a Defender of the Faith!" Now, let's pause for this brief message from the dictionary:


You're certainly up in arms about my little attempt at humor, Mr. J. Can we have a pleasant discussion, or are you going to play merry-hell every time I post a retort?

A retort implies that you were addressing something that could meaningfully be inferred from what I said.

No, the information we have is the only information we have, all of which is the head-in-the-hat thing, and none of which is the translation as depicted consistently in official LDS sources.

Oh, good. I am excited to see what methods of translation there are besides a seer stone in a hat, on which the words on the plates appeared in English. I am sure you will be providing citations to the other and multiple accounts any time now.

I can't wait to see these other accounts, showing that the church images are a fair representation of the historical record!

I am very happy to see that you have such extreme mood swings: from red-faced anger to utter insatiable excitement in one post.

Of course it's red-faced anger. Believing Mormons are the foot soldiers on this earthly front of the War in Heaven, and certainly not unwitting characters in a sitcom. That's why it must needs be that the enemies of the Church feel anger, not amusement, at what it takes to explain the faith-promoting narrative.

Here is an account (PDF) of Oliver Cowdery, before he joined the church, writing that the translation method was via the "spirit of inspiration."

That says nothing about the mechanics of what Joseph Smith looked at to translate the golden plates. This is just an assertion that the translation was inspired, not how the translation happened (which is the issue in this thread).

Here is an account (PDF) of the translation method being "supernatural agency."

Would I find this under the advertisements, the poem about "Tired of Play," or the story about the pirate? Because that's all there is on that page.

Here is an account (PDF) that describes the translation method as "divine inspiration."

A non-Mormon newspaper writer makes a vague reference to "divine inspiration," and you are calling that a contemporary witness to the alleged translation method of the Book of Mormon?

Are you being serious?

Here's one (PDF) that states that Joseph Smith didn't need to look at anything to translate the plates.

There is nothing on that page about Joseph Smith.

Feel free to search around the 19th century document archive at BYU. There are many accounts which describe other methods than seer stones in hats.

Will I find anything as good as two newspaper pages that don't say anything about the Book of Mormon, a statement attributed to Oliver Cowdery that says nothing about what Joseph Smith looked at when the translation was supposed to be happening, and one vague reference to "divine inspiration" by a newspaper writer who wasn't there and doesn't quote anybody who was?

Now, don't misunderstand: seer stone(s) in a hat was definitely a translation method. I do not deny it, I just don't see the issue with it.

Still waiting to see evidence of anyone who was present talking about these other translation methods.

In the meantime, though, let's assume for argument's sake that you're right and there is some person who says there were other things Joseph Smith did when claiming to translate the golden plates. I guess it's just luck of the draw that the Church has neglected to publish any depictions of Joseph Smith that make it look like the foundational events of Mormonism were a continuation of his scheme to make money by using magic to find buried treasure.

[_Drifting]

Now, don't misunderstand: seer stone(s) in a hat was definitely a translation method. I do not deny it, I just don't see the issue with it.

But that's the point isn't it.
What is the issue with the Church using this method in it's manuals and magazines?
It is the method by which the vast majority, if not all, of the Book of Mormon was produced (judging by the scribes that witnessed this as the translation method).
Yet the Church hides it away. Will not teach it in any teaching or student material. Will not depict it in any media.

Why?

[_ludwigm]

Now, don't misunderstand: seer stone(s) in a hat was definitely a translation method. I do not deny it, I just don't see the issue with it.

But that's the point isn't it.
What is the issue with the Church using this method in it's manuals and magazines?
It is the method by which the vast majority, if not all, of the Book of Mormon was produced (judging by the scribes that witnessed this as the translation method).
Yet the Church hides it away. Will not teach it in any teaching or student material. Will not depict it in any media.

Why?

Some things that are true are not very useful. (c) Boyd K. Packer.

Here is something useful from BKP:

Now, what are you to do in your lives? Accommodate the rule first! If you're to be an exception, or if others are to be an exception, that will become obvious in the inspiration that comes. But there is great power and great safety in holding to the scriptures and having an abounding obedience to our constituted priesthood authority. We are able to pray and receive revelation on our own, then to consider something like this letter from the First Presidency and to obediently say, "Lord, I don't ask to be an exception."

[_Radex]

A retort implies that you were addressing something that could meaningfully be inferred from what I said.

Totally squashing your argument may not have been meaningful for you, but it certainly was for me.

No, the information we have is the only information we have, all of which is the head-in-the-hat thing, and none of which is the translation as depicted consistently in official LDS sources.

Oh, good. I am excited to see what methods of translation there are besides a seer stone in a hat, on which the words on the plates appeared in English. I am sure you will be providing citations to the other and multiple accounts any time now.

I can't wait to see these other accounts, showing that the church images are a fair representation of the historical record!

Here is an account (PDF) of Oliver Cowdery, before he joined the church, writing that the translation method was via the "spirit of inspiration."

*

Here is an account (PDF) of the translation method being "supernatural agency."

*

Here is an account (PDF) that describes the translation method as "divine inspiration."

*

Here's one (PDF) that states that Joseph Smith didn't need to look at anything to translate the plates.

*

Feel free to search around the 19th century document archive at BYU. There are many accounts which describe other methods than seer stones in hats.

That says nothing about the mechanics of what Joseph Smith looked at to translate the golden plates. This is just an assertion that the translation was inspired, not how the translation happened (which is the issue in this thread).

*

Would I find this under the advertisements, the poem about "Tired of Play," or the story about the pirate? Because that's all there is on that page.

*

A non-Mormon newspaper writer makes a vague reference to "divine inspiration," and you are calling that a contemporary witness to the alleged translation method of the Book of Mormon?

Are you being serious?

*

There is nothing on that page about Joseph Smith.

*

Will I find anything as good as two newspaper pages that don't say anything about the Book of Mormon, a statement attributed to Oliver Cowdery that says nothing about what Joseph Smith looked at when the translation was supposed to be happening, and one vague reference to "divine inspiration" by a newspaper writer who wasn't there and doesn't quote anybody who was?

Well, now, it is embarrassing that I can't grasp this hot-linking business. None of my links seemed to have worked. Not you're fault, Darth J.; you're off the hook this time. I'll post working links plus quoted relevant text.

Here is a working link to the article. And the relevant portion of it says

According to the narrative given by one of these disciples—Oliver Cowdery—at their late exhibition in Kirtland, this pretended Revelation was written on golden plates, or something resembling golden plates, of the thickness of tin—7 inches in length, 6 inches in breadth, and a pile about 6 inches deep. None among the most learned in the United States could read, and interpret the hand-writing, (save one, and he could decipher but a few lines correctly,) excepting this ignoramus, Joseph Smith, Jr. To him, they say, was given the spirit of interpretation; but he was ignorant of the art of writing, he employed this Oliver Cowdery and others to write, while he read, interpreted, and translated this mighty Revelation.

Here is a working link. And the relevant text

The New Bible.–Some year or two since the crdulous were amused with the tale that, guided by inspiration, some one had found many golden plates buried in the earth near Palmyra, Wayne county, in this state, upon which were revealed,in an unknown tongue, (an odd sort of revelation one would think) the whole duty of man. This the finder and comrade were enabled, by supernatural agency, to translate since which the book has been printed and travelling preachers have gone forth with it, to enlighten the world.

Here is the third, and the relevant text

This new Gospel they say was found in Ontario co. N.Y. and was discovered by an Angel of light, appearing in a dream to a man by the name of Smith, who, as directed, went to a certain place and dug from the earth a stone box, containing plates of gold, on which this gospel was engraved in characters unknown. The said Smith though a man so illiterate that he cannot write, was, by divine inspiration, enabled to give the true interpretation, and the man who wrote from the mouth of Smith, is one of the four mentioned above.

Here is a link to the fourth item, and relevant text.

This golden Bible consisted of metallic plates six or seven inches square, of the thickness of tin and resembling gold, the surface of which was covered with hieroglyphic characters, unintelligible to Smith, the finder, who could [218] not read English. However the angel (ghost!) that discovered the plates to him, likewise informed him that he would be inspired to translate the inscriptions without looking at the plates, while an amanuensis would record his infallible reading; all which was accordingly done.

Now, let me remind you that you said

No, the information we have is the only information we have, all of which is the head-in-the-hat thing

Which is clearly and demonstrably false, as I have shown.

I guess it's just luck of the draw that the Church has neglected to publish any depictions of Joseph Smith that make it look like the foundational events of Mormonism were a continuation of his scheme to make money by using magic to find buried treasure.

Right, it sure is silly that the church would commission paintings and artwork which correspond more to official church publications than to critical documents (what were they thinking?)

Also, that there were two stones in silver bows—and these stones, fastened to a breastplate, constituted what is called the Urim and Thummim—deposited with the plates; and the possession and use of these stones were what constituted “seers” in ancient or former times; and that God had prepared them for the purpose of translating the book.

[_zeezrom]

Look folks, it doesn't really matter how it was translated. It also doesn't really matter what was translated. What matters is that something was translated by a prophet because no other church has an ultra-cool thing like a prophet that starts religions and translates and stuff.

Let me tell you something else! (not that you asked...) I know from personal experience that it is an absolute blast to translate via supernatural powers. Compared to learning a new, real language, it is way fun. Seriously the most fun I've had since Raging Waters in 1989. Joseph Smith very likely had a blast too.

I know, I know. It's easy to get out in the weeds and worry about the details.

[_Darth J]

A retort implies that you were addressing something that could meaningfully be inferred from what I said.

Totally squashing your argument may not have been meaningful for you, but it certainly was for me.

Yeah, that was some major pwnage you got from ignoring the plain meaning of ordinary words like "contemporary."

Well, now, it is embarrassing that I can't grasp this hot-linking business. None of my links seemed to have worked. Not you're fault, Darth J.; you're off the hook this time. I'll post working links plus quoted relevant text.

Here is a working link to the article. And the relevant portion of it says

According to the narrative given by one of these disciples—Oliver Cowdery—at their late exhibition in Kirtland, this pretended Revelation was written on golden plates, or something resembling golden plates, of the thickness of tin—7 inches in length, 6 inches in breadth, and a pile about 6 inches deep. None among the most learned in the United States could read, and interpret the hand-writing, (save one, and he could decipher but a few lines correctly,) excepting this ignoramus, Joseph Smith, Jr. To him, they say, was given the spirit of interpretation; but he was ignorant of the art of writing, he employed this Oliver Cowdery and others to write, while he read, interpreted, and translated this mighty Revelation.

That does not say anything about what Joseph Smith did when he was translating the Book of Mormon.

Here is a working link. And the relevant text

The New Bible.–Some year or two since the crdulous were amused with the tale that, guided by inspiration, some one had found many golden plates buried in the earth near Palmyra, Wayne county, in this state, upon which were revealed,in an unknown tongue, (an odd sort of revelation one would think) the whole duty of man. This the finder and comrade were enabled, by supernatural agency, to translate since which the book has been printed and travelling preachers have gone forth with it, to enlighten the world.

That does not say anything about what Joseph Smith did when he was translating the Book of Mormon. And this person was neither a witness to the translation nor quoting one.

Here is the third, and the relevant text

This new Gospel they say was found in Ontario co. N.Y. and was discovered by an Angel of light, appearing in a dream to a man by the name of Smith, who, as directed, went to a certain place and dug from the earth a stone box, containing plates of gold, on which this gospel was engraved in characters unknown. The said Smith though a man so illiterate that he cannot write, was, by divine inspiration, enabled to give the true interpretation, and the man who wrote from the mouth of Smith, is one of the four mentioned above.

That does not say anything about what Joseph Smith did when he was translating the Book of Mormon. And this person was neither a witness to the translation nor quoting one.

Here is a link to the fourth item, and relevant text.

This golden Bible consisted of metallic plates six or seven inches square, of the thickness of tin and resembling gold, the surface of which was covered with hieroglyphic characters, unintelligible to Smith, the finder, who could [218] not read English. However the angel (ghost!) that discovered the plates to him, likewise informed him that he would be inspired to translate the inscriptions without looking at the plates, while an amanuensis would record his infallible reading; all which was accordingly done.

See how this one says Joseph Smith was not looking at the plates? 1. It does not say what he did do. 2. Find an official LDS-published depiction of Joseph Smith translating the Book of Mormon without the golden plates being present. 3. When Joseph Smith was looking at a magic rock in a hat, he was not looking at the plates. Your source here is corroborating that.

Now, let me remind you that you said

No, the information we have is the only information we have, all of which is the head-in-the-hat thing

Which is clearly and demonstrably false, as I have shown.

There is not a single source you have quoted that relates any mechanics of translating the golden plates other than looking at a magic rock in a hat. One of your sources corroborates it (not looking at the plates), and the others merely assert that the translation was divinely inspired but do not say how the translation was done. The latter is what is at issue in this thread. You appear to be oblivious to the topic of discussion, so I am pointing it out.

I guess it's just luck of the draw that the Church has neglected to publish any depictions of Joseph Smith that make it look like the foundational events of Mormonism were a continuation of his scheme to make money by using magic to find buried treasure.

Right, it sure is silly that the church would commission paintings and artwork which correspond more to official church publications than to critical documents (what were they thinking?)

Also, that there were two stones in silver bows—and these stones, fastened to a breastplate, constituted what is called the Urim and Thummim—deposited with the plates; and the possession and use of these stones were what constituted “seers” in ancient or former times; and that God had prepared them for the purpose of translating the book.

1. Statements by believers in the Book of Mormon like David Whitmer are not "critical documents." All of the people who talked about the rock in the hat believed that Joseph Smith really was translating an ancient record by the power of God.
2. You're still avoiding the issue of this thread. I asked why, even assuming you were correct about there being some evidence of an alternative translation method, the one translation method the Church never depicts is the one that looks like Mormonism originated with folk magic. I'm just taking it as a given that you will perpetually avoid the issue, but I'm still asking for the benefit of our viewers at home.
3. Remember that deliberate obtuseness by a defender of the faith I mentioned? The overall issue is that the official LDS sources present a whitewashed and inaccurate version of events. Among other things, the JSH doesn't talk about conflicting versions of the First Vision (including what Joseph was praying about and how old he was, besides what he claims he saw and what was said to him). Where's the contemporary account of Joseph Smith using the Nephite breastplate and spectacles to translate? Thews has already demonstrated that the official church history (History of the Church) regarding the Urim and Thummim is not reliable. And anyway, other than in a children's Doctrine and Covenants manual, where is an official LDS depiction of Joseph Smith wearing the Nephite breastplate and looking through the spectacles to translate?

So, let's see: claiming to score a point by ignoring the plain dictionary meaning of the word "contemporary".......mischaracterizing the issue.......arguing from ignorance based on vague statements by non-witnesses who were not addressing the translation method (merely the alleged source of its power).......relying on circular reasoning (the inaccurate paintings are honest because they are based on inaccurate history).....evading the issue......proclaiming victory when you have provided no evidence to refute the OP......calling eyewitness statements by believing early Mormons "critical documents"..........

I'd say you have a bright future in Mormon apologetics.