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

[_sock puppet]

The history points to JSJr being face down in a hat, seeing English words appearing magic parchment above a rock in the hat while translating (historical, face-in-hat method).

But for one or two brief mentions (the last in a 1993 Ensign article penned by Russell M Nelson, If I recall correctly), the Brethren/COB continue to portray JSJr studying the characters on the plates (non-historical, studious-JSJr method).

The historical, face-in-hat method was brought to the attention of the public by the South Park episode that originally aired on 11/19/2003.

Even the truth(-about-Mormonism)-challenged Daniel Peterson when interviewed for the PBS program, The Mormons, explained the historical, face-in-hat method as the mechanics of the translation. Original air date, 4/30/2007.

Yet the Brethren/COB continue in the face of the historical record, the exposé on South Park, and the NAMIRS admission on PBS to shill the false artistic renditions and write-ups of the non-historical, studios-JSJr method in their correlated materials.

The Brethren/COB fixed the official introduction to the Book of Mormon in the face of DNA evidence that contradicts the COJCOLDS teachings about the current day Native Americans being Lamanites, having added new 'outs' for the Church. Keep in mind, this misnomer had roots going all the way back to statements made by JSJr during the restoration period, when elohim/jehovah were restoring "all truths".

So if the Brethren/COB will fix the official intro to the Book of Mormon because of DNA, why not fix the materials coming out of correlation committee, and sometimes shown as a visual aid on TV during GC when one of the 12 is talking about JSJr translating the Book of Mormon? Why is it more embarrassing to and thus the FP/12 are more reluctant to embrace the face-in-the-hat method by JSJr translating the Book of Mormon than swallowing the pill, hard as it was, and changing the official intro to the Book of Mormon in light of the mounting DNA findings?

Is the historical, face-in-the-hat method that much more embarrassing to the FP/12 than the fact that JSJr down to SWK got it dead wrong when saying the current Native Americans are descendants of the Book of Mormon Lamanites?

[_why me]

The historical, face-in-hat method was brought to the attention of the public by the South Park episode that originally aired on 11/19/2003.

The south park episode is a good case in point of the mocking and bashing that the LDS church takes. But lets use our critical thinking caps, something that south park did not do. Are you ready? Put your head in a hat and write a book like the Book of Mormon doing what the witnesses said Joseph Smith did. No manuscript and starting exactly where you left off the day before. Can you do it? Now we need critical thinking skills to determine just how he could have done it. And when we finish with our critical thinking, we will most likely come to the conclusion that it was an amazing feat, a feat that a human would find difficult to do without outside help. Could it be the power of god?

[_Runtu]

The south park episode is a good case in point of the mocking and bashing that the LDS church takes. But lets use our critical thinking caps, something that south park did not do. Are you ready? Put your head in a hat and write a book like the Book of Mormon doing what the witnesses said Joseph Smith did. No manuscript and starting exactly where you left off the day before. Can you do it? Now we need critical thinking skills to determine just how he could have done it. And when we finish with our critical thinking, we will most likely come to the conclusion that it was an amazing feat, a feat that a human would find difficult to do without outside help. Could it be the power of god?

I'd say you're not putting on the critical thinking hat far enough. Here's a more accurate test of the endeavor:

1. Write a manuscript (or get it from somewhere else).
2. Dictate it to a scribe.
3. When the scribe or others want to see you in action, put your head in a hat just long enough to convince them that you're doing the whole thing that way.

How could anyone conclude that such is not an amazing feat?

[_Drifting]

The south park episode is a good case in point of the mocking and bashing that the LDS church takes. But lets use our critical thinking caps, something that south park did not do. Are you ready? Put your head in a hat and write a book like the Book of Mormon doing what the witnesses said Joseph Smith did. No manuscript and starting exactly where you left off the day before. Can you do it? Now we need critical thinking skills to determine just how he could have done it. And when we finish with our critical thinking, we will most likely come to the conclusion that it was an amazing feat, a feat that a human would find difficult to do without outside help. Could it be the power of god?

I'd say you're not putting on the critical thinking hat far enough. Here's a more accurate test of the endeavor:

1. Write a manuscript (or get it from somewhere else).
2. Dictate it to a scribe.
3. When the scribe or others want to see you in action, put your head in a hat just long enough to convince them that you're doing the whole thing that way.

How could anyone conclude that such is not an amazing feat?

To be accurate you would also have to give the person several years notice of this endeavour so they had the same preparation time as Joseph.

[_Runtu]

To be accurate you would also have to give the person several years notice of this endeavour so they had the same preparation time as Joseph.

True, about 7 years, as I recall. But, you know, in that amount of time it would almost impossible to come up with anachronistic book mixing local mythology with the Bible.

And yes, I'm being serious. Based on the evidence I've seen, the scenario I outlined is my guess as to what Joseph was doing.

[_sock puppet]

The historical, face-in-hat method was brought to the attention of the public by the South Park episode that originally aired on 11/19/2003.

The south park episode is a good case in point of the mocking and bashing that the LDS church takes. But lets use our critical thinking caps, something that south park did not do. Are you ready? Put your head in a hat and write a book like the Book of Mormon doing what the witnesses said Joseph Smith did. No manuscript and starting exactly where you left off the day before. Can you do it? Now we need critical thinking skills to determine just how he could have done it. And when we finish with our critical thinking, we will most likely come to the conclusion that it was an amazing feat, a feat that a human would find difficult to do without outside help. Could it be the power of god?

It's easier to concentrate when concocting fiction if you do not have visual distractions. Yes, let's think critically, shall we?

[_thews]

The historical, face-in-hat method was brought to the attention of the public by the South Park episode that originally aired on 11/19/2003.

The south park episode is a good case in point of the mocking and bashing that the LDS church takes. But lets use our critical thinking caps, something that south park did not do. Are you ready? Put your head in a hat and write a book like the Book of Mormon doing what the witnesses said Joseph Smith did. No manuscript and starting exactly where you left off the day before. Can you do it? Now we need critical thinking skills to determine just how he could have done it. And when we finish with our critical thinking, we will most likely come to the conclusion that it was an amazing feat, a feat that a human would find difficult to do without outside help. Could it be the power of god?

If you were a critical thinker, you'd ditch this ridiculous theory of yours that it's impossible to translate with head-in-hat. It's exactly how the translation process was described by many witnesses close to Joseph Smith, none saying anything about a breastplate and glasses. Regarding your critical thought, it discounts the book was already written, which would account for the speed at which it was supposedly translated.

[_Yahoo Bot]

1. Write a manuscript (or get it from somewhere else).
2. Dictate it to a scribe.
3. When the scribe or others want to see you in action, put your head in a hat just long enough to convince them that you're doing the whole thing that way.

How could anyone conclude that such is not an amazing feat?

And Joseph Smith never said he did it that way.

But, speaking as one basically writes every day and often writes very long and complicated briefs, it used to be that my initial drafts were dictated. I can't imagine anybody having a clue as to what I said if I had my face in a hat. It can't be done, it can't be heard, especially hour after hour with scribes being forced to use fountain pens.

No, the Book of Mormon came a different way. I like the artwork.

[cacheman]

And Joseph Smith never said he did it that way.

He never said he did it any way, did he?

But, speaking as one basically writes every day and often writes very long and complicated briefs, it used to be that my initial drafts were dictated. I can't imagine anybody having a clue as to what I said if I had my face in a hat. It can't be done, it can't be heard, especially hour after hour with scribes being forced to use fountain pens.

And that is why I see the head in the hat as temporary misdirection.

No, the Book of Mormon came a different way. I like the artwork.

As I said, I'm not really interested in the process, just the product. I know what the product is.

[_thews]

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

The only thing you squashed is your credibility. Having nothing to support what you wish to be true, you just ignored questions you couldn't answer and chose the "we just don't know" approach which isn't true and rejects what is very clearly known about the translation process. You have demonstrated nothing and simply cannot back up your incorrect statement that the Urim and Thummim along with Seer stone in hat was used by Joseph Smith to translate the Book of Mormon. There never was an Urim and Thummim, and while it supposedly doesn't bother you that seer stone in hat was the method all evidence supports, it must bother you that it was the only method used.

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.

You haven't shown anything but a willingness to believe spoon-fed propaganda and failed to support you arguments with any data. It should be no surprise that you'll declare victory and continue to avoid addressing the source of the supposed Urim and Thummim, and that's because they didn't exist... just like what you have supposedly shown... nonexistent.

http://www.wayoflife.org/publications/t ... istent.jpg