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

[_Drifting]

Radex, every source you've cited has been secondary, as in not a primary, eyewitness source. As far as I know, the only eyewitness testimony speaks of the stone in the hat, though I could be wrong. Can you find any eyewitness account that describes a method other than the stone in the hat?

Who is the eyewitness for the face in the hat?

The principal source for this is David Whitmer, but he does not say he witnessed it, nor does he say that this was the method used in all cases.

Again, I maintain, a book as long as the Book of Mormon could not possibly be dictated that way for long when you consider the quality, contents and circumstances of the manuscripts.

David Whitmer is among the sources for this...


Anyhow, a General Authority has confirmed the Whitmer account when he included it in his talk to Mission Presidents and later when it was published in the Ensign in 1993. Here is the account quoted in Russell Nelsons remarks.

“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; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.” (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887, p. 12.)

[_thews]

Radex, every source you've cited has been secondary, as in not a primary, eyewitness source. As far as I know, the only eyewitness testimony speaks of the stone in the hat, though I could be wrong. Can you find any eyewitness account that describes a method other than the stone in the hat?

Who is the eyewitness for the face in the hat?

The principal source for this is David Whitmer, but he does not say he witnessed it, nor does he say that this was the method used in all cases.

Again, I maintain, a book as long as the Book of Mormon could not possibly be dictated that way for long when you consider the quality, contents and circumstances of the manuscripts.

As you continue to parrot the same tired "is not" ploy, what part of Emma's account is hard to understand? If you would Yahoo Bot, please explain when Joseph Smith obtained the Urim and Thummim?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Smith

Emma acting as a scribe. She became a physical witness of the plates, reporting that she felt them through a cloth, traced the pages through the cloth with her fingers, heard the metallic sound they made as she moved them, and felt their weight. She later wrote in an interview with her son, Joseph Smith III: "In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us."[4]

http://www.mrm.org/translation

Harris' description concurs with that of David Whitmer, another one of the three witnesses whose testimony appears at the front of the Book of Mormon. Whitmer details exactly how the stone produced the English interpretation. On page 12 of his book An Address to All Believers in Christ, Whitmer wrote,

"I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. 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; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine.

http://www.mrm.org/translation

Martin Harris was one of the scribes Joseph Smith used to record the writing on the plates. This enabled him to give a first-hand account of how Smith performed this translation. Harris noted,

"By aid of the Seer Stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin, and when finished he would say 'written;' and if correctly written, the sentence would disappear and another appear in its place; but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used" (CHC 1:29).

[_Runtu]

Who is the eyewitness for the face in the hat?

The principal source for this is David Whitmer, but he does not say he witnessed it, nor does he say that this was the method used in all cases.

Again, I maintain, a book as long as the Book of Mormon could not possibly be dictated that way for long when you consider the quality, contents and circumstances of the manuscripts.

He's not the principal source, as there are several.

Emma Smith: "In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us."

Isaac Hale: "The manner in which he pretended to read and interpret, was the same as when he looked for the money-diggers, with a stone in his hat, and his hat over his face, while the Book of Plates were at the same time hid in the woods."

Emma's brother-in-law, Michael Morse: "When Joseph was translating the Book of Mormon [I] had occasion more than once to go into his immediate presence, and saw him engaged at his work of translation. The mode of procedure consisted in Joseph's placing the Seer Stone in the crown of a hat, then putting his face into the hat, so as to entirely cover his face, resting his elbows upon his knees, and then dictating word after word, while the scribes — Emma, John Whitmer, O. Cowdery, or some other wrote it down."

Joseph Knight Sr: "Now the way he translated was he put the urim and thummim into his hat and darkened his eyes then he would take a sentance and it would appear in brite roman letters then he would tell the writer and he would write it then that would go away the next sentence would come and so on. But if it was not spelt rite it would not go away till it was rite, so we see it was marvelous. Thus was the hol [whole] translated."

But I agree with you. I think the head in the hat was misdirection.

[_Yahoo Bot]

I take that as a compliment. And as I said, I am sure a mod can determine whether I am someone else or not. It is a shame that you can't just have a discussion.

You are in the wrong place. And you don't use British spellings and slang terms. I have Brit clients and deal with them daily.

[_Drifting]

Mormons 100% believe David Whitmers witness testimony of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, but think he is mistaken when he provides a witness testimony (also supported by two others) of how it was produced.

I find that two-faced.

[_Yahoo Bot]

Mormons 100% believe David Whitmers witness testimony of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, but think he is mistaken when he provides a witness testimony (also supported by two others) of how it was produced.

I find that two-faced.

On the other hand, critics who don't read books much think that if one likes a particular concession a "drifting" witness makes one must accept all that that witness says. Like if the Didache writes about the doctrine of theosis and unwavering obedience to the bishops and elders as conditions to proper Christian worship, one must also accept its thinking that water might not be necessary for baptism if one is in the middle of a desert.

Sorry, my friend, cherry-picking is particularly favored by historians of critical sources. Livy did it. Gibbon, Bancroft, Prescott and more.

In discussing Christian history with Evangelicals, or the doctrine of grace, I particularly find useful and productive quoting FF Bruce or Bruce Metzger.

[_Drifting]

Mormons 100% believe David Whitmers witness testimony of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, but think he is mistaken when he provides a witness testimony (also supported by two others) of how it was produced.

I find that two-faced.

On the other hand, critics who don't read books much think that if one likes a particular concession a "drifting" witness makes one must accept all that that witness says.

Not really.
I was simply pointing out that on the one hand Mormons treat David Whitmer as a totally credible witness to the Book of Mormon, yet on the other hand treat David Whitmer as a totally incredible witness to the Book of Mormon translation.

Same witness, same subject matter, same people assessing his credibility.

Simply put, that is indeed two faced.

Nice witticism though! ;-)

[_Blixa]

Simon, if you're going to pretend to be British, you need to do the British spelling of words, too. Just throwing in words like "chaps" and "crossing the pond" isn't staying in character enough.

Pretty sure Radex isn't Simon, Darth.

[_DrW]

Simon, if you're going to pretend to be British, you need to do the British spelling of words, too. Just throwing in words like "chaps" and "crossing the pond" isn't staying in character enough.

Pretty sure Radex isn't Simon, Darth.

Agreed. Simon would have had to add several years to his age, do a lot of reading, take a writing course or two, and gain a few points in IQ in order to write like Radex. There simply has not been enough time.

[Guest]

Not really.
I was simply pointing out that on the one hand Mormons treat David Whitmer as a totally credible witness to the Book of Mormon, yet on the other hand treat David Whitmer as a totally incredible witness to the Book of Mormon translation.

Same witness, same subject matter, same people assessing his credibility.

Simply put, that is indeed two faced.

Nice witticism though! ;-)

I find it ironic that he accuses you of cherry picking, when you are being consistent with David WHitmer, yet he wants to cherry pick which he will accept. I also noticed he went silent to those who provided other sources he inferred did not exist.

Edit: stupid thing wrote dear wife for D.W.