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

[_Fence Sitter]

Those that question historical accounts of the translation process which were written later on in the life, must, by the same standard, place more value on the 1832 account of the 1st vision.

[_Yoda]

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 Dear Wife, 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.

It really shouldn't be too surprising. Yahoo Bot is a lawyer, after all. ;-)

[_Radex]

Blixa and DrW, I appreciate the support. You're both fine people. I am not British. I did say something about "across the pond", so let me explain: I am an American citizen, born in the UK. I have lived here, in Utah, for about 16 years now, and I have been trying to purge British slang and spelling from my speech and writing. In that respect, I do take it as a small compliment when someone comments that I don't use such slang or spelling.

[_thews]

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.

Just to be clear, are you discounting David Whitmer's account as false?

"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."

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I wonder if it's considered to be sinful when a Mopologist uses a sock puppet to deceive other forum participants? You know... "Honest in all your dealings with your fellow man" and such?

- VRDRC

[_Yahoo Bot]

I wonder if it's considered to be sinful when a Mopologist uses a sock puppet to deceive other forum participants? You know... "Honest in all your dealings with your fellow man" and such?

- VRDRC

(Moderator Note) Removed slur that also indicated in real life information. Liz

[_sock puppet]

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 Dear Wife, 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.

It really shouldn't be too surprising. Yahoo Bot is a lawyer, after all. ;-)

Hey, now...don't impugn an entire profession by suggesting Yahoo Bot is a representative example.

[_why me]

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.)

I don't think that anyone is denying the hat trick. However, what people are saying is that this was not the only way the Book of Mormon was translated. And that is probably true. Also, the hat is not troubling because it shows that something extraordinary happened during the translation process. Most LDS members know that the translation process was not an ordinary event...that something close to a miracle took place.

[_why me]

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.

No one is denying the hat trick. However this was not the only way it was translated. I believe david. However I don't think that Joseph Smith had his hat in the hat. Too much going on for that to happen. I would maintain that his face would have been close to the rim of the hat but not in the hat. It would be impossible to breathe, see, speak and do it. Too much happening inside one hat if the head was in it.

[_Drifting]

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.

No one is denying the hat trick. However this was not the only way it was translated. I believe david. However I don't think that Joseph Smith had his hat in the hat. Too much going on for that to happen. I would maintain that his face would have been close to the rim of the hat but not in the hat. It would be impossible to breathe, see, speak and do it. Too much happening inside one hat if the head was in it.

So you believe him, just not as implicitly as when he said the book was true...