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

[_Fence Sitter]

Why didn't God make the punctuation marks appear along with the words on the seer stone(s)?

[_sock puppet]

Why didn't God make the punctuation marks appear along with the words on the seer stone(s)?

He did, but maybe the 'uneducated farmboy' didn't know what they were. Also, since it was oral dictation by JSJr to the scribes, it might be that JSJr said "Thus saith the Lord let there be light" rather than "Thus saith the Lord comma let there be light period". So the scribe filled in on the fly whatever punctuation he or she thought ought to go in there.

[_Darth J]

If my readiness to infer that Radex is a Simon Belmont sock puppet demonstrates anything, it is optimism and giving the benefit of the doubt to internet Mormons. I desperately want to believe that Simon Belmont is not representative of the mentality of those who go online to defend the Church, believing that the lyrics from the theme song to Blazing Saddles refer to themselves.

The original thing I said about "information" regarding Book of Mormon translation methods was on page 7 of this thread:

Yeah, we've only got accounts from several contemporary witnesses. But we don't know!

We don't? I don't believe I'd asserted that we don't know. I think we have a pretty good idea. I'd love to have more information about it, but the information we have is still important.

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.

This is the statement that Radex has tried to characterize as "embarrassingly foolish," which he has done by citing several sources, none of which are eyewitnesses who watched what Joseph Smith was doing while he was supposedly translating the Book of Mormon. Also, he presents the circuitous reasoning of authorized LDS depictions of the translation being consistent with correlated LDS curricula, when the issue is that correlated LDS curricula do not reflect what contemporary witnesses describe. And then Radex declares victory on the basis of his irrelevant statements.

Those who have ventured through Simon Belmont's non-stop funhouse of BS might recognize a certain similarity in Radex's type of reasoning (and arbitrary self-congratulations of triumph) that led to events like Simon Belmont's multi-page sermon about how I must be misrepresenting what the Church teaches about the Atonement, since the logical conclusion of what the Church teaches would have to mean that the Savior was raped by trillions of penises in the Garden of Gethsemane. viewtopic.php?f=1&t=15581&start=63

So, to those who say I am wrong, and Radex is actually another individual, I say, you are not paying internet Mormons any compliments if that is the case.

[_Radex]

I don't really know how to respond to that, Darth J., except by asking what you expect of me? I read your comment

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.

To mean that the only information we have is that which tells of Joseph Smith translating via placing his head in his hat. I didn't mean to call you "foolish", though I did say your statement above was "embarrassingly silly". In light of all of the information we have that doesn't talk about the "head-in-the-hat-thing", how could it not be seen that way? I didn't and don't see any conditions in your statement about eyewitnesses, but perhaps my eyesight is failing (I do wear glasses).

I'm no one else but myself, Darth J. I don't know how advantageous this tactic has been for you in the past, but I don't think it is effective to focus on calling people names rather than discussing the issue.

[_sock puppet]

I don't really know how to respond to that, Darth J., except by asking what you expect of me? I read your comment

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.

To mean that the only information we have is that which tells of Joseph Smith translating via placing his head in his hat. I didn't mean to call you "foolish", though I did say your statement above was "embarrassingly silly". In light of all of the information we have that doesn't talk about the "head-in-the-hat-thing", how could it not be seen that way? I didn't and don't see any conditions in your statement about eyewitnesses, but perhaps my eyesight is failing (I do wear glasses).

I'm no one else but myself, Darth J. I don't know how advantageous this tactic has been for you in the past, but I don't think it is effective to focus on calling people names rather than discussing the issue.

So, Radex, you think it is rational for an institution shilling "the truth" (i.e., COJCOLDS) to hang on to the Studious Joe myth that has no foundation in any eye-witness account given anywhere close in time to the event in question, but the Studious Joe myth has as its genesis a second-hand account provided decades after the fact? You really think that is rational for an institution selling "the truth"?

[_Radex]

So, Radex, you think it is rational for an institution shilling "the truth" (i.e., COJCOLDS) to hang on to the Studious Joe myth that has no foundation in any eye-witness account given anywhere close in time to the event in question, but the Studious Joe myth has as its genesis a second-hand account provided decades after the fact? You really think that is rational for an institution selling "the truth"?

sock puppet, I do consider the account by Joseph Smith himself to be the truth that the official church commissioned pictures and paintings make reference to.

By this timely aid was I enabled to reach the place of my destination in Pennsylvania; and immediately after my arrival there I commenced copying the characters off the plates. I copied a considerable number of them, and by means of the Urim and Thummim I translated some of them, which I did between the time I arrived at the house of my wife’s father, in the month of December, and the February following.

[_Runtu]

sock puppet, I do consider the account by Joseph Smith himself to be the truth that the official church commissioned pictures and paintings make reference to.

By this timely aid was I enabled to reach the place of my destination in Pennsylvania; and immediately after my arrival there I commenced copying the characters off the plates. I copied a considerable number of them, and by means of the Urim and Thummim I translated some of them, which I did between the time I arrived at the house of my wife’s father, in the month of December, and the February following.

Joseph and his scribes seem to use "Urim and Thummim" to describe the seer stones as well as the "interpreters" hidden with the plates.

[Guest]

I don't really know how to respond to that, Darth J., except by asking what you expect of me?

Too much, evidently.

I read your comment

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.

To mean that the only information we have is that which tells of Joseph Smith translating via placing his head in his hat. I didn't mean to call you "foolish", though I did say your statement above was "embarrassingly silly". In light of all of the information we have that doesn't talk about the "head-in-the-hat-thing", how could it not be seen that way? I didn't and don't see any conditions in your statement about eyewitnesses, but perhaps my eyesight is failing (I do wear glasses).

And a completely reasonable reading it is, too. I mean, it's not like there is this whole thread to put the issue in context of the dichotomy between what people who watched Joseph Smith purport to translate the Book of Mormon and what the LDS Church depicts. Nobody reading this thread could possibly have figured out that I am alluding to contemporary witnesses who saw what Joseph Smith was doing. "The only information we have"? That could mean anything!

"In light of all of the information we have that doesn't talk about the 'head-in-the-hat-thing'" is a statement that has only two purposes. One is to contrive an argument from ignorance by claiming that outsider statements that don't mention any translation mechanics are somehow an alternative to specific statements by people who were there with Joseph Smith. The second is to beg the question by referring to correlated official LDS publications, whose accuracy is not only disputed, but has been disproved in this thread (you know, that stuff Thews keeps referencing).

I'm no one else but myself, Darth J. I don't know how advantageous this tactic has been for you in the past, but I don't think it is effective to focus on calling people names rather than discussing the issue.

Yeah, because it's not like I actually responded to the substance of what you said.

[_Darth J]

sock puppet, I do consider the account by Joseph Smith himself to be the truth that the official church commissioned pictures and paintings make reference to.

By this timely aid was I enabled to reach the place of my destination in Pennsylvania; and immediately after my arrival there I commenced copying the characters off the plates. I copied a considerable number of them, and by means of the Urim and Thummim I translated some of them, which I did between the time I arrived at the house of my wife’s father, in the month of December, and the February following.

Do you have a rough estimate of how many times you will continue saying this, when it has already been shown in this thread that the revisionist idea of using the breastplate and spectacles was promulgated after the fact?

Will it be more than ten?

[_Radex]

Too much, evidently.

Please forgive me for reading your statement and taking at face value, rather than examining the context of it within this thread, within the church, within the state, country, world, universe etc. My mum always told me to say what you mean and mean what you say; I assumed you were brought up with similar teachings. My mistake, of course.

Do you have a rough estimate of how many times you will continue saying this...

I was responding to an inquiry posted by sock puppet. No one is asking you to believe Joseph Smith, I am simply saying that I do. The seer stone placed in a dark area for better visibility was one method Joseph used to translate. Another was the Urim & Thummim/Nephite Interpreters. They are both valid; they are both true. The official account speaks about Nephite Interpreters, so it is little wonder that the pictures and paintings commissioned by the church would correspond to the official account.