"The details of ... translation are still not fully known."

[_sock puppet]

Russell M Nelson's famous July 1993 Ensign article that is the one, brief shining moment of Mormon candidness about the Book of Mormon 'translation' method, quoting Whitmer's face-in-hat description (but not the other 4 or 5 corroborating eye witness accounts of the face-in-hat method--and no other method mentioned by any of them) prefaces the Whitmer quote with:

The details of this miraculous method of translation are still not fully known. Yet we do have a few precious insights.

Much to why me's dismay, Nelson does not quote, not even mention, Samuel Richard's decades after-the-fact, second hand account of Studious Joe.

There is more evidence of the face-in-hat method than there are for many, many positive assertions that COJCOLDS makes, such as regarding tithing. Should tithe's not be accepted, no tithing settlements held, and no question about full tithe payer on the TR recommend since "the details are still not fully known" about what the 10% applies to? I.e., what one's "increase" is, against which the 10% is applied?

This dodge-and-weave by Nelson ("The details of this miraculous method of translation are still not fully known.") is false and deceptive. The Brethren know full well that (a) the only eye witness accounts attest to the face-in-hat method and no other method, and (b) the continued use of the pictures depicting Studious Joe are inaccurate and deceptive.

It so embarrasses the current Brethren how JSJr used his necromancy tools/skills to produce the most perfect book on earth, God's word, the Brethren knowingly 'lie for the Lord' on this point. They fear the fallout from the historical accurate version, you know--the truth, that they continue the deception.

Why do the Lord's appointed, the Brethren, try to obscure the well-established facts of any point of Mormon history?

How is that not lying for the Lord, which Apostle Dallin H Oaks condemned in his 9/12/93 address--a mere two months after Apostle Nelson gave an obscure gloss ('details ... unknown') to known historical evidence that all suggests but one way that goes into great detail?

Why for the ensuing 18 years have the Brethren/COB continues to disseminate false and misleading pictures portraying Studious Joe?

[_Runtu]

Why for the ensuing 18 years have the Brethren/COB continues to disseminate false and misleading pictures portraying Studious Joe?

It's just simple discomfort with the image and its implications.

[_sock puppet]

Why for the ensuing 18 years have the Brethren/COB continues to disseminate false and misleading pictures portraying Studious Joe?

It's just simple discomfort with the image and its implications.

Those implications, care to specify. (I don't think even the FP/12 would be anymore discomforted by the image than they would be discomforted by lying for the Lord--so I think the devil must be in the details of the implications and their fear of those implications.)

[_Runtu]

Those implications, care to specify. (I don't think even the FP/12 would be anymore discomforted by the image than they would be discomforted by lying for the Lord--so I think the devil must be in the details of the implications and their fear of those implications.)

It's simple:

1. Joseph Smith used the seer stone to find lost items and buried treasure.
2. No one actually believes he could do that, as it seems clearly and obviously a fraudulent activity.
3. Joseph Smith used the same stone to translate the Book of Mormon.
4. Thus, the translation becomes connected to a shady endeavor, putting the translation in doubt.