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

[_Darth J]

The Old Testament books of Nehemiah and Samuel both make reference to the Urim and Thummim, and they were written well before the Book of Mormon was published, if I've calculated correctly.

See: Red Herring

My good Darth,

Again I am reading things as plainly as possible, but perhaps I am missing the larger context of how thews' statement fits in with, I don't know, something else that you're contemplating but that I am completely oblivious to. It may be a function of my age or station, but I read a sentence and, being a native English speaker, interpret it how such a speaker would.

I beg your forgiveness, but thews was asking about the history and the use of the term "Urim and Thummim". As he understood it, the term hadn't been used "until three years after the Book of Mormon was published". I replied that it was used several times in the Old Testament, which is much older than the Book of Mormon. I see no red herring here, just two gentlemen discussing history and one interjecting with Sesame Street rubbish.

Oh, I forgot: your mum taught you to read things in a vacuum, devoid of context. See, people who did not benefit from those lessons in linguistics that your mum taught would have understood that Thews was obviously talking about Mormons using the term "Urim and Thummim" in relation to the translation of the Book of Mormon, rather than anyone using it ever.

Thews is obviously talking about the Book of Mormon that was actually published, but thanks for dispelling that ludicrous idea I mentioned earlier about being deliberately obtuse!

When we're talking about the methods Joseph Smith employed while translating the gold plates, the entire gold plates must be within the context of the conversion. Surely you understand that and are simply being "deliberately obtuse".

No, because official LDS depictions show Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith. None of them show Martin Harris as the scribe.

Hey, you know, some gnat strainers and nit pickers out there don't find it very encouraging that The One True Church is disingenuous in how it depicts its foundational events. But as long as the Church is true!!!, who cares about things like integrity and honesty?

Luckily for all of us, the church is honest in its depiction of one of the translation methods.

So, what was the name of the contemporary witness who saw the Studious Joe method of translation?

In summary:

When critics of the Church refer to firsthand accounts and want history to be told accurately, they are virulent anti-Mormon liars who are persecuting the Church.

I'm sure you can point out where I've asserted such an absurd thing.

Page 7 of this thread: "Right, it sure is silly that the church would commission paintings and artwork which correspond more to official church publications than to critical documents (what were they thinking?)"

When the Church misrepresents its history and instead presents a sanitized pseudo-history that ignores firsthand accounts by people who were actually there, the Church's honesty and integrity are unassailable.

I have shown, repeatedly, that we have multiple accounts from various sources which describe more than one translation method. The Urim and Thummim, and the seer stones were the two primary methods. Both are true. Both are accurate. The pictures of the church are true and accurate.

Among your sources, which is your favorite by a person who was there and watched what Joseph Smith was doing? And since both are accurate, where's the official LDS picture of Joseph Smith with his face in a hat?

[_Darth J]

Times Radex has repeated his argument by assertion since I asked him how many times he planned to do so: Five! Five, ah, ah, ah! (Two additional posts since the last count in this thread; once in Zeezrom's "five methods" thread.)

[_why me]

Show us where in the JS-H the text describes the scene depicted in the image below (i.e., where does it mention that the plates were on the table in full view of both Joseph Smith and his scribe as the Book of Mormon was being "translated":

I think that oliver would be the most reliable eye witness since he did most of the translating. And from what we know from one of his friends, oliver described it this way. But this is what I do know: Oliver was quite impressed with the translation method and knew that it was done by the power of god. So much so, that he came back to the church and bore his testimony to the saints and bore his testimony on his deathbed to all those that were there, including wife.

Now that is pretty powerful.

[_Runtu]

I think that oliver would be the most reliable eye witness since he did most of the translating. And from what we know from one of his friends, oliver described it this way.

Reference, please.

[_Runtu]

No, because official LDS depictions show Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith. None of them show Martin Harris as the scribe.

And remember that Martin Harris explained that the 116 pages were translated using the stone-in-hat method, so such a picture would be inaccurate if it had Martin Harris instead of Oliver Cowdery.

[_sock puppet]

I think that oliver would be the most reliable eye witness since he did most of the translating.

Ya learn somethin' new everyday.

All my life, I was told it was JSJr that did most of the translating.

I'll be damned, it was Oliver.

Next thing you know, why me will slip and let out that it was Solomon that did most of the translating.

[_Jaybear]

So much so, that he came back to the church and bore his testimony to the saints and bore his testimony on his deathbed to all those that were there, including wife.

Now that is pretty powerful.

Mormons love their deathbed testimony stories. They throw them on the table as if they have some extra special meaning. They don't.

The problem with deathbed testimonials, is that the person who supposedly offered up his testimonial can't corroborate or contradict the story.

What would hold special evidentiary weight would a first hand written account of the events by cowdery written at or shortly after the event he claimed to witness, ie a journal entry, or a letter to family or friend describing the amazing events he witnessed.

So if you are going to tout Cowdery as a super special witness, you need to start with his ealiest first hand written account from Cowdery, not with very last hearsay witness.

[_why me]

Reference, please.

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... um=2&id=41

[_why me]

I'll be damned, it was Oliver.

Next thing you know, why me will slip and let out that it was Solomon that did most of the translating.

I think that you know what I meant. It was oliver who wrote what Joseph Smith said to write. However, it was oliver who was active in the process. And he was certainly amazed at the process and said that the days spent in the work were wonderful and marvelous. He also confirmed his testimony on his deathbed. And at the end of the day, this is very powerful and the first hand account critics will need to consider it carefully.

[_why me]

Mormons love their deathbed testimony stories. They throw them on the table as if they have some extra special meaning. They don't.

The problem with deathbed testimonials, is that the person who supposedly offered up his testimonial can't corroborate or contradict the story.

Except there was more than one person present at his deathbed testimony.