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

[_Chap]

According to Samuel W. Richards, Oliver Cowdery gave him the following description of the translation of the Book of Mormon:

He represented Joseph as sitting at a table with the plates before him, translating them by means of the Urim and Thummim, while he (Oliver) sat beside him writing every word as Joseph spoke them to him. This was done by holding the "translators" over the hieroglyphics, the translation appearing distinctly on the instrument, which had been touched by the finger of God and dedicated and consecrated for the express purpose of translating languages. Every word was distinctly visible even to every letter; and if Oliver omitted a word or failed to spell a word correctly, the translation remained on the "interpreter" until it was copied correctly.

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

A second-hand hearsay account given 78 years after the fact. Thanks for playing. We have some lovely parting gifts. Oh, and by the way, this account doesn't even match the images the church uses--it talks about using the translators over the plates!

Yup - as I pointed out when I cited this passage earlier in the thread, what we have is a "Personal statement of Samuel W. Richards [1824–1909], 25 May 1907" (how recorded/edited?) reporting his recollections (at the age of 83) of something that must have been said to him at least 57 years earlier, since Cowdery died in 1850. And if Cowdery spoke to Richard in 1850, he would have been reminiscing about things that happened 21 years before that.

So what we have is a report of a reminiscence of a memory. Good stuff. And in any case, as I pointed out a while back, and as Equality rightly stresses, this is not a story of Joseph Smith looking directly at the plates as in the standard church pictures: instead, he is reading the English words that appear on an 'instrument', the only difference being that it is not said to be in a hat but held over the plates.

So that is all whyme has for us ... I am happy I still have him on ignore.

Me. I'll go with the direct written testimony of an eye-witness, David Whitmer:

I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph would put the seer stone into a 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 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), 12.

[_Fence Sitter]

for what it's worth, I'm teaching the 17yo Sunday School class this year, and in our first lesson on the Book of Mormon two weeks ago we discussed the history of the translation process and I mentioned the face-in-a-hat method of translation. The reaction from the teenagers: blank looks and glassy-eyed stares.

Based on the last few months of teaching, I suspect the greatest threat to the future of the Church isn't sin or doubt on the part of the youth, it's indifference.

Cinepro,

Blank looks and glassy-eyed stares from 17 yo are the result of being forced to go to Sunday School, Sacrament, Seminary to hear the same correlated boring material that they have heard before. They long ago shut down. They probably didn't realize you were presenting something different. I suggest next time you talk about something non correlated approved you act like it is some big secret you are not supposed to tell, make sure the classroom door is shut and dim the lights. Hand out hats with rocks in them and some copies of the Anthon transcript and challenge them to translate a sentence. When they can't (or won't which is more likely with 17 yo), use it as a object lesson on how hard it was for Joseph to do and how much he should be admired for being able to translate with his face stuck in a hat.

[_why me]

Cinepro,

Blank looks and glassy-eyed stares from 17 yo are the result of being forced to go to Sunday School, Sacrament, Seminary to hear the same correlated boring material that they have heard before. They long ago shut down. They probably didn't realize you were presenting something different. I suggest next time you talk about something non correlated approved you act like it is some big secret you are not supposed to tell, make sure the classroom door is shut and dim the lights. Hand out hats with rocks in them and some copies of the Anthon transcript and challenge them to translate a sentence. When they can't (or won't which is more likely with 17 yo), use it as a object lesson on how hard it was for Joseph to do and how much he should be admired for being able to translate with his face stuck in a hat.

Most 17 year olds would not care about a head in a hat. They have so much going on in their lives and so many problems to attend, that it means nothing to them. But yea, a more dramatic lesson would help get their attention. These days, kids need to be showboated around.

[_Drifting]

Cinepro,

Blank looks and glassy-eyed stares from 17 yo are the result of being forced to go to Sunday School, Sacrament, Seminary to hear the same correlated boring material that they have heard before. They long ago shut down. They probably didn't realize you were presenting something different. I suggest next time you talk about something non correlated approved you act like it is some big secret you are not supposed to tell, make sure the classroom door is shut and dim the lights. Hand out hats with rocks in them and some copies of the Anthon transcript and challenge them to translate a sentence. When they can't (or won't which is more likely with 17 yo), use it as a object lesson on how hard it was for Joseph to do and how much he should be admired for being able to translate with his face stuck in a hat.

Most 17 year olds would not care about a head in a hat. They have so much going on in their lives and so many problems to attend, that it means nothing to them. But yea, a more dramatic lesson would help get their attention. These days, kids need to be showboated around.

Perhaps you bring an appropriately aged High Priest into the lesson to help them visualise the appropriateness of Joseph's first polygamous coupling...

[_sock puppet]

Me. I'll go with the direct written testimony of an eye-witness, David Whitmer:

I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph would put the seer stone into a 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 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), 12.

You and apparently Apostle Nelson per his July 1993 Ensign article. But heaven forbid that correlation or FAIR/NAMIRS go with it too.

[_thews]

The only things I have maintained in this thread are:

• There is a wealth of information out there, from various sources, which describe other methods than the seer stone.
• The seer stone was a method, it was even the most used method, and it shouldn't bother anyone. It certainly doesn't bother me.
• Images commissioned by the church correspond to the official documentation located in Joseph Smith History (part of the "quad"). For outside reference, membership should be referred to current LDS scholarship - specifically, the Institute, where I have shown the term "seer stone" produces 167 results. Likewise, the Harold B. Lee Library has hundreds (perhaps thousands) of 19th century publications about the Book of Mormon. These are just two of the resources available.

The one question you've consistently avoided is the following:

Again Radex, do you concede the fact that the Urim and Thummim/Nephite interpreters were lost (per LDS doctrine), and every single published word of the Book of Mormon was translated using Joseph Smith seer stone(s) placed in his stove-pipe hat?

Is this the point where you exit the discussion Radex? Is this the point you again fail to define what your supposed point is? Is a simple question too hard for you to simply answer?

[_cinepro]

Perhaps you bring an appropriately aged High Priest into the lesson to help them visualise the appropriateness of Joseph's first polygamous coupling...

A 37-year-old high priest?

[_Drifting]

Let's play spot the difference.
The image above is the official representation of the Book of Mormon being translated.
The account below is from the Ensign Oct 2011 and is the most recent official explanation of the translation method. What is in the account that is not in the image?

6.
As was common in rural areas in those days, Joseph Smith was largely uneducated. To assist him with the translation, God provided for him an ancient translation instrument called the Urim and Thummim. He was also blessed by the help of scribes who wrote what he dictated as he translated. Among these scribes were his wife, Emma; Martin Harris, a prosperous farmer; and Oliver Cowdery, a schoolteacher. The bulk of the translation work was finished less than three months after Oliver began serving as scribe.

Emma described what it was like to serve as Joseph’s scribe: “No man could have dictated the writing of the manuscripts unless he was inspired; for, when [I was] acting as his scribe, [Joseph] would dictate to me hour after hour; and when returning after meals, or after interruptions, he would at once begin where he had left off, without either seeing the manuscript or having any portion of it read to him.”2

[_Chap]

I have already pointed out that it is perfectly possible that Joseph is holding the Urim and Thummim in his right hand, which is in such a position that it was out of sight on the other side of his head at the time the artist received this picture by revelation (you don't think they just make this stuff up, do you?).

Perhaps he is scratching his ear with it.

Or perhaps it is really an audio output device that is whispering words into his ear. (I raised this possibility earlier in this thread).

Or perhaps it is too sacred for the artist to dare to depict it.

In any case, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The mere fact that you can't see it in the picture does not entitle you to deduce that it is not there.

You antis are so dumb!

[_Drifting]

I have already pointed out that it is perfectly possible that Joseph is holding the Urim and Thummim in his right hand, which is in such a position that it was out of sight on the other side of his head at the time the artist received this picture by revelation (you don't think they just make this stuff up, do you?).

Perhaps he is scratching his ear with it.

Or perhaps it is really an audio output device that is whispering words into his ear. (I raised this possibility earlier in this thread).

Or perhaps it is too sacred for the artist to dare to depict it.

In any case, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The mere fact that you can't see it in the picture does not entitle you to deduce that it is not there.

You antis are so dumb!

Brilliant!
Just because it's not there, doesn't mean it's not there....