Crockett Challenges Scratch to a Debate

[_Mister Scratch]

That's ridiculous. As you well know, extremely accurate digital photographs are available to scholars on a nearly instant's notice. You obviously have not worked in archival work before. Critical originals, especially of ancient documents, are tough to see in any major institution without advance notice.

Lol. If the "digital photographs" are so readily available, then I'm sure you'll have no trouble supplying a link. I'll be waiting patiently.

Walk over to LDS archives and they will provide a copy.

Oh, they will? You've stated that they're "readily" available. This directly contradicts what Prof. Gee said about getting access to materials.

They are also published all over the internet. Google images: Papyrus Joseph Smith photographs.

Answer me this, Bob: Are those images available thanks to the LDS Church? Or do we have access to them due to the efforts of someone not officially associated with the LDS Church?

Also, high quality images were published in Larson's book. Really, your knowledge base is shockingly deficient.

Again, I ask, how do you think Charles Larson got them?

I don't know. Do you? If you know what he had to do in order to secure access, please share. According to Gee, he would have had to endure all kinds of ridiculous hoop-jumping. (Here's another question: Why did it take so long for the Church to allow these photos to be published?)

I think we can agree that your claim that the Church has placed "off limits" Book of Abraham material is bull.

No. Not until you can provide evidence that the Church is making it easy to access BoA-related stuff.

[_rcrocket]

My answer above stands. Since the only place Charles Larson could have obtained his very high-quality images of the documents would have been only the Church, one must assume that that is where he got them.

Your best anecdote just falls flat. There are plenty of better ones; I'm surprised you don't even know any of them. Restriction of access to rare documents (done by many many archives -- including the Library of Congress) is a far cry from the active suppression of history.

[_Chap]

My answer above stands. Since the only place Charles Larson could have obtained his very high-quality images of the documents would have been only the Church, one must assume that that is where he got them.

Your best anecdote just falls flat. There are plenty of better ones; I'm surprised you don't even know any of them. Restriction of access to rare documents (done by many many archives -- including the Library of Congress) is a far cry from the active suppression of history.

I should like to hear from Charles Larson whether he obtained these images with the explicit permission of the LDS authorities, or 'otherwise'. I seem to recall having heard accounts to the latter effect - but I could be wrong.

I agree with Scratch that if the images are available from the CoCJoLDS it is odd that they are not posted on a website somewhere with an LDS attribution. The remarks by Gee about 'respecting the church's copyright' suggest an intention to restrict.

But why not ask Larson? Then we'll know.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

All praise Baal!

Can someone remind me why this board doesn't really attract more civil, scholarly discussion?

[_GoodK]

All praise Baal!

Can someone remind me why this board doesn't really attract more civil, scholarly discussion?

Yes. LifeOnaPlate: 4.77 posts per day.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

David Whitmer's "face in the hat" story is of suspect quality. It first surfaced in 1875. He didn't mention this before that time. Thus, his story depends upon what he was told, not what he had seen.

Apparently not "suspect" enough for Elder Nelson, who used that very story in a talk that appeared in the Ensign a few years ago.

So much for suppression.

[_Scottie]

If you were to go into a typical Utah County chapel on any given Sunday, how many members would have an inkling of an idea that Joseph Smith used a rock in the hat? Best guess.

If I had to guess, 95% wouldn't know.

If you were to ask these members how they envision the translation process, what do you think their response would be?

I know that as for myself, when I was a typical chapel Mormon, I would have said that Joseph Smith wore the Urim and Thummim like a pair of glasses and with the plates in front of him, studied them and read from it to a scribe. Exactly like the church sanctioned picture shows him.

The church knows EXACTLY how they want to portray Joseph Smith. And reading from a hat does not fit into their image.

[_antishock8]

Any chance someone can start a new thread for each issue Mr. Scratch and Mr. Crock want to discuss? It's hard to follow each sidebar.

That being said, Mormon suppression of its history is indisputable. You'll never see the temple ceremony and all its changes listed on an official website or information brochure for curious members/non-members. That's suppression, especially when we're talking about an Oath of Vengeance and other undesirable rites. So. That debate is over. The Mormon church officially suppresses its history: The Temple.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

If you were to go into a typical Utah County chapel on any given Sunday, how many members would have an inkling of an idea that Joseph Smith used a rock in the hat? Best guess.

If I had to guess, 95% wouldn't know.

If you were to ask these members how they envision the translation process, what do you think their response would be?

I know that as for myself, when I was a typical chapel Mormon, I would have said that Joseph Smith wore the Urim and Thummim like a pair of glasses and with the plates in front of him, studied them and read from it to a scribe. Exactly like the church sanctioned picture shows him.

The church knows EXACTLY how they want to portray Joseph Smith. And reading from a hat does not fit into their image.

First, this is a fundamental principle, why? Second, as it has been published in various Mormon publications for years, this is suppression, why?

[_GoodK]

If you were to go into a typical Utah County chapel on any given Sunday, how many members would have an inkling of an idea that Joseph Smith used a rock in the hat? Best guess.

If I had to guess, 95% wouldn't know.

If you were to ask these members how they envision the translation process, what do you think their response would be?

I know that as for myself, when I was a typical chapel Mormon, I would have said that Joseph Smith wore the Urim and Thummim like a pair of glasses and with the plates in front of him, studied them and read from it to a scribe. Exactly like the church sanctioned picture shows him.

The church knows EXACTLY how they want to portray Joseph Smith. And reading from a hat does not fit into their image.

My good friend, a return missionary at BYU, knew nothing of the rock in the hat. I still don't think he believes me.