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

[Guest]

Except that from a hat we got the Book of Mormon. Quite a feat.

No, we got it from an unsuccessful treasure seeking rock that was placed in a hat. And from several subsequent revisions by editors unknown....

[_Runtu]

Except that from a hat we got the Book of Mormon. Quite a feat. The apostle Paul was a real crapper and yet, he was chosen. God is certainly strange.

It would be nice if the Book of Mormon were actually true. Getting fake scriptures from a shady practice doesn't instill a lot of confidence in God.

[_Equality]

The reason this is a false analogy is that paintings/drawings from official LDS sources of Joseph Smith translating the golden plates are purporting to depict a historical event. They are not representing an abstract concept (like a swastika does). But if your point about the painting of George III is that the artist was commissioned to make things look better than they appeared in real life, you are not refuting the OP. You are conceding it.

The painting showing George Washingtom crossing the delaware was a phoney too. And yet, it has been in many history books as a patriotic tool. You should resign your citizenship if you are an american.

Why me makes two "points" in the above statement:

1. Other art depicts historical events inaccurately, so it's OK for the church to repeatedly and intentionally mislead its members and investigators with art depicting events from church history (specifically, the "translation" of the Book of Mormon) inaccurately.

2. Because some history books have misled students about American history, Americans should resign their citizenship.

Neither of these points has anything to do with the original post or the discussion that has taken place over the last number of pages. On the first: the fact that art has been used by some people in power as propaganda hardly supports the position taken by defenders of the church that the church is not deliberately misleading people by exclusively using artistic representations of the Book of Mormon "translation" having no basis in fact or evidence to support them. Indeed, it makes the critics' point--that the church does in fact engage in propaganda (which Richard Alan Nelson defines as follows: "Propaganda is neutrally defined as a systematic form of purposeful persuasion that attempts to influence the emotions, attitudes, opinions, and actions of specified target audiences for ideological, political or commercial purposes through the controlled transmission of one-sided messages (which may or may not be factual) via mass and direct media channels. A propaganda organization employs propagandists who engage in propagandism—the applied creation and distribution of such forms of persuasion.") See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda. To point to other sources of propaganda, be they paintings of George III or George Washington, simply underscores the point.

On the second, there is, of course, a vast difference between one's status as a citizen of the nation in which one has been born (or to which one has moved and attained citizenship) and one's membership in a religious cult. Furthermore, no one suggests that a Mormon should resign from the LDS church solely because the LDS church engages in propaganda of the type identified in this thread (i.e., systematic visual misrepresentations of the church's history found in church manuals, on church web sites, in missionary materials, and at church-owned properties). There are many reasons for one to conclude that the LDS church's foundational truth claims are false, that its values are antithetical to reason and human dignity. The artistic propaganda the church engages in is but one of those reasons, and probably not all that significant to many who have made the decision to dissociate from the LDS church (although the larger issue that is illustrated by the church's deliberate attempts to mislead people about the Book of Mormon "translation"--that a church that demands honesty in all things from its members engages in a systematic campaign of deceit--has certainly been a catalyst for some to question what else the church might be hiding). At any rate, the notion that one should renounce one's citizenship because some artists have created misleading art about American historical events is ludicrous on its face. Again, some citizens may examine their relationship with their home nation and conclude, based on a number of things that go into the decisional mix, that they want to renounce their citizenship. But the factors that would go into that decision are almost certainly of an entirely different variety than those that go into the analysis of one's church membership.

Again, why me misses the point, which is this: the church deliberately misleads its own members and the public at large about the church's history. It does this through omissions of key information. It does this through false representations and visual depictions of events it claims to have actually happened. It does this after being informed of the false representations. And you, why me, say that such misrepresentations are just fine and dandy because others have done the same (the old "two wrongs make a right" fallacy). At the same time, you claim the critics' depictions would actually be faith-promoting if they showed Joseph Smith's face just slightly above the brim, so he could breathe a little easier and be heard more easily.

Meanwhile, the typical apologetic response defending the church articulated by bcspace in this thread, is that the critics' depictions of the "translation" of the Book of Mormon (based on actual early reports from faithful members including Emma Smith, Martin Harris, David Whitmer, and Oliver Cowdery) are faith-destroying and "anti-Mormon." This apologetic response defends the church's propaganda by arguing that (a) we don't know that much about the translation, (b) the reports we do have are not entirely consistent, (c) no artistic representation could be 100% accurate, and every artist takes some license when depicting historical events, as is true with the critic's depiction posted int his thread, where Joseph is seen seated on the stairs and Martin Harris's account literally said Joseph was "upstairs," (d) any artistic license taken was done by the artist and the church had nothing to do with it and it's all just innocent and there is no evidence that the church is willfully choosing to depict the event a certain way for a specific reason, and (e) even if the church were being deliberately deceitful by omitting certain information, the purpose of the image is to build, not tear down, faith (the old "lying for the Lord"/"some truths aren't useful" justification).

I give you some minor props, why me, for departing with your fellow church defenders, and arguing that you think depictions of the prophet "translating" with a rock in his hat ought to be in the Ensign and that you find them faith-promoting. I do wonder, though, why you haven't answered the question that naturally arises if your view is anything close to the view shared by your fellow believers in or defenders of Mormonism: why doesn't the church just publish multiple artist's depictions? Why does it always use depictions that show the plates out on the table and that do not comport with the accounts we do have of the process used to produce the Book of Mormon?

Additionally, I take issue with how you try to draw some equivalence between the completely inaccurate depictions repeatedly commissioned by and promulgated by the church and the almost completely accurate depiction from the Images of the Restoration site, which is based on multiple faithful Mormon sources, including Emma Smith, whom you have repeatedly implicitly called a liar in this thread with your zany argument about the impossibility of Joseph Smith having his head "buried in his hat" as Emma Smith claimed he did.

In sum, not only do your arguments not make any sense standing on their own, but they also contradict other faithful Mormons such as Emma Smith (who said Joseph buried his face in his hat), David Whitmer, Martin Harris, and Oliver Cowdery (none of whose accounts supports the church's most-often-used depiction of the plates being in open view of Joseph and scribe on the table in front of them). Your attempt at ad hoc amateur apologetics has got you so tied up in knots that you are actually making the critics' case and, in the process, contradicting some of the most prominent faithful members of the movement you are so anemically trying to defend.

[_thews]

The idea of Joseph Smith using a "glass" shouldn't be faith-shaking to Latter Day Saints.

Why? Joseph Smith used his seer stones to see evil treasure guardians before the Book of Mormon. George Miller offers some excellent perspective on the subject:

posting.php?mode=quote&f=1&p=322715

I can only offer my own subjective view. During Joseph Smith's days as a money digger, Joseph would place the rock in a hat then look through the rock allowing an image to form in his mind that would show him the slippery passageways throughout the hills. In addition he would see with his "spiritual eyes" the ghosts that were protecting the treasure.

Consulting the dead as Joseph Smith did using his seer stones to see/appease the evil treasure guardians guarding the treasure is explicitly defined as detestable to God:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=NIV

Deuteronomy 18
New International Version (NIV)
10 Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, 11 or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. 12 Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD; because of these same detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you. 13 You must be blameless before the LORD your God. [/u].

It was a very ancient practice. Paul alluded to it in 1 Cor 13: 12. ("Glass" at that time wasn't windows, but rather a polished, reflective surface like a mirror.) The Urim and Thummim, also of antiquity, was two glass / crystal stones set in a device. Whoso possessed it was known as a "seer", a title of respect and religious authority. The practice must have been righteous, because it was corrupted by Lucifer and his counterfeits. (Crystal ball gazing and such like.)

The chasm you attempt to bridge is missing the aspect of contacting evil. I realize you need to ignore this to make sense out of your convoluted parallel argument, but using occult objects to contact the evil treasure guardians is in no way shape or form Christian.

And, what better way to see what was being shown in a stone or glass than to put it into a hat, and block out the light? If you have your cell phone outdoors on a bright day, do you not try and shade it so you can see what's on the screen? Think about these things a little bit, Saints. Don't let the apostates throw you off the Iron Rod with their scare tactics. And, by the way, what will the faithful be given by Christ? A white stone. (Rev. 2: 17.) (Footnote calls it a Urim and Thummim.)

As you throw out what footnote describes Joseph Smith's seer stones as the "Urim and Thummim" to bolster your argument from silence, it's important to acknowledge the use of "Urim and Thummim" (according the LDS history) wasn't used until three years after the Book of Mormon was published. Some facts:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=21529&start=21

Here you go:
http://www.boap.org/LDS/History/HTMLHis ... html#N_13_

Note the dates in the title...

History of the Church Vol.1

Chapter 3. [Jan. 1827 - Mar. 1829]

The Nephite Record Delivered To Joseph-- The Angel's Warning--The Work of Translation.

Followed by this (note footnote 13)...

1. Now, behold, I say unto you, that because you delivered up those writings which you had power given unto you to translate by the means of the Urim and Thummim,(13) into the hands of a wicked man, you have lost them.

2. And you also lost your gift at the same time, and your mind became darkened.

3. Nevertheless, it is now restored unto you again; therefore see that you are faithful and continue on unto the finishing of the remainder of the work of translation as you have begun.

Footnote 13...

13. The term Urim and Thummim, while used in this revelation and in the ms text does not appear in early publications of the revelation, nor does it seem to have been used in any contemporary document of the principals. No early ms of this revelation survives apparently. In the 1833 Book of Commandments, verse one read "Now, behold I say unto you, that because you delivered up so many writings, which you had power to translate, into the hands of a wicked man, you have lost them. . . ." Thus, the words "by the means of the Urim and Thummim" in verse one were not part of this verse in the Book of Commandments; nor was section 17, which also makes use of the term Urim and Thummim, printed in the Book of Commandments. Both section 17 and verse one of section 10, as we now have them, first appeared in the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. Lyndon Cook writes:

While the retroactive placement of the term in section 10 has led to some speculation relative to the Prophet's having the instrument in his possession, a preponderance of evidence confirms the Prophet's own testimony: "With the records was found a curious instrument, which the ancients called 'Urim and Thummim,' which consisted of two transparent stones set in the rim of a bow fastened to a breastplate" (History of the Church, 4:537 [Wentworth letter]). The problem here seems to be one of terminology, not whether or not the Prophet had possession of an ancient artifact. Until some time after the translation of the Book of Mormon, the sacred instruments may have been referred to as "Interpreters," or "spectacles." It is possible that Joseph Smith's inspired translation of the Bible played some part in designating the translating instrument "Urim and Thummim." The earliest use of the term Urim and Thummim in Mormon literature is in the Evening and Morning Star (January 1833). An article on the Book of Mormon, undoubtedly authored by W. W. Phelps, stated, "It was translated by the gift and power of God, by an unlearned man, through the aid of a pair of Interpreters, or spectacles--(known, perhaps in ancient days as Teraphim, or Urim and Thummim)." [RJS, 17]

[Phelps' speculation that the Old Testament word "Teraphim" refers to an object or objects similar to the Urim and Thummim is wrong. Teraphim were small household idols. Recent studies in regard to Biblical "Urim and Thummim," historically the object of wide speculation, suggest they were similar in character to the "Interpreters" had by Joseph Smith. See notes in JSCOM.]

I wonder what "preponderance of evidence" they're alluding to, to make 1833 fit under the title of 1829? Hey I know... how about an outright lie?

So logjamislds, as you attempt to convince the LDS faithful to ignore the factual data, and you wish to claim that the Urim and Thummim were not in fact Joseph Smith's seer stones to support your parallel argument, please explain when he obtained them and when they were taken back (if they were taken back).

To support my argument that the so-called Urim and Thummim were in fact Joseph Smith's seer stones, FairMormon comes close to admitting the truth. Note that "by the means of the Urim and Thummim" was added in 1833 three years after the Book of Mormon was published, and they combine the Nephite Interpreters with Urim and Thummim, which was taken back after the lost 116 pages:

http://fairwiki.org/Joseph_Smith/Seer_stones

Did Joseph lose the seer stone(s) and/or the Urim and Thummim?

Following the loss of the 116 pages, the Lord told Joseph:

1 NOW, behold, I say unto you, that because you delivered up those writings which you had power given unto you to translate by the means of the Urim and Thummim, into the hands of a wicked man, you have lost them.
2 And you also lost your gift at the same time, and your mind became darkened.
3 Nevertheless, it is now restored unto you again; therefore see that you are faithful and continue on unto the finishing of the remainder of the work of translation as you have begun.
4 Do not run faster or labor more than you have strength and means provided to enable you to translate; but be diligent unto the end. (DC 10:1-4)

Thus, "it" (Joseph's gift) was restored to him, but there is no indication that the Nephite interpreters (Urim and Thummim) were also returned, Joseph having also lost "them." That is, after repenting, Joseph would recover his seer stones, but apparently not the Urim and Thummim. Some Church sources have seen this as the point at which Joseph received the seer stone for the first time, but this is likely incorrect:

As a chastisement for this carelessness [loss of the 116 pages], the Urim and Thummim was taken from Smith. But by humbling himself, he again found favor with the Lord and was presented a strange oval-shaped, chocolate colored stone, about the size of an egg, but more flat which it was promised should answer the same purpose. With this stone all the present book was translated.[24]

This source is clearly somewhat confused, since it sees Joseph as getting his dark stone after the 116 pages, when it likely dates to 1822 at the latest (see above).

David Whitmer, who only came in contact with the translation after the loss of the 116 pages, indicated through a friend that

With the sanction of David Whitmer, and by his authority, I now state that he does not say that Joseph Smith ever translated in his presence by aid of Urim and Thummim; but by means of one dark colored, opaque stone, called a 'Seer Stone,' which was placed in the crown of a hat, into which Joseph put his face, so as to exclude the external light. Then, a spiritual light would shine forth, and parchment would appear before Joseph, upon which was a line of characters from the plates, and under it, the translation in English; at least, so Joseph said.[25]

Joseph also used the seer stone to keep himself and the plates safe, as his mother recorded:

That of which I spoke, which Joseph termed a key, was indeed, nothing more nor less than the Urim and Thummim, and it was by this that the angel showed him many things which he saw in vision; by which also he could ascertain, at any time, the approach of danger, either to himself or the Record, and on account of which he always kept the Urim and Thummim about his person.[26]

We see here the tendency to use the term "Urim and Thummim" to refer to Joseph's seer stone (or to the Nephite interpreters, which would have been too large for Joseph to carry on his person undetected). This lack of precision in terminology has, on occasion, confused some members who have not understood that either or both may be referred to by early LDS authors as "Urim and Thummim." To Joseph and his contemporaries, they were all the same type of thing, and merely differed in the strength of their power and ability. Clearly, devices from the Lord when directed by an angelic messenger (such as the Nephite interpreters) would outrank a seer stone found on one's own.

In the end, to place faith in Joseph Smith's occult seer stones bringing "Christian" doctrine is one thing, but to acknowledge the LDS church is lying to you via their depictions of the translation method should be more troubling.

[_sock puppet]

The reason this is a false analogy is that paintings/drawings from official LDS sources of Joseph Smith translating the golden plates are purporting to depict a historical event. They are not representing an abstract concept (like a swastika does). But if your point about the painting of George III is that the artist was commissioned to make things look better than they appeared in real life, you are not refuting the OP. You are conceding it.

The painting showing George Washingtom crossing the delaware was a phoney too. And yet, it has been in many history books as a patriotic tool. You should resign your citizenship if you are an american.

You're right. Can I stop paying federal taxes just like I stopped paying tithing? :?

Does the federal government ask us, under threat of eternal punishment if we do not and while claiming to be the institutional paragon of virtue and knowledge, to attend classes every week wherein the federal government's correlated materials include only the misleading painting of the Delaware crossing? And under those auspices, ask us to make a contribution, using that misleading painting as a tool to entice the contribution and the behavioral compliance? No. The federal government does not use the misleading painting as a tool of its artifice and fraud to entice people to part with their money, their time and their liberty of choosing how to live their life. True, the federal government has its coercive methods to enforce the mandates to pay taxes and not commit crimes--but it is not using the painting of the Delaware crossing to entice people, to defraud them.

The Mormon Church, knowing that there is more credible historical evidence for the face-in-the-hat method of 'translation', chooses instead to use as its tool of brainwashing the members a false representation of that method--and does so to encourage fealty to Mormonism, including tithe paying, serving full-time missions for 18 months or two years at their own expense, serving lay ministry positions, etc.

Not much of a comparison there, why me.

[_Darth J]

The reason this is a false analogy is that paintings/drawings from official LDS sources of Joseph Smith translating the golden plates are purporting to depict a historical event. They are not representing an abstract concept (like a swastika does). But if your point about the painting of George III is that the artist was commissioned to make things look better than they appeared in real life, you are not refuting the OP. You are conceding it.

The painting showing George Washingtom crossing the delaware was a phoney too. And yet, it has been in many history books as a patriotic tool. You should resign your citizenship if you are an american.

Assuming, without evidence, that the painting to which you refer has been officially used by the federal government as a propaganda tool, salient features of American citizenship include the right to speak out against the government and to hold elected representatives accountable.

Salient features of membership in the LDS Church include the diktat to stick to the lesson manual and the complete lack of any accountability whatsoever for church leaders, the empty exercise of sustaining "votes" notwithstanding.

Thanks, though, for showing the desperation that defenders of the faith are often forced into. "Oh, yeah? Well, governments lie, too!"

[_Radex]

Uh huh. Anyway, where might I find an account from a contemporary witness who describes the golden plates being translated as shown in the LDS paintings we are discussing?

If you place such conditions on requests, you're unlikely to get a satisfactory answer.

For example, where can I find a blue orange?

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

We don't? I don't believe I've 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.

Odd how that same type of evidence is sufficient for us to know about faith-promoting things, isn't it?
How is it that we know the Melchizedek Priesthood was restored? Or the keys to the sealing power? Or that the Three Witnesses saw something? I keep forgetting.

There are accounts of these things.

There are also accounts of Joseph Smith using multiple methods of translation. I haven't denied any of them.

Here's a picture of the First Vision:

--

We don't have a photograph of the First Vision, so this will have to do. You can't object to it. It's just an artist's interpretation and cannot be said to be misleading or inaccurate.

Based upon what we know from accounts of the First Vision, this modified image can be said to be inaccurate.

Based upon what we know from accounts of the translation of the Book of Mormon, the common church images cannot be said to be inaccurate. They depict one method by which Joseph Smith translated.

So you think COJCOLDS is on the same level as a fast-food chain? Well, me too. Only McDonald's actually gives you something in return for your money.

Unfortunately, the rhetoric from the Brethren/out of the COB tries to mislead people into thinking that COJCOLDS is or aspires to being something more than a fast-food chain. But I am glad you see COJCOLDS for what it is.

Actually, if you'll recall, it was DrW who used the advertising analogy. I was helping him along with it by applying it to the conversation.

With McDonald's, you don't get a perfect Big Mac like the one in the photographs, but you do get a Big Mac. It is unreasonable to expect McDonald's to display a photograph of a turtle and then deliver a Big Mac. As we can see, there is an acceptable margin of error in images, and use of images by the church falls within it.

[_Darth J]

Uh huh. Anyway, where might I find an account from a contemporary witness who describes the golden plates being translated as shown in the LDS paintings we are discussing?

If you place such conditions on requests, you're unlikely to get a satisfactory answer.

For example, where can I find a blue orange?

Thanks for joining us on today's episode of "Deliberate Obtuseness By a Defender of the Faith!" Now, let's pause for this brief message from the dictionary:

contemporary

1.
existing, occurring, or living at the same time; belonging to the same time: Newton's discovery of the calculus was contemporary with that of Leibniz.
2.
of about the same age or date: a Georgian table with a contemporary wig stand.
3.
of the present time; modern: a lecture on the contemporary novel.

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.

Odd how that same type of evidence is sufficient for us to know about faith-promoting things, isn't it?
How is it that we know the Melchizedek Priesthood was restored? Or the keys to the sealing power? Or that the Three Witnesses saw something? I keep forgetting.

There are accounts of these things.

There are also accounts of Joseph Smith using multiple methods of translation. I haven't denied any of them.

Oh, good. I am excited to see what methods of translation there are besides a seer stone in a hat, on which the words on the plates appeared in English. I am sure you will be providing citations to the other and multiple accounts any time now.

Here's a picture of the First Vision:

--

We don't have a photograph of the First Vision, so this will have to do. You can't object to it. It's just an artist's interpretation and cannot be said to be misleading or inaccurate.

Based upon what we know from accounts of the First Vision, this modified image can be said to be inaccurate.

Based upon what we know from accounts of the translation of the Book of Mormon, the common church images cannot be said to be inaccurate. They depict one method by which Joseph Smith translated.

I can't wait to see these other accounts, showing that the church images are a fair representation of the historical record!

[_Radex]

Thanks for joining us on today's episode of "Deliberate Obtuseness By a Defender of the Faith!" Now, let's pause for this brief message from the dictionary:

You're certainly up in arms about my little attempt at humor, Mr. J. Can we have a pleasant discussion, or are you going to play merry-hell every time I post a retort?

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.

Oh, good. I am excited to see what methods of translation there are besides a seer stone in a hat, on which the words on the plates appeared in English. I am sure you will be providing citations to the other and multiple accounts any time now.

I can't wait to see these other accounts, showing that the church images are a fair representation of the historical record!

I am very happy to see that you have such extreme mood swings: from red-faced anger to utter insatiable excitement in one post.

Here is an account (PDF) of Oliver Cowdery, before he joined the church, writing that the translation method was via the "spirit of inspiration."

Here is an account (PDF) of the translation method being "supernatural agency."

Here is an account (PDF) that describes the translation method as "divine inspiration."

Here's one (PDF) that states that Joseph Smith didn't need to look at anything to translate the plates.

Feel free to search around the 19th century document archive at BYU. There are many accounts which describe other methods than seer stones in hats.

Now, don't misunderstand: seer stone(s) in a hat was definitely a translation method. I do not deny it, I just don't see the issue with it.

[_Quasimodo]

Now, don't misunderstand: seer stone(s) in a hat was definitely a translation method. I do not deny it, I just don't see the issue with it.

Nor should you!

In a world where the flood was local, or maybe not. Native Americans are Jewish, or maybe not. The Hill Camorah was in upstate New York, or maybe not. The Kinderhook plates were translated from Egyptian, or maybe not. The Book of Abraham was a translation from Egyptian, or maybe not.

Rocks in a hat should be an easy pill to swallow.