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

[_Fence Sitter]

Interestingly, Oliver Cowdrey is to be believed as another of the three witnesses but yet not to be believed when he articulates events relating to a barn, Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger.

I like the way believing Mormons are quick to point out that the three witnesses are not to be trusted!

for what it's worth Drifting I think most apologist now accept Oliver Cowdrey's account of finding Fanny and Joseph in the barn. The apologetic approach now for Fanny & Joseph is trying to show that they were already married and Oliver, along with Emma and pretty much everyone else, just didn't know about it.

[_Equality]

sock puppet, I do consider the account by Joseph Smith himself to be the truth that the official church commissioned pictures and paintings make reference to.

By this timely aid was I enabled to reach the place of my destination in Pennsylvania; and immediately after my arrival there I commenced copying the characters off the plates. I copied a considerable number of them, and by means of the Urim and Thummim I translated some of them, which I did between the time I arrived at the house of my wife’s father, in the month of December, and the February following.

Radex, what makes you think Joseph Smith wrote that? Was that originally published in the Times & Seasons? Do we know if Joseph wrote it or dictated it? Have the words that are now in the POGP been altered at all from the original? And is this not referring to the translation of the Book of Lehi and not the Book of Mormon we have today?

[_Equality]

I commend to all interested in this topic the chapter in the book The Word of God, available online at Signature Books. It covers in detail ALL the eyewitness accounts, and concludes the following:

An examination of the foregoing eyewitness testimonies produces the following consensus on the method of translation of the Book of Mormon: (1) Nephite interpreters often called “Urim and Thummim” were found with the plates on Hill Cumorah; (2) these interpreters were used first in the translation of the plates; (3) the portion translated by use of the interpreters was copied into 116 pages of foolscap and was later lost by Martin Harris; (4) because of the loss of the first 116 pages of translation, the interpreters were permanently taken away; (5) the Book of Mormon that we have today was translated by use of the seer stone; (6) Smith translated by placing the seer stone in a hat and covering his face with his hat to darken his eyes; (7) the plates were not used in the translating process and often were not even in sight during the translation; (8) other persons were sometimes in the room while Smith dictated to a scribe; and (9) all witnesses agree to these facts.

This synthesis of the eyewitness accounts shows that there is NO evidence to support the church's continuing and systematic misrepresentation of the "translation" process, as described by both faithful Mormon and skeptical (at the time) witnesses, whose testimony is consistent in material respects as described in the quoted material above. That the LDS Church is misleading people with the visual aids it produces and disseminates concerning the Book of Mormon "translation" is really beyond dispute by any rational person. The question of WHY the church continues to do this is, to me, a lot more interesting. Maybe the church's defenders might want to abandon their hopeless argument that the church's depictions are accurate and instead start telling us why the church leaders think they need to mislead people on the subject.

[_Runtu]

The question of WHY the church continues to do this is, to me, a lot more interesting. Maybe the church's defenders might want to abandon their hopeless argument that the church's depictions are accurate and instead start telling us why the church leaders think they need to mislead people on the subject.

In my view, the church doesn't depict it that way because very few people believe that Joseph Smith could find buried treasure and lost items by using the "seer stone." Obviously, a few people do believe it (Brant Gardner does, and If I recall correctly, Dan Peterson has said as much, also), but most people do not believe in this kind of "folk magic." The problem is obvious: how do you reconcile an obvious bogus (and possibly fraudulent) endeavor from legitimate translation of scripture? So, to avoid that sticky question, the church church ignores the whole thing and produces the pictures we see.

[_Fence Sitter]

In my view, the church doesn't depict it that way because very few people believe that Joseph Smith could find buried treasure and lost items by using the "seer stone." Obviously, a few people do believe it (Brant Gardner does, and If I recall correctly, Dan Peterson has said as much, also), but most people do not believe in this kind of "folk magic." The problem is obvious: how do you reconcile an obvious bogus (and possibly fraudulent) endeavor from legitimate translation of scripture? So, to avoid that sticky question, the church church ignores the whole thing and produces the pictures we see.

By slowly introducing to the general body of the church the idea that 'magic' was part of Joseph's history and that Joseph was using it to help people. You also have the bright guys take a lot of time explaining that magic is a really difficult word to understand and that we don't really know what it means. Once you can get people used to the idea that magic rocks were part of God's plan, then placing them in a hat will seem natural. I would suggest now might be the time to bring back the 'pet rock' idea and combine it with a magic 8 ball. You could have invent a rock that you shook and when you turned it over a word would appear. It would make a great seminary teaching aid.

[_Runtu]

By slowly introducing to the general body of the church the idea that 'magic' was part of Joseph's history and that Joseph was using it to help people. You also have the bright guys take a lot of time explaining that magic is a really difficult word to understand and that we don't really know what it means. Once you can get people used to the idea that magic rocks were part of God's plan, then placing them in a hat will seem natural. I would suggest now might be the time to bring back the 'pet rock' idea and combine it with a magic 8 ball. You could have invent a rock that you shook and when you turned it over a word would appear. It would make a great seminary teaching aid.

I don't think it's ever going to happen. President Hinckley was pretty clear about the church having nothing to do with folk magic:

I have no doubt there was folk magic practiced in those days. Without question there were superstitions and the superstitious. I suppose there was some of this in the days when the Savior walked the earth. There is even some in this age of so-called enlightenment. For instance, some hotels and business buildings skip the numbering of floor thirteen. Does this mean there is something wrong with the building? Of course not. Or with the builders? No.

Similarly, the fact that there were superstitions among the people in the days of Joseph Smith is no evidence whatever that the Church came of such superstition. ("Lord, Increase Our Faith, Ensign, Nov. 1987)

[_Fence Sitter]

I don't think it's ever going to happen. President Hinckley was pretty clear about the church having nothing to do with folk magic:

Well there is that dead prophet vs live prophet solution. It seemed to work on the issue of blacks in the priesthood. Sort of.

[_Drifting]

Interestingly, Oliver Cowdrey is to be believed as another of the three witnesses but yet not to be believed when he articulates events relating to a barn, Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger.

I like the way believing Mormons are quick to point out that the three witnesses are not to be trusted!

for what it's worth Drifting I think most apologist now accept Oliver Cowdrey's account of finding Fanny and Joseph in the barn. The apologetic approach now for Fanny & Joseph is trying to show that they were already married and Oliver, along with Emma and pretty much everyone else, just didn't know about it.

Interesting - how do they account for Joseph being married to Fanny as a Polygamous wife in 1833 when Elijah didn't restore the Priesthood keys until 1836?

[_Fence Sitter]

Interesting - how do they account for Joseph being married to Fanny as a Polygamous wife in 1833 when Elijah didn't restore the Priesthood keys until 1836?

Don Bradley wrote an essay entitled "Mormon Polygamy Before Nauvoo: The Relationship of Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger" in this book which addresses this very issue.

http://www.amazon.com/Persistence-Polygamy-Joseph-Origins-ebook/dp/B004GNEDIM#reader_B004GNEDIM

[_thews]

I was responding to an inquiry posted by sock puppet. No one is asking you to believe Joseph Smith, I am simply saying that I do. The seer stone placed in a dark area for better visibility was one method Joseph used to translate. Another was the Urim & Thummim/Nephite Interpreters. They are both valid; they are both true. The official account speaks about Nephite Interpreters, so it is little wonder that the pictures and paintings commissioned by the church would correspond to the official account.

Your three-card Monte approach continues to parrot the same thing while ignoring the obvious. Under one card, you have the Nephite Interpreters. Under the second, you have Urim and Thummim. Under the third, you have seer stones placed in hat.

Facts:

The lost 116 pages was supposedly translated using the Nephite interpreters. They were taken back (per D&C10:1) after the supposd evil-doers stole them.

The term "Urim and Thummim" was not used until three years after the Book of Mormon was published.

Hiram Page also used a seer stone, but Joseph Smith claimed Satan had deceived him, stating specifically that Satan was the "power" behind his seer stone.
http://mormonthink.com/transbomweb.htm

Hiram Page, one of the eight witnesses of the Book of Mormon and a leader in the Church, had a peep stone which he used to obtain revelations. Joseph Smith himself admitted that Hiram Page gave false revelations through his stone and that the other witnesses to the Book of Mormon were influenced by his revelations:

To our great grief, however, we soon found that Satan had been lying in wait to deceive,... Brother Hiram Page had in his possession a certain stone, by which he obtained certain "revelations" ... all of which were entirely at variance with the order of God's house, ... the Whitmer family and Oliver Cowdery, were believing much in the things set forth by this stone, we thought best to inquire of the Lord concerning so important a matter ... (History of the Church, by Joseph Smith, vol. 1, pp.109-10).

The Doctrine and Covenants 28:11 instructs Joseph Smith to have Oliver Cowdery tell Hiram Page that "those things which he hath written from that stone are not of me, and that Satan deceiveth him."

In 1843, Hyrum Smith asks Joseph Smith to use the Urim and Thummim, placing them in Smith's possession in 1843.

http://books.google.com/books?id=vLgUAA ... 43&f=false

Hyrum very urgently requested Joseph to write the revelation by means of the Urim and Thummim.

So Radex, while you continue to assert the translation method of the Book of Mormon is accurately depicted by the LDS church, what you fail to acknowledge is there are but two cards in your game. The lost 116 pages was done supposedly using the Nephite spectacles/Urim and Thummim, and the Book of Mormon was done using seer stones. Your third card contains the the words Urim and Thummim, which belong to the Nephite spectacles. The "official account" that you reference as "truth" in the above comments are not truthful when depicting the translation of the Book of Mormon, but only the lost pages that were never published.

http://www.discountmagic.co.uk/images/pkt3mont.gif