Whose fault? Yours or the church's?

[TripletDaddy]

One issue worth exploring is how the LDS church seems committed to artwork that displays obvious inaccuracies in the BOM process. As long as the leadership sanctions images such as these, it's no wonder people are surprised when they find out about the hat.

From this official LDS website (with explanation): http://www.lds.org/hf/art/display/1,...-4-128,00.html

I think I shared the mission story of a bishop setting apart two people at the same time because of the painting of John giving the Priesthood to Joseph and Oliver, one hand on each head.

The Church has required some changed made to rather well-known "Church" artwork, so there is precedent for doing such now.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Thank you, but I'm aware of the quotes. I was questioning the word "most." I'm not aware that anyone has determined with any definitiveness the proportions of Joseph's different translation methods.

The church still has Joseph's chocolate-colored seer stone, by the way.

Your supposed search for "definitiveness" is a cop out. Emma, David, and others have been quoted by the Church in official publications. The Church has presented them as sources to establish "what happened." They are as definitive as it is at this moment. Frankly, the sources and historical objects we use to make meaning are as close as mortals get to some kind of objective, irrefutable "definitiveness." On some level, some of us are open to seeing sources and historical objects in a new light, and are willing to account for other objects, but no one is waiting around for irrefutable proof that Joseph Smith Jr. did this or that before they hold a view that for them is "definitive." You certainly aren't.

I don't expect you to admit this, but we both know that at the bottom of your interrogation of "definitiveness" is your willingness to give the benefit of the doubt to what Church correlation has decided to say, and to get retentive over anything outside of that and even if it's sourced from the same people, in the same texts, or during the same interviews. When you like what historical sources say, you never launch a crusade for definitiveness. When you don't, suddenly history becomes "relative," and "we don't know anything, definitively." I accept that you have faith, but when it comes to evaluating historical objects you have no credibility.

Emma and David both say that "all" of the current Book of Mormon was translated with the chocolate-colored stone. Being that some later writers that I respect (B.H. Roberts being one) are less certain as they wade through convoluted terminology and that Dan Peterson also used the word "most" or "mostly" in his interview in The Mormons, I decided that "most" was fair enough.

You wouldn't know the chocolate-colored stone was in the Church's posession if you read only correlated materials, would you?

[creekster]

All I can say is thta hunched over peering into a hat seems like a pretty difficult positon to be in if you are trying to make up a 500 page book.

[Tex]

Emma and David both say that "all" of the current Book of Mormon was translated with the chocolate-colored stone. Being that some later writers that I respect (B.H. Roberts being one) are less certain as they wade through convoluted terminology and that Dan Peterson also used the word "most" or "mostly" in his interview in The Mormons, I decided that "most" was fair enough.

You're getting needlessly defensive. It's been a while since I've intently looked at this issue, but my understanding has always been that the modes of translation were varied and the proportions hard to know.

SteelBlue says Bushman, and you say Peterson both think it was mostly done with the seer stone. I still think that leaves room for ambiguity, but I respect their opinions.

You wouldn't know the chocolate-colored stone was in the Church's posession if you read only correlated materials, would you?

Someone I knew had seen it.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Someone I knew had seen it.

You can't just drop a story like this in my dojo and leave old man. Do tell!

[Jarid in Cedar]

You're getting needlessly defensive. It's been a while since I've intently looked at this issue, but my understanding has always been that the modes of translation were varied and the proportions hard to know.

SteelBlue says Bushman, and you say Peterson both think it was mostly done with the seer stone. I still think that leaves room for ambiguity, but I respect their opinions.



Someone I knew had seen it.

Allegedly, it is in one of the towers at the Manti Temple.

[Indy Coug]

All I can say is thta hunched over peering into a hat seems like a pretty difficult positon to be in if you are trying to make up a 500 page book.

It would also make sense that if you are really just making things up that you would at least put on the appearance that you were translating by looking directly at the source material.

If you were trying to perpetrate a hoax, It seems rather odd that you would put go to the trouble of smithing a bunch of metal plates, claim they were ancient writings and then completely ignore them when going through the motions of translation.

[CardiacCoug]

See, here it is again. Of all the things to get hung up on, these little quibbles aren't so great.

You'll believe that God and Jesus appear to a kid in the forest, angels pop in and out of his room at night and hand him gold plates from which he translates an ancient record, et cetera . . . and all that sounded good. But SEALED plates? Reading it from a HAT? That's just the straw that breaks the camel's back, friend.

I'm not sure the argument "The whole story is absurd, so what's a little more absurdity?" is all that convincing.

[Jarid in Cedar]

It would also make sense that if you are really just making things up that you would at least put on the appearance that you were translating by looking directly at the source material.

If you were trying to perpetrate a hoax, It seems rather odd that you would put go to the trouble of smithing a bunch of metal plates, claim they were ancient writings and then completely ignore them when going through the motions of translation.

Your point is logical when viewed through our own experiences and world. In the world of folk magic and such, his methodology would sound familiar and ring true to the people of his time.

So while I understand your point, he wasn't trying to impress us, just the people of his time.

[Indy Coug]

I'm not sure the argument "The whole story is absurd, so what's a little more absurdity?" is all that convincing.

You're being really bass-ackwards about this topic. Given that I believe A through Y, the fact that Z deals with sealed plates yet to be translated is a very minor item.

Since you don't believe A through Y, I don't expect you to go along with Z either.

If you don't believe this stuff, then fine. But your mockery of faith on this board gets worse with time and increasingly tiresome.

[Taq Man]

It would also make sense that if you are really just making things up that you would at least put on the appearance that you were translating by looking directly at the source material.

Looking in the hat would have been an excellent way to refer to crib notes.

If I was going to try and pull this off I would want a hat and some crib notes.

[LA Ute]

You're being really bass-ackwards about this topic. Given that I believe A through Y, the fact that Z deals with sealed plates yet to be translated is a very minor item.

Since you don't believe A through Y, I don't expect you to go along with Z either.

Makes sense.

If you don't believe this stuff, then fine. But your mockery of faith on this board gets worse with time and increasingly tiresome.

In Cardiac's defense, I don't think he's mocking. He's pretty upfront about his skepticism, combined with a love for the culture. (Not that I can speak for him.)

[creekster]

Looking in the hat would have been an excellent way to refer to crib notes.

If I was going to try and pull this off I would want a hat and some crib notes.

right. and one of those little LED book lights so you could see your crib notes in the hat. Or maybe enough light came in by the venitlation holes. Sure, that was it. Or maybe some moth holes. Of course, then it owuld be easy for th ewintesses to see the crib notes, but the witnesses are all inaccurate, so they might have just failed to mentionthe crib notes, aLthough they are accurate when they say he did all translation with a hat.

[All-American]

Looking in the hat would have been an excellent way to refer to crib notes.

If I was going to try and pull this off I would want a hat and some crib notes.

Good thought. Might be a bit dark, though.

[Goatnapper'96]

aLthough they are accurate when they say he did all translation with a hat.

You mean to tell me that after a semi-exhaustive analysis we learn that where we sit dictates where we stand? In the end we will all hold near and dear just about anything anybody said if it supports our perspective?

For the record, I thought the crib notes line was funny. Not really impugning Joseph but just cracking a joke from the angle of belief Taq has. It made me chuckle and I was drafting a line about him requesting the conduit light of Moroni to help him read his crib notes, but you got there first.