How did you first learn Joseph Smith translated the BOM using peepstone?

[TheBYUGuy]

and my testimony has gone downhill since...

I'm curious about this. Was your testimony based on the idea that Joseph could translate looking through magical stones fixed to a breastplate? If so, how does it really change things to find out that it was really a magical stone inside a tophat?

[Moliere]

Regardless of why they did or didn't, now that you know, what's the big deal?

I'm curious about this. Was your testimony based on the idea that Joseph could translate looking through magical stones fixed to a breastplate? If so, how does it really change things to find out that it was really a magical stone inside a tophat?

I think the big deal comes from the misleading story that is presented by the church. We are only taught that Joseph translated the BoM by looking through teh U&T onto the gold plates. That's about as far-fetched (in a non-believers mind) as looking into a seerstone in a top hat. But then when someone finds out about the "seerstone in tophat" method and then they find out the church knew about it and the church even has some of Joseph's seerstones, the member feels that they were misled by the church. Once someone feels misled by the church, they will then often project those feelings onto other parts of the church's history, which can rightly or wrongly be justified depending on the part of history being scrutinized.

It's not that one method of translation is weirder than the other, it's the feeling of being misled.

[SuperGabers]

I'm curious about this. Was your testimony based on the idea that Joseph could translate looking through magical stones fixed to a breastplate? If so, how does it really change things to find out that it was really a magical stone inside a tophat?

I was only being a tad serious... I mean. If I can accept he saw God and Jesus, dug gold plates out of the ground, saw angles, etc. etc... Then peeping into a hat is nothing...

[jay santos]

I'm curious about this. Was your testimony based on the idea that Joseph could translate looking through magical stones fixed to a breastplate? If so, how does it really change things to find out that it was really a magical stone inside a tophat?

I'll answer for how I see it. No, my testimony isn't and was never completely dependent on the translation process as I understood it. But a testimony is a complex thing with a framework of thousands of data points all interacting with each other. Here's an example of how it could change things.

Before learning the peepstone bit:

1. Lots of references to reformed Egyptian in the text. It must be for a reason. Moroni writes in Ether 12 how difficult it is for him to use this language.
2. Moroni lugs the plates around, presumably from Mesoamerica to upstate New York. Lots of other references to the importance of preserving the plates.
3. Joseph obtained Urim and Thumim with the gold plates as an ancient and authorized method of translating scripture and used it to translate BOM while using the gold plates.

Now I have to reprocess these data points and instead of being logical underpins to the entire framework become three more questions of Why? that must go unanswered, accepting them on faith.

We also have magic and weirdness introduced where it didn't exist before. Instead of #3, being given the Urim and Thumim by Moroni which seems very legit, we now have to deal with the story that Joseph found the brown peepstone he used to translate BOM with on a spurious treasure hunting expedition using his friend Sally Chase's green peepstone.

There's a lot there to reprocess. Can it be done? Sure.

[clackamascoug]

It's technology. Seer stones aren't any more magical than my Blackberry. The Top Hat was to diffuse the light to make seeing the info in the crystal better. The only abnormal thing here is the technology being used in 1829.

What would really mess people up is, if the First Vision turns out to be a hologram.

[Indy Coug]

Has anyone done a convincing job of defining the amount of translation done by method?

[Coach McGuirk]

I'm curious about this. Was your testimony based on the idea that Joseph could translate looking through magical stones fixed to a breastplate? If so, how does it really change things to find out that it was really a magical stone inside a tophat?

everyone knows that top hats are magic to begin with, so why the need for peepstones? To show off, that's why!





plus then it reminds me of Dr. Terminus. And know one can trust that guy,

[Mrs. Funk]

I think one failing of correlated materials (and general LDS teachings on the subject) is how literally we are taught about the "translation" of the Book of Mormon. I think most people who have only learned about the process from Sunday school believe that Joseph Smith engaged in a process similar to translating legal documents into French or whatever.

Scholars and laypersons alike have written lots of theories about the "translation" of the Book of Mormon, some of the wackier being that the golden plates or a seer stone or whatever served as a conduit to a parallel universe of thought or understanding, or to a sort of collective consciousness containing the stories found in the Book of Mormon. Given that Joseph Smith wasn't in the same room at the plates during much of the process, it's nearly impossible to consider it a literal translation process, however it occurred.

I remember having this discussion with a particularly fundamentalist aunt one Christmas, and she became rather upset. In the end, the particulars of this process are interesting, but don't really change my feelings about the Book of Mormon. I think Truth can come in a variety of methods, and that the Book of Mormon ultimately contains Truth. If it took Joseph Smith pressing his face against a hat, it doesn't really change anything.

It does annoy me that we don't just openly discuss the wackier parts of the early church in Sunday school and correlated materials, so that people aren't blindsided by it at some point. My family talked about things like this while I was growing up, and I appreciated the academic honesty of my dad saying, "Have faith, but be aware of the weird stuff."

[UtahDan]

Has anyone done a convincing job of defining the amount of translation done by method?

Assume it was 100% hat. Would that matter to you at all?

[jay santos]

Has anyone done a convincing job of defining the amount of translation done by method?

My understanding is there are a handful of references, both first hand and second hand to how the translation was completed. And that the general consensus is that the translation process might have included multiple methods, but the head in hat peepstone method was either the primary method or at least the most referred to method.

[Pheidippides]

Assume it was 100% hat. Would that matter to you at all?

I think 100% hat would, somewhat counterintuitively, make me even more comfortable. If I'm a charlatan and I'm intentionally making stuff up, I prefer the story about translating through spectacles or at least with the source material handy. Translating hat in hand is pretty out there, from that point of view.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Flystripper]

I think 100% hat would, somewhat counterintuitively, make me even more comfortable. If I'm a charlatan and I'm intentionally making stuff up, I prefer the story about translating through spectacles or at least with the source material handy. Translating hat in hand is pretty out there, from that point of view.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

TBH it probably would have been helpful if the church never adopted the version of events that embraced the idea of "translating". It seems to me that "revealed" would be more accurate since very little "translating" as the word is conventionally understood actually took place. I think the word translating initially brought with it a greater sense of legitimacy but now I think it's use actually does more harm than good.

[UtahDan]

I think 100% hat would, somewhat counterintuitively, make me even more comfortable. If I'm a charlatan and I'm intentionally making stuff up, I prefer the story about translating through spectacles or at least with the source material handy. Translating hat in hand is pretty out there, from that point of view.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I get what you are saying. I was making that point that for a lot of people it would make no difference at all what the method was or whether there had been a purposeful deception about what the method was. Assume the worst possible thing and it makes no difference to a lot of people.

It is obvious to me why we suppress the hat and seer stone story in favor of spectacles and a breast plate with the plates being used. One sounds like something from an ancient culture that we know little about and that could have only been unearthed and used with divine help. The other one sounds like the practice of folk magic which was so prevalent at the time, and which Joseph and his family practiced and were steeped in.

[Pheidippides]

I get what you are saying. I was making that point that for a lot of people it would make no difference at all what the method was or whether there had been a purposeful deception about what the method was. Assume the worst possible thing and it makes no difference to a lot of people.

It is obvious to me why we suppress the hat and seer stone story in favor of spectacles and a breast plate with the plates being used. One sounds like something from an ancient culture that we know little about and that could have only been unearthed and used with divine help. The other one sounds like the practice of folk magic which was so prevalent at the time, and which Joseph and his family practiced and were steeped in.

I understand the suppression too. And now because of the suppression you have a larger issue when the truth actually comes to light, with some people at least. The issue is not what happened but rather what we were led to believe happened. And that raises more questions for many.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[byu71]

My boys got me hooked on watching that disgusting program, South Park. That is when I first heard of it. I don't know if I learned it there though because I was sure they were taking a sarcastic shot at JS.

I was shocked later to see people on this board confirm it.

I fear some of my long held beliefs are really getting assaulted these days. I can accept AA's weren't fence sitters, but please don't tell me we are going to find out gays didn't slip in the back door.