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

[jay santos]

How did you first learn Joseph Smith translated the BOM using peepstone and head in hat while the gold plates were tucked away in a hidden location?

please discuss your answer

commentary: there are multiple translation techniques that are thought to be used during the BOM translation, but this one is agreed on by most LDS scholars (I believe) as one of the primary techniques.

[Indy Coug]

It was such a long time ago, I really don't remember. It might have been in my BYU Book of Mormon class before my mission.

[BigFatMeanie]

I don't remember when I knew that one. It wasn't until my mission when I found out there were multiple versions of the first vision though. A baptist preacher told me about it.

[Surfah]

Primary. Star A.

[wuapinmon]

CUF

[Indy Coug]

I do remember thinking to myself that I didn't see much of a difference between looking into stones hooked up to an ancient apparatus and looking into a stone sitting in a hat.

[WashingtonCoug]

Just now

[Commando]

It was South Park. While they framed it as an object of ridicule, I really see it as practical, as sort of training wheels as Joseph was learning to focus and use the Seer's gift. Pearls before swine is all.

[jay santos]

I voted South Park.

I was active my whole life, went to seminary, went to BYU, went on mission, paid attention in church, watched conference faithfully, read a ton of side books the typical stuff that's part of an LDS education.

I'm sure I came across this bit of information along the way but I had never internalized it. I assumed the plates were used for the translation and I misunderstood the Urim and Thumim to specifically refer to the spectacles-like object and that Joseph would look at the gold plates and translate from it.

I was peripherally aware of this peepstone head in hat thing but I somehow avoided learning these facts in depth and assumed it was an anti-Mormon lie. It wasn't until watching the South Park episode and thinking "anti-Mormon garbage" and then reading on Mormon apologetics sites that the South Park version was actually pretty faithful to the facts. This was in the last 10 years in my 30's.

[SteelBlue]

Just now

[Sullyute]

CUF

Not sure if wuap is serious or not but I learned about the stone in the felt hat here. I knew about the treasure seeking and I had heard about peepstones, but I didn't realize that the vast majority, if not all, of the BOM was translated with a stone in a hat. Apparently I lived a very sheltered life...

[Slim]

My 14 year old Sunday school class. The teacher was my best friend's dad and he was also an archeologist. I think his profession made him more inclined to be historically accurate. I remember being quite surprised and felt like my testimony took a huge hit that day. I remember wondering what else in the church wasn't very open about and why.

[Borderline Divine]

I learned it very early on

probably Sunday school or primary. I bet I wasn't eight or 10 years old.

As an adult I've been shocked to learn how little many members actually know about the early church. JS's polyandry for one. It seems that LDS people I interact with today under the age of 35 know a very different church history than the one I was taught in the 60's.

This goes double for today's missionaries, who I can barely stand to engage in anything other than small talk about non-religious subjects.

[Jacob]

Rough Stone Rolling.

That doesn't seem to fit any of your categories. Probably closest to LDS Apologetics.

[Jacob]

I do remember thinking to myself that I didn't see much of a difference between looking into stones hooked up to an ancient apparatus and looking into a stone sitting in a hat.

If that were the case, then you'd think that the'd have taught us how he really did it, instead of the other way.