B.H. Roberts And The Stone In The Hat

[KevinG]

What's mildly amusing about a prophet of God sticking his head in a hat and using a peepstone (found using a friend's green peepstone in a treasure hunting expedition) to translate the most important book of scripture in world history?

Just as strange as a nation being protected by two stones with engravings or being saved by staring at a brazen sculpture of a snake on a stick.

[KevinG]

My first exposure to the Whitmer citation of translation with head in hat was here. My internal reaction was something like this...

Huh, Thats interesting. I guess it makes sense. He was sharing a house with two families. Having tried to pray and prepare for blessings in a crowded house myself I wonder if he didn't even pull the darn hat up over his ears to get some peace and quiet?

But as for shocking me. The critics continually fail to make a dent in the testimony of the Gospel the Holy Spirit has provided.

[Benjamin McGuire]

To what extent was Roberts summation used till 1977, can you provide references?

Will you answer the seven questions?

Ben M.

[treehugger]

Will you answer the seven questions?

Ben M.

how soon you forget.....

I started the thread - let's just go with my questions. In fact, let me be a little more explicit and enumerate some specific questions. You (Treehugger) of course don't have to answer, and the questions are open to anyone who feels that the church is hiding something by not discussing frequently and regularly the "hat" and its role in the translation process.

...

Ben M.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Of course you don't need to answer - and I don't need to answer your questions.

It strikes me though that you engage a topic like this without having done any more homework than a simple search on the church's website though (and when issues come up, you want me to run and do all the legwork?). And you certainly seem to be sticking to the predetermined narrative like glue - constantly asserting that there is some kind of "stone in the hat method" when there obviously isn't any such thing. When we talk about the stone in the hat, we are talking about a description and not the process itself (and only one of several such descriptions, right?). And despite having had this suggested more than once, you simply ignore it. So, I go back to feeling that the questions I asked are inconvenient for you, and something to be ignored.

Ben M.

Edited July 25, 2012 by Benjamin McGuire

[treehugger]

So you are denying what whitmer said?

There most certainly is a stone in the hat method.

The Church published on it twice once in 1977 and again in 1993. So are you saying the Church is lying?

[KevinG]

The method was by the spirit of prophecy. The tactic to keep out light was hat, curtain and I'm guessing closing shutters when available.

[Tacenda]

The method was by the spirit of prophecy. The tactic to keep out light was hat, curtain and I'm guessing closing shutters when available.

I don't know that it says anywhere that he closed shutters or curtains. I think there are specific reasons that the stone was in the hat. Also, like I said before, my sister attended a youth meeting recently that they discussed the stone in the hat method specifically.

[Benjamin McGuire]

So you are denying what whitmer said?

There most certainly is a stone in the hat method.

The Church published on it twice once in 1977 and again in 1993. So are you saying the Church is lying?

Ok, so let's clarify then.

If we want to discuss it as a method, then in fact, looking at the seer stone in a hat is a method of using a seer stone. It isn't all that much different from the stone in a dark room method, or the stone at night method. In fact, we could describe a method for every way we could imagine that the light could be excluded (and then we could even speculate how many of these were potentially used by Joseph over the course of his lifetime).

But, this has nothing to do with the translation. And it certainly isn't the method of translation that is going on. Which is of course an interesting and important distinction, because B.H. Roberts doesn't specify that he is interested in the various ways to use seer stones, he is interested in the translation process. And the 1977 Ensign article is subtitled: "What do we know about how Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon?" and the 1993 Ensign Article refers to Whitmers account as "The details of this miraculous method of translation", and this is similar of course to the accounts about the translation that the church has published which don't mention the hat at all. The church is obviously interested in how the translation was accomplished. But, the hat itself is not a central element to that translation process. It wasn't necessary for the translation to occur (as we understand the process from witness like Whitmer who mention the hat). The lack of a hat wouldn't have halted the translation process (unlike, for example, the incident where Martin Harris changed stones right? Perhaps had he understood it as you do, he might have exchanged hats?). So we cannot suggest that there was some kind of "stone in the hat method" of translation. And because of this, relative to the translation of the Book of Mormon, there is no functional difference between Roberts' suggestion of a means to exclude the light and Whitmers detail that this means was in fact a hat.

Any attempt to suggest that there was a "stone in the hat method" of translation without including the details that Whitmer includes - that the only role played by the hat was to exclude the light so that it was easier for Joseph to read from the seer stone is itself a misleading and potentially dishonest description. Don't you think?

Ben M.

Edited July 25, 2012 by Benjamin McGuire

[Ron Beron]

I know of 2 descriptions of how urim and thummim were used.....

1. Joseph Smith and his associates

2. The Temple Institute of Jerusalem

>>The High Priest is immediately enveloped by the spirit of Divine inspiration. He gazes at the breastplate, and by meditating upon the holy names of G-d, the priest was able to receive the answer through a prophetic vision-the letters on the stones of the breastplate, which would shine forth in his eyes in a special manner, spelling out the answer to the question.

The High Priest is immediately enveloped by the spirit of Divine inspiration. He gazes at the breastplate, and by meditating upon the holy names of G-d, the priest was able to receive the answer through a prophetic vision-the letters on the stones of the breastplate, which would shine forth in his eyes in a special manner, spelling out the answer to the question. <<

I suppose this could also be called ludicrous?

Bernard

Not ludicrous, but not real reliable. Neither the temple institute or JS knew enough about the UT to really make the above description. In later temple Judaism the UT was incorporated into the priest's ephod and essentially acted in the same manner as sortilege or drawing lots.

The description above sounded like a similar description of asking the Oracle of Delphi a prophecy.

Edited July 25, 2012 by Ron Beron

[treehugger]

...

It strikes me though that you engage a topic like this without having done any more homework than a simple search on the church's website though

A common response given to non-LDS is "If you want to know what I believe or what the LDS Church teaches, visit LDS.org". If I want to know about the Church I will look in the materials published by the Church. If I want to read philosophies of men I will look somewhere else.

(and when issues come up, you want me to run and do all the legwork?).

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. It is board rules that when you make a claim you have to back up your claim or retract your claim. I have asked you IF you have support for you pet theory that the lack of mentioning the stone in the hat method can be placed squarely on the shoulders of Roberts.....You have not been able to support this claim, you have not provided evidence for this claim.

----------------------------------------

If we want to discuss it as a method, then in fact, looking at the seer stone in a hat is a method of using a seer stone. It isn't all that much different from the stone in a dark room method, or the stone at night method. In fact, we could describe a method for every way we could imagine that the light could be excluded (and then we could even speculate how many of these were potentially used by Joseph over the course of his lifetime).

and if you had read post 21 you would know I couldn't care less what the method was.

But, this has nothing to do with the translation. And it certainly isn't the method of translation that is going on. Which is of course an interesting and important distinction, because B.H. Roberts doesn't specify that he is interested in the various ways to use seer stones, he is interested in the translation process.

B. H. Roberts, why are you so hung up on him? What does Roberts have to do with whether there is grounds for persons to claim the Church is hiding things about the translation process. Roberts is not listed as a source in the articles Gordon listed. Roberts is not the Alpha Omega of sources for describing events. And considering that the Church cites directly to Whitmer's 1887 account, and does not mention Roberts, that makes your clinging to Roberts illusory in terms of what the Church has published on the matter.

The lack of a hat wouldn't have halted the translation process (unlike, for example, the incident where Martin Harris changed stones right? Perhaps had he understood it as you do, he might have exchanged hats?). So we cannot suggest that there was some kind of "stone in the hat method" of translation.

Yes move that pieces out of turn after the hand has been played. Gordon even refers to it as stone in a hat, if it had a been a cauldron it would be referred too as stone in a cauldron, if it had been the skull of a commache chief it would be called the stone in a skull method.

And because of this, relative to the translation of the Book of Mormon, there is no functional difference between Roberts' suggestion of a means to exclude the light and Whitmers detail that this means was in fact a hat.

If the question is "Where can a person read about Joseph Smith placing a stone in a hat, pulling the hat to face to block out all light" and you respond with Roberts, then you have provided a snake when water was asked for. And you could be rightly accused of trying hide "uncomfortable" aspect of the translation process.

If the question is "Where can I read about Joseph Smith's translating the plates" and you responded with Roberts then you have provided water when water was asked for.

[KevinG]

We can be accused of anything but that doesn't excuse the accuser of having some responsibility for informing themselves or backing up their accusations in a pubic forum.

[wenglund]

Hey treehugger,

If a person wears a red shirt while translating, should this be called the "red shirt translation method"?

If the Church doesn't disclose the colors of the shirts that Joseph presumably wore while translating, would it make sense to accuse the Church of "hiding" the translation method?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[treehugger]

We can be accused of anything but that doesn't excuse the accuser of having some responsibility for informing themselves or backing up their accusations in a pubic forum.

I agree and as a corollary

We can counter what we are accused of, but that does not excuse the person providing the counter point the responsibility of informing themselves or backing up their counter points in a public forum.

[KevinG]

I agree and as a corollary

We can counter what we are accused of, but that does not excuse the person providing the counter point the responsibility of informing themselves or backing up their counter points in a public forum.

Please I insist... you go first.

[treehugger]

Kevin, it is a wonderful thing I am so accommodatimg see post 72 for your request.

[Benjamin McGuire]

A common response given to non-LDS is "If you want to know what I believe or what the LDS Church teaches, visit LDS.org". If I want to know about the Church I will look in the materials published by the Church. If I want to read philosophies of men I will look somewhere else.

Part of the problem is that you assume that the entire history of publications produced by the church are available at LDS.org. It is patently clear that this isn't the case (consider, for example, B.H. Roberts Documentary History of the Church, which was published by the church and produced at the request of the leaders of the church, or consider the excerpts published in the youth teaching manuals prior to the full publication). In fact, there is very little on the church's website that predates 1977. And yet your complaint is that only in 1977 do members of the church suddenly hear about the hat. This isn't true of course. I can find publications prior to 1977 which mention the hat specifically (here is another hint - B.H. Roberts elsewhere actually mentions the hat too in official publications).

This of course doesn't change the issue about availability today. (Lest someone accuse me of forgetting that issue). But, it does indicate a serious problem with your assumptions and your knowledge base.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. It is board rules that when you make a claim you have to back up your claim or retract your claim. I have asked you IF you have support for you pet theory that the lack of mentioning the stone in the hat method can be placed squarely on the shoulders of Roberts.....You have not been able to support this claim, you have not provided evidence for this claim.

I haven't actually claimed that the lack of mentioning the stone in the hat method of using seer stones without mentioning the hat can be blamed on B.H. Roberts (I least I don't think I have made this argument explicitly). That isn't my issue at all. You suggest that the church is hiding this issue. You might suggest reasons why the church would want to hide this issue. Your evidence is the lack of accounts that discuss this issue. B.H. Roberts neglects to mention the hat. But, written over a century ago, the reasons why the church today might decide to hide the issue simply don't apply to B.H. Roberts in his milieu. And this is a fertile place to start questioning the assumptions you are bringing to the table. Among these assumptions is your strange obsession with what you label the "stone in the hat method". A phrase, which, as I repeatedly point out, is purely misleading.

and if you had read post 21 you would know I couldn't care less what the method was.

A comment which is completely contradicted by your CONSTANT reference to this specific method. And while you may not be interested in your thread (which was closed), in my thread, I am making the notion of a "stone in the hat method" the basis for the discussion. If you want to keep using the term here, I suggest you either better define what you are trying to say when you use the term, or admit that your usage is more than a little deceptive. If you really don't care what the method was, then stop referring to the "stone in the hat method".

B. H. Roberts, why are you so hung up on him? What does Roberts have to do with whether there is grounds for persons to claim the Church is hiding things about the translation process. Roberts is not listed as a source in the articles Gordon listed. Roberts is not the Alpha Omega of sources for describing events. And considering that the Church cites directly to Whitmer's 1887 account, and does not mention Roberts, that makes your clinging to Roberts illusory in terms of what the Church has published on the matter.

You aren't seeing the point are you? You suggest that the church is hiding things about the translation process. But - and here is the kicker - the hat ISN'T part of the translation process. It shows up in two descriptions (out of many) but the primary account (Whitmer's) which was widely distributed and has been quoted as you note more recently explains exactly what role the hat played - it blocked out light. It is clear from Whitmer's account that the hat wasn't a part of the process of translation. It is clear that it wasn't in some way essential. And yet, you are the person claiming that not mentioning the hat as part of the translation process is tantamount to the church hiding something.

By your claims, if B.H. Roberts intentionally did not mention the hat, then his account (which was an official account produced by the church) was also hiding part of the translation process. And I am curious to understand how you see this in his account - and thus the seven questions that I asked which are pertinent to that specific issue.

Yes move that pieces out of turn after the hand has been played. Gordon even refers to it as stone in a hat, if it had a been a cauldron it would be referred too as stone in a cauldron, if it had been the skull of a commache chief it would be called the stone in a skull method.

Gordon though wasn't alluding to the history, but rather to the arguments of the critics (like yourself apparently). That is an important distinction. That Gordon didn't understand it in the way that you do seems quite obvious to me (although, I admit, Scott and I exchange e-mails from time to time, and we even discussed this particular issue prior to his presentation - in one of those, I suggested that the most interesting and also regularly published accounts describing the use of the seer stone was the one about Martin Harris substituting the stone - true it also doesn't mention the hat, but all the other elements are there).

If the question is "Where can a person read about Joseph Smith placing a stone in a hat, pulling the hat to face to block out all light" and you respond with Roberts, then you have provided a snake when water was asked for. And you could be rightly accused of trying hide "uncomfortable" aspect of the translation process.

Who cares? That's the point I am making. You want the hat to be the most important aspect of the situation. And yet, there we have an official publication of the church - The Comprehensive History of the Church - in which the translation is described using all of the accounts available to B.H. Roberts at the time. Why on earth would he redact the hat out if he thought that the hat was absolutely essential to the process?

You need to justify your view that the hat is in fact essential to the process and important. I assert that you don't actually believe that it was important or essential. Rather, your view is that the face in the hat creates what you believe is the most embarrassing portrait of the translation. Obviously though, in the 1830's, this wasn't seen as an issue. It wasn't seen as an issue for the entire time that Joseph used a seer stone (which extended beyond the publication of the Book of Mormon). We have only two accounts (amongst all the accounts that we have) that actually noted the existence of the hat. And we can find references to the one of these in several early works. The Documentary History of the Church, by the way, is still in print, and still being sold. In fact, you can do a search for it on LDS.org:

http://www.lds.org/s...hurch"〈=eng

And lo and behold, it is quoted in dozens of articles, General Conference talks, by prophets, and so on.

So, there we have some evidence right? The most widely distributed work in the history of the LDS Church that details the "translation process" is in fact the B.H. Roberts text from 1903.

So, I am still left with the realization that your trying to frame the issue with the idea of the "stone in the hat method" is misleading, it is deceptive, and it is wrong.

If you want to read a church publication about Joseph Smith looking at a seer stone (placed in a hat to block the light), then B.H. Roberts provides just such an account. (He provides more than one - one of them neglects to mention the hat, but it is still in fact a description of Joseph Smith, looking at a seer stone placed in a hat to block out the light - the fact that he doesn't mention the hat doesn't mean that he is describing something else).

Ben M.

Edited July 26, 2012 by Benjamin McGuire

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

If the question is "Where can a person read about Joseph Smith placing a stone in a hat, pulling the hat to face to block out all light" and you respond with Roberts, then you have provided a snake when water was asked for. And you could be rightly accused of trying hide "uncomfortable" aspect of the translation process.

So we have come down to this being an "uncomfortable" aspect of the translation process. This is laughable. What is so uncomfortable about it? So looking through the U&T is not weird but looking at a stone in a hat is? Lol.

This is about as big a non issue as the gun at Carthage. When I first heard about the stone in the hat I was not embarrassed. I did not lose sleep, I did not question if the church was now false. I thought, "This is kind of interesting.". I really didn't give it a 2nd thought until a few years latter when the issue came up on my mission.

One thing we can deduce is that you think this is some sort of black eye that the church is hiding it. You can't even begin to substantiate this let alone show that it is embarrassing.

[wenglund]

I am considering starting a whisper campaign about the evident conspiracy of the LDS Church to cover up the "Joseph's shirts of many colors translation method." It is bound to make the "head in the hat translation method" conspiracy look minuscule in comparison. The Church will have to call up numerous disaster response teams to clean up the mess, and even this will scarcely mitigate the seismic devastation that portends to ripple on through to the second coming.

Apologists, there is no need to ready yourself for the onslaught because you are completely impotent in the face of this mighty force. You and the Church curriculum department could introduce the subject into every lesson from now to kingdom come and it will do little to inoculate against the certain pandemic loss of faith.

Sadly, I predict that treehugger, DBMormon, Tracenda, cwald, and several others here will the very first casualties. Time to break out the sack cloth and ashes.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[KevinG]

I find that sometimes in a busy day the first opportunity I get to ponder and listen to the Spirit is (embarrassingly enough) when I take a toilet break. This isn't right and I know I should find more reverent places to sit peacefully and ponder the counsel of God.

I hope no one ever refers to the Brother G toilet method of revelation.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Of course we wouldn't Brother G. That might be a bit crass. Probably we will refer to it as the white porcelain throne method of revelation ....

[KevinG]

Of course we wouldn't Brother G. That might be a bit crass. Probably we will refer to it as the white porcelain throne method of revelation ....

Much better.

[treehugger]

I find that sometimes in a busy day the first opportunity I get to ponder and listen to the Spirit is (embarrassingly enough) when I take a toilet break. This isn't right and I know I should find more reverent places to sit peacefully and ponder the counsel of God.

I hope no one ever refers to the Brother G toilet method of revelation.

and I have written many talks in the shower. Incidently, a few weeks ago on the TV show "30 Rock" the Alex Badwins character, a hard charging Six Sigma Black Belt Executive, made reference to the best ideas being developed in the shower. I can not remember all that was said, but it was humorus to me because of my experience with writing/developing talks.

[treehugger]

But, it does indicate a serious problem with your assumptions and your knowledge base.

You make claims without reference or providing proofs.

CFR to all your claims of the hat being mentioned in other Church publications prior to 1977.

I haven't actually claimed that the lack of mentioning the stone in the hat method of using seer stones without mentioning the hat can be blamed on B.H. Roberts (I least I don't think I have made this argument explicitly).

Actually you did make this arguement you stated that members would have been directed to B.H. Roberts telling of the events.

Quote

Benjamin McGuire, on 20 July 2012 - 06:04 AM, said:

......

And since the members of the church would not be encouraged to go to this rather singular source (Whitmer) to look at the details of the translation process, and would instead have been encouraged to look at Roberts, we might assume that Roberts' history perhaps played a far more significant role in removing the hat from perceptions and descriptions than any other element. ...

Ben M.

You suggest that the church is hiding this issue.

wrong again, I have only stated that the apparent lack of mentioning provides grounds for critics, and in post 72 herein, I stated that claim is of little merit, and I as I indicated in many post the stone in a hat is mentioned twice in Ensign articles.

stop referring to the "stone in the hat method".

Gordon's term, not mine.

Gordon though wasn't alluding to the history, but rather to the arguments of the critics (like yourself apparently).

And true to form never pass up an oppurtunity to take a unfounded side swipe at someone who dares challenge the intellectuals and their philosophies.

That Gordon didn't understand it in the way that you do seems quite obvious to me (although, I admit, Scott and I exchange e-mails from time to time, and we even discussed this particular issue prior to his presentation - in one of those, I suggested that the most interesting and also regularly published accounts describing the use of the seer stone was the one about Martin Harris substituting the stone - true it also doesn't mention the hat, but all the other elements are there).

Yes, yes, lets have some more supported "I was emailing Gordon" claims. Eitherway, that a 15+ year veteran makes such gross errors in authorship says much about the work.

Who cares? That's the point I am making.

Now go read the very beginning of post 21.

You want the hat to be the most important aspect of the situation.

Nope, wrong again. The original issue was about the quality of references, which inturn failed to inform the reader about the stone in a hat.

You need to justify your view that the hat is in fact essential to the process and important.

in the terms in which Gordon phrased it, the mentioning of the hat is essential. Gordon failed, and you do not want to accept that, so you must continue to barage me with false accusations divert the issue.

The Documentary History of the Church, by the way, is still in print, and still being sold. In fact, you can do a search for it on LDS.org:

http://www.lds.org/s...hurch"〈=eng

And lo and behold, it is quoted in dozens of articles, General Conference talks, by prophets, and so on.

more smoke screen and diversion. Now pinpoint the articles which specifically cite Roberts description of Whitmers account. Actually, provide the Volume and page numbers and I will search for it myself.

Edited July 26, 2012 by treehugger

[treehugger]

nvm

Edited July 26, 2012 by treehugger