B.H. Roberts And The Stone In The Hat

[treehugger]

Ben, using various portions of Roberts description of Whitmer's account to search on LDS.org only two references appear, those two are the 1977 and 1993 Ensign articles which mention the hat, and use Whitmers 1887 account the primary source.

Here are the search terms I used:

"employed to exclude" no results

"the means the prophet" no results

"David Whitmer is more specific" no results.

"means employed" 4 results but none which relate to the Roberts or Whitmer.

"exclude the light" 2 result, 1977 and 1993 both reference Whitmer's 1887 account.

[Benjamin McGuire]

You make claims without reference or providing proofs.

So far, I seem to be providing a lot more references than you have been ....

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

Sure.

In the Young Men's Mutual Improvements Association Manual No. 7 (used for the course of instruction in 1903-4), on page 69, the Whitmer account is quoted as follows:

In his "Address to All Believers in Christ," David Whitmer says:

"At times when Brother Joseph would attempt to translate he would look into the hat in which the stone was placed, he found he was spiritually blind and could not translate. He told us that his mind dwelt too much on earthly things, and various causes would make him incapable of proceeding with the translation. When in this condition he would go out and pray, and when he became sufficiently humble before God, lie could then proceed with the translation. Now we see how very strict the Lord is, and how he requires the heart of man to be just right in his sight before he can receive revelation from him."

There we have a mention of the hat, in an official church publication (a lesson manual for the youth no less). And it certainly comes before 1977. Do I need to dig up more?

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

Right. His multi-volume Comprehensive History of the Church was considered the official history of the church when the church published it in 1930 (copyright was assigned to George Albert Smith IIRC). If you look at it, on page 130, of volume 1, the hat is mentioned in connection with the translation of the Book of Mormon. You can still buy this book from Deseret Books (it has been in print since 1930). Actually, for 7.99 you can purchase it as an app for your IPhone. Roberts' history is referenced a few hundred times at LDS.org.

You might consider this (while probably not up to your standards for evidence, it certainly seems to agree with me):

http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/bh-robertss-documentary-history-of-the-church-1903-2011-r-i-p/

There was once time when historians of LDS history were forced to rely on BH Roberts’s Documentary History of the Church—commonly known today as History of the Church (hereafter referred to as HC). Put crudely, the HC is a heavily-edited and problematic documentary history of a heavily-edited and problematic documentary history. This 7-volume series—the first volume printed in 1903—has been very significant. They are probably amongst the most read and referenced history texts read by Latter-day Saints, they are largely influential in Church curriculum (just note their presence in D&C section headers), and they have even been foundational for many scholarly monographs. This was especially the case before the Church opened up it’s numerous archival sources, as even Fawn Brodie based much of her Joseph Smith narrative on these books.

That seems to be a fairly sweeping assessment of the B.H. Roberts history that more or less agrees with what I claimed. (And, there we have another official publication of the church prior to 1977 that mentions the hat .... I guess LDS.org isn't a very good source for finding all of them, is it ....) I suppose I could look for more details for my suggestion - but the reality remains that B.H. Roberts was the church historian, and his work was the only history of the church published by the church for most of the 20th century.

Gordon's term, not mine.

CFR.

In your now shut down thread, you quote something similar from Scott twice:

Or they learn that Joseph Smith “may” have used a hat and a seer stone when translating the Book of Mormon.

As far as translation with a stone in a hat:

Neither of these comments suggests (as you do) that there was a "stone in the hat method".

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.

No. They all mention the stone in the hat. They just don't all mention the hat. (Unless of course you want to assert that those references were really to some other stone ....) Now I realize that you have some kind of personal axe you are trying to grind here, but I also hope you come to realize that its not getting you anywhere. No matter how important you think that the hat really is, there is no difference in calling it a hat, or in calling it the means used to exclude the light. The hat itself was completely insignificant in terms of the translation process. It was a convenience - but absolutely unnecessary. Your insistence that the hat is important, or that the accounts have to mention the hat (as opposed to say, the means used to exclude the light) seems completely agenda driven instead of a realistic look at the evidence.

And finally:

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.

All of this to try and downplay the importance of B.H. Roberts work? At some point, you are going to realize that almost everyone who is still paying attention has stopped taking you seriously on this issue.

Ben M.

[Carborendum]

I came late to this discussion, but I've been reading all of it. Here's my summary:

TH: The Church is obviously hiding something.

BM: Why is excluding an inconsequential detail "hiding something"?

TH: I don't care what method was used. The hat doesn't matter except when the Church excludes it from its official documents. That proves it's hiding something.

BM: They aren't hiding anything.

TH: I don't care. But they are.

BM: Answer my questions.

TH: No. I don't want to.

BM: You're obstinate.

TH: And you're stupid.

BM: You're momma wears combat boots.

TH: Oh yeah? Well, your momma's so fat, when she gets in the elevator, it HAS to go down!

BM: Well, you've got cooties!

TH: That's from hugging trees so much. What's your excuse?

Oops. Sorry, I was going into the "zone out" mode of interpreting the discussion.

[Carborendum]

To others not engaged in this personal fight, help me fill in the details. It was my understanding that

1) The Urim and Thummim would have allowed Joseph to translate from the plates directly in the daylight. But the seer stone could not. (Keep in mind that the Urim and Thummim were just a different kind of seer stone. And the terminology can in many ways be interchangeable.

2) Due to this advantage, Joseph initially attempted to use the Urim and Thummim. But since they were so large, he abandoned them in favor of his own seer stone.

3) The 116 pages were translated largely via the seer stone.

4) Joseph had a nearly photographic memory. Thus he learned a great deal of the language through translation in this manner.

5) He continued to translate with the stone from the Book of Nephi.

6) At some point, he had learned enough that he no longer needed the stone to translate. Thus at some point, he simply translated directly off the plates. At this point, it could still be said that God was aiding him in focusing his mind and inspiring the "most accurate" translation.

[treehugger]

Ben there is something so entirely simply that you refuse to understand. I have stressed the importance of the hat. I even stated i couldn't care less if it was a cauldron.

The only time the hat is important is when soemone says "here read these references they mention the hat" and when those references ate read there is no mention of a hat.

I do not care about the hat. I told you this in post 21, apparently "I couldn't care less" is not a clear enough statement for you.

And you are correct a self serving unreferenced blog is not evidence.

And CFR that "the hat is mentioned" on page 130 of vol 1, unless you are continuing your charade that "the means the prophet employed" = hat

And as for everyone else not paying attention, I figured that much. Does not change the fact that you have failed to show to that Roberts is reason why so few know about the hat. And it does not change the fact that Volume 1 of HOC is referenced about 13 times on lds.org and those references are not to the whitmer statement in volume 1. And it does not change the fact that Roberts version does not appear on lds.org.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Carborendum writes:

1) The Urim and Thummim would have allowed Joseph to translate from the plates directly in the daylight. But the seer stone could not. (Keep in mind that the Urim and Thummim were just a different kind of seer stone. And the terminology can in many ways be interchangeable.

The term Urim and Thummim is problematic. It seems to have been applied to the Nephite interpreters by Phelps some time after the Book of Mormon translation was complete. At the same time, it was also applied to the seer stone. Prior to this term being applied, the Nephite interpreters were referred to in various ways consistent with the Book of Mormon's usage. (How they were referred to during the translation process itself is something we can really only speculate on - but I think we can be fairly confident that they were not called a Urim and Thummim). It's is, as you note, possible that the Urim and Thummim allowed Joseph to read the text without the need for darkness. I believe (at least at first) that he would copy characters from the plates, and then use the Nephite interpreters to read the copied material. He may have even tried to read the plates directly. I would have to do a bit more reading on that. The terminology being interchangeable only seems to go in one direction. When we read of the (Nephite) Interpreters we never mean the seer stone. When we read of a seer stone, we never mean the Nephite Interpreters. When we read of the Urim and Thummim, it can mean either (up to a point of course, at some point the Nephite Interpreters stopped being used altogether).

3) The 116 pages were translated largely via the seer stone.

I don't think this is the case personally. I think that the change occurred earlier rather than later - but we don't have any solid evidence that this is the case - other than Emma speaking of the seer stone being used frequently. To what extent she may be conflating her own time as scribe with later scribes is part of the unresolved nature of this question.

4) Joseph had a nearly photographic memory. Thus he learned a great deal of the language through translation in this manner.

I find this statement confusing. What exactly did Joseph learn?

6) At some point, he had learned enough that he no longer needed the stone to translate. Thus at some point, he simply translated directly off the plates. At this point, it could still be said that God was aiding him in focusing his mind and inspiring the "most accurate" translation.

I don't think this ever happened. He did not near the end simply translate off the plates. Of course, I am a proponent of an absolutely tight translation model. I see Joseph almost exclusively as a reader. Nor do I think that the term "most accurate" is in any way reflective of the reality of the translation. I would opt for "most appropriate" (given the intended audience, etc.).

Ben M.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Treehugger writes:

The only time the hat is important is when soemone says "here read these references they mention the hat" and when those references ate read there is no mention of a hat.

But Scott never said "here read these references they mention the hat". Clearly you have approached Scott's material with a chip on your shoulder. You want to read it in a very specific way that emphasizes something that Scott wasn't intending to emphasize. Now, that's fine. You are welcome to do so. But, I am also going to point out exactly what I see you doing.

And you are correct a self serving unreferenced blog is not evidence.

Of course. But it doesn't change the issues that I laid out (that you didn't address). Was B.H. Roberts text published by the church? Was it used as an instructional manual for the youth? Was it published by the church (and sold by the church) as a formal history of the church? Was it considered for decades as the best history available? If you think that any of these points are wrong, simply point to something that contradicts me.

And CFR that "the hat is mentioned" on page 130 of vol 1, unless you are continuing your charade that "the means the prophet employed" = hat

Sure. The text is still copyrighted (it isn't in the public domain) which means that it isn't available in total, but, Google books can provide a snippet view of the bit, and this link should take you right there:

http://books.google.com/books?id=HvANAQAAIAAJ&q=%22he+would+look+into+the+hat%22

And it does not change the fact that Roberts version does not appear on lds.org.

And why would it? This gets back to the reason why your suggesting that you don't care is really not reflective of the issues that you do seem to care about. Whether its on LDS.org or not does not mean that the B.H. Roberts text was used, was referenced regularly in church publications (after all, its text was incorporated in the D&C Section headers in many places). It's widespread usage indicates that it was held in high regard by its publisher (the church). It seems to have been widely used by members (and by critics). And whether or not you think Scott was being inaccurate - that is entirely beside the point that the "hat" itself is something inconsequential, and neglecting to mention an inconsequential feature is hardly a cause for charges of dishonesty. No more so than the claim that hat is in fact of such an essential nature that we ought to speak of the "stone in the hat method" of translation.

(There we go Carborendum - did I manage to successfully live up to your expectations of another round?).

Ben M.

[Bob Crockett]

Great stuff Ben.

I continue to be of the view that Whitmer may not be a first hand witness and thus his account isn't reliable.

One cannot dictate a book the length of the Book of Mormon in the manner apparent from the manuscript with a face in a hat.

The Urim and Thummim may not be a physical thing.

Roberts' history is remarkably capable compared to other institutional histories of the time.

[Benjamin McGuire]

All good points Bob. I think that the issue of reliability is complex, but I also think its a valid issue to raise.

Ben M.

[treehugger]

ben, clearly you do not want to accept that Gordon erred. Go watch Gordon presentation, he states "as far as translation with a stone in a hat" he the shows a slide with the 5 references on it; the last reference he uses to mock others. He offered the references as a rebuttal to the "common tactic" of critics that the Church is hiding things. So yes, Gordon stated by action and context "here are a list of places where you can read about the stone in a hat".

Gordon made the stone and the hat essential to his rebuttal. He was attempting to show where the stone in a hat was mentioned, yet he failed, with 3 of the 5 references.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Obviously, Treehugger, you want to make my discussion here a repeat of your discussion that was shut down. We all know how you interpret Scott, and now we all know where I disagree with you. Having said that, I reiterate my point.

You don't really want to see discussions about the stone in the hat. Because of course, the stone can be discussed quite frequently without the need to mention the hat (even indirectly). That doesn't change the fact that it is the same stone being spoken of. What you want to see is a discussion about the hat which contained the stone. For you, apparently, the hat is the singular most important element of the discussion (despite your claims of disinterest). I think though, that this discussion isn't going to improve and we are going to continue going around in circles, with you occasionally asking me for a reference, and my occasionally providing one. So why don't we simply agree to disagree at this point ...

And, quite obviously, the church hasn't attempted to eliminate references to the hat. The church has simply never made an attempt to emphasize this rather inconsequential piece of information. So whether or not you think Scott Gordon was wrong in his presentation, the ideas that he presented seem to be fairly accurate, don't you think? And the insistence by the critics that the church must be hiding something isn't so much an attempt to point out some critical elemental of the translation process that has been systematically hidden, rather it is a disguised attempt to try to embarrass the church by presenting the translation process in what they view as the least flattering description they can find. And in trying to make the hat the focus, their complaint seems at least as disingenuous as they claim the church has been in its omission.

Ben M.

[Vance]

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 ....

But wouldn't THAT be misleading/deceptive?

After all someone might think that "white porcelain throne" is referring throwing up in a toilet while being drunk.

Oh the HORROR of it all.

[Benjamin McGuire]

After all someone might think that "white porcelain throne" is referring throwing up in a toilet while being drunk.

In my neck of the woods, that's referred to as calling Ralph on the Big White Phone.

Huge difference there. WPT or BWP.

Ben M.

[treehugger]

...

For you, apparently, the hat is the singular most important element of the discussion (despite your claims of disinterest).

Ben, why is it so entirely impossible for you undrstand that the hat is not important until someones make it important; and I am not the one who made it an important point of a discussion.

And, quite obviously, the church hasn't attempted to eliminate references to the hat.

I agree, and I stated as much in post 72.

So whether or not you think Scott Gordon was wrong in his presentation, the ideas that he presented seem to be fairly accurate, don't you think?

He was accurate with 2 of 5 references, I have stood by that from the beginning.

[Carborendum]

The term Urim and Thummim is problematic...The terminology being interchangeable only seems to go in one direction. When we read of the (Nephite) Interpreters we never mean the seer stone. When we read of a seer stone, we never mean the Nephite Interpreters. When we read of the Urim and Thummim, it can mean either (up to a point of course, at some point the Nephite Interpreters stopped being used altogether).

That was not my take on it. Except for some fairly strict contexts, they can go either way.

Josephs' own description of the Urim and Thummim says "these stones were what constituted “seers” in ancient or former times." Additional commentary from Nibley and others have said that the Urim and Thummim were essentially seer stones.

(Topical Guide) Seer Stones: See Urim and Thummim.

(Index to Triple) Urim and Thummim: See also interpreters, seer, stone.

Looks pretty interchangeable to me.

I don't think this is the case personally. I think that the change occurred earlier rather than later.

That's essentially what I said. How is it that you disagree when you appear to agree?

I find this statement confusing. What exactly did Joseph learn?

The written language and the translation thereof. Per the descriptions, he saw the ancient characters with the translation below them. Seeing the same characters over and over, he would have become familiar with them.

We've seen it happen in "The Other Side Of Heaven". I myself used that method before the movie ever came out. It was a very effective method for learning languages. With Josephs memory, I'm sure he could have learned in a similar manner (at least the written word, if not the spoken word).

I don't think this ever happened. He did not near the end simply translate off the plates. Of course, I am a proponent of an absolutely tight translation model. I see Joseph almost exclusively as a reader.

Well, I heard it from several sources. And each time it seemed to make a lot of sense. This would explain why the many artist depictions show such a visual (without any hidden intent). The idea being that he did use the stone, but most of what went to the printer was from his reading directly off the plates.

I remember one source was the Wikipedia page on Joseph Smith. But that page has gone under multiple revisions since I first read it (it was pretty bad back then). I guess they just keep going back and forth. I'm surprised that Wiki hasn't just put all things Mormon under the "controversial" status.

Nor do I think that the term "most accurate" is in any way reflective of the reality of the translation. I would opt for "most appropriate" (given the intended audience, etc.)

Picky. Picky.

[Carborendum]

My biggest point about the various stages was this: Joseph DID translate by simply reading the plates.

He had stages of using the Urim and Thummim, as well as the Seer Stone. But there was at least a STAGE of straight translation because of what he had learned of the written language.

Thus the depiction in various media of Joseph sitting there reading off the plates is accurate for at least that stage.

We can argue about how long each of the stages were. I have not been able to find much on the dates involved. But it appears unreasonable to me that a person with Joseph mnemonic capabilities was unable to learn the written language sufficiently after 116 pages to be able to translate quite a bit of it through mortal means alone, let alone with spiritual and intellectual light from Heaven.

Edited July 29, 2012 by Carborendum

[Calm]

But there was at least a STAGE of straight translation because of what he had learned of the written language.

If you have already done so, please excuse me, took a break from the thread for a bit and can't remember everything I've read, just point me to the post where you've demonstrated this already....

On what evidence do you base your belief that Joseph simply read off the plate doing (I am assuming this is what you mean, if not could you clarify what you mean) a typical mundane translation just as someone today might translate from English to Spanish? That if he had chosen, he could write an English/Reformed Egyptian dictionary sort of thing and then someone else using that could achieve the same work without invoking the Spirit. It seems to contradict the claim that the plates were not translated by a mundane method, but by the power and gift of the Spirit. I understand how you see him getting there, making connections between words due to his phenomenal memory over time, but it seems to me that would require a great deal of more time comparing not only words but sentence structures because of the less than one to one correspondence in word placement between English and the language of the plates and while he had enough text to work with, the speed with which the text was translated and written down, doesn't seem to supply enough time for him to experiment with it outside of his 'working hours'. Plus he would have had to have been almost perfect in his translating ability and few translators of years of experience working with the languages in multiple texts would claim that.

And last, I do not believe Skousen has discussed any apparent change in delivery or correction that would likely appear switching from a spirit driven translation to a mundane 'academic' driven translation.

[Benjamin McGuire]

But there was at least a STAGE of straight translation because of what he had learned of the written language.

I don't think there is any evidence of this at all.

Ben M.

[Carborendum]

I guess I haven't made my intent clear. I was not stating there was evidence. I can't find any. I admit that. It was not my attempt to declare doctrine or history. I was making a hypothesis by deduction.

While it did take the comments (from unknown sources) to get me to think along those lines, it was this logic that made me believe it to be credible. It was even more credible since I've experienced something very similar in my own life.

I believe most of the other claims are fairly well established.

Calmoriah summarized the hypothesis quite well. Objections included there was not enough there to provide him with such translation ability. And this hypothesis depicts a fairly mundane method as opposed to the gift and power of God.

Here's my response:

It took me two months to learn Spanish in this manner. I did not have the benefit of the MTC (special circumstances). I was thrown into the language mid-mission. I only spent one hour each morning in such study. Much of the day, I didn't exactly have full immersion in the language (long story). Joseph (for the most part) spent most of the waking day in such translation. While this may be considered a mundane method, I know I was blessed in part with the gift of tongues in order to learn so quickly. I have even more reason to believe he received similar aid from Heaven.

How is the use of the seer stone "by the gift and power of God"? Several others were mentioned in church history of having the ability to use a seer stone. Such were not prophets or called by God to do so. So, this could also be considered fairly mundane.

The power of God was evident in that he was guided in the translation process to make (to borrow from Ben) the most appropriate translation. It was evident that not 100% of the words would have been learned in the earlier work (as Calmoriah suggested). I know I used words in Spanish that I never came across in my studies, and I don't remember hearing from anyone. But I thought of a word, and immediately the Spanish word (non-cognates included) came to my mind.

Let me emphasize again--

"it appears unreasonable to me that a person with Joseph mnemonic capabilities was unable to learn the written language sufficiently after 116 pages to be able to translate quite a bit of it through mortal means alone, let alone with spiritual and intellectual light from Heaven."

Edited July 30, 2012 by Carborendum

[Eldwynn]

I find the idea that it's called a "translation" at all quite troublesome. It should simply be called a divination. There is no evidence the plates were involved in any part of the writing of the BOM.

The reason why people find this problematic, is because it stinks badly of fraud. It's a lot harder to discount a true translation of a book he found, than to discount a revelation. It leaves open the idea that Joseph Smith was making the story up, and his scribes (who were able to write English just fine, and very well read) just put it in their own words.

It makes a talk such as this one:

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1995/04/the-translation-miracle-of-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng

Sound very misleading indeed.

Edited August 1, 2012 by Eldwynn

[Anijen]

I find the idea that it's called a "translation" at all quite troublesome. It should simply be called a divination. There is no evidence the plates were involved in any part of the writing of the BOM.

The reason why people find this problematic, is because it stinks badly of fraud. It's a lot harder to discount a true translation of a book he found, than to discount a revelation. It leaves open the idea that Joseph Smith was making the story up, and his scribes (who were able to write English just fine, and very well read) just put it in their own words.

Eldwynn I can recognize that since you do not believe in the LDS church that it would seem to you as a fraud to you however, I do believe as a Latter-day Saint I can easily accept it was a translation by a different process than one would regular think.

I speak for myself as a Latter-day saint, the words on the plates became the words in the Book of Mormon a form of translation had to happen.

[Eldwynn]

Let's say there is a probability that the entire thing was a fraud (give it a variable, say X). We are just mortals trying to be as reasonable as we can- so we should consider all possibilities. Whatever the probability you assign to the scenario where Joseph is translating the Book of Mormon by actually using the plates, would you agree that you would assign a higher probability of fraud to the scenario where the plates weren't used at all?

As for your second sentence, why do you believe that? You already believe that words can magically appear on stones from a text that is sitting a distance away (does it matter how far away they were?). Is it really a big leap to believe that perhaps there never were engraved plates? Or the engraving on the plates don't match what is sitting in the published BOM?

[Benjamin McGuire]

In the history of the church we have this account:

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.

This is usually understand as suggesting that for the first bit, Joseph first copied characters from the plates to paper, and then looked at the paper through the Nephite Interpreters to "translate". Theoretically, it was after he started using the seer stone that he realized he didn't need to copy them first. Combine this with the accounts of the Anthon transcript, and we can assume that independent of whatever Joseph was doing, he clearly understood it and described it as translating in some way.

Ben M.

[wenglund]

I find the idea that it's called a "translation" at all quite troublesome. It should simply be called a divination.

The word "translation" is perfectly legitimate in this context, and conveys the intended meaning. That you may be "troubled" by legitimate uses of words, is not our problem, but yours. You might wish to seek help for your unwarranted inclination to put words into other people's mouths.

There is no evidence the plates were involved in any part of the writing of the BOM.

Given your limited perspective (some may be less kind and call it profound ignorance), it is understandable that you would believe this. However, the principles involved (those who would actually know what they are talking about), have suggested otherwise.

But, thanks for sharing you prejudices.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cwald]

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-

Another classless, unnecessary cheapshot by the infamous Wade E.