thatjimguy Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 Give me an official Church website showing a picture of Smith using his hat to translate. Or guide me to a an official Church publication, readily available to all members, showing Smith using his hat. I have researched what the MTC tells its missionaries what to say and do during discussions. Since 1980, it has been very structured, and the only approved statement about JS translating those golden plates has been that he used the Urrim and Thumim, and the good old Oliver Cowdery was his scribe. I used to give those discussions, too. The missionaries were told not to say anything else. Since 1990, most of the young men and women who go out as missionaries have no idea that JS used the seer stone to claim he translated. You know all of those colorful pictures of JS translating the golden plates, in the ward libraries? You won't be able to find any pictures of him using his hat. You know why? It relates to folk magic. If the Church has mentioned in an official book that JS translated out of his hat, why not display pictures of it? They can't afford to do that.. I just started a thread about this, trying to find the references of Joseph Smith simply translated by studying the plates and not a hat. If so (and enough of them), then the church can justify itself a bit from not showing the pictures. (although if there are a lot more references about him placing his head in the hat, then there is still a problem with selective history) Link to comment
USU78 Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 I just started a thread about this, trying to find the references of Joseph Smith simply translated by studying the plates and not a hat. If so (and enough of them), then the church can justify itself a bit from not showing the pictures. (although if there are a lot more references about him placing his head in the hat, then there is still a problem with selective history) The "face in the hat" tale comes from a couple of sources, who claimed years later to have seen JSJr doing precisely that. Nobody claims he did it later in life, however, and those reminiscences go back to the BoM translation days. What I think you're missing is the motivation of those who insist that only the "face in the hat" version be used: they hope that, since it appears ridiculous at first blush, that if it is the only and official version of the events in question, that more people will be turned off by it and stay away from the missionaries. But we're on to them, and they really haven't a leg to stand on, as you so cleverly pointed out. 2 Link to comment
thatjimguy Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 I'm skeptical of the not being able to eat story, but it's not completely unbelievable. I know of a MP who required the missionaries to eat specific foods for breakfast on specific days because he believed the more rules, the more opportunity for obedience and therefore more blessings. Yeah, he wasn't real popular with the missionaries I knew that served under him. What did that do to the idea that people in authoirty are called by God? Even if he was well-meaning, it would make me wonder about it all. Link to comment
Recommended Posts