Teaching how BOM was REALLY translated . . .

[consiglieri]

Okay, I am coming back to return and report on my Sunday school class yesterday.

I took my hat to church with me, and did pretty much what I said I was going to do. My only dilemma was whether I should bring up the Martin Harris quote first. I decided that would not be as effective.

So, after announcing that we would be discussing the translation of the Book of Mormon, I presented my hat and asked for a watch with a luminous face from a member of the audience.

I told everybody that, when I was a kid, I was fascinated by things that glow in the dark.

(Lots of smiles and nods of agreement.)

I then cupped my hands and held the watch up to my eye and said that this is what I would do to see the glowing watch face.

(Again lots of nods, as this appears to have been a common experience.)

I then said that, although I could see the glow this way, I couldn't read the face or tell the time, because it was too close to my eye.

So I brought out the hat, dropped the watch inside of it, and held the hat to my face, using my hands to exclude the light, explaining that this way I could put a little distance between the watch and my face, and I could use both eyes, and still exclude the light, so that I could read the face of the watch.

At this point, something completely unexpected happened.

A middle-aged single sister was laughing so hard, she was making noise although she was obviously trying to suppress her laughter. I brought my head out of the hat and looked around to see what the problem was, and I looked over and saw her sitting there, her face beet-red, gasping for air, waving at me to continue.

I thought at this moment that this sister was in for an unpleasant surprise. Here she was laughing her guts out at a scene that she considered hysterical, and she was only moments away from finding out this is how Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon.

As fate would have it, this is a sister I have locked horns with in the past over my teaching methods, so I will have to confess a grim satisfaction over the predicament headed her way unbeknownst to her as she laughed and gasped and turned red.

When I was done with my demonstration, I held the hat in one hand and the watch in the other and asked the class if anybody knew why on earth I was taking up class time doing something like this.

Nothing. Nobody raised their hand.

I asked again if there wasn't anybody who knew. I looked at a couple of people whom I felt probably would know, but they weren't willing to say anything.

So into this void, I finally said, "Because that's how Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon!"

At this point, it was as quiet as if everybody had stopped breathing.

I thought I had killed my class.

Then a class member with hands folded over chest asked what the source was for my information.

I said I was glad they asked that, and whipped out my Ensign article from 1993 by Elder Russel M. Nelson and read the quote from David Whitmer, nice and slow so everybody could get the full impact.

______________________

After reading the Martin Harris quote about how in the dark (of the hat) the spiritual light would shine, I said that this gives us insight into some Book of Mormon scriptures, and had the class turn to Alma 37, where Alma is giving the plates and the interpreters and the Liahona to his son Helaman, and had a class member read the scripture where the Lord says, "And I will give unto my servant Gazelem a stone, which shall shine forth in darkness unto light . . ."

I said that this is in the context of speaking about the interpreters; that this is what these stones "do," they shine.

I mentioned the 16-stones that the brother of Jared had the Lord touch with his finger so that they would shine in the dark and give them light in their vessels as they crossed the great waters.

At this point, I was on the verge of going into the Book of Raziel, and the Jewish legend that sounds so remarkably like the translation process of the Book of Mormon.

But right then, another class member's hand shot up, and the question was raised, "If Joseph Smith didn't look use the plates in the translation, why did he even need them? Why all the trouble and fuss to get them and preserve them?"

I observed that that is a question that frequently gets brought up at this point, and it is a bit of a mystery. We simply don't know, although others have speculated in response.

I then whipped out my copy of Nibley's "The Egyptian Endowment" and read two paragraphs I had previously marked, dealing with why it was that Nibley thought this was the case. This ended up taking the rest of my class period, as the sacrament meeting had gone long, and we had only 30-minutes for Sunday school.

But I had also mentioned at the outset that the idea that Joseph Smith had a blanket between him and the scribe was an incorrect idea; but one that had gained acceptance in the Church through repeated usage.

I read from the Deseret Times article on Daniel C. Peterson's address regarding this, where he states that this is not correct, but that a blanket may have been used in the latter stages of the translation at the Whitmer home; but it was not placed between Joseph and the scribe, but over the door or the window in order to keep curious passers-by from looking in.

I read from Emma Smith that Joseph sat in the middle of the room with his face buried in the hat while the plates lay nearby on a table wrapped in a napkin. I also read the part about where Emma said that Joseph did not have any manuscript or anything else that he could have been reading from, and emphasized that the reason Emma could know this is because she was present working in the very room while the translation was occurring, and because Joseph Smith was not behind a curtain, but was right out there in the middle of the room with his face in the hat.

I then asked the class if I were the only one who would find it somewhat suspicious if Joseph Smith had concealed what he was doing by sitting behind a blanket. The class seemed to be astonished that I would find that at all suspect. One asked why that would be suspicious. I said, "Because who knows what he would have been doing behind the curtain, or what he had with him?"

Somebody identified that as a lack of faith on my part. Another member (who is a friend that I home teach), said that was because I was a lawyer.

"And a magician," I added.

I said that I was much more comfortable with Joseph Smith translating with his face in a hat in plain view than I was with the idea of Joseph Smith hidden behind a curtain and dictating from who knows what.

I mentioned that almost the entirety of the Book of Mormon was translated between April 7, 1829 (when Oliver Cowdery showed up in Harmony, Pennsylvania) and June 30, 1829 (when the translation was completed); and how what with other things that were being done during the time, the total time for translation has been estimated at 63-days.

That means that Joseph Smith dictated about 5,000 words per day.

I then said that there are only three explanations that take this into account.

The first is that Joseph Smith was translating by supernatural means.

There are only two other possibilities for what happened, in order to explain this by naturalistic methods.

The first naturalistic explanation is that Joseph Smith simply made up the Book of Mormon on the fly, but that anybody who has seriously studied the Book of Mormon recognizes this to be an impossibility.

The second naturalistic explanation is that Joseph Smith had a manuscript somewhere that he kept hidden on which was written the Book of Mormon, and that he memorized and regurgitated 5,000 words a day; and that he did this day . . . after day . . . after day . . . after day . . . after day.

One young lady audibly exclaimed "Wow!" at this point.

I said this second naturalistic explanation is just about as impossible as the first.

That God had arranged for the production of the Book of Mormon to take place in such a manner as to be utterly inexplicable by any method other than supernatural intervention.

I closed by saying the Book of Mormon is a miracle, and it is a miracle that forms the foundation of our religion; that it is the "keystone of our religion," as Joseph Smith said; and that through understanding the manner in which it was brought forth, we are better able to understand the miracle that it really is.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Sargon]

Wow. I wish I was in your SS class. I've long dreamed of discussing things like this in SS or priesthood. Great job Consig.

Let us know what further reactions your ward members or leaders had or continue to have!

[Somebodyz]

Well done. Sounds like a good lesson. A good teacher makes all the difference.

[Scott26.2]

Wow Consig...I must admit I have some mixed feelings about your lesson Sunday. Not because of the material that was taught, but because of the material that wasn't taught. I am also a GD teacher and I taught lesson #5, about personal revelation. Are you on that same lesson? When will you teach that lesson? Interesting. Personally I am fascinated by the info you shared in your class...I just wonder if (given the relatively short amount of time actually available in GD) we should stick with the saving truths and doctrines of the gospel. Just thinking out loud

All the best

Scott26.2

[emeliza]

My class was on lesson 5 as well. Unfortunately this means that we didn't really look up scriptures or anything, but heard a few quotes by some former prophets/apostles and the rest of the class was spend having people share their own personal revelations that they received. Although I enjoy hearing this type of stuff, it is basically faith promoting.

I want to move to Washington and what Consig put his head in a hat.

[ERayR]

In our gospel doctrine class our teacher also taught lesson #5. He taught it somewhat differently. While I applaud you in teaching the divine origin of the BoM it was my understanding that the lesson was on receiving personal revelation. Did you in any way teach anything hat would help someone to learn how to receive their own personal revelation? Our teacher managed to bring our that things like the seer stone and Urim and Thumim were tools to help JS focus. I would have enjoyed being in your class as much as the one I attended and would have gone home better for having been there. I am just wondering if it helped anyone in their quest for personal revelation. However, it is your class and if this was the way you were inspired to teach it then you follow your inspiration.

[Garrote]

Good job and I applaud you for this effort, unfortunately you forgot, or neglected to state, that the stone used was actually a stone that was found while digging a well, and that this same stone was used for "Money digging". Did you forget or just omit this? Why is this important? Because it is part of the history of the translation process.

[robuchan]

First, thanks for the report. Very interesting. You wouldn't last long in my stake, but at least GD would be entertaining while the fun lasted.

Second, why do you think your three options are the only possibilities. What about JS reading a manuscript in his hat? What about Oliver being in on the fraud (fraud being too strong of a word--maybe JS used a manuscript but still believed it was of God)?

[dblagent007]

Good job and I applaud you for this effort, unfortunately you forgot, or neglected to state, that the stone used was actually a stone that was found while digging a well, and that this same stone was used for "Money digging". Did you forget or just omit this? Why is this important? Because it is part of the history of the translation process.

I was teaching a primary class (10 yr olds) and we read the part of JS's history about working for Josiah S. and money digging. I was sorely tempted to actually tell the primary kids what JS's role was in the money digging, but I just couldn't bring myself to do it (partly out of fear because there is another teacher there and I was afraid that he would think I was teaching unproven anti-Mormon stories).

As for Consig, I think he went far enough with the hat translation demonstration. Innoculation only works if it is done in small degrees. Telling them that the stone was the one he found digging a well and the same one used to search for money would have been too much at one time.

[dblagent007]

First, thanks for the report. Very interesting. You wouldn't last long in my stake, but at least GD would be entertaining while the fun lasted.

Second, why do you think your three options are the only possibilities. What about JS reading a manuscript in his hat? What about Oliver being in on the fraud (fraud being too strong of a word--maybe JS used a manuscript but still believed it was of God)?

I think Consig outlined the most probable possibilities out of literally an infinite number (aliens downloaded the text of the BOM into JS's mind each night). The possibilities outlined by Consig are the only ones that fit with the evidence at hand. I am unaware of any evidence to support the two theories that you proposed. If you want to assume that direct evidence exists, but really don't have any, then you can get into theories like Solomon-Spaulding.

[Jason]

Yeah, wasn't this lesson about personal revelation rather than exactly how the Book of Mormon was translated (which we don't really know anyway)?

[emeliza]

Second, why do you think your three options are the only possibilities. What about JS reading a manuscript in his hat? What about Oliver being in on the fraud (fraud being too strong of a word--maybe JS used a manuscript but still believed it was of God)?

Why don't you put your face in a hat and see if you can read a manuscript that way. Or are you assuming he had a manuscript in their but the stone really did light up?

As for the conspiracy theory, that is a bit much because that would require a far greater number of people involved than just Oliver.

[dblagent007]

Consig, your report was great. Unfortunately, I think it really highlights the chasm that must be crossed to "innoculate" everyone against the somewhat disconcerting historical record. Man, I would have loved to have been there to witness it.

[Scott26.2]

I just keep coming back to the fact that we really don't know the entire process of the translation of the Book of Mormon. There have been so many quotes, some contradictory, about the process that it almost seems impossible to really know for sure what happened. The one person who knew the process the best, Joseph, said the least about it!!! In fact about all he said was... "it was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon" (HC 1:220)

Scott26.2

[LifeOnaPlate]

It's possible JS initially had a curtain between himself and Martin Harris. I don't recall where I read that, thought.

[BCSpace]

I taught this from the very same Ensign article two weeks ago. No one batted an eye (as I said on Shades board), but there was no devastating silence either.

(aliens downloaded the text of the BOM into JS's mind each night).

Using an old fashioned RS-232 serial port no doubt....

[Areabird]

For those who are concerned that Consig didn't teach the lesson as they thought he should.... How many times do we have to hear the same boring stories and hear mini testimony meetings? At least Consig is actually teaching something that people will remember. They are actually hearing something that will cause them to pause and consider what they really know about their church and what revelation really is. I would imagine that the regular lesson would have resulted in at leat half the class zoning out. And let's not forget that activity rates in the U.S are around 40%. Perhaps it is because Gospel Doctrine teachers only teach from the lesson manual.

Great job, Consig, for taking a risk!

[BCSpace]

For those who are concerned that Consig didn't teach the lesson as they thought he should.... How many times do we have to hear the same boring stories and hear mini testimony meetings? At least Consig is actually teaching something that people will remember. They are actually hearing something that will cause them to pause and consider what they really know about their church and what revelation really is. I would imagine that the regular lesson would have resulted in at leat half the class zoning out. And let's not forget that activity rates in the U.S are around 40%. Perhaps it is because Gospel Doctrine teachers only teach from the lesson manual.

I'm all for changing that somewhat. However, Consig did resort to nondoctrinal works. Hopefully not to establish doctrine.......

[James Banta]

[consiglieri' date=Feb 2 2009, 09:02 AM' post='1208589392]

Okay, I am coming back to return and report on my Sunday school class yesterday.

I took my hat to church with me, and did pretty much what I said I was going to do. My only dilemma was whether I should bring up the Martin Harris quote first. I decided that would not be as effective.

So, after announcing that we would be discussing the translation of the Book of Mormon, I presented my hat and asked for a watch with a luminous face from a member of the audience.

This is now becoming a widely held belief within the LDS church on how Joseph Smith did the work of translation.. I personally have a problem with it.. Maybe you can help.. Why did Joseph need the Plates or the Urim and Thulium? According to this "Hat" theory they were needed.. IHS jim

[Jaybear]

There are only two other possibilities for what happened, in order to explain this by naturalistic methods.

The first naturalistic explanation is that Joseph Smith simply made up the Book of Mormon on the fly, but that anybody who has seriously studied the Book of Mormon recognizes this to be an impossibility.

The second naturalistic explanation is that Joseph Smith had a manuscript somewhere that he kept hidden on which was written the Book of Mormon, and that he memorized and regurgitated 5,000 words a day; and that he did this day . . . after day . . . after day . . . after day . . . after day.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

While I applaud the candor in which you approached the issue, to say that there are only two other naturalistic possibilities is simply not true.

Another explanation is that Oliver was an active participant in a scam, and on those occasions when visitors were allowed to witness the translation process, the rock and the hat were produced for show.

While you may scoff at this explanation, isn't that why you introduced the other two explanations, so that you and your class can scoff at the desperation of the critics of the Church.

BTW, you post leaves me to wonder, how Oliver was compensated for the three months or so that he spent translating for Smith, when he could be otherwise employed or pursuing gainful employment.

I have heard that Martin paid for the cost of printing, but who paid for Oliver's services?

DBL Agent: I am unaware of any evidence to support the two theories that you proposed. If you want to assume that direct evidence exists, but really don't have any, then you can get into theories like Solomon-Spaulding.

The inclusion of the KJV of Issiah, is evidence that the BOM is not what it purports to be....an original translation of ancient plates dictated by Smith to a transcriber.

[Scott26.2]

For those who are concerned that Consig didn't teach the lesson as they thought he should.... How many times do we have to hear the same boring stories and hear mini testimony meetings? At least Consig is actually teaching something that people will remember. They are actually hearing something that will cause them to pause and consider what they really know about their church and what revelation really is. I would imagine that the regular lesson would have resulted in at leat half the class zoning out. And let's not forget that activity rates in the U.S are around 40%. Perhaps it is because Gospel Doctrine teachers only teach from the lesson manual.

Great job, Consig, for taking a risk!

This is the exact reason why GD teachers should just stick to the manuals and the scriptures. "Same boring stories"...like the scriptures and words of the prophets. Just when a teacher thinks they have to get into the sensational, notwhithstanding its truth, is the time when they need to just stick to the scriptures. This is what builds true faith and testimony. Class members zoning out is not the fault of the material, it is the fault of the class members!!! To suggest that activity rates around the U.S. might be related to GD only being taught from the manual is absurd.

Scott 26.2

[consiglieri]

I have heard that Martin paid for the cost of printing, but who paid for Oliver's services?

"You can get anything you want in this world for money."

[robuchan]

I think Consig outlined the most probable possibilities out of literally an infinite number (aliens downloaded the text of the BOM into JS's mind each night). The possibilities outlined by Consig are the only ones that fit with the evidence at hand. I am unaware of any evidence to support the two theories that you proposed. If you want to assume that direct evidence exists, but really don't have any, then you can get into theories like Solomon-Spaulding.

I don't have any evidence myself. If I had some, I'd tell you.

I'd really like to know. I'm not satisfied with any of the explanations I've heard yet.

[consiglieri]

Yeah, wasn't this lesson about personal revelation rather than exactly how the Book of Mormon was translated (which we don't really know anyway)?

I am not quite sure what to make of the fact that the manual would rather draw focus away from the remarkable foundational events of the restoration in favor of quotidian banalities.

But such seems to be the case.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

I'm all for changing that somewhat. However, Consig did resort to nondoctrinal works. Hopefully not to establish doctrine.......

To what "nondoctrinal works" are you referring?

The Ensign?

Elder Russel M. Nelson?

My view is that I resorted to "doctrinal works" to establish history.

I have a hard time seeing the problem with that.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri