"Out of a Hat": Rereading the Book of Mormon Translation Process

[DonBradley]

Hi All,

I was trying to answer a question of PacMan's on my baptism announcement thread, offering a very specific example of something from my academic work that has contributed to my dramatic change of perspective, and the example got so long that it may be useful to move any discussion of it to its own thread. Hence, this thread.

Shifting perspectives in my academic work have played an important supportive role in my reconversion and return. I've been increasingly adopting a religious studies perspective, and also refining my methods of interpretation. In doing so, I've arrived at the perspective that a number of symbols, events, and texts of the Restoration don't mean what many of us, and sometimes perhaps any of us, have thought.

Take, for instance, Joseph Smith reading the Book of Mormon translation "out of a hat." This has certain disreputable connotations to many people today, because they interpret it as an inappropriate and silly use of an object, like child's play or like Maxwell Smart talking into his shoe, and as a parallel to the trickery of stage magic. But these readings of the process are purely modern overlays--they have literally nothing to do with what this process meant in the temporal, situational, and scriptural context in which the Book of Mormon emerged. To those actually involved in the process, the hat had no inherent meaning--it was just a tool to provide darkness in which Joseph could best perceive the spiritual light associated with his seer stone. Joseph could just as well have sat in a darkened room--but this would have made it difficult for his scribe to record the translation as he dictated it. So he used the hat.

The real significance was not, therefore, in the hat, but in the darkness. It was against the backdrop of darkness that the light could shine most clearly. And the participants perceived in this a powerful, concretized symbolism of darkness and light--e.g., in the imagery of D&C 6, the first revelation for Oliver Cowdery.

Imagine this scenario--from Oliver's point of view at the time of the revelation:

You're taking dictation as Joseph receives the words of the revelation through the stone, just as he receives the translation. Joseph (in the shared understanding of essentially everyone close to the process) in some way sees the sacred text written in letters of light against the backdrop of the darkness within his hat. And then, out of that darkness and from those luminous words, he reads: "Behold, I am the light that shineth in darkness."

Wham! How could Oliver possibly miss the connection? The words shining in darkness declare themselves, both in their denotation and in their perceptible form, to be "the light that shineth in darkness"--Jesus' self-identification from the Gospel of John.

What a jarring disconnect between this interpretation in the original context, where what was important was the symbolism of darkness and light--and how this pointed to Christ, and the interpretations so natural to the present-day context, where what stands out to people is the entirely insignificant white stovepipe hat, with the weirdness of its being looked into (who looks into a hat?!) and its easy, if entirely misleading, connection to illusionists' tricks and the cliche' imagery for making something up--"pulling it out of hat"!!

When a "text"--and I regard the concrete or experienced symbolism of this revelatory process as a text--is read this badly out of context, is it any wonder so many find it unbelievable and silly?

I think we--and I include Latter-day Saints in this, but particularly critics--miss and misread much of the symbolism, allusion, and real deeper meaning of many of the revelations, processes, and events of the Restoration. Hitting on a different interpretive approach has helped me begin to look at much of this with new eyes, and therefore see new things. I am absolutely convinced that a great many critical readings of LDS texts and the events of our past, and also some problematic apologetic readings, simply read out of context and therefore misread. And even the profound and the true, when misread badly enough, comes across as foolish and false.

(By the way, these thoughts are out of my paper-in-progress on the Book of Mormon translation method for Sunstone's Mapping Mormon Issues project, and will be further developed there.)

Don

[why me]

Hi All,

Take, for instance, Joseph Smith reading the Book of Mormon translation "out of a hat." This has certain disreputable connotations to many people today, because they interpret it as an inappropriate and silly use of an object, like child's play or like Maxwell Smart talking into his shoe, and as a parallel to the trickery of stage magic. But these readings of the process are purely modern overlays--they have literally nothing to do with what this process meant in the temporal, situational, and scriptural context in which the Book of Mormon emerged. To those actually involved in the process, the hat had no inherent meaning--it was just a tool to provide darkness in which Joseph could best perceive the spiritual light associated with his seer stone. Joseph could just as well have sat in a darkened room--but this would have made it difficult for his scribe to record the translation as he dictated it. So he used the hat.

The real significance was not, therefore, in the hat, but in the darkness. It was against the backdrop of darkness that the light could shine most clearly. And the participants perceived in this a powerful, concretized symbolism of darkness and light--e.g., in the imagery of D&C 6, the first revelation for Oliver Cowdery.

Don

I have stated for a few years now on the internet that the hat trick is very faith promoting. I was just explaining the translation process to someone who is having missionary discussions and I mentioned the hat trick. I then went on to say that it was no easy feat to stick your head in a hat and write the book of mormon. She laughed in a positive way.

In the past critics would mention this act of translation and be derrogatory about it. But I think that they are now seeing that the hat trick actually works against them. You made a good observation about seeing light in darkness.

[jskains]

I have stated for a few years now on the internet that the hat trick is very faith promoting. I was just explaining the translation process to someone who is having missionary discussions and I mentioned the hat trick. I then went on to say that it was no easy feat to stick your head in a hat and write the book of mormon. She laughed in a positive way.

In the past critics would mention this act of translation and be derrogatory about it. But I think that they are now seeing that the hat trick actually works against them. You made a good observation about seeing light in darkness.

I have always come back to this when I am shaken about some fact or bothered about some idea. I just don't see how it is possible for him to trick people using the methods he did. Otherwise he is one of the most intelligent people we know with the most amazing photographic memory possible.

How do you pull off the hat trick while making a coherent story all the while plagiarizing the Spalding Manuscript.

Once one realizes what an impossible feat that would be, something supernatural was involved and when other pieces of the LDS story aren't easy to put together, you just have to assume you don't have all the right pieces. This is part of my Jeopardy mindset.

JMS

[Jaybear]

The real significance was not, therefore, in the hat, but in the darkness. It was against the backdrop of darkness that the light could shine most clearly. And the participants perceived in this a powerful, concretized symbolism of darkness and light--e.g., in the imagery of D&C 6, the first revelation for Oliver Cowdery.

Your shift in perspective can only occur if its predicated by a shift in your underlying assumptions.

Here, your explanation assumes that light actually emanated from the stone.

By contrast, if you assume that stone is a but a rock, then one falsely claiming to see light emanating from a stone can best perpetuate that false claim, by using the hat to prevent others from looking at the stone while making said false claim.

That later assumption, better explains why Smith never said, "Here come take a look in the hat and see for yourself what is happening." It not a coincidence that the light would only emanate from the stone while Smith was looking at the stone, AND when no one else could thanks to the hat.

But, as noted, if you assume light actually emanated from the stone, you make a very good point.

[consiglieri]

Good insights, as usual, Don.

I expect you may see a similar symbology in Alma's mention of Gazelem:

Alma 37:23 And the Lord said: I will prepare unto my servant Gazelem, a stone, which shall shine forth in darkness unto light, that I may discover unto my people who serve me, that I may discover unto them the works of their brethren, yea, their secret works, their works of darkness, and their wickedness and abominations.

24 And now, my son, these interpreters were prepared that the word of God might be fulfilled, which he spake, saying:

25 I will bring forth out of darkness unto light all their secret works and their abominations; and except they repent I will destroy them from off the face of the earth; and I will bring to light all their secrets and abominations, unto every nation that shall hereafter possess the land.

A possible cross-reference to this may be found in the reference to "means" whereby a "seer" can look and unfold the reasons for the destruction of the Jaredites from their records:

Mosiah 8:13 Now Ammon said unto him: I can assuredly tell thee, O king, of a man that can translate the records; for he has wherewith that he can look, and translate all records that are of ancient date; and it is a gift from God. And the things are called interpreters, and no man can look in them except he be commanded, lest he should look for that he ought not and he should perish. And whosoever is commanded to look in them, the same is called seer.

14 And behold, the king of the people who are in the land of Zarahemla is the man that is commanded to do these things, and who has this high gift from God.

15 And the king said that a seer is greater than a prophet.

16 And Ammon said that a seer is a revelator and a prophet also; and a gift which is greater can no man have, except he should possess the power of God, which no man can; yet a man may have great power given him from God.

17 But a seer can know of things which are past, and also of things which are to come, and by them shall all things be revealed, or, rather, shall secret things be made manifest, and hidden things shall come to light, and things which are not known shall be made known by them, and also things shall be made known by them which otherwise could not be known.

18 Thus God has provided a means that man, through faith, might work mighty miracles; therefore he becometh a great benefit to his fellow beings.

19 And now, when Ammon had made an end of speaking these words the king rejoiced exceedingly, and gave thanks to God, saying: Doubtless a great mystery is contained within these plates, and these interpreters were doubtless prepared for the purpose of unfolding all such mysteries to the children of men.

20 O how marvelous are the works of the Lord, and how long doth he suffer with his people; yea, and how blind and impenetrable are the understandings of the children of men; for they will not seek wisdom, neither do they desire that she should rule over them!

Just my two cents . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Jigglysaint]

Let me just say that there is a reason that glow in the dark objects are labeled as "glow in the dark". That's because they glow in the dark. People who nit pick on these kinds of things do so because of dishonest intentions. In fact I would be so brash to declare that anybody who splits hairs is doing so in a most unchristianlike manner and needs to repent.

[poulsenll]

Don

As you have pointed out, one of the the great problems of modern day critics is the logical falisy of presentism. As we move farther and farther from the events of the restoration, it becomes more and more easy to misinterpret those events by applying our modern culture's view to our interpretation of those events. Especially when, as Jaybear mentioned, we have already decided that the events must be false. However if we have an open mind, are willing to accept the possibility that we could be wrong and have a sincere desire to understand, then we will spend the effort to study the culture and ambience of Joseph Smith's time frame and interpret the events in that ambience.

This problem becomes more and more evident when interpreting ancient texts such as the Bible and especially the Book of Mormon. Without some understanding of ancient cultures, we are prone to apply our modern concepts to what the text says and often this results in poor understanding. This not only applies to critics but to Latter Day Saints as well. One of the big problems with our understanding of Book of Mormon geography is the failure to read the text as written by someone not of our culture. The result is then used by critics to claim that no such geography exists and by members to suggest maps that only superficially resemble what the text describes.

Again, thanks for the insights and let's hope that more of those with doubts will follow your example and look for better interpretations of restoration events rather than being sidetracted by the critics interpretations.

Larry P

[Darth_Bill]

Did joseph have to yell the text? I mean, you're head is in a hat..or should I say, face is in a hat. That would promote some loud talking.

I'm not ridiculing the idea, but the process seems to be clumsy. He didn't always need the hat, stone or plates at various times in this process, correct? Is there some timeline of those associated with the translation when these dependencies or transitions occurred? That might be an interesting read.

And this was a second hand account by someone associated with the Whitmers. Do we know that David Whitmer was associated with the translation other than this second hand account? Just curious. Looking for knowledge. I guess I should spend more time in the Wiki.

[DonBradley]

And this was a second hand account by someone associated with the Whitmers. Do we know that David Whitmer was associated with the translation other than this second hand account? Just curious. Looking for knowledge. I guess I should spend more time in the Wiki.

There are dozens of accounts of the translation process, several by some of the scribes themselves, others by non-scribal witnesses to the process, by members of the Smith family, by people who discussed the process with Joseph Smith. I'll discuss all this is in the forthcoming Sunstone papers I mentioned.

Cheers,

Don

[DonBradley]

Hi Jaybear,

You've misunderstood my point. Joseph Smith translated as a seer, as one understood to have a gift of supernatural sight. So the fact that he saw a light or images on the stone would not mean that others would have seen them too. So far as I understand--and I realize this is not an entirely settled question, but the evidence appears to point this way--he claimed only to see a "spiritual light" (as one account puts it) and not a physical light. So, no, my description of the symbolism of the process does not depend on the presence of physical light in the hat.

But let's suppose your premise--that he had no sight of the light or translation at all. This would mean there's no symbolism to the process he described? I'm afraid I don't get it. I wasn't aware that symbolism could only inhere in actual physical objects or even in actual percepta. I recall reading many literary works that contain symbolism too...

IOW, what I lay out above is a kind of interpretation of concrete (or, if you'd like, reportedly concrete) symbols. One doesn't have to be LDS to understand the meaning of this symbolism, but once one does understand it, it makes the insinuations that the process was like child's play or illusionism fall quite flat.

Don

[DonBradley]

As you have pointed out, one of the the great problems of modern day critics is the logical falisy of presentism. As we move farther and farther from the events of the restoration, it becomes more and more easy to misinterpret those events by applying our modern culture's view to our interpretation of those events. Especially when, as Jaybear mentioned, we have already decided that the events must be false.

Larry,

Yes! Well said.

This problem becomes more and more evident when interpreting ancient texts such as the Bible and especially the Book of Mormon. Without some understanding of ancient cultures, we are prone to apply our modern concepts to what the text says and often this results in poor understanding. This not only applies to critics but to Latter Day Saints as well.

Absolutely. And, as you suggest above, this applies also to understanding 19th century American culture, and particularly the culture and circumstances in which the early Saints participated.

Again, thanks for the insights and let's hope that more of those with doubts will follow your example and look for better interpretations of restoration events rather than being sidetracted by the critics interpretations.

Amen!

My own purpose has not been to do apologetics. Indeed, the interpretations I describe here, and in some other lines of research that support restoration claims, began to form during my period of nonbelief. It became clearer and clearer to me with time that these interpretations, arising in an academic context, had implications for faith, both mine and that of others. And as such they also have implications for apologetics.

As I see it, many of the critical arguments simply evaporate under the lens of scholarship, no apologetic intent required.

Thanks for your resonant thoughts,

Don

[Scott Lloyd]

In scriptural text, there is a correlation between stones and seership (if "seership" is not a word, I just coined it), closer, perhaps, than some of us realize. I got a greater glimpse of this one day while studying the Bible and comparing it to the Joseph Smith Translation. In John 1:42 (this is the passage where Jesus calls Simon the son of Jona to the apostleship and names him Peter or "Cephas, which is by interpretation, a stone") the JST renders the phrase this way: "which is by interpretation a seer or a stone" (emphasis mine). This is all the more significant when compared to Matthew 16:18, Christ's subsequent call to Peter to be a seer as chief apostle and holder of the keys of the kingdom.

Like a seer stone is sometimes an instrument or medium of revelation to a seer, the seer himself is an instrument or medium of revelation to the children of God.

Thanks for the insights, Don, about the seer stone in the hat. All things considered, the symbolism here and there seems to converge to promote greater understanding -- or perhaps I should say light and understanding.

[cinepro]

Hi Don,

Do you have any insights into Oliver's attempt at translation, and what we might learn about the mechanics of the translation process? And how the heck someone could translate a book using a "rod of nature"?

[Ahab]

I am absolutely convinced that a great many critical readings of LDS texts and the events of our past, and also some problematic apologetic readings, simply read out of context and therefore misread. And even the profound and the true, when misread badly enough, comes across as foolish and false.

Boy howdy ain't that the truth!

Truth enlightens the mind, so that things make sense, and there is never any nonsense in the true gospel, so anyone who ever thinks there is any nonsense in the true gospel just needs to keep thinking until everything becomes crystal clear while trying his best to avoid making a fool out of himself.

We all know what those "Doh!" moments feel like, though, don't we, so I guess even the most well intentioned of us can be caught offguard and in the middle of a big mistake, but I think if we search more for the "Ah!" moments we'll say "Doh!" at least a little less often.

[Jaybear]

Hi Jaybear,

You've misunderstood my point. Joseph Smith translated as a seer, as one understood to have a gift of supernatural sight. So the fact that he saw a light or images on the stone would not mean that others would have seen them too. So far as I understand--and I realize this is not an entirely settled question, but the evidence appears to point this way--he claimed only to see a "spiritual light" (as one account puts it) and not a physical light. So, no, my description of the symbolism of the process does not depend on the presence of physical light in the hat.

But let's suppose your premise--that he had no sight of the light or translation at all. This would mean there's no symbolism to the process he described? I'm afraid I don't get it. I wasn't aware that symbolism could only inhere in actual physical objects or even in actual percepta. I recall reading many literary works that contain symbolism too...

IOW, what I lay out above is a kind of interpretation of concrete (or, if you'd like, reportedly concrete) symbols. One doesn't have to be LDS to understand the meaning of this symbolism, but once one does understand it, it makes the insinuations that the process was like child's play or illusionism fall quite flat.

Don

Oh, I think I understand your point. And I agree that for the faithful, the symbolism you describe offers a faith promoting interpretation.

I simply think you are overstating the import of the symbolism to those that don't share your faith that Smith was prophet.

Poulsenll: Especially when, as Jaybear mentioned, we have already decided that the events must be false. However if we have an open mind, are willing to accept the possibility that we could be wrong and have a sincere desire to understand, then we will spend the effort to study the culture and ambience of Joseph Smith's time frame and interpret the events in that ambience.

Oh I have an open mind. I am waiting for credible evidence that any person other than Joseph Smith is capable of translating texts by looking at a rock in his hat, before taking this claim seriously.

Nothing would please me more than to learn that God exists, and that some men have supernatural powers.

BTW, I believe the LDS Church has the stone, a man that purports to be a seer, and has access to ancient manuscripts.

[Scott Lloyd]

Oh, I think I understand your point. And I agree that for the faithful, the symbolism you describe offers a faith promoting interpretation.

I simply think you are overstating the import of the symbolism to those that don't share your faith that Smith was prophet.

Oh I have an open mind. I am waiting for credible evidence that any person other than Joseph Smith is capable of translating texts by looking at a rock in his hat, before taking this claim seriously.

Nothing would please me more than to learn that God exists, and that some men have supernatural powers.

BTW, I believe the LDS Church has the stone, a man that purports to be a seer, and has access to ancient manuscripts.

Prophecy, revelation, translation and other gifts of the Spirit do not come on demand. They are received as God sees fit to bestow them. This is true for God's anointed servants as much as for anyone else. A prophet of God is not a necromancer.

Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve gave an insightful speech on this subject. I'll see if I can find a link.

Added: It was actually an article in the March 1997 issue of the Ensign magazine. Here's the part I wish to highlight:

In His Own Time and in His Own Way

First, we should recognize that the Lord will speak to us through the Spirit in his own time and in his own way. Many people do not understand this principle. They believe that when they are ready and when it suits their convenience, they can call upon the Lord and he will immediately respond, even in the precise way they have prescribed. Revelation does not come that way.

About 15 years ago when I was at Brigham Young University, we were making plans to persuade the president of the United States to speak at the university. We had particular times that would suit our convenience, and we had in mind some things we wanted him to say and do while he was there. But all of us were wise enough to know that we could not contact the highest authority in the United States and invite him to come to the BYU campus

[cinepro]

BTW, I believe the LDS Church has the stone, a man that purports to be a seer, and has access to ancient manuscripts.

Then again, Joseph Smith didn't have his own Translation Department.

I suspect:

Doctors are to Spiritual Healings

as

The Church Translation Department is to Seer Stone-aided translations

[DonBradley]

Hi Don,

Do you have any insights into Oliver's attempt at translation, and what we might learn about the mechanics of the translation process? And how the heck someone could translate a book using a "rod of nature"?

Good question! LOL! That one's kind of hard to picture, eh?

I don't think D&C 8 and 9 actually indicate that Oliver was going to translate using the rod, but, rather, than he was going to translate via his other, and I think primary, gift--that of "the spirit of revelation." However, I do think there are connections between his use of a rod and this process. And the connections are, I think, fascinating and really fun. I'll leave that to my Sunstone paper. So far as I understand, the paper will be published in two installments, the first of which will be coming out in the issue following the one now going to press.

When you get to read it, let me know what you think. I'd love feedback.

Don

[DonBradley]

Oh, I think I understand your point. And I agree that for the faithful, the symbolism you describe offers a faith promoting interpretation.

I simply think you are overstating the import of the symbolism to those that don't share your faith that Smith was prophet.

Hi J-Bear,

I appreciate this. I think the difference this sort of thing (and I've laid out just one part on this topic) should make for nonbelievers in LDS foundational claims is not that they should suddenly think, "Oh, there's interesting symbolism here--it must have really happened!" but rather that it ought to reframe for them where the process's symbolic importance lies. People often "read" it in the frame of what it would mean to us right now if I picked up a boot and looked inside or if I pulled a book out of hat, along with a white rabbit and a dozen roses. This is the error of historicizing, of reading the texts and actions of the past in light of modern culture rather than of the culture in which they occurred.

If one balks at accepting the Book of Mormon translation process because one doesn't see the right sort of evidence for the book's antiquity, that's one thing. But if one rejects it because one associates it with illusionism and other elements from the wrong cultural milieu, that's another. It is to the latter sort of objection that the reading of symbols here is relevant.

Oh I have an open mind. I am waiting for credible evidence that any person other than Joseph Smith is capable of translating texts by looking at a rock in his hat, before taking this claim seriously.

Nothing would please me more than to learn that God exists, and that some men have supernatural powers.

Understood!

I think many Latter-day Saints, and theists more generally, misunderstand, Jaybear, that there are plenty of atheists and agnostics who would love for there to be a God and a purpose to the universe, but just don't think they can believe given the evidence they perceive. Having been there, I know better; and I wish you the best and that you'll find that the thing you would be so happy to have true is.

Perhaps at some future point we can talk about God. Not that I think I have the proof to end all proofs, or something like that, which would make you believe. But we could compare journeys and reasons to believe this or believe that.

Cheers,

Don

[why me]

I have always come back to this when I am shaken about some fact or bothered about some idea. I just don't see how it is possible for him to trick people using the methods he did. Otherwise he is one of the most intelligent people we know with the most amazing photographic memory possible.

How do you pull off the hat trick while making a coherent story all the while plagiarizing the Spalding Manuscript.

Once one realizes what an impossible feat that would be, something supernatural was involved and when other pieces of the LDS story aren't easy to put together, you just have to assume you don't have all the right pieces. This is part of my Jeopardy mindset.

JMS

It would have been quite a feat for a con that is for sure. I have to wonder just what don thought about the hat trick when he left the lds church. How did he rationalize it? Now of course, he is back on course. No matter how you cut it, both emma and david were impressed with the process.

Of course there are explanations out there, by dan vogel for one. But this automatic writing process would give Joseph a talent that he could have prospered immensely from, if he took that process on the road. But... I don't think that he had such a talent and the book of mormon is not a See Jane run kind of book.

[cdowis]

I remember when one antimormon posted about the hat and the translation, I made the comment:

"That must have been a very remarkable hat. It must have had a window, or a table with a candle so that JS could read from his manuscript."

Haven't heard much about it since then.

[cinepro]

But this automatic writing process would give Joseph a talent that he could have prospered immensely from, if he took that process on the road. But... I don't think that he had such a talent and the book of mormon is not a See Jane run kind of book.

Compared to religious leaders, how do "automatic writers" fare on the scale of wealth and influence?

[DonBradley]

Hey Jaybear,

I had a few more thoughts on one of your questions.

You raise a question about the viability of translation through a stone: "Do I have any other examples of this being an effective translation process?" I think this is a perfectly reasonable question or issue.

However, I think if you look into what most skeptics of the reported translation method have a real problem with (or certainly the biggest problem with), you'll find that this isn't it. Rather, the main objections are not to the potentially problematic stone but to the merely odd (and ancillary) hat.

I was going to suggest you repeat an experiment I did on this some months ago, and do suggest that. But I see that it has changed slightly from last time I checked. If you go to Google and enter "did Joseph Smith," you'll come up with a list of things searchers commonly query about Joseph Smith's doings. For a while entering "did Joseph Smith..." would produce (among others) the ending "...read out of a hat." This has changed a bit, in that one now has to enter "did Joseph Smith read..." in order for the completion "...out of a hat" to appear. Playing around with other search stems and variants on this one I've been unable to find any comparable FGC (frequently Googled question) regarding Joseph Smith's use of the stone.

Similarly, in talking with many ex- or doubting Mormons and engaging in various online discussions, Joseph's use of a hat is objected to several times over as much as his use of a stone. But such questions and objections simply misconceive the case. Joseph Smith's stone was central to the process; his hat was merely convenient. To object to the Book of Mormon because Joseph Smith's process in bringing it forth made funny use of an everyday object or because it vaguely reminds one of 20th and 21st century practices of illusionists or raises the cliche' of "pulling something out of one's hat"--the major reasons I've been able to identify that people do object to the process--is not ratonal; it is purely emotive, based on one's own cultural conditioning rather than rational questioning. (It's noteworthy that the commonly Googled phrase is "out of a hat" rather than "from a hat" or "with his face in a hat," since the former wording suggests direct verbal influence from the cliche')

My proposal is that we read the symbolism of the Book of Mormon translation and other early LDS events in light of the cultural-symbolic systems in which they emerged, including the unique subculture of the early Restoration itself, rather than in cultural-symbolic systems more familiar to us, but alien to the symbols and their contexts of origin.

Doing so may not answer the better questions about the translation process, but it does answer the more common ones. And the refutation of bad reasons to reject truth claims, whether less LDS or other, ought to be something most reasonable people can accept as a good thing.

Cheers,

Don

[jskains]

I remember when one antimormon posted about the hat and the translation, I made the comment:

"That must have been a very remarkable hat. It must have had a window, or a table with a candle so that JS could read from his manuscript."

Haven't heard much about it since then.

You won't. It is the single biggest flaw in the Anti-Mormon interpretation of the events.

JMS

[consiglieri]

And how the heck someone could translate a book using a "rod of nature"?

By using a really big hat?

Here I am thinking of Hoss from the Ponderosa.

Out in the west there's nothing but the best, Bonanza!

All the Best!

--Consiglieri