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

[maupayman]

Well, here comes a guy with the same story as Joseph Smith and begins to copy the amount of witnesses too. And then he begins to build a church. It smells like a copycat and strang was not a very original thinker.

Right, that is more likely to be why the Strangite movement didn't catch on. It was so blatantly obvious that it was a rip off. At least mormonism was somewhat original. Yet, many faithful mormons believed, and bore testimony, that Strange's plates were from God. You have still not answered my question about whether you view their witnesses as strong evidence to Stange's claims?

[why me]

Why?

Then, people like you could point out the differences and claim the book was a fraud.

[maupayman]

Then, people like you could point out the differences and claim the book was a fraud.

Actually, as jaybear has pointed out, its more interesting that it contained the exact sections from his bible, including errors. This proves that Joseph was not fully honest about the creation and writing of the BoM.

I would actually expect the BoM to be different than the Bible, given Joseph claimed that the Bible had been corrupted. These sections of Isaiah and the New Testament, which were included in the BoM should have corrected those corruptions and clarified the teachings for us in the latter days.

[why me]

Right, that is more likely to be why the Strangite movement didn't catch on. It was so blatantly obvious that it was a rip off. At least mormonism was somewhat original. Yet, many faithful mormons believed, and bore testimony, that Strange's plates were from God. You have still not answered my question about whether you view their witnesses as strong evidence to Stange's claims?

No. In fact, I think that his witnesses came clean. But lets look at it this way: the book of mromon witnesses were called liars, fraudsters etc for many years and they repeatedly had to answer questions about the book of mormon. I really believe that many wanted to believe what strang had was true. It confirmed their own experiences with the coming forth of the book of mormon.

Now if these book of mormon witnesses were fraudsters, well, they would have smell a mook a mile away when strang came forth with his plates.

[why me]

Actually, as jaybear has pointed out, its more interesting that it contained the exact sections from his bible, including errors. This proves that Joseph was not fully honest about the creation and writing of the BoM.

I would actually expect the BoM to be different than the Bible, given Joseph claimed that the Bible had been corrupted. These sections of Isaiah and the New Testament, which were included in the BoM should have corrected those corruptions and clarified the teachings for us in the latter days.

Here is a better question: Why put them in the book of mormon at all if one is attempting a fraud? It would be a dead giveaway. I would not have bothered since I would know that I would need to field questions about it and have a good answer ready.

The apologists for the lds have answered your questions on FAIR.

[DonBradley]

It does seem rather odd that a critic (or faithful mormon) would have a problem with the hat and stone, not the nephrite interpreters. Well, with one exception. The fact that Smith used the hat/stone in his search for buried treasures can legitimately raise concerns even for those who are apt to believe in God and therefore in supernatural events.

Yes, but as mentioned it appears that this sort of rational question is not primarily what troubles doubters about the Book of Mormon translation process. Rather, it is the perceived connotations and implications of his using a hat that does so. My reading of the symbolism of the translation process is only relevant to the hat question; other issues relating to the use of the stone are a separate discussion.

I have always seen them going hand in hand. Yes, the hat bears some relationship to magicians hat, but also the stone bears relationship to the use of a crystal ball.

Interesting. Yet, if this were the problem, we would expect people to object also to the reported use of the Urim and Thummim, which also functioned like a crystal ball. How many people have you seen objecting to the Urim and Thummim? I don't believe I've seen any. It is the hat, primarily, to which they object, and secondarily the use of the same stone for treasure searching as for translating.

Depends on what you mean by the process. If the process refers to the means by which he mislead the occasional visitor into believing he was reading words that appeared on the stone, then the hat was absolutely essential to the process, as it shielded the stone from plain view. It would have been far more challenging for Smith to convince his audience that words appeared on the stone, if they had full view of the stone.

I'm afraid you're misunderstanding the nature of the translation claims and Joseph Smith's claims as a seer. Joseph Smith and his followers never believed that just anyone could see the light and images from the stone. That's why he had to be a seer to translate via the stone. He could see things on it that others could not. This is confirmed by accounts regarding the "spiritual light" emanating from the stone and the fact that he used his other seerstone out in the open, not in a hat, actually by holding it up to a candle, the sun, or some other source of light. The point of secluding the stone was not and could not have been as you say, to hide from others the fact that there were no images on it: they wouldn't have seen them anyway.

Ah but here is what your are missing. Apologists who tout the loose translation method claim that the rock/hat was a means by which Smith can concentrate.

Read my two upcoming Sunstone papers on the translation process and tell me if you still thinking I'm "missing" any of this.

BTW, I rarely get a straight Yes or No answer to the question: Do you believe that Smith could actually locate buried treasure by looking at a stone in his hat?

You may be interested to read the accounts of Joseph Smith's 1826 hearing on the charge of being "a glass looker." Those for whom he acted as treasure seer were perfectly convinced of his abilities, sometimes citing particular objects he located and the like.

Personally, I find treasure-hunting with a stone perfectly strange and wouldn't know how to integrate it into my overall worldview, but I'm going to have to disappoint you by falling short of a definite negation.

Don

[cdowis]

What about the lengthy sections taken directly out of the Bible?

What about it? Is this a "yes, no" question, or am I supposed to say, "Golly, I never noticed that before".

I don't understand your question.

[cdowis]

Actually, as jaybear has pointed out, its more interesting that it contained the exact sections from his bible, including errors.

I agree there may be some errors in translation, which are reflected in that he used the KJV Bible in the translation process, rather than an entirely independent translation. None of these are significant, angels dancing on the head of a pin. But they are counter balanced by the corrections/enhancements that he made, such as the reference to baptism. The BOM does not show an exact match to the KJV, as you "forgot" to mention.

[maupayman]

What about it? Is this a "yes, no" question, or am I supposed to say, "Golly, I never noticed that before".

I don't understand your question.

You said:

it is obvious to me that the text is independent of the Bible.

How is it independant of the Bible if it is quoting and paraphrasing lengthy sections of the Bible?

[maupayman]

I agree there may be some errors in translation, which are reflected in that he used the KJV Bible in the translation process, rather than an entirely independent translation. None of these are significant, angels dancing on the head of a pin. But they are counter balanced by the corrections/enhancements that he made, such as the reference to baptism. The BOM does not show an exact match to the KJV, as you "forgot" to mention.

Poor word choice on my part, sorry. As you have conceded the point about the Bible being used in the translation process, you know what I meant.

[maupayman]

He then told them to live according to the teachings contained in the Book of Mormon, and promised them, if they would do this, that they would meet him in heaven. He then said,

[thews]

Yes, but as mentioned it appears that this sort of rational question is not primarily what troubles doubters about the Book of Mormon translation process. Rather, it is the perceived connotations and implications of his using a hat that does so. My reading of the symbolism of the translation process is only relevant to the hat question; other issues relating to the use of the stone are a separate discussion.

Don, what do you deem "rational" regarding the question? Is it the question/process, or the complete lack of information and flowered up words used to describe it? As I have mentioned in the other thread, LDS.org uses words like "divine instrumentalities" and "revelatory instruments" to define "seer stones", and "mechanical procedure" to describe head-in-hat. When you speak of what's rational regarding the question, do you think it's rational to used descriptions that, unless you knew it was head-in-hat, you wouldn't be able to figure out, as the words used are meant to imply the Urim and Thummim? Also, the complete lack of any picture depicting Joseph Smith with his head-in-hat translating is another indicator that the truth is being intentionally hidden. Would you agree?

Interesting. Yet, if this were the problem, we would expect people to object also to the reported use of the Urim and Thummim, which also functioned like a crystal ball. How many people have you seen objecting to the Urim and Thummim? I don't believe I've seen any. It is the hat, primarily, to which they object, and secondarily the use of the same stone for treasure searching as for translating.

I'm not sure I agree with you, as you imply the Urim and Thummim are separate from seer stones, when it seems to be acceptable among apologists to interchange the words, even though the use of "Urim and Thummim" wasn't even used until three years after the Book of Mormon was written, was inserted into the D&C 10:1-3 passage after the fact, and the data clearly shows the Urim and Thummim/Nephite spectacles were taken back along with the lost 116 pages, leaving nothing but the brown and white seer stones which were used out of a hat. How many Mormons know this history?

I'm afraid you're misunderstanding the nature of the translation claims and Joseph Smith's claims as a seer. Joseph Smith and his followers never believed that just anyone could see the light and images from the stone. That's why he had to be a seer to translate via the stone. He could see things on it that others could not. This is confirmed by accounts regarding the "spiritual light" emanating from the stone and the fact that he used his other seerstone out in the open, not in a hat, actually by holding it up to a candle, the sun, or some other source of light. The point of secluding the stone was not and could not have been as you say, to hide from others the fact that there were no images on it: they wouldn't have seen them anyway.

I disagree. Based on history, Joseph Smith claimed that every man should have a seer stone. David Whitmer had one, as did Joseph Smith's brother Hyrum, who Joseph claimed saw evil things through his seer stone. Also, the use of "translation claims" above avoids the use of the brown and white seer stones to seek treasure, as they were used to "see" the treasure and the evil treasure guardians who were dead humans, and not to translate. For reference from the Maxwell Institute article:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=18&num=1&id=600

The devil and his minions made up the next major group of treasure guardians.32 These satanic guardians apparently owed their existence to the notion that God dwells in the heavens above the earth and the devil lives beneath the earth. Satan laid claim on the treasure deposited within his subterranean dominion.33 Also, since burying treasure was often associated with greed, robbery, and murder, the devil found his way into many a treasure tale.34 In 1825, a Palmyra newspaper explained the recent failure of one group to recover a buried treasure: "His Satanic Majesty, or some other invisible agent, appears to keep it under marching orders; for no sooner is it dug on to in one place, than it moves off like 'false delusive hope,' to another still more remote."

Read my two upcoming Sunstone papers on the translation process and tell me if you still thinking I'm "missing" any of this.

Are you going to mention that the Urim and Thummim was taken back along with the lost 116 pages?

You may be interested to read the accounts of Joseph Smith's 1826 hearing on the charge of being "a glass looker." Those for whom he acted as treasure seer were perfectly convinced of his abilities, sometimes citing particular objects he located and the like.

One of those people at the trial was Jonathan Thompson, who said Joseph Smith saw a dead Indian treasure guardian guarding the treasure. I'm getting a lot of mixed messages on this, as everything about Thompsons testimony makes sense. If you read the Maxwell Institute article on treasure guardians, this all makes sense. Thompson was also Joseph Smith's friend, so he is a favorable witness. I'd appreciate your opinion on this.

http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changech4.htm

Jonathan Thompson says that prisoner was requested to look for chest of money; did look, and pretended to know where it was; and prisoner, Thompson, and Yeomans went in search of it; that Smith arrived at spot first; was at night; that Smith looked in hat while there, and when very dark, and told how the chest was situated. After digging several feet, struck upon something sounding like a board or plank. Prisoner would not look again, pretending that he was alarmed on account of the circumstances relating to the trunk being buried, [which], came all fresh to his mind. That the last time he looked he discovered distinctly the two Indians who buried the trunk, that a quarrel ensued between them, and that one of said Indians was killed by the other, and thrown into the hole beside the trunk, to guard it, as he supposed. Thompson says that he believes in the prisoner's professed skill; that the board which he struck his spade upon was probably the chest, but on account of an enchantment the trunk kept settling away from under them when digging; that notwithstanding they continued constantly removing the dirt, yet the trunk kept about the same distance from them. Says prisoner said that it appeared to him that salt might be found at Bainbridge, and that he is certain that prisoner can divine things by means of said stone. That as evidence of the fact prisoner looked into his hat to tell him about some money witness lost sixteen years ago, and that he described the man that witness supposed had taken it, and the disposition of the money:

And therefore the Court find the Defendant guilty. Costs: Warrant, l9c. Complaint upon oath, 251/2 c. Seven witnesses, 871/2 c. Recongnisances, 25 c. Mittimus, 19 c. Recongnisances of witnesses, 75 c. Suboena, 18 c.

[cdowis]

You said:

How is it independant of the Bible if it is quoting and paraphrasing lengthy sections of the Bible?

You are just being argumentative. Of course it quotes the Bible, and those parts are obvious to the reader, but the vast majority of the text is independent of the Biblical text.

I have no interest in quibbling with you over the obvious.

[maupayman]

You are just being argumentative. Of course it quotes the Bible, and those parts are obvious to the reader, but the vast majority of the text is independent of the Biblical text.

I have no interest in quibbling with you over the obvious.

No, I just don't agree with your point. The storyline may be independant of the Bible, but much of the doctrine, it could be argued, is Bible based. Palmer and others have made this argument. Add in the lengthy copied and paraphrased material and the important aspects of the BoM could easily have been based on the Bible.

[DonBradley]

Hi Thews,

The issues of what Joseph Smith was doing with the stone and hat and how acknowledged this in present-day LDS art are two distinct issues, but, yes, I will be examining why I think this is not reflected in the art. If you have any input on this beyond what is usually given, which seems simplistic and polemical and which I'm already familiar with, I would (genuinely) appreciate hearing it so I can take it into consideration in completing that part of the second paper.

Also, yes, I'll be covering the shift from the Urim and Thummim to the seerstone. Do you have particular insight on this?

Thanks,

Don

[cdowis]

No, I just don't agree with your point. The storyline may be independant of the Bible, but much of the doctrine, it could be argued, is Bible based. Palmer and others have made this argument. Add in the lengthy copied and paraphrased material and the important aspects of the BoM could easily have been based on the Bible.

I agree that the BOM is a second witness to Christ and his doctrines. To pretend that it merely repeats the Bible, however, shows a profound ignorance of its text.

Some of the most profound doctrines can be found in 2 Ne 2, Jacob 6, Alma 5, 12, 32, 40-42 are some examples. It answers many of the questions where the Bible fails to give us a complete answer, such as how to know the truth.

It is a second witness to the doctrines of Christ, it is scripture.

[maupayman]

I agree that the BOM is a second witness to Christ and his doctrines. To pretend that it merely repeats the Bible, however, shows a profound ignorance of its text.

Who claimed this? "Based on" and "merely repeats" are very different things. No one is arguing your point here.

Some of the most profound doctrines can be found in 2 Ne 2, Jacob 6, Alma 5, 12, 32, 40-42 are some examples. It answers many of the questions where the Bible fails to give us a complete answer, such as how to know the truth.

It is a second witness to the doctrines of Christ, it is scripture.

No question it clarifies many questions, to the satisfaction of mormons. It could still easily be argued that those expansions and clarifications are based on the Bible. It is hardly independant of the Bible, as you claimed.

[thews]

Hi Thews,

The issues of what Joseph Smith was doing with the stone and hat and how acknowledged this in present-day LDS art are two distinct issues, but, yes, I will be examining why I think this is not reflected in the art. If you have any input on this beyond what is usually given, which seems simplistic and polemical and which I'm already familiar with, I would (genuinely) appreciate hearing it so I can take it into consideration in completing that part of the second paper.

Also, yes, I'll be covering the shift from the Urim and Thummim to the seerstone. Do you have particular insight on this?

Thanks,

Don

Thanks Don,

The biggest misconception with the translation process IMO is the lack of acknowledging when the Urim and Thummim (Nephite spectacles) were taken back with the lost 116 pages), and the quote by Emma Smith regarding the head in hat method being changed to remove the part where she states specifically how it was done. I look forward to your work in clearing the air.

[cdowis]

Who claimed this? "Based on" and "merely repeats" are very different things. No one is arguing your point here.

You did. See your comment below =====>>>>

No question it clarifies many questions, to the satisfaction of mormons. It could still easily be argued that those expansions and clarifications are based on the Bible. It is hardly independant of the Bible, as you claimed.

As i said, this shows a profound ignorance of the BOM text.

[maupayman]

I meant, nobody is arguing that the BoM merely repeats the Bible. again, "based on" is different in meaning than "merely repeats".

[cdowis]

I meant, nobody is arguing that the BoM merely repeats the Bible. again, "based on" is different in meaning than "merely repeats".

I think we vehemently agree with each other. Just a matter of degree.

[coolrok7]

. . .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. . . .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?. . .

If that was actually the way it happened (at least part of the time as it is reported that way but the way it is usually shown is Joseph at a table with the plates in front of him with pen in hand and writing). That, in and of itself, is not necessarily a showstopper for me as an individual (there is a lot more to it than just that but it is a part of it).

I

[LifeOnaPlate]

Talk out of a hat

Idiom Definitions for 'Talk out of your hat'

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

If someone is talking out of their hat, they're talking utter rubbish, especially if compounded with total ignorance of the subject on which they are pontificating. ('Talk through your hat' is also used.)

http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/talk+out+of+your+hat.html

Talk through one's hat

Meaning

Talk nonsense; especially on a subject that one professes to be knowledgeable about but in fact is ignorant of.

Smith: It's true. And I'm going to translate the plates and publish it into a book for the whole world to read. Now, ahah-I know you have a lot of money, Mr. Harris, and I'm just gonna need a little bit to pay for the publishing costs.

Harris: Mmm, I don't know. Uh, how do you expect to translate it?

Smith: With these. [presents the seer stones]

Harris: Rocks?

Smith: They're not rocks. They're seer stones, given to me by an angel. With them, God allowed me to translate the plates into English. Watch. You take this quill and paper and write down what I say. Sit here. [on the floor, by some sheets of paper and a quill pen in an ink well] I have the golden plates here in this hat. I need to have them somewhere dark so I can read the spiritual light.

Harris: Really?

Smith: Now, when I put the seer stones into the hat, the ancient letter light up and change into English, which I can then read to you.

Harris: Wow! [smith looks down and lowers his head so the face is buried in the hat]

Smith: Ooo, I'm seeing the light. Oh, okay. Write this down. "And... so... it... was... that... Christ... appeared before... the... Nephites."

Singers: And that's how the Book of Mormon was written

Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb

Dumb dadumb dumb dumb dumb dumb

Dumb dadumb dumb dumb dumb dumb

Dahumb dahumb dumb dumb dumb dumb

Dumb dumb dumb dumb duuumb, duuumb.

http://www.rickross.com/reference/mormon/mormon134.html

Wow, noel, don't you claim to be Christian?

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/29/my-take-why-christians-are-jerks-online/

[Areabird]

I agree there may be some errors in translation, which are reflected in that he used the KJV Bible in the translation process, rather than an entirely independent translation. None of these are significant, ...

If Joseph was receiving inspiration from God in dictating words on the seer stones to the scribes, then why would God inspire Joseph to write mistakes into the Book of Mormon?

In all the descriptions of the process I've been reading in this thread, I don't see any witnesses mentioning the Bible being used. Why do you say that he did? What proof is there that he used the Bible in the 'translation' process?

[Bunk]

If Joseph was receiving inspiration from God in dictating words on the seer stones to the scribes, then why would God inspire Joseph to write mistakes into the Book of Mormon?

In all the descriptions of the process I've been reading in this thread, I don't see any witnesses mentioning the Bible being used. Why do you say that he did? What proof is there that he used the Bible in the 'translation' process?

The mistakes themselves, the errors in so-called "translation", are ample and irrefutable evidence that Joseph used the KJV Bible to write the Book of Mormon. Statements from witnesses and belief in God-inspired translation must be bent around this fact.