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

[Deborah]

Sources are important. In my job I hear a lot of third hand information. I can't use it without an actual formal statement from the person who supposedly made the claim. Funny thing is no one ever wants to be committed to giving a factual statement.

I will take the words of those actually present during the translation process and anyone who has done legitimate research knows that there was not one way the translation took place and as Joseph became more adept he didn't need any artifacts to assist him.

[thews]

Considering the amount of time you spend putting words in his (and our) mouth, it would be nice.

False. Your reference is what someone claims Thompson said Joseph said. That's third-hand testimony at best, wild speculation at worst. It is hearsay- nothing more.

Wrong again and your blather isn't worth acknowledging unless you provde some sort of argument to counter the factual data. This is exaclty what a money-digger would claim, Joseph Smith was a money digger who used his seer stones for $14 a month and this was said by his friend:

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.

[thews]

Sources are important. In my job I hear a lot of third hand information. I can't use it without an actual formal statement from the person who supposedly made the claim. Funny thing is no one ever wants to be committed to giving a factual statement.

I will take the words of those actually present during the translation process and anyone who has done legitimate research knows that there was not one way the translation took place and as Joseph became more adept he didn't need any artifacts to assist him.

What is your point? Emma Smith claimed is was with rock in hat. If you can't trust Emma, then who can you trust?

[thews]

He has rethewsed to engage and it seems that sometimes he is even conthewsed at some of the facts.

Like, he has a hard time understanding the differnce between a 1st and a 2nd hand account. It seems he does not know what hearsay is either.

And you don't seem to understand what testimony from a trial is. Again... zero data... nothing but hearsay.

[selek]

Wrong again and your blater isn't worth acknowledging unless you provde some sort of argument to counter the factual data.

The facts are that your Thompson statements are third-hand and hearsay. You haven't a primary (or secondary) source in sight.

Your own citations acknowledge that they are the words of others, not Thompson himself.

This is exaclty what a money-digger would claim,

Okay. This nonsense is no more factually substantive- and every bit as ignorant and bigoted as claiming "all blacks like fried chicken".

You have demonstrated that some money-diggers might claim this- but you've provided no evidence that Joseph himself did.

Joseph Smith was a money digger who used his seer stones for $14 a month and this was said by his friend:

And yet you can't demonstrate that this WAS said by Joseph's friend- only that someone SAID he did.

That's third-hand testimony.

If I say it, that's "first hand".

If you say I said it, that's "second hand".

If someone else says you said that I said it, that's third-hand.

And third-hand "testimony" recorded forty-five years after the fact is hearsay, at best.

If we REALLY wanted to be obnoxious, your reference is technically fourth-hand information. It's someone saying that someone said that someone said that you heard me saying it.

It's an article claiming to report what the court said that Thompson said that he heard Joseph Smith say.

I'm sorry, but it's neither tenable nor credible testoimony- and you normally wouldn't have anything to do with it- except that it supports your prejudices.

You are using third-hand hearsay from a biased source that- like yourself- has been caught repeatedly "fudging" the data to arrive at a contrived result.

The testimony itself- even if it were accepted as an accurate rendition of Thompson's own words- is inflammatory and leading: note the repeated use of the word "pretends". They are imputing motives and beliefs to Joseph that neither they nor the primary source (Thompson)can know.

This is mind-reading, pretending to know what Joseph was thinking- and yet Joseph's own testimony is nowhere to be seen.

This is advocacy and an attempt to demonize and to persuade rather than a chronicle of the testimony.

Even accepted at face value, it is nonetheless suspect at face value.

Finally- even if we accept that all of your claims about Joseph being a "diviner" are true (and we don't) that doesn't in any way, shape, fashion, or form disqualify him as a Prophet of God.

You still haven't dealt with the fact that Joseph of Egypt, Moses, and the Twelve Apostles are equally guilty of being "diviners".

The noose you are trying to fashion for Joseph fits equally well around the necks of your own prophets.

You need to deal with that simple, inescapable fact.

[selek]

And you don't seem to understand what testimony from a trial is. Again... zero data... nothing but hearsay.

Trial or not- your reference is not from the trial.

It is a magazine article that claims to record what the court claimed Thompson said that Joseph said.

It's third-hand and hearsay at best.

[thews]

Trial or not- your reference is not from the trial.

It is a magazine article that claims to record what the court claimed Thompson said that Joseph said.

It's third-hand and hearsay at best.

Note the lack of data to support the claim above... nothing ...zipppo.

[selek]

Note the lack of data to support the claim above... nothing ...zipppo.

From your own citation, thews, in Post #177:

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.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

And you don't seem to understand what testimony from a trial is. Again... zero data... nothing but hearsay.

Oh I get it. You think that this was actually testimony from a trial. CFR please. And your standard link that you post wont cut it. The article that you site claims that "Thompson said that JS did x, y and z".

Thews, you are the one that claims that Thompson actually said what he said. You need to back that up with more than a he said she said account. You have not produced testimony. You think you have but on that point you are once again conthewsed.

[thews]

From your own citation, thews, in Post #177:

Your own quote reveals that it is not a statement by the court, but a magazine article- just as I said.

That's the second time you've been caught misrepresenting your evidence in this thread alone.

So tell us....is lying a mere pathology for you or is it more of an avocation?

The irony is that your source is only what UTLM claims Fraser's Magazine claims the court claimsThompsonclaimsJoseph said.

You don't have a first-hand copy of the Fraser's Magazine article.

You don't have a first-hand copy of the court document.

You don't have a first-hand copy of the Thompson's testimony.

You don't have a first-hand copy of the Joseph Smith's statement.

You are dealing with alleged statements removed five full steps from their sources.

That's hearsay, at best- and no court in the country (nor any reasonable mind) would accept such "evidence" at face value.

The only justifiable reason to believe this hearsay is because you say so, and not because of anything that makes sense or by what you've presented (nothing), or even close to substantiated by one shred of data. The accounts of trial aren

[thews]

Oh I get it. You think that this was actually testimony from a trial. CFR please. And your standard link that you post wont cut it. The article that you site claims that "Thompson said that JS did x, y and z".

Thews, you are the one that claims that Thompson actually said what he said. You need to back that up with more than a he said she said account. You have not produced testimony. You think you have but on that point you are once again conthewsed.

I'm done with your lame CFR's Mola... you don't respond to the data and I've already linked the source... to which you have presented zero data.

[selek]

The only justifiable reason to believe this hearsay is because you say so,

No- it is "hearsay" because it is "what someone claims they heard the court say they heard Thompson say he heard Joseph say."

You have not a single first-hand testimony in the entire lot.

and not because of anything that makes sense or by what you've presented (nothing), or even close to substantiated by one shred of data.

Except, of course, for the attribution itself- to Fraser's Magazine.

The report is not attributed to the court, nor to Thompson, nor to Joseph himself, but to Fraser's Magazine.

The accounts of trial aren

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I'm done with your lame CFR's Mola... you don't respond to the data and I've already linked the source... to which you have presented zero data.

You are the one that thinks it is actual testimony, Thews, the burden of proof is on you dude. You made the claim. WE are calling you out and have been calling you out and you rethews to answer the CFR.

[thews]

You are the one that thinks it is actual testimony, Thews, the burden of proof is on you dude. You made the claim. WE are calling you out and have been calling you out and you rethews to answer the CFR.

Like I said... you aren't worth a response anymore as your intent is obvious with your "official" CFR's and denial of all data posted.

[thews]

No- it is "hearsay" because it is "what someone claims they heard the court say they heard Thompson say he heard Joseph say."

You have not a single first-hand testimony in the entire lot.

Except, of course, for the attribution itself- to Fraser's Magazine.

The report is not attributed to the court, nor to Thompson, nor to Joseph himself, but to Fraser's Magazine.

Despite yet another failed attempt at mind-reading, you're just plain wrong. Actual testimony from Thompson and Joseph themselves WOULD persuade me. But you haven't PROVIDED any.

You've merely linked to a source claiming that someone else said that they said these things.

That's hearsay, not evidence.

Note that thews' statement is every bit as logically rigorous and demonstrably true as "blacks love watermelon".

It is a blanket assertion based upon prejudice and ignorance which requires only a single counter-example to disprove. Nowhere does he demonstrate that JOSEPH believed this.

Except that we don't know what Thompson said. Your link only provides what others CLAIM he said- and your own citation in Post #177 admits this.

Note the lack of any data to support anything by selek. All selek has is the idle claims without anything to back them up... nothing... zippo.

[selek]

Note the lack of any data to support anything by selek. All selek has is the idle claims without anything to back them up... nothing... zippo.

From thew's own citation in Post #177:

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.

[thews]

From thew's own citation in Post #177:

Thew's own quote reveals that his source is not a statement by the court, but a magazine article- just as I said.

Note that thews' citation in Post #177- upon which his entire "Thompson's testimony" charade is predicated- does not refer to the court testimony or to an official transcript, but to a magazine in Fraser's magazine, written forty plus years after the alleged conversations took place.

Note that thews continues to try and pass off this magazine article- written forty plus years after the fact- as first-hand testimony.

Note that thews has been caught misrepresenting his sources and deliberately misquoting then not once, but twice in this thread alone.

Note that thews has likewise failed to acknowledge the fact that if one condemns Joseph as a false prophet because he was a "diviner", one must likewise condemn Joseph of Egypt, Moses, and the Twelve Apostles are condemned by the same standard.

More nothing based on nothing referencing nothing... zero data to cliam testimony from a trial is somehow wrong. Why would the data said by Thompson be questioned? (insert reason here) What would you expect him to say... he was Joseph Smith's friend. (reference something other than opinion here).

[selek]

More nothing based on nothing referencing nothing...

The irony in dismissing my quote of the source YOU provided is delicious ironic.

zero data to cliam testimony from a trial is somehow wrong.

But it's NOT testimony from the trial. Your citation is to a paraphrase from a magazine article written forty plus years after the fact- as your own citation admits.

And it's already been pointed out to you earlier that there are other reports of Thompson's testimony that contradict this magazine article.

Why would the data said by Thompson be questioned.

Because it's NOT data from Thompson. It's data from Fraser's Magazine- and from Utah Lighthouse Ministries- which has proven to be less than reputable in the past.

What woul dyu expect him to say... he was Joseph Smith's friend. (reference something other than opinion here).

Note both the rhetorical dodge and the dandy little strawman.

We have no problem with addressing Thompson's words- if and when Thews gets around to presenting them. His whinge is a strawman, nothing more.

Thews STILL isn't addressing the demonstrated fact that he's been caught lying about and misrepresenting his sources and refuses to deal with the demonstrated fact that he's NOT dealing with Thompson's words- but with someone else's claims about those words.

[Deborah]

What is your point? Emma Smith claimed is was with rock in hat. If you can't trust Emma, then who can you trust?

Has anyone denied that? The issue is your use of what these stones were and their source.

[thews]

Has anyone denied that? The issue is your use of what these stones were and their source.

This is the question I'm asking, but what you haven't stated is what you beluieve the source to be. We know Joseph Smith owned these seer stones before the book of Mormon and they are now known by the mane Urm and Thummim and the church has them, but my question is the source of the power. DO you believe God was suppling the power for Jsoeph Smith to see from these seer stones before the Book of Mormon?

[thews]

The irony in dismissing my quote of the source YOU provided is delicious ironic.

But it's NOT testimony from the trial. Your citation is to a paraphrase from a magazine article written forty plus years after the fact- as your own citation admits.

And it's already been pointed out to you earlier that there are other reports of Thompson's testimony that contradict this magazine article.

Because it's NOT data from Thompson. It's data from Fraser's Magazine- and from Utah Lighthouse Ministries- which has proven to be less than reputable in the past.

Note both the rhetorical dodge and the dandy little strawman.

We have no problem with addressing Thompson's words- if and when Thews gets around to presenting them. His whinge is a strawman, nothing more.

Thews STILL isn't addressing the demonstrated fact that he's been caught lying about and misrepresenting his sources and refuses to deal with the demonstrated fact that he's NOT dealing with Thompson's words- but with someone else's claims about those words.

Note more of the same... nothing based on zero data and all about opinion. I have provided you with a lot of data you choose to ignore... OK, I get that. Can you stop now with these posts based on your opinion only referencing nothing that's been presented as factual?

[selek]

Note more of the same... nothing based on zero data and all about opinion. I have provided you with a lot of data you choose to ignore... OK, I get that. Can you stop now with these posts based on your opinion only referencing nothing that's been presented as factual?

Note the hypnotic recitation of "zero data and all about opinion".

Then note that the critical data has been supplied!

From thew's own citation in Post #177:

Quote

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.

[thews]

Note the hypnotic recitation of "zero data and all about opinion".

Then note that the critical data has been supplied!

From thew's own citation in Post #177:

Quote

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.

[selek]

Note that all selek has is idle opinion based on nothing.

Note Thews' desperate revisionism.

Note the near-frantic need to ignore that his own source betrays his claims.

Note that Thews has not once dealt with actual, factual criticism of his evidence.

He simply keeps repeating "cuz I sayd sew".

Thompson's testimony at Joseph smith's trial is exactly what a money-digger would say and makes sense... case closed.

Except that Thews' has not presented Thompson's testimony at Joseph Smith's trial.

He's presented an article written forty plus years after the fact.

He has not one shred of first-hand testimony from Thompson- only hearsay contrived well after the fact.

The glove does not fit- therefore you must acquit.

....and revoke Thews' law license.

Finally note that even if all of Thews' charges and claims were accurate (they're not even close), it would not disqualify Joseph Smith as a prophet of the Lord.

The noose which Thews is trying to tie around Joseph's neck fits equally well around the necks of Joseph of Egypt, Moses, and the Twelve Apostles.

Having failed to sway the audience by reason (and having been caught lying for the Lord at least twice now), he's fallen back on blind ignorant repetition and bigoted, mulish dogmatism.

Such is the fate of the Pharisee.

[thews]

Note Thews' desperate revisionism.

Note the near-frantic need to ignore that his own source betrays his claims.

Note that Thews has not once dealt with actual, factual criticism of his evidence.

He simply keeps repeating "cuz I sayd sew".

Except that Thews' has not presented Thompson's testimony at Joseph Smith's trial.

He's presented an article written forty plus years after the fact.

He has not one shred of first-hand testimony from Thompson- only hearsay contrived well after the fact.

The glove does not fit- therefore you must acquit.

....and revoke Thews' law license.

Finally note that even if all of Thews' charges and claims were accurate (they're not even close), it would not disqualify Joseph Smith as a prophet of the Lord.

The noose which Thews is trying to tie around Joseph's neck fits equally well around the necks of Joseph of Egypt, Moses, and the Twelve Apostles.

Having failed to sway the audience by reason (and having been caught lying for the Lord at least twice now), he's fallen back on blind ignorant repetition and bigoted, mulish dogmatism.

Such is the fate of the Pharisee.

Note to the critical thought process... in all of selek's posts he gives no reason or data to support what he claims cannot be proven. The OP was about the translation process, which was done with a seer stone in a hat... this is a fact. Facts don't bode well for selek's argument, which is why he won't present them, or use them to counter with an argument based on facts. I'm done with this opinion over and over in yet another lame attempt to just make it too hard to converse, because conversing isn't the objective... repetitive jargon based on nothing is the objective and it's used often... just look at the lack of facts presented or referenced... nothing based on nothing but opinion.