Quote From Lds.Org About Bom Translation

[zerinus]

I love the hat. If Joseph was trying to impress anyone by looking like some wise and profound prophet, there are very few props that are less likely to my view. Instead it looks like Joseph was bothered by bright or fluctuating light and set upon the first thing that his sight fell upon as a possible solution. Very practical and so not dramatic.

Loving the hat is not an issue. The issue is that that depiction is no more an accurate representation of how the entire process was carried out than the depiction of Joseph Smith sitting at a table with plates in front of him reading off the hieroglyphics. His insistence that that is how it should be depicted is therefore also dishonest.

Edited December 5, 2011 by zerinus

[negragardenia]

If it is that easy why do I think about this all the time? I should just be able to put ignore it or walk away, like I do with dishonest people in my life.

Could it be...because someone point this out (the stone in the hat)... to you and got you off guard... since you have been a member for more than 40+ years?

I don't think you should ignore it.. actually you are pressing upon it.. finding more about it... now with all the information given... you should do your own research and come to a conclusion.

[Calm]

Loving the hat is not an issue.......]

Not making an argument, merely an observation.

[MIkew]

Here is part of my original post

Here is the quote from the gospel art picture kit found on lds.org.

"When the Prophet Joseph Smith received the gold plates from the angel Moroni, he studied the strange language written on them. With Heavenly Father's help, Joseph translated the writing on the gold plates into words he could understand. Oliver Cowdery helped Joseph by being his scribe. As Joseph read out loud from the plates, Oliver wrote down the words. When the translation into English was completed, the book was printed. It is called the Book of Mormon." (http://lds.org/hf/ar...1-4-128,00.html)

In my current state of thought I feel that teaching it this way is dishonest. For the record the dishonest part is in bold above, but to summarize, making it seem like he could read the characters and then express them in english.

Am I wrong, if so how am i wrong?

Joseph did not read out loud from the plates, which is what the church would like people to think, in my opinion.

By the church's own account all the accounts are contradictory and sketchy, see here

Little is known about the actual process of translating the record, primarily because those who knew the most about the translation, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, said the least about it. Moreover, Martin Harris, David Whitmer, and Emma Smith, who assisted Joseph, left no contemporary descriptions. The sketchy accounts they recorded much later in life were often contradictory.

If the info the church has is sketchy, contradictory and many years after the fact why teach one method over another? Is it because the Urim and thummim is more biblical sounding than the head in the hat? I think so, which is also why I think it is dishonest to leave the head in the hat out, leaving info out in order to create a more biblical story when you don't really know is dishonest. I think the church and Joseph Smith wanted to distance themselves from his treasure seaking past and just not bring it up.

I have been reading on lds.org the last couple of days and need to do some more. I have been looking at the manuals to see what the church actually teaches. After the manuals I will look at the magazines and then GC. I will make a post of that at some point but it may take me a while I still haven't found a good way to organize the info.

I apologize for not responding to each post over the weekend, I may not have time today either but I really do appreciate all the comments, I have read them. I understand that I may be totally wrong and I may change my opinion at some point but I still don't see that the church treats this topic honestly.

I apologize for the scads of bad spelling and grammar, I swear I could spell before spell check came into my life. Does this forum have spell check? Does the copy from word work ok?

[Senator]

That hat is a testament that the translation was through divine means.

Or at least through the means of divination.

[MIkew]

The head in a hat was observed during a brief interval in the translation process, regardless of how many people may have observed it. If a hundred people observe something in one day, that is still an observation for one day, not hundred days.

Wrong. The "point" is that he insists that the "head in a hat" is a more correct way of depicting the process, which it isn't.

What was the brief interval? How many of the 65 days were done with the head in the hat? Is head in the hat less correct? If so how do you decide which is more or less correct?

[MIkew]

The significance of the hat:

It gives testimony of how the BOM was translated. The antimormons have an interesting problem with that hat. JS clearly was not reading from a manuscript during his dictation of the BOM, so what was really in that hat? For the BOM translation, how can the critics explain the translation process when JS had his face covering that hat -- did he have a table and candle in the hat while he was reading from a manuscript?

That hat is a testament that the translation was through divine means.

I guess it may quell that one theory, assuming joseph was in the same room as the scribe.

[MIkew]

I would say the quote from the art picture kit is inaccurate, but not dishonest. The point is that the alternative image you are proposing (head in a hat) would be equally inaccurate (or, according to you, "dishonest"), because evidence suggests that is not how it was done either. That was according to someone's brief observation, and it does not describe how the entire process was carried out. Your insistence on preferring one "dishonest" image over another does not make you any more "honest" than the Church is, according to your own definition of what is honest and what is dishonest. You are being equally "dishonest".

I used the church's definition of honesty.

Did you just say the church and I were equally dishonest?

Your insistence on preferring one "dishonest" image over another does not make you any more "honest" than the Church is, according to your own definition of what is honest and what is dishonest. You are being equally "dishonest".

The difference is that i have explained that i am being led by me not Jesus, not the holy ghost, not divine inspiration. My experience in the church tells me that the church would prefer you think something so they have left the head in the hat out on purpose.

[altersteve]

Mikew, the Church is not dishonest about this. It has always been clear about the Book of Mormon's translation process. I've been aware of the stone in the hat for years. I first learned about it in seminary (my first year in seminary, actually), and have since then heard/seen it mentioned in General Conference, sacrament meeting, Ensign articles, and so on. I don't know why you never knew about it, but thinking that the Church is being "dishonest" is dishonest itself. We've given you plenty of evidence that the Church has always been rather straightforward with the issues you seem to have trouble with, but you refuse to accept it for whatever reason, so there's not much else that we can do here.

Edited December 5, 2011 by altersteve

[Storm Rider]

I used the church's definition of honesty. Did you just say the church and I were equally dishonest?

The difference is that i have explained that i am being led by me not Jesus, not the holy ghost, not divine inspiration. My experience in the church tells me that the church would prefer you think something so they have left the head in the hat out on purpose.

Mike, I am sorry that this has caused you so many problems and a significant distrust of the LDS Church. I will also say that there are many that probably feel as you do. However, there are many more that have a different perspective and that trust the Church implicitly.

At the end of the day I hope that you find peace and are happy in your life. Your perception may change one day and I hope that you will always follow the Holy Spirit in your life. When left to our devices we can get ourselves into a lot of trouble. I have always doubted the arm of flesh for very good reasons; primarily because I am so often wrong. In addition, every day I drive my car I observe so much stupidity in the world I am assured that the arm of flesh everywhere else is not worth following either. Cheers,

[zerinus]

What was the brief interval? How many of the 65 days were done with the head in the hat? Is head in the hat less correct? If so how do you decide which is more or less correct?

Joseph Smith himself declined to go into detail as to precisely how the translation was done, although he was asked to do so. He only said that he did so by the Urim and Thummim. In Section 10 of the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord affirms that the translation of the initial 116 pages of the Book of Mormon, which was lost by Martin Harris, was done by the Urim and Thummim:

D&C 10:

1 Now, behold, I say unto you, that because you delivered up those writings which you had power given unto you to translate by the means of the Urim and Thummim, into the hands of a wicked man, you have lost them.

Oliver Cowdery also testified that the translation was done by the Urim and Thummim:

JS-History Note:

1 Oliver Cowdery describes these events thus: "These were days never to be forgotten—to sit under the sound of a voice dictated by the inspiration of heaven, awakened the utmost gratitude of this bosom! Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his mouth, as he translated with the Urim and Thummim, or, as the Nephites would have said, 'Interpreters,' the history or record called 'The Book of Mormon.

However, evidence suggests that as Joseph gained experience, he did not need to use the instruments physically to translate, but could do so by direct inspiration and revelation to himself. By all accounts that is how the JST was done, for which we have plenty of witnesses. The translation process of the JST was the same as that of the Book of Mormon. However, since it is the actual possession of the Urim and Thummim that entitled Joseph Smith to the gift of seership and translation, it would be correct to say that all the translation was done by the Urim and Thummim, regardless of whether he physically used the instruments or not:

JS-History 1:

35 Also, that there were two stones in silver bows—and these stones, fastened to a breastplate, constituted what is called the Urim and Thummim—deposited with the plates; and the possession and use of these stones were what constituted "seers" in ancient or former times; and that God had prepared them for the purpose of translating the book.

While it is true that for a brief period (we don't know for how long) Joseph Smith experimented with using the "seer stone" (which is placed in a hat to exclude the light); it would still be correct to say that the translation was done by the Urim and Thummim, for the reasons explained above. As he gained experience in working with the Spirit of the Lord, he did not need to physically use the Urim and Thummim; but still it was the possession of the instruments that entitled him to the possession of the spiritual gift, as further testified of in the following verses:

D&C 10:

1 Now, behold, I say unto you, that because you delivered up those writings which you had power given unto you to translate by the means of the Urim and Thummim, into the hands of a wicked man, you have lost them.

2 And you also lost your gift at the same time, and your mind became darkened.

3 Nevertheless, it is now restored unto you again; therefore see that you are faithful and continue on unto the finishing of the remainder of the work of translation as you have begun.

So it is the possession of the instruments that entitled him to the gift, regardless of whether he had to use them physically, or whether he had become so adept at working with the Spirit of the Lord over time that he no longer needed to do so. So the bottom line is that all the translation was done by the Urim and Thummim; and the picture of a head in a hat is an aberration and dishonest portrayal of how the work was actually done.

Edited December 5, 2011 by zerinus

[zerinus]

I used the church's definition of honesty.

What definition was that? Where did you find that definition?

Did you just say the church and I were equally dishonest?

I said that you are definitely being dishonest, according to your own criterion of what is honest and dishonest. "With what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged" (Matthew 7:2). The Church, however, I don't believe was dishonest. As I said, the statement was inaccurate, but not dishonest.

The difference is that i have explained that i am being led by me not Jesus, not the holy ghost, not divine inspiration.

That does not exonerate you of dishonesty. If by that you mean to insinuate that the Church has been dishonest, the answer is no, it has not been.

My experience in the church tells me that the church would prefer you think something so they have left the head in the hat out on purpose.

Then your "experience" is wrong. The head in a hat is not an accurate portrayal of how the work was done. See above.

Edited December 5, 2011 by zerinus

[Robert F. Smith]

Hi all, before I post my question I will let you know that I haven't been to church in while and I am pretty certain it isn't "true" but I think about it all the time so I am obviously not done with it. If that makes sense.

One of the issues that bothers me is how the church teaches the BOM translation. I grew up believing that the scribe sat on one side of the table and Joseph sat on the other side of the table with a sheet between them so that the scribe could not see the plates.

I have come to understand that likely none of the BOM we have today was translated in that manner but actually received through a medium(the rock) with his face in a hat. (http://lds.org/ensig...tament?lang=eng). There are many eye witness accounts to this face in the hat process.

Here is the quote from the gospel art picture kit found on lds.org.

"When the Prophet Joseph Smith received the gold plates from the angel Moroni, he studied the strange language written on them. With Heavenly Father's help, Joseph translated the writing on the gold plates into words he could understand. Oliver Cowdery helped Joseph by being his scribe. As Joseph read out loud from the plates, Oliver wrote down the words. When the translation into English was completed, the book was printed. It is called the Book of Mormon." (http://lds.org/hf/ar...1-4-128,00.html)

In my current state of thought I feel that teaching it this way is dishonest. For the record the dishonest part is in bold above, but to summarize, making it seem like he could read the characters and then express them in english.

Am I wrong, if so how am i wrong?

Thanks.

You're not wrong, and the story you found at lds.org appears to be as misleading as the one you were told earlier (there was no sheet or blanket between Joseph and Oliver). Indeed, the site you provide here appears to have been designed for very young people. Had you done a more careful search on lds.org, you might have found this at http://josephsmithpa...ithAndHisPapers

Although termed “translations,” they were not translations in the ordinary sense. Smith did not understand the languages of the original text and convert the words to English through his own learning. As he put it in the preface to the first edition of the Book of Mormon, “I translated, by the gift and power of God.” The resulting “translations” were as much inspired texts, words given him of God, as the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants.

****

His task was to translate the record. In 1827 he obtained possession of the plates, and in 1828 he began the translation with the aid of an interpreting instrument, later called a Urim and Thummim, consisting of two stones set in a bow and attached to a breastplate. His wife,

Emma Hale

, whom he married in January 1827, was the first to take down his dictation, followed by others such as the young schoolteacher

Oliver Cowdery

.

This merely points my contention that attempting to shield young folks from factual accounts of Church origins merely sets them up for a big letdown.

Finally, Mola has shown you that your assumption about the Church not telling the truth about the stone-in-the-hat is just not true: http://lds.org/ensig...22seer+stone%22 . An acknowledgement of that would go far to showing whether you have a strong commitment to honesty.

Edited December 5, 2011 by Robert F. Smith

[cdowis]

Here is part of my original post

Joseph did not read out loud from the plates, which is what the church would like people to think, in my opinion.

Please show us that "Joseph never read outloud from a viewing of the plates".

For example, tell us precisely what JS did see in the hat. You claim that he did not see a vision of the plates, that he was not reading from a vision of the plates so please give us your source of information.

As I pointed out previously, the BOM witnesses did not know, the church does not know, only JS knows what he saw. But you know.... apparently, his statement is in your possession.

You assert tht he never translated directly from the plates.

You boldly declare that the church is lying to us, it is deliberately deceiving us. You know the facts, the truth -- the plates were never used.

Dear fellow, either you are pitifully ignorant of the facts, or you have sources unavailable to us. Please share them with us.

Edited December 5, 2011 by cdowis

[Robert F. Smith]

I think he did it through a variety of means. One means would be the Urim and Thummim, which were, in effect, seer stones in rims set into a breastplate. Another means would be through the seer stone placed in the hat. As he gained more experience with translation through the revelatory process, I think he was able eventually to do it without the aid of any physical instrument at all, but rather, with having the thoughts come into his mind. At no point do I exclude the possibility that Joseph physically examined the plates, either for the purpose of translation or simply to familiarize himself with the Nephite characters, as, for example when he copied them onto the manuscript pages that Martin Harris eventally lost.

The lost 116 pages of translation should not be confused with the characters copied from the plates.

Joseph copied characters directly from the plates early on, and Martin took them to various people including Prof. Anthon. This may be the so-called "Anthon Transcript," which is in possession of the RLDS Church today (rec'd it from David Whitmer, who received it from Oliver, however the earliest evidence of the characters is in 1844 Nauvoo).

[Robert F. Smith]

My problem is that the church stresses honesty, it is dishonest to leave parts of a story out. There are other weird things the church does or did that I think it dishonest this is just what is bugging me today

The "church" does not exist as an independent entity and should not be personified. It consists of people: you, me, and all the others who make up the "body of Christ." If you have a complaint or recommendation, put it into a letter and send it to one of the Brethren. They need to hear your concerns.

The discovery that Church leaders are human shouldn't be such a traumatic experience for anyone, except for those who were raised in a particularly rigid and unrealistic environment. None of us are perfect. Most of us just do the best we can.

However, the "dishonesty" which you find so disturbing may be no more than a lack of awareness of the historical facts, an awareness which you yourself did not have until recently. I recommend patience and forbearance.

Edited December 5, 2011 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

I may be crossing over with God and church as I have always seen them as the same thing. God is the source of all truth but we get access to God through the prophet. Other thoughts like God leads the church, etc.

Plus my patriarchal blessing says that in the church/gospel all truth can be found.

So are the convoluted thoughts going through my head.

Most Mormons would say that they get access to God through personal prayer and the Holy Spirit. Roman Catholics might say that they obtain truth through their priest or through the Pope (in line with what you believe), while Protestants would assert that truth comes through reading Holy Writ.

Probably a direct quote from your Patriarchal Blessing would show that accepting the Gospel will lead you to all truth, but it would be silly to expect that to happen overnight. Not only have you misinterpreted the fundamental nature of Mormonism, but you have likely misunderstood your Patriarchal Blessing.

[Robert F. Smith]

Prior to Rough Stone Rolling what lds author (in good standing) was writing about Joseph Smith's treasure seaking, face in hat translation, alcohol drinking, etc.?

If you'll read Rough Stone Rolling, you'll find Bushman citing those earlier books and articles about Joseph which discuss the early nature of the Church in scholarly fashion. Among scholars this has never been considered shocking or strange. You might want to get a copy and read it through to get a proper sense of perspective and to put things in context. Just now you seem to have adopted an a priori sense of condemnation, rather than an effort to understand history.

[MIkew]

For example, tell us precisely what JS did see in the hat.

I am just repeating what Elder Nelson said, who I do believe is supposed to be a living breathing prophet seer and revelator. He told us that joseph saw a parchment with words on it appear in the rock in his hat.

You claim that he did not see a vision of the plates, that he was not reading from a vision of the plates so please give us your source of information.

When did I say that?

As I pointed out previously, the BOM witnesses did not know, the church does not know, only JS knows what he saw.

This is what I have been saying, the church doesn't know but they choose to portray joseph in a certain way. That, using their own words, is sketchy and contradictory.

But you know.... apparently, his statement is in your possession.

Are you offending by my having an opinion, your post seems angry.

You assert tht he never translated directly from the plates.

Yes and i think the church agrees with me.

You boldly declare that the church is lying to us, it is deliberately deceiving us. You know the facts, the truth -- the plates were never used.

I give you my opinion and feelings, I don't think I have been that bold. Isn't this the place on the internet for doing that? I could post in other forums and get an "amen brother, lds inc is a bunch of liars".

Dear fellow, either you are pitifully ignorant of the facts, or you have sources unavailable to us. Please share them with us.

Pitifully ignorant of the facts, I believe I have only quoted lds.org and my own opinions.

Are you angry with me? You have called me pitiful and ignorant.

Edited December 5, 2011 by MIkew

[MIkew]

Most Mormons would say that they get access to God through personal prayer and the Holy Spirit. Roman Catholics might say that they obtain truth through their priest or through the Pope (in line with what you believe), while Protestants would assert that truth comes through reading Holy Writ.

Tell it to Elder Oaks, he gave this talk in general conference couple of sessions ago

Unlike the personal line, in which our Heavenly Father communicates with us directly through the Holy Ghost, the priesthood line of communication has the additional and necessary intermediaries of our Savior, Jesus Christ; His Church; and His appointed leaders.

Probably a direct quote from your Patriarchal Blessing would show that accepting the Gospel will lead you to all truth, but it would be silly to expect that to happen overnight. Not only have you misinterpreted the fundamental nature of Mormonism, but you have likely misunderstood your Patriarchal Blessing.

I am silly, don't understand mormonism and misunderstood my patriarchal blessing. Is that how you deal with my having a differing opinion than you?

[MIkew]

If you'll read Rough Stone Rolling, you'll find Bushman citing those earlier books and articles about Joseph which discuss the early nature of the Church in scholarly fashion. Among scholars this has never been considered shocking or strange. You might want to get a copy and read it through to get a proper sense of perspective and to put things in context. Just now you seem to have adopted an a priori sense of condemnation, rather than an effort to understand history.

I have read his book.

[MIkew]

Could it be...because someone point this out (the stone in the hat)... to you and got you off guard... since you have been a member for more than 40+ years?

I don't think you should ignore it.. actually you are pressing upon it.. finding more about it... now with all the information given... you should do your own research and come to a conclusion.

I actually am pretty sure I read Elder Nelson's article when it was in the Ensign, what I didn't know then was the weird stuff that wen't with.

[MIkew]

Mikew, the Church is not dishonest about this. It has always been clear about the Book of Mormon's translation process. I've been aware of the stone in the hat for years. I first learned about it in seminary (my first year in seminary, actually), and have since then heard/seen it mentioned in General Conference, sacrament meeting, Ensign articles, and so on. I don't know why you never knew about it, but thinking that the Church is being "dishonest" is dishonest itself. We've given you plenty of evidence that the Church has always been rather straightforward with the issues you seem to have trouble with, but you refuse to accept it for whatever reason, so there's not much else that we can do here.

The church is not clear on the translation process as I quoted above using their own words what they know is sketchy, contradictory and many years after the fact yet they do indeed try to give the impression of a biblical kind of translation as well as a less weird impression of Joseph reading from the plates. As far as I can tell not everyone on this board is on the same page either, if the church is so clear should I not be getting the same message from each of you? Everyone on this board could give me the same steps for repentance or the 4 parts to prayer or the same articles of faith. The church is clear on those things but not clear on a lot of other things that I won't bring up in this post, maybe another post once i am don delving into this small topic.

[MIkew]

Joseph Smith himself declined to go into detail as to precisely how the translation was done, although he was asked to do so. He only said that he did so by the Urim and Thummim. In Section 10 of the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord affirms that the translation of the initial 116 pages of the Book of Mormon, which was lost by Martin Harris, was done by the Urim and Thummim:

D&C 10:

1 Now, behold, I say unto you, that because you delivered up those writings which you had power given unto you to translate by the means of the Urim and Thummim, into the hands of a wicked man, you have lost them.

Oliver Cowdery also testified that the translation was done by the Urim and Thummim:

JS-History Note:

1 Oliver Cowdery describes these events thus: "These were days never to be forgotten—to sit under the sound of a voice dictated by the inspiration of heaven, awakened the utmost gratitude of this bosom! Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his mouth, as he translated with the Urim and Thummim, or, as the Nephites would have said, 'Interpreters,' the history or record called 'The Book of Mormon.

However, evidence suggests that as Joseph gained experience, he did not need to use the instruments physically to translate, but could do so by direct inspiration and revelation to himself. By all accounts that is how the JST was done, for which we have plenty of witnesses. The translation process of the JST was the same as that of the Book of Mormon. However, since it is the actual possession of the Urim and Thummim that entitled Joseph Smith to the gift of seership and translation, it would be correct to say that all the translation was done by the Urim and Thummim, regardless of whether he physically used the instruments or not:

JS-History 1:

35 Also, that there were two stones in silver bows—and these stones, fastened to a breastplate, constituted what is called the Urim and Thummim—deposited with the plates; and the possession and use of these stones were what constituted "seers" in ancient or former times; and that God had prepared them for the purpose of translating the book.

While it is true that for a brief period (we don't know for how long) Joseph Smith experimented with using the "seer stone" (which is placed in a hat to exclude the light); it would still be correct to say that the translation was done by the Urim and Thummim, for the reasons explained above. As he gained experience in working with the Spirit of the Lord, he did not need to physically use the Urim and Thummim; but still it was the possession of the instruments that entitled him to the possession of the spiritual gift, as further testified of in the following verses:

D&C 10:

1 Now, behold, I say unto you, that because you delivered up those writings which you had power given unto you to translate by the means of the Urim and Thummim, into the hands of a wicked man, you have lost them.

2 And you also lost your gift at the same time, and your mind became darkened.

3 Nevertheless, it is now restored unto you again; therefore see that you are faithful and continue on unto the finishing of the remainder of the work of translation as you have begun.

So it is the possession of the instruments that entitled him to the gift, regardless of whether he had to use them physically, or whether he had become so adept at working with the Spirit of the Lord over time that he no longer needed to do so. So the bottom line is that all the translation was done by the Urim and Thummim; and the picture of a head in a hat is an aberration and dishonest portrayal of how the work was actually done.

Very interesting, but the stones fastened in a bow were not the stone in the hat. Show me where the church teaches that it was exclusively the possession of the urim and thummim that gave him the power to translate. What is the evidence that he could translate without a medium? You yourself said he needed the urim and thummim or he couldn't translate.

Edited December 5, 2011 by MIkew

[Robert F. Smith]

Tell it to Elder Oaks, he gave this talk in general conference couple of sessions ago

I am silly, don't understand mormonism and misunderstood my patriarchal blessing. Is that how you deal with my having a differing opinion than you?

You still haven't acknowledged http://lds.org/ensign/1977/09/by-the-gift-and-power-of-god?lang=eng&query=%22seer+stone%22 , which Mola called to your attention. You claim that this hasn't been discussed in LDS magazines and you claim to be shocked by what you see as "weird" or "dishonest." Yet you haven't come to grips with how uninformed you really are. One would almost think that you are a wolf in sheep's clothing merely pretending to be a disaffected Mormon. All the signs point to that. C'mon, fess up.