Quote From Lds.Org About Bom Translation

[cdowis]

No I don't think so. From your link:

The details of this miraculous method of translation are still not fully known. Yet we do have a few precious insights. David Whitmer wrote:

“Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.” (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887, p. 12.)

Did Whitmer push JS away and quickly look inside the hat? Did the hat have a window where he could look in? Did JS ever tell him or anyone else how it was done?

Just curious how Whitmer knew what was going on in that hat. It is tiring to have members quote him "as a witness", when it is obvious that he was speculating or repeating rumors.

Edited December 4, 2011 by cdowis

[rodheadlee]

So the BOM we have today was mostly done with his face in a hat? But you don't see that detail as being important? You don't see the church not wanting that to be part of the foundational story of the church?

No, not at all. The important thing is the end product. What does the Book of Mormon teach?

[cdowis]

So the BOM we have today was mostly done with his face in a hat? But you don't see that detail as being important? You don't see the church not wanting that to be part of the foundational story of the church?

Please tell us why that hat is so important to you.. Just curious how many times you have ever read the Book of Mormon.

Now that I consider significant == a hat vs the text of the BOM.

Edited December 4, 2011 by cdowis

[wenglund]

You could be right, I often misread things, even important things. I will re-read it.

Such things aren't always explicitly stated and can be missed if read too literalisticly.

I don't currently trust that, as I don't currently trust the source.

You are right singling out that one thing in the gospel are picture kit is nit picking but it also represents this issue I have.

Like I said earlier I do not have a fondness for trusting anyone but myself, I haven't always been this way.

I can respect your choice. It is just that our trust and faith will only take us as far as the thing we trust is able. in other words, if we only trust ourselves, then we can only take ourselves as we alone are able--which, to me, isn't all that far. This makes me wonder what you use as the basis for trust? What means do you use to decide who to trust and who not to trust? I ask because if you can trust yourself even given your many weaknesses and foible and failures, then why can't you trust God? (This may be none of my business, and if you choose not to share it, that is okay. I am just curious and wish to help.)

This brings up another issue I have. If you can't follow the program the church won't work for you. I have never experienced it until now but I now know how many of the inactive people I have met over the years have felt.

From my view the church has failed at that for me, I have never been further.

I also know a few couch potatoes for whom health and exercise regimes haven't worked.

The point being, if people aren't interested in becoming like Christ, but may prefer instead to pursue their own lifestyles, then it isn't so much that the Church doesn't work for them, but rather that they don't wish to go where the church is want to head them and do what it will take to get there.

Of course, you experience may be different. I don't know.

I appreciate it, I will think about the things you wrote.

I appreciate you giving it some consideration. That was very nice of you. I hope it was of some help.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Stargazer]

I also know a few couch potatoes for whom health and exercise regimes haven't worked.

What??!!! Have you been spying on me?

[why me]

Just curious how Whitmer knew what was going on in that hat. It is tiring to have members quote him "as a witness", when it is obvious that he was speculating or repeating rumors.

It just wasn't david who witnessed what was happening. Others did too. I would assume that all who were present watching the process knew Joseph rather well and also knew that he could not do such a feat without the help of god. And they were convinced that he was a prophet. However, the OP claimed that the church has lied about the translation process because of the artist rendition of it. I proved to the OP that it did not lie. The artist takes his inspiration from a comment by brother richards who claimed:

And this is where the artist takes his cue for drawing the translation process:

Later Brother Richards told of his extended visit with Oliver Cowdery, who freely talked of the spectacular events in the founding of the Church. When Brother Richards was eighty-two, he dictated a statement reporting Oliver Cowdery’s recollections of Book of Mormon translation:

“He represented Joseph as sitting at a table with the plates before him, translating them by means of the Urim and Thummim, while he (Oliver) sat beside him writing every word as Joseph spoke them to him. This was done by holding the ‘translators’ over the hieroglyphics, the translation appearing distinctly on the instrument, which had been touched by the finger of God and dedicated and consecrated for the express purpose of translating languages. Every word was distinctly visible even to every letter; and if Oliver omitted a word or failed to spell a word correctly, the translation remained on the ‘interpreter’ until it was copied correctly.” ¹⁰

http://lds.org/ensig...slation+process

The OP did not comment on this but I do think that now he is licking his wounds and rereading the process. I told him that the translation process was done in a couple of ways. And I do believe that he is the same person who made a thread on a different board about this topic. Now can brother richards be believed? Who knows. But the artist can take this account above and draw a picture by using their imagination.

[why me]

No, not at all. The important thing is the end product. What does the Book of Mormon teach?

We also have other interpretations about how it was done. However the church has not lied about it by using a drawing showing Joseph and oliver face to face. It comes from brother richards who commented on the process later when he was in his 80's. The OP needs to reassess his claim that the church has lied or have mislead people.

Edited December 4, 2011 by why me

[MIkew]

It just wasn't david who witnessed what was happening. Others did too. I would assume that all who were present watching the process knew Joseph rather well and also knew that he could not do such a feat without the help of god. And they were convinced that he was a prophet. However, the OP claimed that the church has lied about the translation process because of the artist rendition of it. I proved to the OP that it did not lie. The artist takes his inspiration from a comment by brother richards who claimed:

And this is where the artist takes his cue for drawing the translation process:

Later Brother Richards told of his extended visit with Oliver Cowdery, who freely talked of the spectacular events in the founding of the Church. When Brother Richards was eighty-two, he dictated a statement reporting Oliver Cowdery’s recollections of Book of Mormon translation:

“He represented Joseph as sitting at a table with the plates before him, translating them by means of the Urim and Thummim, while he (Oliver) sat beside him writing every word as Joseph spoke them to him. This was done by holding the ‘translators’ over the hieroglyphics, the translation appearing distinctly on the instrument, which had been touched by the finger of God and dedicated and consecrated for the express purpose of translating languages. Every word was distinctly visible even to every letter; and if Oliver omitted a word or failed to spell a word correctly, the translation remained on the ‘interpreter’ until it was copied correctly.” ¹⁰

http://lds.org/ensig...slation+process

The OP did not comment on this but I do think that now he is licking his wounds and rereading the process. I told him that the translation process was done in a couple of ways. And I do believe that he is the same person who made a thread on a different board about this topic. Now can brother richards be believed? Who knows. But the artist can take this account above and draw a picture by using their imagination.

Hi whyme, I appreciate your comments and haven't yet read them carefully enough to comment. As you may have noticed I sometimes do not read things carefully enough. I do not think that you proved anything to me though. As far as I know Joseph did not read from the plates at any time without some kind of medium.

I have not posted on any boards for some time, out of curiosity which board, if it is the same topic, I would like to read it. thanks.

[MIkew]

Please tell us why that hat is so important to you.. Just curious how many times you have ever read the Book of Mormon.

Now that I consider significant == a hat vs the text of the BOM.

More times than I can remember. Do you keep track of the # of times you have read the BOM?

[MIkew]

Please tell us why that hat is so important to you..

I thought I had.

[altersteve]

As far as I know Joseph did not read from the plates at any time without some kind of medium.

The Church has never taught that he did. In fact, the Church was always very clear that he used seer stones and other devices to help him with his translation. I was never taught at any time that he read from the plates directly; in fact, in seminary I distinctly remember my teacher telling the class about the stone in the hat. That's why I'm surprised when people are so shocked about it.

[Storm Rider]

Hi whyme, I appreciate your comments and haven't yet read them carefully enough to comment. As you may have noticed I sometimes do not read things carefully enough. I do not think that you proved anything to me though. As far as I know Joseph did not read from the plates at any time without some kind of medium.

I have not posted on any boards for some time, out of curiosity which board, if it is the same topic, I would like to read it. thanks.

Mike, weren't the Urim & Thummim a medium? I am not sure I have ever heard of any explanation by the Church that has not identified as Joseph using a medium. Joseph never said differently. It appears that you have created a dragon to fear and you have hung your fears on it alone. It is a little bit like throwing the baby out with the bath water. At the end of the day, you still must contend with the Book of Mormon iteself. It either is the word of God or it is not. You must choose.

[why me]

Hi whyme, I appreciate your comments and haven't yet read them carefully enough to comment. As you may have noticed I sometimes do not read things carefully enough. I do not think that you proved anything to me though. As far as I know Joseph did not read from the plates at any time without some kind of medium.

I have not posted on any boards for some time, out of curiosity which board, if it is the same topic, I would like to read it. thanks.

And this is where the artist takes his cue for drawing the translation process:

Later Brother Richards told of his extended visit with Oliver Cowdery, who freely talked of the spectacular events in the founding of the Church. When Brother Richards was eighty-two, he dictated a statement reporting Oliver Cowdery’s recollections of Book of Mormon translation:

“He represented Joseph as sitting at a table with the plates before him, translating them by means of the Urim and Thummim, while he (Oliver) sat beside him writing every word as Joseph spoke them to him. This was done by holding the ‘translators’ over the hieroglyphics, the translation appearing distinctly on the instrument, which had been touched by the finger of God and dedicated and consecrated for the express purpose of translating languages. Every word was distinctly visible even to every letter; and if Oliver omitted a word or failed to spell a word correctly, the translation remained on the ‘interpreter’ until it was copied correctly.” ¹⁰

http://lds.org/ensig...slation+process

Not according to brother richards who remembers Oliver telling him how it was done. Now was Richards memory flawed? Who knows. But the artist took his cue from this explanation of the translation process by someone who remembered what Oliver told him. So where is the lie?

I have said that the process was remembered differently by people. And Joseph Smith did not say much about it at all. Thus, the problem. But certainly the artist can take the above rendition and make a painting from it.

Edited December 4, 2011 by why me

[why me]

Mike, weren't the Urim & Thummim a medium? I am not sure I have ever heard of any explanation by the Church that has not identified as Joseph using a medium. Joseph never said differently. It appears that you have created a dragon to fear and you have hung your fears on it alone. It is a little bit like throwing the baby out with the bath water. At the end of the day, you still must contend with the Book of Mormon iteself. It either is the word of God or it is not. You must choose.

His problem was with the painting showing how the translation process occured. He claimed that it is misleading. But when we take Richards into account, the painting was practically on target.

[Brade]

His problem was with the painting showing how the translation process occured. He claimed that it is misleading. But when we take Richards into account, the painting was practically on target.

Practically, except for the absent tool of divination in the picture.

[Stargazer]

Mike, weren't the Urim & Thummim a medium? I am not sure I have ever heard of any explanation by the Church that has not identified as Joseph using a medium. Joseph never said differently. It appears that you have created a dragon to fear and you have hung your fears on it alone. It is a little bit like throwing the baby out with the bath water. At the end of the day, you still must contend with the Book of Mormon iteself. It either is the word of God or it is not. You must choose.

Well, if you've been following the thread, he has said numerous times that the head in hat thing wasn't the deal breaker in itself, but in combination with later things, which he has labelled as weird, that caused him to reassess his testimony. Oh, yes, and to be more true to the OP, the fact that in a famous painting of the translation process, no "divination tool", as Brade aptly puts it, is visible, which he interprets as dishonest.

I can see that. I can. At least somewhat.

However, I find the odd thing is that the more I learn about the "weird" things, the more intrigued, not put off, by the entire mixup. The thing is, given all the stories in the Old and New Testament that involve "weird" things -- things which any activist atheist worth his or her salt would use with gusto to argue against God, by way of ridiculing it all -- the more I feel comfortable with the "weird" things surrounding the Restoration and Joseph Smith. The reason for this is that the "weird" things of the Restoration are all of a piece with the "weird" things of the OT and NT.

What would be REALLY odd would be if no such "weird" things happened in the Restoration. If Joseph had translated the Book of Mormon without any "medium" at all, perhaps in the way the recent claimant of the translation of the Voynich Manuscript (see the recent thread on the subject), then it wouldn't have been typical.

I'm actually supposed to be in Sacrament meeting at the moment. My wife is already there (she picked up one of her non-driving VT sisters for church), and she is no doubt wondering what happened to me. I better get going!

Edited December 4, 2011 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

double post

Edited December 4, 2011 by Stargazer

[why me]

Practically, except for the absent tool of divination in the picture.

Except for the fact that the lds church constantly uses the tools as a means for the translation process in the ensign and in its writings about the process. How shoud an artist use what is known of the tools as a way and a means to explain the process? No one is alive today to give a good interpretation of the tools and how it was done. However, the artist relying on Richards puts both oliver and joseph together translating the plates as Richards said with no head in a hat.

[why me]

Well, if you've been following the thread, he has said numerous times that the head in hat thing wasn't the deal breaker in itself, but in combination with later things, which he has labelled as weird, that caused him to reassess his testimony. Oh, yes, and to be more true to the OP, the fact that in a famous painting of the translation process, no "divination tool", as Brade aptly puts it, is visible, which he interprets as dishonest.

This is not exactly true. He took issue with the painting because he believed that the church was misrepresenting the translation process because of its lack of a hat. However, if we go by richards, no hat was required. Thus, the painting showing them together translating the book of mormon. And of course, the article where the picture was present did mention the urim and thummin etc. So, where is the lie or deception?

[zerinus]

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.

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".

[wenglund]

What??!!! Have you been spying on me?

No. I heard it from Scratch's (Dr. Peterson's malevolent stalker) many informants. You might want to do a better job of disguising your garbage. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[why me]

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".

Of course the head in the hat was observed by at least 3 people. But this was not the only way that the translation process was done. Richards remembered oliver telling him a different way. And of course, it was also different for martin harris. I think that the OP would prefer more drawings of Joseph having his head in the hat. But it seems that the lds church relies more on drawings from the Richards account.

The point, however, is not how it was done and what version for a drawing the lds church should use, but all involved in the process and all who witnessed it, claimed that it was done by the power of god.

[cdowis]

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.

Edited December 5, 2011 by cdowis

[Calm]

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.

[zerinus]

Of course the head in the hat was observed by at least 3 people.

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.

The point, however, is not how it was done and what version for a drawing the lds church should use, but all involved in the process and all who witnessed it, claimed that it was done by the power of god.

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.