B.H. Roberts And The Stone In The Hat

[Benjamin McGuire]

I find it somewhat mildly amusing entertainment (to be honest) when people assert that the stone in the hat is a big issue. The historical account that mentions it comes from Whitmer's account:

I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. 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 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.

What is less often recognized is the fact that this account was used by B.H. Roberts in 1909 in the Comprehensive History of the Church -

David Whitmer is more specific on this subject. After describing the means the Prophet employed to exclude the light from the Seer Stone, he says: "In the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment 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.

The version given by B.H. Roberts has been published by the church so here is the question -

Roberts understands Whitmer as saying that the reason for the hat is defined by its purpose - that is, the hat was used only to block out the light. It served no other function, and presumably, any other method which blocked out the light would have worked just fine. In other words, the hat itself was not actually a part of the translation process, anymore than say the table that Joseph may or may not have sat at, the ink which the scribe used to write, or the paper on which the scribe wrote (we could create, of course, ad nauseum a list of environmental features which were necessary to the process of creating a translation but which were not themselves a part of the translation process). Aside from any suggestion that the hat was necessary to hide from the view of others some text used to produce the Book of Mormon (perhaps a difficult suggestion to make given that the purpose of the hat was to block out light, and presumably this would make reading difficult), why is there there this huge emphasis on the hat distinct from the function that it served? What information is presumed to be lost in the shift from Whitmer's text to Robert's text? And why is this loss significant? What role is the hat presumed to have played in the part of translation - or is it merely some kind of shock value that the critics are aiming for in (incorrectly) asserting that somehow the hat (as a hat - not merely as a mechanic for blocking out light) played a role in the translation process?

Was it Roberts that decided that this information was sensitive and should be hidden? What were his potential reasons for this decision?

Given the other now locked thread, I am particularly interested in Treehuggers point of view on this issue.

Ben M.

[treehugger]

First, I would like for you to articulate what you think my issue is.

[Anijen]

First, I would like for you to articulate what you think my issue is.

Um, that is why he is asking you, so that he will know.

Benjamin McGuire writes;

I am particularly interested in Treehuggers point of view on this issue.

[Benjamin McGuire]

I started the thread - let's just go with my questions. In fact, let me be a little more explicit and enumerate some specific questions. You (Treehugger) of course don't have to answer, and the questions are open to anyone who feels that the church is hiding something by not discussing frequently and regularly the "hat" and its role in the translation process.

1: Do you agree that the Roberts' account at least refers to the hat when it mentions "the means ... employed to exclude the light"?

2: Is there a material difference in terms of the translation process in describing the purpose of the hat (as Roberts does) without identifying the hat as a "hat"?

3: What information is lost with regards to the translation process in substituting a description of the function of the hat for the hat itself?

4: Can we presume that any other method of blocking the light would have functioned just as well in terms of the actual translation process as using the hat?

5: What exactly could Robert's motivations (in 1909) have been for concealing the 'hat' in his discussion of the narratives describing the translation process?

6: Is it possible that asserting that the 'hat' is essential to the narrative without also emphasizing the exact nature and function of the role that it played in the process also at least as deceptive as intentionally removing it from the narrative?

7: Do you believe that the emphasis on the hat is used more for its potential shock value than for any real merit it might have in arguing that the church is intentionally hiding information?

Ben M.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Benjamin McGuire

[robuchan]

What's mildly amusing about a prophet of God sticking his head in a hat and using a peepstone (found using a friend's green peepstone in a treasure hunting expedition) to translate the most important book of scripture in world history?

[Bob Crockett]

When I was a bishop so long ago a sister gave a long talk in Sacrament meeting about the "stone in the hat" as being part of the translation process. There were no reactions.

I personally don't believe the story, except to extent that Joseph Smith on occasion would have wanted to shield the seer stone.

I don't believe it because:

1. Joseph Smith didn't say it.

2. Most of this reference comes from a disgruntled Witness who had no role in the translation process.

3. It would be physically impossible to dictate long sections of text while one's mouth is in a hat. It would be like saying that Joseph Smith dictated the Book of Mormon while eating peanuts. The manuscripts instead seem to suggest a very clear path of communication from mouth to amanuensis.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[Bill Hamblin]

I use my regularly to block glare on my camera lens while taking pictures. Works great.

[dougtheavenger]

The more interesting question for me is how could this have been the whole process and what were the other steps involved. Why would the seer stone display the translation of the Book of Mormon as opposed to any other document? How exactly were the golden plates used in the translation process? Clearly they were required otherwise Moroni would have had no reason to give them to Joseph Smith. In short, how did Joseph get the text of the Book of Mormon into the seer stone prior to looking at the seer stone in the dark? What role did the breastplate have? Frankly, I find Whitmer's account unsatisfactory and suspect that he really did not observe the whole proccess.

Edited July 18, 2012 by dougtheavenger

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I use my regularly to block glare on my camera lens while taking pictures. Works great.

Oh you are a fraud for sure. When ever a hat is used for anything else then wearing it on the top of your head then that spells trouble.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

What's mildly amusing about a prophet of God sticking his head in a hat and using a peepstone (found using a friend's green peepstone in a treasure hunting expedition) to translate the most important book of scripture in world history?

What is even more amusing is that you did not answer one of Ben's questions. Are you afraid or something?

[wenglund]

What's mildly amusing about a prophet of God sticking his head in a hat and using a peepstone (found using a friend's green peepstone in a treasure hunting expedition) to translate the most important book of scripture in world history?

Good point. Reasonable-minded people might well reserve their amusement for far less trite or petty matters, like reading the most important book of scripture in world history and efficaciously inculcating the precepts found therein.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Tacenda]

In my sister's ward they recently had a meeting for the youth to discuss the "stone in the hat" method of the BOM translation process. My sister is YW's leader and she attended. This tells me that the church is trying to provide information to the younger generation, the methods JS used to translate. I believe it's a way to innoculate them against finding out through other unofficial ways. I was happy that this took place. I think it will prevent trust issues down the line, and they'll be able to say to the anti's..."oh, I already knew that".

[SamIam]

In my sister's ward they recently had a meeting for the youth to discuss the "stone in the hat" method of the BOM translation process. My sister is YW's leader and she attended. This tells me that the church is trying to provide information to the younger generation, the methods JS used to translate. I believe it's a way to innoculate them against finding out through other unofficial ways. I was happy that this took place. I think it will prevent trust issues down the line, and they'll be able to say to the anti's..."oh, I already knew that".

Tacenda your whole issue with the church is that you have placed knowledge above faith. People do not stay in the church becuase they know everthing there is to know but becuase they have faith that what they know is true. Somewhere along the ling you have lost faith and knowledge won't fix that until you fix why you lost faith.

[Tacenda]

Tacenda your whole issue with the church is that you have placed knowledge above faith. People do not stay in the church becuase they know everthing there is to know but becuase they have faith that what they know is true. Somewhere along the ling you have lost faith and knowledge won't fix that until you fix why you lost faith.

And here I was being positive. Would you rather me not say anything anymore. I had a wonderful talk with my sister who knows somewhat of my issues and I've decided to stay out of the anti circles and come to the light so to speak. I remembered Marlin K. Jensen mentioning that they were going to put more of the history out there for the youth whether it was through seminary or what, wasn't sure, and then my sister told me this occurred. What was wrong with my mentioning a positive thing like this. Have I tarnished my reputation so badly now?

[wenglund]

In my sister's ward they recently had a meeting for the youth to discuss the "stone in the hat" method of the BOM translation process. My sister is YW's leader and she attended. This tells me that the church is trying to provide information to the younger generation, the methods JS used to translate. I believe it's a way to innoculate them against finding out through other unofficial ways. I was happy that this took place. I think it will prevent trust issues down the line, and they'll be able to say to the anti's..."oh, I already knew that".

The young women could still say, "why wasn't I told this before now?" They could also forget years later and claim they weren't told. Others could claim that they never heard it in YW's. Trust me, given the comments on various recent threads, there is an inexhaustible pool into which people can dive and illegitimately divest themselves of personal responsibility for their spiritual faith and misguidedly shift the blame to the Church. There is no issue too small or too irrelevant that it can't be somehow pressed into service.

However, I am curious about this whole notion of "inoculation." How does it work? How will being told early in life about relatively trite and impertinent things somehow "inoculate" against inane and self-defeating reactions to those things later in life? I just don't get it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[treehugger]

I find it somewhat mildly amusing entertainment (to be honest) when people assert that the stone in the hat is a big issue. The historical account that mentions it comes from Whitmer's account:

....

Given the other now locked thread, I am particularly interested in Treehuggers point of view on this issue.

Ben M.

Ben, I am glad you did not post this in the thread I started. Your thread, here, is a derail to mine. I will try and help you understand the point of my thread.

First, My thread was about the "quality of Apologetics". If 60% of references/sources/citations, fail to prove the point of the Author, what does that say about the quality of the authors work? It is of little consequence that 40% proves the authors point, when the topic of discussion is the "quality" of the work.

Now, Gordon claims he was tired or he was rushed, I find it hard to believe that person who claims to have been defending the Church since 1995 is "rushed" to find accurate quality references/source/citations to disprove, what the author claims is a "common tactic".

So what do I think when a person provides references and 60% of those references fail.

I think and believe that the author has little or no respect for his audience, his counter parts or for his host.

I think, that when the person who provides 60% failed references is head of an Organization, then the conduct of the Head brings in to question the quality of rest of the organizations materials.

Here is what I believe happened, I believe Gordon et al, will say "Well it all originates with David Whitmer, so even when someone is selective quoting Whitmer, and leaving out direct reference to the hat, the stone in a hat is obvious and it is a failure on the part of the reader to not know the information that was not included."

It is low quality authorship on the part of Gordon to provide a list of references where 60% of the references fail.

It was a disregard and disrespect for his audience, counter-parts and host for Gordon to provide a list of references where 60% of the references fail to support Gordon claim.

[robuchan]

What is even more amusing is that you did not answer one of Ben's questions. Are you afraid or something?

The questions weren't that interesting. And he was talking specifically to treehugger about an issue with disclosure which isn't a real burning issue for me.

[Calm]

I think, that when the person who provides 60% failed references is head of an Organization, then the conduct of the Head brings in to question the quality of rest of the organizations materials.

Feel free to demonstrate this by going to the FAIR website and pointing out errors.

[SamIam]

And here I was being positive. Would you rather me not say anything anymore. I had a wonderful talk with my sister who knows somewhat of my issues and I've decided to stay out of the anti circles and come to the light so to speak. I remembered Marlin K. Jensen mentioning that they were going to put more of the history out there for the youth whether it was through seminary or what, wasn't sure, and then my sister told me this occurred. What was wrong with my mentioning a positive thing like this. Have I tarnished my reputation so badly now?

Feel free to speak all you wish...and congratulations on making a monumental decision to avoid the dark side. However, my point still stands, even if the church draws your seal of approval for getting the knowledge out there, if that is the only thing that binds you to the church it will yet be inadequate. It is not what we know, it is what we believe that sustains us. As I have stated before you can know everything there is to know about every point of tangible knowledge there is to know, and yet in the absence of faith you will never know what it is to have faith sufficient to create even the simplist creation of God.

It is not your reputation that prompts this observation. Only that I have watched too many profess a change of heart, when they didn't realize what it was they needed to change in the first place. More than anything you need faith, after the trial of that, which thus far seems to have been quite a difficult one for you, you will grow in the type of knowledge which sustains God's children. If that happens, you will find that you will never side with the equivocators on these types of knowledge ever again but instead will rise to the defense of the Christ's Kingdom for the knowledge in your heart that he is your Savior and knows what he is doing.

p.s. My fondest wishes for your success as you move forward.

Edited July 18, 2012 by SamIam

[Tacenda]

The young women could still say, "why wasn't I told this before now?" They could also forget years later and claim they weren't told. Others could claim that they never heard it in YW's. Trust me, given the comments on various recent threads, there is an inexhaustible pool into which people can dive and illegitimately divest themselves of personal responsibility for their spiritual faith and misguidedly shift the blame to the Church. There is no issue too small or too irrelevant that it can't be somehow pressed into service.

However, I am curious about this whole notion of "inoculation." How does it work? How will being told early in life about relatively trite and impertinent things somehow "inoculate" against inane and self-defeating reactions to those things later in life? I just don't get it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Maybe innoculate from the shock of hearing it so late in life? I don't know, it's a word that probably came up somewhere else that I picked up. I'm really just trying to keep my comments positive. And it's a positive thing for the church to do. Now why are you being somewhat negative and saying the YW oh, I think I failed to mention it was a combined YW/YM meeting, anyway why don't you think it would stick in their memory and if an anti person mentions it don't you think it arms them somewhat?

[treehugger]

So what do I think of the face in the hat? It couldn't care less if it have been a cauldron. None of that takes away my testimony, however, I have had experiences that I believe provide me with a stronger confirmation for belief than others experience.

Do I understand that people have a "huh, what, you are not serious" moment when it comes to learning Joseph Smith put his face in a hat, yes I understand that, do you? I wager you do not, nor do many people here. (I learned about it on my mission and that was from a Children's book, the person showed it to me and I said "Hmm, I do not think that is accurate because that is not what is explained in my teaching materials, but while it is understood that Joseph Smith the Urim and Thummim, I still do not think the hat detail is correct."

Do I understand that someone would believe the Church is "hiding" the stone in the hat method? Yes I do, because it is not talked about, much if at all during a persons lifetime.

And the last reference to it in Church material was 1993, and prior to 93 it was 1977. How many joined the Church since 1993? How many LDS do not read the Ensign. I did not read an Ensign till 1994 this was at a friends house.

And I do not think my family even received the Ensign.

Edited July 18, 2012 by treehugger

[Tacenda]

Feel free to speak all you wish...and congratulations on making a monumental decision to avoid the dark side. However, my point still stands, even if the church draws your seal of approval for getting the knowledge out there, if that is the only thing that binds you to the church it will yet be inadequate. It is not what we know, it is what we believe that sustains us. As I have stated before you can know everything there is to know about every point of tangible knowledge there is to know, and yet in the absence of faith you will never know what it is to have faith sufficient to create even the simplist creation of God.

It is not your reputation that prompts this observation. Only that I have watched too many profess a change of heart, when they didn't realize what it was they needed to change in the first place. More than anything you need faith, after the trial of that, which thus far seems to have been quite a difficult one for you, you will grow in the type of knowledge which sustains God's children. If that happens, you will find that you will never side with the equivocators on these types of knowledge ever again but instead will rise to the defense of the Christ's Kingdom for the knowledge in your heart that he is your Savior and knows what he is doing.

p.s. My fondest wishes for your success as you move forward.

Not to derail, I haven't came to a change of heart that quickly. I know what I've got to do in order to get the faith. But would really like to participate on this board more, therefore the need to be positive. Edited July 18, 2012 by Tacenda

[Benjamin McGuire]

Treehugger writes:

First, My thread was about the "quality of Apologetics". If 60% of references/sources/citations, fail to prove the point of the Author, what does that say about the quality of the authors work? It is of little consequence that 40% proves the authors point, when the topic of discussion is the "quality" of the work.

Well, I suppose, since I clearly am not going to get answers to the question, that I will work the derail.

The context of the information you posted was with respect to the church hiding information. That context is what I am looking at here. Obviously, within that context, the B.H. Roberts quote that I provide in this thread - from his CHC, is very much of significance.

In the other thread, you prefaced a series of remarks with this comment:

Concerning the stone in hat translation method:

I am interested in what this means to you. What exactly is the "stone in the hat translation method"? The question is interesting (in light of the series of questions I asked in this thread) because there is no account which describes a "stone in the hat translation method". This seems to me to be a conflation of the Whitmer account. It is a conflation because the hat provides an incidental mechanic completely unrelated to the translation. An analogy (perhaps not so good) might be the idea that there were two different kinds of ink used by the scribes when copying down what Joseph spoke. For one scribe, the ink was produced using soot and glue, for the other, it was made by soaking iron shavings. So we could then talk about the stone and iron shavings translation methood or the stone and soot translation method. In neither case does the appelation seem to make much sense. And so when we have the suggestion that there is a "stone in the hat translation method" and our focus (as was the case with the UVU questions) we have ascribed to the hat an importance that simlpy never existed. And to use such an appelation without the additional comments (that Whitmer provided) explaining the role of the hat seems to be an intentionally misleading description.

Unless of course you want to suggest (as Robuchan seems to be doing in this thread) that it is the whole image of translating with your face in a hat that seems to be rather ludicrous (in which case we aren't presenting a method at all, we are simply trying to portray the situation as being ludicrous) - but this stands in rather stark contradiction to the claim that the church is hiding something by not discussing the hat (the context of the original set of comments).

Now, you were absolutely right, that the first article you mention doesn't have the word "hat" in it. But, neither does the B.H. Roberts account that I quoted. And this brings up the interesting relevant questions that I list. Is B.H. Roberts discussing the "stone in the hat method" of translation? Obviously, he is quoting from the Whitmer account. He describes all of the elements that Whitmer invokes. He has the seer stones, he has Joseph reading from them in a mechanical fashion. He has something to exclude the light (to make it easier to see). So, is there something fundamentally different between the two descriptions that makes the Whitmer account the "stone in the hat translation method" but not the B.H. Roberts description?

And this brings me back to the Maxwell Ensign article. It doesn't mention a hat. You are right about this. But it too quotes from the Whitmer account. It notes that the seer stone was used (just as in the other two accounts I have mentioned). It describes the fact that the words appeared to be read in "bright luminous letters" (quoting Whitmer). So now we ask the same question. If we don't mention the hat, and we don't mention the exclusion of light (that made reading the bright luminous letters easier) but we include the stone, and we describe it as a "mechanical procedure" of reading the text from the seer stone, what part of the "stone in the hat translation method" have we significantly left out, such that the claim that the church is hiding something is actually relevant? Is it (to use Robuchan's words) the fact that "a prophet of God sticking his head in a hat and using a peepstone ... to translate the most important book of scripture in world history" is "mildly amusing"? And in this case, isn't the real point of the discussion no longer to point out that the church is hiding something but rather that we want to showcase the bit that we think is amusing?

The next text has all the details of the Whitmer account - and the following has almost none of them (doesn't really mention the seer stones even, and certainly not the hat). The next one has all the details, and the final one - the Friend article discusses the seer stone with some degree of detail, and then continues to discuss how the stone was used to translate.

Now, what I get from all of this is that you are primarily quibbling about the hat. And it is only the hat. And I am responding that what we do have is a consistent pattern of using the Whitmer account to talk about the translation method. And you are right that the hat is generally not discussed. But, I am questioning why the hat is of such importance that the translation method can only be called dishonest if it isn't included. You concluded with this statement:

So only 2 out of 5 claimed sources indicate Jospeh Smith placed his face in a hat. Once again, Gordon may have been limited by time, but clearly he provides references which do not support his claim.

And the assertion again is that what is most important about any discussion of the translation method is that there is a hat mentioned and that we have Joseph putting his face into it. And this is how you constantly display this aspect:

"but there is no indication of Joseph Smith placing his face in a hat."

"hat is not mentioned, but Urim and Thummim is. But no face in hat method."

"No mention of a hat."

Scott's issue (and this is borne out by his list) is that "Or they learn that Joseph Smith “may” have used a hat and a seer stone when translating the Book of Mormon. The typical claim is that the Church has been this or has been dishonest about it."

And so my list of questions - because I certainly don't think that Scott was attempting to be misleading. He did provide 2 accounts that mention the hat. He provided accounts which discuss the seer stone (and one of them describes it in some detail, right?). And nearly all of them (the one in the middle there is a notable exception) discuss the stone in the hat method. They use the language that Whitmer used. The describe how Whitmer discusses the translation process - that words appeared on the stone, and these were read to the scribe. And yes, for three of the five accounts we don't get the face buried in the hat imagery. But this doesn't seem to me to justify your suggestions or your conclusions. And it does seem to me very much that your attempt to make the face in the hat the essence of the process to be completely dishonest in exactly the same way that the critics accuse the church - that is, they emphasize the face in the hat without any emphasis on the corresponding description of the rather minimalist role of the hat, or why the face was put into the hat, or the realization (that Roberts puts forward) that the hat was itself rather inconsequential because its only role was as a means of blocking out the light so that the words could be read from the seer stone.

And this is why I want you to answer these questions - because it seems to me in answering these questions I can better understand your arguments on the other thread.

Ben M.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Do I understand that someone would believe the Church is "hiding" the stone in the hat method? Yes I do, because it is not talked about, much if at all during a persons lifetime.

And again, we have this rather ambiguous and seemingly inappropriate summary of the "stone in the hat method". And so once more, I would appreciate it if you would answer the seven questions that I posed. They don't seem difficult. They don't require any research. Most of them are aimed at helping me understand your personal opinions on the issue. (And of course, I wrote them to prove a point).

Ben M.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The questions weren't that interesting. And he was talking specifically to treehugger about an issue with disclosure which isn't a real burning issue for me.

He also said any one else could respond. Ill just chalk this up to you not wanting what you think really happened to be questioned for fear that you might be wrong about it.