B.H. Roberts And The Stone In The Hat

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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

Yes, I do.

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"?

No

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?

None.

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?

Yes. It appears the sole function of the hat was to be able to see what was on the stone more clearly by blocking light.

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?

None that I can think of.

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?

I guess so.

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.

Yes, it is most definitely used for shock value and to make the Prophet look stupid and like some one who is hiding what is really going on.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[wenglund]

Maybe innoculate from the shock of hearing it so late in life?

If people are shocked by such a trite and impertinent thing, they need to look inward and seriously consider adjusting their priorities and sensitivity. They should consider it a red flag for their own personal problems.

I'm really just trying to keep my comments positive. And it's a positive thing for the church to do.

Excellent.

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?

I am not being negative. Rather, I am accounting for plausible scenarios.

The reason it may not stick in people's memories over time is because of the hypothesized Forgetting Curve.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[treehugger]

...

And nearly all of them (the one in the middle there is a notable exception) discuss the stone in the hat method.

You are being dishonest. They nearly all describe a seer stone, or Urim and Thummim, but only two mention the hat.

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.

They Selectively use the words Whitmer used.

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.

That 3 of 5, do not mention the stone in the hat, absolutely support my conclusions. Gordon gave a list of 5 references regarding the stone in a hat method. You admit that only 2 provide information on stone in a hat. So my conclusion that Gordon's authorship in this case is poor is certainly justified.

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.

Good grief, Ben, you make no attempt to understand my point. You deliberately move the target. I have made my point CLEAR. You are deliberately ignoring my point. You want me to phrase my point into the terms of your argument; I will not do that. You have moved the target, I will not engage in your moving target arguments. My point is clear and has been made several times

My point is that 60% of Gordon's references fail to support his claim. I am concerned that 60% of Gordon's references FAIL. That failure reflects poorly on Gordon, and as Gordon is the Head of FAIR is reflects poorly on FAIR.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You are being dishonest. They nearly all describe a seer stone, or Urim and Thummim, but only two mention the hat.

They Selectively use the words Whitmer used.

That 3 of 5, do not mention the stone in the hat, absolutely support my conclusions. Gordon gave a list of 5 references regarding the stone in a hat method. You admit that only 2 provide information on stone in a hat. So my conclusion that Gordon's authorship in this case is poor is certainly justified.

Good grief, Ben, you make no attempt to understand my point. You deliberately move the target. I have made my point CLEAR. You are deliberately ignoring my point. You want me to phrase my point into the terms of your argument; I will not do that. You have moved the target, I will not engage in your moving target arguments. My point is clear and has been made several times

My point is that 60% of Gordon's references fail to support his claim. I am concerned that 60% of Gordon's references FAIL. That failure reflects poorly on Gordon, and as Gordon is the Head of FAIR is reflects poorly on FAIR.

This is really sad dude. I wish that you would answer Ben's questions. They are really easy.

[treehugger]

Ben, here is my answers to your questions

If you are concerned with clicking the link, it links to post 21 herein.

Pertinant part "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."

However, You need to understand, that I regard your thread here and your questions as derail of the point of my thread, my thread is about the quality of Gordon's references, and remember, yes, 40% of Gordon's references were supported Gordon's position, and 60% of Gordon's references did not support his position.

Edited July 18, 2012 by treehugger

[Buckeye]

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?

I can't personally relate to the "shock" factor since I did not find this fact shocking when I learned it in RSR. For me, it was faith promoting. If the BOM was a fraud, please explain how Joseph, in addition to all the other hurdles he would have had to jump through, could have dictated the whole thing with his head in a hat? Utterly impossible for a man. Even now.

I can understand how some would think this means of communication (peepstone) to be wierd, but that is only because we are far removed from Joseph's day when belief is such things were common. It's no more wierd for God to speak to Joseph through a peepstone than for Him to speak to Moses through a burning bush or me through an iPad. He speaks to each in his own language and in the way best understood.

As for innoculation, I don't intentionally present the youth with facts such as these, but I also do not hide when a sincere question is asked. I've taught the use of peepstones in primary and the class thought it was cool.

[Tacenda]

I can't personally relate to the "shock" factor since I did not find this fact shocking when I learned it in RSR. For me, it was faith promoting. If the BOM was a fraud, please explain how Joseph, in addition to all the other hurdles he would have had to jump through, could have dictated the whole thing with his head in a hat? Utterly impossible for a man. Even now.

I can understand how some would think this means of communication (peepstone) to be wierd, but that is only because we are far removed from Joseph's day when belief is such things were common. It's no more wierd for God to speak to Joseph through a peepstone than for Him to speak to Moses through a burning bush or me through an iPad. He speaks to each in his own language and in the way best understood.

As for innoculation, I don't intentionally present the youth with facts such as these, but I also do not hide when a sincere question is asked. I've taught the use of peepstones in primary and the class thought it was cool.

It's not shock as in that's a terrible thing he did, it's a shock that someone may have always thought that it was written down from the plates word by word using the urim and thummin and breastplate. Certainly not shock as in that's not a correct method. I didn't mean that. Edited July 18, 2012 by Tacenda

[robuchan]

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.

I don't understand what the fear would be in the case, but OK...

[mrmandias]

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.

One could always say that the gold plates were there for the witnesses, or maybe as a source of inspiration and confidence-building for Joseph (much like one would argue the stone was). But I agree that an account of the translation process that leaves out the gold plates is unsatisfactory.

[theplains]

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.

I'm curious. Is the hat necessary? Couldn't he have just worn the seer stones (described as spectacles) in a

dark room instead? Or did he only use the hat during times the surrounding area had too much light?

Thanks,

Jim

[Calm]

I'm curious. Is the hat necessary? Couldn't he have just worn the seer stones (described as spectacles) in a

dark room instead? Or did he only use the hat during times the surrounding area had too much light?

Thanks,

Jim

Would make it harder for the scribe to see to write though.

[CASteinman]

In Saudi Arabia I wore a hat. The only time in my life I did that.

It was a sort of cowboy hat and I used it, along with a bandana and aviator glasses as head-gear / face protection from the sand and the sun. It was functional. You could say, I used it to block out the light so I could see better.

But I never saw as well as Joseph Smith.

[volgadon]

Would make it harder for the scribe to see to write though.

My thoughts exactly.

[treehugger]

This is really sad dude. I wish that you would answer Ben's questions. They are really easy.

Yes it is sad that less than 60% of the references provided fail to support the claim offered.

Yes it is sad that 60% actual provide fodder for critics to claim the Church is hiding things.

Just for giggles, I mentioned this thread and topic to my significant other - who is a seminary graduate, RM, Institute Graduate, Presidency Member multiple time, Temple Wedding, and current Presidency member - did not know about the hat and Joseph Smiths polygamy till today when I talked about it.

[Hawkmoon]

Ben, here is my answers to your questions

If you are concerned with clicking the link, it links to post 21 herein.

Pertinant part "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."

However, You need to understand, that I regard your thread here and your questions as derail of the point of my thread, my thread is about the quality of Gordon's references, and remember, yes, 40% of Gordon's references were supported Gordon's position, and 60% of Gordon's references did not support his position.

Actually, depending on how you answered the pertinent questions which are simply-- Do you feel the hat is a significant part of the process or story? If so, why? Until you answer this in a straight-forward manner you are simply bloviating. Significantly, the accuracy of Scott's answers may very well not be as you have purported based upon this discussion which may very well be why you are not being forthcoming. Edited July 19, 2012 by Hawkmoon

[robuchan]

Actually, depending on how you answered the pertinent questions which are simply-- Do you feel the hat is a significant part of the process or story? If so, why? Until you answer this in a straight-forward manner you are simply bloviating. Significantly, the accuracy of Scott's answers may very well not be as you have purported based upon this discussion which may very well be why you are not being forthcoming.

Yes, it's important. Why? 1) it's just weird no matter what 2) it's the same method used for outlandish and ludicrous treasure hunting schemes in that era which Joseph was a part of.

No, I'm not scared to answer the questions.

Edited July 19, 2012 by robuchan

[Hawkmoon]

Yes, it's important. Why? 1) it's just weird no matter what 2) it's the same method used for outlandish and ludicrous treasure hunting schemes in that era which Joseph was a part of.

No, I'm not scared to answer the questions.

Hm, except my comment really has nothing to do with how YOU answer nor do your answers impact the questioning of treehuggers comments in any degree.,, strange that you would take the time to answer, but zero in understanding what is being asked, to whom and why. Though this may explain why you are not scared to answer. Edited July 19, 2012 by Hawkmoon

[Bernard Gui]

I know of 2 descriptions of how urim and thummim were used.....

1. Joseph Smith and his associates

2. The Temple Institute of Jerusalem

http://www.templeins..._garments-8.htm

The urim v'tummim is unlike any other aspect of the priestly garments, for it was not created by those skilled artisans who fashioned the other items, aided by their understanding and inspiration; and it was not created from the donations or contributions of Israel, as were all the other appointments of the Temple. The entire matter is one of those mysteries which was handed down to Moses at Mount Sinai by G-d Himself, and its secret was transmitted orally down through the generations.

At the time of the original Tabernacle erected in the desert, Moses took the original urim v'tummim, written in sublime holiness, and placed it inside the breastplate of judgment, after Aaron donned the ephod. This is reflected by the verse (Lev. 8:7), "... and he put the ephod upon him, and he fastened him with the belt of the ephod... and he put the breastplate upon him, and into the breastplate he put the urim v'tummim."

The process of questioning for Divine aid with the ÔUrim V'Tummim' was done in the following manner: When a question arose whose implications were so consequential that the entire congregation of Israel would be effected-such as, for example, the question of whether or not to go out to war - then, the King of Israel (or the commanding officer of the army) would ask his question before the High Priest. An ordinary person, or someone not representing the entire community would not ask of the urim v'tummim.

The High Priest stands facing the Ark of the Testimony, and the questioner stands behind him, facing the priest's back. The questioner does not speak out loud, neither does he merely think the question in his heart; he poses his query quietly, to himself - like someone who prayers quietly before his Creator. For example, he will ask "Shall I go out to battle, or shall I not go out?"

The High Priest is immediately enveloped by the spirit of Divine inspiration. He gazes at the breastplate, and by meditating upon the holy names of G-d, the priest was able to receive the answer through a prophetic vision-the letters on the stones of the breastplate, which would shine forth in his eyes in a special manner, spelling out the answer to the question. The priest then informs the questioner of the answer.

Flavius Josephus writes (Antiquities 3:8:9) that the stones also shone brilliantly when Israel went forth into battle. This was considered as an auspicious sign for their victory.

Another midrashic passage indicates that when the tribes of Israel found favor in G-d's eyes, each respective stone shone brilliantly. But when particular members of any one tribe were involved in a transgression, that tribe's stone would appear tarnished and dimmed. The High Priest would see this phenomena and understand its cause. He would then cast lots within the rank of this tribe, until the guilty person was revealed and judged (Midrash HaGadol).

I suppose this could also be called ludicrous?

Bernard

Edited July 19, 2012 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

It's also interesting to note this may have been the method used by the High Priest Alma (who possessed the translators)

to tell Moroni where to meet the Lamanites in battle...

Alma 43:23-24

But it came to pass, as soon as they had departed into the wilderness Moroni sent spies into the

wilderness to watch their camp; and Moroni, also, knowing of the prophecies of Alma, sent certain

men unto him, desiring him that he should inquire of the Lord whither the armies of the Nephites should

go to defend themselves against the Lamanites.

And it came to pass that the word of the Lord came unto Alma, and Alma informed the messengers of Moroni,

that the armies of the Lamanites were marching round about in the wilderness, that they might come over

into the land of Manti, that they might commence an attack upon the weaker part of the people.

And those messengers went and delivered the message unto Moroni.

Bernard

Edited July 19, 2012 by Bernard Gui

[robuchan]

Hm, except my comment really has nothing to do with how YOU answer nor do your answers impact the questioning of treehuggers comments in any degree.,, strange that you would take the time to answer, but zero in understanding what is being asked, to whom and why. Though this may explain why you are not scared to answer.

My comment was addressed to someone else in this threat who told me I was scared for not answering these types of questions.

[robuchan]

I know of 2 descriptions of how urim and thummim were used.....

1. Joseph Smith and his associates

2. The Temple Institute of Jerusalem

http://www.templeins..._garments-8.htm

I suppose this could also be called ludicrous?

Bernard

and 3. illegal treasure hunting expeditions in New York.

Ludicrous was attributed to the treasure hunting not the BOM translating.

[DBMormon]

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

he does but it seems inconspicous on purpose. I think some leaders are uncomfortable talking about the hat and Joseph's putting his head in it because it comes off silly and puts the story in some humorus light when it would prefer serious consideration

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"?

No material difference, though it is an interesting detail that would seem at least to me in my time, something difficult to leave out accidentally.

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?

You leave out a detail that perhaps would hurt people's consideration of the restoration, so it serves a purpose, though critics will also see this as trying to save face by not sharing damaging information

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?

yes, safe to presume, but the hat was the best resource at hand to accomplish this, soft so it wouldn't hurt his face, round to fit the contour of his face, size, blocks light effciently

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?

help the restoration be taken seriously without being mocked.

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?

Not if he sees the detail as unimportant and inconsequential. If he sees it as damaging to the truth of the story then I would say yes

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?

yes, it seems silly, but in reality sufficed as a tool to exclude the light. It served the purpose to assist in the translation

[Benjamin McGuire]

Treehugger writes:

You are being dishonest. They nearly all describe a seer stone, or Urim and Thummim, but only two mention the hat.

Two can play this game, and it doesn't get very far. You are being dishonest in suggesting that the most critical element in the translation process is the hat, such that the translation method should be labeled the "stone in the hat translation" and suggesting that the only gauge by which we can measure an accurate description of the translation process is the question of whether or not the hat is mentioned. This seems to me to be a rathe circular and fabricated argument - it is misleading, and it is inaccurate.

They Selectively use the words Whitmer used.

But this doesn't mean anything. This is sort of a sideways avoidance tactic. I already admitted that they selectively used what Whitmer said. That's not the issue. The first person (at least in texts that I am aware of) to do this was B.H. Roberts in 1909. And I want you to address what B.H. Roberts did with Whitmer's text by answering the specific questions that I asked.

That 3 of 5, do not mention the stone in the hat, absolutely support my conclusions. Gordon gave a list of 5 references regarding the stone in a hat method. You admit that only 2 provide information on stone in a hat. So my conclusion that Gordon's authorship in this case is poor is certainly justified.

I think I disagree with you. I have laid out my reasons for that disagreement in a fair amount of detail - and you are responding to none of it. There is no "stone in the hat translation method" that necessarily involves a hat. There is a description that has a hat. And if you are complaining that every description ought to have the hat, we can then talk about why that would necessary. But, you aren't doing this directly. You continue to assert that the hat was somehow fundamental to the process - and this is an assertion that is directly contradicted by the only witness you have - Whitmer - who describes the hat as completely inconsequential to the actual method of translation. In essence, what is important isn't the hat, it's the stone. And 4 of the 5 accounts are quite clear about the stone (one of them - the one aimed at primary children - is actually very descriptive in a way that precludes any attempt to reconcile it in some way to the Nephite interpreters).

Good grief, Ben, you make no attempt to understand my point. You deliberately move the target. I have made my point CLEAR. You are deliberately ignoring my point. You want me to phrase my point into the terms of your argument; I will not do that. You have moved the target, I will not engage in your moving target arguments. My point is clear and has been made several times

No. I understand your point very well. I am not sure that you understand your point. You can't simply assert that Scott was wrong when you get to control all of the definitions in a way that favors your point of view. I am contesting that point from top to bottom. And you need to deal with all of the issues - you can't simply keep saying that as you understand all of the issues, Scott wasn't being accurate.

My point is that 60% of Gordon's references fail to support his claim. I am concerned that 60% of Gordon's references FAIL. That failure reflects poorly on Gordon, and as Gordon is the Head of FAIR is reflects poorly on FAIR.

No. What your point is, is that 60% of Gordon's references fail to support his claim as you interpret it. And your insistence on following what seems to me to be a premise based on a willful misreading of Whitmer reflects very badly on your motivations. Not on Scott's. (I admit though, I have something of an inside view on Scott's list and why he chose the sources that he did - which allows me some degree of confidence in my comments).

Ben, here is my answers to your questions

No. This isn't an answer to any of my questions. You didn't mention B.H. Roberts or his text a single time in the comments in 21. So lets go back to my seven questions and answer them. I think you are avoiding them ....

and finally ....

Yes it is sad that 60% actual provide fodder for critics to claim the Church is hiding things.

What exactly was B.H. Roberts hiding in 1909. What do you think his motivations were for hiding it? Either you accept the arguments the critics are making, or you are laying devils advocate - I really don't care either way. I want you to address the issues I raise in either case.

[Benjamin McGuire]

DBMormon writes:

he does but it seems inconspicous on purpose. I think some leaders are uncomfortable talking about the hat and Joseph's putting his head in it because it comes off silly and puts the story in some humorus light when it would prefer serious consideration

Actually, I think that B.H. Roberts was probably more uncomfortable turning to a source like Whitmer (his Address is not exactly a faith promoting historical document). It's a bit like that example that I presented back in my thread on ad hominem right? There are two main reasons potentially why a man might deny charges of having an affair. The first one could be that he doesn't want to admit to the wrong thing that he did. And the second is that he might not have actually done it. Part of the challenge to me seems to be that there is this assertion that B.H. Roberts might be somehow worried about this issue - and yet, that explanation seems quite culturally out of place. (See for example, a contemporary of his - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eilley_Bowers ).

This is part of the reason why the earliest modifications to the Whitmer account published by the church are of interest in this discussion. At some point, we have another problem with all of these dates. We aren't sure how common this knowledge was. Perhaps it was quite common. Perhaps Joseph regularly used a hat when looking at his seer stones (which he did for quite some time). That means that at some point, it stopped being common knowledge (much like issue over polygamy have changed - but only recently as we have fewer and fewer members (proportionally) who had polygamy directly in their immediate family history (grandparents and such).

No material difference, though it is an interesting detail that would seem at least to me in my time, something difficult to leave out accidentally.

Right, which is why we want to discuss B.H. Roberts, as the first example, because he is the first example of this allegedly hidden thing by the church, but it doesn't happen in our time. It happens under an entirely different set of expectations. And while we can suggest that B.H. Roberts may have been hiding the hat, it is how he treats the Whitmer text that also interests us. He clearly reads Whitmer as understanding that the hat was incidental to the translation process, not a critical element, and that the focus needed to be on the hat as blocking the light, as Whitmer describes (I note, for example, that the more recent accounts that don't mention the hat also don't mention the need to block out the light - and yet no critic is up in arms over this apparent lapse).

You leave out a detail that perhaps would hurt people's consideration of the restoration, so it serves a purpose, though critics will also see this as trying to save face by not sharing damaging information

Right, so you believe that when B.H. Roberts left out the hat, do you think that this was a deliberate removal of something that he felt was damaging?

yes, safe to presume, but the hat was the best resource at hand to accomplish this, soft so it wouldn't hurt his face, round to fit the contour of his face, size, blocks light effciently

Ok. So you also agree that the hat itself is inconsequential to any discussion of the translation process - that it was merely convenience that caused it be used - because it simply seemed to be the best option of many laying around?

help the restoration be taken seriously without being mocked.

I would like to see you justify this comment in some way (other than simply by using your own point of view).

Not if he sees the detail as unimportant and inconsequential. If he sees it as damaging to the truth of the story then I would say yes

Right - so anyone critical of the church's handling of this will, we suspect, obviously expand their opinion to see B.H. Roberts in the worst possible light. Actually, B.H. Roberts was quite frank and open with his issues that he believed would impact faith within the Book of Mormon and the church's history wasn't he? Did he ever mention elsewhere that he had concerns over the hat? Or that he thought it was silly, or that he thought it might impact testimony?

yes, it seems silly, but in reality sufficed as a tool to exclude the light. It served the purpose to assist in the translation

Right, but so could any number of other tools. The hat cannot then be described as critical to the process of translation - although understood in a certain way, we could certainly argue that something to block the light (like a hat for example) was very helpful. Isn't this exactly what B.H. Roberts seems to be doing? And doesn't this imply (the whole shock value issue) that the critics are just as interested in keeping the hat as part of the discussion precisely because they believe that its introduction will cause issues than they are at charging the church with some kind of dishonesty?

Ben M.

[robuchan]

Right, but so could any number of other tools. The hat cannot then be described as critical to the process of translation - although understood in a certain way, we could certainly argue that something to block the light (like a hat for example) was very helpful. Isn't this exactly what B.H. Roberts seems to be doing? And doesn't this imply (the whole shock value issue) that the critics are just as interested in keeping the hat as part of the discussion precisely because they believe that its introduction will cause issues than they are at charging the church with some kind of dishonesty?

Ben M.

The hat might have been there to block out the light so the seer could see more clearly into the peepstone. It also could be a prop used to increase the dramatic effect in a con.

The peepstone/hat technique was used by money diggers to hunt for treasure. In fact Joseph used it. Joseph put his head in a hat, looked at the peepstone under there, and said he saw treasure. As they digged deeper, he said he saw the treasure fall further in the ground. Do you believe he saw treasure? If so, how? Imagination? Inspired by God? Inspired by Satan? If not, was he using the method as a con? Were all the money diggers/glass lookers honest in heart? Or were some using the technique as a con?

It's all sketchy.

Maybe, you're right. Maybe there's a reasonable explanation for all of it. But all the facts involved in this are relevant, including the hat, and including the way other people used the technique.