B.H. Roberts And The Stone In The Hat

[Craig Paxton]

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:

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 -

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.

Why didn't Joseph just translate at night, after dark then???? Oliver could have lit a candle or used the light coming from the rock to illuminate the room...I mean IF light actually can be emitted from a rock found at the bottom of a well...its does seem that the hat was redundant

Edited July 19, 2012 by Craig Paxton

[Bernard Gui]

and 3. illegal treasure hunting expeditions in New York.

Illegal? How so?

[oremites]

Why didn't Joseph just translate at night, after dark then????

Oliver: (leans back with toothpick after a hearty breakfast of bacon, eggs and sauerkraut) Well, Joseph, should we get started translating?

Joseph: Sorry, Oliver. I can't see anything in the stone in the daylight. We'll have to wait until dark.

Oliver: But that's hours away! Can't you think of any way to block the light so we can get started on this vital and exciting task?

Joseph: (after considering for a while) Nope.

Oliver: Drat.

[treehugger]

Ben, once again your are not even making an attempt to understand.

Gordon made the hat an issue when he attempted to counter a "common tactic".

You might as well add Doctrine and Covenants 9:8 list of hat references.

How about this, you take each of Gordons references and explain how Gordon 60% of his references did not fail.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Treehugger - why don't you answer the seven questions. Are they hard? Are they difficult to answer?

[treehugger]

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 ....

My post, #21 herein, answers your questions. Here is an analogy, the following is one of Gordon references.

Ensign, Jan 1988

A New Prophet and a New Scripture: The Coming Forth of the Book of Mormon

All six accounts agree that [Joseph Smith] translated [the plates] by the gift and power of God, through the Urim and Thummim. ²³

....

David Whitmer and Martin Harris testify that if the Prophet made the proper preparation, sentences would appear, which he dictated to his scribe. If the scribe wrote them correctly, the words would disappear, and others would take their place. ²⁴

23. JS—H 1:62; D&C 9:4–12; Warren Cowdery, Manuscript History of the Church, Book A-1, in LDS Church Archives, pp. 121–22; Elders Journal, 1 (July 1838):43; Times and Seasons, 3 (May 1842):772; and Times and Seasons, 4 (Nov. 1843):373.

24. David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ—By A Witness to the Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon (Richmond, Missouri, 1887), p. 12; “Statement of Martin Harris to Edward Stevenson,” Millennial Star, 44:86–87.

So according to you "gift and power of God" and "proper preparations" unequivocally means to reader that Joseph Smith placed a small egg shaped brown colored stone in a hat (cauldron or any other instrumentality that could block out light) and would draw that "instrumentality" close to face.

If Gordon can provide the above as proof positive to counter a "common tactic" of critics, then most certainly my post #21 answers yours questions.

It is interesting, though not surprising, that you bring up Roberts, when Gordon did not bring up Roberts nor myself. But you need to move the target and create diversions.

But I understand that it is ok for you to move targets and create diversions as Apologetics means never having to say you are sorry, and I add, or that you were incorrect.

Edited July 19, 2012 by treehugger

[treehugger]

Treehugger - why don't you answer the seven questions. Are they hard? Are they difficult to answer?

I told you Ben, your questions are not addressing the issue that Gordon raised. And I answered your questions in post #21.

[Benjamin McGuire]

And I told you Treehugger, this isn't an extension of your thread. I would really like to see you answer those 7 questions - which you did not answer in your post #21. Let me jog your memory (and if you want, you can help me out by pointing out where you answerd these questions in your post #21 (these questions are quite specific):

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?

[wenglund]

Yes, it's important. Why? 1) it's just weird no matter what

A bunch of people sitting in a large dark room watching a movie may be viewed as quite bizarre, which makes it of utmost importance.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Oliver: (leans back with toothpick after a hearty breakfast of bacon, eggs and sauerkraut) Well, Joseph, should we get started translating?

Joseph: Sorry, Oliver. I can't see anything in the stone in the daylight. We'll have to wait until dark.

Oliver: But that's hours away! Can't you think of any way to block the light so we can get started on this vital and exciting task?

Joseph: (after considering for a while) Nope.

Oliver: Drat.

Joseph: You know that if we try methods for translating during the day (like using a hat), then in the distant future people may get all animated about the presumed oddity of the method, and some may even lose their faith in Christ and cease attempting to become like him.

Oliver: I am confused. If anything would seem peculiar, I would think that it would be the translation of an ancient religious document by the gift and power of God. I mean, how often does that happen? Using a hat to block the light seems quite mundane by comparison.

Joseph: I am not suggesting that the people in the future are necessarily going to look at this sensibly. Some people just need the least incentive to ramp-up the drama and ignite their whine machines.

Oliver: Actually, that is what I find really weird. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 19, 2012 by wenglund

[treehugger]

And I told you Treehugger, this isn't an extension of your thread. I would really like to see you answer those 7 questions - which you did not answer in your post #21. Let me jog your memory (and if you want, you can help me out by pointing out where you answerd these questions in your post #21 (these questions are quite specific):

Ben, your questions have been answered in post 21. I have answered your questions, just as Gordon did not err with 60% of his references.

I know what you want, you want to use your moved target diversion to try and address my response to Gordons failed references, I will not play your moving target diversion game. see post 21 for my response to your questions.

But always attempt to remember that none of your questions address the 60% failure rate of Gordon's references.

You admit to your moving target derail diversion in the OP

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

Ben M.

You would have posted your moving target derail diversion in the thread I created, so yes, infact, this thread is about my thread on Gordons 60% failure rate and how that failure rate reflects poorly on Gordon's authorship.

Edited July 19, 2012 by treehugger

[cinepro]

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.

As others have pointed out, Joseph Smith dictating the BoM with his face in a hat isn't weirder than many of the other things we believe. The only reason it has "shock value" is because Church members are consistently presented with one version of the translation process through artwork and euphemistic lessons and articles. But thanks to the internet and South Park, I think it will only become more well known in the coming years, and future generations of LDS will be relatively comfortable with the idea.

It sounds like some local areas of the Church are teaching this aspect of the translation process, but another strategy the Church could employ would be to classify the translation process as "sacred", and thus something that we shouldn't talk about under any circumstances. That would keep LDS from talking about it amongst ourselves, and leery or learning about it from any outside sources.

Edited July 19, 2012 by cinepro

[Calm]

that you were incorrect.

And yet.....

The slide title is wrong.

[treehugger]

And yet.....[calmoriah references an email from that Calmoriah claims is fromScott Gordon, wherein he claims a slide mislabled]

Want to know something interesting Calmoriah? Scott Gordon was viewing the now closed thread and he viewed it long to have responded himself in the thread.

Gordon presents the slide and the references on the slide. The slide references were given to counter the common tactic of critics, which is to claim that the Church hides evidence that Joseph Smith used the stone in a hat method. The title of the slide is a not much an issue, even though he allegedly claims the slide title was incorrect. What is important is what he said to introduce to the slide. So even if the slide was mislabeled the references still fail.

Gordon provided 5 references,

2 of the references mention a hat, those 2 references use as their primary source a statement from David Whitmer given in 1887.

1 reference mentions David Whitmer, the primary source for that reference is Whitmers statement from 1887

2 references have no footnotes or source information.

What is particularly interesting about one of the unsourced articles (The Friend article) is that Gordon makes it a point to stress that this particular "childrens" article provides demonstrates that the Church does not hide evidence of the stone in a hat.

[Calm]

Want to know something interesting Calmoriah? Scott Gordon was viewing the now closed thread and he viewed it long to have responded himself in the thread.

Unless you saw his name, there was no need. I sent him an email with the relevant info including a direct quote, IIRC.

The slide references were given to counter the common tactic of critics, which is to claim that the Church hides evidence that Joseph Smith used the stone in a hat method.

No, they were not. They were given to rebut the claim that the Church hides evidence about the seer stone and the claim that the Church hides evidences about the hat. Edited July 19, 2012 by calmoriah

[thews]

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:

And Emma Smith:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Smith

"In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us."

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 -

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.

The problem isn't with the hat, but what was in it. Can you explain to me what instrument (be specific) was in the hat that was used to translate the published Book of Mormon Ben?

[Calm]

Unless you saw his name, there was no need. I sent him an email with the relevant info including a direct quote, IIRC.

No, they were not. They were given to rebut the claim that the Church hides evidence about the seer stone and the claim that the Church hides evidences about the hat.

Turns out my memory was wrong, it was his email with the direct quote not mine. I sent him a link. I was carrying on a conversation with him at the time and he responded to me rather than the thread. Guess he just likes me better than you.

Actually I think he knows how prolonged threads can become and he just wasn't interested in going into any more detail or much in the accusations at all so he just gave me permission to post whatever of his responses to my email that I wanted....and I chose that part.

Edited July 19, 2012 by calmoriah

[treehugger]

Turns out my memory was wrong, it was his email with the direct quote not mine. I sent him a link. I was carrying on a conversation with him at the time and he responded to me rather than the thread. Guess he just likes me better than you.

Actually I think he knows how prolonged threads can become and he just wasn't interested in going into any more detail or much in the accusations at all so he just gave me permission to post whatever of his responses to my email that I wanted....and I chose that part.

CFR. If I had to pinpoint the exact minute and second when he made is claims, then you must provide proof (screen capture, email header, etc) that he actually sent you an email.

He could simply issue a correction/clarification via FAIR, Mormonstories, or via who ever was host to the event. Until then, we all can watch the video on Youtube, and we can all hear him introduce the references as evidence of the stone in a hat method. The more appropriate source to use is his own words via Youtube.; until he issues a correction via FAIR, Mormonstories, or the host of the event.

Here is a FYI for you....

Edited July 19, 2012 by treehugger

[Calm]

I won't do a screen capture because that would include personal info as well as the relevant part. Another option?

As I posted in my correction, I was wrong about having given him the quote, he was the one who included it in his email.

If his mislabling of the title or that people are misreading him bothers him enough, I suspect he will do a blog on the matter as he intended to do when it first came up but then got too busy to do.

If you think that I as a FAIR member would lie about him especially as I am reminded I gave him a link to the thread, feel free to continue thinking that but it makes no sense to me plus I don't make a habit of lying and wouldn't start on something like this.

Edited July 20, 2012 by calmoriah

[Skylla]

No one is required to provide any screen captures.

Skylla

[Calm]

Good thing because i wouldn't do it anyway as I have this thing about sharing people's personal info and that would be my first banning....though since I have a paper to write for my parents' 60th it would be a blessing, not a curse. treehugger can give me a couple of beatings instead if it makes him feel better.

On another note, I just want to say I am sorry if anyone got the wrong idea due to my certainty before that I had emailed Scott quotes as well as a link. Unfortunately my short term memory is royally screwed up due to medication which is why I tend to go and doublecheck not only my own claims but everyone else's, lol. If anyone ever feels shy about demanding I prove evidence for a memory I am claiming, please don't be. I will be happy to comply with any such request or withdraw a claim. I also admit that my doubts about my own memory tends to contribute to my doubts about others though that is mostly caused by observing conversations among friends and family where people are certain that previous conversations were completely different than reported by someone else....imperfect memory is a sad fact of the human existence.

PS: I am not even going to mention this to Scott as he has too much responsibility with the FAIR conference going on, as far as I am concerned I will not be emailing him anymore for clarifications. I will likely after the conference and attending busyness is over with----if I remember it, sigh----suggest he do a blog about it as he originally intended since if it has come up twice so far that I know of, it is likely coming up more time elsewhere as well as will likely come up in the future. If treehugger wishes to be my memory and remind me about the end of August to make this suggestion to Scott, I wouldn't mind that at all.

Edited July 20, 2012 by calmoriah

[treehugger]

I'll write the blog post for him...

Here is a sample:

In the television series BattleStar Galactica (BSG) a phrase is utter during times exasperation. The phrase "All this has happened before and all this will happen again."; signifying the cyclical nature of the opposing forces wars. The phrase sums up the 180+ year war on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints. Many of the critiques againts the Church have their origins with Joseph Smith, the Prophet through whom The Lord restored the gospel in these last days. One common criticism of Joseph Smith and by association the LDS Church is the manner by which Joseph Smith translated into English what we know as the book of Mormon. The criticism is that the LDS Church hides evidence that suggests Joseph Smith placed a stone in a hat. Admittedly it does make for an interesting picture. However the criticism has little merit. The primary source the stone in the hat translation method come from a statement of David Whirled in 1887. Whitmer states ***insert whitmers statement**. In 1977 **insert Ensign article reference and 1993 **insert ensign article reference the LDS published parts of Whitmer's statement which included the stone in the hat. So there exist on the LDS website and publications acknowledgement of the stone in the hat method. Though this was not the only method **insert ensign references to other methods. Exactly how things worked is a mystery, what we can be assured of nothing but the power of God could have allowed Joseph Smith to translate. The author acknowledges that the methods of the translation are not discussed much if at all in Sunday School or other Church lessons, this lack of discourse on the.methods gives rise to the critics claim of hiding. When long after these bones have returned to the dust front whence they came the drums of war will beat "The Mormon Church is hiding things" and in exasperation members of the Church will say "All this has been answered before all this will be answered again."

[Benjamin McGuire]

Treehugger writes:

Ben, your questions have been answered in post 21. I have answered your questions, just as Gordon did not err with 60% of his references.

No. You didn't answer my questions in post 21. Your comments reflect absolutely nothing about B.H. Roberts. In fact, maybe we should repeat what you did post, and then compare it to the seven questions that I did ask. It is absolutely clear to me that you simply do not want to answer the questions - after all, if you spent half the time actually answering them (even if you felt you were repeating yourself) as you had insisting that there was no need to answer them, you would have finished it quite some time ago. Here is what you wrote:

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.

So, where in this do you address the issue of the B.H. Roberts text that I raise?

More recently you continue:

I know what you want, you want to use your moved target diversion to try and address my response to Gordons failed references, I will not play your moving target diversion game. see post 21 for my response to your questions.

This is my thread. You will notice, in the title (and in fact in the OP), I don't mention Scott Gordon. In fact, the title for MY thread is "B.H. Roberts and the Stone in the Hat". That's the subject I want to deal with - not the subject that you raised in the other thread. They relate to each other, but they are not the same thing.

But always attempt to remember that none of your questions address the 60% failure rate of Gordon's references.

That's fine. Let's agree on this. But then your suggestion that your comments in post 21 answers my questions is even more bizarre.

You admit to your moving target derail diversion in the OP

No. And this is what is so strange about your views. This is an entirely different topic. I am asking you to stay on topic as far as my OP suggests. And you keep attempting to derail MY topic back to the nonsense that you want to talk about. Why don't you simply answer my seven questions? I won't be so crass as to suggest that you are worried about answering them (well actually, yes I am).

You would have posted your moving target derail diversion in the thread I created, so yes, infact, this thread is about my thread on Gordons 60% failure rate and how that failure rate reflects poorly on Gordon's authorship.

No. I would have asked the questions on the other thread rather than starting my own because I don't like to start many threads. But, this was never intended as a continuation of the other thread, it was intended as a sequel about a related but very different topic.

Ben M.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Cinepro writes:

As others have pointed out, Joseph Smith dictating the BoM with his face in a hat isn't weirder than many of the other things we believe. The only reason it has "shock value" is because Church members are consistently presented with one version of the translation process through artwork and euphemistic lessons and articles. But thanks to the internet and South Park, I think it will only become more well known in the coming years, and future generations of LDS will be relatively comfortable with the idea.

Responding to this is probably just as good as responding to all of the other related comments. I don't disagree with you Cinepro on this issue. However, one thing I do question is the relevance of this kind of statement to the writings of B.H. Roberts in 1909. Was it unknown at that time? One of the interesting things that doesn't surface much in all of the discussion of the hat is the question of how often it was used after the Book of Mormon translation. The critics are quick to point out the various accounts which suggest that Joseph used a hat for much the same purpose (to exclude light) when he used his seer stones prior to the Book of Mormon translation. We know that he continued for some time to use his seer stones after the translation of the Book of Mormon. We also know that there were other LDS who used seer stones. Does the apparently lack of any kind of statement about hats suggest something about the use of hats? Did Joseph consistently use a hat and then, as soon as the Book of Mormon was finished, no longer uses one? Was it a common enough occurrence (both for Joseph and potentially for others) that mentioning the hat simply wasn't necessary or considered by those contemporary to the events to be noteworthy or an essential part of whatever constituted scrying through a seer stone? And at what point does this change from being common knowledge to becoming something unknown such that members of the church develop a completely different idea about what was going on? Would it have been considered strange by B.H. Roberts? Further, would the strangeness of the hat exceed the strangeness of using seer stones in the first place? And this seems to be an important issue, as the comments here suggest that the hat is merely a small part of the overall strangeness of the event.

And since the members of the church would not be encouraged to go to this rather singular source (Whitmer) to look at the details of the translation process, and would instead have been encouraged to look at Roberts, we might assume that Roberts' history perhaps played a far more significant role in removing the hat from perceptions and descriptions than any other element. This of course means that looking at Roberts' motivations is far more significant than perhaps we have considered.

Ben M.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Thews writes:

And Emma Smith:

Good catch. I had forgotten about that. Although, given the context, I am not sure how quickly this entered the awareness of the western church.

The problem isn't with the hat, but what was in it. Can you explain to me what instrument (be specific) was in the hat that was used to translate the published Book of Mormon Ben?

I am not interested in dealing with this issue - but you make my point. You seem to be agreeing that hat is largely irrelevant. So why the insistence that any account that doesn't have the hat is somehow a deliberate attempt to mislead. Certainly B.H. Roberts maintained that it was the seer stone that Joseph had and used and not the Nephite interpreters.

Ben M.