B.H. Roberts And The Stone In The Hat

[treehugger]

Ben M: So, where in [post 21] do you address the issue of the B.H. Roberts text that I raise?

So, where in, Friend Sept 1974 "A Peaceful Heart", does the reader learn that Joseph Smith used the stone in a hat method? Friend Sept 1974 is one of Gordon's references. In the same way that you will claim Gordon did not fail with this reference is the same way that my post 21 answers your questions.

Treehugger: 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.

Ben M: 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.

Ben, you are moving the target and you know it. You have admitted at least twice now that you would have posted in my thread rather than create you own thread. You bringing up Roberts, is a deliberately diversion to take the focus off of Gordon's failed references.

Treehugger: You admit to your moving target derail diversion in the OP

Ben M: No. ...

Actually, the answer is YES, and for additional proof see you comment below.

treehugger: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.

Ben M: 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.

And thus we have the cherry on top, you admit that you would have posted your questions in my thread. You know as well as I that Roberts has nothing to do Gordon's failed references. Thus, you bringing up Roberts is a derail.

[treehugger]

......

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.

You would have a case for your proposition if you could show that pre-1977 references of the translation process to were sourced to Roberts rather than directly to Whitmers 1887 account.

However, since 1977,

When the hat is mentioned, Ensign Sep 1977 and Ensign Jul 1993, Whitmers 1887 account is used.

When the hat is not mentioned ( Ensign, Jan 1988 A New Prophet and a New Scripture: The Coming Forth of the Book of Mormon) Whitmers 1887 statement is still referenced.

None of the references provided by Gordon, source Roberts. So why would members of the Church be directed to Roberts?

All indications are that Whitmers 1887 account is the primary sourcce, even when the hat is not mentioned.

Edited July 20, 2012 by treehugger

[Benjamin McGuire]

Treehugger writes:

So, where in, Friend Sept 1974 "A Peaceful Heart", does the reader learn that Joseph Smith used the stone in a hat method? Friend Sept 1974 is one of Gordon's references. In the same way that you will claim Gordon did not fail with this reference is the same way that my post 21 answers your questions.

You have obviously missed the point that my questions have nothing to do with Gordon's accurate or inaccurate use of references. I asked you seven very specific and apparently easy to answer questions. I note that others were able to answer those specific questions without this rather extended run around that I am getting from you. I think in light of this, I am going to conclude that you are refusing to answer my questions recognizing that the answers to those questions because of the apparent fact that you have concluded that those answers will cause you problems with the assertions you make elsewhere.

I will however reiterate a few points.

1: There is no "stone in the hat method". This is a misleading term which provides a significance to the hat that no historical source provides. I further assert that claiming this without also providing the role that the hat played is deceptive by nature.

2: I admit that I would have rather posted in your thread. I even explained why (although you have simply ignored my explanation). How about, for the sake of this thread, I admit that you are absolutely right about Scott Gordon. I will no longer attempt to defend Scott in this thread. Your accusations will stand without further challenge here. I still want the seven questions answered, which in reality (as every else who took the time to answer them) will agree, since none of their responses had anything to do with Scott Gordon either.

3: You have demonstrated to me an absolute willingness to remove stuff from its context (even while providing the context). Your ability to read selectively is entertaining.

and finally:

Thus, you bringing up Roberts is a derail.

This is an entirely new thread. I created it. I chose the title (which, by the way is "B.H. Roberts and the Stone in the Hat"). The idea that my thread is being derailed by a discussion of Roberts is absolutely inane. It really boggles my mind that you would make an assertion like this. Had I posted this in your thread (not my thread) you might have had a point. But I couldn't add to your thread, and so I created a new thread to deal with this separate and distinct issue - which you have repeatedly refused to engage.

I don't think its going to change. So I am done here, unless you want to answer the seven questions that I asked. And until I get the answers to those questions, any discussion from you about your issues with Scott will be treated as derailing my thread (which is not about Scott).

Ben M.

Edited July 20, 2012 by Benjamin McGuire

[treehugger]

I don't think its going to change. So I am done here, unless you want to answer the seven questions that I asked. And until I get the answers to those questions, any discussion from you about your issues with Scott will be treated as derailing my thread (which is not about Scott).

Ben M.

Ben, here is my answers to your questions

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

... "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 [from] my testimony, however, I have had experiences that I believe provide me with a stronger confirmation for belief than others experience."

[Benjamin McGuire]

Treehugger, you obviously don't want to answer my seven questions. Stop trying to insult me by suggesting that you already have.

Ben M.

[treehugger]

Treehugger, you obviously don't want to answer my seven questions. Stop trying to insult me by suggesting that you already have.

Ben M.

I am not trying to insult. And I do not mean for you to think you are insulted. My position is that I couldn't care any less about the hat, Joseph Smith using a hat does not take away my testimony of Christ, Joseph Smith, or the teaching of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. And if I couldn't care any less about the hat, I believe that lack of concern for the hat answers your questions.

So how about we explore your Roberts theory. Do you have evidence, from Church Published materials e.g. Ensign, Friend, New Era, GC, Official lesson materials - whether Sunday School/Auxiallary or Seminary/Institutes, that reference Roberts rendition of Whitmer's statement rather than directly to Whitmer's statement.

You theory is interesting and seem entirely plausible. My Church experience with Roberts is all from my mission and from one particular companion. All I know about Roberts is that he was a great influence in the Church but for some reason left the Church.

Edited July 20, 2012 by treehugger

[Benjamin McGuire]

You are moving off on tangents here. You are making assumptions that I don't think are warranted. Why are you so averse to answering the seven questions that I asked in a way that actually answers the questions, rather than taking from it that I have some sort of theory that you would rather respond to. Why not take 5 minutes and actually answer the seven questions - and then I will be happy to discuss the other issues with you if you want.

Ben M.

[robuchan]

Question:

In this thread, the Emma quote about Joseph with his head buried in his hat was mentioned.

Emma was acting as the scribe during the first part only, right?

But I thought the first part was translated using the spectacles. And then they were taken up when Joseph lost the 116 pages, and then he had to transition to the peepstone.

Am I missing something?

[Benjamin McGuire]

Yes. Virtually all the accounts that discuss the preference for the seer stone (over the Nephite interpreters) explain that the spectacles (its a useful term for the visual aspects of this discussion) were so large that you couldn't wear them like spectacles and look through both stones - you had to focus through one side or the other and it was not comfortable. And this was what encouraged Joseph to try his seer stone. This entire discussion makes no sense if there were no other choice (i.e. if the Nephite Interpreters were no longer present - then Joseph would have switched out of necessity and not as a matter of comfort as we normally read). So, the first part was translated using both the seer stone and the interpreters at various times. Then it was just the seer stone. After the Book of Mormon was done, Joseph continued for a time to use his seer stone to receive revelations - but even that stopped after a relatively short period. Later it would be suggested that he had outgrown the need for the objects - and that they were primarily objects aimed at teaching him.

Further (and perhaps more immediately relevant), the incident where Martin Harris substituted a rock for the seer stone in the hat (causing Joseph to exclaim "Martin, what is the matter, all is as dark as Egypt.") seems to have occurred prior to the loss of the 116 pages. But this is a late recollection (like much of the material) - so using it to pin down a date might be difficult. I think though that the historical record is pretty consistent in suggesting that both were used prior to the loss, but the exact ratio is uncertain (perhaps it was mostly seer stone - perhaps it was just occasionally).

Ben M.

[robuchan]

Yes. Virtually all the accounts that discuss the preference for the seer stone (over the Nephite interpreters) explain that the spectacles (its a useful term for the visual aspects of this discussion) were so large that you couldn't wear them like spectacles and look through both stones - you had to focus through one side or the other and it was not comfortable. And this was what encouraged Joseph to try his seer stone. This entire discussion makes no sense if there were no other choice (i.e. if the Nephite Interpreters were no longer present - then Joseph would have switched out of necessity and not as a matter of comfort as we normally read). So, the first part was translated using both the seer stone and the interpreters at various times. Then it was just the seer stone. After the Book of Mormon was done, Joseph continued for a time to use his seer stone to receive revelations - but even that stopped after a relatively short period. Later it would be suggested that he had outgrown the need for the objects - and that they were primarily objects aimed at teaching him.

Further (and perhaps more immediately relevant), the incident where Martin Harris substituted a rock for the seer stone in the hat (causing Joseph to exclaim "Martin, what is the matter, all is as dark as Egypt.") seems to have occurred prior to the loss of the 116 pages. But this is a late recollection (like much of the material) - so using it to pin down a date might be difficult. I think though that the historical record is pretty consistent in suggesting that both were used prior to the loss, but the exact ratio is uncertain (perhaps it was mostly seer stone - perhaps it was just occasionally).

Ben M.

Where can I read more about this (bolded part)?

Also, do we know that the spectacles were used successfully at all? Sorry if you think I'm being lazy. I've read this and forgotten it and read it again and forgotten it again, I'm sure.

[cinepro]

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.

I'm not sure if it's intentional or not, but you seem to be hyper-focusing on "the hat" to the point that you're missing the bigger picture.

[cinepro]

Question:

In this thread, the Emma quote about Joseph with his head buried in his hat was mentioned.

Emma was acting as the scribe during the first part only, right?

But I thought the first part was translated using the spectacles. And then they were taken up when Joseph lost the 116 pages, and then he had to transition to the peepstone.

Am I missing something?

Yes. Emma was scribe for the first part of The Book of Mormon that we have now (they were living in Harmony at that point). The U&T was used for the translation of the 116 pages which, as far as I know, was scribed entirely by Martin Harris. After the loss of the 116 pages, the plates and the U&T were reportedly taken away, and neither were ever reported being used in the translation process from then on by anyone who actually saw the process.

And Martin was released from his calling as a scribe.

Edited July 20, 2012 by cinepro

[treehugger]

I'm not sure if it's intentional or not, but you seem to be hyper-focusing on "the hat" to the point that you're missing the bigger picture.

mindnumblinly so especially given that his ultimate proposition is:

Benjamin McGuire, on 20 July 2012 - 06:04 AM, said:

......

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. ...

Ben M.

Ben what evidence do you have to support your position that member of the Church would have been encouraged to go to Roberts rather than Whitmer's 1887 statement? I think your theory is viable for a time of Church History.

[Benjamin McGuire]

mindnumblinly so especially given that his ultimate proposition is:

Nope, that's not my ultimate proposition. It's wonderful that you keep mind reading here. Why not answer the seven questions?

Ben M.

[treehugger]

nvm

Edited July 20, 2012 by treehugger

[Benjamin McGuire]

Robuchan writes:

Where can I read more about this (bolded part)?

There is a bit with some sources at http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Seer_stones

The account from Joseph's brother William is probably not enough for your question so more of the context reads:

The U&T was set in a double silver bow which was twisted into the shape of a figure eight and the two stones were placed literally between the two rims of a bow. At one end was attached a rod which was connected with the outer edge of the right shoulder of the breastplate. By pressing the head a little forward, the rod held the U&T before the eyes much like a pair of spectacles. The instrument was too large for Joseph's eyes, they must have been used by larger men.

The other account by Charles Anthon reflects a late second hand recollection passed to him by Martin Harris:

and along with the book an enormous pair of "gold spectacles"! These spectacles were so large, that, if a person attempted to look through them, his two eyes would have to be turned towards one of the glasses merely, the spectacles in question being altogether too large for the breadth of the human face.

This also seems consistent with statements by Whitmer:

"immense pair of spectacles set in a silver bow."

and Harris:

"two clear stones set in two rims very much resembling spectacles, only they were larger."

That should be enough to get you started.

Ben M.

[Calm]

All I know about Roberts is that he was a great influence in the Church but for some reason left the Church.

Unless my memory is really gone (and if it is hopefully someone will correct me), I believe the last part of your comment is wrong. Roberts was always a faithful member. He attempted to get ahead of the 'game' of apologetics by trying to determine what were the best arguments against the BoM, some people don't pay attention to where he says he is playing devil's advocate and instead think or state that he is representing his own beliefs and that he lost his faith.

He was a very interesting man, well worth a bit of time to become more familiar with him. I have his book the Truth, the Way, the Life (I think that's the order, lol) and it has a bio section that has provided me with most of my knowledge. There are some reviews of books about him on the Maxwell Institute site that gives some detail, but not enough to get a filled in picture.

[wenglund]

Hi Ben:

I hope you have enjoyed playing Whac-A-Mole with treehugger's head as much as I have enjoyed watching you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 20, 2012 by wenglund

[treehugger]

Having done a cursory search on LDS.org, I do not see evidence that members of the Church would have been steered towards B.H. Roberts articulation of Whitmer's 1887 statement. So the lack of mentioning regularly the stone in the hat translation method does not seem to rest on Roberts shoulders.

Rather the lack of mentioning the hat probably has more to do with we are not told verbatim the words Joseph Smith prayed in the groove. And many other things we are not told exactly how things occurred.

Edited July 23, 2012 by treehugger

[DBMormon]

I think if I ever teach a primary lesson on the translation I will bring in a top hat for each kid and a stone for each kid and we will imitate the process so each kid has a lasting impression of this so it never bothers them again.

[why me]

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".

it also shows that it is no big deal. No shock and awe or a great "Oh My Gosh"! They just took it in stride. And that is a good point. Nothing to be ashamed of when one considers just how faith promoting it is.

[why me]

I think if I ever teach a primary lesson on the translation I will bring in a top hat for each kid and a stone for each kid and we will imitate the process so each kid has a lasting impression of this so it never bothers them again.

You can also ask them the 69 thousand dollar question: Can you write a book with your head in a hat?

[wenglund]

I think if I ever teach a primary lesson on the translation I will bring in a top hat for each kid and a stone for each kid and we will imitate the process so each kid has a lasting impression of this so it never bothers them again.

What is to stop your students from reasonably getting the lasting impression, and be bothered that their teacher is wasting their time focused on one of the least important aspects of the translation process and one that has little or no relevance to living the gospel?

While your at it, you might consider dressing them up in 1820's frontier garb, sit them on a hand-made chair and at a hand-made table, and rotate through several class members take dictation with a quill pen on fools-cap, and alternate different modes of translation--head in hat, stone with plates, stone without plates, etc.. That way you can assure that they will be inoculated from any sort of potential adult trauma?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Benjamin McGuire]

Treehugger writes:

Having done a cursory search on LDS.org, I do not see evidence that members of the Church would have been steered towards B.H. Roberts articulation of Whitmer's 1887 statement.

Still not interested in answering the seven questions I see ... It shouldn't take more than a couple of minutes - any reason why you keep avoiding them?

B.H. Roberts account was considered the best account of the history of the church between 1909 when he began writing and publishing it and 1950, when the task was given over to trained historians. The church website doesn't have a whole lot from that time period, does it? However, as it turns out, this particular bit wasn't first published in 1909 as I had originally thought. It was published in the Y.M.M.I.A. Manual number 7, in 1903 (written by B.H. Roberts). That acronym, in case you wondered stands for the Young Men's Mutual Improvement Association (the predecessor of the auxiliary group known now simply as Young Men). This was the course manual for young men in the church in 1903.

You also note this:

So the lack of mentioning regularly the stone in the hat translation method does not seem to rest on Roberts shoulders.

Other than the obvious problem I have with your meaningless term "hat translation method", I don't think anyone would argue with this. B.H. Roberts bit from Whitmer comes in a much longer section in which he provides all of the details that he knew about relative to the translation of the Gold Plates. It is kind of educational in regard to this particular issue to read his entire set of thoughts:

Relative to the manner of translating the Book of Mormon the prophet himself has said but little. "Through the medium of the Urim and Thimmim I translated the record by the gift and power of God," [a] is the most extended published statement made by him upon the subject. Of the Urim and Thummim he says: "With the record was found a curious instrument which the ancients called a Urim and Thummim,' which consisted of two transparent stones set in a rim of a bow fastened to a breastplate."

Oliver Cowdery, one of the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon, and the prophet's chief amanuensis, says of the work of translation in which he assisted: "I wrote with my own pen the entire Book of Mormon (save a few pages), as it fell from the lips of the Prophet Joseph Smith, as he translated by the gift and power of God, by the means of the Urim and Thummim, or, as it is called by that book, 'Holy Interpreters.'" This is all he has left on record on the manner of translating the book.

David Whitmer, another of the Three Witnesses, 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."

There will appear between this statement of David Whitmer's and what is said both by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery a seeming contradiction. Joseph and Oliver both say the translation was done by means of the Urim and Thummim, which is described by Joseph as being two transparent stones set in a rim of a bow fastened to a breastplate;" while David Whitmer says that the translation was made by means of a "Seer Stone." The apparent contradiction is cleared up, however, by a statement made by Martin Harris, another of the Three Witnesses. He said that the Prophet possessed a "Seer Stone," by which.he was enabled to translate as well as from the Urim and Thummim, and for convenience he then (i. e., at the time Harris was acting as his scribe) used the Seer Stone. * * * * Martin said further that the Seer Stone differed in appearance entirely from the Urim and Thummim that was obtained with the plates, which were two clear stones set in two rims, very much resembling spectacles, only they were larger.

The "Seer Stone" referred to here was a chocolate-colored, somewhat egg-shaped stone which the Prophet found while digging a well in company with his brother Hyrum. It possessed the qualities of Urim and Thummim, since by means of it -- as described above -- as well as by means of the "Interpreters" found with the Nephite record, Joseph was able to translate the characters engraven on the plates.

Another account of the manner of translating the record, purporting to have been given by David Whitmer, and published in the Kansas City Journal of June 5, 1881, says:

"He [meaning Joseph Smith] had two small stones of a chocolate color, nearly egg-shape, and perfectly smooth, but not transparent, called interpreters, which were given him with the plates. He did not see the plates in translation, but would hold the interpreters to his eyes and cover his face with a hat, excluding all light, and before his eyes would appear what seemed to be parchment on which would appear the characters of the plates in a line at the top, and immediately below would appear the translation in English, which Smith would read to his scribe, who wrote it down exactly as it fell from his lips. The scribe would then read the sentence written, and if any mistakes had been made, the characters would remain visible to Smith until corrected, when they would fade from sight to be replaced by another line."

It is evident that there are inaccuracies in the above statement, due, doubtless, to the carelessness of the reporter of the Journal, who has confused what Mr. Whitmer said of the Seer Stone and Urim and Thummim. If he meant to describe the Urim and Thummim or "Interpreters" given to Joseph Smith with the plates -- as seems to be the case -- then the reporter is wrong in saying that they were chocolate color and not transparent; for the "Interpreters" given to the Prophet with the plates, as we have seen by his own description, were "two transparent stones." If the reporter meant to describe the "Seer Stone" -- which is not likely -- he would be right in saying it was of a chotolate color, and egg-shaped, but wrong in saying there were two of them.

Martin Harris's description of the manner of translating while he was the amanuensis of the Prophet is as follows:

By aid of the Seer Stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin, and when finished he would say "written," and if correctly written, that sentence would disappear and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used."

On one occasion Harris sought to test the genuineness of the prophet's procedure in the matter of translation, as follows:

Martin said that after continued translation they would become weary and would go down to the river and exercise in throwing stones out on the river, etc. While so doing on one occasion, Martin found a stone very much resembling the one used for translating, and on resuming their labors of translation Martin put in place [of the Seer Stone] the stone that he had found. He said that the Prophet remained silent unusually and intently gazing in darkness, no trace of the usual sentence appearing. Much surprised Joseph exclaimed: 'Martin! what is the matter? all is as dark as Egypt.' Martin's countenance betrayed him, and the Prophet asked Martin why he had done so. Martin said, to stop the mouths of fools, who had told him that the Prophet had learned those sentences and was merely repeating them."

The sum of the whole matter, then, concerning the manner of translating the sacred record of the Nephites, according to the testimony of the only witnesses competent to testify in the matter is: With the Nephite record was deposited a curious instrument, consisting of two transparent stones, set in the rim of a bow, somewhat resembling spectacles, but larger, called by the ancient Hebrews "Urim and Thummim," but by the Nephites "Interpreters." In addition to these "Interpreters" the Prophet Joseph had a "Seer Stone," which to him was a Urim and Thummim; that the Prophet sometimes used one and sometimes the other of these sacred instruments in the work of translation; that whether the "Interpreters" or the "Seer Stone" was used the Nephite characters with the English interpretation appeared in the sacred instrument; that the prophet would pronounce the English translation to his scribe, which, when correctly written, would disappear and the other characters with their interpretation take their place, and so on until the work was completed.

We could go on - but - all of this just speaks to potential issues. So, in light of the bit from B. H. Roberts above, here again are the seven questions I have for you:

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.

[treehugger]

Let's suppose that the Roberts summation of the translation methodologies was the only description used by the Church till 1977, if such is true, then that would tend to provide a small amount of credit to the critics claims. The issue would then become, was th Church completely ignorant of the original Whitmer statement from 1887; seems unlikely.

To what extent was Roberts summation used till 1977, can you provide references?