Translation Of The Book Of Mormon

[thatjimguy]

Going to futuremissionary.com got me curious about the whole "head in the hat" thing.

 

I did see this by the church, which confirms it.

 

https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-translation?lang=eng

 

But it also says that....

 

"Some accounts indicate that Joseph studied the characters on the plates."

 

Which would releive the problem with church photos not showing Joseph Smith' head in a hat.

 

Does anyone have know which sources listed on the page specifcially state that he just studied them and did not use a hat?

[Calm]

Try this:

https://byustudies.byu.edu/showtitle.aspx?title=7943

[thatjimguy]

Try this:

https://byustudies.byu.edu/showtitle.aspx?title=7943

 

Thanks. Do you know of the spot in that book I am looking for?

[Duncan]

Thanks. Do you know of the spot in that book I am looking for?

 

 

it's just the chapter that is linked, read that and see where you are at

[thatjimguy]

it's just the chapter that is linked, read that and see where you are at

 

I'm not getting that. It takes me to the main page where I can download the entire book.

[Calm]

No, that is the chapter as it started on page 76, it looks like.*** I would suggest doing a "find" on "study" and its versions or "characters".

***unless you have a glitch. It is over 130 pages, but then it includes over 200 sources, iirc from the abstract

The sources start around page 120 or 40 out of the 138

Edited March 14, 2014 by calmoriah

[Duncan]

I'm not getting that. It takes me to the main page where I can download the entire book.

 

 

I get this message

 

"Note: This is only the chapter entitled "The Miraculous Translation of theBook of Mormon." If you want the entire book, click here"

 

just click on the chapter

[Nevo]

.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nevo

[Calm]

There was one account that said he put his finger on the character and then looked in the U&T iirc. Then there is where he copied the characters to be translated by experts.

I am wondering if either of those is what is being referred to.

[Nevo]

.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nevo

[erdoch]

The only place I see this stated is on page 124 of the article, where Joseph Smith is purported to have said: "By putting his finger on one of the characters and imploring divine aid, then looking through the Urim and Thummim, he would see the import written in plain English on a screen placed before him. After delivering this to his emanuensi, he would again proceed in the same manner and obtain the meaning of the next character, and so on..."

 

Still, most descriptions that mention the characters say that he saw them through his seer stone or the Urim and Thummim. It's possible that Joseph Smith tried it both ways, but the majority of the evidence would seem to indicate that most of the time Joseph translated without working physically with the plates.

[cinepro]

Which would releive the problem with church photos not showing Joseph Smith' head in a hat.

 

 

Even if that were the case, there is still a problem with pictures like this, which show the plates sitting in plain sight of (presumably) Oliver:

 

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/church-history-in-the-fulness-of-times-student-manual/chapter-five-coming-forth-of-the-book-of-mormon-and-restoration-of-the-priesthood?lang=eng

Edited March 15, 2014 by cinepro

[Calm]

One person suggested in a past thread i believe that the hand not being seen is holding an interpreter or seer stone while the right had is pointing at a character as described in one of the sources...but if that was the artist's intent, it is more than useless for the purposes of illustration IMO....and instead would have been a rather elitist presentation of what is supposed to be a pretty generic illustration....kind of like know ing an inside joke.

I get frustrated with this type of picture in that there is nothing to indicate the most important part to me after one has moved past the child's level of understanding the Joseph translated the plates. There is no sacred presence being invoked. Even if the curtain was a mistake and really was meant to shield the room from prying eyes and not the scribes, at least it showed a separation and reminded me of the veil in the Holy of Holies. The curtain here is background and conveys no info that I get save 'window' or 'wall'. I have no problem using that in Primary, but surely we can come up with something better for youth and adults.

Personally I would like to use a picture of the plates and paper and quill on the table and Oliver and Joseph praying in preparation, maybe Emma in the background pulling the curtain over an obvious doorway.now that would get the important point across with having to have the more nuanced details, but sets up discussion of those details quite well...as in "let's read some descriptions of what happens next". In a large enough picture one can add the detail of a hat and seerstone or the two interpreters sitting on the table as well to be pointed to as waiting to be used.

Edited March 15, 2014 by calmoriah

[cdowis]

Even if that were the case, there is still a problem with pictures like this, which show the plates sitting in plain sight of (presumably) Oliver:

 

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/church-history-in-the-fulness-of-times-student-manual/chapter-five-coming-forth-of-the-book-of-mormon-and-restoration-of-the-priesthood?lang=eng

 

Are you familiar with the concept "artistic license"?  For example, the common artistic rendition showing both the shepherds and the three Magi visiting the baby Jesus in the stable.

 

Just a thought.

[Brant Gardner]

My understanding of the issue of how Joseph translated is that there was a very early period when he was looking at the plates and trying to figure out what they might have said. I see no indication that that mode of translation was successful and probably led to Joseph copying some of the characters so Martin Harris could take them to certain professors to see if they could be translated. The inability of that avenue led to the necessity of finding another way, which was to use the interpreters and then a seer stone. Personally, I suspect that all of the effective translation was done through one of those two instruments, and it is quite possible that all of the translation we actually have came through the seer stone (having started with the interpreters but returned to a more familiar instrument).

 

As for the artistic representations, they really aren't surprising. The church very early began to change both the vocabulary and the imagery with which they described the translation process. The idea that Joseph "traced with his finger" was apparently current as early as Kirtland. There are some very firm (yet incorrect) statements from some during the Utah period that Joseph never used a seer stone at all. The art is simply a continuation of a folk process of processing history into a new story, It happened without any overarching intent. There is some good evidence that a similar massaging of folk history into official history occurred in very early Christianity.

[MiserereNobis]

The picture of Joseph "reading" from the plates looks quite normal to our sensibilities today.  It is how we envision translation.  A picture of Joseph with his entire face in a hat standing next to Emma, or Oliver, would look quite, for lack of a better term, strange or weird.  Could this be one reason there are no LDS pictures of this scene, which from what I read on the links given is the way the vast majority of the book was translated?

 

Honestly, how comfortable would you be with an artistic depiction showing what really happened:  Joseph Smith's face in a hat?  If you are comfortable with it, why isn't it found anywhere?  If you are not, why not?

 

I hope you understand, even if you disagree, that from an outsider's perspective this appears as an example of de-emphasizing something that would make Joseph Smith look strange to others, even though that something is historically and factually accurate as to what happened.

 

How many of you were taught in church that Joseph Smith put a stone that he had found years earlier into a hat and pressed his face into the hat to translate the Book of Mormon?  How many of you teach that to people in church today?

[thatjimguy]

 

How many of you were taught in church that Joseph Smith put a stone that he had found years earlier into a hat and pressed his face into the hat to translate the Book of Mormon?  How many of you teach that to people in church today?

 

This is a good question. I have never heard it at all in church. I imagine the reason they don't teach it is much the same reason as why they do not show the picture.

[canard78]

The picture of Joseph "reading" from the plates looks quite normal to our sensibilities today. It is how we envision translation. A picture of Joseph with his entire face in a hat standing next to Emma, or Oliver, would look quite, for lack of a better term, strange or weird. Could this be one reason there are no LDS pictures of this scene, which from what I read on the links given is the way the vast majority of the book was translated?

Honestly, how comfortable would you be with an artistic depiction showing what really happened: Joseph Smith's face in a hat? If you are comfortable with it, why isn't it found anywhere? If you are not, why not?

I hope you understand, even if you disagree, that from an outsider's perspective this appears as an example of de-emphasizing something that would make Joseph Smith look strange to others, even though that something is historically and factually accurate as to what happened.

How many of you were taught in church that Joseph Smith put a stone that he had found years earlier into a hat and pressed his face into the hat to translate the Book of Mormon? How many of you teach that to people in church today?

I have never been taught it. I have never taught it in a class.

[Tacenda]

I have never been taught it. I have never taught it in a class.

I brought it up in a primary class last year. I made it sound like it was just an occasional thing not the majority of his translating, that would be too big a shock. The teacher and the class thought it was cool and had never heard of it. I felt guilty about it it at first, like what was I thinking? We at the time were talking specifically about the translation process. I thought it best to enlighten just a little, but mentioned it was in the Ensign so they wouldn't think I'd gone nuts.

[MiserereNobis]

I brought it up in a primary class last year. I made it sound like it was just an occasional thing not the majority of his translating, that would be too big a shock. The teacher and the class thought it was cool and had never heard of it. I felt guilty about it it at first, like what was I thinking? We at the time were talking specifically about the translation process. I thought it best to enlighten just a little, but mentioned it was in the Ensign so they wouldn't think I'd gone nuts.

 

But the truth is (according to the link I read on lds.org) that the hat was the vast majority of a his translating.  You say that telling the kids the truth about how he actually translated would be "too big a shock" -- why?  It is the truth, shocking or not.  Shouldn't they know the truth?

 

I realize someone might bring up "milk before meat" but I would say that that principle doesn't apply here.  Surely the method of translating the BoM isn't supposed to be some deep theological truth that requires preparation.  Also, if the "milk" is letting LDS members believe something that isn't true about the majority of the way Joseph translated, then it seems like the milk is deceptive.  And the reason appears to be that fact that using a seer stone that wasn't even found with the plate, and putting one's face fully into a hat with the stone, looks weird, and no one wants Joseph to appear weird.

 

Thoughts?

[guerreiro9]

I have never been taught it. I have never taught it in a class.

I was both taught it and have taught it. I brought a hat in last year with a glowing stone in it. I had the children place their face in the hat. They loved it and kept asking to do it again. Something similar was done in a class when I was young.

-guerreiro9

[Tiki]

But the truth is (according to the link I read on lds.org) that the hat was the vast majority of a his translating. You say that telling the kids the truth about how he actually translated would be "too big a shock" -- why? It is the truth, shocking or not. Shouldn't they know the truth?

I realize someone might bring up "milk before meat" but I would say that that principle doesn't apply here. Surely the method of translating the BoM isn't supposed to be some deep theological truth that requires preparation. Also, if the "milk" is letting LDS members believe something that isn't true about the majority of the way Joseph translated, then it seems like the milk is deceptive. And the reason appears to be that fact that using a seer stone that wasn't even found with the plate, and putting one's face fully into a hat with the stone, looks weird, and no one wants Joseph to appear weird.

Thoughts?

I don't consider it shocking. The Prophet Joseph Smith was using the hat to block out the ambient lighting.

What's shocking is those who place their heads in a toilet when they don't obey the Word of Wisdom.

And I suppose one can translate my last phrase correctly while having your face in your glowing wi-fi tablet.

Edited March 17, 2014 by Tiki

[DBMormon]

 

He could be holding the seer stone in his right hand here as well..... but the hat is nowhere to be found....

[Kevin Christensen]

Facts don't speak for themselves, but must be interpreted. For example, meet a fact:

"Some of the accounts describing the translation say that Joseph wasn't looking at the plates through a Urim and Thummim, but that he put his face in a hat and looked at a seer stone."

Interpretation 1: "Ahhhgh! I've been LIED to. Conspiracy and deception on a massive scale! How can I get my tithing back? Maybe I can also sue for the back pains that must be due to setting up chairs or helping with moves?"

Interpretation 2: "Oh... that's interesting. I did not know that. Either my teachers didn't know or perhaps I wasn't paying attention. I wonder where I can go to find out more?"

Interpretation 3: "Yeah. I've known about that for longer than I can remember. Old news. I have the Dialogue on The Gift of Seeing, and several other books and articles that talked about it, including Ricks's FARMS essay, and Welch's Opening the Heavens with all the eye-witness accounts gathered, and Gardner's new book. At the moment I'm reading Sorenson's new book, Mormon's Codex. Pretty cool stuff. Why is it that when the critics grouse and complain about what no-one told them before, it's never the really interesting stuff that suggests that the Book of Mormon contains all sorts of eye-witness details? Did you notice that the author of the Letter to a CES Director obviously hadn't bothered to google Olmec Iron? Didn't refer to Nibley's Abraham in Egypt or Ostler's essay linking Abraham and Osirus? Pretty sad stuff, if you're halfway informed."

Expectations matter. Context matters. Perspective matters. Facts do not speak for themselves, but are interpreted against backgrounds of expectation, and within conceptual frameworks, and contextualized against the information a person has squirreled away in their own memories.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[omni]

One person suggested in a past thread i believe that the hand not being seen is holding an interpreter or seer stone while the right had is pointing at a character as described in one of the sources...but if that was the artist's intent, it is more than useless for the purposes of illustration IMO....and instead would have been a rather elitist presentation of what is supposed to be a pretty generic illustration....kind of like know ing an inside joke.

I get frustrated with this type of picture in that there is nothing to indicate the most important part to me after one has moved past the child's level of understanding the Joseph translated the plates. There is no sacred presence being invoked. Even if the curtain was a mistake and really was meant to shield the room from prying eyes and not the scribes, at least it showed a separation and reminded me of the veil in the Holy of Holies. The curtain here is background and conveys no info that I get save 'window' or 'wall'. I have no problem using that in Primary, but surely we can come up with something better for youth and adults.

Personally I would like to use a picture of the plates and paper and quill on the table and Oliver and Joseph praying in preparation, maybe Emma in the background pulling the curtain over an obvious doorway.now that would get the important point across with having to have the more nuanced details, but sets up discussion of those details quite well...as in "let's read some descriptions of what happens next". In a large enough picture one can add the detail of a hat and seerstone or the two interpreters sitting on the table as well to be pointed to as waiting to be used.

Great idea! I think this would reduce the "weird factor" while remaining historically accurate.