"face In The Hat Translation" - New Pictures In An Lds Book!

[Tacenda]

I just want to say that I hope that having the images freely available does not discourage sales of the book. The artwork is landmark, but in some ways becoming an unfortunate distraction. The book itself is excellent (I've read the first 65ish pages so far). The story is being told very differently than usual. While I've long been familiar with the story about how Oliver Cowdery got involved, if you asked a couple days ago how Martin Harris got involved I wouldn't have known what to tell you. I don't recall that ever being laid out in detail before. If how Martin Harris got involved is hazy to you, you'll want to read this book. How about the Anthon transcript and all that jazz? Flushed out with more detail than I have ever seen before, and told in a whole new way--somewhat paradigm shifting, even. This is some really great history, told from a fully believing perspective, integrating the latest scholarship. We all should be willing to show some support for this by giving a little cash.

Beyond that, though, if you think this is an exciting development for the sake of the artwork, or that fact that it talks frankly about the in the hat method of translation, or whatever, then you should buy this book. Want to send a message to the Church about the kind of history you want written and visually portrayed? Buy this book. The way this book sales will no doubt be taken as diagnostic of how much this kind of history is really sought after. In a rather literal way, this is a chance for everyone who gripes about how the Church portrays its history to put their money where their mouth is.

Sorry if I sound like a sales man, but I really like this kind of history, and I want to see it continue, and so I want this book to sell well.

Looks like I'm going to check out this book. Hopefully they haven't put it out of site, out of mind in the store.

[Bobbieaware]

I want to say something that is going to come off bad probably. But the majority of members are going to be surprised at this display. Most members are in a bubble as far as real church history goes. You on this board and scholars etc that put this stuff out there, are like the one or two in the various wards that seem way more knowledgeable then the rest, even b

ishops and stake presidents. But I'm thankful for you, in the long run, the truth will be good.

The bottom line is that no matter how it was accomplished, the semi-literate and poorly educated farmboy named Joseph Smith Jr. produced a latter-day miracle called the Book of Mormon. Regardless of hats, as they say, "the proof is in the pudding." One would expect a blatant faker to only be able to produce a purported work of ancient scripture that is as transparently fake as he is said to be. But the Book of Mormon is so complex, so internally consistent, so theologically profound, so philosophically illuminating, so eloquently and powerfully Christ-centered and so unimaginably difficult to produce, without some kind of mighty help from God, that only a fool would spend excesses of time focusing on a hat, as if anyone without revelation from God could pretend to know and understand precisely how a real, live prophet and seer of God might go about his work.

The fact is that through the instrumentality of the very young and inexperienced Joseph Smith, God has dropped a full-blown literary miracle onto the world stage that is nothing less than "a marvelous work and a wonder. But instead of focusing in on the awe-inspiring, life-changing, and spiritually empowering words of the Book of Mormon itself, the adversary of men's souls has succeeded in beguiling some to take their focus off the miracle and onto an ultimately inconsequential sidetrack about how the miracle was produced.

Why is it that so many folks focus on a hat when the most obvious and glaring question is how in the world an undereducated boy could have produced such a monumentally complex theological work? Regardless of how it was produced, the Book of Mormon is an incredible literary achievement, but some think that if they can just get others to take their focus off of the actual book and onto a hat, they can somehow make the incredible and absolutely unexplainable literary achievement disappear so that they don't have to deal with the daunting challenge of coming up with a plausible explanation as to just how such an astonishing literary work could have been produced in the first place, especially by a "country bumpkin" like young Joseph Smith.

Is it not true that Moses shook a mere stick of wood at the Red Sea and it opened, the stick somehow serving as a most unlikely yet divinely-ordained instrument of God in producing one of the greatest miracles the Almighty has ever performed on earth? But do we hear the Christiam world mock and laugh at the fact that that impotent, seemingly dead piece of wood could have served as an instrument of God's matchless eternal power? NO! But even while they swallow the Moses and the stick story hook, line and sinker, the Book of Mormon naysayers somehow can't imagine how God could have employed other seemingly impotent and equally unlikely earthly instruments to produce a modern-day miracle.

One day all the world will know that the Book of Mirmon is a miracle of even greater magnitude than Moses' opening of the Red Sea. And on that day many of today's Book of Mormon naysayers will wonder how they could have allowed themselves to get sidetracked into focusing on a hat rather than focusing on the ennobling and empowering words of Christ found on the pages of the miraculous Book of Mormon itself. As the saying goes, "fools mock, but they shall mourn."

Edited May 1, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Storm Rider]

Yes, I'm nitpicking, but given that the whole raison d'être of the book is to provide an accurate, detailed account of the translation of the Book of Mormon based on the latest scholarship, I think it's warranted. Particularly since the authors and the illustrator know better.

 

It might also help if every different type of translation process was identified since this is just a single method.  And what exactly is the value of a picture with a face in the hat? Is there some objective you feel is achieved by showing that exact moment in this method of translation?

[Senator]

  And what exactly is the value of a picture with a face in the hat?

 

I don't know.........reality, perhaps.

[ALarson]

It might also help if every different type of translation process was identified since this is just a single method.  

From the accounts we have by witnesses, this was the only method of translation used for the Book of Mormon we have today.  So, I'd consider it important to show that method in illustrations of Joseph translating.

 

IIRC, the breast plate & spectacles were only used to translate the lost 116 pages.  They were taken from Joseph when that occurred and although he got them back, I don't think he used them after that.

[Nevo]

And what exactly is the value of a picture with a face in the hat? Is there some objective you feel is achieved by showing that exact moment in this method of translation?

 

I'm a stickler for accuracy, what can I say? My next campaign is to get the Church to change the paintings of Jesus' baptism to show the moment when he is completely immersed in the river Jordan. No more of this pre- or post-baptism stuff.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm a stickler for accuracy, what can I say? My next campaign is to get the Church to change the paintings of Jesus' baptism to show the moment when he is completely immersed in the river Jordan. No more of this pre- or post-baptism stuff.

 

Well, I do believe this particular piece is by Harry Anderson, a Seventh Day Adventist.

 

So you may have more than one faith group to persuade.

[Scott Lloyd]

From the accounts we have by witnesses, this was the only method of translation used for the Book of Mormon we have today.  So, I'd consider it important to show that method in illustrations of Joseph translating.

 

IIRC, the breast plate & spectacles were only used to translate the lost 116 pages.  They were taken from Joseph when that occurred and although he got them back, I don't think he used them after that.

Is it definitive he never used them after that?

 

Also, according to the Church's Gospel Topics Essay  some accounts did indicate Joseph studied the characters on the plates. I don't think it unreasonable to assume that this happened some of the time, however brief it may have been.

 

Nevertheless, the scribes and others who observed the translation left numerous accounts that give insight into the process. Some accounts indicate that Joseph studied the characters on the plates. Most of the accounts speak of Joseph’s use of the Urim and Thummim (either the interpreters or the seer stone), and many accounts refer to his use of a single stone. According to these accounts, Joseph placed either the interpreters or the seer stone in a hat, pressed his face into the hat to block out extraneous light, and read aloud the English words that appeared on the instrument.²⁶ The process as described brings to mind a passage from the Book of Mormon that speaks of God preparing “a stone, which shall shine forth in darkness unto light.”²⁷

 

(Emphasis mine)

Edited May 1, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

Here is some info and quotes that I've been able to gather on this:

 

From Emma:

Now the first that my husband translated, was translated by use of the Urim and Thummim, and that was the part that Martin Harris lost, after that he [my husband] used a small stone, not exactly black, but was rather a dark color.” 

 

If the above is true, then the Book of Mormon we have today was translated entirely from the seer stone.  

 

Here are some statements by eyewitnesses:

Emma:

"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."

 

 

 

David Whitmer:

"By fervent prayer and by otherwise humbling himself, the prophet, however, again found favor, and was presented with a strange, oval-shaped, chocolate-colored stone, about the size of an egg, only more flat, which, it was promised should serve the same purpose as the missing urim and thummim. ... With this stone all the present Book of Mormon was translated."

 

 

 

David Whitmer again:

"I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time 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."

 

 

 

 

Martin Harris:

"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."

 

 

Michael Morse (Emma's brother-in-law):

"When Joseph was translating the Book of Mormon, he, (Morse), had occasion more than once to go into his immediate presence, and saw him engaged at his work of translation. The mode of procedure consisted in Joseph's placing the Seer Stone in the crown of a hat, then putting his face into the hat, so as to entirely cover his face, resting his elbows upon his knees, and then dictating word after word, while the scribes - Emma, John Whitmer, O. Cowdery, or some other wrote it down."

 

 

 

I'd love to read any other quotes that other have on this too.

Edited May 1, 2015 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

Here is some info and quotes that I've been able to gather on this:

 

From Emma:

 

If the above is true, then the Book of Mormon we have today was translated entirely from the seer stone.  

 

Here are some statements by eyewitnesses:

Emma:

 

 

David Whitmer:

 

 

David Whitmer again:

 

 

Martin Harris:

 

Michael Morse (Emma's brother-in-law):

 

I'd love to read any other quotes that other have on this too.

If you mean to indicate that these statements rule out any possibility that the Urim and Thummim was used in the later translation or that Joseph Smith ever studied the characters on the plates, I think you have failed in that intent.

 

In my question, I purposely used the word definitive.

Edited May 1, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

If you mean to indicate that these statements rule out any possibility that the Urim and Thummim was used in the later translation or that Joseph Smith ever studied the characters on the plates, I think you have failed in that intent.

 

In my question, I purposely used the word definitive.

 

And I stated: "From the accounts we have by witnesses"   Then, I provided what statements I have found from witnesses.

 

If you have other statements from witnesses stating something different, I asked for those too.

 

I never used the words "rule out" or "definitive".  Those came from you and I never made those claims.

[Scott Lloyd]

And I stated: "From the accounts we have by witnesses"   Then, I provided what statements I have found from witnesses.

 

If you have other statements from witnesses stating something different, I asked for those too.

 

I never used the words "rule out" or "definitive".  Those came from you and I never made those claims.

So I take it your post was not in response to my question, then. Because, if so, it was not responsive.

[bcuzbcuz]

BYU and Deseret Book are publishing a book about the translation of the Book of Mormon, and according to the FAIR blog these are some of the pictures that are included in it.

 

These are interesting times for Mormon studies and apologetics!

 

 

 

 

Book Notice

Occum's razor. Put your mobile phone in a hat (like any of those depicted) and try to read the screen. Press your face into the hat to exclude any light and the difficulty increases. The hats depicted are slightly more than a handwidth deep. How deep is your primary depth of focus?

[cinepro]

If you mean to indicate that these statements rule out any possibility that the Urim and Thummim was used in the later translation or that Joseph Smith ever studied the characters on the plates, I think you have failed in that intent.

 

In my question, I purposely used the word definitive.

 

So you're saying that it's possible that Joseph copied directly from his KJV during the dictation of the Book of Mormon?

[omni]

The bottom line is that no matter how it was accomplished, the semi-literate and poorly educated farmboy named Joseph Smith Jr. produced a latter-day miracle called the Book of Mormon. Regardless of hats, as they say, "the proof is in the pudding." One would expect a blatant faker to only be able to produce a purported work of ancient scripture that is as transparently fake as he is said to be. But the Book of Mormon is so complex, so internally consistent, so theologically profound, so philosophically illuminating, so eloquently and powerfully Christ-centered and so unimaginably difficult to produce, without some kind of mighty help from God, that only a fool would spend excesses of time focusing on a hat, as if anyone without revelation from God could pretend to know and understand precisely how a real, live prophet and seer of God might go about his work.

The fact is that through the instrumentality of the very young and inexperienced Joseph Smith, God has dropped a full-blown literary miracle onto the world stage that is nothing less than "a marvelous work and a wonder. But instead of focusing in on the awe-inspiring, life-changing, and spiritually empowering words of the Book of Mormon itself, the adversary of men's souls has succeeded in beguiling some to take their focus off the miracle and onto an ultimately inconsequential sidetrack about how the miracle was produced.

Why is it that so many folks focus on a hat when the most obvious and glaring question is how in the world an undereducated boy could have produced such a monumentally complex theological work? Regardless of how it was produced, the Book of Mormon is an incredible literary achievement, but some think that if they can just get others to take their focus off of the actual book and onto a hat, they can somehow make the incredible and absolutely unexplainable literary achievement disappear so that they don't have to deal with the daunting challenge of coming up with a plausible explanation as to just how such an astonishing literary work could have been produced in the first place, especially by a "country bumpkin" like young Joseph Smith.

Is it not true that Moses shook a mere stick of wood at the Red Sea and it opened, the stick somehow serving as a most unlikely yet divinely-ordained instrument of God in producing one of the greatest miracles the Almighty has ever performed on earth? But do we hear the Christiam world mock and laugh at the fact that that impotent, seemingly dead piece of wood could have served as an instrument of God's matchless eternal power? NO! But even while they swallow the Moses and the stick story hook, line and sinker, the Book of Mormon naysayers somehow can't imagine how God could have employed other seemingly impotent and equally unlikely earthly instruments to produce a modern-day miracle.

One day all the world will know that the Book of Mirmon is a miracle of even greater magnitude than Moses' opening of the Red Sea. And on that day many of today's Book of Mormon naysayers will wonder how they could have allowed themselves to get sidetracked into focusing on a hat rather than focusing on the ennobling and empowering words of Christ found on the pages of the miraculous Book of Mormon itself. As the saying goes, "fools mock, but they shall mourn."

With all that said, now I'm really scratching my head wondering why the church has never portrayed the "stone in a hat" method in any of its official publications. Seems to me that the naysayers aren't the only ones who have been sidetracked...

[omni]

If you mean to indicate that these statements rule out any possibility that the Urim and Thummim was used in the later translation or that Joseph Smith ever studied the characters on the plates, I think you have failed in that intent.

 

In my question, I purposely used the word definitive.

Of course by this line of reasoning the statements also don't rule out Joseph having translated the BoM while hopping on one foot and flapping his arms like a chicken. Who's to say he didn't? Perhaps it's a mystery, one in which we may never fully know the truth.

[Jeanne]

I have to smile..I am glad these pictures are enlightening to the event...but why not get it right the second time?

[bcuzbcuz]

I have to smile..I am glad these pictures are enlightening to the event...but why not get it right the second time?

Good point.

The records all tell that Joseph buried his face in his hat. The pictures shown all through my growing up, my mission and for the last 30 years have always shown Joseph, either slaving over the plates or him working behind a curtain, dictating the text to his scibe.

Now the church is inching toward picturing Joseph with his hat, but he still isn't burying his head in the hat to see the glowing seer stone. When will the church drop the pretense and show Joseph doing what the record has stated?

[why me]

Good point.

The records all tell that Joseph buried his face in his hat. The pictures shown all through my growing up, my mission and for the last 30 years have always shown Joseph, either slaving over the plates or him working behind a curtain, dictating the text to his scibe.

Now the church is inching toward picturing Joseph with his hat, but he still isn't burying his head in the hat to see the glowing seer stone. When will the church drop the pretense and show Joseph doing what the record has stated?

Most likely he didn't bury his head in a hat. Try it and tell me what you see. Blackness. And if letters were appearing, the eyes would be too close inside the hat to see them or if one did see the letters or words, the eyes would certainly begin to hurt. It is an impossiblity for him to do it with his head buried in a hat. He most likely did it the way the church has pictured it. We must have sense in all this.

Edited May 2, 2015 by why me

[canard78]

Good point.

The records all tell that Joseph buried his face in his hat. The pictures shown all through my growing up, my mission and for the last 30 years have always shown Joseph, either slaving over the plates or him working behind a curtain, dictating the text to his scibe.

Now the church is inching toward picturing Joseph with his hat, but he still isn't burying his head in the hat to see the glowing seer stone. When will the church drop the pretense and show Joseph doing what the record has stated?

Have you seen all of the pictures?

http://en.fairmormon.org/Question:_What_Church_sources_discuss_either_the_use_of_the_seer_stone_or_the_stone_and_the_hat_as_part_of_the_Book_of_Mormon_translation_process%3F#2015

Are you seriously saying that #3 and #4 aren't satisfactory because his face is buried far enough into it? I'm hoping it's just that you've only seen the OP and not the full collection of images.

[why me]

I have to smile..I am glad these pictures are enlightening to the event...but why not get it right the second time?

Again, we need common sense in all this. Sticking one's head deep inside a hat to see letters or words that would be bright would hurt the eyes eventually. Try sticking your head in a hat and pretend that bright letters would appear and tell me how your eyes would adjust to the brightness. They couldn't. Which means that Joseph's head was probably outside the hat looking in.

Edited May 2, 2015 by why me

[nealr]

Good point.

The records all tell that Joseph buried his face in his hat. The pictures shown all through my growing up, my mission and for the last 30 years have always shown Joseph, either slaving over the plates or him working behind a curtain, dictating the text to his scibe.

Now the church is inching toward picturing Joseph with his hat, but he still isn't burying his head in the hat to see the glowing seer stone. When will the church drop the pretense and show Joseph doing what the record has stated?

Alas, it seems this thread is just going in circles. Edited May 2, 2015 by nealr

[bcuzbcuz]

Most likely he didn't bury his head in a hat. Try it and tell me what you see. Blackness. And if letters were appearing, the eyes would be too close inside the hat to see them or if one did see the letters or words, the eyes would certainly begin to hurt. It is an impossiblity for him to do it with his head buried in a hat. He most likely did it the way the church has pictured it. We must have sense in all this.

I was trying to say the same thing, you've stated it more succinctly.

[bcuzbcuz]

Have you seen all of the pictures?http://en.fairmormon.org/Question:_What_Church_sources_discuss_either_the_use_of_the_seer_stone_or_the_stone_and_the_hat_as_part_of_the_Book_of_Mormon_translation_process%3F#2015

Are you seriously saying that #3 and #4 aren't satisfactory because his face is buried far enough into it? I'm hoping it's just that you've only seen the OP and not the full collection of images.

Point well taken. I had not seen the pictures of Joseph having his face buried in his hat, which is exactly how I have interpretted the statements about how he translated. I allowed the presentation pictures in the OP to guide my statements. However, I agree fully with Why Me and his assessment of how difficult, if not impossible, it would be to have any text in focus in the depth of a hat.

[canard78]

Point well taken. I had not seen the pictures of Joseph having his face buried in his hat, which is exactly how I have interpretted the statements about how he translated. I allowed the presentation pictures in the OP to guide my statements. However, I agree fully with Why Me and his assessment of how difficult, if not impossible, it would be to have any text in focus in the depth of a hat.

I'd suggest the OPer might want to update the OP with all the images. I agree that had it only been the originals it would have been a missed opportunity but given there's a range I think it's a reasonable collection.