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

[PeterPear]

I know I'm new here, but I have read past messages which would indicate that some members of LDS Academia believe the Prophet Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon using 'Fodor's Travel Guide to Guatemala.' But I'm not so sure if a copy would have fit in his hat.

Please don't get me wrong. I'm a member of the LDS Church and I'm not criticizing the Prophet Joseph Smith.

[rodheadlee]

I know I'm new here, but I have read past messages which would indicate that some members of LDS Academia believe the Prophet Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon using 'Fodor's Travel Guide to Guatemala.' But I'm not so sure if a copy would have fit in his hat.

Please don't get me wrong. I'm a member of the LDS Church and I'm not criticizing the Prophet Joseph Smith.

Great, can you cite a reference?

[omni]

so you acknowledge, then, that the witness recollections presented here are not definitive?

Hmmm, that's not exactly the point I was trying to make. Sure, I guess it was possible that Joseph translated the plates in the manner traditionally portrayed in LDS art, but it's also possible he translated while hopping on one foot and flapping his arms like a chicken. We have no available evidence to suggest one way over the other.

[ALarson]

Hmmm, that's not exactly the point I was trying to make. Sure, I guess it was possible that Joseph translated the plates in the manner traditionally portrayed in LDS art, but it's also possible he translated while hopping on one foot and flapping his arms like a chicken. We have no available evidence to suggest one way over the other.

I agree.

 

The point is that the majority of the witnesses state that Joseph used his hat (with the stone), there is also some mention of the spectacles being used in the hat.  Emma states that this is the manner of translation after the 116 pages too:

 

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.” 

 

 

So that's why it's important that this artist has depicted Joseph translating in the manner he has.  Again, I applaud him!

 

Scott Lloyd, I hope you saw my CFR above as I really am interested in seeing the quote you were referring to about William Smith.  Thanks!

Edited May 4, 2015 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

Maybe if you had said "seer stone" instead of "peep stone," his reaction would have been different.

 

 

No..I don;t think that would have made any difference....you see, he wondered first how a hat had anything todo with those plates.

But you said he laughed at and ridiculed you and called you a liar. I'm wondering whether your use of the term "peep stone" might have been a factor in his reaction or might be indicative of your general tone and approach in the conversation.

 

"Peep stone" is typically used as a pejorative by individuals intent on reviling Joseph Smith or registering unbelief in his prophetic mission. I wonder why you insist on referring to it in that manner.

 

Perhaps if you had said "seer stone" instead, he might still have been incredulous but perhaps would have refrained from the reported laughing, ridicule and calling you a liar.

 

I have no way to know, of course.

Edited May 4, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott, is this what you are referring to from William Smith?

"Even the Prophet’s brother William, 53 years after the publication of the Book of Mormon, talked of Joseph placing the Urim and Thummim in a hat.

'He translated them by means of the Urim and Thummim, (which he obtained with the plates), and the power of God. The manner in which this was done was by looking into the Urim and Thummim, which was placed in a hat to exclude the light, (the plates lying near by covered up), and reading off the translation, which appeared in the stone by the power of God.'"

Footnote:

“William Smith, On Mormonism, 1883,” in Early Mormon Documents, 1:497.

 

No.

 

Here's what I was referring to:

 

In an 1891 interview, William Smith indicated that when his brother Joseph used the "interpreters" (which were like a silver bow twisted into the shape of a figure eight with two stones between the rims of the bow connected by a rod to a breastplate), his hands were left free to hold the plates. Other late reports mention a variety of further details, but they cannot be historically confirmed or denied.

 

As I said, it's from Encyclopedia of Mormonism.

 

I erred when I said the Urim and Thummim left one hand free to hold the plates; actually it was both hands.

 

But the point is, by this account at least, he on occasion did have the plates open before him.

Edited May 4, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[JulieM]

No.

Here's what I was referring to:

As I said, it's from Encyclopedia of Mormonism.

Oh, ok. That's different than what you stated, but maybe that's what you meant? His hands being free is different from holding the U&T in one hand and the plates in his other hand (as you earlier posted). William was probably describing him using the breast plate and spectacles (attached), is that what you think too? So this was during his translation of the 116 pages, most likely? I'll look at the quote again, but thank you for clarifying. Edited May 4, 2015 by JulieM

[JulieM]

Alarson, here is the quote and source;

"William Smith, the brother of Joseph Smith, gives a more detailed description of these instruments, although he does not give any details as to the source of his knowledge:

The Urim and Thummim were set in a double silver bow which was twisted into the shape of a figure 8, and the two stones were placed literally between the two rims of the bow. At one end was attached a rod which was connected with the outer edge of the right shoulder of the breast-plate. By pressing the head a little forward, the rod held the Urim and Thummim before the eyes much like a pair of spectacles. A pocket was prepared in the breast-plate on the left side immediately over the heart. When not in use the Urim and Thummim was placed in the pocket, the rod being of just the right length to allow it to be deposited. This instrument could, however, be detached from the breast-plate when away from home, but Joseph always used it in connection with the breast-plate when translating, as it permitted him to have both hands free to touch the plates. The instrument was too large for Joseph's eyes: they must have been used by larger men. (Saints Herald, March 9, 1932, p. 258)"

Oops, edited to add that I see this quote came from one of YOUR earlier posts. So you already had it. And, you were correct in the interpretation of it, it seems. Scott realized he erred and posted that above.

Edited May 4, 2015 by JulieM

[Scott Lloyd]

I think the analogy of the elephant really doesn't fit here.  We do have several eyewitnesses to the translation making very similar statements (Emma, David Whitmer and Martin Harris).  I agree that there could have been other methods of translation (most especially for the lost 116 pages and even Emma states this).

I still think it applies. The witness accounts you cite are at best snapshots.

 

My hunch is that Joseph used a variety of methods, and that even his closest associates didn't fully grasp the translation process, so we can hardly hope to do so going by their reports alone.

 

This is why I use the word definitive, which means conclusive, final or ultimate.

 

 

Did Oliver Cowdery ever make any statements about the translation process describing it?

 

 

Do you mean other than what's in the footnote in Joseph Smith -- History in the Pearl of Great Price?

 

 

I am also curious to see the statement from William Smith, so CFR on that.  (I'd really like to read it, and have it for my own collection of quotes, so thanks in advance.) 

 

I tried to google Encyclopedia of Mormonism along with William Smith and Urim & Thummim.  Do I need to download the Encyclopedia?  If so, I don't mind doing that.

 

 

 

See my reply to JulieM and the link therein.

 

Sorry the encyclopedia entry doesn't give a more specific cite. But it does provide a bibliography. Perhaps you can find something in one of the references listed there.

[Wiki Wonka]

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.

 

Just to make things easier, I've lowered the resolution on the images and created a single image so that folks who didn't see me post the "face buried in hat" images earlier in this thread will understand. Here's the entire collection:

 

[ALarson]

Very nice to see all the pictures together, Wiki Wonka!

 

@JulieM, thanks for the source and quote.  

 

@Scott Lloyd, thanks also for the explanation regarding the William Smith quote.  I understand when trying to go from memory how things can be confusing.  Happens to me often!

[Mormon Dude]

I purchased my copy last week at Seagull Book. It is interesting to note that all the copies at that store were shrink wrapped. I thought perhaps this was because it was fresh on the shelves. But I just visited a different LDS bookstore and their copies were shrink wrapped as well. It kind of makes me wonder if some decision maker at Deseret Book said to shrink wrap them all. That way folks wouldn't encounter their first stone-in-hat translation artwork in store. No other books in the stores had shrink wrap, so it just made me wonder. Anyone picked theirs up with shrink wrap too?

 

The book also includes an appendix entitled "The Gift and Power of Art," written by Anthony Sweat in which he discussed past LDS paintings of the translation.

[Calm]

The more expensive and art focused books were often shrink wrapped at the bookstore I worked for. It was annoying especially when they only bought one copy because they didn't see it as a seller so there wouldn't be a display copy. I remember in particular having to buy two of the series about the BoA, Rhodes' book and the Traditions of Abraham's Early Life or whatever it was called that way.

if it was the only book in the whole store, that is strange as there were always a couple that way when I was working there (not a DB bookstore but a privately owned church bookstore). It may be because they figure it is going to be one looked at for the pictures a lot and then not purchased, so they are protecting their investment. Depending on how many they ordered for inventory, I can see them maybe being reluctant to use one for display as my bosses were at times.

Otoh, it may have been a decision to ensure exposure wasn't accidental as you suggest, but at least from the book would include a chance to read the context.

Edited May 9, 2015 by calmoriah

[Tacenda]

The more expensive and art focused books were often shrink wrapped at the bookstore I worked for. It was annoying especially when they only bought one copy because they didn't see it as a seller so there wouldn't be a display copy. I remember in particular having to buy two of the series about the BoA, Rhodes' book and the Traditions of Abraham's Early Life or whatever it was called that way.

if it was the only book in the whole store, that is strange as there were always a couple that way when I was working there (not a DB bookstore but a privately owned church bookstore). It may be because they figure it is going to be one looked at for the pictures a lot and then not purchased, so they are protecting their investment. Depending on how many they ordered for inventory, I can see them maybe being reluctant to use one for display as my bosses were at times.

Otoh, it may have been a decision to ensure exposure wasn't accidental as you suggest, but at least from the book would include a chance to read the context.

Reminds me of Brian Hales books on JS's polygamy, on being offered only online vs. in the stores too, unless that has changed now.

[rodheadlee]

If you shrink wrap them they don't get all dirty from people running in and thumbing through them just to see the new art. I highly doubt it's an exposure problem.

[Buckeye]

I purchased my copy last week at Seagull Book. It is interesting to note that all the copies at that store were shrink wrapped. I thought perhaps this was because it was fresh on the shelves. But I just visited a different LDS bookstore and their copies were shrink wrapped as well. It kind of makes me wonder if some decision maker at Deseret Book said to shrink wrap them all. That way folks wouldn't encounter their first stone-in-hat translation artwork in store. No other books in the stores had shrink wrap, so it just made me wonder. Anyone picked theirs up with shrink wrap too?

 

The book also includes an appendix entitled "The Gift and Power of Art," written by Anthony Sweat in which he discussed past LDS paintings of the translation.

 

FairMormon has made this appendix available: http://blog.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/From-Darkness-unto-Light.-Appendix.pdf

 

You'll see that the artist gives a lengthy history of artwork depicting the translation, an explanation for why he thought it important to depict Joseph and the hat, and (particuarly germane to this thread) an explanation for why he did not make most of his images entirely accurate by having Joseph's face in the hat:

 

 

Although my attempt tried to include basic historical accuracy, most notably Joseph’s face is not “buried” in the hat, as some translation sources claimed. Why? This is the question of my image I get most often from

people who are familiar with the historical explanations of the translation. There are three reasons I chose not to bury his face in the hat: (1) Simply put, it didn’t work visually for this composition. I wanted an unfamiliar viewer to immediately recognize that it was Joseph Smith, and having his face in the hat made this difficult for many of the people with whom I ran by preliminary sketches. Without knowing the historical background, they didn’t know who or what this image depicted. (2) Returning to the language of art, I wanted to communicate the message of inspiration in this image. The human face carries a lot of subtle emotion, and by covering Joseph’s face in the hat, it was difficult to portray things such as prayer, pondering, focus, reverence, and revelation. A hat obscured all of those ideas visually. By showing his face, I could more easily portray inspiration elements in Joseph—the studying it out in your mind and heart and the revelatory gift of a seer—yet still have the image be set in historical reality (as opposed to a figurative or abstracted composition). (3) Last, his face outside the hat still reflects historical reality. Logically, Joseph had to put his face into, and pull his face back from the hat. I imagine the moment depicted in my painting as Joseph getting ready to go into the hat to see—starting the process of revelation. He almost looks like he is getting ready to tip forward, and the anticipation of that moment makes the viewer want to put his face into the hat, visually measuring Joseph’s face and looking into the opening of the brim and fitting the two together. With this composition, your mind can imagine what Joseph is about to do—the revelatory mode he is moving into and the gift he is starting to exercise at this moment. Having the face out of the hat helped to provide a more interactive and purposeful viewing experience.