Church Now Teaching Stone In Hat Translation

[Gray]

Just as words can appear on our phosphorus screens.  Is that magic?  Just because you do not have an explanation for seer stone illuminations and word formations does not mean you get to rule it out.  One person can see spiritual things because he/she is in tune with God but other people in the room may not see.

 

Remember God is the Scientist-In-Chief.   You, all scientists, and the rest of us are merely stumbling around in the dark discovering curiosities graciously given to us on an on going basis so that we can grow in knowledge, wisdom, and advancement.

 

It certainly has the feel of magic. Of course anything that seems magical could also be technological. Really it sounds like a debate between sci fi and fantasy buffs, but to me God is neither magician nor technomancer nor scientist nor anything else in the image of individual human beings. 

[Gray]

Of course, a number of contemporaries used seerstones, and others used divining rods.  It had been a hundred years since the execution of witches in Salem, Mass (Joseph's ancestors were there).  Not clear what you are driving at here.

 

You continue to use a false definition of "supernatural," which is literally nonsense in the view of most philosophers.  Supernature is outside of nature and thus not amenable to natural explanation.  Since the LDS version of God is natural and an integral part of nature, that makes no sense.  The supernatural god of normative religion is now as dead as the dinosaurs which once roamed this planet.

 

Yeh, is God so powerful that He can create a rock so big that He can't lift it?  A paradox.  One of many that accompany traditional views of God, and which lead to death of god theologies.

 

Agreed that supernatural is nonsense. But do you see any advantage to traditional Christian views in which God is a necessary, not contingent being? 

[Robert F. Smith]

So a light emitting rock that translated reformed Egyptian into modern English that only Joseph could read.

Yeh, an impossible thought:  Solid-state electronics with an LED screen (and a translation app) which could be read by any user so authorized.  How could that be possible?  

Edited September 22, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

Agreed that supernatural is nonsense. But do you see any advantage to traditional Christian views in which God is a necessary, not contingent being? 

Yes, of course.  Mormons as well as normative Jews, Christians, and Muslims see God as a necessary being.

 

The problem comes when that necessary being is placed out side of nature, and all of nature (including humans) are made contingent upon God.  He creates them out of nothing in normative Judeo-Christian-Muslim dogma, and is therefore responsible for any evil they do (theodicy).

 

Mormon theology escapes that problem by asserting that God is not "other," but is part of nature, and that humans are necessary beings, coeternal with God (they are of His genus & species).  Their evil is their own responsibility, even though He seeks to school them through various phases of life, until they can return to Him in glory, many even achieving godhood.

Edited September 22, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[stephenpurdy]

Elder Nelson also reminded us of the following in his remarks:

 

"In what was then called “the preface” to the Book of Mormon, Joseph explained, “I would inform you that I translated, by the gift and power of God.” He later noted that “it was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth of the book of Mormon, & also said that it was not expedient for him to relate these things."

 

That is all we have from Joseph Smith himself about the actual mechanism of translation. 

 

 

I think it is an error to think that Joseph Smith always translated the same exact way. 

 

Joseph Smith translated with many different scribes, in many different locations.  Sometimes he would have a curtain between himself and the scribe to exclude the light that the scribe was using to write, or sometimes he would have to exclude the light by using the hat, with no curtain between himself and the scribe.  Sometimes he would use the seer stone, sometimes the Urim and Thummim, and I also believe he took the stones from the Urim and Thummim and used them like he used the see stone because the breast plate was so cumbersome. 

 

I think to claim that Joseph Smith ALWAYS using the seer stone in the hat is just as inaccurate as the other ways that were described, because he wasn't always doing things in the same exact way.

 

Furthermore, as indicated above, the people who were most involved in the translation process, are the one's who spoke the least about it.  So, how can we possibly pretend to know what was the most accurate portrayal / representation of the process?

 

-Stephen

Edited September 22, 2015 by stephenpurdy

[Robert F. Smith]

.....................................................

..................................... Sometimes he would have a curtain between himself and the scribe to exclude the light that the scribe was using to write, or sometimes he would have to exclude the light by using the hat, with no curtain between himself and the scribe.  ...........................................

.....................................................

I know of  no case in which Joseph had a curtain between him and his scribe.  Got a good source on that?

[stephenpurdy]

I know of  no case in which Joseph had a curtain between him and his scribe.  Got a good source on that?

 

I have some sources and reports that say a curtain, or blankets were used.

 

"Harris stated that one time during the translation, Smith raised a curtain between him and Harris, because "the presence of the Lord was so great", or sometimes Smith dictated to Harris from upstairs or from a different room" (Howe 1834, p. 14).

 

 

"As he claimed to be the author of the "Book of Mormon" his story was that by the aid of his wonderful stone he found gold plates on which were inscribed the writings in hieroglyphics. He translated them by means of a pair of magic spectacles which the Lord delivered to him at the same time that the golden tablets were turned up. But nobody but Joe himself ever saw the golden tablets or the far-seeing spectacles. He dictated the book, concealed behind a curtain, and it was written down by Cowdery. This course seemed to be rendered necessary by the fact that Joe did not know how to write."

 

Joe Smith, Something about the Early Life of the Mormon prophet;' Detroit Post and Tribune, December 3, 1877, 3; cited in Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, 2:517, 520. John Gilbert (1802-95) was principal typesetter and proofreader when the Book of Mormon was printed in 1829-30.

 

"In order to give privacy to the proceeding a blanket, which served as a portiere, was stretched across the family living room to shelter the translators and the plates from the eyes of any who might call at the house while the work was in progress. This, Mr. Whitmer says, was the only use made of the blanket, and it was not for the purpose of concealing the plates or the translator from the eyes of the amanuensis. In fact, Smith was at no time hidden from his collaborators, and the translation was performed in the presence of not only the persons mentioned, but of the entire Whitmer household and several of Smith's relatives besides."

 

"The Book of Mormon;' Chicago Tribune, December 17, 1885, 3. The Tribune correspondent visited and interviewed Whitmer on December 15, 1885, at Whitmer's home in Richmond, Missouri.

 

"MRS. SALLIE MCKUNE, widow of Joseph McKune and mother of Sheriff [benjamin] McKune, is now eighty years old. She was between twenty-five and thirty years old when Joe Smith was performing about Susquehanna, and lived upon a farm adjoining Joe Smith's lot and the Isaac Hale farm, and in sight of the place where they dug for the ton of silver, on Jacob I. Skinner's farm. Smith's residence was between the residence of an addition to the house, and Mrs. McKune lived in the house about forty years. She remembers the arrangement of the nails used for hooks to hang blankets on during the translation of the golden bible."

 

Frederick G. Mather], "The Early Mormons. Joe Smith Operates at Susquehanna," Binghamton Republican, 29 July 1880.

 

The manuscripts were in the handwriting of one Oliver Cowdery, which had been written down by him, as he and Smith declared, from the translations, word for word, as made by the latter with the aid of the mammoth spectacles or Urim and Thummim, and verbally announced by him from behind a blanket-screen drawn across a dark corner of a room at his residence-for at this time the original revelation,........ The work of translation this time [after the loss of the 116 pages] had been done in the recess of a dark artificial cave, which Smith had caused to be dug in the east side of the forest-hill near his residence. , .. [T]hough another version was, that the prophet continued to pursue his former mode of translating behind the curtain at his house, and only went into the cave to pay his spiritual devotions.

 

Pomeroy Tucker, Origin, Rise, and Progress of Mormonism (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1867), 29-49.

 

 

The bottom line is this: the artistic renditions of having a curtain between Joseph Smith and sources of light, rather than a hat, would be just as plausible, because it is likely that on many occasions that this was the case.  Sometimes he was in another room or upstairs dictating to the scribe based on other reports.  The point was to exclude external light while using the stone.

 

Now, artistic renditions without the curtain are simply so that you can see what Joseph and the scribe were doing.  Do you want a painting of a curtain and no people? ('ah well , you see ... you just got to know that they are behind there')

 

An artist showing a curtain or a hat rather than Joseph ... well, ... it seems to miss the point of showing the prophet in an artistic depiction ... don't you think?

 

Eventually, it seems that he didn't use a stone or Urim at all ... would he stick his head in a hat when not using the stone?

 

 

-Stephen

Edited September 22, 2015 by stephenpurdy

[Robert F. Smith]

I have some sources and reports that say a curtain, or blankets were used.

 

"Harris stated that one time during the translation, Smith raised a curtain between him and Harris, because "the presence of the Lord was so great", or sometimes Smith dictated to Harris from upstairs or from a different room" (Howe 1834, p. 14).

 

 

"As he claimed to be the author of the "Book of Mormon" his story was that by the aid of his wonderful stone he found gold plates on which were inscribed the writings in hieroglyphics. He translated them by means of a pair of magic spectacles which the Lord delivered to him at the same time that the golden tablets were turned up. But nobody but Joe himself ever saw the golden tablets or the far-seeing spectacles. He dictated the book, concealed behind a curtain, and it was written down by Cowdery. This course seemed to be rendered necessary by the fact that Joe did not know how to write."

 

Joe Smith, Something about the Early Life of the Mormon prophet;' Detroit Post and Tribune, December 3, 1877, 3; cited in Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, 2:517, 520. John Gilbert (1802-95) was principal typesetter and proofreader when the Book of Mormon was printed in 1829-30.

 

"In order to give privacy to the proceeding a blanket, which served as a portiere, was stretched across the family living room to shelter the translators and the plates from the eyes of any who might call at the house while the work was in progress. This, Mr. Whitmer says, was the only use made of the blanket, and it was not for the purpose of concealing the plates or the translator from the eyes of the amanuensis. In fact, Smith was at no time hidden from his collaborators, and the translation was performed in the presence of not only the persons mentioned, but of the entire Whitmer household and several of Smith's relatives besides."

 

"The Book of Mormon;' Chicago Tribune, December 17, 1885, 3. The Tribune correspondent visited and interviewed Whitmer on December 15, 1885, at Whitmer's home in Richmond, Missouri.

 

"MRS. SALLIE MCKUNE, widow of Joseph McKune and mother of Sheriff [benjamin] McKune, is now eighty years old. She was between twenty-five and thirty years old when Joe Smith was performing about Susquehanna, and lived upon a farm adjoining Joe Smith's lot and the Isaac Hale farm, and in sight of the place where they dug for the ton of silver, on Jacob I. Skinner's farm. Smith's residence was between the residence of an addition to the house, and Mrs. McKune lived in the house about forty years. She remembers the arrangement of the nails used for hooks to hang blankets on during the translation of the golden bible."

 

Frederick G. Mather], "The Early Mormons. Joe Smith Operates at Susquehanna," Binghamton Republican, 29 July 1880.

 

The manuscripts were in the handwriting of one Oliver Cowdery, which had been written down by him, as he and Smith declared, from the translations, word for word, as made by the latter with the aid of the mammoth spectacles or Urim and Thummim, and verbally announced by him from behind a blanket-screen drawn across a dark corner of a room at his residence-for at this time the original revelation,........ The work of translation this time [after the loss of the 116 pages] had been done in the recess of a dark artificial cave, which Smith had caused to be dug in the east side of the forest-hill near his residence. , .. [T]hough another version was, that the prophet continued to pursue his former mode of translating behind the curtain at his house, and only went into the cave to pay his spiritual devotions.

 

Pomeroy Tucker, Origin, Rise, and Progress of Mormonism (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1867), 29-49.

 

 

The bottom line is this: the artistic renditions of having a curtain between Joseph Smith and sources of light, rather than a hat, would be just as plausible, because it is likely that on many occasions that this was the case.  Sometimes he was in another room or upstairs dictating to the scribe based on other reports.  The point was to exclude external light while using the stone.

 

Now, artistic renditions without the curtain are simply so that you can see what Joseph and the scribe were doing.  Do you want a painting of a curtain and no people? ('ah well , you see ... you just got to know that they are behind there')

 

An artist showing a curtain or a hat rather than Joseph ... well, ... it seems to miss the point of showing the prophet in an artistic depiction ... don't you think?

 

Eventually, it seems that he didn't use a stone or Urim at all ... would he stick his head in a hat when not using the stone?

 

 

-Stephen

Dec 17, 1885, article based on interview with David Whitmer:

 

The translation commenced in the Whitmer home and a blanket was used only to prevent visitors from seeing the work – the entire household (Oliver, Emma, et al.) viewed the work of translation firsthand: Thus, the blanket divided the room as a portiere for privacy only.  The plates were there.  The translation took about 8 months.  The scribes included Emma, Oliver, Christian Whitmer, et al.    (col. 3,  “The Book of Mormon,” The Chicago Tribune, Dec 17, 1885, p. 3, cols. 3-5; cf. Millennial Star, 48:36).

 

A blanket divided the room for privacy. “Journey About Ended,” The Chicago Times, Jan 24, 1888, p. 8, col. 1.

 

Richmond, Ray Co., Mo. Feb 15th 1870 [Elizabeth Anne Whitmer Cowdery letter to William E. McLellan, RLDS Archives]

 

I cheerfully certify that I was familiar with the manner of Joseph Smith’s translating the book of Mormon.  He translated the most of it at my Father’s house.  And I often sat by and saw and heard them translate and write for hours together.  Joseph never had a curtain drawn between him and his scribe while he was translating.  He would place the director in his hat, and then place his face in his hat, so as to exclude the light, and then [lacuna       ] <to his scribe the words (he said) as they appeared before him> [remainder of letter has been lost; emphasis mine]

Joseph later gave the seer-stone to Oliver, whose widow (Elizabeth Anne) gave it to Phineas Young, who took it to Salt Lake City and the LDS Archives. 

 

As you can see from the first-hand accounts, there was no curtain between Joseph & scribe.  The only curtain was a blanket at the door to prevent outsiders from seeing the translation.  Third-parties such as Eber Howe could be expected to garble the first-hand accounts.

Edited September 24, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[stephenpurdy]

 

 

As you can see from the first-hand accounts, there was no curtain between Joseph & scribe.  The only curtain was a blanket at the door to prevent outsiders from seeing the translation.  Third-parties such as Eber Howe could be expected to garble the first-hand accounts.

 

 

There were many different accounts of many different situations.

 

That is my point.  I don't think that people got it wrong.  I think that it wasn't always done the same way.

 

Insisting that artistic renditions must always include a hat would be like insisting that artistic renditions must always have a curtain or blanket across the room, or insisting on depicting Joseph in another room or upstairs while dictating. 

 

All of these accounts likely have truth to them.

 

 

 

-Stephen

Edited September 25, 2015 by stephenpurdy

[Robert F. Smith]

There were many different accounts of many different situations.

 

That is my point.  I don't think that people got it wrong.  I think that it wasn't always done the same way.

 

Insisting that artistic renditions must always include a hat would be like insisting that artistic renditions must always have a curtain or blanket across the room, or insisting on depicting Joseph in another room or upstairs while dictating. 

 

All of these accounts likely have truth to them.

 

 

 

-Stephen

With such a loose standard of historical inquiry we would have to allow any sort of folklore to be accepted, any garbled account of a modern visitation by the Three Nephites then becomes fact.  I think it far better to follow the Savior's advice:  Be as wise as serpents, and as harmless as doves (Mat 10:16).  We need not dispense with our critical faculties in order to be good Saints of God.  Or to write good, accurate history.

[Tacenda]

http://archival.link/mormoncave/story

Does anyone know more about this? Supposedly JS translated the BoM in this cave part of the time.

[Robert F. Smith]

http://archival.link/mormoncave/story

Does anyone know more about this? Supposedly JS translated the BoM in this cave part of the time.

Great folklore, no doubt.  However, I don't hold with amateur archeology.  Too destructive of any evidence.

 

K. C. Kern is a grad student at MIT, I have met him, and he delivered a scholarly paper here in Utah Valley in the last year or so.  See his web sites:

http://kckern.com/?q=www.bookofmormon.online/ .

http://bookofmormon.online/home .

[Calm]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2015/09/discovering-joseph-smiths-cave-in-miners-hill-manchester-new-york.html

 

See the comments...

[Nevo]

.

Edited October 1, 2015 by Nevo

[stephenpurdy]

With such a loose standard of historical inquiry we would have to allow any sort of folklore to be accepted, any garbled account of a modern visitation by the Three Nephites then becomes fact.  I think it far better to follow the Savior's advice:  Be as wise as serpents, and as harmless as doves (Mat 10:16).  We need not dispense with our critical faculties in order to be good Saints of God.  Or to write good, accurate history.

 

 

So, you think that EVERY SINGLE TIME that Joseph Smith was translating the Book of Mormon, it was always done in the same position, and in the same way?

 

Is that what you believe the historical evidence points to?

 

-Stephen

[Robert F. Smith]

So, you think that EVERY SINGLE TIME that Joseph Smith was translating the Book of Mormon, it was always done in the same position, and in the same way?

 

Is that what you believe the historical evidence points to?

 

-Stephen

No, but I accept the claim that no blanket separated the scribe and Joseph.  There was no need for it, and no reliable testimony supporting such a claim.  Indeed, all the reliable accounts are exactly the opposite.

 

The legitimate variations have already been thoroughly discussed on this board.

[sdrencure]

Just because there is a new article or new blog comment or someone is learning something new themselves, does not mean the details are new.  Some of this thread would make it appear some are not familiar with the 1977 Ensign article on the article: https://www.lds.org/ensign/1977/09/by-the-gift-and-power-of-god?lang=eng

[JulieM]

Just because there is a new article or new blog comment or someone is learning something new themselves, does not mean the details are new. Some of this thread would make it appear some are not familiar with the 1977 Ensign article on the article: https://www.lds.org/ensign/1977/09/by-the-gift-and-power-of-god?lang=eng

I don't see the "stone in the hat" translation method mentioned in this article. Maybe I missed it? Can you quote where it discusses this?

ETA:

Found it! I tried to copy and paste the portion, but I'm on my phone now and can't.

Edited October 4, 2015 by JulieM

[mapman]

Just because there is a new article or new blog comment or someone is learning something new themselves, does not mean the details are new.  Some of this thread would make it appear some are not familiar with the 1977 Ensign article on the article: https://www.lds.org/ensign/1977/09/by-the-gift-and-power-of-god?lang=eng

 It's not that people were unaware of the stone in the hat translation, since clearly there have always been people that knew about it since the time of Joseph Smith. It has never been a part of the church's narrative though. By that I mean it has never (up until now) been included in manuals, missionary lessons, artwork, movies, historic sites or things like that produced by the church, and so the majority of the members of the church have up until now been unaware of it. What has changed now is that it is part of the Joseph Smith story as found in some of the manuals, magazines, and at a historic site, and presumably will continue to be part of the Joseph Smith narrative going forward.

Edited October 4, 2015 by mapman

[Robert F. Smith]

 It's not that people were unaware of the stone in the hat translation, since clearly there have always been people that knew about it since the time of Joseph Smith. It has never been a part of the church's narrative though. By that I mean it has never (up until now) been included in manuals, missionary lessons, artwork, movies, historic sites or things like that produced by the church, and so the majority of the members of the church have up until now been unaware of it. What has changed now is that it is part of the Joseph Smith story as found in some of the manuals, magazines, and at a historic site, and presumably will continue to be part of the Joseph Smith narrative going forward.

Yes, and I have noted that in the Saturday LDS World Report there was a story about the new visitor center along the Susquehanna River in Pennsylvania which features reconstructed homes, one of which was used by Joseph to do much of the translation.  And there was a hat and the seerstone on a desk in the display.  So now it is being emphasized.

[Tacenda]

Since the seer stone in the hat translation has been told in the October Ensign has anyone's family/friends/neighbors/coworkers/wardmembers mentioned it? And if so, what did they say? If you don't mind me asking.

[mapman]

Since the seer stone in the hat translation has been told in the October Ensign has anyone's family/friends/neighbors/coworkers/wardmembers mentioned it? And if so, what did they say? If you don't mind me asking.

I haven't heard anything from my family, but I've talked about it with several people here at BYU. My Book of Mormon professor used the photos of the seer stone and talked about the hat with the translation in one of her lectures. So far I haven't heard of anyone I know being bothered by it, some people already knew about it, but I think most were unaware. For what it's worth.

[mapman]

Yes, and I have noted that in the Saturday LDS World Report there was a story about the new visitor center along the Susquehanna River in Pennsylvania which features reconstructed homes, one of which was used by Joseph to do much of the translation.  And there was a hat and the seerstone on a desk in the display.  So now it is being emphasized.

Yeah, I saw that, it was cool. I'm hoping that I can go to Harmony sometime.

[Tacenda]

I haven't heard anything from my family, but I've talked about it with several people here at BYU. My Book of Mormon professor used the photos of the seer stone and talked about the hat with the translation in one of her lectures. So far I haven't heard of anyone I know being bothered by it, some people already knew about it, but I think most were unaware. For what it's worth.

Thanks, worth a lot.

[Dan Vogel]

There were many different accounts of many different situations.

 

That is my point.  I don't think that people got it wrong.  I think that it wasn't always done the same way.

 

Insisting that artistic renditions must always include a hat would be like insisting that artistic renditions must always have a curtain or blanket across the room, or insisting on depicting Joseph in another room or upstairs while dictating. 

 

All of these accounts likely have truth to them.

 

 

 

-Stephen

Robert is basically right in this discussion. The curtain was only necessary when the plates and spectacles were in use and as far as I can tell that was only during the time he copied the characters from the plates. If the spectacles were every used for translating it was brief. Otherwise, JS translated with the stone in hat and never while Cowdery was scribe. None of the present BOM was translated with the spectacles as JS claimed. Because Mormon artists relied on the official history and did not know about the seer stone, they assumed the curtain was used. This is also true of non-Mormons in the nineteenth-century who commented on the translation. The curtain was appealing to some non-Mormons because it explained how the Spalding manuscript could be used. It is this situation that prompted some of the witnesses to speak out about the stone and hat method.