Church Now Teaching Stone In Hat Translation

[Tony Frank]

As of September 2015 the church is officially teaching that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon was translated with a seer stone placed in a hat while the plates were concealed.

 

......

 

Conclusion: The church has changed the way it tells the story of the Book of Mormon translation to be more historically accurate.

 

I predict that the next time that the church films a rendition of the translation story it will have the seer stone in a hat.

I also predict that general awareness of the translation method in the church will cause us to reflect on what that means about what "translation" meant to Joseph Smith and what that means about what the text of the Book of Mormon is, and how it differs from conventional scholarly translations.

 

What do you guys think of this change the church is making?

What do you predict will be the effect on church members?

 

The only sources for a hat being used in translating the Book of Mormon were an 1879 claim by Emma, who was 75 years old and never said anything about a hat prior to 1879 (she died in April 1879), and an 1887 claim from David Whitmer, who was 82 years old at the time and never said anything about a hat before 1887.

 

Either a hat was actually used and, for some reason, these are the only two sources, or it was fabricated but the brethren are unwilling to say the claim was fabricated.

 

As for your pessimistic predictions, remember the words of the Prophet Joseph Smith: “The Standard of Truth has been erected; no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing; persecutions may rage, mobs may combine, armies may assemble, calumny may defame, but the truth of God will go forth boldly, nobly, and independent, till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every country, and sounded in every ear, till the purposes of God shall be accomplished, and the Great Jehovah shall say the work is done.”

 

And remember the words of Moroni: “For the eternal purposes of the Lord shall roll on, until all his promises shall be fulfilled.”

[JLHPROF]

The only sources for a hat being used in translating the Book of Mormon were an 1879 claim by Emma, who was 75 years old and never said anything about a hat prior to 1879 (she died in April 1879), and an 1887 claim from David Whitmer, who was 82 years old at the time and never said anything about a hat before 1887.

 

Either a hat was actually used and, for some reason, these are the only two sources, or it was fabricated but the brethren are unwilling to say the claim was fabricated.

 

Really?

1. Use of the Urim & Thummim and use of the Seer Stone is no different.

2. Use of a hat (quotes attributed to Martin Harris) go as far back as 1829 and 1830.

 

There is no reason to doubt the hat and seerstone were used.  It isn't any more troubling than the Urim and Thummim which were just two seerstones bound in a holder.

Unless of course you are doubting the teaching of the seerstone/hat as authorized by God's living prophet. 

[ksfisher]

Really?

1. Use of the Urim & Thummim and use of the Seer Stone is no different.

2. Use of a hat (quotes attributed to Martin Harris) go as far back as 1829 and 1830.

 

There is no reason to doubt the hat and seerstone were used.  It isn't any more troubling than the Urim and Thummim which were just two seerstones bound in a holder.

Unless of course you are doubting the teaching of the seerstone/hat as authorized by God's living prophet. 

 

The ​Painesville Telegraph reported 22 Sep 1829 that Joseph translated "by placing the spectacles in a hat, and looking into it."  This seems to be a conflation of the two procedures, but nevertheless mentions the hat.  

 

The source I have for this quote doesn't mention the Telegraph's source.  Was it Martin Harris?

[Tony Frank]

Really?

1. Use of the Urim & Thummim and use of the Seer Stone is no different.

2. Use of a hat (quotes attributed to Martin Harris) go as far back as 1829 and 1830.

 

There is no reason to doubt the hat and seerstone were used.  It isn't any more troubling than the Urim and Thummim which were just two seerstones bound in a holder.

Unless of course you are doubting the teaching of the seerstone/hat as authorized by God's living prophet. 

 

If you can cite the Martin Harris quotes and where you found them (or a reference to them), I would appreciate it.

 

Oliver Cowdery was the principal scribe, having served as a scribe during most of the translation of The Book of Mormon. In 1831, he stated that Joseph Smith “found with the plates, from which he translated his book, two transparent stones, resembling glass, set in silver bows. That by looking through these, he was able to read in English, the reformed Egyptian characters, which were engraven on the plates.”

 

In the fall of 1830, Oliver Cowdery visited Union Village, Ohio, and spoke about the translation of the Book of Mormon. Soon thereafter, a village resident reported that the translation was accomplished by means of “two transparent stones in the form of spectacles thro which the translator looked on the engraving.”

 

If the “hat” story were true, it would mean Oliver Cowdery, the second elder of the Church, who was with Joseph Smith when John the Baptist conferred the Aaronic Priesthood on them, and who was with Joseph Smith when Peter, James, and John conferred the Melchizedek Priesthood on them, was a liar from the beginning, having stated that Joseph looked through the Urim and Thummim and “was able to read in English, the reformed Egyptian characters, which were engraven on the plates.”

 

Again, if you can reference the Martin Harris quotes, I would appreciate it.

[JLHPROF]

If you can cite the Martin Harris quotes and where you found them (or a reference to them), I would appreciate it.

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Translation/Method/1829-1835

[Tony Frank]

The ​Painesville Telegraph reported 22 Sep 1829 that Joseph translated "by placing the spectacles in a hat, and looking into it."  This seems to be a conflation of the two procedures, but nevertheless mentions the hat.  

 

The source I have for this quote doesn't mention the Telegraph's source.  Was it Martin Harris?

 

 

So, the first time a “hat” was mentioned as being part of the translation process was in an article that was extremely hostile to Joseph Smith and the gospel, an article which not only called it all a “superstition,” but also contradicted several points in Joseph Smith’s account of how he obtained the gold plates.

 

The article originally appeared in the Palmyra Freeman on August 11, 1829 and was reprinted in a Rochester, NY newspaper on August 31, 1829, titled “Golden Bible,” and the article was reprinted again in yet another Rochester newspaper on September 5, 1829 with some of the wording changed.

 

The “Golden Bible” article in the Rochester Advertiser and Daily Telegraph on August 31, 1829 reads:

 

“The Palmyra Freeman says—The greatest piece of superstition that has ever come within our knowledge now occupies the attention of a few individuals of this quarter. It is generally known and spoken of as the ‘Golden Bible.’ Its proselytes give the following account of it —In the fall of 1827, a person by the name of Joseph Smith, of Manchester, Ontario county, reported that he had been visited in a dream by the spirit of the Amighty and informed that in a certain hill in that town, was deposited this Golden Bible, containing an ancient record of a divine nature and origin After having been thrice thus visited, as he states, he proceeded to the spot, and after penetrating ‘mother earth’ a short distance, the Bible was found, together with a huge pair of spectacles! He had been directed, however, not to let any mortal being examine them, ‘under no less penalty’ than instant death! They were therefore nicely wrapped up and excluded from the ‘vulgar gaze of poor wicked mortals!’ It was said that the leaves of the bible were plates of gold, about 8 inches long, 6 wide, and one eighth of an inch thick, on which were engraved characters or hyeroglyphics. By placing the spectacles in a hat, and looking into it, Smith could (he said so, at least,) interpret these characters.

 

“An account of this discovery was soon circulated. The subject was almost invariably treated as it should have been—with contempt. A few, however, believed the ‘golden’ story, among whom was Martin Harris, an honest and industrious farmer of this town, (Palmyra). So blindly enthusiastic was Harris, that he took some of the characters interpreted by Smith, and went in search of some one besides the interpreter, who was learned enough to English them; but all to whom he applied (among the number was Professor Mitchell, of New York) happened not to be possessed of sufficient knowledge to give satisfaction! Harris returned, and set Smith to work at interpreting the Bible. He has at length performed the task, and the work is soon to be put to press in Palmyra. Its language and doctrine are said to be far superior to those of the book of life!!!”

 

There is absolutely no record of Martin Harris telling anyone that a hat was used in the translation proves, and seeing as how the article contradicts Joseph’s account of how he obtained the plates, I do not believe for one minute that Martin Harris said a hat was used.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

 

There is absolutely no record of Martin Harris telling anyone that a hat was used in the translation proves, and seeing as how the article contradicts Joseph’s account of how he obtained the plates, I do not believe for one minute that Martin Harris said a hat was used.

Interesting approach. Does the Ensign article not mention use of a hat, or are you dismissing the Ensign article about the Seer Stone and translation, as well as the Gospel Topics essay on translation?

[stephenpurdy]

No, but I accept the claim that no blanket separated the scribe and Joseph.  There was no need for it, .....

 

 

Light needed to be excluded from the stone Joseph was looking at in order for him to see it.  I think it is safe to assume that the scribe needed light in order to write.  So, whether it was Joseph dictating from another room, or upstairs, or in a hat, or with a curtain, the same concept remains ... the scribe needed light and Joseph Smith did not.

 

 The curtain was appealing to some non-Mormons because it explained how the Spalding manuscript could be used. ...

 

I don't think Joseph reading from paper fits with any of the accounts.  To read from papers, Joseph would have needed light in order to read it ... and none of the accounts point to that.

 

-Stephen

[Tony Frank]

Interesting approach. Does the Ensign article not mention use of a hat, or are you dismissing the Ensign article about the Seer Stone and translation, as well as the Gospel Topics essay on translation?

 

What is your major problem?

 

The Church put out all the information from anyone on how the translation may have taken place.

 

Would it make you happy if the Church came out and said, “Oliver Cowdery, the second elder of the Church, was a liar from the beginning. It is a fact that a hat was used in the translation process, but Oliver Cowdery lied in 1831 when he claimed that Joseph Smith ‘found with the plates, from which he translated his book, two transparent stones, resembling glass, set in silver bows. That by looking through these, he was able to read in English, the reformed Egyptian characters, which were engraven on the plates.’

 

“Yes, we are now being transparent, and Oliver Cowdery, who was with Joseph Smith when John the Baptist conferred the Aaronic Priesthood on them, and who was with Joseph Smith when Peter, James, and John conferred the Melchizedek Priesthood on them, was a liar from the beginning.”

 

The fact is the Church is letting people decide for themselves what they want to believe from the varying stories about what took place during the translation process. It is beyond me how people can latch onto the “hat” story, which first appeared in a virulently anti-Mormon article, and maintain that it must be the absolute truth, and Oliver Cowdery is a liar!

 

And since you are one of the guys who appears to be latching onto the “hat” story, can you explain why neither Emma nor David Whitmer said anything about a hat before they were old and dying?

[Tacenda]

What is your major problem?

The Church put out all the information from anyone on how the translation may have taken place.

Would it make you happy if the Church came out and said, “Oliver Cowdery, the second elder of the Church, was a liar from the beginning. It is a fact that a hat was used in the translation process, but Oliver Cowdery lied in 1831 when he claimed that Joseph Smith ‘found with the plates, from which he translated his book, two transparent stones, resembling glass, set in silver bows. That by looking through these, he was able to read in English, the reformed Egyptian characters, which were engraven on the plates.’

“Yes, we are now being transparent, and Oliver Cowdery, who was with Joseph Smith when John the Baptist conferred the Aaronic Priesthood on them, and who was with Joseph Smith when Peter, James, and John conferred the Melchizedek Priesthood on them, was a liar from the beginning.”

The fact is the Church is letting people decide for themselves what they want to believe from the varying stories about what took place during the translation process. It is beyond me how people can latch onto the “hat” story, which first appeared in a virulently anti-Mormon article, and maintain that it must be the absolute truth, and Oliver Cowdery is a liar!

And since you are one of the guys who appears to be latching onto the “hat” story, can you explain why neither Emma nor David Whitmer said anything about a hat before they were old and dying?

Are you serious? Give me and Joseph a break.

[HappyJackWagon]

What is your major problem?

 

The Church put out all the information from anyone on how the translation may have taken place.

 

Would it make you happy if the Church came out and said, “Oliver Cowdery, the second elder of the Church, was a liar from the beginning. It is a fact that a hat was used in the translation process, but Oliver Cowdery lied in 1831 when he claimed that Joseph Smith ‘found with the plates, from which he translated his book, two transparent stones, resembling glass, set in silver bows. That by looking through these, he was able to read in English, the reformed Egyptian characters, which were engraven on the plates.’

 

“Yes, we are now being transparent, and Oliver Cowdery, who was with Joseph Smith when John the Baptist conferred the Aaronic Priesthood on them, and who was with Joseph Smith when Peter, James, and John conferred the Melchizedek Priesthood on them, was a liar from the beginning.”

 

The fact is the Church is letting people decide for themselves what they want to believe from the varying stories about what took place during the translation process. It is beyond me how people can latch onto the “hat” story, which first appeared in a virulently anti-Mormon article, and maintain that it must be the absolute truth, and Oliver Cowdery is a liar!

 

And since you are one of the guys who appears to be latching onto the “hat” story, can you explain why neither Emma nor David Whitmer said anything about a hat before they were old and dying?

It's funny to me that you are accusing me of calling Oliver a liar and going with the church's current "story". What's my problem anyway?

 

It never ceases to amaze me when people with a very orthodox, sustain & obey mentality are quick to dismiss the new information the church puts out in favor of old, discredited information. I've seen it with the race and priesthood essay (a lot), polygamy essays, First Vision accounts and the stone and hat translation method.

 

I understand change can be hard, but if you don't accept the historical information the church now accepts and acknowledges, then you are kind of a man without a country. To each his own. But aren't you the one who keeps lecturing through multiple threads about how members should follow the prophet more closely?

[JLHPROF]

And since you are one of the guys who appears to be latching onto the “hat” story, can you explain why neither Emma nor David Whitmer said anything about a hat before they were old and dying?

 

Because as some people seem to think, apparently whether or not a hat was used makes a difference.

 

When it makes ZERO difference.

[stephenpurdy]

Because as some people seem to think, apparently whether or not a hat was used makes a difference.

 

When it makes ZERO difference.

 

What I don't understand is why people insist that the translation was ALWAYS done in the same way.  Joseph Translated in many different locations, with many different scribes and in many different ways.  If he sometimes used a curtain, fine.  If he sometimes used a hat, fine.  If he sometimes was in a different room, fine.

 

Again, he was in many different homes and in many different situations.  It wasn't always the same.

 

-Stephen

[Kyle Kenley Kopitke]

One of the challenges of events from nearly 200 years ago is that there is no one alive today that can give first hand information.  As an Historian, I can confirm that History and actual History may be two different things.  We really have to wait until we cross over the Veil to learn how it actaully happened.

 

For me personally, I have had several Spiritual Witnesses of the Divine Nature and truthfulness of The Book of Mormon; it so Blesses my life and my family and friends.  It matters not to me how Almighty God brought it forth; I am content to know that He did.

 

Given that there are only a couple of accounts about use of the stone, I don't think that is enough Historical Weight to seal the deal of truth, but I sure respect the LDS Historical Department for saying such.    

[Walden]

As of September 2015 the church is officially teaching that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon was translated with a seer stone placed in a hat while the plates were concealed.

 

I grew up seeing images like this of the translation:

 

However, I think that we won't be seeing many new images like this. The first sign of change came a couple of years ago when the church published the article "Book of Mormon Translation" in which it is said:

However, some said that the church wasn't trying to actually educate people about the translation process, and that the essays just served to be plausible deniability. However, starting a couple months ago the church has begun to educate its members in earnest with this new narrative. Consider the following:

 

The new institute manual for the class "Foundations of the Restoration" which is now being used for classes this fall says this in chapter 3:

 

This statement appears in this month's Ensign in an article entitled "Joseph Smith in Harmony:"

 

This will appear in next month's Ensign in the article "Joseph the Seer:"

 

Visitors to the newly restored Smith home in Harmony, Pennsylvania, will see this desk representing the translation of the Book of Mormon. Note the plates wrapped up and the hat:

(Source)

 

Conclusion: The church has changed the way it tells the story of the Book of Mormon translation to be more historically accurate.

 

I predict that the next time that the church films a rendition of the translation story it will have the seer stone in a hat.

I also predict that general awareness of the translation method in the church will cause us to reflect on what that means about what "translation" meant to Joseph Smith and what that means about what the text of the Book of Mormon is, and how it differs from conventional scholarly translations.

 

What do you guys think of this change the church is making?

What do you predict will be the effect on church members?

 

Well, that only took 175 years. 

[Robert F. Smith]

The only sources for a hat being used in translating the Book of Mormon were an 1879 claim by Emma, who was 75 years old and never said anything about a hat prior to 1879 (she died in April 1879), and an 1887 claim from David Whitmer, who was 82 years old at the time and never said anything about a hat before 1887.  False, see below

 

Either a hat was actually used and, for some reason, these are the only two sources, or it was fabricated but the brethren are unwilling to say the claim was fabricated.

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

Joseph Smith's close friend, Joseph Knight Sr said in his recollections:

 

Now the way he translated was he put the urim and thummim into his hat and Darkened his Eyes then he would take a sentance and it would apper in Brite Roman Letters.  Then he would tell the writer and he would write it.  Then that would go away the next sentance would Come and so on.  But if it was not Spelt rite it would not go away till it was rite, so we see it was marvelous.  Thus was the hol translated.  BYU Studies, 17:35.  

 

David Whitmer said to J. L. Traughber, Jr., October 13, 1879:

 

With the sanction of David Whitmer, and by his authority, I now state that he does not say that Joseph Smith ever translated in his presence by aid of Urim and Thummim; but by means of one dark colored, opaque stone, called a “Seer Stone,” which was placed in the crown of a hat, into which Joseph put his face, so as to exclude the external light.  Then, a spiritual light would shine forth, and parchment would appear before Joseph, upon which was a line of characters from the plates, and under it, the translation in English; at least, so Joseph said.  Saints’ Herald, 26 (Nov 15, 1879), 341.  He likewise discussed use of the hat in “The Golden Tables,” The Chicago Times, 20 (Saturday Morning, August 7, 1875), p. 1, cols. 3-4; and much later in “Journey About Ended,” The Chicago Times, Jan 24, 1888, p. 8, col. 1.

 

William B. Smith told interviewers in 1891 that

 

The instrument caused a strain on Joseph’s eyes, and he sometimes resorted to the plan of covering his eyes with a hat to exclude the light in part.  July 4, 1891, interview, The Rod of Iron, I/3 (Feb 1924), 6-7.

 

On another occasion William B. Smith said:

 

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.   William Smith, William Smith on Mormonism (Lamoni, Iowa: Herald Steam Book and Job Office, 1883), 11-12.

 

In his interview in Tiffany’s Monthly, in 1859, page 165, Martin Harris said:

 

 I said, “Take your stone;” I had never seen it, and did not know that he had it with him.  He had it in his pocket.  He took it and placed it in his hat – the old white hat – and placed his face in his hat.  

 

When she was 55 years of age, David Whitmer’s younger sister, Elizabeth Anne Whitmer Cowdery (Oliver’s widow), presented William E. McLellan with her own eyewitness testimony from the time when she was in her mid-teens:

 

Richmond, Ray Co., Mo. Feb 15th 1870

 

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]  --Copy only available in Dr. McLellan letter to “My Dear Friends,” from Independence, Mo., Feb 1870 (RLDS Archives, P13 f191)

 

 

Edited November 7, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

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

And since you are one of the guys who appears to be latching onto the “hat” story, can you explain why neither Emma nor David Whitmer said anything about a hat before they were old and dying?

Well, Emma was only 74 when she gave that 1879 interview, and I'm 74, Tony, so maybe I'm "old and dying" right now, but the fact is that she was simply answering questions put to her by her son, Joseph Smith III.  If someone had asked her earlier, she would have said the same thing -- just as other witnesses did.  Why would she lie?  Her story is consistent with those of other eyewitnesses.

Edited November 7, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Tony Frank]

 

Joseph Smith's close friend, Joseph Knight Sr said in his recollections:

 

Now the way he translated was he put the urim and thummim into his hat and Darkened his Eyes then he would take a sentance and it would apper in Brite Roman Letters.  Then he would tell the writer and he would write it.  Then that would go away the next sentance would Come and so on.  But if it was not Spelt rite it would not go away till it was rite, so we see it was marvelous.  Thus was the hol translated.  BYU Studies, 17:35.  

 

David Whitmer said to J. L. Traughber, Jr., October 13, 1879:

 

With the sanction of David Whitmer, and by his authority, I now state that he does not say that Joseph Smith ever translated in his presence by aid of Urim and Thummim; but by means of one dark colored, opaque stone, called a “Seer Stone,” which was placed in the crown of a hat, into which Joseph put his face, so as to exclude the external light.  Then, a spiritual light would shine forth, and parchment would appear before Joseph, upon which was a line of characters from the plates, and under it, the translation in English; at least, so Joseph said.  Saints’ Herald, 26 (Nov 15, 1879), 341.  He likewise discussed use of the hat in “The Golden Tables,” The Chicago Times, 20 (Saturday Morning, August 7, 1875), p. 1, cols. 3-4; and much later in “Journey About Ended,” The Chicago Times, Jan 24, 1888, p. 8, col. 1.

 

William B. Smith told interviewers in 1891 that

 

The instrument caused a strain on Joseph’s eyes, and he sometimes resorted to the plan of covering his eyes with a hat to exclude the light in part.  July 4, 1891, interview, The Rod of Iron, I/3 (Feb 1924), 6-7.

 

On another occasion William B. Smith said:

 

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.   William Smith, William Smith on Mormonism (Lamoni, Iowa: Herald Steam Book and Job Office, 1883), 11-12.

 

In his interview in Tiffany’s Monthly, in 1859, page 165, Martin Harris said:

 

 I said, “Take your stone;” I had never seen it, and did not know that he had it with him.  He had it in his pocket.  He took it and placed it in his hat – the old white hat – and placed his face in his hat.  

 

When she was 55 years of age, David Whitmer’s younger sister, Elizabeth Anne Whitmer Cowdery (Oliver’s widow), presented William E. McLellan with her own eyewitness testimony from the time when she was in her mid-teens:

 

Richmond, Ray Co., Mo. Feb 15th 1870

 

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]  --Copy only available in Dr. McLellan letter to “My Dear Friends,” from Independence, Mo., Feb 1870 (RLDS Archives, P13 f191)

 

 

 

 

After someone becomes a member of the Church, they will either endure to the end as a saint of the Holy One of Israel, or they will be deceived by Satan and end up as a former member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

 

Apparently, there was a story going around that a hat was used in the translation, but it was only among those who were deceived by Satan. Any that were actually present during the translation could either go along with the story or risk having a falling out with their new friends outside the Church.

[Tony Frank]

Well, Emma was only 74 when she gave that 1879 interview, and I'm 74, Tony, so maybe I'm "old and dying" right now, but the fact is that she was simply answering questions put to her by her son, Joseph Smith III.  If someone had asked her earlier, she would have said the same thing -- just as other witnesses did.  Why would she lie?  Her story is consistent with those of other eyewitnesses.

 

Emma made the "hat" comment in 1879, and she died in April 1879, which means she died within four months of her comment. So, if you are 74 and you are going to die within the next four months, then yes, you are "old and dying."

 

As for the fact that she "was simply answering questions put to her by her son, Joseph Smith III," Emma also said Joseph did not have any other wives in that interview. Any chance she had no idea what she was talking about?

Edited November 9, 2015 by Tony Frank

[Calm]

Joseph Knight Sr. stayedfaithful until he died on the way west:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1989/01/the-knight-family-ever-faithful-to-the-prophet?lang=eng

So was he also deceived by Satan?

Edited November 9, 2015 by Calm

[Calm]

My dad was 84 when he died and 4 days before his death he most certainly was not dying, he was driving all day after setting up the selling their home they had just moved from the month before. Plus every day prior to that he was out buying stuff for their new place, hitting the local library for DVDs, the local senior center checking out the wood shop and signing up for a membership at the local gym plus tons of other stuff. He could never sit still for long. He then got a stomach bug, waited too long to go to the hospital or doctor because it was Sunday, got dehydrated, went into a coma and died 3 days later. He had not spent the previous year dying.

Your comment is completely uninformed about what happens to seniors.

[Robert F. Smith]

Emma made the "hat" comment in 1879, and she died in April 1879, which means she died within four months of her comment. So, if you are 74 and you are going to die within the next four months, then yes, you are "old and dying."

An utterly silly comment.  Especially among Mormons, who often live well beyond their mid-seventies.  I realize that young folk often think of people my age as over the hill, but comments at that age are not to be so easily disregarded.  Pres. Hinckley continued to actively direct the LDS Church to age 97, and my own mother was as sharp as a tack until age 94.  By your prejudicial measure that should not be possible.

 

As for the fact that she "was simply answering questions put to her by her son, Joseph Smith III," Emma also said Joseph did not have any other wives in that interview. Any chance she had no idea what she was talking about?

You miss the point:  She had no reason to lie on the hat issue.  She had every reason to lie on the matter of polygamy.

 

Historians do not only read one comment and reach a conclusion.  They weigh all the comments and make judgments.  That is why the RLDS Church History Commissioner, Richard Howard, carefully researched the matter of polygamy and published the view which is now official within that Church -- that polygamy was preached and practiced by Joseph Smith Jr himself.  That was not a conclusion easily reached, but the evidence forced that conclusion.  Just as a reasonable assessment of the evidence indicates that the stone-in-the-hat method of translation was normative.

Edited November 10, 2015 by Robert F. Smith