"Lying for the Lord"

[Tacenda]

6 hours ago, Sara H said:

When I learned that Joseph hid his head in a hat while translating the Book of Mormon, I was in my late thirties. To be very honest, when I learned of this, I felt very angry and deceived. When I imagined Joseph interpreting the Book of Mormon, I had the image on the left in mind. However, it appears that the image to the right is a more accurate representation. Why not simply notify people of the church's true history rather than withholding this information?

 

When I learned that Joseph had many wives in my forties, that led me down the rabbit hole. I had many on this board think it was crazy that I didn't know that, but I know that many members hadn't either. Now with the age of the internet the church needed to be more upfront with the church's actual narrative and proceeded to  release the Gospel Topic Essays and The Saints books.  

Edited May 19, 2023 by Tacenda

[Hamilton Porter]

6 hours ago, Sara H said:

Do you think Joseph Fielding Smith suppressed the 1832 vision account?

Did you just change the subject?

[Sara H]

Just now, Hamilton Porter said:

Did you just change the subject?

No. Subject is lying for the lord. 

[Hamilton Porter]

5 hours ago, Sara H said:

When I learned that Joseph hid his head in a hat while translating the Book of Mormon, I was in my late thirties. To be very honest, when I learned of this, I felt very angry and deceived. When I imagined Joseph interpreting the Book of Mormon, I had the image on the left in mind. However, it appears that the image to the right is a more accurate representation. Why not simply notify people of the church's true history rather than withholding this information?

First of all, there was disagreement among church leaders about which translation method he used.

I first learned of the rock in hat when I was 18 reading Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited: The Evidence for Ancient Origins. It felt weird, but if something supernatural was going on, it should be weird. My parents were from a place where black magic wasn't uncommon.

I think white people are stupid and provincial sometimes, and that can cause problems.

[Benjamin McGuire]

43 minutes ago, Sara H said:

Do you think Joseph Fielding Smith suppressed the 1832 vision account? I copied the following article, would love your opinion. 

Probably. Generally, things that contested what was viewed as the traditional (and true) version of the past were often put away. This was especially true in the period from 1910 to 1970 or so - in the aftermath of ending polygamy (the biggest issue raised by splinter groups). There are, I think, a lot of reasons why they protected access to the archives. The archives were really opened up only after the LDS Church began to employ professional historians to work through the collected material. The use of professional historians didn't start until 1946 - and has had its ups and downs since then. You can read about the history of Mormon historians in this volume. The idea of presenting history in a more formal way is still an ongoing work. Remember that President Russell M. Nelson was born in 1924.

15 minutes ago, Sara H said:

When I learned that Joseph hid his head in a hat while translating the Book of Mormon, I was in my late thirties. To be very honest, when I learned of this, I felt very angry and deceived. When I imagined Joseph interpreting the Book of Mormon, I had the image on the left in mind. However, it appears that the image to the right is a more accurate representation. Why not simply notify people of the church's true history rather than withholding this information?

This is a long a complicated discussion. There are several problems here - so I will enumerate a few of them (not in any particular order, and not a full list of the issues I see them) -

1: The leaders of the LDS Church are not professional historians or theologians. This complicates questions about history and theology.

2: There is a problem with terminology/labels in the early LDS Church. Consider for a moment the idea of a seer stone. Sometime in late 1832, William Phelps acquired a copy of a book titled Jahn's Biblical Archaeology (Thomas Upham's translation - I believe that Phelps had the second edition published in 1827). He read about the Urim and Thummim in that book, and decided that the seer stones that Joseph Smith used were the same as the Urim and Thummim described in the book. He publishes his comparison between the two in early 1833, and the idea takes off. Prior to Phelp's publication, whenever we read of the the Nephite Interpreters, we know that we are referring to the object that came with the plates. Whenever we read about seer stones, we know that we are talking about Joseph's seer stone that he also used. After Phelp's publication, it all gets lumped together, and whenever we read about the Urim and Thummim, it can mean either a seer stone, the Nephite interpreter, or a combination of them together. That this language shift happens very quickly (less than a year) means that we don't have a clear understanding of how early LDS members understood the distinctions that we make (if they did at all). It also means that by the mid to late 19th century, nearly all of the members of the Church had no experience with a distinction between the seer stone and the Nephite interpreter. So when (near the end of his life), Martin Harris describes the use of the seer stone in the hat, many members of the Church didn't believe him. One of the most vocal members of the Church in this disbelief was Joseph Fielding Smith. In responding to Martin Harris (who would have been an eye witness), Joseph Fielding Smith wrote this in his Doctrines of Salvation:

Quote

While the statement has been made by some writers that the Prophet Joseph Smith used a seer stone part of the time in his translating of the record, and information points to the fact that he did have in his possession such a stone, yet there is no authentic statement in the history of the Church which states that the use of such a stone was made in that translation. The information is all hearsay, and personally, I do not believe that this stone was used for this purpose. The reason I give for this conclusion is found in the statement of the Lord to the Brother of Jared as recorded in Ether 3:22–24. These stones, the Urim and Thummim which were given to the Brother of Jared, were preserved for this very purpose of translating the record, both of the Jaredites and the Nephites. Then again the Prophet was impressed by Moroni with the fact that these stones were given for that very purpose. It hardly seems reasonable to suppose that the Prophet would substitute something evidently inferior under these circumstances. It may have been so, but it is so easy for a story of this kind to be circulated due to the fact that the Prophet did possess a seer stone, which he may have used for some other purposes.

You can see the problem here given the history I have provided. Joseph Fielding Smith never recognized that the seer stone that Joseph used was ever identified as a Urim and Thummim - only the Nephite interpreters. And Joseph Fielding Smith really pushed back on the idea that Joseph Smith ever used a seer stone to translate the Book of Mormon - despite the claims that he did use it (especially the claims made by Martin Harris). Eventually, historians were allowed access to the collected material kept by the Church, and they put together a more complete understanding of what was going on historically - but by the time this happens, the LDS Church already has a correlated version in conflict with what we now recognize as the historical reality.

3: The idea of using a seer stone (or a peep stone) was considered somewhat of a fringe idea in the early 1800s - especially in the United States, with its puritan background. There were other groups for whom this was not such a big deal (included among many of the early European converts). But the discussion of the seer stone was a challenge for many early members (probably in a similar way that it is for you). For context, you might consider, for example, Eilley Bowers, who used her seer stone (or so she claimed) to locate silver in the earth, and become one of the richest women in the United States for a time. But Phelps was interested in placing the production of the Book of Mormon into a more biblical context. It is this desire that led Phelps to connect the interpreters and seer stones to the Urim and Thummim. This same desire to place the historical events into a context like this leads to Joseph Fielding Smith claiming that the seer stone was never used for translation. And Joseph Fielding Smith's beliefs were given an authoritative boost when he became the prophet of the Church. So, while many, if not most, members of the Church would have had some awareness of the use of seer stones in the production of the Book of Mormon in the first decades of Mormonism, that entire narrative was later replaced - and just as importantly, there were no more first hand witnesses left to discuss this. While the LDS Church has recognized the use of the seer stone in the translation of the Book of Mormon, they haven't been (and I doubt that they will) aggressively push that narrative. It took maybe five decades or so to purge the belief in seer stones out, I am not sure that we will ever see it come back into broad awareness.

4: When Joseph Smith described the process of translating the Book of Mormon, he does so almost exclusively by quoting the Book of Mormon - Omni verse 20: "And it came to pass in the days of Mosiah, there was a large stone brought unto him with engravings on it; and he did interpret the engravings by the gift and power of God." Joseph Smith consistently states that he translated the Book of Mormon "by the gift and power of God." He begins using this phrase in 1829 - almost immediately after he translates that passage in Omni. This has also complicated the problem of this issue for us. We would like more definitive statements from Joseph Smith - but one doesn't exist.

5: While we have huge digital archives that we can search, the leaders of the LDS Church for most of the 20th century did not. They relied far more on traditional beliefs than they did on historical data. And when there were things in the historical record that might conflict with the traditional beliefs - especially when they could find things in the historical record that supported their beliefs - they tended to follow the traditional beliefs.

I have discussed these issues with many people over the years - and there is a range of beliefs and responses. I would say this - faith is a challenge. We want to have all of the information - we want all of the details. We do not like mystery or ambiguity. There is a certain necessity though in coming to terms with ambiguity in our belief. Elder Bruce Hafen wrote a book about this titled The Believing Heart. It is one that has been helpful to me in explaining this over the years. Your mileage may vary - but he discusses the idea that faith moves through distinct levels as we age and mature - and he also describes the way in which we exit the growth of faith. Here is his description of the first stage:

Quote

Early in life, most of us think in terms of black or white—there is very little gray in either the intellectual or the spiritual dimension of our perspective. Thus, most of the freshmen at Brigham Young University and Ricks College have a childlike optimism and loyalty that makes them wonderfully teachable and pleasant. It is typical of these young men and women to trust their teachers, to believe what they read, and to respond with boundless enthusiasm to invitations for Church service. ... As time goes on, however, experience often introduces a new dimension to a student's perspective. In general, I would characterize this new dimension as a growing awareness that there is something of a gap between the real and the ideal, between what is and what ought to be.

This gap has been described elsewhere: "[I]magine two circles, one inside the other. The inner boundary is the real, or what is. The outer boundary is the ideal, or what ought to be. We stand at the inner boundary, reaching out, trying to pull reality closer to the lofty ideals to which we have committed ourselves." We become "aware
of the distance between these two boundaries when we realize that some things about ourselves are not what we wish they were, or what they ought to be. As that realization grows, so can our level of frustration."

Our experience with Church-owned institutions can make us especially vulnerable to the disillusionment that sometimes follows our awareness of this gap—in part because our "ideal" expectations may be unusually high. A BYU student, for example, may find it very frustrating to do battle with the great red tape machines that seem to control the processes of admission, registering for classes, or transferring credits from another college. She may remain unknown and nameless to her student ward bishop for weeks or even months, or she may brush up against a faculty member whose Church commitments are less visible than she had expected them to be.

At a more personal, and therefore more spiritual, level, perhaps an important prayer goes too long unanswered; or one suffers a devastating setback with grades, with good health, or with the prospects for marriage. And in such times of great need, the heavens may seem closed. One may also become increasingly conscious of others' imperfections, including those of parents, other Church members, or a Church leader. When we become acquainted at an adult level with those who have been our heroes, we naturally begin to see their human limitations. LDS students may also find themselves struggling to clarify the previously unarticulated assumptions of their personal worldview, as they first confront such controversial topics as feminism or differing political views among Church members.

I am not going to bore you with more of it (and you really don't need a lecture). I think that often the real risk, in terms of faith, is believing far too much rather than far too little. One way to describe this that might make my perspective a little more understandable is this - I am not sure that it is more difficult to believe that 1) an angel appeared to Joseph Smith, led him to the gold plates, which Joseph then translated using the Nephite Interpreters than it is to believe that 2) an angel appeared to Joseph Smith, led him to the gold plates, which Joseph then translated using a seer stone. I don't think that the distinction between these two is all that relevant. We all make choices to believe (or not) - and if our choices about belief are contingent on our expectations, we are inevitably going to find disillusionment and a subsequent loss of faith. The purpose of the gospel isn't to make us fit some particular stereotype. It is to give us confidence (and experience) so that we don't stand with Laman and Lemuel and say that "the Lord maketh no such thing known unto us (1 Ne. 15:9)." As long as we rely on the testimonies of others, we will be stuck with this problem of expectations.

As far as your question goes - "Why not simply notify people of the church's true history rather than withholding this information?" I think that the Church's biggest problem is that the "true history" has been contested. And the willingness of individuals (both leaders and members of the Church) to place their expectations over what we might call historical accuracy continues to propagate the contest between these different historical narratives.

[pogi]

15 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

First of all, there was disagreement among church leaders about which translation method he used.

I could only assume that the disagreement arose in the first place because the history was suppressed in favor of a different narrative - the one we all grew up with.   Clearly, Joseph Smith wasn't trying to hide the fact that he used the seer stone.  Those who witnessed it weren't trying to suppress or hide it.  The only way there could be later disagreement is if that information was suppressed somewhere down the line and replaced with what was viewed as a more palatable narrative - leading to predictable confusion and disagreement among later leaders. 

 

 

[Hamilton Porter]

17 minutes ago, pogi said:

I could only assume that the disagreement arose in the first place because the history was suppressed in favor of a different narrative - the one we all grew up with.   Clearly, Joseph Smith wasn't trying to hide the fact that he used the seer stone.  Those who witnessed it weren't trying to suppress or hide it.  The only way there could be later disagreement is if that information was suppressed somewhere down the line and replaced with what was viewed as a more palatable narrative - leading to predictable confusion and disagreement among later leaders. 

I think some of the earliest accounts were more ambiguous.

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Sara H said:

When I learned that Joseph hid his head in a hat while translating the Book of Mormon, I was in my late thirties. To be very honest, when I learned of this, I felt very angry and deceived. When I imagined Joseph interpreting the Book of Mormon, I had the image on the left in mind. However, it appears that the image to the right is a more accurate representation. Why not simply notify people of the church's true history rather than withholding this information?

 

So instead of admitting you were wrong in your conclusion about the Hyrum Smith Book of Mormon and Elder Holland was not lying, you completely shift gears to something else both for me and Ben.

Do you enjoy playing Whack A Mole?  I don’t.  I used to do this to my husband when it came to politics,  neither of us felt that great by the end of those conversations.  I have since found that recognizing when my information has been wrong takes nothing away from the validity or lack thereof of my other criticisms and discussions are not only more fruitful when both of us are willing to admit when we have erred or been unaware of info, but they have become much more interesting as well.

Edited May 19, 2023 by Calm

[Pyreaux]

8 hours ago, Sara H said:

When I learned that Joseph hid his head in a hat while translating the Book of Mormon, I was in my late thirties. To be very honest, when I learned of this, I felt very angry and deceived. When I imagined Joseph interpreting the Book of Mormon, I had the image on the left in mind. However, it appears that the image to the right is a more accurate representation. Why not simply notify people of the church's true history rather than withholding this information?

How do you know? Joseph and Oliver were the only two to try translating, and don't go into detail. Just David Whitmer who never scribed, how does he know? He never explains his occasion or source, so it's at best secondhand information. There are many variant and seemingly contradicting accounts, even about how a hat was used. Joseph’s brother William Smith claims that Joseph used the Urim and Thummim attached to the breastplate by a rod that held the seer stones set in the rims of a bow before his eyes, however “The instrument caused a strain on Joseph’s eyes, and he sometimes resorted to covering his eyes with a hat to exclude the light in part” (Smith, Rod of Iron 1, 3 [February 1924]: 7). Exclude the light, from the room or the Urim and Thummim?

As always, members stumble upon "the truth" someone else "researched" (cherry picked) for them and the fatal mistake of never researching the matter for themselves. Or you'd know the accounts vary. The conflicting accounts completely justifies the "artistic liberties" an artist might take. The truth, I think is one partly that there wasn't just one method, rather some progression of methods. Urim and Thummim is set in a breastplate, he translates some, but it's built for huge person and it's too awkward, he removes the stones and puts them in a hat, as they seem clairvoyant up to 5'. The Urim and Thummim maybe gets confiscated, so he then uses a weaker the Seer Stone, and eventually before the end he didn't need any stone to translate, so exactly like the first painting depicts.

Edited May 19, 2023 by Pyreaux

[Tacenda]

On 4/15/2023 at 9:41 PM, InCognitus said:

I've seen the "lying for the Lord" accusation against Latter-day Saints often in anti-Mormon literature. It was used as part of a scheme to facilitate the perpetuation of lies against the church.  A perfect example of this tactic is found in the book, Mormonism, Mama, and Me, by Thelma Geer (1983).  She says that "Mormon priesthood bearers were taught to guard their secret doctrines, even by lying if necessary" (page 40), and she has other similar statements throughout the book.  Using the "secret doctrine" approach basically allows her to get away with saying anything at all about "Mormonism" (no matter how false it may be).  

The scheme works like this:  If you are a "Mormon", and haven't heard of these doctrines before, then it's because you aren't "high enough up" in the church to have learned about them (because they are "hidden doctrines").  If you are a "Mormon" who has heard of these anti-Mormon claims before and you say that they are all "lies", then of course it's either because: 1) You're not "high enough up" and don't know any better, or 2) You DO know about them, but you "were taught to guard [your] secret doctrines, even by lying if necessary".  The non-LDS person is conveniently left in a position where they supposedly cannot trust anything that an LDS member tells them about their church because the members are either lying about (hiding, covering up) their doctrine, or they aren't "high enough up" to know any better.

In a different context I also recall that Simon Southerton laid this "lying for the Lord" charge against Hugh Nibley regarding the Book of Abraham.

That was the very first anti Mormon book I'd ever seen, "Mormonism, Mama and Me". I was at the library and picked up the book, I swear it was pink or something, and I read the first few pages and once I'd read something not normal, it took me to having an out of body experience feeling and I slapped that thing shut and quickly put it on the shelf, haha, sounds like the "shelf" metaphor. 

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I swear it was pink or something

I just looked it up.  Peptobismal pink.  Yech!

 

Edited May 19, 2023 by Calm

[Tacenda]

Just now, Calm said:

I just looked it up.  Peptobismal pink.  Yeah!

On another pink observation I just made last night…don’t wear hot pink if you are usually fair skinned and have a sunburn.  The colors clash and make the sunburn look weird.

Wow, surprised I had a memory that was actually right, lol. Glad you got some sun, but not glad you got a burn. If this was you dear lady. 

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Wow, surprised I had a memory that was actually right, lol. Glad you got some sun, but not glad you got a burn. If this was you dear lady. 

Lol, I don’t wear pink.  It was a poor woman at my grandkids’ band concerts last night.  She looked like she would normally be dressed impeccably, it was a classy outfit…except that burn threw the whole image askew.

I sunburn from standing too near Christmas lights and always have since I hit teens, so I am perpetually very fair skinned, vampire tones at times even.  Never tried suntanning and started covering when in the sun for longer than it takes to get to the car once I figured out my tendency to burn.

It was a big downer in my youth, but now all my siblings have skin cancer and mine is getting raves from the dermatologist, I am gloating.

Edited May 19, 2023 by Calm

[Sara H]

2 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

First of all, there was disagreement among church leaders about which translation method he used.

I first learned of the rock in hat when I was 18 reading Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited: The Evidence for Ancient Origins. It felt weird, but if something supernatural was going on, it should be weird. My parents were from a place where black magic wasn't uncommon.

I think white people are stupid and provincial sometimes, and that can cause problems.

Because we really need to know how the words in the Book of Mormon were put down. Joseph didn't really translate anything if he used a stone in a hat. He did nothing but read English words off a rock. I've been told all my life that he turned the language on the gold plates into English, but it looks like he didn't. 

 

 Was there someone on a stone in heaven who could talk to the stone Joseph used? Did they use stonemail to send the message? 

 

[InCognitus]

11 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

That was the very first anti Mormon book I'd ever seen, "Mormonism, Mama and Me". I was at the library and picked up the book, I swear it was pink or something, and I read the first few pages and once I'd read something not normal, it took me to having an out of body experience feeling and I slapped that thing shut and quickly put it on the shelf, haha, sounds like the "shelf" metaphor. 

Depends on which edition.  Some are Pepto-Bismol pink (and you'll need it after reading the book), some have a red cover (like mine, I have the 4th edition, 1984 published by Calvary Mission Press), and some editions had a white cover.  

Thelma Geer had at least one unique approach (the "secret" doctrines thing is not unique, of course).  She said she would give her 1830 Book of Mormon "to the first Mormon able to prove that any Mormon doctrine discussed [in her book] has not been taught by Mormon authorities."  Of course something like this is impossible to prove, because "Mormon authorities" by the definition she puts forth in her book could be any Mormon anywhere who might have said some strange, off the wall thing.   

As an example, on page 25 of her book, she writes:  "We all believed that Papa could be released to paradise after he had served at least a two-year prison term.  This is, according to some local Mormon authorities, the very minimum penal punishment the dead may expect to receive." (emphasis added)   Really, a "two-year prison term"!    First of all, this statement is totally ridiculous, and is not LDS doctrine (of course she wants us to see how ridiculous the statement is).   And second, a "local Mormon authority" could be anyone, even an imagined one.  It's impossible to prove that this "has not been taught by Mormon authorities" as she defines it.

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, Sara H said:

I've been told all my life that he turned the language on the gold plates into English, but it looks like he didn't. 

How did you imagine he did that?  Serious question.

[InCognitus]

2 minutes ago, Sara H said:

Joseph didn't really translate anything if he used a stone in a hat. He did nothing but read English words off a rock. I've been told all my life that he turned the language on the gold plates into English, but it looks like he didn't. 

Ah, but he did.  The 1828 Webster's Dictionary: Translate

Quote

TRANSLA'TE, verb transitive [Latin translatus, from transfero; trans, over, and fero, to bear.]

1. To bear, carry or remove from one place to another. It is applied to the removal of a bishop from one see to another.

The bishop of Rochester, when the king would have translated him to a better bishoprick, refused.

2. To remove or convey to heaven, as a human being, without death.

By faith Enoch was translated, that he should not see

death. Hebrews 11:15.

3. To transfer; to convey from one to another. 2 Samuel 3:10.

4. To cause to remove from one part of the body to another; as, to translate a disease.

5. To change.

Happy is your grace,

That can translate the stubbornness of fortune

Into so quiet and so sweet a style.

6. To interpret; to render into another language; to express the sense of one language in the words of another. The Old Testament was translated into the Greek language more than two hundred years before Christ. The Scriptures are now translated into most of the languages of Europe and Asia.

7. To explain.

As you can see, the meaning of "translate" you are using is way down the usage list in the 1828 dictionary.  The first four definitions carry a similar meaning as our word "transfer".   Joseph Smith was the means by which the text was given. 

[Pyreaux]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

How did you imagine he did that?  Serious question.

Her chosen variant account of a stone in the hat, but no plates in the hat, and/or maybe even 5' away; Anti-Mormons like to repeatably ask various versions, but not think, of what use the golden plates served. Why it couldn't stay buried or why they exist at all, if the stone is the source. Obviously, whatever text the stone is quoting from, must be quoting from something. The object must need to exist and be proximity of 5' or so away.

Edited May 19, 2023 by Pyreaux

[Sara H]

24 minutes ago, Calm said:

How did you imagine he did that?  Serious question.

My husband is able to communicate well in Mandarin and frequently sends me images of the restaurants he visits in China while he is there. Sometimes he'll email me a photo of a menu or a billboard, and he'll translate the words from the foreign language into English so that I can understand what they say. This is the identical concept that we are discussing with Joseph putting a stone in a hat in order to "translate" the Book of Mormon. There is no difference between the two. When it comes to my situation, my husband is the one who translates the words and sends them to me. Even if I hid my phone in a hat, put my face in the hat, and then read the words out loud, I would not be considered to have translated anything; my spouse would still be the one who converted the Mandarin into English. The same thing may be said about Joseph and his hat. Joseph was only reading the words out loud; the actual translation was done by whoever had made them appear on the rock in the first place. The question that needs to be answered is who it was that inscribed the phrases on the rock for Joseph, much like how my husband inscribes text messages on my phone. 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Sara H said:

My husband is able to communicate well in Mandarin and frequently sends me images of the restaurants he visits in China while he is there. Sometimes he'll email me a photo of a menu or a billboard, and he'll translate the words from the foreign language into English so that I can understand what they say. This is the identical concept that we are discussing with Joseph putting a stone in a hat in order to "translate" the Book of Mormon. There is no difference between the two. When it comes to my situation, my husband is the one who translates the words and sends them to me. Even if I hid my phone in a hat, put my face in the hat, and then read the words out loud, I would not be considered to have translated anything; my spouse would still be the one who converted the Mandarin into English. The same thing may be said about Joseph and his hat. Joseph was only reading the words out loud; the actual translation was done by whoever had made them appear on the rock in the first place. The question that needs to be answered is who it was that inscribed the phrases on the rock for Joseph, much like how my husband inscribes text messages on my phone. 

Just to be clear, I didn’t intend to ask how you currently think that Joseph translated if one assumes he did, but how in the past before you learned of the seer stones. Your previous description worked fine for me, the “stonemail” underlined what you were thinking of. 
👍

How you did think of him doing it before you knew of the seer stones?  What was so different from your current description?

We agree that in all narratives, Joseph didn’t know reformed Egyptian, correct?  We are all starting from that place (assuming the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be for the sake of the discussion and that Joseph somehow got the English version of the text that was on the plates).

It would help understand why his using the stone is so problematic if I understand how you once thought it was done. 
 

as a side note, the seer stone wasn’t an issue for me because I pretty much imagined the same thing happened, just with the Nephite interpreters, so it wasn’t a huge shift of perspective for me. I am trying to understand why it is for those who were thrown or shocked by learning about the seer stone. 

Edited May 19, 2023 by Calm

[InCognitus]

14 minutes ago, Sara H said:

My husband is able to communicate well in Mandarin and frequently sends me images of the restaurants he visits in China while he is there. Sometimes he'll email me a photo of a menu or a billboard, and he'll translate the words from the foreign language into English so that I can understand what they say. This is the identical concept that we are discussing with Joseph putting a stone in a hat in order to "translate" the Book of Mormon. There is no difference between the two. When it comes to my situation, my husband is the one who translates the words and sends them to me. Even if I hid my phone in a hat, put my face in the hat, and then read the words out loud, I would not be considered to have translated anything; my spouse would still be the one who converted the Mandarin into English. The same thing may be said about Joseph and his hat. Joseph was only reading the words out loud; the actual translation was done by whoever had made them appear on the rock in the first place. The question that needs to be answered is who it was that inscribed the phrases on the rock for Joseph, much like how my husband inscribes text messages on my phone. 

See my post in response to this usage of the word "translate", above.  There is a difference in the way Joseph Smith used the term in this context (so it is not an identical concept).

For example, see the introduction to Section 7 of the Doctrine and Covenants (the link is to the 1833 Book of Commandments, chapter 6, which is the same as our current Doctrine and Covenants section 7):

Quote

1 A Revelation given to Joseph and Oliver [Cowdery] , in Harmony , Pennsylvania, April, 1829, when they desired to know whether John, the beloved disciple, tarried on earth. Translated from parchment, written and hid up by himself.

 Joseph Smith didn't have that physical "parchment", but he was able to "translate" it by revelation.

[Benjamin McGuire]

6 hours ago, Sara H said:

Because we really need to know how the words in the Book of Mormon were put down. Joseph didn't really translate anything if he used a stone in a hat.

You might find this interesting. It doesn't try to answer the question of how the words were put down - but I do try to explain why it matters.

[Sara H]

8 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

You might find this interesting. It doesn't try to answer the question of how the words were put down - but I do try to explain why it matters.

Thank you for providing a link to your article; I took a quick glance at it, and I plan to read it in its entirety tonight; I'm sure I'll have some questions after doing so. But before I go into it, I have a few questions that have been on my mind ever since I found out that Joseph utilised a rock that had what seemed like a screen on it. Who exactly was it that was able to make the rock glow; was it Heavenly Father or another creature that possessed the power of magic? Why didn't the entity who has the power to make the rock glow increase the lumen output so that Joseph wouldn't have to put the rock in a hat in order to read it? Approximately 900 lumens are produced by my Samsung S23. Even with the output turned down to a quarter, I am able to see the screen in the sunlight. If Joseph needed to put the rock under a hat in order to block out all of the light surrounding him in order to read the screen on the rock, then the screen on the rock had to have been approximately 100 lumens bright. The most apparent question to ask is why a rock was used in the first place. Joseph received several visits from more than twenty distinct spirits, all with the purpose of assisting him in restoring the gospel and establishing it on earth. Why didn't one of these spirits read the inscriptions that were on the plates to him? That most certainly would have been the simplest way to translate the gold plates into another language. 

[Benjamin McGuire]

2 hours ago, Sara H said:

I have a few questions that have been on my mind ever since I found out that Joseph utilised a rock that had what seemed like a screen on it.

I don't have any answers for you. I don't have any personal experience with it - and I don't think that we have sufficiently accurate accounts to work with to make any sort of inferences about what really happened.

[Rain]

3 hours ago, Sara H said:

Thank you for providing a link to your article; I took a quick glance at it, and I plan to read it in its entirety tonight; I'm sure I'll have some questions after doing so. But before I go into it, I have a few questions that have been on my mind ever since I found out that Joseph utilised a rock that had what seemed like a screen on it. Who exactly was it that was able to make the rock glow; was it Heavenly Father or another creature that possessed the power of magic? Why didn't the entity who has the power to make the rock glow increase the lumen output so that Joseph wouldn't have to put the rock in a hat in order to read it? Approximately 900 lumens are produced by my Samsung S23. Even with the output turned down to a quarter, I am able to see the screen in the sunlight. If Joseph needed to put the rock under a hat in order to block out all of the light surrounding him in order to read the screen on the rock, then the screen on the rock had to have been approximately 100 lumens bright. The most apparent question to ask is why a rock was used in the first place. Joseph received several visits from more than twenty distinct spirits, all with the purpose of assisting him in restoring the gospel and establishing it on earth. Why didn't one of these spirits read the inscriptions that were on the plates to him? That most certainly would have been the simplest way to translate the gold plates into another language. 

Are these actual questions or rhetorical?