There Was No "Stone in Joseph's Hat Translation"

[BCSpace]

I found this interesting. A synopsis of sorts starts at 35:00.

While the Church has acknowledged these accounts, I would hate to hang my disbelief (pun intended) on this old trope. I personally never thought the Church was hiding anything as from time to time they would mention the seer stone. But it seems they really had no reason to emphasize it because the more likely to be accurate and consistent translation accounts were as you were always taught in primary and Sunday School.

 

[The Nehor]

I have watched two videos created by these yahoos. I am just going to assume they have no idea what they are talking about yet again. I have no idea whether this lack of accuracy comes from malice, stupidity, ignorance, or some mixture.

[webbles]

It sounds like the book is working on the assumption that "Urim and Thummim" only refer to the interpreters.  It also is probably based on Neville's earlier book A Man that Can Translate: Joseph Smith and the Nephite Interpreters

[BCSpace]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I have watched two videos created by these yahoos. I am just going to assume they have no idea what they are talking about yet again. I have no idea whether this lack of accuracy comes from malice, stupidity, ignorance, or some mixture.

Logical fallacies such as well-poisoning won't make your case. Feel free to be more specific.

[JLHPROF]

It's another new trend. I ran into a guy on TikTok pushing these ideas and when I pushed back he blocked me.

It's related to the Stoddard's and their Joseph Smith foundation who'd rather see a return to the sanitzed history of the 50s & 60s (& think the Bushman "progmo's" are out to destroy testimonies).

Not quite as bad as the decanonize D&C 132 crowd that think Joseph was a monogamist but still more interested in faith promotion than actual history.

Edited January 12, 2025 by JLHPROF

[Robert F. Smith]

58 minutes ago, BCSpace said:

Logical fallacies such as well-poisoning won't make your case. Feel free to be more specific.

The meaning of Nehor in Hebrew is "snort," and he does honor his name.  

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, BCSpace said:

Logical fallacies such as well-poisoning won't make your case. Feel free to be more specific.

That fallacy is about presenting irrelevant information to discredit a source. Like these people are serial jaywalkers or they drown puppies. Saying they aren’t credible because they are regularly wrong doesn’t fall under this or any other ad hominem fallacy.

”This person X said Y.”
”Person X regularly lies.”
”Irrelevant!!!!!”

Uh-huh.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

It's another new trend. I ran into a guy on TikTok pushing these ideas and when I pushed back he blocked me.

It's related to the Stoddard's and their Joseph Smith foundation who'd rather see a return to the sanitzed history of the 50s & 60s (& Bushman is out to destroy testimonies).

Not quite as bad as the decanonize D&C 132 crowd that think Joseph was a monogamist but still more interested in faith promotion than actual history.

There is a faction of former RLDS members who fully reject both seerstone and polygamy.

However, the historical evidence for use of the seerstone by Joseph Smith is overwhelming:  See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IV29WuAPs_8 @6:38.  And the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints argues strongly that the seerstone was in fact used by Joseph, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/book-of-mormon-translation?lang=eng .

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

It's another new trend. I ran into a guy on TikTok pushing these ideas and when I pushed back he blocked me.

It's related to the Stoddard's and their Joseph Smith foundation who'd rather see a return to the sanitzed history of the 50s & 60s (& think the Bushman "progmo's" are out to destroy testimonies).

Not quite as bad as the decanonize D&C 132 crowd that think Joseph was a monogamist but still more interested in faith promotion than actual history.

Good to see you back.  I missed you.   

[The Nehor]

I watched the first minute. So the hypothesis is that people walked in and Joseph threw his hat on top of the interpreters and the plates so the viewer misunderstood.

They must really be hurting for exciting new content.

[Mfbnew]

Another "history problem"?

I don't care if he was standing on his head with his hat on, or hanging by his toes or whatever!

Look at what he PRODUCED.  

Go ahead and duplicate it with the full theology he produced, and the results he produced for the good of humanity.  Adam and Eve and opposition in all things resulting in free choice for humanity.   God has a body- AND we can become like Him.  In Gethsemane the atonement occurred not on the cross.  The At-one-ment is not about the Justice god sending a check to the Mercy god, but the assurance that whatever trial we go through, Christ is there with us- because he has been through more, and is able to be our Comforter. Jesus visited various other of God's children, as he said he would.  Spirit is actually matter, purified.  Matter itself, instead of being filth as the Greeks believed, becomes glorified.  God "went down" and found matter and by science that we do not yet understand, created worlds without end.   No Big Bang needed.   Temple blessings.  Eternal marriage.  Polygamy was blessed under the right circumstances, just as it was in the Old Testament.   Work for the dead- those who never heard of Christ will be able to be fully a part of the Plan of Salvation regardless of when they lived.  Virtual Universalism.  

And that's just the start of it.

But NO!!  He never put his head into a hat!!!   It's all worthless- he was a fake!

Brilliant!

I wasn't there and neither was anyone alive today- it's all hearsay.

Pragmatically speaking, we need to look at the results Joseph produced, not some 200 year old hearsay.

We could just make up stuff about George Washington and how far he threw that silver dollar- it would have about the same amount of relevance today.  Who cares?

Was Mozart a drunk?

Well I guess that means his music was junk.  That explains why his music is so terrible!

And please don't respond that Mozart was NOT a drunk.   All it will show is that you are still buying the nonsense that one's personal habits have something to do with their intelligence.

Edited January 13, 2025 by Mfbnew

[Calm]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I watched the first minute. So the hypothesis is that people walked in and Joseph threw his hat on top of the interpreters and the plates so the viewer misunderstood.

They must really be hurting for exciting new content.

Is there only one claim out there that they saw Joseph using a hat?  I could see it as a possibility if so, but more than one misunderstanding isn’t credible imo.

Edited January 13, 2025 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

Is there only one claim out there that they saw Joseph using a hat?  I could see it as a possibility if so, but more than one misunderstanding isn’t credible imo.

Well I haven't watched the video but usual claim is that all hat accounts come from critics (antis, ex members etc).  Same with all the claims Joseph or his family practiced folk magic.  These types don't accept anything remotely less than divine.

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Is there only one claim out there that they saw Joseph using a hat?  I could see it as a possibility if so, but more than one misunderstanding isn’t credible imo.

There is more than one claim.  Emma says it, Martin says it, David Whitmer says it.  Then there is also several who say it in Mormonism Unveiled.

The author of this book has a "Demonstration Theory" that explains why some people said that Joseph used a hat.  This theory posits that at one point during the translation, Joseph showed a demonstration on how he did the translation.  And in this demonstration, he used his seer stone in a hat.  The theory is a little more complicated than that but that's the main idea.

[Dario_M]

Didn't watched the video. But from what i've read in the comments it's not even worth my time. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

There is more than one claim.  Emma says it, Martin says it, David Whitmer says it.  Then there is also several who say it in Mormonism Unveiled.

The author of this book has a "Demonstration Theory" that explains why some people said that Joseph used a hat.  This theory posits that at one point during the translation, Joseph showed a demonstration on how he did the translation.  And in this demonstration, he used his seer stone in a hat.  The theory is a little more complicated than that but that's the main idea.

This was mentioned by someone on the board, I can’t remember who. 
 

I don’t remember if the poster ever explained why Joseph did it that way if it wasn’t the way he actually received the revelation.

Edited January 13, 2025 by Calm

[Nofear]

Having read Rough Stone Rolling (twice), I respect Richard Bushman a lot. There isn't a better history of Joseph Smith out there.  He says that those who take the translation debates seriously "must reckon with this book". Susan Black also says their argument must be examined. Neither say it is correct, but they leave open the door. I'm going to side with these serious scholars and not the random braying of some internet gossipers who would dismiss it out of hand.

Ward Radio has a lot of yahooriness on it. But it also has a lot of good stuff too. I view it as kind of like the the classic apocrypha wherein the Lord says, "There are many things contained therein that are true, and it is mostly translated correctly; There are many things contained therein that are not true, which are interpolations by the hands of men," D&C 91:1-2. Useful stuff, yes. Necessary. No. But, there are some correct insights to be gained if one looks with spiritual discernment.

 

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, Nofear said:

Having read Rough Stone Rolling (twice), I respect Richard Bushman a lot. There isn't a better history of Joseph Smith out there.  He says that those who take the translation debates seriously "must reckon with this book". Susan Black also says their argument must be examined. Neither say it is correct, but they leave open the door. I'm going to side with these serious scholars and not the random braying of some internet gossipers who would dismiss it out of hand.

Ward Radio has a lot of yahooriness on it. But it also has a lot of good stuff too. I view it as kind of like the the classic apocrypha wherein the Lord says, "There are many things contained therein that are true, and it is mostly translated correctly; There are many things contained therein that are not true, which are interpolations by the hands of men," D&C 91:1-2. Useful stuff, yes. Necessary. No. But, there are some correct insights to be gained if one looks with spiritual discernment.

 

I’m really trying to figure out why the Urim and Thummim are somehow more serious than a seerstone. They are all seerstones!

[Nofear]

18 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I’m really trying to figure out why the Urim and Thummim are somehow more serious than a seerstone. They are all seerstones!

I'm willing to bet the vast majority of latter-day saints share the same opinion, myself included. Nevertheless, historians do this weird thing of trying to suss out what actually happened which isn't always what people say happened.

[webbles]

23 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I’m really trying to figure out why the Urim and Thummim are somehow more serious than a seerstone. They are all seerstones!

The Nephite spectacles were found with the Golden Plates.  So, some consider them to be saved for the express purpose of doing the translation.  To them, it makes no sense to protect these spectacles when Joseph could have found a seerstone in his own day.

This book looks to be more than just talking about the Urim and Thummim.  He also gives a theory on how Joseph did the actual translation.

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, Nofear said:

I'm willing to bet the vast majority of latter-day saints share the same opinion, myself included. Nevertheless, historians do this weird thing of trying to suss out what actually happened which isn't always what people say happened.

I want the facts. I just see this push for a ‘pure’ Urim & Thummim translation as something people want to believe rather than something supported by what we know.

[Nofear]

Just now, The Nehor said:

I want the facts. I just see this push for a ‘pure’ Urim & Thummim translation as something people want to believe rather than something supported by what we know.

Do you even read anything people post or link or do you just spout off without a thought to anything aside from your preconceptions?

[Robert F. Smith]

22 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I watched the first minute. So the hypothesis is that people walked in and Joseph threw his hat on top of the interpreters and the plates so the viewer misunderstood.

They must really be hurting for exciting new content.

A Jewish scholar is interviewing Prof Royal Skousen, who says:

Quote

@9:49 Nine people who witnessed that Joseph Smith had the seerstone.  He would put it into a hat put his head up to it to obscure the light, and the descriptions are that he gave was that he saw on parchment the characters he was translating and underneath the English translation which he read off, and that's what the the nine can't really testify as to what he saw, but they all say that this is what he did: He had the seerstone.  He put it in a hat to obscure the light.  He would dictate.  The Scribe would write it down as they would go along, and so, since you have you know nine witnesses, three of whom were never Mormons.  Really they, yeah, three of them are non-Mormons, and they said this is what he was doing.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IV29WuAPs_8 . 

All the Book of Mormon we have today was derived in this fashion.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

22 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I want the facts. I just see this push for a ‘pure’ Urim & Thummim translation as something people want to believe rather than something supported by what we know.

There was no Urim & Thummim in the mix.  The Urim & Thummim are a purely biblical instrument, never used by Nephites or Joseph Smith.  For Joseph there was only the seerstone and the Nephite Interpreters.

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, Nofear said:

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

Even Richard Bushman misunderstands that the Urim & Thummim do not belong in the discussion.  They are exclusively biblical instruments, never used by Joseph or the Nephites.  We all need to resist the impulse to go along with such nonsense -- which only muddies the waters.