Mormon Infobia...

[_ldsfaqs]

Sub the faster,

When teaching members about the translation of the Book of Mormon, in seminary or institute or any other programme of the Church, does the Church accurately portray how it was done?

I'm not advocating the Church portray things negatively, just factually and honestly.

You anti-mormon "interpretation" is neither factual nor honest.....
It's only a "little" fact used to LIE....

When are you going to get it?

[_Drifting]

Sub the faster,

When teaching members about the translation of the Book of Mormon, in seminary or institute or any other programme of the Church, does the Church accurately portray how it was done?

I'm not advocating the Church portray things negatively, just factually and honestly.

You anti-mormon "interpretation" is neither factual nor honest.....
It's only a "little" fact used to LIE....

When are you going to get it?

How many seminary and institute graduates do you know that can say that they were taught that one of the methods was by putting a rock in a hat?

In fact, show me a quote from a seminary or institute teacher or student manual that mentions this method.
Show me a picture that the Church uses that accurately portrays any of the methods?

It is a sad state of affairs when South Park presents a more historically accurate narrative than the Church itself.

[_Buffalo]

Sub the faster,

When teaching members about the translation of the Book of Mormon, in seminary or institute or any other programme of the Church, does the Church accurately portray how it was done?

I'm not advocating the Church portray things negatively, just factually and honestly.

You anti-mormon "interpretation" is neither factual nor honest.....
It's only a "little" fact used to LIE....

When are you going to get it?

Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?

[_Benjamin McGuire]

In fact, show me a quote from a seminary or institute teacher or student manual that mentions this method. Show me a picture that the Church uses that accurately portrays any of the methods?

You have piqued my curiosity. Perhaps you would reference quotes from the current seminary or institute manuals with regards to this notion that you believe are gross misrepresentations of what actually happened. The institute manuals are on-line. It shouldn't be that difficult or that time consuming.

And for the record (although it isn't from either of those sources), the Ensign did print this from Elder Nelson:

Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.

[_Drifting]

In fact, show me a quote from a seminary or institute teacher or student manual that mentions this method. Show me a picture that the Church uses that accurately portrays any of the methods?

You have piqued my curiosity. Perhaps you would reference quotes from the current seminary or institute manuals with regards to this notion that you believe are gross misrepresentations of what actually happened. The institute manuals are on-line. It shouldn't be that difficult or that time consuming.

And for the record (although it isn't from either of those sources), the Ensign did print this from Elder Nelson:

Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.

Yes it did.
I notice you missed off the date. Allow me - 1993.
Could you find any other reference on LDS.org?
No? Neither could I.

Now show me where this method is included in any official teaching material of the Church?

To see a gross misrepresentation of the translation method go to LDS.org and under the media section locate the picture that the Church uses when depicting the translation method.

Shouldn't take you too long as there's only one... ;-)

[_Benjamin McGuire]

The problem, Drifting, is one that Kierkegaard brought up with respect to James 1:21-27. Reading the scriptures is kind of like looking at a mirror. If all we do is see the mirror, we have missed the boat. The real purpose is to see ourselves. We run into this problem here. After all, what you want to see is a picture of Joseph with his face buried in a hat. But, of course, that was only the process used for translation after the disappearance of the 116 pages. But I digress. What I mean about looking at the Book of Mormon is that the book itself is largely irrelevant to the gospel. Just as talking about Q, or scribal techniques, or the documentary source hypothesis has very little relevance to using the Bible for teaching the gospel. So, do you think, at some point, that the minutiae becomes counter productive? At some point, does making the mirror the object of discussion prevent us from looking in it at ourselves?

You mentioned the Institute Manuals and the Seminary manuals - so lets see you respond to my query and then I will respond to yours. (I found at least 3 representations by the way).

Personally, I think that we get engaged in this discussion (over depictions of the Book of Mormon translation) primarily because its one area where people are generally in agreement - at some point, the head in the hat is a description of what people saw. But, as I note, that seems to a large extent irrelevant. We don't caught up in too many of the other discussions though because of the gap between different versions of events. I remember though, I suppose, a discussion I had with Paul Osborne over on MDB (or perhaps it was the FAIR boards at the time) when he claimed I was well on the road to apostasy. The issue we were discussing was this one. He suggested that if anyone ever convinced him that the Book of Mormon was translated using a stone in the hat, he would lose his testimony and leave the church. My response was quite simple. Which is harder to believe - that an angel appears to Joseph Smith, leads him to the plates, which he translates using a pair of magic spectacles, or that an angel appears to Joseph Smith, leads him to the plates, which he translates using a stone in a hat. Perhaps you could answer that question as well ...

Ben M.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

As a post script by the way, the picture doesn't say anything about the translation method. Its unlikely that any picture would say much about that - even a picture of Joseph with his face in the hat. At best we get depictions of how other people saw what was happening, which isn't an adequate description of the method of translation (which only marginally deals with how it appeared to others). If you were to describe the translation method as you understand it, how would you do it? And did it produce more of a word-for-word sort of translation or more of an idea-for-idea sort of translation?

Ben M.

[_Drifting]

The problem, Drifting, is one that Kierkegaard brought up with respect to James 1:21-27. Reading the scriptures is kind of like looking at a mirror. If all we do is see the mirror, we have missed the boat. The real purpose is to see ourselves. We run into this problem here. After all, what you want to see is a picture of Joseph with his face buried in a hat. But, of course, that was only the process used for translation after the disappearance of the 116 pages. But I digress.

So the entire Book of Mormon was produced without the use of the Urim & Thummim but with Joseph's face in a hat reading words off a rock.
Show me where the Church teaches or depicts visually that method.
The fact that you can't proves the point that the Church is fearing this becoming common knowledge. Worse, the Church forwards a gross deception by not articulating it this way when teaching about the translation.

What I mean about looking at the Book of Mormon is that the book itself is largely irrelevant to the gospel.

Good to know, i'll let the Missionaries know.

Just as talking about Q, or scribal techniques, or the documentary source hypothesis has very little relevance to using the Bible for teaching the gospel. So, do you think, at some point, that the minutiae becomes counter productive? At some point, does making the mirror the object of discussion prevent us from looking in it at ourselves?

You mentioned the Institute Manuals and the Seminary manuals - so lets see you respond to my query and then I will respond to yours. (I found at least 3 representations by the way).

But not one with Joseph's face in a hat.....

Personally, I think that we get engaged in this discussion (over depictions of the Book of Mormon translation) primarily because its one area where people are generally in agreement - at some point, the head in the hat is a description of what people saw. But, as I note, that seems to a large extent irrelevant.

So if its irrelevant why does the Church teach and depict an incorrect method?

We don't caught up in too many of the other discussions though because of the gap between different versions of events. I remember though, I suppose, a discussion I had with Paul Osborne over on MDB (or perhaps it was the FAIR boards at the time) when he claimed I was well on the road to apostasy. The issue we were discussing was this one. He suggested that if anyone ever convinced him that the Book of Mormon was translated using a stone in the hat, he would lose his testimony and leave the church. My response was quite simple. Which is harder to believe - that an angel appears to Joseph Smith, leads him to the plates, which he translates using a pair of magic spectacles, or that an angel appears to Joseph Smith, leads him to the plates, which he translates using a stone in a hat. Perhaps you could answer that question as well ...

Ben M.

No I can't.
So why does the Church persist in perpetrating this deception?

[_SteelHead]

Ben,
I'll ask you the same question I asked sub..... How many, and what are the references to the doctrine and historical practice of polygamy in the recent Joseph Smith and Brigham Young "Teachings of" manuals?

[_Fence Sitter]

Ben,

It only seems to be irrelevant to those that believe in the divine origins of the Book of Mormon and are aware of the face-in-the-hat method. To anyone else who encounters this description it is very relevant. If it were as irrelevant as you say, to those that believe, one would expect to see it portrayed that way at least some of the time. Instead we encounter a myriad of excuses (Kierkegaard indeed!) for why it is not. The more excuses there are the more it is evident that it is indeed relevant and viewed as embarrassing.