Mormon Infobia...

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Buffalo writes:

My understanding is that only the lost manuscript was produced with the Urim & Thummim. The extant Book of Mormon we have today was produced using the seer stone only. Correct?

What we know is that after the manuscript was lost, Joseph used the brown seer stone. What I am less certain of is when he stopped using the 'Nephite' interpreters and switched to the brown stone. It might have occurred before the manuscript pages were lost, or it may not have. There are a few accounts which suggest that Joseph found the interpreters difficult to use, and this would imply that it was a problem that was changed before the interpreters were potentially taken from him.

[_Drifting]

Drifting writes:

In the student manual for the Book of Mormon Institute course it talks about the translation method. It even quotes specifically from Russell Nelson's piece in the Ensign, the one reference on LSD.org to the rock in the hat.

Guess which bit of the piece is missing from the quote?

Actually, most of Nelson's article is missing (about 90 percent of it is excluded). The picture that accompanied Nelson's article did not have the hat (it did have the curtain). However, you haven't actually answered my question. How does the manual grossly misrepresent what happened?

In particular, it deals with Emma's testimony. But, Emma served primarily as a scribe for the 116 pages that were later lost. It was during this part of the process that Joseph used the interpreters he acquired with the plates, and did not use the face in a hat method. So ... again, which part of the manual did you think was a gross misrepresentation? And do you think that the manual was attempting to describe the process of translation in a way that would require us to have an understanding of what others saw Joseph doing?

Ben M.

Ben, you seem to be answering your own question.
Emma acted as scribe primarily for content that isn't in the Book of Mormon. Yet that's the testimony the manual uses exclusively to portray the historical narrative of how the Book of Mormon was produced. That's a gross misrepresentation.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Drifting writes:

I don't Adam/God gets a mention nor loathsome Negro's being slaves.
I guess a more accurate title for the manual would be:

The Teachings of Brigham Young That We Still Agree With

Given the purpose of the manual, I think this is absolutely reasonable. Why on earth would we want to teach things in church today, that we don't agree with?

Ben M.

[_Drifting]

Buffalo writes:

My understanding is that only the lost manuscript was produced with the Urim & Thummim. The extant Book of Mormon we have today was produced using the seer stone only. Correct?

What we know is that after the manuscript was lost, Joseph used the brown seer stone.

Ben, where did you gain this information?

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Drifting writes:

Emma acted as scribe primarily for content that isn't in the Book of Mormon. Yet that's the testimony the manual uses exclusively to portray the historical narrative of how the Book of Mormon was produced. That's a gross misrepresentation.

So apart from the face in the hat as opposed to the Nephite interpreters, was the rest of the process dramatically different with other scribes? If not, then how can this be a gross misrepresentation? What part of the material provided would be seen under a completely different light if we had the face in the hat? That would seem to be the basis for gross misrepresentation - and I just don't see it.

Ben M.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Drifting - I have to drive home, and see my kids, my dog, my wife, and eat a little dinner. I should be back in a couple of hours.

[_Drifting]

Drifting - I have to drive home, and see my kids, my dog, my wife, and eat a little dinner. I should be back in a couple of hours.

Ben.
I am enjoying the thread and your contribution.
Take it easy.

[Guest]

The point about Kierkegaard is simply this - you are making a mountain out of a mole hill. The purpose of the church is not to first and foremost provide some kind of historical narrative - it is to teach the gospel. Talking about the Book of Mormon (how it was translated, the history of the text, even how archaeology supports or refutes it) takes by far a second seat to reading the Book of Mormon as a religious and theological text. Churches don't as a general rule focus on talking in this way about their bibles. We don't see sermons generally about how the Bible came to be, what role the Masoretes might have played, hoe significant Tyndale was, or why we had a mistake in the commandments in a 1631 edition of the KJV which subsequently caused it to be labeled the Wicked Bible. Only in absolute isolation is this even remotely an issue. The church is not attempting to hide the fact that we believe that there was a great deal of supernatural involvement in the translation of the Book of Mormon. And yet here we have this parsing right down to dealing only with the artwork ... I don't buy the argument.

History cannot be separated out in trying to teach what the church believes about itself. In trying to teach people about the Book of Mormon it has to teach how the church got the book. This is why it presents its' historical take on how it was done. That the church almost never mentions the head in a hat is certainly odd, considering that is the only evidence we have for the it. If the church has no problem with it, then I see no reason for not presenting it the way the historical evidence suggests. I personally think it is embarrassed by it's connection to treasure hunting. Even Joseph seems to try and distance himself from his past later on. The picture on LDS.org is outright dishonesty. It shows the plates in full view of the scribe. Pictures are very important in teaching. Students in many, if not most, cases will learn more from pictures then they will from the text or teacher talking. Most iof what the church teaches involves historical claims.

I would add that the church usually gets paintings done by request and usually tells them what they want, so the church could easily get it right if they wanted. Also this is just one issue out of many.

[_Drifting]

Drifting writes:

Emma acted as scribe primarily for content that isn't in the Book of Mormon. Yet that's the testimony the manual uses exclusively to portray the historical narrative of how the Book of Mormon was produced. That's a gross misrepresentation.

So apart from the face in the hat as opposed to the Nephite interpreters, was the rest of the process dramatically different with other scribes? If not, then how can this be a gross misrepresentation? What part of the material provided would be seen under a completely different light if we had the face in the hat? That would seem to be the basis for gross misrepresentation - and I just don't see it.

Ben M.

Ben, my points are:

1. The historical record tells us the Book of Mormon was translated primarily by Joseph placing his face in a hat and reading words off a rock.

I think we agree on this point.

2. The Church, in all it's material about how the Book of Mormon was translated, mentions this method once back in a single talk by Russell Nelson in 1993.

I think we agree on this point.

3. In all other specific references to the way the Book of Mormon was translated, the Church reports usage of the Urim & Thummim which are understood to be spectacle like attached to a breastplate.

I think we agree on this point.

4. We can conclude that the Church knows what the accurate historical account is and therefore that the Church deliberately excludes this information in favour of an alternative description.

Do we agree on this point?

[_ldsfaqs]

Ben, my points are:

1. The historical record tells us the Book of Mormon was translated primarily by Joseph placing his face in a hat and reading words off a rock.

I've already debunked this claim....

There were SEVEN methods used, and according to ALL known accounts of the translation method listed at the FAIR link I've already provided, it is clear there were "3" primarily methods, and head in hat was only one, no indication that it was the primary method. In fact, the other methods all together show they THEY were the primary methods.

I think we agree on this point.

Nope.

2. The Church, in all it's material about how the Book of Mormon was translated, mentions this method once back in a single talk by Russell Nelson in 1993.

I think we agree on this point.

And?

3. In all other specific references to the way the Book of Mormon was translated, the Church reports usage of the Urim & Thummim which are understood to be spectacle like attached to a breastplate.

I think we agree on this point.

The Urim and Thummim were ALSO placed in the hat, not only attached to the breastplate.
The Sear Stone was not the only thing placed in the hat. Further, the Sear Stone was essentially itself an Urim & Thummim.

Further, it's not true that "all" other mentions are the Urim & Thummim. Most other mentions are simply by revelation, not indicating any medium other than the plates.

4. We can conclude that the Church knows what the accurate historical account is and therefore that the Church deliberately excludes this information in favour of an alternative description.

Do we agree on this point?

The Church "indicates" the most reasonable artistic expression which imply's translating.... That is the plates on the table and Joseph sitting at it, and maybe with Oliver also at the table.

Head in a hat would be an awkward and confusing presentation. You wouldn't know who's head in the hat, etc. The way the Church presents things is simply the most "efficient" way of presenting it.
Further, the way the Church presents things IS in fact one of the primary methods used, thus it's not a lie at all. There is nothing "sinister" here save what's in your own warped mind.

One other thing I want to point out.....

The Church doesn't hardly ever show ANY of the other "6" methods either, including Oliver or otherwise behind a curtain, etc.

Does that mean the Church is LYING about all the other methods, that DON'T look so-called "funny" to the anti-mormon???? Why isn't the Church "lying" about them also? Why is the Church obligated to indicate the head in a hat, when it was used only likely around 10% of the time of translation???