Head in the hat

[_marg]

I was just thinking :) that Smith may have on occasion used a trick hat. That is use a hat with a false top easily removable. With Cowdery I think he simply read off the sheets he had, unless someone was nearby .. but perhaps with his wife and a few others on occasion he would use a head in the hat. So all he would have to do is have the pages he intends to read off of in the hat. He could put the sheets to be read between material which makes up the false top. Then with a scribe sitting at a desk, and he's on the opposite side, puts his head into the hat, elbows on his legs, removes the false top and read off the written sheets. With people like David Whitmer, since Dan vogel seems to think a Bible would be acceptable in the room and not raise suspicion, he could also have sheets in a Bible to be read off and whenever a witness came too close he could discreetly hide the sheets into the book/Bible.

This is off the original topic, but everything else is also, so I'll put in my two cent's worth.

That would require some really dumb people. You've been watching too many sitcoms where someone gets caught in a potentially embarrassing situation and uses all kinds of silly and stupid antics to throw a suspicious but extremely dumb wife, lover, girl friend, etc. off the scent. Too many people were wont to wander in and out of that house.

Whose house are you talking about, and who specifically wandered in and out and who gave statements and how consistent are the statements of any individuals to their other statements and how consistent are various witnesses statements consistent with one another? Those are just some ideas to discuss.

Someone other than me needs to run an experiment by sticking their head into a hat and trying to read anything, or putting a pinhole in a hat and trying to read from papers through that pinhole.
In my opinion, the only way the dictation could have been pulled off, going y the descriptions of the witnesses, is for Joseph to have everything in his head (or from a seer stone).
I cannot see Joseph being able to conceal the number of pages necessary for a day's worth of dictation, especially when he would have had to flip the pages as the dictation progressed.

I don't get the impression that any of the witnesses wanted to know what was going on. When Harris was a scribe smith apparently had a blanket between them. Then I believe Emma became a scribe. But Emma is not curious about any of this. Why doesn't she want to see the plates, why is she content to dust around them? Why isn't she more descriptive of the process and explain what she did to at least attempt to verify Smith could do what he claimed. Did she ever test his abilities with his miraculous seer stone? Did she ever examine the hat, just what did she do to verify his claims, other than she sat on the opposite side of a table and wrote what he said. And the similar situation with whitmer, as far as what did he do to verify Smith's claims.

As far as smith's ability to conceal, I am only talking about a temporary situation. I don't think he spent much time with Emma as scribe. And even less time with with short term on looker type..individuals.

With Emma if he used a hat, which he might have and if she's not very inquisitive and doesn't want to know what's going on..he could use a hat with a false top. The scenario..she sits at a table, he sits on the other side. She doesn't see his legs, he takes the reading material within the hat as he's chatting with her, puts his elbows on his knees and reads the material resting on his legs, through the hat without a top. Who knows their agreement might have been "if you don't ask, I won't tell". And in that way she wouldn't have to lie.

If Lucy Harris was in that room, you can be pretty darn certain she would have made some effort to verify Smith's abilities..would have checked the hat, checked to make sure he had nothing in it, would have described the hat, mentioned she had checked it, mentioned she had checked his pockets, checked the room, whatever. All we have, are witnesses all involved in the scheme in some way..(except a few hostile witnesses who had extremely limited exposure controlled by Smith).

These witnesses involved, for the most part are all related to one another, are not inquisitive, apparently very gullible (if you believe they truly believed Smith and his claims)and these are supposed to be accepted reliable credible witnesses? There was too much secretiveness by Smith and co-horts which went on, too much control by them of the situation without allowing others from the outside independent of their operation who could offer verification. Even the plates which Smith used to add credibility were not verifiable, so the claims that the witnesses make about them existing are unreliable without means to verify.

If you wish to discuss this, perhaps in this separate thread and as time permits I'll try to respond.

[_LDS truthseeker]

Well Martin Harris was dumb enough to think God would strike him dead if he looked at the plates.

[_GlennThigpen]

Whose house are you talking about, and who specifically wandered in and out and who gave statements and how consistent are the statements of any individuals to their other statements and how consistent are various witnesses statements consistent with one another? Those are just some ideas to discuss.

Mary Elizabeth Whitmer said that most of the translation process took place at her father's (Peter Whitmer) house. David Whitmer, one of her brothers, was a scribe for part of the process.

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 [read] to his scribe the words as they appeared before him.

David Whitmer describes the process in similar terms, and names Cowdery as the scribe.

Michael Morse, Emma Smith's brother-in-law also speaks of seeing the plates being translated.

S. F. Walker also claimed to have been a scribe for sixty-five pages of the Book of Mormon.

I am sure that you can find other accounts of people that saw some bit of the translation process.

Someone other than me needs to run an experiment by sticking their head into a hat and trying to read anything, or putting a pinhole in a hat and trying to read from papers through that pinhole.
In my opinion, the only way the dictation could have been pulled off, going y the descriptions of the witnesses, is for Joseph to have everything in his head (or from a seer stone).
I cannot see Joseph being able to conceal the number of pages necessary for a day's worth of dictation, especially when he would have had to flip the pages as the dictation progressed.

As far as smith's ability to conceal, I am only talking about a temporary situation. I don't think he spent much time with Emma as scribe. And even less time with with short term on looker type..individuals.

If Lucy Harris was in that room, you can be pretty darn certain she would have made some effort to verify Smith's abilities..would have checked the hat, checked to make sure he had nothing in it, would have described the hat, mentioned she had checked it, mentioned she had checked his pockets, checked the room, whatever. All we have, are witnesses all involved in the scheme in some way..(except a few hostile witnesses who had extremely limited exposure controlled by Smith).

Again, you need to read more of the witnesses accounts to get a better understanding of just what went on. The accounts are sketchy, but generally paint a picture of a pretty open process.

Now, back to my point about the hat. Try putting some papers in a hat and reading anything from them with your face stuck in that hat. Then try to turn those pages. I do not think it is anywhere near probable that Joseph had any kind of papers with him. Several witnesses said that he did not.
I am open to correction if anyone can provide a such a demonstration. But unless that can be provided, I will continue to believe that Joseph could not have concealed papers in a hat and fooled even a believing witness.

Glenn

[_marg]

So Glenn, I'm going to ask further questions, perhaps some you won't know answers to but i want to gather as much information as possible.

Mary Elizabeth Whitmer said that most of the translation process took place at her father's (Peter Whitmer) house. David Whitmer, one of her brothers, was a scribe for part of the process.

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 [read] to his scribe the words as they appeared before him.

How old was she?
Where did she sit?
Where did Smith sit, where did Whitmer sit..relative to door, relative to furniture.
Which room of the house was this in, where was it located?
What furniture was there in the room, what objects were there on the table D. Whitmer used?
What there a Bible? What size was it? Were there loose sheets of paper on the table?
Was there a curtain at the doorway, or a door?
What color was the hat, what size was the hat? Where did Smith keep the hat? Did he leave it in the room when they left?

Did she inspect the hat?
How long would she sit with them?

And Glenn could you cite where you get the information from.

David Whitmer describes the process in similar terms, and names Cowdery as the scribe.

Well then could you answer the questions above that would pertain to him and give where you optained the information.

Michael Morse, Emma Smith's brother-in-law also speaks of seeing the plates being translated.

Same thing, I want to know how long he observed. What specifically were his observations? What did he do to verify what was happening.

S. F. Walker also claimed to have been a scribe for sixty-five pages of the Book of Mormon.

I've not heard of this person. Any information on them, I'd appreciate.

I am sure that you can find other accounts of people that saw some bit of the translation process.

Sure I've read over the years but from everything I've read, my recollect is that there is not one reliable consistent version. So I figure you are the expert and can help with this.

Someone other than me needs to run an experiment by sticking their head into a hat and trying to read anything, or putting a pinhole in a hat and trying to read from papers through that pinhole.
In my opinion, the only way the dictation could have been pulled off, going y the descriptions of the witnesses, is for Joseph to have everything in his head (or from a seer stone).

First the reliability of the witnesses need to be evaluated. What did they do to verify and what exactly did they observe.

I cannot see Joseph being able to conceal the number of pages necessary for a day's worth of dictation, especially when he would have had to flip the pages as the dictation progressed.

Well how many hours exactly did each scribe spend. How many breaks. Frankly David & Cowdery in my opinion were in on it. So perhaps you can convince me otherwise.

Again, you need to read more of the witnesses accounts to get a better understanding of just what went on. The accounts are sketchy, but generally paint a picture of a pretty open process.

Well I have years ago, and that's one of the problems I have with the witnesses is the lack of consistency. Another problem I have with them is they are quite content And the main individuals for most of the text, Cowdery and Smith are pretty much silent on details.

Now, back to my point about the hat. Try putting some papers in a hat and reading anything from them with your face stuck in that hat. Then try to turn those pages. I do not think it is anywhere near probable that Joseph had any kind of papers with him.

Did he have a Bible in the room. Was that Bible examined by any witness. Could it have actually been a box with a "Bible" cover top and bottom and the box stored folded sheets of manuscript inside.
How about instead of a pin hole in a top hat, you use a top hat (by the way how large was his hat?) and you cut out the top or even cut out a half moon on the top which can fold in. Then you sit on one side of a table ..keep in mind you arrange the table so that you are either facing the doorway or it's on an angle with you being the one with the table in front of you and the doorway in front as well. You have 5 sheets of manuscripts or whatever you need underneath your shirt. You sit down, hat on your lap, while talking you pull out the sheets, place on lap, push in half moon top of hat, lean forward towards table, elbows on knees, head visible, hat up to face, bottom portion hidden by table and you read. That's not what you do for Cowdery and Whitmer, that's only for Emma, and perhaps another short term scribe or a witness close by.

I am open to correction if anyone can provide a such a demonstration. But unless that can be provided, I will continue to believe that Joseph could not have concealed papers in a hat and fooled even a believing witness.

[/quote]

Well critique my suggestions. by the way I've already tried it was a large envelope rounded to act as a hat..and it works but I'd only want to do it on a temporary basis.

Think about this Glenn, why did he read with his elbows resting on his knees, why not rest the hat on the table and look into it from there. It's actually tiring to bend over with elbows on knees and not comfortable. Resting the hat on the table he wouldn't have to bend over much and the table would hold the hat making it easier for him. And why didn't he use the method of head in hat, elbows on knees with Harris?

[_GlennThigpen]

How old was she?
Where did she sit?
Where did Smith sit, where did Whitmer sit..relative to door, relative to furniture.
Which room of the house was this in, where was it located?
What furniture was there in the room, what objects were there on the table D. Whitmer used?
What there a Bible? What size was it? Were there loose sheets of paper on the table?
Was there a curtain at the doorway, or a door?
What color was the hat, what size was the hat? Where did Smith keep the hat? Did he leave it in the room when they left?

Did she inspect the hat?
How long would she sit with them?

And Glenn could you cite where you get the information from.

marge, I am not going to do all of this research for you. I am not an expert on the witnesses. You asked a few questions and I just did a quick search to add to my meager store of knowledge. If you are going to propose a theory, it is up to you do the research to back up your theory.

I am open to correction if anyone can provide a such a demonstration. But unless that can be provided, I will continue to believe that Joseph could not have concealed papers in a hat and fooled even a believing witness.

Well critique my suggestions. by the way I've already tried it was a large envelope rounded to act as a hat..and it works but I'd only want to do it on a temporary basis.

You were able to put sheets of paper into an "hat", stick your face into the "hat" so as to exclude all light, read handwritten sheets of paper, and change them without anyone sitting across the table from you being the wiser?
I've stuck my head in a hat before and there is no way that those acts could be accomplished in the presence of another person, the scribe, noticing.

The theory that he only did it with Emma is not supported by any evidence from any witness. For all of this to be possible, David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, Emma Smith, Michael Morse, Joseph Smith etc. would all have to be lying.
If that is your assertion, you need to back it up with some type of evidence.

marge, I am editing this post to explain my position a bit.
In the case of the Spalding witnesses, a prima facie case was made for plagiarism by Sidney Rigdon of a Solomon spalding manuscript to produce the Book of Mormon. That required some investigations and explanations. That has been done repeatedly over the years, although few people have had their minds changed by the back and forth.

In the case of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon translation process, not even a prima facie case has been made that Joseph had any type of manuscript(s) anywhere around during the translation process, or that the witnesses were lying, or that they were too uninterested in the process or too gullible to notice any chicanery, any sleight of hand by Joseph.

This subject, the witnesses, and the translation process has undergone rather intense scrutiny periodically over the years and much has been written on the witnesses and the translation process.

In order for me or any other person, LDS or non-LDS who currently hold the opinion that there were no manuscripts used in the translation process, some type of evidence to establish at least a prima facie case must be presented. So far, none has been forthcoming.

That does not prove that the Book of Mormon is of divine origin. But it does show that Joseph must have employed some other device, be it a photographic memory or whatever, for his dictation.

Glenn

[_LDS truthseeker]

Patience Worth (Pearl Curran) did as much. She had many people observe her, even whole audiences, as she would dictate in something described as "automatic writing". She composed books, poems, etc. thoughout her lifetime well beyond her capabilities. She defied skeptics and no evidence of fraud was ever found.

If she could do it, why not Joseph Smith?

http://www.prairieghosts.com/pearl.html

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-cult ... eyond.html

[_marg]

marg wrote:
"How old was she?
Where did she sit?
Where did Smith sit, where did Whitmer sit..relative to door, relative to furniture.
Which room of the house was this in, where was it located?
What furniture was there in the room, what objects were there on the table D. Whitmer used?
What there a Bible? What size was it? Were there loose sheets of paper on the table?
Was there a curtain at the doorway, or a door?
What color was the hat, what size was the hat? Where did Smith keep the hat? Did he leave it in the room when they left?

Did she inspect the hat?
How long would she sit with them?

And Glenn could you cite where you get the information from."


marge, I am not going to do all of this research for you. I am not an expert on the witnesses. You asked a few questions and I just did a quick search to add to my meager store of knowledge. If you are going to propose a theory, it is up to you do the research to back up your theory.

I thought you’d be even more of an expert on evaluating these witnesses that you are with Spalding witnesses. They are making extraordinary claims, Spalding’s witnesses are not. There is a concept that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You seem to have all the evidence down pat with the S/R witnesses and willingly go into great minute detail but when I want to do that with these Book of Mormon witnesses you have no interest. I’ve looked into statements the witnesses made..in past years however at that time, I didn’t find one clear consistent explanation of what went on and one which satisfactorily adequately seemed reliable. I thought you’d be a help in hashing that out.
It is as much up to you Glenn to support your theory in this discussion as for me to counter that theory. No actually I'm wrong there. The theory you accept is not even warranted by the meager inadequate evidence supporting it. But of course that doesn't mean you shouldn't accept it. If you wish to believe it that's fine but don't kid yourself that the evidence warrants the theory..under objective critical evaluation.

You were able to put sheets of paper into an "hat", stick your face into the "hat" so as to exclude all light, read handwritten sheets of paper, and change them without anyone sitting across the table from you being the wiser?
I've stuck my head in a hat before and there is no way that those acts could be accomplished in the presence of another person, the scribe, noticing.

Have you stuck your head in a top hat with an large opening on the top? What I did with a large envelope is duplicate the rounded top hat portion. My head if a scribe was opposite of the table would be visible to a scribe, and my hands but the top portion of the hat wouldn’t be visible. So why would light be excluded?

You didn't answer my question by the way, why would he not simply place the hat on the table and look into it ..that would be the most comfortable, but instead he holds the hat ..and puts his elbows on his knees which is tiring on hard on one's back. I doubt very much he did this for long periods of time, but temporarily it would work and perhaps with Emma he did this. How many days and hours did he spend with her as scribe?

The theory that he only did it with Emma is not supported by any evidence from any witness. For all of this to be possible, David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, Emma Smith, Michael Morse, Joseph Smith etc. would all have to be lying.
If that is your assertion, you need to back it up with some type of evidence.

You are right that David Whitmer, Joseph Smith and Cowdery would have to be lying. But given the degree of extrardinariness in the claims with weak evidence to warrant their claims, there is good reason for me to reject their claims and assume they are lying. I don’t know the situation with Michael Morse, where he stood, where Smith sat, what exactly was his view, whether or not Whitmer and Smith could hear or see him approaching and put on an act, nor do I have much history about him. Hence the reason I started this discussion by asking you questions was to get into the details, the nitty gritty of what was said to have occurred.

marge, I am editing this post to explain my position a bit.
In the case of the Spalding witnesses, a prima facie case was made for plagiarism by Sidney Rigdon of a Solomon spalding manuscript to produce the Book of Mormon. That required some investigations and explanations. That has been done repeatedly over the years, although few people have had their minds changed by the back and forth.

In the case of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon translation process, not even a prima facie case has been made that Joseph had any type of manuscript(s) anywhere around during the translation process, or that the witnesses were lying, or that they were too uninterested in the process or too gullible to notice any chicanery, any sleight of hand by Joseph.

This subject, the witnesses, and the translation process has undergone rather intense scrutiny periodically over the years and much has been written on the witnesses and the translation process.

In order for me or any other person, LDS or non-LDS who currently hold the opinion that there were no manuscripts used in the translation process, some type of evidence to establish at least a prima facie case must be presented. So far, none has been forthcoming.

That does not prove that the Book of Mormon is of divine origin. But it does show that Joseph must have employed some other device, be it a photographic memory or whatever, for his dictation.

Ok and what I see is that you are a faith based believer, not a skeptical critical thinker when it comes to this issue. in my opinion you do not appreciate the concept that the more extraordinary the claim the more extraordinary the evidence required. To establish with reliability the claims made requires greater evidence than witnesses who are all related to one another or have a financial interest in the enterprise and witnesses who have demonstrated that they made sincere efforts to critically evaluate evidence. When witnesses are obliging such as they don’t require that they actually verify plates but rather willingly examine them under a cloth, when their descriptions indicate little inquisitiveness on their part, when there is little objective verification independent of control by Smith and company…then the evidence does not commensurate with the claims made and can justifiably be rejected.

The burden of proof for the extraordinary claims is not met, by a few non objective individuals with vested interest in the enterprise. That’s fine with me. I’m not the one making an extraordinary claim, I’m simply making a suggested counter explanation of what may have occurred. Even without making a suggested counter explanation, I am rationally justified in rejecting the extraordinary claims…because as I have said the evidence to warrant those claims does not commensurate with them.

That is why Glenn I was willing to discuss this with you and give you the opportunity to show me why their statements should be rationally accepted.

You seem to think on a rational basis it is my burden to overturn evidence of the Book of Mormon witnesses. The evidence they supply is insufficient. The burden to establish the sort of claims being made is not warranted by compliant witnesses with vested interests who are related to one another and who have a history of being credulous as well as liars.

So I don' t mind...if the discussion has ended, that's actually a good thing for me.

[_just me]

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 [read] to his scribe the words as they appeared before him.

Question about this quote. She uses the term "director" which I believe was the term used for the Liahona. The seer stones were otherwise referred to as "interpreters."

The Liahona was described as having the ability to display words.

I will have to check, but I also seem to recall that there is a passage in the Book of Mormon that originally referred to "director" and was switched to "interpreter." I will need to look it up.

Ah, found it:
Book of Alma p.328; (1830): "yea, and that ye preserve these directors."
Current: Alma 37:21: "yea, and that ye preserve these interpreters."

Book of Alma p.328; (1830): "And now my son, these directors were prepared that the word of God might be fulfilled..."
Current: Alma 37:24: "And now my son, these interpreters were prepared that the word of God might be fulfilled..."

This was a scripture referencing "Gazelem" which was a code name used by Joseph Smith:

Alma 37:23 And the Lord said: I will prepare unto my servant Gazelem, a stone, which shall shine forth in darkness unto light, that I may discover unto my people who serve me, that I may discover unto them the works of their brethren, yea, their secret works, their works of darkness, and their wickedness and abominations.

Sorry if I am going on a tangent. I just find the quote really interesting. It does seem there was an evolution of explanation as to what the rock was exactly.

D&C 3:14 And this is the reason that thou hast lost thy privileges for a season—
15 For thou hast suffered the counsel of thy director to be trampled upon from the beginning.

Here is a scripture that still appears to refer to the seer stone as a "dirtector." It was given in July 1828.
Does anyone know when the quote was given by Elizabeth?

[_GlennThigpen]

You were able to put sheets of paper into an "hat", stick your face into the "hat" so as to exclude all light, read handwritten sheets of paper, and change them without anyone sitting across the table from you being the wiser?
I've stuck my head in a hat before and there is no way that those acts could be accomplished in the presence of another person, the scribe, noticing.

Have you stuck your head in a top hat with an large opening on the top? What I did with a large envelope is duplicate the rounded top hat portion. My head if a scribe was opposite of the table would be visible to a scribe, and my hands but the top portion of the hat wouldn’t be visible. So why would light be excluded?

I am going to quote several witnesses to the translation process here for your edification.

Emma Smith, wife of Joseph Smith

"In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us." (History of the RLDS Church, 8 vols. Herald House, 1951, Volume 3, page 356, "Last Testimony of Sister Emma.")

David Whitmer, one of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon

"I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. 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." (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, 1887, p. 12)

Martin Harris, one of the witnesses and scribes to the Book of Mormon

"Martin Harris related an incident that occurred during the time that he wrote that portion of the translation of the Book of Mormon which he was favored to write direct from the mouth of the Prophet Joseph Smith. He said that the Prophet possessed a seer stone, by which he was enabled to translate as well as from the Urim and Thummim, and for convenience he then used the seer stone, Martin explained the translation as follows: By aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin and when finished he would say "Written," and if correctly written that sentence would disappear and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used." (Edward Stevenson, "One of the Three Witnesses," originally Deseret News, Nov. 30, 1881, later in the Millennial Star, Feb. 6, 1882, pp. 86-87. Stevenson would later become a member of the First Council of Seventy).

Oliver Cowdery, principal scribe for the Book of Mormon

"These were days never to be forgotten — to sit under the sound of a voice dictated by the inspiration of heaven, awakened the utmost gratitude of this bosom! Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his mouth, as he translated, with the Urim and Thummim, or, as the Nephites would have said, 'Interpreters,' the history, or record, called 'The Book of Mormon." (Messenger and Advocate, 1834, vol. 1, no. 1, p. 14;).

"When Joseph was translating the Book of Mormon [I] had occasion more than once to go into his immediate presence, and saw him engaged at his work of translation. The mode of procedure consisted in Joseph's placing the Seer Stone in the crown of a hat, then putting his face into the hat, so as to entirely cover his face, resting his elbows upon his knees, and then dictating word after word, while the scribes — Emma, John Whitmer, O. Cowdery, or some other wrote it down." (Saints' Herald, June 15, 1879, pp. 190-191).

Isaac Hale, father of Emma Smith

"The manner in which he pretended to read and interpret, was the same as when he looked for the money-diggers, with a stone in his hat, and his hat over his face, while the Book of Plates were at the same time hid in the woods." (Affidavit of Isaac Hale, March 20, 1834, see Rodger I. Anderson's book Joseph Smith's New York Reputation Reexamined, Signature Books, pp. 126-128)

Note that David Whitmer described closely how Joseph covered his face with the hat to exclude all light.

I did not use a top hat for my little experiment. I used a rather floppy, normal sized hat. The only description that I can find from an actual witness came from Martin Harris in an 1859 Tiffany's Magazine where he described it as "the old white hat." The idea that it was a stove top hat seems to have originated with some of the magic legends that have grown up about Joseph, but there are no witnesses that actually describe it as such that I have found.

You didn't answer my question by the way, why would he not simply place the hat on the table and look into it ..that would be the most comfortable, but instead he holds the hat ..and puts his elbows on his knees which is tiring on hard on one's back. I doubt very much he did this for long periods of time, but temporarily it would work and perhaps with Emma he did this. How many days and hours did he spend with her as scribe?

To answer that question, I would have to be able to interview Joseph. I am under the impression that he has been not been giving interviews since 1844. Whatever doubts you may have you are welcome to. But the descriptions by the witnesses are consistent about the hat.

Ok and what I see is that you are a faith based believer, not a skeptical critical thinker when it comes to this issue. in my opinion you do not appreciate the concept that the more extraordinary the claim the more extraordinary the evidence required. To establish with reliability the claims made requires greater evidence than witnesses who are all related to one another or have a financial interest in the enterprise and witnesses who have demonstrated that they made sincere efforts to critically evaluate evidence. When witnesses are obliging such as they don’t require that they actually verify plates but rather willingly examine them under a cloth, when their descriptions indicate little inquisitiveness on their part, when there is little objective verification independent of control by Smith and company…then the evidence does not commensurate with the claims made and can justifiably be rejected.

We are only debating whether it is plausible that Joseph Smith concealed papers in his hat and read from them during the translation process. Nothing else.

But if you wish to test the extraordinary claims, then try this little exercise.

And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

But you must do it with real intent because Moroni also says:

For behold, God hath said a man being evil cannot do that which is good; for if he offereth a gift, or prayeth unto God, except he shall do it with real intent it profiteth him nothing.

That is why Glenn I was willing to discuss this with you and give you the opportunity to show me why their statements should be rationally accepted.

You seem to think on a rational basis it is my burden to overturn evidence of the Book of Mormon witnesses. The evidence they supply is insufficient. The burden to establish the sort of claims being made is not warranted by compliant witnesses with vested interests who are related to one another and who have a history of being credulous as well as liars.

So I don' t mind...if the discussion has ended, that's actually a good thing for me.

I am not debating whether Joseph actually had a rock in his hat and dictated from it. All I am asking for is some type of evidence that Joseph was able to conceal papers in his hat and read from them without any of the witnesses catching on.

That is not faith based. The absence of any manuscript is based on the testimonies of several witnesses.

Glenn

[_marg]

Glenn I'm taking a day or 2 off from the board.