Some Mormons may not understand Joseph's translation process

[Vanhin]

By the gift and power of God. In the process he was known to use objects, such as the interpreters found with the plates, and a seer stone, but towards the end, it appears he had become so acquainted with the process of revelation, that he did not really need anything but faith, obedience, and his gift. Joseph Smith was a prophet, seer, and revelator - the first of this last dispensation.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Kawazu]

By the gift and power of God. In the process he was known to use objects, such as the interpreters found with the plates, and a seer stone, but towards the end, it appears he had become so acquainted with the process of revelation, that he did not really need anything but faith, obedience, and his gift. Joseph Smith was a prophet, seer, and revelator - the first of this last dispensation.

Regards,

Vanhin

Hat or no hat?

[Vanhin]

Hat or no hat?

Who cares?

Vanhin

[Kawazu]

Who cares?

Vanhin

Billy: You're a Mormon?

Me: Sure am.

Billy: That Joseph Smith guy wrote your Jesus book, right?

Me: He translated it.

Billy: Did he look into a hat, like on the South Park episode?

Me: Umm, no?

People like to ask me questions and I like to give them correct answers. In certain settings with certain types of folk, faith-based responses come off as though one is trying to dodge questions. I prefer offering facts with testimonies, whenever possible.

Sincerely,

Kawazu

[hordak]

Hat or no hat?

“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, Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887, p. 12.)

[Kawazu]

Thank you.

[Vanhin]

Billy: You're a Mormon?

Me: Sure am.

Billy: That Joseph Smith guy wrote your Jesus book, right?

Me: He translated it.

Billy: Did he look into a hat, like on the South Park episode?

Me: Umm, no?

People like to ask me questions and I like to give them correct answers. In certain settings with certain types of folk, faith-based responses come off as though one is trying to dodge questions. I prefer offering facts with testimonies, whenever possible.

Sincerely,

Kawazu

Right I gave you the facts. The hat itself, or whatever method Joseph used to block out light so he could see the seer stone better, really is not important. But, yes, he reportedly put a seer stone into a hat to block out the light sometimes whenever he used the stone. The hat itself has no significance.

It's not a hat trick, it's a seer stone trick.

Vanhin

[Elphaba]

Right I gave you the facts. The hat itself, or whatever method Joseph used to block out light so he could see the seer stone better, really is not important. But, yes, he reportedly put a seer stone into a hat to block out the light sometimes whenever he used the stone. The hat itself has no significance.

It's not a hat trick, it's a seer stone trick.

Vanhin

Supposedly it's not a trick at all.

Since hats are not translation devices, you can't dismiss the hat in any accurate portrayal.

Elphaba

[Vanhin]

Supposedly it's not a trick at all.

Since hats are not translation devices, you can't dismiss the hat in any accurate portrayal.

Elphaba

Right of course it is not a trick, but, if our critics are going to claim it's a trick, they need to know the trick would be in the use of the stone not the hat.

[bytebear]

“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, Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887, p. 12.)

1887, 58 years after the translation. David Whitmer, a man never directly involved in the translation process. My instinct is to say this is hearsay at best.

[Maxel]

I hate that concept... that the truth is so difficult to digest that we have to give you a watered down version first... or, you are so incapable of understanding the truth, we have to mislead you until you are more developed.

This is a scriptural concept and sound doctrine (milk-before-meat). Are you saying you disagree with the doctrine in general, or only when applied to the history of the LDS Church (as I did)? Edited December 14, 2009 by Maxel
clarifying meaning

[tubaloth]

(David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887, p. 12.)

I knew it would go here.

Can we honestly say this account is true?

First David Whitmer never was a scribe for Joseph Smith. David Whitmer's brother were for a time near the end of the Book of Mormon Translation process. (After Joseph Smith had been baptized). But David whitmer isn't talk about the time they were in the Whitmer home, he was talking about Oliver Cowdrey writing it down! Oliver Cowdrey never talks about a hat being used. Oliver talks about the U & T (which as far as we know wasn’t put in a hat)

Second David Whitmer fell away (never denied his testimony of the book of mormon). And more is given an account after 58 years later.

Third the reason David Whitmer ended up leaving the church is he felt that Revelation (and translation) process was perfect. That no changes ever needed to be made after it was written down (because as this account says, the page wouldn't go away unless it was correct). This doesn't account for how the Book of Mormon Manuscript is written. Even more it’s almost a completely different process from the one given in Section 9 of the D&C. (That its more a process of asking by faith and receiving answers).

Forth, somehow there is an idea that Joseph Smith would translate in front of people. (that the plates and the seer stone and or U &T where there for all to see) Moroni told Joseph Smith not to show the plates to anybody. Joseph Smith followed this exactly. Very few saw the plates.

The list can go on and on. The point I'm making is this account doesn't fit in with more "official" accounts of the translation process and what Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdrey taught. I realize they don't go into detail, but that is no excuse for us to jump on any other account and put it higher in the list of authoritative. I honestly don't see how any understand member of the church would teach the David Whitmer account as the way the Translation process happen.

I can't doubt the use of a seer stone. But like the open post stated, there is some confusion of when they were used. I feel that the seer stone could have been used for getting revelations. This is something that could and probably was done in front of others. (At least more often than translating). And it probably was a lot easier to carry.

Edited December 13, 2009 by tubaloth

[hordak]

The list can go on and on. The point I'm making is this account doesn't fit in with more "official" accounts of the translation process and what Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdrey taught.

Where can one find the official accounts? Accourding to FAIR

"But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right." (D&C 9:8)

Beyond this, the Church does not take any sort of official stand on the exact method by which the Book of Mormon translation occurred.

Joseph Smith himself never recorded the precise physical details of the method of translation:

"Brother Joseph Smith, Jun., said that it was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon; and also said that it was not expedient for him to relate these things" [2]

So it appears we only have second hand accounts.

Also David whitmer isn't the only one to mention this method.

I know Mormonism to be the truth; and believe the church to have been established by divine direction. I have complete faith in it. 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. Emma Hale Smith. History of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

Michael Morse, Smith's brother-in-law, stated that he had watched Smith translate the Book of Mormon on several occasions: "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." Richard S. Van Wagoner and Steven C. Walker, "Joseph Smith: 'The Gift of Seeing,'" Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 15 (Summer 1982): 50-53.

There are more from Oliver, and Emma's father but since the publications are to old for me to find and their reproduction are on questionable sites i'll leave them be.

Now here is where i get confused. Threads starts with the apologist claim that the head in hat translation is well known,

then members come on a discount the the head in the hat. They claim David isn't a reliable witness and in 1977 Church historian Richard Lloyd Anderson agreed

It is tempting to accept the above statement at face value. However, since David Whitmer had not personally translated, his accuracy on details depends on whether he correctly understood what Joseph Smith told him in the first place, and whether he correctly remembered such details after that.

as it is published in an ensign

But then in 1993 Elder Russell M. Nelson says

The details of this miraculous method of translation are still not fully known. Yet we do have a few precious insights. David Whitmer wrote:

“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, Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887, p. 12.)

I does seem credible enough to be called precious and quoted by an Apostle in a official church publication.

Then we have FAIR who also claims the church is forward about the seer stone mentioning the hat.

References to the stone are not confined to the distant past. Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Twelve Apostles described the process clearly in an Ensign article:

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.[40]

It would be strange to try to hide something by having an apostle talk about it, and then send the account to every LDS home in the official magazine!

it also mention more but i don't have GL direct to read them.

In fact apologist Daniel C Peterson uses the hat translation method as more proof of Josephs authentic gift.

Now, obviously, the scribes needed light in order to be able to write the text down. By way of contrast (pun intended), Joseph seems to have needed to dim the ambient light so as to make the deliverances from the seer stone easier to see. Accordingly, the stone was placed in a hat into which the Prophet put his face. This situation, coupled with the lack of a dividing curtain, would obviously have made it very difficult, if not impossible, for Joseph to have concealed a manuscript, or books, or even the plates themselves. It would also have made it effectively impossible for him to read from a manuscript placed somehow at the bottom of the darkened hat.

So It seems we have 2 question. Does the church "hide" the Head in hat translation? And Now "Is the hat translation accurate?

If the Apologist are correct and hat method is well known as they assert (I don't agree with them)

Then it stands to reason that it is accurate. There would be no reason for the church mention it in "several church publications" If it wasn't.

If the church "hides" it, than that would be a good indication it is false. No reason to bring it up regularly if it is inaccurate.

So as to the the OP. Do you think it is common knowledge? It seems (don't want to put words in your mouth) that you doubt the hat method, not the stones themselves, but i wonder how you stand on the "hiding of this info"

If that makes sense

[Maxel]

So It seems we have 2 question. Does the church "hide" the Head in hat translation?...

Do they hide it? No, as has been witnessed by your quoting of official church sources on the subject. And I would argue that it is well known, to anyone who cares look into the matter. Because such facts aren't spoon-fed to us in Gospel Doctrine classes doesn't mean the Church is hiding anything, or being dishonest in any fashion.

Besides, if the Church decided to begin teaching its temporal history in Sunday School classes, and if they were meticulous enough to include the fact that Joseph Smith used the hat in the translation process, what other facets of information would bog down the classes and clutter the spirit? I really don't want to go to a Sunday School class and learn about the Kinderhook Plates, or the controversy over the Abraham papyri, or speculation on how many wives Joseph Smith or Brigham Young had, or be taught a lesson on Joseph Smith's treasure hunting activities. There's not enough time as it is.

I prefer my Gospel Doctrine classes heavy on the doctrine, light on the history. Since the inception of the Church, sufficient records have been kept and circulated to satisfy anyone's curiosity on any matter. No doubt the Church has fine-tuned its efforts to make information readily available (I doubt a 500-page Church History manual was available in the 19th Century), but I don't think it's ever been actively involved in hiding information of this kind.

[Just_A_Guy]

First David Whitmer never was a scribe for Joseph Smith.

I'll have to look this up later, but my understanding is that David Whitmer's handwriting does appear in small portions of the original (not printer's) manuscript of the Book of Mormon.

[deseretgov]

Besides, if the Church decided to begin teaching its temporal history in Sunday School classes, and if they were meticulous enough to include the fact that Joseph Smith used the hat in the translation process, what other facets of information would bog down the classes and clutter the spirit? I really don't want to go to a Sunday School class and learn about the Kinderhook Plates, or the controversy over the Abraham papyri, or speculation on how many wives Joseph Smith or Brigham Young had, or be taught a lesson on Joseph Smith's treasure hunting activities. There's not enough time as it is.

Bog down? With testimony building information that helps illustrate the prophetic power of Joseph Smith. We still teach that God spoke to Moses through a burning bush don't we?

[Prodigal_Son]

Hmmm. Straining at gnats... again...

[tubaloth]

Where can one find the official accounts?

Like you quoted section 9 is all we have! Why do we need to grasp onto David Whitmer’s account? Isn’t section 9 good enough from a firsthand account? (Or quote a couple of Oliver Cowdrey’s or Joseph Smith’s words from the went worth letter).

So it appears we only have second hand accounts.

This is assuming Joseph Smith told him this, if it came from Oliver, then it goes against Section 9 (and a different battle of which one to believe comes into play) so we have to assume it didn’t come from Oliver. If it Joseph Smith told somebody else (like another Whitmer that actually did translate) and then told David, we are down to a third hand account. True be we don’t know how Whitmer came to this knowledge do we? We are assuming Joseph Smith told David Whitmer this process but nobody else? Not even Oliver?

Also David whitmer isn't the only one to mention this method.

Yes Emma also brings up the story. Again I wonder if Emma knew the difference from getting a revelation and the translation. Could she have grouped them into the same thing? I don’t know.

There are more from Oliver, and Emma's father but since the publications are to old for me to find and their reproduction are on questionable sites i'll leave them be.

I would be interested in any account from Oliver (he is far more quotable then David Whitmer). I have never read any quote of Oliver talking about the seer stones in use of Translation. I have always heard Oliver refer to the U&T. Even after Oliver left the church he still talked about the U & T.

But then in 1993 Elder Russell M. Nelson says

Yes I know, and probably the biggest cause of the problems we have now. I don’t know why Elder Nelson chose to use David Whitmer’s account. Probably because he wanted to share something different than the normal Section 9 Sunday school lesson. (This is probably why teaches ever would use David Whitmer’s account, not for any doctrine teaching, but for a different account).

But as I posted a couple months back

http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/25886-full-story-lesson-35-sunday-school-lesson.html

Pres. Monson, (Elder at the time) quotes a story that ends up being in our Gospel Doctrine Manual this past year. Once the truth is known about the story, we find out that much of the original story is not true anymore. As I said, when I posted this, I don’t expect the leaders of our church to do really much background on stories when they have already been published. I assume Elder Nelson read this account on a message board, and assumed it must be true? (I’m joking).

Does the church "hide" the Head in hat translation?

I think it depends on what you mean by the word “Hide”? Does the Church actively teach that David Whitmer’s account is the most authoritative source on the translation process? No I don’t think the church does. I think the church sticks to the scriptures (Section 9) that match both Oliver and Joseph Smith’s account of the translation process. Is that hiding anything? I don’t think so. I think when you are trying to present your members with information; I would go with the more trusted source.

Like I stated before, David Whitmer’s account does not fit with what we have of the Book of Mormon Manuscript (that changes were made). Even more it doesn’t account for the Isaiah Chapters. (Joseph Smith was reading Old Testament from the seer stone?)

And Now "Is the hat translation accurate?

That leads to more questions. Was there only one method of translating? Did Joseph Smith use the same method during the full process of translating?

As some have expressed here they feel Joseph Smith was in a learning process. I tend to agree. But David Whitmer’s account (I think part of what wasn’t quoted) states the seer stone was used for “most” of the Translation. This I do not agree with. I feel the U & T was used for most of it.

I do not doubt the use of some seer stone. (If it only worked in a hat then so be it).

My personal view is that the only way to even remotely tie all of these accounts together is to take into considering the growing process of Joseph Smith. I feel that the U & T was given to Joseph Smith for the purpose to in a way give Joseph Smith a spiritual Gift (without having the spirit). Once Joseph Smith was baptized (Joseph Smith would have been in 3 Nephi at the time) would have some form of the Gifts of the spirit. Not long after the priesthood is given. By now I could see a seer stone be used (for translation, and maybe even revelations). During these final month Joseph Smith stayed at the Whitmer home. This could be where David Whitmer saw something. Joseph Smith then reaches a point where nether are needed.

But the method of reading the words off as David Whitmer explains I don’t think I can ever fully believe that.

If the church "hides" it, than that would be a good indication it is false. No reason to bring it up regularly if it is inaccurate.

Something Faults or not enough to verify its true is a fine line. I honestly like reading the story of how the Melchizedek Priesthood was restored. I think reading the story is better than nothing in this case. (there is no other account) Even apostles quoted the story from the pulpit. But further study of the story left to many holes to actually make it official. And thus now days nobody even knows it.

I don’t mind David Whitmer’s account as long as its taking with a grain of salt and put into context of who he was, when the account was given, and his authority on the mater. For those reason I think it should stay just as a story. I, in no way think it should override Section 9, and what is currently being taught by the church.

Edited December 14, 2009 by tubaloth

[Maxel]

Bog down? With testimony building information that helps illustrate the prophetic power of Joseph Smith. We still teach that God spoke to Moses through a burning bush don't we?

I believe you misunderstood my intention.

That Joseph translated the Golden Plates is most definitely vital to our understanding of the Gospel and the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. However, more minor details- such as his exact translation method- aren't as important and may, in fact, subtract from the discussion's intended spirit of reverence.

If the Church was going to teach its temporal history in enough detail to merit the inclusion of Joseph's use of the hat in the translation process, what other information would it be duty-bound to include? There's a ton in the history of the Church that doesn't get talked about at Church for good reason- I listed some examples earlier. Plus, it's easy to get bogged down in the history and completely miss the doctrinal gems found therein.

[LDSNETA]

I don’t mind David Whitmer’s account as long as its taking with a grain of salt and put into context of who he was, when the account was given, and his authority on the mater. For those reason I think it should stay just as a story. I, in no way think it should override Section 9, and what is currently being taught by the church.

What if David was right, and church authorities were wrong? Have you read the conclusions of Royal Skousen?

[Just_A_Guy]

FWIW, in past discussions I've linked to this Dialogue article, which I find interesting.

[LDSNETA]

FWIW, in past discussions I've linked to this Dialogue article, which I find interesting.

Interesting is putting it lightly.

Thank you for that link.

What Wagoner and others omit is the reluctance of the Smith's and others to admit his use of a seer stone/looking glass having previously been charged for using such. Case closed.

[Just_A_Guy]

Interesting is putting it lightly.

Thank you for that link.

What Wagoner and others omit is the reluctance of the Smith's and others to admit his use of a seer stone/looking glass having previously been charged for using such. Case closed.

The trial is mentioned at pages 54-55.

[tubaloth]

What if David was right, and church authorities were wrong? Have you read the conclusions of Royal Skousen?

I have not. I am more interested in my conclusions.

Does Skousen solve the dilemma of the process David Whitmer speaks of, with the current Book of Mormon Manuscript?

[LDSNETA]

I have not. I am more interested in my conclusions.

Does Skousen solve the dilemma of the process David Whitmer speaks of, with the current Book of Mormon Manuscript?

He said Joseph did not use his own words. He spoke what he saw like David, Emma and others said. Sorry, but David was right. Have you read any of his writings?