There was a recent thread about Joseph Smith using the "peepstone-in-the-hat" business during the BOM translation:

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1566870,1567157#msg-1567157

The original poster, "justarelative," said that he/her had just met with some lady missionaries who told him/her this:

"As we got started on the JS story and came to the translation of the BOM, I thought I would live dangerously and try out the rock in the hat story on them. The lead sister assured me that the rock in the hat story was not true while her companion nodded in agreement."

In 2001, I was heavily engaged in debating Mormon apologists on the alt.religion.mormon newsgroup. One TBM named John Miles wrote a long post, copying quotes from Mormon writers such as Joseph Fielding Smith and Francis W. Kirkham, in which they attempted to downplay or deny the whole history of Joseph Smith's peepstone practice. As was typical of Mormon apologists, they tried to "blame" the entire history of the peepstone business on early apostate Philastus Hurlbut---their agenda being to assert that Smith never engaged in such a practice, or that it was very limited.

I responded to John Miles' remarks with multiple posts of my own. For readers who want to know more of the history, this might interest you. Keep in mind that the church has now been forced to admit to the "seer stone in the hat" method in their recent essay, after denying/downplaying it for decades. This will require copying several old posts which I'll post separately in this thread. The conversation began with an Ex-Mormon, Bill Williams, writing:

> It appears that Joseph Smith didn't need the
> plates at all, since he "translated" the BoM by looking at a
seer stone in a
> hat. At least, that's what we learn from Emma Smith, Oliver
Cowdery, Martin
> Harris, and David Whitmer, those who actually worked with him.

Here's the TBM John Miles' original response to that, which I'll address in my next posts:

No. It's not what we learn from Emma, Oliver, Martin & David.
Only David Whitmer, who had long before fallen away from the
Church, suggested that was the method and while it would
not matter to me in the least as to the manner in which the
Lord provided for the working of the instruments of
translation, Oliver Cowdery, who acted as scribe almost
exclusively for Joseph Smith during the translation suggests
just the opposite (and the one supported by Joseph Smith's own
account in Church history)--that it was the Urim and Thummim
that Joseph Smith used almost exclusively in the translation
process.

Regarding Oliver Cowdery, B. H. Roberts relates the following:

"Oliver Cowdery, one of the Three Witnesses of the Book of
Mormon, and the prophet's chief amanuensis, says of the work of
translation at which he assisted: "I wrote with my own pen the
entire Book of Mormon (save a few pages), as it fell from the
lips of the Prophet Joseph Smith, as he translated by the gift
and power of God, by the means of the Urim and Thummim, or, as it
is called by that book, 'Holy Interpreters.' " This is all he has
left on record on the manner of translating the book." [Defense
of the Faith and the Saints, Vol.1, p.256]

Note that the means of translation was not by the method
described by David Whitmer. Even today, among LDS scholars,
there is still a lively debate as to how the process of
translation actually worked given the often contradictory heresay
accounts.

That a seer stone existed is certainly true and is, in fact,
still in the
possession of the LDS church. And that it saw "limited action"
in
the translation of the Book of Mormon is also likely. However,
the
means of translation as described by David and Martin is pure
heresay
and directly contradicts the fact that Joseph Smith stated (in
the
_History of the Church_) that though he was directly asked as to
how the translation process took place, he never divulged it to
anyone and felt it improper to do so. The relevant quote
follows:

"Little is known about the translation process itself. Few
details can be gleaned from comments made by Joseph's scribes and
close associates. Only Joseph Smith knew the actual process, and
he declined to describe it in public. At a Church conference in
1831, Hyrum Smith invited the Prophet to explain more fully how
the Book of Mormon came forth. Joseph Smith responded that 'it
was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the
coming forth of the Book of Mormon; and…it was not expedient for
him to relate these things' (HC 1:220)." [Encyclopedia of
Mormonism, Vol.1, BOOK OF MORMON TRANSLATION BY JOSEPH SMITH]

Again:

"Relative to the manner of translating the Book of Mormon
the prophet himself has said but little. 'Through the medium of
the Urim and Thummim I translated the record by the gift and
power of God,' is the most extended published statement made by
him upon the subject. Of the Urim and Thummim he says: 'With the
record was found a curious instrument which the ancients called a
"Urim and Thummim," which consisted of two transparent stones set
in a rim of a bow fastened to a breastplate.' " [B. H. Roberts,
Defense of the Faith and the Saints, Vol.1, p.255]

Bruce R. McConkie in _Mormon Doctrine_, pp.818-819, likewise
makes the point that the Urim and Thummim were provided for the
*specific* purpose of translating the Book of Mormon:

"Joseph Smith received the same Urim and Thummim had by the
Brother of Jared for it was the one expressly provided for the
translation of the Jaredite and Nephite records. (D. & C. 10:1;
17:1; Ether 3:22-28.) It was separate and distinct from the one
had by Abraham and the one had by the priests in Israel. The
Prophet also had a seer stone which was separate and distinct
from the Urim and Thummim, and which (speaking loosely) has been
called by some a Urim and Thummim. (Doctrines of Salvation, vol.
3, pp. 222-226.)

"President Joseph Fielding Smith, with reference to the
seer stone and the Urim and Thummim, has written: "We have been
taught since the days of the Prophet that the Urim and Thummim
were returned with the plates to the angel. We have no record of
the Prophet having the Urim and Thummim after the organization of
the Church. Statements of translations by the Urim and Thummim
after that date are evidently errors. The statement has been made
that the Urim and Thummim was on the altar in the Manti Temple
when that building was dedicated. The Urim and Thummim so spoken
of, however, was the seer stone which was in the possession of
the Prophet Joseph Smith in early days. This seer stone is now in
the possession of the Church." (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 3,
p. 225.)

"When Moroni first revealed to the Prophet the existence of
the gold plates, he also said "that there were two stones in
silver bows -- and these stones, fastened to a breastplate
constituted what is called the Urim and Thummim -- deposited with
the plates; and the possession and use of these stones were what
constituted `seers' in ancient or former times; and that God had
prepared them for the purpose of translating the book." (Jos.
Smith 2:35, 59, 62.) Ammon said of these same stones: "The things
are called interpreters, and no man can look in them except he be
commanded lest he should look for that he ought not and he should
perish. And whosoever is commanded to look in them, the same is
called seer." (Mosiah 8:13; 28:13-16.)""

From Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.3,
pp.225-226, we get the following account:

"While the statement has been made by some writers that the
Prophet Joseph Smith used a seer stone part of the time in his
translating of the record, and information points to the fact
that he did have in his possession such a stone, yet there is no
authentic statement in the history of the Church which states
that the use of such a stone was made in that translation. The
information is all hearsay, and personally, I do not believe that
this stone was used for this purpose. The reason I give for this
conclusion is found in the statement of the Lord to the Brother
of Jared as recorded in Ether 3:22-24.

"These stones, the Urim and Thummim which were given to the
Brother of Jared, were preserved for this very purpose of
translating the record, both of the Jaredites and the Nephites.
Then again the Prophet was impressed by Moroni with the fact that
these stones [the Urim and Thummim] were given for that very
purpose. It hardly seems reasonable to suppose that the Prophet
would substitute something evidently inferior under these
circumstances. It may have been so, but it is so easy for a story
of this kind to be circulated due to the fact that the Prophet
did possess a seer stone, which he may have used for some other
purposes.""

David Whitmer, who describes a quite detailed account of exactly
how the translation process took place despite the fact that it
was never divulged, states in the same place where he says a hat
was used that there were *two* seerstones, when in fact there was
only one. It was the Urim & Thummim that had the two stones and
was, from all described accounts (including D. Whitmer's), much
too large to fit in any hat whatsoever. It should also be
remembered that the account is taken decades after David
Whitmer's association with the Church, and the likely source for
the description were bogus rumors rampant among early
anti-Mormons.

From Francis W. Kirkham, _A New Witness for Christ in America_,
Vol.1, pp.469-70:

"The use of a seer stone by Joseph Smith buried in a hat to
exclude the light, seemed to have had its origin and emphasis in
Mormonism Unveiled, 1834. It appears that the affidavits of the
citizens of Palmyra follow a consistent pattern about money
digging and the use of a seer stone. One would be led to believe
that one person directed their form if he did not write each one
personally....Excerpts from some of the affidavits collected,
possibly written by Philastrus Hurlburt, the man who was
excommunicated from the Church for immoral conduct, and published
in 1834 in /Mormonism Unveiled/, are reprinted here...."

The motives of the excommunicated Hurlurt should be clear.

He then lists a number of "affidavits" that scholars, even
non-LDS ones, have concluded were likely coached by Hurlburt.
Certain of those now debunked "affidavits" describe Joseph
Smith's *father* using a stone in the identical manner attributed
by David Whitmer to Joseph Smith. The fact that David Whitmer
never participated in acting as a scribe for Joseph Smith and
that Oliver Cowdery, who wrote almost the entire Book of Mormon
as Joseph Smith dictated it, specifically contradicts the notion
as quoted above should suggest David Whitmer was repeating
descriptions he had actually heard from others.

--John Miles

(Note: John Miles' comments will be in the <single arrows>, and my responses follow.)

Bill Williams wrote:

>> It appears that Joseph Smith didn't need the
>> plates at all, since he "translated" the BoM by looking at a
>seer stone in a
>> hat. At least, that's what we learn from Emma Smith, Oliver
>Cowdery, Martin
>> Harris, and David Whitmer, those who actually worked with him.

John G. Miles wrote:

>No. It's not what we learn from Emma, Oliver, Martin & David.

Randy replied:

This statement is false. Emma, Martin Harris, and Joseph Knight very clearly
related the "face in the hat" version of the "translation." For example,
Knight stated:

"Now the way he translated was he put the urim and thummim into his hat and
Darkned his Eyes than he would take a sentance and it would apper in Brite
Roman Letters. Then he would tell the writer and he would write it. Then that
would go away the next sentance would Come and so on. But if it was not Spelt
rite it would not go away till it was rite, so we see it was marvelous. Thus
was the hol [whole] translated.Now when he Began to translate he was poor and
was put to it for provisions and had no one to write a little for him through
the winter. The Next Spring Oliver Cowdry a young man from palmyra Came to see
old Mr Smith, Josephs father, about this work and he sent him Down to
pensylveny to see Joseph and satisfy him self. So he Came Down and was soon
Convinced of the truth of the work. The next Spring Came Martin Harris Down to
pennsylvany to write for him and he wrote 116 pages of the first part of the
Book of Mormon."

LDS scholar Stephen Ricks also disagrees with you:

"According to most accounts, the seer stone was used during all stages of the
translation of the Book of Mormon, both before and after the loss of the first
116 manuscript pages. Edward Stevenson reported that Martin Harris (who served
as Joseph's scribe between April and June of 1828) testified to him 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 used the seer stone."
(The Translation and Publication of the BOM, on FARMS website)

>Only David Whitmer, who had long before fallen away from the
>Church, suggested that was the method

You're employing the knee-jerk Mormon apologetic tactic of trying to discredit
Whitmer's testimony because he "fell away" from the church. I don't suppose
you realize that Whitmer abandoned the Mormons in Missouri because Joseph
Smith's "Danites" ran him off and threatened to kill him.

And, if you disbelieve Whitmer's testimony of the "translation" process because
he "left the chhrch," surely you'll want to be fair and dismiss his testimony
of the gold plates, angel, etc. After all, you wouldn't want to "cherrypick",
would You? Agreeing with a witness when he helps your case, but dismissing him
when he doesn't?

> and while it would
>not matter to me in the least as to the manner in which the
>Lord provided for the working of the instruments of
>translation,

What should matter very much is whether the people involved in the production
of the BOM told a consistent, believable story. From that we can ascertain
whether or not "the Lord" had anything to do with it, or whether the whole
thing was a hoax.

> Oliver Cowdery, who acted as scribe almost
>exclusively for Joseph Smith

You're wrong again. Several people did the writing before Cowdery, including
Emma, Harris, and apparently Christian Whitmer. Cowdery was brought in because
he could write better than the others (but not much). If you want to find out
more about Cowdery's background than has ever been heretofore published, I
suggest you read the 1128-page "The Spalding Enigma."

>during the translation suggests
>just the opposite (and the one supported by Joseph Smith's own
>account in Church history)--

Smith omitted the "seer stone" use from his 1838 "official history" because
after he had been arrested thrice on fraud charges associated with his
"peep-stoning" malarkey in New York and Pennsylvania, he moved to Ohio and
began re-inventing himself into a Biblical-style "prophet." His "peep-stoning"
had been widely reported on and discussed by 1831, so he simply dropped that
aspect of his con game after he moved to Ohio, to avoid having his arrests
thrown back in his face forever.

As Stephen Ricks relates:

"Joseph's hesitation to speak in detail about the translation process is
reflected in his response to his brother Hyrum's request at a conference held
in Orange, Ohio in October 1831, that he provide a first-hand account
concerning the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. The Prophet replied that "it was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth of
the book of Mormon and . . . it was not expedient for him to relate these
things." His reticence was probably well justified and may have been due to
the inordinate interest which some of the early Saints had shown in the seer
stone or to the negative and sometimes bitter reactions he encountered when he
had reported some of his sacred experiences to others."

Of course, Ricks being an LDS apologist, cannot admit to the real reason why
Smith was "reticent" to reveal the details: It was because Smith had worked
his "peep-stoning" con between Palmyra and northeastern Pennsylvania from 1822
to 1826, and numerous people in those locales knew that it was a fraud. By
1831, some of Smith's close associates had already told of the "face in the
hat" version of "translation." Smith couldn't very well contradict what they
had seen with their own eyes; so the wisest thing he could do was keep his
mouth shut on the details, to avoid further contradictions.

>that it was the Urim and Thummim
>that Joseph Smith used almost exclusively in the translation
>process.

Wrong again. As I quoted from Ricks above, according to multiple eyewitnesses,
Smith continued to use the "seer stone---face in the hat" method throughout the
"translation process."

There was no "Urim and Thummim." If anything, Smith merely called two of his
"peep-stones" the "Urim and Thummim," in an attempt to stamp a Biblical
imprimatur on his occult practice.

>Regarding Oliver Cowdery, B. H. Roberts relates the following:
>
> ""Oliver Cowdery, one of the Three Witnesses of the Book of
>Mormon, and the prophet's chief amanuensis, says of the work of
>translation at which he assisted: "I wrote with my own pen the
>entire Book of Mormon (save a few pages), as it fell from the
>lips of the Prophet Joseph Smith, as he translated by the gift
>and power of God, by the means of the Urim and Thummim, or, as it
>is called by that book, 'Holy Interpreters.' " This is all he has
>left on record on the manner of translating the book."" [Defense
>of the Faith and the Saints, Vol.1, p.256]
>
>Note that the means of translation was not by the method
>described by David Whitmer.

Nor did your above Cowdery quote deny the "seer stone" method. His vague
description merely served to answer a question without saying anything, because
Cowdery, like Smith, knew that the less details given, the better.

After Cowdery arrived on the scene, he became Smith's chief accomplice. It was
he, along with (probably) William W. Phelps, who came up with the "Urim and
Thummim" idea. Again from Stephen Ricks:

"The term Urim and Thummim (first used by W. W. Phelps in 1833, which is
generally associated with the Nephite interpreters, is frequently used in a
rather undifferentiated manner to indicate either the seer stone or the
interpreters."

Note that Ricks acknowledges that the term "Urim and Thummim" was not used by
any Mormon until about 1833. As Bill Williams wrote, the term "Urim and
Thummim" did not appear in the original 1833 "Book of Commandments." When
Joseph Smith revised the BOC into the 1835 "Doctrine and Covenants," he
interpolated the term "Urim and Thummim" into an alleged pre-1830 "revelation"
to make it appear that the term had been used at that time.
That fact alone should tell non-brainwashed people that Smith took that action
to cover up the "peep-stone" business, and replace it with something that
sounded Biblical, rather than occultic.

Note also that Ricks admits that the terms "Urim and Thummim" (interpreters)
and "seer stone" were used interchangeably by Smith's early associates. That
indicates that the two allegedly different items were actually one and the
same. Smith never had any gold plates, no breastplate, no silver bows, no
"power of God." All he had was a couple of ordinary stones that he
found while digging a well. In that era of superstition and belief in
folk-magic, such stones were thought by credulous rubes to have magical powers.
Smith merely put two of them together and claimed that they were "giant
spectacles." So far, he's fooled about 15 million people with them, and more
are born every minute.

Randy J.

I'm wondering if this is the same Miles that I had exchanges with on a facebook group, and he contradicts himself and straight out lies about the Bible trying to defend Mormonism. Such as the claim about Jesus being a lower 'god' than Jehovah God. I asked him for a verse, and he gave a long-winded explanation. I said to save your typing and cite a single verse, then said, to explain John (in the beginning was the word...etc.), and he said that two different words are used for God in that verse, so that is his proof. I posted a greek concordance, that shows there is not two different words for God, and no response, or even acknowledgment from anyone on that group. Truth hurts I guess.

He's a joke. Good job.

John Miles wrote:

>Even today, among LDS scholars,
>there is still a lively debate as to how the process of
>translation actually worked given the often contradictory hearsay
>accounts.

Randy responded:

The accounts weren't "hearsay," but rather were first-hand testimony from Smith's
closest associates. I'll grant that they were indeed contradictory, but that's
the problem with frauds; those involved can't keep the story straight.

>That a seer stone existed is certainly true and is, in fact,
>still in the
>possession of the LDS church. And that it saw "limited action"
>in
>the translation of the Book of Mormon is also likely. However,
>the
>means of translation as described by David and Martin is pure
>hearsay

If one person tells a story different from the rest, you can theorize that he's
wrong, or that his account is "hearsay." But when half a dozen people tell the
same story, there has to be something to it.

Something that seems to evade the thought processes of Mopologists is that the
BOM "translation" took place in the Whitmer's tiny log cabin, with little or no
privacy. Emma, Martin Harris, Joseph Knight, and the Whitmer family were
closely involved in the events, even several months before Cowdery arrived on
the scene. When you question their combined testimony on the "face in the hat"
version, you're questioning the basic credibility of the very people who were
intimately involved in the earliest beginnings of the Mormon religions.

>and directly contradicts the fact that Joseph Smith stated (in
>the
>_History of the Church_) that though he was directly asked as to
>how the translation process took place, he never divulged it to
>anyone and felt it improper to do so. The relevant quote
>follows:
>
> "Little is known about the translation process itself. Few
>details can be gleaned from comments made by Joseph's scribes and
>close associates. Only Joseph Smith knew the actual process, and
>he declined to describe it in public. At a Church conference in
>1831, Hyrum Smith invited the Prophet to explain more fully how
>the Book of Mormon came forth. Joseph Smith responded that 'it
>was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the
>coming forth of the Book of Mormon; and…it was not expedient for
>him to relate these things' (HC 1:220)." [Encyclopedia of
>Mormonism, Vol.1, BOOK OF MORMON TRANSLATION BY JOSEPH SMITH]

I've already explained why Smith refused to provide details.

>Again:
>
> "Relative to the manner of translating the Book of Mormon
>the prophet himself has said but little. 'Through the medium of
>the Urim and Thummim I translated the record by the gift and
>power of God,' is the most extended published statement made by
>him upon the subject. Of the Urim and Thummim he says: 'With the
>record was found a curious instrument which the ancients called a
>"Urim and Thummim," which consisted of two transparent stones set
>in a rim of a bow fastened to a breastplate.' " [B. H. Roberts,
>Defense of the Faith and the Saints, Vol.1, p.255]
>
>Bruce R. McConkie in _Mormon Doctrine_, pp.818-819, likewise
>makes the point that the Urim and Thummim were provided for the
>*specific* purpose of translating the Book of Mormon:
>
> ""Joseph Smith received the same Urim and Thummim had by the
>Brother of Jared for it was the one expressly provided for the
>translation of the Jaredite and Nephite records. (D. & C. 10:1;
>17:1; Ether 3:22-28.) It was separate and distinct from the one
>had by Abraham and the one had by the priests in Israel. The
>Prophet also had a seer stone which was separate and distinct
>from the Urim and Thummim, and which (speaking loosely) has been
>called by some a Urim and Thummim. (Doctrines of Salvation, vol.
>3, pp. 222-226.)

As I previously wrote, the terms "Urim and Thumim" and "seer stone" were used
interchangeably by Smith's early associates, proving that they were one and the
same item.

>"President Joseph Fielding Smith, with reference to the
>seer stone and the Urim and Thummim, has written: "We have been
>taught since the days of the Prophet that the Urim and Thummim
>were returned with the plates to the angel. We have no record of
>the Prophet having the Urim and Thummim after the organization of
>the Church.

But there are plenty of references to the "seer stones" throughout Smith's life
and after his death.

>Statements of translations by the Urim and Thummim
>after that date are evidently errors.

Not at all; those statements merely indicate the obvious: the "seer stone" and
"Urim and Thummim" were one and the same.

>The statement has been made
>that the Urim and Thummim was on the altar in the Manti Temple
>when that building was dedicated. The Urim and Thummim so spoken
>of, however, was the seer stone which was in the possession of
>the Prophet Joseph Smith in early days. This seer stone is now in
>the possession of the Church." (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 3,
>p. 225.)

That's another example of how the terms "seer stone" and "Urim and Thummim" were used
to describe the same items.

>"When Moroni first revealed to the Prophet the existence of
>the gold plates, he also said "that there were two stones in
>silver bows -- and these stones, fastened to a breastplate
>constituted what is called the Urim and Thummim -- deposited with
>the plates; and the possession and use of these stones were what
>constituted `seers' in ancient or former times; and that God had
>prepared them for the purpose of translating the book." (Jos.
>Smith 2:35, 59, 62.)

Smith wrote this in 1838, years after the alleged events, in an effort to tell
a more Biblical-sounding story. There was no mention of any "Urim and Thummim"
until after the BOM had been published, so Smith's 1838 claim that "Moroni" had
used that term is an interpolation on his part.

>Ammon said of these same stones: "The things
>are called interpreters, and no man can look in them except he be
>commanded lest he should look for that he ought not and he should
>perish. And whosoever is commanded to look in them, the same is
>called seer." (Mosiah 8:13; 28:13-16.)""
>
>
>From Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.3,
>pp.225-226, we get the following account:

>"While the statement has been made by some writers that the
>Prophet Joseph Smith used a seer stone part of the time in his
>translating of the record, and information points to the fact
>that he did have in his possession such a stone, yet there is no
>authentic statement in the history of the Church which states
>that the use of such a stone was made in that translation.

Note apologist JF Smith's very clever qualifier "in the history of the Church."
The HoC only contains Smith's 1838 "official story"---the one he wrote to stamp
down reports of his "peep-stoning". JF Smith knew very well that Emma,
Harris, Whitmer, Joseph Knight, etc., told of the "seer stone in the hat"
version of "translation"; so JF Smith cleverly disregarded those accounts because
they weren't in the HoC.

>The
>information is all hearsay,

That's a bald-faced lie on the part of JF Smith.

> and personally, I do not believe that
>this stone was used for this purpose.

As JF Smith wasn't around during the events, his opinion is worthless.

>The reason I give for this
>conclusion is found in the statement of the Lord to the Brother
>of Jared as recorded in Ether 3:22-24.
> ""These stones, the Urim and Thummim which were given to the
>Brother of Jared, were preserved for this very purpose of
>translating the record, both of the Jaredites and the Nephites."

>Then again the Prophet was impressed by Moroni with the fact that
>these stones [the Urim and Thummim] were given for that very
>purpose.

The BOM quote above says "these stones." JF Smith's words [the Urim and Thummim] are an interpolation on his part. The term "Urim and Thummin" does not appear in the BOM, nor in any Mormon literature until 1832 or 1833.

> It hardly seems reasonable to suppose that the Prophet
>would substitute something evidently inferior under these
>circumstances. It may have been so, but it is so easy for a story
>of this kind to be circulated due to the fact that the Prophet
>did possess a seer stone, which he may have used for some other
>purposes."

The "other purposes" was to defraud people.

>David Whitmer, who describes a quite detailed account of exactly
>how the translation process took place despite the fact that it
>was never divulged,

If the process was "never divulged," then pray tell, how could Whitmer provide
a "quite detailed account?" One which just happened to match those from Emma,
Harris, Joseph Knight, etc.? Did Joseph Smith's wife and closest acquaintances
conspire to tell a completely false story of the "translation
process?"
Or were the liars really Smith and Cowdery?

>states in the same place where he says a hat
>was used that there were *two* seerstones, when in fact there was
>only one.

Smith had at least two, and possibly three, stones throughout his life. One
was described as brown with streaks, and the other a grayish-white.

> It was the Urim & Thummim that had the two stones and
>was, from all described accounts (including D. Whitmer's), much
>too large to fit in any hat whatsoever. It should also be
>remembered that the account is taken decades after David
>Whitmer's association with the Church, and the likely source for
>the description were bogus rumors rampant among early
>anti-Mormons.
>
>From Francis W. Kirkham, _A New Witness for Christ in America_,
>Vol.1, pp.469-70:

But Whitmer's account incredibly managed to match several other friendly ones.
They certainly were NOT "rumors started by anti-Mormons."

Randy J.

John Miles wrote:

>From Francis W. Kirkham, _A New Witness for Christ in America_, Vol.1,
pp.469-70:
>"The use of a seer stone by Joseph Smith buried in a hat to exclude the light,
seemed to have had its origin and emphasis in Mormonism Unveiled, 1834.

This statement is patently false. Accounts of Joseph Smith's 1822-26
money-digging/peep-stoning activities, as well as the "face in the hat" method
of "translation", were related in numerous publications as early as June,
1830----four years before the publication of "Mormonism Unvailed."

A few examples: First, from the "Cincinnati Advertiser" of June 2, 1830:

"A fellow by the name of Joseph Smith, who resides in the upper part of
Susquehanna county, has been, for the last two years we are told, employed in
dedicating as he says, by inspiration, a new bible. He pretended that he had
been entrusted by God with a golden bible which had been always hidden from the
world. Smith would put his face into a hat in which he had a white stone, and
pretend to read from it, while his coadjutor transcribed."

Next, from Abner Cole's "Palmyra Reflector" of July 1830:

"And it came to pass, that when the mantle of Walters the Magician had fallen
upon Joseph, surnamed the prophet, who was the son of Joseph; that the 'idle
and slothful' gathered themselves together, in the presence of Joseph, and said
unto him, 'Lo! we will be thy servants forever, do with us, our wives, and our
little ones as it may seem good in thine eyes.' And the prophet answered and
said---'Behold: hath not the mantle of Walters the magician fallen upon me, and
am I not able to do before you my people great wonders, and shew you, at a more
proper season, where the Nephites hid their treasure?---for lo! yes tonight
stood before me in the wilderness of Manchester, the 'spirit', who, from the
beginnings had had in keeping all the treasures, hidden in the bowels of the
earth."

Again from Cole's "Palmyra Reflector" of February 28, 1831:

"It is well known that Joe Smith never pretended to have any comunion with
angels, until a long period after the pretended finding of his book, and that
the juggling [folk-magic] of himself or father went no further than the
pretended faculty of seeing wonders in a 'peep stone,' and the occasional
interview with the spirit, supposed to have the custody of hidden treasures:
and it is also equally well-known that a vagabond fortune-teller by the name of
Walters, who then resided in the town of Sodus, and was once committed to the
jail of this county for juggling, was the constant companion and bosom friend
of these money-digging impostors."

Abram W. Benton was a doctor and Presbyterian church elder who had attended
Joseph Smith's "peep-stoning" trial of March 20, 1826, and also his subsequent
trial on "disorderly conduct" charges of July 4, 1830. Benton wrote a
summation of Smith's fraudulent activities, which was published in the
"Evangelical Messenger and Advocate" on April 9, 1831. To quote Benton:

"Messrs. Editors: In the sixth number of your paper I
saw a notice of a sect of people called Mormonites; and
thinking that a fuller history of their founder, Joseph
Smith, jr., might be interesting to your community, and
particularly to your correspondent in Ohio, where,
perhaps, the truth concerning him may be hard to come
at, I will take the trouble to make a few remarks on the
character of that infamous imposter. For several years
preceding the appearance of his book, he was about the
country in the character of a glass-looker: pretending, by
means of a certain stone, or glass, which he put in a hat,
to be able to discover lost goods, hidden treasures, mines
of gold and silver, &c. Although he constantly failed in
his pretensions, still he had his dupes who put implicit
confidence in all his words. In this town, a wealthy
farmer, named Josiah Stowell, together with others,
spent large sums of money in digging for hidden
money, which this Smith pretended he could see, and
told them where to dig; but they never found their
treasure. At length the public, becoming wearied with
the base imposition which he was palming upon the
credulity of the ignorant, for the purpose of sponging his
living from their earnings, had him arrested as a
disorderly person, tried and condemned before a court of
Justice. But considering his youth, (he being then a
minor,) and thinking he might reform his conduct, he
was designedly allowed to escape. This was four or five
years ago. From this time he absented himself from this
place, returning only privately, and holding clandestine
intercourse with his credulous dupes, for two or three
years."

Next, from the New York Inquirer of August 31, 1831:

"A few years ago the Smith's and others who were influenced by their notions,
caught an idea that money was hid in several of the hills which give variety
to the country between the Canandaigua Lake and Palmyra on the Erie Canal. Old
Smith had in his pedling excursions picked up many stories of men getting rich
in New England by digging in certain places and stumbling upon chests of
money. The fellow excited the imagination of his few auditors, and made them
all
anxious to lay hold of the bilk axe and the shovel. As yet no fanatical or
religious character had been assumed by the Smith's. They exhibited the simple
and ordinary desire of getting rich by some short cut if possible. With this
view the Smith's and their associates commenced digging, in the numerous hills
which diversify the face of the country in the town of Manchester. The
sensible country people paid slight attention to them at first. They knew them
to be a
thriftless set, more addicted to exerting their wits than their industry,
readier at inventing stories and tales than attending church or engaging in
any industrious trade. On the sides & in the slopes of several of these hills,
these excavations are still to be seen. They Would occasionally conceal their
purposes, and at other times reveal them by such snatches as might excite
curiosity. They dug these holes by day, and at night talked and dreamed over
the counties' riches they should enjoy, if they could only hit upon an iron
chest full of dollars. In excavating the grounds, they began by taking up the
green sod in the form of a circle of six feet diameter--then would continue to
dig to the depth of ten, twenty, and sometimes thirty feet."

In addition to the above accounts, which were all published years before Howe's
"Mormonism Unvailed," Joseph Smith's own closest associates testified of the
"face in the hat" version of the "translation process," including Smith's wife
Emma, Martin Harris, David Whitmer, and Joseph Knight. The numerous accounts
of the "face in the hat" version, published years before the 1834 "Mormonism
Unvailed," and repeated by Smith's closest followers, invalidate the assertion
that "Mormonism Unvailed" invented those allegations.

>It appears that the affidavits of the citizens of Palmyra follow a consistent
pattern about money digging and the use of a seer stone.

How interesting, that multiple eyewitnesses' testimonies should be "consistent." Would Kirkham think they were more believable if they were INconsistent?

>One would be led to believe that one person directed their form if he did not
write each one personally

Or, if one actually researched the facts about the collection of the
affidavits, one would realize that that assertion is ludicrous.

>....Excerpts from some of the affidavits collected, possibly written by
Philastrus Hurlburt,

There isn't a shred of evidence to support Kirkham's theory that the affidavits
were "possibly written" by Hurlbut. The testimonies were legal affidavits,
sworn before justices of the peace, and duly dated and notarized. Many of the
testators lived until near the turn of the 20th century, and not a single one
of them ever recanted their testimony. In fact, in his 1867 "Origins, Rise,
and Progress of Mormonism", "Wayne Sentinel" editor Pomeroy Tucker related:

"For corroboratory references, the author is permitted to name Messrs.
Joseph Capron, Russell Stoddard, Barton Stafford, and Russell M. Rush, of
Manchester, N.Y.; and Messrs. George Beckwith, George W. Cuyler, Richard
S. Williams, Willard Chase, John H. Gilbert, and Joseph C. Lovett, of
Palmyra; who, with himself (except the last two named), were
contemporaries and neighbors of Smith and his family for the whole period
of their residence in this locality, and all of whom were familiar with
their money-digging reputation and fabulous "Golden Bible" discovery.
The data for the later chapters of this Mormon history, have been obtained
from private correspondence, personal communications, official records,
and various published works.
POMEROY TUCKER. PALMYRA"

The fact that many of Hurlburt's testators were still alive, and willing to confirm their 1833 affidavits decades later, should put an end to Mormon assertions that "Hurlbut invented the affidavits."

That dog won't hunt.

Randy J.

John Miles quoted from Francis W. Kirkham:

>Excerpts from some of the affidavits collected,
possibly written by Philastrus Hurlburt, the man who was
excommunicated from the Church for immoral conduct, and published
in 1834 in /Mormonism Unveiled/, are reprinted here...."
>The motives of the excommunicated Hurlurt should be clear.

Mormon apologists typically bring up the "moral conduct" of opponents of
Mormonism, in an attempt to "destroy the message by discrediting the
messenger." However, the allegation that Hurlbut falsified his affidavits out
of "revenge" for being excommunicated is simply ridiculous. As I've already
documented, Hurlbut's testators swore their affidavits before judges, and
they maintained those testimonies throughout their lives. And detailed reports
of Smith's "peep-stoning" were published years before Hurlbut even joined the
Mormon church, let alone began his investigation into Smith's past, further
making the allegation silly.

Hurlbut joined the church on March 3, 1833, and went to NY the following
November. And Hurlbut didn't even go to NY to interview Smith's 1820's
neighbors, but to look up Solomon Spaulding's widow Matilda, near Syracuse.
The affidavits Hurlbut obtained from Palmyra acquaintances were merely a bonus
for him.

>He then lists a number of "affidavits" that scholars, even non-LDS ones, have
concluded were likely coached by Hurlburt.

The "non-LDS scholar" Kirkham refers to is likely Fawn Brodie. However, when
she wrote "No Man Knows My History," Brodie was a Mormon. She was
excommunicated for writing her book. And Brodie's opinion that Hurlbut may
have "coached" his witnesses is simply wrong, for reasons I've heretofore
documented. Brodie likely merely agreed with her Mormon predecessors that
Hurlbut's affidavits were suspect simply because that's what she had been
taught her entire life. But she was wrong.

>Certain of those now debunked "affidavits"

Note how Kirkham declares that Hurlbut's affidavits are "debunked," without
proving the allegation. Mormon apologists typically assert a theory, repeat
it a few times, and then declare it to be fact---whether it is or not. A very
subtle and dishonest habit.

>describe Joseph Smith's *father* using a stone in the identical manner
attributed
by David Whitmer to Joseph Smith.

In his "Tiffany's Monthly" interview, Martin Harris related that Smith Sr. was
a member of his son's money-digging/peep-stoning gang, so the idea that Smith
Sr. also engaged in the "peep-stoning" is no big revelation.

>The fact that David Whitmer never participated in acting as a scribe for
Joseph Smith

It's interesting how Mormon apologists try to deny Whitmer's testimony on the
"peep-stoning," but accept his "gold plates" testimony without reservation.
The alleged "translation" of the "gold plates" took place in the Whitmer family
cabin. Every member of the household was privy to the operation, and several
of them recounted the details. Emma Smith, Martin Harris, John Whitmer, and
Christian Whitmer all wrote portions of the BOM manuscript, so there's no
reason to believe that David was out of the loop of first-hand eyewitnesses.

>and that Oliver Cowdery, who wrote almost the entire Book of Mormon as Joseph
Smith dictated it, specifically contradicts the notion as quoted above

As I've already written, Cowdery was a latecomer to the events. Emma, Harris,
Whitmer, and Joseph Knight all preceded him, and they all told of the "face in
the hat" method. That makes it obvious that Smith and Cowdery invented the
"two stones in silver bows, fastened to a breastplate" story at some point near
the end of, or after, the production, in order to distance themselves from
Smith's 1820's "peep-stoning" fraud.

>should suggest David Whitmer was repeating descriptions he had actually heard
from others.

Nonsense. Whitmer was an eyewitness, as were Emma, Harris, and Joseph Knight.
And they all repeated the "peep-stone in the hat" version. Mormon apologists
have a nasty habit of simply dismissing testimony, even from friendly sources,
that contradicts their chosen position.

Randy J.

(Note: Russell McGregor is another Mormon apologist who uses poor logic, not to mention being an insufferable *sshole.)

>>>John G. Miles wrote:

>>>No. It's not what we learn from Emma, Oliver, Martin & David.

Randy wrote:

>>This statement is false.

>Actually, the statement is true if just *one* of the included individuals is
known not to have taught the point you're trying to assert they did, and that
was my point.

<chuckle> You must have graduated from the "Russell McGregor School of Logic."
Three of the four named above testified specifically to the "face in the hat"
version. Cowdery's account did not specifically mention the "face in the hat"
business, but it also didn't deny it. And even if Cowdery HAD denied it, that
would still make you wrong on three out of four cases; and yet you proclaim
"victory" on the point. Seeing as how Cowdery's statement didn't deny the
"face in the hat" version, and was in fact deliberately vague on specifics for
the purpose of covering up the "peep-stone" business, that makes you wrong on
all four counts.

Are you really Russell McGregor, posting under an alias?

>However, it's not worth quibbling about.

It's very much worth "quibbling about", for at least two huge reasons: One,
the fact that Smith's own close relatives and associates related the "peepstone
in the hat" business lends high credibility to similar accounts of Smith's
"peep-stoning" during the 1820's, from "non-friendly" sources, as published in
various places since 1830; and two, Smith's later suppression of the "face in
the hat" method, in favor of the "two stones in silver bows" story, obviously
means that he was trying to cover up his earlier "peep-stoning" practice, for
which he had been arrested in 1826. A man who suppresses information about
himself has something to hide.

>Also, your statement suggests (as you state explicitly below) that the seer
stone was the *only* method of translation, which *is* worth quibbling about
and is easily dismissed from an overview of the historical record.

Let me make this crystal clear: There was no authentic "translation". What
we're really discussing here is merely contradictory accounts concerning a
common fraudulent activity.

The thrust of my remarks is to show that the "two stones in silver bows"
business was invented sometime near the end of the alleged "translation"
period, in an attempt to distance Smith from his "peep-stoning" background, and
to try to put a Biblical spin on the "translation." IOW, the intention was to
make the world forget about Joe Smith the two-bit con artist of 1822-26, and
re-invent him as Joseph Smith, the Biblical-style "prophet."
The fact that the eyewitnesses also told of "giant spectacles" later does not
negate their accounts of the "peepstone in the hat," but rather is evidence
that they couldn't tell a consistent, believable story.
If, as you theorize, both "translation methods" were employed, then that means
that the version which required the breastplate, the"two stones in silver
bows," and even the "gold plates" themselves, was utterly unnecessary---because
with the "peepstone in the hat" version, all Smith needed was the ordinary
stone which he had dug out of Mason Chase's well in 1822, rather than having to
wait for "Moroni" to deliver the "two stones in silver bows" in 1827.
If, as witnesses related, Smith could "see" the translation in his hat "while
the plates were hidden in the woods," then obviously, he didn't need the plates
at all. All those "Nephite" prophets didn't need to mine that gold ore, smelt
it, hammer it, roll it, cut it into sheets, painstakingly etch their
chicken-scratchings on it, bind it, lug them around for centuries, and finally
bury them for Smith to dig up 1500 years later. Poor old "Moroni" lugged them
plates clean from the Yucatan all the way to NY, for no reason whatsoever!
"Moroni" didn't even have to make all those nocturnal visits to Joseph to tell
him about the plates! Joseph had to fight off the bad guys in the woods who
were trying to take the plates from him, for no reason whatsoever! Smith had
to endure ridicule from skeptics about the "gold plates," when in fact, the
plates weren't even necessary!

>There is also the question of how to deal with conflicting accounts from the
same person

The way most normal people handle conflicting accounts from the same person is
to question his overall credibility. However, in this case, all I'm doing here
is showing that Smith's friendly associates told of the same occultic practices
that his "unfriendly" ones did---thus showing that the "unfriendly" witnesses'
testimonies cannot be simply dismissed as "anti-Mormon lies."

I'll explain this with an analogy: Let's suppose that six people successfully
conspire to shoot the President. Only one is the actual shooter. They're all
arrested, and when questioned, three of them state that conspirator Smith was
the shooter, and three of them state that conspirator Jones was the shooter.
That makes it obvious that some or all of them are lying. However, the fact
that some or all of them were lying does not mean that the President was not in
fact shot. And it doesn't mean that all of them lied on every single utterance
they made during the questioning. The conflicting testimony simply means that
the suspects are motivated to lie, for whatever reasons.

Now, let's transfer this analogy to the BOM's production: The eyewitnesses
could not maintain a common story, and some of them even told conflicting
stories. This indicates that they lied for some reason. What's the most
obvious reason for the lies? Simple: The BOM is a hoax, and hoaxes need to be
supported by lies.

The shooting conspirators needed to lie to avoid prosecution or to protect
their favorites; but their lies do not negate the fact that the President was
shot by one of them; and by the same token, the BOM eyewitnesses needed to lie
because the BOM was a hoax, and the fact that they told conflicting stories is
clear evidence of that, without even going into the absurd anomalies within the
BOM itself that also prove its fraudulence.

> and whether any particular individual was giving a first hand account.

All of Smith's friendly witnesses were first-hand. However, let's pretend that
Emma's, David's, Martin's, and Joseph Knight's "face in the hat" accounts were
secondhand. If they were, then where on earth did they learn them? These
events occurred in 1828 and 1829. If the reports of Smith's "peep-stoning" and
money-digging from the 1834 "Mormonism Unvailed" are all false, then where in
the world did Emma, David, Martin, etc., obtain their "secondhand" information
about it? From an "evil spirit," perhaps? Where could the "Cincinnati
Advertiser" have obtained the following very detailed account, which they
published on June 2, 1830:

"A fellow by the name of Joseph Smith, who resides in the upper part of
Susquehanna county, has been, for the last two years we are told, employed in
dedicating [dictating] as he says, by inspiration, a new bible. He pretended
that he had been entrusted by God with a golden bible which had been always
hidden from the world. Smith would put his face into a hat in which he had a
white stone, and pretend to read from it, while his coadjutor transcribed."

Let's recap: You originally asserted that the accounts of the "peepstone in
the hat" story originated from Howe's 1834 "Mormonism Unvailed," and that was
unreliable because that account came from the "vengeful" Hurlbut. Yet, here we
have the "Cincinnati Inquirer" detailing the "peepstone in the hat" method
THREE YEARS BEFORE HURLBUT EVEN JOINED THE MORMONITE CHURCH!

Are you "catching my drift," Mr. Miles? The "peepstone in the hat" story could
not have been invented by Hurlbut in 1833. That means that the reports,
published as early as June, 1830, had to have come from the circle of Joseph
Smith's intimate associates---and it's obvious that whichever of those people
related the story to the "Cincinnati Enquirer" HAD to have gotten it directly
from Smith and/or Cowdery themselves.

>I did find, before you replied, a quote by Emma from "The Saints Herald,"

And those statements from Emma make your original assertion false.

>but without the complete context and date, and would be interested if you or
someone else could provide a copy of the entire article (at least a paragraph
would give us a better context), just for my information (it's an RLDS
publication that I have no way of tracking down at present).

Here's the quote:

"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. (Independence, Missouri: Herald House,
1951), "Last Testimony of Sister Emma," 3:356.

That same "last testimony" has been quoted countless times by Utah LDS leaders
and authors---but they're careful not to quote this part which mentions the
"peepstone in the hat," because Mormon leaders wish to suppress all accounts of
Smith's "peep-stoning," for obvious reasons.

>I understand your anti friends might consider it aiding and abetting the
enemy,

What "anti friends" are you speaking of? The RLDS "Saints Herald?" Do you
place Emma Smith and Joseph Smith lll into the category of "anti-Mormons?"

>but since we're all really just interested in accurate and objective
presentation of the facts, I'm sure they'll forgive you. <g>

Well, I'm interested in an accurate and objective presentation of the facts,
but you obviously aren't, because you're the one who falsely stated that David
Whitmer was the only eyewitness who told of the "peepstone in the hat" version.

Randy J.

John Miles wrote:

>BTW, I take a great deal of effort in tracking down (and documenting) the
source material I am using.

Unfortunately, your "source material" was largely post-hoc apologetic efforts
of spin doctors like Kirkham and JF Smith, instead of the first-hand, unedited,
unspun words of actual participants.

> I would appreciate it if you would provide the same service for the material
you
cite here,

So, what you're trying to say is, that the "documentation" you provided before,
from secondhand writers like Kirkham, JF Smith, etc., is all that you've been
exposed to, and you need me, an "anti-Mormon", to provide the original sources
that tell the whole story. You claim to have "researched the subject
extensively", but you want me to do your homework for you.

>as anti-Mormons have in the past exhibited an annoying tendency to take things
out of context (in my own and others' experience).

My experience in four years on ARM has shown me that about 99% of people
claiming to be Mormons don't know the meaning of the word "context." I feel
that one of my contributions to ARM is to put Mormon history into its proper
context. That's the only way to make any sense of it.

>>Emma, Martin Harris, and Joseph Knight very clearly related the "face in the
hat" version of the "translation."

>My point was not that an account(s) of using the seer-stone was not available.


You're backpedaling again. Earlier, your motive was to discredit David
Whitmer's account of the "face in the hat" method on the basis that it was the
"only one," that it was "hearsay," and that Whitmer wasn't close enough to the
process to render an opinion. But now, you're admitting that there were other
accounts that corroborated Whitmer's, so therefore, your earlier attempted
discreditation of Whitmer isn't worth the price of a Palmyra peepstone.

>Just the opposite, as my post clearly states in several places.

Your original post also claimed that "the reports of Smith's peep-stoning
seemed to originate from 'Mormonism Unvailed'," meaning that at best, you're
contradicting yourself. Look, Miles, all you have to do is admit that you're
unschooled on the facts, and that your "documentation" consists only of the
censored portions disseminated by Mormon apologists. It's no shame to admit
that you're wrong, and it would save a whole lot of unnecessary typing and
excuse-making.

>As far as I had researched (which is quite extensive

If your research is "quite extensive," then why are you begging me to provide
references for such things as Emma's testimony?

>and includes other accounts that the boilerplate anti-Mormon responses
duplicated everywhere in print and on the web deliberately ignore),

To which "boilerplate anti-Mormon responses" do you refer? Can you give us
instances of "anti-Mormon" publications which do not "include other accounts,"
as you allege?

>all four individuals had *not* provided descriptions of the account and those
accounts that *were* given were not necessarily based on eye-witness accounts
but more likely on hearsay

If we so desired, we could label anything we wished from that period as
"hearsay." In the 19th century, there were no tape or video recorders. We
could call the "testimony of the three witnesses", or Joseph Smith's 1838
history "hearsay," because those accounts were not written in the handwriting
of the testators, but were rather dictated to scribes or interviewers. They
weren't even notarized legal affidavits (as opposed to Hurlbut's.) We can
"cherrypick" to our hearts' desire, discarding all evidence that disagrees with
our chosen position, and only keeping that which does. But that is simply
intellectually dishonest.
When you seek to discredit testimony from Emma Smith, David Whitmer, Martin
Harris, Joseph Knight, etc., on those grounds, then you might as well throw out
everything claimed to be from the mind and mouth of Joseph Smith as
well---because very little of what he ever allegedly said was written by his
own hand, but came through "hearsay" secretaries.

The "standard" *I* use for determining credibility of statements is reasonable
and simple: One, if it comes from a Mormon-friendly or Mormon-published
source, Mormons cannot rationally dismiss it as "anti-Mormon" or "hearsay."
Two, if a story is corroborated by multiple independent testators, that
indicates a high likelihood of accuracy. Seeing as how people like Emma, David
Whitmer, Harris, William Smith, etc., continued to be quoted as verifying the
"face in the hat" version until late in the 19th century---from interviews by
their fellow Mormons, and in numerous publications--- it is futile to attempt
to dismiss their combined testimonies as hearsay or unreliable.

> that was widely rumored from, primarily, anti-Mormon sources (though those
repeating the "history" would not have necessarily been aware of it and may, in
fact, have found widespread acceptance among the Mormon population).

<chuckle> You're incredible. You're theorizing that Joseph Smith's earliest,
most intimate followers---the very people who married him, fed him, housed him,
wrote for him, and joined his church upon its inception---also managed to
somehow, incredibly, be swayed by untrue rumors from "anti-Mormons" to the
point of believing THEM, instead of trusting in what they had experienced and
seen with their OWN EYES?

You're some piece of work, Mr. Miles. You're already a candidate for the
"Woody Brison Most Deluded Mormon" award for 2001.

Here are some of the original sources of the quotes which you ignorantly allege
to be "anti-Mormon":

Emma Smith related her account to her son, Joseph Smith lll, shortly before her
death in 1879. As I referenced above, it was published in the RLDS "Saints
Herald."

David Whitmer's account, already quoted, was published in "An Address to All
Believers in Christ" in 1887, while Whitmer was still alive. That pamphlet has
been quoted countless times by numerous LDS historians. Whitmer also stated:
"I, as well as all of my father's family, Smith's wife, Oliver Cowdery and
Martin Harris, were present during the translation. . . . He [Joseph Smith] did
not use the plates in translation."
This statement was made in an interview with the "Kansas City Journal," June 5,
1881, and reprinted in the RLDS "Journal of History", vol. 8, (1910), pp.
299-300.

In an 1885 interview, Zenas H. Gurley, then the editor of the RLDS Saints
Herald, asked Whitmer if Joseph had used his "Peep stone" to do the
translation. Whitmer replied:
"... he used a stone called a "Seers stone," the "Interpreters" having been
taken away from him because of transgression. The "Interpreters" were taken
from Joseph after he allowed Martin Harris to carry away the 116 pages of Ms
[manuscript] of the Book of Mormon as a punishment, but he was allowed to go on
and translate by use of a "Seers stone" which he had, and which he placed in a
hat into which he buried his face, stating to me and others that the original
character appeared upon parchment and under it the translation in English."

I've already quoted Martin Harris' testimony from his 1859 interview with
"Tiffany's Monthly" magazine. Mormon Edward Stevenson also interviewed Harris:
"Martin Harris related an incident that occured 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," reprinted from Deseret News,
30 Nov. 1881 in Millennial Star, 44 (6 Feb. 1882): 86-87.)

Joseph Knight's account of the "face in the hat" version was taken from his own
dictated journal, and can be read in full at BYU's website at
http://www.math.byu.edu/~smithw/Lds/LDS/Early-Saints/joseph-knigh-rec.html

Mr. Miles, do you consider BYU's website to be an "anti-Mormon" source?

In 1879, Michael Morse, Emma Smith's brother-in-law, stated: "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."
(W.W. Blair interview with Michael Morse, Saints Herald, vol. 26, no. 12 (June
15, 1879), pp. 190-91.)

Joseph Smith's brother William also testified to the "face in the hat" version:
"The manner in which this was done was by looking into the Urim and Thummim,
which was placed in a hat to exclude the light, (the plates lying near by
covered up), and reading off the translation, which appeared in the stone by
the power of God" ("A New Witness for Christ in America," Francis W. Kirkham,
2:417.)

I'm sure you remember that Kirkham is the same LDS author from whom you quoted
the following earlier:

"From Francis W. Kirkham, _A New Witness for Christ in America_,
Vol.1, pp.469-70:
The use of a seer stone by Joseph Smith buried in a hat to exclude the light,
seemed to have had its origin and emphasis in Mormonism Unveiled, 1834."

In one part of his book, Kirkham alleges that the "face in the hat" version
'originated with Mormonism Unvailed'; yet, later, he quotes Joseph Smith's own
brother's testimony of the "face in the hat" version!
Note also that William Smith related that "the Urim and Thummim was placed in a
hat," which makes it obvious that the "Urim and Thummim" and the
"peep-stone(s)" were one and the same.

Now, Mr. Miles, in all those quotes I provided, did you detect any from
"anti-Mormon" sources? Do you have any reason to believe that any of those
accounts are unreliable?

>What you have provided below merely indicates the rumors being repeated and
perhaps faulty memory given the contradictions by more primary sources and even
within his own accounts.

We could dismiss any testimony, from anybody, on any subject, in any case,
based on such reasoning. At some point, the intelligent, rational human mind
has to accept the fact that the combined weight of the numerous testimonies
renders the idea of their being "rumors" or "faulty memory" impossible. But if
you want to believe that all of those Mormons were really that unreliable,
that's your privilege. In doing so, you're destroying the credibility of the
very people that were Joseph Smith's most intimate, trusted relatives and
associates.

> Even today, there are a number of "urban legends" that exist in the Church
that even I had taken as fact when younger and before doing any research or
extensive reading.

All of Mormonism itself is an "urban legend." It began as a legend, and bigger
and bigger legends have had to be invented to support it ever since.

Randy J.

John Miles wrote:

>The fact that the two primary individuals involved in the translation process,
Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery,

You keep repeating this falsehood as though it were fact. "Martin was back in
Harmony by mid-April, 1828, and for the first time the translation began in
earnest. For three months, from about April 12 to June 14, 1828, Joseph and he
were hard at work.....By the middle of June, 1828, Martin had covered 116 pages
of fooscap with text from the golden plates....Lucy said that Joseph received
the interpreters again on September 22, and he and Emma did a little
translating.....Amidst all the comings and goings, Joseph took up the
translation again. Emma wrote his dictation most of the time, although she
says her brother Reuben Hale helped.....on the first Sunday evening in April,
the 5th [1829], Samuel Smith arrived at the Smith cabin accompanied by a
stranger named Oliver Cowdery.....on Tuesday, April 7, the translation began
again, to go on with only a few pauses until the book was completed in early
July.....When Oliver took up the job of scribe, he and Joseph translated in the
same room where Emma was working. There was no problem with the plates because
JOSEPH LOOKED IN THE SEERSTONE OR THE INTERPRETERS, AND THE PLATES LAY COVERED
ON THE TABLE." (emphasis mine.)
("Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism," Richard L. Bushman, pp.
90-99.)

It is obvious that Emma, Harris, and others were intimately involved in the
"translation" long before Cowdery even arrived on the scene. The very fact
that Harris wrote the first 116 pages indicates his closeness to the process.
"Various persons relieved Oliver as clerk. David remembered Emma and Christian
each taking a turn. One of the hands in the manuscript of 1 Nephi looks like
John Whitmer's, and Joseph said, 'John Whitmer, in particular, assisted us very
much in writing during the remainder of the work.' " (ibid, p. 104.)

>indicate in the former case that the translation process was *never* entirely
revealed,

My dear Mr. Miles, the "translation process" was INDEED "revealed"-----by Emma,
Harris, David Whitmer, Joseph Knight, Michael Morse, and William Smith. As
I've already explained to you, Joseph Smith himself declined to offer details
on the process after the BOM's publication because he knew that recounting the
"peepstone in the hat" business would resurrect stories of his 1822-26
peep-stoning/money-digging con game. In 1831, Smith was enjoying the fruits of
re-inventing himself as a Biblical-style "prophet." He and Rigdon were
plotting their vast "temporal" kingdom, from which they planned to draw a
handsome salary (and Smith was formulating his "secret wife" doctrine that
would gain him access to dozens of women's pantaloons). Smith couldn't afford
to tell the "face in the hat" version again, because it would have brought his
"prophethood" down like a house of cards. In fact, reports of Smith's dubious
past had reached Kirtland by 1831, and they were part of the reason the
committee was formed to send someone back to NY to investigate Smith's
background. The person chosen to go was Philastus Hurlbut.

> and in the latter case that the means of that translation was by use of the
"Urim and Thummim" which Oliver specifically indicates were the same device(s)
called, in the
Book of Mormon, "interpreters"

As I've already written, many of Smith's closest associates used the terms
"seer stone" and "Urim and Thummim" interchangeably. When you write that
Cowdery used "Urim and Thummim" and "interpreters" synonomously, you must
realize that Cowdery was referring to the "seer stone(s)" when he used those
words, just as the other witnesses did.
And, to repeat: The term "Urim and Thummim" was not used by any Mormon until
at least 1833. The use of the term was developed as a ruse to distance the
BOM's production from Smith's earlier "peep-stoning" practice.

>makes it clear that faulty memory or merely repeating widespread "urban
legends" is the most likely explanation.

No, the most likely explanation is that the BOM is a fraud; there was no
"translation"; and the irreconciliable contradictions in the stories of the
eyewitnesses are merely more evidence to prove that. Seeing as how numerous
participants testified of the "face in the hat" version, your theory wouldn't
require "faulty memory," but rather mass hallucination.

>>For example, Knight stated:

>Just to be precise, I clearly stated that the seer stone was "certainly" used
in the translation process.

You are once again having difficulty with honesty. Here, I'll repeat your
original assertion yet again:

"From Francis W. Kirkham, _A New Witness for Christ in America_,
Vol.1, pp.469-70:
The use of a seer stone by Joseph Smith buried in a hat to exclude the light,
seemed to have had its origin and emphasis in Mormonism Unveiled, 1834."

Which is it, Mr. Miles? Did the reports of the use of a seer stone buried in a
hat originate from 'Mormonism Unvailed,' as you stated originally? Or was the
seer stone "certainly used" in the translation process, as you assert above?
Please pick one, and stick with it.
Remember now, if you pick the latter, you'll be conceding that since the BOM
"translation" occurred in 1828-29, and Hurlbut didn't collect his affidavits
until 1833, that means that Hurlbut's affidavits of Smith's 1822-26
"peep-stoning" practice, sworn by numerous neighbors, are credible.

>However, reading from all sources and conflicting accounts, I find that the
primary instrument used was the Urim and Thummim.

You're asserting as fact something that is only an opinion. I've provided the
statements from eyewitnesses as to the "translation process," and people can
make their own minds up about which "method" was more prevalent. However, as I
quoted from Bushman above, "the plates lay covered on the table" even during
Cowdery's tenure, indicating that there was no need to peer at the plates
through any "giant spectacles" fastened to a breastplate. Bill Williams'
original comment was that Smith didn't even need the "gold plates" to begin
with, and the use of the "peepstone in the hat" business, for at least part of
the "translation," bears that out.

>The seer stone, on the other hand, appears to have had more widespread use in
the receiving of revelations

Righto! If Smith had a wonderful magic rock through which he could "translate"
and "receive revelations," then he had no need for gold plates, breastplates,
silver bows, or "giant spectacles." He allegedly "translated" some of John the
Beloved's writings from a piece of parchment via his "seer stone"---without
even having the parchment! So why would he need any "gold plates?"

>(at least initially, as historical records indicate it was never used after
about 1829-1830 [including David Whitmer's own statements]).

Wrong again, Mr. Miles. Smith's associates reported him having the "seer
stone" until at least July of 1843, and that it was still in "seeing" order.
Of course, Smith never actually "saw" anything with it; everything he produced
through supposedly supernatural means is a fraud.

>I have no problem with Joseph using a hat to exclude all light, as well, if
that is the way the seer stone was meant to function.

The point is that the "peepstone in the hat" mumbo-jumbo is the exact same
process he had used for several years to defraud local rubes. He was arrested
for the practice in 1826, and in the ensuing trial, he admitted that the
practice was all a fraud. Yet, only two years later, he allegedly began
"translating gold plates" via a process that he had formerly used to con locals
and pick up pocket money.
As his own father-in-law, Isaac Hale, testified, "The manner in which he
pretended to read and interpret, was the same as when he looked for the
money-diggers, with the stone in his hat, and his hat over his face, while the
Book of Plates were at the same time hid in the woods!" ("Susquehanna
Register", May 1, 1834.)
The very fact that Smith began suppressing the "seer stone" version as early as
1831 indicates Smith's consciousness of fraud---at least, to us rational
thinkers.

>It's just that putting all accounts together, including Joseph Smith's
statement that he never revealed the complete process to anyone, and those
closest to the translation indicating otherwise, I have concluded the evidence
is in favor of the Urim and Thummim.

Yes, you have concluded so, and any contrary evidence be damned. The "seer
stone(s)" and the "Urim and Thummim" were the same item.
Smith merely switched from the "peepstone in the hat" version to the "two
stones in silver bows" story to hide his past and make the BOM's production
sound more "Biblical."

Randy J.

It is so frustrating to read the circular arguments of the mopologists.

Randy J, you do a through job of consistently pointing out the nonsense and faulty arguments that they repeat and repeat until they claim the lies to be true...exhausting.

I am so glad that the mormon apologist group is now thrown under the bus on their own religion's website essays. Amazing irony.

Did these threads occur in 2001? (edit: Yes, 2001, Just went back and checked OP post and I see you mention it in the first paragraph) I thought that year/date was mentioned.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/27/2015 12:31AM by upsidedown.

"It is so frustrating to read the circular arguments of the mopologists."

I think that they don't even realize that they're making circular arguments. I think that they just locate quotes from trusted "authorities" such as Joseph Fielding Smith, Francis W. Kirkham, Bruce R. McConkie, etc., and use those quotes without determining for themselves if they're logical, reasonable, or comport with known facts.

"Randy J, you do a thorough job of consistently pointing out the nonsense and faulty arguments that they repeat and repeat until they claim the lies to be true...exhausting."

Thanks for your compliment. My strategy was to give the TBMs enough documentation to make any reasonable, logically-thinking reader understand what was true and what was false. If a certain TBM was too haughty or arrogant to concede that he was wrong, I'd call him an irreconciliable fanatic and go deal with somebody else.

"I am so glad that the mormon apologist group is now thrown under the bus on their own religion's website essays. Amazing irony."

It truly is. That illustrates how the church can't keep telling their same old lies, when the truth is all over the internet. It would be interesting to see if any of those TBMs have changed their thinking now that the church admits to the peepstone-in-the-hat business. Obviously, the info isn't widespread yet, since according to the OP, currently-serving missionaries are clueless about it.

"Did these threads occur in 2001? (edit: Yes, 2001, Just went back and checked OP post and I see you mention it in the first paragraph)"

Yes, I debated the TBMs from about 1997 to 2004.

good stuff , Randy

The apologists you argued with never admitted you were right on
anything. BUT there were others watching from the sidelines,
Mormons who were not unthinking, knee-jerk apologists that had
their head twisted by the fact that your facts totally
contradicted what their church was telling them.

The internet is the nemesis of the Church, and your work on the
usenet groups was the beginning of that effectiveness.

"The apologists you argued with never admitted you were right on
anything. BUT there were others watching from the sidelines,
Mormons who were not unthinking, knee-jerk apologists that had
their head twisted by the fact that your facts totally
contradicted what their church was telling them."

True, and some of those who were TBMs when I began posting on ARM now hang around RFM. In fact, two guys who were still TBM to some degree when I started on ARM around 1999 came to hear me speak at the ExMormon Foundation conference in 2002.

"The internet is the nemesis of the Church, and your work on the
usenet groups was the beginning of that effectiveness."

Thanks for your compliment, but I ain't really all that. I first debated Mopologists on an e-mail group called Free-Saints around 1996. Some of the "scholars" there included Eldon Watson, Robert Crockett, Bob Frame, and Alma Allred. Even though I wasn't yet fully de-programmed from my belief in the church at that time, it took me just a few weeks of reading those guys' arguments to see that they were full of crap.

I discovered ARM by accident. Some guy, I think his name was Jeremy Jacobs, had a website. He had spent some time debating on ARM and had put links to the archives on his website. I signed up on ARM and away I went. There were some other Ex-Mos and never-Mos on there who predated me. My point being, I wasn't the "beginning" of anything. But I will take credit for researching the issues and posting thorough, reasonable responses to the Mopologists.

For several years, I forwarded a lot of my ARM posts on various issues to the Ex-Mormon e-mail list and the MIT-talk e-mail list. Eric K. has archived a lot of those posts in their short topics section. I would like to believe that some of the heavy-duty Mopologists---the FARMers and FAIRies---read some of my posts over the years. We know that the apologists have monitored RFM and other Ex-Mo sites all this time. Maybe some of those Mopologists read my, and other peoples' documentation over the years, and that made them realize that they had to begin changing the way the church presents its history---especially with so many people leaving the church. And maybe that led, in part, to the church publishing their essays. After all, the essays admit to, or confirm, quite a bit of info that we Ex-Mos have been posting for years. So I would like to think that some of my writings have contributed a tiny bit to forcing the church to own up to its history.

LDS Apostle Admits Joseph Smith Translated the Book of Mormon Through a Rock in Hat

In the LDS Church's official organ, the "Ensign" magazine, a General Conference sermon by Mormon Apostle Russell M. Nelson is published, in which Nelson openly acknowledges--and invokes as true--the Book of Mormon rock-in-the-hat translation tale, as follows:

Nelson: "The details of this miraculous method of translation [of the Book of Mormon] 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 CHARACATER AT A TIME WOULD APPEAR, AND UNDER IT WAS THE INTERREPTATION IN ENGLISH. BROTHER JOSEPH WOULD READ OFF THE ENLGLISH 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 AND 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)"

("'A Treasured Testament,' by Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles," published in "Ensign" magazine, July 1993, emphasis added, at: https://www.lds.org/ensign/1993/07/a-treasured-testament?lang=eng)


Hats off to these goofs. It seems that the Mormon God's "prophets. seers and revelators" can't get on the same fool's-gold page when it comes to the basic question of how Joseph Smith "translated" the Book of Mormon gold plates. Next thing you know, we'll be finding out that there are multiple, inconsistent versions of what happened in the "First Vision."

Say it ain't so, Joe! In the meantime, that apostate apostle Nelson has got to go!
_____


Additional Sources:

1. Oliver Cowdery:

“[I] had seasons of skepticism, in which I seriously wonder whether the prophet and I were men in our sober senses when we would be translating from the plates through the ‘Urim and Thummim’ and the plates would not be in sight at all.”

(Cowdery, "Latter-day Saint Messenger and Advocate," October 1834)


2. Elizabeth Ann Whitmer Cowdery:

“He [Joseph Smith] would place the director in his hat, and then place his face in his hat, so as to exclude the light.”

(Elizabeth Ann Whitmer Cowdery, affidavit, 15 February 1870, in William E. McLellin. "To“My Dear Friends")


3. Emma Smith:

“Now the first that my husband translated, was translated by use of the Urim and Thummim, and that was the part that Martin Harris lost, after that he [my husband] used a small stone, not exactly black, but was rather a dark color.”

(Emma Smith Bidamon to Emma S. Pilgrim, 27 March 1876, RLDS library archives, see also Vogel, "Early Mormon Documents," vol. 1, p. 532)


4. George Q. Cannon:

“One of Joseph’s aidEs in searching out the truths of the [Book of Mormon] was a peculiar pebble or rock which he called a seer stone, and which was sometimes used by him in lieu of the Urim and Thummim.”

(Cannon, "Life of Joseph Smith," p. 56)


5. Hiel Lewis:

“[Joseph Smith] translated the Book of Mormon by means of the same peep stone, and under the same inspiration that directed his enchantments . . . .”

(Hiel Lewis, “Review of Mormonism: Rejoinder to Elder Cadwell,” in "Amboy Journal," Amboy IL, 4 June, 1879)


6. William W. Blair:

“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 scribe – Emma, John Whitmer, O[liver]. Cowdery, or some other, wrote it down.”

(Blair, letter to “Editors, Herald,” 22 May 1879, in 'Saints’ Herald," vOL. 26, 15 June 1879, pp. 190-91)


7. William Stafford:

“Joseph [Smith] Jr., could see, by placing a stone of singular appearance in his hat, in such a manner as to exclude all light; at which time they pretended he could see all things within and under the earth – that he could see within the above mentioned caves, large gold bars and silver plates – that he could also discover the spirits in whose charge these treasures were, clothed in ancient dress.”

(Stafford, neighbor of the Smith family, quoted in "Mormonism Unveiled," by E.D. Howe, 1834)


8. "The Sun" (Philadelphia PA):

“So, in order to convince Harris that he could read from the plates, Jo deposits them [the seer stones] in his hat, applies the spectacles, and refers Harris to a chapter in the Bible which he had learned by rote; and which he read from the plates, with surprising accuracy; and what astonished Harris most, was, that Jo should omit all the words in the Bible that were printed in Italic. And, if Harris attempted to correct Jo, he persisted that the plates were right, and the Bible was wrong. . . . Harris commenced transcribing, as Jo dictated; and to avoid mistakes, Jo required his amanuensis to read what he had written; and nothing was allowed to pass, until Jo pronounced it correct.”

(“Mormonites,” in "The Sun," Philadelphia PA, 18 August 1831, original in Library of Congress)


9. Richard L. Anderson:

“Thus it should pose no religious difficulty that Joseph’s seer stone of his youth was later applied to the higher use of inspired translation of the Book of Mormon.”

(Anderson, “The Mature Joseph Smith and Treasure Searching,” p. 537)


10. Richard Van Wagoner and Steven Walker:

“The plates could not have been used directly in the translation process. The Prophet, his face in a hat to exclude exterior light, would have been unable to view the plates directly even if they had been present during transcription. A mental picture of the young Joseph, face buried in a hat, gazing into a seer stone, plates out of sight, has not been a generally held view since the early days of the Church. The view raises some difficult questions. Why, for example, was such great care taken to preserve the plates for thousands of years if they were not to be used directly in the translation process?”

(Van Wagoner and Walker, “Joseph Smith: ‘The Gift of Seeing,’” in "Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought," vol. 15, Summer 1982, p. 53)


Damn the all to hell.



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 04/27/2015 03:21AM by steve benson.

RandyJ and SteveB..... GOOD stuff man! Thanks for the efforts.

...all of the posts I copied in this thread were those I wrote on ARM 14 years ago, when you were there defending the church, right?

This is great stuff. Thanks for keeping the world honest.

Thanks randyj!

Nothing pisses me off more that apologists trying to tell me what first person accounts from those on the scene were thinking by putting apologetic words in their mouths.

Shut the hell up! I will read the accounts and decide for my self without YOU telling ME how I should contort what I read so that I get a faithful interpretation!

This tact of faithful interpretation is only supported by lying and as the backyardprofessor has learned, no amount of lying to oneself will ever create a Steel Sword out of a piece of Obsidian tied to a stick!

If JS and the Mormon Church would tell the truth many of us would have never made it here (to this board).

The truth unites but the ACTUAL TRUTH unites even more, and better, and for longer.

Long live the truth about the founder and founding of Mormonism... no matter how hard the Saints try to bury it, ignore it, avoid it or deny it.

When most any substantive question is asked (of a 'leader') one or two replies:


-it's too sacred

-why do YOU ask, <attempt to question the doubts>

Let me add a few more statements including the David Whitmer clarification regarding the translation of the so-called book of mormon! As we know, (one of the three witnesses) David Whitmer was a former character witness for jo smith jr. who had earlier validated the existence of the so-called gold plates! All bets were off when profit jo blew up the official compilation of smith's revelations to date called the Book of Commandments published in 1833! This so-called sacred publication was completely bastardized/later replaced with the joke on all of us titled the doctrine & covenants! What a mess! David Whitmer had seen enough/left the so-called church! In his eyes, jo smith jr. was of course a fallen profit who had rewritten God's Revelations!

Joseph's wife, Emma, described the process to her son:

In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, after sitting by 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. . . . The plates often lay on the table without any attempt at concealment, wrapped in a small linen table cloth, which I had given him to fold them in (Statement of Emma Smith, Early Mormon Documents, vol. 1, p. 541).

In 1834 Emma's father, Isaac Hale, gave a similar description of the translation process:

. . . I went to the house where Joseph Smith Jr., lived, and where he and Harris were engaged in their translation of the Book. . . . I told them then, that I considered the whole of it a delusion, and advised them to abandon it. The manner in which he [Smith] pretended to read and interpret, was the same as when he looked for the money-diggers, with the stone in his hat, and his hat over his face, while the Book of Plates were at the same time hid in the woods! (Isaac Hale Statement, Early Mormon Documents, vol. 4, p. 287)

LaMar Petersen, author and historian, observed:

The church has always been strongly committed to the belief that Joseph translated directly from the plates, but at least one modern LDS scholar, Nels L. Nelson, a professor at Brigham Young University, concluded otherwise: "Joseph Smith did not look directly at the plates while translating. In fact the plates, while they were in the possession of the Prophet, were probably not immediately at hand with him during most of the translation" (The Creation of the Book of Mormon: A Historical Inquiry, by LaMar Petersen, Freethinker Press, 2000, p. 96).

Since Joseph Smith simply read the translation off the stone in his hat it would have been irrelevant whether the plates were in the room or in the woods. David Whitmer described the process of translation:

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

Deceivers for the so-called church are looking more/more foolish as more is revealed about the sleazy CON/vicious CULT that is mormonism! Scientology anyone? As Always, tnurg (GRUNT)