So I caught about the last 15 minutes of a "Big Love" episode on HBO last night...

[scottie]

which was the first time I've ever watched it. The only things about the show I'm familiar with are (1) it's about polygamy, (2) the setting is in Utah, and (3) I understand that HBO or the show's producers have somewhere/somehow stated the LDS Church does not endorse the show (I have no idea if it's posted at the beginning of every episode, or where it's published, but I seem to recall reading/hearing about that). So about the episode I saw...

When I tuned in the scene was a meeting of about 50 people who I assume were all part of the polygamous group. At the front of the room was a guy (maybe their leader?) holding a hat in one hand and what looked like a small black stone in the other. He would look through the stone while putting his face inside the hat. He would then pull his face out and yell something as though it was some sort of revelation, then would put his face back in the hat with the stone to his eye. I can't remember any of the things he yelled, but after one of these revelations one guy stood up and said, "I, Martin Farris..." -- note the 'F' instead of 'H' in Farris -- "witness (something, something)...".

Anyway, a few questions for the CG intelligence (I'm assuming Big Love was somehow depicting that leader to be the equivalent of Joseph Smith)...

1. I've heard it mentioned a few times that Joseph Smith did something like that with a hat in his hands, but I've never investigated. If it's true, what exactly was he using the hat for?

2. Why do we rarely, if ever, learn about the hat in church? (again, if it's true) I'm 33, have gone to church all my life, served a mission, and I promise you I've never heard/learned about it in any lesson. We learn about the first vision and the gold plates all the time, why not about the hat (if true)? I have a hard time buying "because it's not important" -- who's to say what is and isn't important to someone?

I’m not trolling, I promise.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by scottie

which was the first time I've ever watched it. The only things about the show I'm familiar with are (1) it's about polygamy, (2) the setting is in Utah, and (3) I understand that HBO or the show's producers have somewhere/somehow stated the LDS Church does not endorse the show (I have no idea if it's posted at the beginning of every episode, or where it's published, but I seem to recall reading/hearing about that). So about the episode I saw...

When I tuned in the scene was a meeting of about 50 people who I assume were all part of the polygamous group. At the front of the room was a guy (maybe their leader?) holding a hat in one hand and what looked like a small black stone in the other. He would look through the stone while putting his face inside the hat. He would then pull his face out and yell something as though it was some sort of revelation, then would put his face back in the hat with the stone to his eye. I can't remember any of the things he yelled, but after one of these revelations one guy stood up and said, "I, Martin Farris..." -- note the 'F' instead of 'H' in Farris -- "witness (something, something)...".

Anyway, a few questions for the CG intelligence (I'm assuming Big Love was somehow depicting that leader to be the equivalent of Joseph Smith)...

1. I've heard it mentioned a few times that Joseph Smith did something like that with a hat in his hands, but I've never investigated. If it's true, what exactly was he using the hat for?

2. Why do we rarely, if ever, learn about the hat in church? (again, if it's true) I'm 33, have gone to church all my life, served a mission, and I promise you I've never heard/learned about it in any lesson. We learn about the first vision and the gold plates all the time, why not about the hat (if true)? I have a hard time buying "because it's not important" -- who's to say what is and isn't important to someone?

I’m not trolling, I promise.

The Big Love folks have done a good job differentiating LDS people from the polygamists who are the main characters in the show. The differences and antagonisms between the two have major importance to several plot lines. No one who is paying attention will mistake the LDS Church for the polygamists.

The fellow you saw leads the main group of polygamists. He is their "prophet," as it were.

As to why you don't hear about things like David Whitmer's reminisence (and it isn't obscure, its in his "An Address to All Believers in Christ," we could talk about this for a long time (correlation, the fact that Church meetings aren't really about our history at all, fudnamentalist retrenchment, some leaders are very sensitive about our real history, etc). This forum (or perhaps the religious studies fourm here on CG) is an excellent place to ask questions about Church history. Several of us have gone to the trouble to have good foundations in the subject. I'm a member of the Mormon History Association.

Here's the "stone and hat" account from David Whitmer, 1887:

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

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

The Big Love folks have done a good job differentiating LDS people from the polygamists who are the main characters in the show. The differences and antagonisms between the two have major importance to several plot lines. No one who is paying attention will mistake the LDS Church for the polygamists.

The fellow you saw leads the main group of polygamists. He is their "prophet," as it were.

As to why you don't hear about things like David Whitmer's reminisence (and it isn't obscure, its in his "An Address to All Believers in Christ," we could talk about this for a long time (correlation, the fact that Church meetings aren't really about our history at all, some leaders are very sensitive about our real history, etc). This forum (or perhaps the religious studies fourm here on CG) is an excellent place to ask questions about Church history. Several of us have gone to the trouble to have good foundations in the subject. I'm a member of the Mormon History Association.

Here's the "stone and hat" account from David Whitmer, 1887:

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

So the hat and seer stone had no application beyond the Book of Mormon translation?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

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

Is that the sum total of the "face in the hat" story? Do we have any corroborating evidence?

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

So the hat and seer stone had no application beyond the Book of Mormon translation?

It's pretty clear that Joseph used the same stone for "money digging." (I have a copy of the transcript of the 1826 trial). The terms Urim and Thummim weren't used in the Church until sometime after the translation of the BoM (I could look this up, but alot of my stuff is packed up for a move). I'd have to look up whether or not any of his revelations recieved through the U & T were thought to have been received through this stone.

I should mention that Emma's 1879 interview agrees with Whitmer (I think there's a Martin Harris account that does too, but I'm a little fuzzy on exactly what it says, maybe someone can jump in?). I looked up Emma's statement:

"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... .'"

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Is that the sum total of the "face in the hat" story? Do we have any corroborating evidence?

No, there are others who mention similar stories, but I believe they are all late remembrances. Here is one from Emma in 1879:

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... .'"

[oops, I see that SIEQ beat me to the Emma quote]

I don't think Harris mentions the hat but maybe there is a quote where he does (he did point out the following as described by BH Roberts):

"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, the 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" (CHC 1:29).

[Jeff Lebowski]

Thanks.

I have never quite understood the shock some people register when they discover that he wasn't always looking directly at the plates to do the "translation". Or why some would feel the need to suppress this part of our history. What's the difference? Either way he needed revelation. It's not like he could figure it out just by staring at the characters.

[pelagius]

I am not sure this one has ever been suppressed that much. For example Russell M. Nelson in a 1993 Ensign article said the following:

http://lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/me...____&hideNav=1

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.)

Emma Smith, who acted as an earlier scribe for Joseph, gave this account in 1856:

“When my husband was translating the Book of Mormon, I wrote a part of it, as he dictated each sentence, word for word, and when he came to proper names he could not pronounce, or long words, he spelled them out, and while I was writing them, if I made any mistake in spelling, he would stop me and correct my spelling although it was impossible for him to see how I was writing them down at the time. Even the word Sarah he could not pronounce at first, but had to spell it, and I would pronounce it for him.

“When he stopped for any purpose at any time he would, when he commenced again, begin where he left off without any hesitation, and one time while he was translating he stopped suddenly, pale as a sheet, and said, ‘Emma, did Jerusalem have walls around it?’ When I answered, ‘Yes,’ he replied, ‘Oh! [I didn’t know.] I was afraid I had been deceived.’ He had such a limited knowledge of history at that time that he did not even know that Jerusalem was surrounded by walls.” (Edmund C. Briggs, “A Visit to Nauvoo in 1856,” Journal of History, Jan. 1916, p. 454.)

On the other hand, there have been some Ensign articles that have suggested a different translation method but the "stone and the hat" stuff has been talked about at least (and by a member of the Twelve too).

[Tex]

Originally Posted by pelagius

I am not sure this one has ever been suppressed that much. For example Russell M. Nelson in a 1993 Ensign article said the following:

http://lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/me...____&hideNav=1


On the other hand, there have been some Ensign articles that have suggested a different translation method but the "stone and the hat" stuff has been talked about at least (and by a member of the Twelve too).

The fact that I knew about this little ditty as a young teenager (long before the Internet was even a twinkle in Al Gore's eye), with only church-sanctioned materials at my fingertips, indicates to me that this cannot really be called "suppressed" material. De-emphasized maybe, but hardly suppressed.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Tex

The fact that I knew about this little ditty as a young teenager (long before the Internet was even a twinkle in Al Gore's eye), with only church-sanctioned materials at my fingertips, indicates to me that this cannot really be called "suppressed" material. De-emphasized maybe, but hardly suppressed.

These accounts are out there, but they have been de-emphasized. Some members who watched the PBS documentary discovered them there for the first time, and plenty of others probably don't know about them at all (as Scottie's post evidences). I don't recall ever seeing it in a lesson manual, but the more "acceptable" version is always there. Church art depicting the translation of the BoM certainly doesn't reflect them. The few mentionings of them--like Elder Nelson's--don't go into that Martin Harris said Joseph got the stone he used to translate the BoM from the bottom of a well (I'll find the source on this), or that it was most likely the stone he used for money digging, or the implications for all of this for the U&T.

It's known, and yet, not known.