Hi, Dana,
In reply to your lengthy posting, may I say first of all, it is typical of what can be found from outside sources regarding the early history of the Church. It has some very good quotes, and some that would not begin to hold up in any court of law, being hearsay, or opinion, or preferred belief, but without any direct knowledge.
This is typical of the scholarship of those whose intention is to find enough "good" things to calm the suspicions of those who may feel they have an "agenda" that would preclude any fair or objective conclusions, while at the same time slipping in enough "negative" things to leave the reader with the overall impression that what is being discussed (in this case, the truthfulness of Joseph Smith's ability to translate The Book of Mormon) is, on the whole, nothing any reasonable person would buy into or believe.
Dr. Walter Martin uses this type of "scholarship" regularly, as you know if you have read his works, "Kingdom of the Cults" or others of the same ilk written by him or his cohorts. It is a scant half step away from outright fraud in that it intentionally portrays a view that did not exist.
As for your message, there were many spurious sources quoted, such as David Whitmer, who as you said, did not come into the picture until after the Book of Mormon had been published, hence, well after the translation process was complete, and therefore, could have no direct knowledge at all of how it was done. Scratch that testimony.
Same goes for the women quoted. They never SAW Joseph translating. They guessed, inferred, supposed, fancied, or whatever you care to call it, but they never WITNESSED the translation. Hence, their testimony is invalid.
As for the father-in-law's testimony, there is a two-fold problem. First, he hated Joseph Smith for his entire life. There was never a meeting of the minds between them. That Joseph eloped with the man's daughter didn't help their relationship, but certainly he is not the first young man to take desperate measures when parents won't allow two young lovers to wed, and there is no doubt at all that it was Emma who encouraged the elopement, not that that matters, but she was not an unwilling partner in the elopement. Emma was always a strong-minded woman, even in her youth, a quality that sometimes stood her in good stead and sometimes caused her to make terrible choices for which she and her children paid dearly. That Joseph always loved her, there can be no doubt.
Secondly, the father-in-law was a prominent man in his community. He had to save face after Joseph began drawing the unwelcome attention of people determined to stop the formation of the new Church. That the father-in-law would use the local papers to slander Joseph and thus protect himself from community scorn, is a common tactic used even today. Reporters are only too happy to report any dirt they can on a figure rapidly becoming newsworthy, as Joseph by then was. That the dirt is not deserved matters little if it sells papers. Some things never change.
This was an era of religious revival and tent meetings abounded. Newspapers of the day were falling over themselves to print the most lurid stories they could, since that was what sold the most -- even as today's R-rated movies seem to draw more viewers than decent movies do. Yellow journalism is a term coined in that day and with good reason. Retractions, if any, were (even as today) on a back page, in small print, where few if any of the original article's readers would ever find them.
As for the hat and the stone, the seer stone was never used in translation, nor was the hat. They had other purposes, not involving the Book of Mormon. The Urim and Thummim were given specifically for purpose of translating THAT record. That one record. That is what they were for. That is what they did. Considering the intense hardships the book was translated under, and the brief time frame allowed, it defies any reasonable logic whatsoever to presume Joseph would have wasted time using any other device. It is his testimony that he did not. Also the testimony of Oliver Cowdrey, who was the scribe for almost the entire manuscript.
Joseph Smith was an honorable man chosen for an earthly mission few men could have accomplished. He does not deserve to be villified or mocked. But then such unfair statements only put him on a par with past prophets, and we know even Christ himself was villified unfairly, so it would seem to any thinking person that public opinion matters very little when it comes to the works of God upon the Earth.
I realize this is not going to reach any listening ears. When it comes to this issue, people's minds are firmly made up. Yours one way, mine another.
But I couldn't let your message go unanswered, lest some might assume there was no defense for it, when in fact, the facts when seen in the true light of day are all in favor of Joseph Smith, the Urim and Thummim, and The Book of Mormon.
Thank you again, and have a good day.
Susan
