Can The Church Admit Some Fault In Order To Heal And Move On?

[Libs]

You know, I don't think it's necessary to accuse people of "whining", just because they have issues with the church. There are many good reasons to question the validity of the church. Whole books have been written on those issues (like "Shaken Faith Syndrome") and many of those issues are valid concerns.

I think this one about the stone in the hat is minor, but just one more straw on the camel's back.

Namecalling doesn't help. Maybe, some people don't care, about the struggles of some members, or just think it's silly, but I think that's sad, if that is the case.

[Calm]

Namecalling doesn't help. Maybe, some people don't care, about the struggles of some members, or just think it's silly, but I think that's sad, if that is the case.

It certainly doesn't help persuade others to take another look.

[cinepro]

But you also will have to admit there is no real conspiracy, that the word had gotten out and no one is hiding anything. Indeed, it is merely a question of interest that stops anyone from seeking to know about it.

Just so I'm clear on where we're all coming from, should Church members today, in 2011, think that this picture is an accurate portrayal of the translation process (and that it has some basis in the historical record)?

[Jeff K.]

Seems to me you are avoiding the very clear question. There are a number of drawings which are used anyone of which may or may not be more accurate.

So when people complain that the information is simply not there, we know this is a false complaint. Especially when they place nefarious reasons for the their own lack of half way acceptable research.

Does the fact that we have no accurate depiction of Christ mean there is a conspiracy to hide what he really looked like?

[zelder]

Just so I'm clear on where we're all coming from, should Church members today, in 2011, think that this picture is an accurate portrayal of the translation process (and that it has some basis in the historical record)?

It's an inaccurate portrayal. It's something that would have never caught my attention and would have never bothered me in the least. However, after spending time on this site and other sites, I have to agree that they should stop using inaccurate images like that. I'm sure it comes from well meaning people wanting to do some good PR with the members who may be just learning.

I remember as a young kid our church building had some of the Living Scriptures animated movies. Then the church authorities came out with a statement that they did not want members to use those movies as teaching material. I think I remember it was at least partially due to the fact that the animated movies do not always present an accurate portrayal of whats actualy in the scriptures. The same policy should apply with images used for teaching material.

Not everyone is the studious type. Those types of people will usually not know anything more about the church than what they are taught in sunday meetings and a casual quick perusal of the monthly magazines. If the church does anything to teach an inaccurate picture of history then those people may get a little ruffled when the not so faithful or anti friend next door tells them that Joseph actually used magic stones to translate the plates and that he didn't let anyone else see the plates while he was translating. At that point the attempts at positive PR backfire. Its not a conspiracy but its really not honest and they need to stop it.

[bookofmormontruth]

You know, I don't think it's necessary to accuse people of "whining", just because they have issues with the church. There are many good reasons to question the validity of the church. Whole books have been written on those issues (like "Shaken Faith Syndrome") and many of those issues are valid concerns.

I think this one about the stone in the hat is minor, but just one more straw on the camel's back.

Namecalling doesn't help. Maybe, some people don't care, about the struggles of some members, or just think it's silly, but I think that's sad, if that is the case.

I agree, there a lot of "good reasons" to question the validity of the Church, but the made up conspiracies while propagating them is not a good reason, at all.

The whining/complaining is valid (not name calling) because it involves a conspiracy with no facts to back up the claim. Whiners and complainers (name calling) need to go out and do some good in the world then they can come back and realize how trivial their fault finding really is. Heck, they might even start saying positive and helpful things in regards to the Lord's Church.

And, I absolutely do care about the struggles, but I don't coddle the ridiculous conspiracies by those who have been proven to be wrong. I am sorry if that comes off offensive, not my intentions.

[bookofmormontruth]

Just so I'm clear on where we're all coming from, should Church members today, in 2011, think that this picture is an accurate portrayal of the translation process (and that it has some basis in the historical record)?

This is absolutely not an "accurate portrayal"! It is a cover-up!

Look at the stones in the background! We know that Joseph Smith lived in a log home, not a stone home!

[Craig Paxton]

If I was a betting man, I would bet that not one single member left because of the seer stones. Sure, they might proclaim to the world that the Lord's Church never had coloring books of the seer stones for them, but when the truth is brought out, struggling with the word of wisdom or skipping out on Church attendance and etc... would probably be a better indicator on why they really left.

"bookofmormontruth"...You nailed it brother, I'm with you, no one could ever leave over some rock found in the bottom of a well...active members ONLY leave because deep down they want to take up smoking,drinking,drugs and go boating/hiking/fishing on Sundays...I know thats what did it for me. Everytime I was sitting in a high council or bishop meeting...really deep down I was thinking...boy I wish this meeting would get over with so I can step outside and "take a drag".

Oh and you forgot to mention the other real reason people leave the church...they were offended...

Yup people who leave the church of their birth, the only true church on the face of the earth...are pretty much just lazy, shallow, sin seekers who get offended easily.

All those claims about seeking truth...Ha! That's just a smoke screen for their real secret desire to get out there and sin.

Now where'd I put that pack of Cigs? I need a smoke.

[Craig Paxton]

I agree, there a lot of "good reasons" to question the validity of the Church

REALLY???? I'd be interested in knowing what constitutes a "good reason" in your mind...

[Jeff K.]

What you described so facetiously would be in a large part the reason for most of those leaving (personal offenses et al). I have yet to see a member leave that followed the commandments and had no transgressions of note unresolved or wasn't offended and left because there was an open question as to how exactly the translation occurred.

If you think about it. An ancient civilization that produced scholars, written by a young lad in the frontiers of America, which follows an intricate and complex soceity bringing into play lands he had never heard of or known about (which he described accurately), and then on top of that to claim Christ actually came to that land when there is little evidence for it....

All of that, and you worry about a rock that allows one to see and translate? Talk about mote in the eye. That one aspect is the least of the attacks on our faith, but it appears to the one that anti Mormons glom onto with the greatest ferocity. Such is not a measure of our faith so much as a measure of their desperation.

[cinepro]

Seems to me you are avoiding the very clear question. There are a number of drawings which are used anyone of which may or may not be more accurate.

So when people complain that the information is simply not there, we know this is a false complaint. Especially when they place nefarious reasons for the their own lack of half way acceptable research.

The obvious solution isn't for the Church to start publishing pictures of Joseph with his head in a hat. The Church should simply stop publishing pictures of the translation process all together.

If they did this, then Church members would be responsible for creating their own assumptions about the process. But when we are shown pictures in Church publications, then those pictures help form our expectations about the process.

For example, if I told you that Joseph stood on his head while translating the Book of Abraham, you might think it unusual, but you wouldn't find it disturbing because until I said it, you had probably never actually pictured what the translation of the Book of Abraham was like. And if you had, you understood that the image was something you had created based on incomplete information. It's easy to shrug your shoulders and incorporate the new information into your image of the event.

But if you had been shown pictures all your life of Joseph sitting at a table while translating the Book of Abraham, it would probably be more difficult to incorporate the new information. And you would have to choose to reject the Church-provided image.

I don't know if the inaccuracies in the pictures are intentional or just ignorance. I don't blame the Church for wanting to present the translation as normal as possible.

And, in spite of the Church's herculean efforts to get the word out by shouting it from the rooftops in the Ensign twice in the last 35 years, once at BYU-Hawaii, and no less than five times in out-of-print Church magazines and manuals in the first half of the 20th century, I suppose it's possible that commissioned artists somehow didn't get the memo...?

Does the fact that we have no accurate depiction of Christ mean there is a conspiracy to hide what he really looked like?

An important distinction would be the lack of description we have about Jesus's appearance. If no one had ever described the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated, the current pictures wouldn't be a problem for anyone (except probably for the portrayal of the plates sitting in Oliver's view on the table).

[Craig Paxton]

What you described so facetiously would be in a large part the reason for most of those leaving (personal offenses et al). I have yet to see a member leave that followed the commandments and had no transgressions of note unresolved or wasn't offended and left because there was an open question as to how exactly the translation occurred.

If you think about it. An ancient civilization that produced scholars, written by a young lad in the frontiers of America, which follows an intricate and complex soceity bringing into play lands he had never heard of or known about (which he described accurately), and then on top of that to claim Christ actually came to that land when there is little evidence for it....

All of that, and you worry about a rock that allows one to see and translate? Talk about mote in the eye. That one aspect is the least of the attacks on our faith, but it appears to the one that anti Mormons glom onto with the greatest ferocity. Such is not a measure of our faith so much as a measure of their desperation.

JeffK, What the Heck? I joined MDDB 6 months before you...yet I only have 38 posts compared to your 7,000+ I've got some catching up to do.

Now for the record all joking aside, I agree that no one would leave the church over the one issue of the "Well Rock", THAT would be shallow. Using my own disenchantment as an example, the rock in a hat issue was just one of many many things that accumulated over several years which taken in total eventually led to the preverbal collapse of my mental shelf.

[bookofmormontruth]

"bookofmormontruth"...You nailed it brother, I'm with you, no one could ever leave over some rock found in the bottom of a well...active members ONLY leave because deep down they want to take up smoking,drinking,drugs and go boating/hiking/fishing on Sundays...I know thats what did it for me. Everytime I was sitting in a high council or bishop meeting...really deep down I was thinking...boy I wish this meeting would get over with so I can step outside and "take a drag".

Oh and you forgot to mention the other real reason people leave the church...they were offended...

Yup people who leave the church of their birth, the only true church on the face of the earth...are pretty much just lazy, shallow, sin seekers who get offended easily.

All those claims about seeking truth...Ha! That's just a smoke screen for their real secret desire to get out there and sin.

Now where'd I put that pack of Cigs? I need a smoke.

Much respect to those who can admit the real reason, not a rock.

[bookofmormontruth]

REALLY???? I'd be interested in knowing what constitutes a "good reason" in your mind...

You aren't interested.

[Calm]

I remember as a young kid our church building had some of the Living Scriptures animated movies. Then the church authorities came out with a statement that they did not want members to use those movies as teaching material. I think I remember it was at least partially due to the fact that the animated movies do not always present an accurate portrayal of whats actualy in the scriptures.

There was one kid (about 6 years old) who used to argue with me about what really happened in the Book of Mormon based on the Living Scriptures movies or something like them. It was a bit frustrating, lol.

[Calm]

And, I absolutely do care about the struggles, but I don't coddle the ridiculous conspiracies by those who have been proven to be wrong. I am sorry if that comes off offensive, not my intentions.

I think people generally act differently when they are talking about issues in abstract or generically (such as the whining) than they would if dealing with an individual person in real life who had an actual difficulty.

[bookofmormontruth]

The obvious solution isn't for the Church to start publishing pictures of Joseph with his head in a hat. The Church should simply stop publishing pictures of the translation process all together.

If they did this, then Church members would be responsible for creating their own assumptions about the process. But when we are shown pictures in Church publications, then those pictures help form our expectations about the process.

For example, if I told you that Joseph stood on his head while translating the Book of Abraham, you might think it unusual, but you wouldn't find it disturbing because until I said it, you had probably never actually pictured what the translation of the Book of Abraham was like. And if you had, you understood that the image was something you had created based on incomplete information. It's easy to shrug your shoulders and incorporate the new information into your image of the event.

But if you had been shown pictures all your life of Joseph sitting at a table while translating the Book of Abraham, it would probably be more difficult to incorporate the new information. And you would have to choose to reject the Church-provided image.

An important distinction would be the lack of description we have about Jesus's appearance. If no one had ever described the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated, the current pictures wouldn't be a problem for anyone (except for the portrayal of the plates sitting in Oliver's view on the table).

With your logic, the Church would also need to stop printing and recording the differing translation processes.

You see, not everyone learns the same way (visual, auditory, kinaesthetic). I for one, do not learn from pictures.

[bookofmormontruth]

I think people generally act differently when they are talking about issues in abstract or generically (such as the whining) than they would if dealing with an individual person in real life who had an actual difficulty.

Good point and I agree.

[cinepro]

With your logic, the Church would also need to stop printing and recording the differing translation processes.

Why is that? It takes 10 seconds to explain that Joseph apparently used different translation seating arrangements for the 116 pages with Martin Harris, and the subsequent translation of the Book of Mormon with Emma, Oliver, John (and "unknown"). All the eye witness accounts for the two phases of translation seem to be pretty consistent.

You see, not everyone learns the same way (visual, auditory, kinaesthetic). I for one, do not learn from pictures.

In this case, it seems no one does.

[Craig Paxton]

You aren't interested.

Ummm...yeah I really am interested in hearing what..in your mind...would constitute a valid reason to question church claims...

Purhaps you could start a new thread...titled "Valid reasons to question church claims" or just list them here...

[Deborah]

Purhaps you could start a new thread...titled "Valid reasons to question church claims" or just list them here...

There are reasons for leaving the church but who is to define valid. I actually think if you have to find reasons they aren't valid. If it's not working then leave. Period.

[Brian 2.0]

Just so I'm clear on where we're all coming from, should Church members today, in 2011, think that this picture is an accurate portrayal of the translation process (and that it has some basis in the historical record)?

I tried this argument at great length earlier in this thread. Got nowwhere in addressing the concern I was bringing up. Kept getting the faulty logic that lack of full evidence of something means that all reasonable explanations are vaild, even when comparing some that have evidence to some without.

Sure, we don't know what Christ looked like. So the artist has some creative license to deal with. But if we had a handful of accounts that describe Christ's hair and 3 of them say it was straight brown, 2 of them say curly brown, and 1 of them black... you cannot paint a picture of Christ with curly blonde hair and claim that since there is no consensus on his hair color tha ANY interpretation is just as valid as the last.

p.s. I don't think there is a conspiracy or people are trying to deceive and keep people from knowing about stone-in-hat translation. This is probably how the artist honestly conceptualized it happening. I'm not trying to show a smoking gun or something.

[Jeff K.]

JeffK, What the Heck? I joined MDDB 6 months before you...yet I only have 38 posts compared to your 7,000+ I've got some catching up to do.

Now for the record all joking aside, I agree that no one would leave the church over the one issue of the "Well Rock", THAT would be shallow. Using my own disenchantment as an example, the rock in a hat issue was just one of many many things that accumulated over several years which taken in total eventually led to the preverbal collapse of my mental shelf.

LOL, you must be a purposeful underachiever. Or maybe I don't have a life.

I am not stating that there aren't people who are sincere but have lost their faith. What irks me more than anything else is the concentration on items that aren't that important or in any sense a lynchpin to the truthfulness or not of the church. The church's bottom line is prayer for confirmation, not evidence that seems more fleeting than faith, both for and against.

[Deborah]

This is probably how the artist honestly conceptualized it happening. I'm not trying to show a smoking gun or something.

This is the point. I don't know that the church ever commissioned anyone to paint a picture of how this happened. They appear to have used various artists' renditions at different times.

The purpose of a piece of art, whether it's from one of the masters or an amateur is to present that person's interpretation and feelings about a subject or event. The person viewing the piece also uses his experience to process his own interpretation of the artists interpretation. The great masters are able to evoke emotion that many people can relate to. The less experienced usually introduce something simple to show an event, not necessarily in total accuracy.

A friend has a lovely painting of downtown SLC with the temple standing above the other buildings. We know in actuality the temple is now dwarfed by the buildings around it. However, the artists intentions were to show the temple as the building of primary importance in the area.

[Brian 2.0]

The church's bottom line is prayer for confirmation, not evidence that seems more fleeting than faith, both for and against.

This is very difficult for some because that bottom line is in question for a lot of people as a reliable method for truth (this point is being discussed right now on the personal revelation thread so no need to reply to this line of thought in this thread).