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

[ERayR]

I think the proper chronology is that the plates were present during the dictation of the 116 pages to Martin Harris. After the loss of the pages, the plates and Urim and Thummim were taken away, and the subsequent dictation of the Book of Mormon to scribes Emma, Oliver, John and "unknown" was done without them. I don't recall anyone claiming they were returned or used during that time.

And when it is all threshed out and we decide how it was done what difference will it make to the message that is presented in the BoM? How will it change (... by the gift and power of God"?

[Tramper]

And when it is all threshed out and we decide how it was done what difference will it make to the message that is presented in the BoM? How will it change (... by the gift and power of God"?

I have no problem with that attitude. But that doesn't give the most true organization on Earth the right to give the members or investigators a distorted view of what actually happened. Why use the painting at all? I know of better paintings

http://utlm.org/newsletters/no116.htm (the image to the left of course)

However I think we all can agree that such painting would not be considered faith promoting. The question is why. The Mormons shouldn't have a problem with it.

[Nathair/|\]

Can the church admit some fault in order to heal and move on?

Yes, I admit that the church has some crummy artwork. Mea Culpa.

Now I feel better. I am healed.

Finally, I can move on.

I admit that the Church allows me to be a member.

No, I don't feel any better. But maybe someone else will, or they can start a campaign for my expulsion.

[cinepro]

And when it is all threshed out and we decide how it was done what difference will it make to the message that is presented in the BoM? How will it change (... by the gift and power of God"?

Hence, my suggestion that the Church stop using any artwork that portrays the translation.

Because for some people, there appears to be a difference between "...by the gift and power of God seated at a table with the plates", and "...by the gift and power of God with his face in a hat peering at a seer stone with the plates nowhere to be found".

And based on the Church's strong preference for artwork portraying the former instead of the latter, I'm apparently not the only person to realize this.

[Jeff K.]

I admit that the Church allows me to be a member.

No, I don't feel any better. But maybe someone else will, or they can start a campaign for my expulsion.

Aye, and a grevious oversight it is.... almost as bad as their allowing me some level of embarrassed association.

[ERayR]

I have no problem with that attitude. But that doesn't give the most true organization on Earth the right to give the members or investigators a distorted view of what actually happened. Why use the painting at all? I know of better paintings

http://utlm.org/newsletters/no116.htm (the image to the left of course)

However I think we all can agree that such painting would not be considered faith promoting. The question is why. The Mormons shouldn't have a problem with it.

I am glad you are willing to allow me my "attitude". It is very generous of you. And who are you to dictate the rights of any organization, especially the Mormon Church. The only ones having a problem with this is you who don't believe anyway.

I don't know about everybody else but I have known about this method for 40 years or more and so have at least some of my friends and acquaintances. You see seer stones, urim and thumims, crystal balls, etc are a means to focus attention. A way to pinpoint attention and they do not bother those who focus on the message and not on the tool.

[ERayR]

I admit that the Church allows me to be a member.

No, I don't feel any better. But maybe someone else will, or they can start a campaign for my expulsion.

Now you have me questioning my membership.

[ERayR]

Hence, my suggestion that the Church stop using any artwork that portrays the translation.

Because for some people, there appears to be a difference between "...by the gift and power of God seated at a table with the plates", and "...by the gift and power of God with his face in a hat peering at a seer stone with the plates nowhere to be found".

And based on the Church's strong preference for artwork portraying the former instead of the latter, I'm apparently not the only person to realize this.

Again maybe you should refocus on the message and not the tools.

[Deborah]

However I think we all can agree that such painting would not be considered faith promoting. The question is why. The Mormons shouldn't have a problem with it.

In the first place this painting of the face in the hat doesn't appear an accurate description of that event. It shows Joseph sitting on steps with his face entirely enveloped in that hat and no writing tools available and no scribe nearby. It hardly gives an image of someone translating the plates, which at least other renditions do.

[Deborah]

After the loss of the pages, the plates and Urim and Thummim were taken away, and the subsequent dictation of the Book of Mormon to scribes Emma, Oliver, John and "unknown" was done without them. I don't recall anyone claiming they were returned or used during that time.

from student manual

Upon returning to Harmony without the 116 pages of manuscript, Joseph immediately began to pray for the Lord to forgive him for acting contrary to his will. Moroni appeared to Joseph and required him to return the plates and the Urim and Thummim, but promised that he could receive them back if he were humble and penitent. Some time later he received a revelation which chastised him for negligence and for “setting at naught the counsels of God” but also comforted him that he was still chosen to perform the work of translation if he repented (see D&C 3:4–10). Joseph did repent and again received the plates and the Urim and Thummim, along with a promise that the Lord would send a scribe to assist him in the translation. There was a special message: “The angel seemed pleased with me … , and he told me that the Lord loved me, for my faithfulness and humility.”

[sjdawg]

DNA tests have been done. No children. Hmmmmmmm.

Yes and Lance Armstrong never failed a drug test. I'm convinced they were both 100% honest.

[sjdawg]

Missed this one.

Please demonstrate that the Church has a "current agenda of becoming a more 'mainstream' church".

For me it is the recent...."and I'm a mormon" ad campaign.

[Calm]

Yes and Lance Armstrong never failed a drug test. I'm convinced they were both 100% honest.

Are you suggesting that the individuals doing the DNA tests are lying about results or that those being tested are not using their own DNA or something else?

[sjdawg]

Are you suggesting that the individuals doing the DNA tests are lying about results or that those being tested are not using their own DNA or something else?

I'm saying that doing something and being caught doing something are two different things. I have no idea if JS is guilty of any sexual misconduct and I have no idea if Lance Armstrong was on steroids. The lack of children by JS doesn't prove his fidelity any more than my lack of children proves mine.

[bookofmormontruth]

Yes and Lance Armstrong never failed a drug test. I'm convinced they were both 100% honest.

But you "conveniently" believe in the DNA issues surrounding Jewish ancestry that prove that the Book of Mormon is false.

[Calm]

The lack of children by JS doesn't prove his fidelity any more than my lack of children proves mine.

Of course not, but it can contribute to accessment of the plausibility or lack of plausibility that some claims on this topic have....

[sjdawg]

But you "conveniently" believe in the DNA issues surrounding Jewish ancestry that prove that the Book of Mormon is false.

I do? news to me. Thanks for clearing that up.

[sjdawg]

Of course not, but it can contribute to accessment of the plausibility or lack of plausibility that some claims on this topic have....

I'll agree with that. Either way it is just guess work and there are plenty of opinions on both sides

[cinepro]

from student manual

The manual doesn't give a citation for that claim, so it's possible the person writing it made an unwarranted assumption.

Did Joseph or any of his contemporaries ever say that he got the (physical) plates back and used them in translating?

Frankly, the manual's treatment of the translation process is pretty weak. For example, instead of mentioning what the eyewitness accounts of the translation process say (i.e. the stone-in-a-hat method of translation), it says this:

Little is known about the actual process of translating the record, primarily because those who knew the most about the translation, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, said the least about it. Moreover, Martin Harris, David Whitmer, and Emma Smith, who assisted Joseph, left no contemporary descriptions. The sketchy accounts they recorded much later in life were often contradictory.

Is the student supposed to be grateful to the manual writers for sparing them the anguish of being exposed to the "sketchy", "contradictory" accounts?

(And if anyone can point out the "contradictory" accounts and can explain to me how they're more contradictory than the different accounts of the First Vision, that would be great. I suspect the only apparent "contradictions" are between the accounts of the different phases of translation with the 116 pages and the actual Book of Mormon.)

http://institute.lds.org/manuals/church-history-institute-student-manual/chft-01-05-5.asp

[bookofmormontruth]

The manual doesn't give a citation for that claim, so it's possible the person writing it made an unwarranted assumption.

Did Joseph or any of his contemporaries ever say that he got the (physical) plates back and used them in translating?

Frankly, the manual's treatment of the translation process is pretty weak. For example, instead of mentioning what the eyewitness accounts of the translation process say (i.e. the stone-in-a-hat method of translation), it says this:

Is the student supposed to be grateful to the manual writers for sparing them the anguish of being exposed to the "sketchy", "contradictory" accounts?

(And if anyone can point out the "contradictory" accounts and can explain to me how they're more contradictory than the different accounts of the First Vision, that would be great. I suspect the only apparent "contradictions" are between the accounts of the different phases of translation with the 116 pages and the actual Book of Mormon.)

http://institute.lds...hft-01-05-5.asp

Seriously? The "anguish"?

[Deborah]

The manual doesn't give a citation for that claim

Actually it does in the footnote (I have the actual manual). Lucy Mack Smith, History of Joseph Smith, p 135.

Is the student supposed to be grateful to the manual writers for sparing them the anguish of being exposed to the "sketchy", "contradictory" accounts?

Why would the church teach questionable accounts? We have what Joseph Smith told us and if he didn't elaborate why the need for so many to wrestle with this?

[sjdawg]

Actually it does in the footnote (I have the actual manual). Lucy Mack Smith, History of Joseph Smith, p 135.

Why would the church teach questionable accounts? We have what Joseph Smith told us and if he didn't elaborate why the need for so many to wrestle with this?

Because the reality isn't what we grow up believing. Conceptually there is a big difference between sitting down at a table and translating tablets and sticking your head in a hat and "divining" the meaning of some plates that may or may not even be in the room

[sjdawg]

I'd like to see the LDS church admit and maybe even apologize for the wrong they did in California during Prop 8 (I'm aware most of you won't agree they did wrong). I think the closest we will come to this admission is the fact that the LDS Church has modified the approach in other jurisdictions facing the same issue.

[Pahoran]

I'd like to see the LDS church admit and maybe even apologize for the wrong they did in California during Prop 8 (I'm aware most of you won't agree they did wrong). I think the closest we will come to this admission is the fact that the LDS Church has modified the approach in other jurisdictions facing the same issue.

I'd like to see the immoralists admit and maybe even apologise for the malicious hissy fit they had when their inflammatory "home invasion" video failed to win them any friends for their anti-family campaign in California during Prop 8.

But I don't expect to live that long.

Regards,

Pahoran

[USU78]

I'd like to see the LDS church admit and maybe even apologize for the wrong they did in California during Prop 8 (I'm aware most of you won't agree they did wrong). I think the closest we will come to this admission is the fact that the LDS Church has modified the approach in other jurisdictions facing the same issue.

Did the Church storm or attempt to storm anybody else's place of worship, home or place of business?

Did the Church go after anyone's job because of contra Prop 8 activities, fundraising or speech?

Did the Church rough up any little old ladies, wrenching from them any tangible items of political, personal or philosophical value?

Just what did the Church do wrong, then? For what should the Church apologize?