Quote From Lds.Org About Bom Translation

[Brade]

The words appearing on the stone were those engraved on the plates. The stone was a medium. The words read aloud were still the same words that appeared on the plates. If the stone was the means by which the plates could be deciphered, Joseph was still reading aloud from the plates, but not directly.

Right, just like when I read a translation of the Rosetta Stone from Wikipedia on my iPhone it would be right for me to tell somebody, "I was in awe as a read from the stone".

[MIkew]

I implore you to read Gardner's book. Will you?

i'll think about it. The thing is I am prone to only trust lds.org on pro lds stuff. Everything else is just conjecture.

[MIkew]

How do you define "good"? I think people can be good members in some ways and not in others.

I think the most important aspect to be good in member wise (which can be significantly different than individual wise) is how one contributes to the uplifting and comfort of other members. I don't see making demands or focusing on the negatives all that uplifting. If this is your consistent attitude, especially around family, I think there might be significant problems.

What would you do if you were having problems with your marriage? After your marriage, it is likely you discovered things about your wife she hadn't informed you about, possibly even highly disturbing issues that you knew would be causing difficulties in the relationship. What was/would be your reaction? Do you think a wise approach would be to insist that your wife prove she loves you, is faithful to you beyond any shadow of a doubt, to inform you of every last detail of her history etc.? Would you see the responsibility for improvement in your marriage completely her responsibility? Or would you go about it a different way, giving trust to your wife that she was sincere as well as working on your end to increase your understanding and acceptance, working to adjust to the surprises rather than giving up on the relationship unless she met some ultimatum? What about other relationships in your life? If they are very important to you, how much sacrifice and trust and personal effort are you willing to give them? Are you perhaps holding this relationship with the Church which though led by the Lord still consists primarily of fallible and imperfect human beings to a significantly different standard.

You see yourself as a good member, yet you possess some significant negative attributes that you bring to the relationship. Do you see an inequality between what you demand from the Church and what you are willing to give of yourself?

I have given everything asked of me and would again if my feelings changed. You don't know me at all so your take on me and my personal attributes and relationship with my spouse are interesting.

I am a good member in that I am doing all I can under the circumansances. Isn't that all I can do?

[MIkew]

A thought on the story of the lost sheep.

Do you think if the shepherd had sent one of his servants to look for the lost one, do you think the sheep would have refused to go with him, even if it was the lowest, most raw recruit of those who worked for the shepherd? Did the sheep get to dictate under what conditions he was willing to return to the flock or was his only care to be with those that were his family?

i don't know.

[Calm]

I have given everything asked of me and would again if my feelings changed. You don't know me at all so your take on me and my personal attributes and relationship with my spouse are interesting.

I am a good member in that I am doing all I can under the circumansances. Isn't that all I can do?

I have made no specific judgments, but simply talked in general and hypothetical situations. If you see this as some sort of judgment, I really don't know how much more unspecific I could get while keeping any comment still meaningful.

And why are you even asking if what you have done is all that you can do when you've already informed me I don't know you at all? Why ask others about being a good member as well?

Edited December 3, 2011 by calmoriah

[MIkew]

I have made no specific judgments, but simply talked in general and hypothetical situations. If you see this as some sort of judgment, I really don't know how much more unspecific I could get while keeping any comment still meaningful.

And why are you even asking if what you have done is all that you can do when you've already informed me I don't know you at all? Why ask others about being a good member as well?

Sorry for misreading/reading into your posts.

In general isn't that all someone can do?

Out of curisosity, i can't remember if you replied to the original question. Am I wrong to feel that the current way the church teaches the translaton, as evidenced by the caption from the gospel art picture kit, is dishonest?

[why me]

So you are saying I am wrong to think it is dishonest?

Crappy art? I really like most LDS art, always have always will.

The part of me who no longer trusts the church thinks the art was there to distract from the real story. A picture is worth a thousand words. The Ensign still included a classic picture of joseph and oliver sitting at a table while he read from the plates.

I think that art is just that art. However, it has nothing to do with trust. Either the book of mormon is from god or it is from man. It makes no difference how an artist portrays the translation process or the transcription process. The point is that the book of mormon exists and the question remains just how it came to be. We have 11 witnesses that saw the plates and we have witnesses who witnessed the process. All were impressed and believed that Joseph was a prophet.

What does the art have to do with that and your distrust of the lds church?

[why me]

Sorry for misreading/reading into your posts.

In general isn't that all someone can do?

Out of curisosity, i can't remember if you replied to the original question. Am I wrong to feel that the current way the church teaches the translaton, as evidenced by the caption from the gospel art picture kit, is dishonest?

No I don't think so. From your link:

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.)

What is dishonest about this? And this is from the ensign. I think that art is art. It seems that the lds church is upfront with how it was done.

Edited December 3, 2011 by why me

[why me]

Well, is it dishonest to say Oliver wrote the words that Joseph read from the plates? No account of the translation has him reading the plates, I think that has been established. We have accounts of him using a medium of one kind or another. Why not give a straight story?

I disagree.

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.)

http://lds.org/ensig...tament?lang=eng

This was taken from your link. I think that this is pretty straight. Don't you?

Edited December 3, 2011 by why me

[Kenngo1969]

I believe that belief is a powerful thing, nature is a powerful thing, love is a powerful thing. I don't see much that could only be explained by God's power in my everyday life.

Interesting you should mention love.

(1 John 4: He that loveth not knoweth not God, for God is love.

Edited December 3, 2011 by Kenngo1969

[why me]

I have in no way been a bad member. I really feel like the church would rather lose people like me than deal with these issues openly. People like me are an acceptable loss to the leaders of the church.

What issues? The church has been upfront with the translation process as shown in your link. What more should they do? Do you have an explanation for the 11 witnesses and a great portion of them who went to their deathbeds with their testimony on their lips? The way I see it is either JS was a fraudster and with him he had 11 helpers in the fraud, plus emma and his mother. Or the book of mormon is what it claims to be.

[LifeOnaPlate]

i'll think about it. The thing is I am prone to only trust lds.org on pro lds stuff. Everything else is just conjecture.

In my view pretty much everything anywhere is conjecture. Gardner's work is worth it for the comprehensive use of primary sources coupled with his methodological approach. You may very well end up disagreeing with him on any number of points, but in the process you'll learn the key names and claims.

[Kenngo1969]

i'll think about it. The thing is I am prone to only trust lds.org on pro lds stuff. Everything else is just conjecture.

You've set yourself, and us, up for failure then. You say you don't trust the Church to be honest about its history on the one hand, but when pointed to external sources, you say "[e]verything else is just conjecture."

[why me]

Yes it was in one Ensign article. How many church materials(pictures/video/books/manuals) give the impression that he read direclty from the plates? Even that article included a picture that did not depict what he was saying.

In the book "Church History in the Fulness of Times" it states that Joseph Smith was reluctant to give an account of just how the translation process was done. He said as such in the Church Conference held on October 25th-26th 1831. The most that he would say was that it was done "by the gift and power of god". Do you believe his statement?

Inside the same book meant for seminary students was the speculation that Sidney Rigdon wrote the book of mormon from the Spaulding manuscript. I found that interesting that the lds church would tell its youth such a fact of speculation. No cover up there. Now of course, the youth can search the web about it all and maybe be misled by what is on the internet about it. What more can the lds church do?

Edited December 3, 2011 by why me

[why me]

More from the ensign about the translation process:

http://lds.org/ensig...slation+process

We also have this from Oliver:

When Cowdery returned to Church membership in 1848 he spoke to an Iowa conference. His words there were recorded by Reuben Miller: “I wrote with my own pen the entire Book of Mormon (save a few pages) as it fell from the lips of the Prophet as he translated it by the gift and power of God by means of the Urim and Thummim, or as it is called by that book, holy interpreters. I beheld with my eyes and handled with my hands the gold plates from which it was translated. I also beheld the Interpreters. That book is true. … I wrote it myself as it fell from the lips of the Prophet.”⁸

The Miller journal can be tested by comparing it with official records of the Cowdery speeches, and it is clearly accurate. Thus the above words are likely to be Cowdery verbatim. This judgment is essential because in the report Oliver Cowdery says, “I … handled with my hands the gold plates.” Yet another Witness, David Whitmer, insisted that he had never handled the plates; he only watched as the angel in the vision displayed the plates and other sacred objects.⁹ Since Whitmer and Cowdery were together at this impressive vision, one must infer that Cowdery did not handle the plates at that time. Thus a distinction emerges between the key secretary and his witness brother-in-law: at some time during the translation process Oliver Cowdery evidently handled the plates.

And this is where the artist takes his cue for drawing the translation process:

Later Brother Richards told of his extended visit with Oliver Cowdery, who freely talked of the spectacular events in the founding of the Church. When Brother Richards was eighty-two, he dictated a statement reporting Oliver Cowdery’s recollections of Book of Mormon translation:

“He represented Joseph as sitting at a table with the plates before him, translating them by means of the Urim and Thummim, while he (Oliver) sat beside him writing every word as Joseph spoke them to him. This was done by holding the ‘translators’ over the hieroglyphics, the translation appearing distinctly on the instrument, which had been touched by the finger of God and dedicated and consecrated for the express purpose of translating languages. Every word was distinctly visible even to every letter; and if Oliver omitted a word or failed to spell a word correctly, the translation remained on the ‘interpreter’ until it was copied correctly.” ¹⁰

http://lds.org/ensig...slation+process

And so where is the lie? The artist took his inspiration for his depiction of the translation process from this statement by brother Richards.

It takes an old timer to remember all this.

Edited December 3, 2011 by why me

[Stargazer]

You are doubting I have been a member my entire life? Weird.

One of the church's teachings that really bothers me is the one about the gift to believe on someone elses testimony, total garbage. If you can't have your own testimony well what's the point.

It is important to know if you have been fooled. Which I think we have been.

0

Well, that is the point. I'm sure you've read Alma 32. Perhaps a re-reading is in order. The gift to believe on someone else's testimony is somewhat along the line of a starter testimony, good until you get one for your own. If you were born into the Church, the starter testimony that your parents provide (because you believed your parents were handing you the straight dope, right?) suffices on all levels both spiritual and temporal until you acquire your own.

I joined the Church in 1966, when I was 14 years old. During the previous year I ran into the Church when I happened upon another young man of my age while walking home from school. We got into a conversation, wherein almost one of the first things I asked him was "What do you want to do when you grow up?" His answer was: to go on a mission. I was appalled, thinking "religious fanatic", and I asked him if he was a Catholic (at the time, I thought only Catholics did odd things like that, lol). He said, No, he was a Mormon. This instantly piqued my interest for some reason and we started into a long conversation wherein he told me about all kinds of things, including the Book of Mormon, and what was in it, and so on. I was so fascinated that I walked nearly a mile past my turnoff to my own home, before ending the conversation and turning back. The next day I got out of school, and since I didn't yet know what classes he was in, I ran ahead to the spot where we had met, and I waited for him. And we resumed the conversation. This time I walked a mile and a half past my turnoff before I turned back. There was a repeat the next day, except this time he invited me to his home on Saturday to meet the missionaries. I suppose you can fill in the blanks from there.

The thing is here that I did not have a testimony of the Church. My friend was for a time my testimony. His efforts to do the right thing, spread the Gospel message, and the real impact that the Spirit was having on me through him brought me all the way through from my starter testimony, which was based in that gift to believe other's testimonies, to my very own personal testimony, which came in time.

[Calm]

Out of curisosity, i can't remember if you replied to the original question. Am I wrong to feel that the current way the church teaches the translaton, as evidenced by the caption from the gospel art picture kit, is dishonest?

My opinion after studying the topic for years, teaching, etc.....yes, you are wrong.

[wenglund]

Plus my patriarchal blessing says that in the church/gospel all truth can be found.

Perhaps your blessing has in mind all spiritual truths.

Whatever the case, the Lord has set forth the means for determining spiritual truths (Moroni 10 and Alma 32), and it is through that methodology that all spiritual truth can eventually be found (not that all truth has been found).

However, I don't believe that the methodology the Lord has prescribed includes nit picking church statements to see if they completely reflect everything you believe they should--as seems to be the case with what you present in this thread. The methodology the Lord has set forth places reliance on him, whereas the method you evidently used in this case puts reliance on yourself.

Is it any wonder, then, when you shift your reliance from God to yourself, and when you use your own method for spiritual truth discovery rather God's, that you testimony is weakened?

The gospel works right when you work the gospel the way it is designed. It doesn't work so well when you use it contrary to how it was intended and in your own way.

Besides, the intent of the gospel is to bring us to Christ and enable us to become more like him. It works very well to that end. It isn't designed to be the best and most complete history course. So, if some people look to the church for completeness of history, it's not surprising if they are disappointed, but that is because their expectations are misplaced and they don't correctly understand the true purpose of the Church.

Just some things to consider.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Am I wrong to feel that the current way the church teaches the translaton, as evidenced by the caption from the gospel art picture kit, is dishonest?

I don't know that I would call you wrong. Rather, I see it an overly harsh and misguided judgement.

But, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[MIkew]

0

Well, that is the point. I'm sure you've read Alma 32. Perhaps a re-reading is in order. The gift to believe on someone else's testimony is somewhat along the line of a starter testimony, good until you get one for your own. If you were born into the Church, the starter testimony that your parents provide (because you believed your parents were handing you the straight dope, right?) suffices on all levels both spiritual and temporal until you acquire your own.

I joined the Church in 1966, when I was 14 years old. During the previous year I ran into the Church when I happened upon another young man of my age while walking home from school. We got into a conversation, wherein almost one of the first things I asked him was "What do you want to do when you grow up?" His answer was: to go on a mission. I was appalled, thinking "religious fanatic", and I asked him if he was a Catholic (at the time, I thought only Catholics did odd things like that, lol). He said, No, he was a Mormon. This instantly piqued my interest for some reason and we started into a long conversation wherein he told me about all kinds of things, including the Book of Mormon, and what was in it, and so on. I was so fascinated that I walked nearly a mile past my turnoff to my own home, before ending the conversation and turning back. The next day I got out of school, and since I didn't yet know what classes he was in, I ran ahead to the spot where we had met, and I waited for him. And we resumed the conversation. This time I walked a mile and a half past my turnoff before I turned back. There was a repeat the next day, except this time he invited me to his home on Saturday to meet the missionaries. I suppose you can fill in the blanks from there.

The thing is here that I did not have a testimony of the Church. My friend was for a time my testimony. His efforts to do the right thing, spread the Gospel message, and the real impact that the Spirit was having on me through him brought me all the way through from my starter testimony, which was based in that gift to believe other's testimonies, to my very own personal testimony, which came in time.

I really enjoyed reading this. Not sure how to say this but it is a nice window into your life, thanks.

[MIkew]

You've set yourself, and us, up for failure then. You say you don't trust the Church to be honest about its history on the one hand, but when pointed to external sources, you say "[e]verything else is just conjecture."

Very true.

[MIkew]

In my view pretty much everything anywhere is conjecture. Gardner's work is worth it for the comprehensive use of primary sources coupled with his methodological approach. You may very well end up disagreeing with him on any number of points, but in the process you'll learn the key names and claims.

Including the prophets words?

I could read his work and think it is great but that doesn't mean what he thinks is what the Church's official position(if they have one) is. So what is the point. From what I can tell the church chooses to let people think he could read the characters on the plates and that he sometimes used some other things to help him. Why not just give the full picture cleary consistantly? I think it is because they don't want the other weird stuff to come up. I could be wrong. But the issue for me is that I no longer trust the church leadership to be honest with me. I see them as holding back lot's of things in order to keep members on the straight and narrow, Elder Packer talks about that in the talk I linked to earlier, "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than The Intelect." I don't agree with it. I think it is dishonest, by the church's own definition of honesty. If the church does hold things back from the members like i said they are taking away the agency of the members to choose what they think and believe.

[MIkew]

Perhaps your blessing has in mind all spiritual truths.

You could be right, I often misread things, even important things. I will re-read it.

Whatever the case, the Lord has set forth the means for determining spiritual truths (Moroni 10 and Alma 32), and it is through that methodology that all spiritual truth can eventually be found (not that all truth has been found).

I don't currently trust that, as I don't currently trust the source.

However, I don't believe that the methodology the Lord has prescribed includes nit picking church statements to see if they completely reflect everything you believe they should--as seems to be the case with what you present in this thread. The methodology the Lord has set forth places reliance on him, whereas the method you evidently used in this case puts reliance on yourself.

You are right singling out that one thing in the gospel are picture kit is nit picking but it also represents this issue I have.

Is it any wonder, then, when you shift your reliance from God to yourself, and when you use your own method for spiritual truth discovery rather God's, that you testimony is weakened?

Like I said earlier I do not have a fondness for trusting anyone but myself, I haven't always been this way.

The gospel works right when you work the gospel the way it is designed. It doesn't work so well when you use it contrary to how it was intended and in your own way.

This brings up another issue I have. If you can't follow the program the church won't work for you. I have never experienced it until now but I now know how many of the inactive people I have met over the years have felt.

Besides, the intent of the gospel is to bring us to Christ and enable us to become more like him. It works very well to that end. It isn't designed to be the best and most complete history course. So, if some people look to the church for completeness of history, it's not surprising if they are disappointed, but that is because their expectations are misplaced and they don't correctly understand the true purpose of the Church.

From my view the church has failed at that for me, I have never been further.

Just some things to consider.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I appreciate it, I will think about the things you wrote.

[MIkew]

I don't know that I would call you wrong. Rather, I see it an overly harsh and misguided judgement.

But, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You may be right

[MIkew]

I really appreciate all the comments you all have had for me. I am going to leave this post alone now and do some of the reading and pondering suggested. Thanks everyone, except for Selek1, just kidding.