Stone Box

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

On the contrary Tacenda, I'm sure the First Presidency APPROVED this modification. Probably asked for it........... 

Except you have 0 way of knowing one way or the other. So it would be best to drop the surity of your opinion.

[Tacenda]

On the contrary Tacenda, I'm sure the First Presidency APPROVED this modification. Probably asked for it........... 

I'm hoping they didn't but if they did, hoping they cringe at it still.  They're not perfect right?   

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I'm hoping they didn't but if they did, hoping they cringe at it still.  They're not perfect right?   

You would give his opinion on the matter any weight? Why? He literially has 0 clue on the matter. And I don't mean that in a personal matter.

[Tacenda]

You would give his opinion on the matter any weight? Why? He literially has 0 clue on the matter. And I don't mean that in a personal matter.

No one knows, but he may be right and he may be wrong.  But you're right, he seems adamant that they ordered it.  Makes one wonder how far up the chain the people that work on the church publications go.   

[Stone holm]

On the contrary Tacenda, I'm sure the First Presidency APPROVED this modification. Probably asked for it........... 

 

I tend to agree with Palerider on this.  I think they do look at the pictures and have them adapted especially if they are to be associated with any Church poster, book, or approved artwork, etc.  Pictures are powerful.  Its because of pictures that most of us carry around in our head an image of Christ as a somewhat thin Irishman and Heavenly Father as a very muscular grandfather and Moses as Charlton Heston with grayed hair.

[Palerider]

I tend to agree with Palerider on this.  I think they do look at the pictures and have them adapted especially if they are to be associated with any Church poster, book, or approved artwork, etc.  Pictures are powerful.  Its because of pictures that most of us carry around in our head an image of Christ as a somewhat thin Irishman and Heavenly Father as a very muscular grandfather and Moses as Charlton Heston with grayed hair.

 

I do have to laugh at some here who for whatever reason seem to think they know the sum total of my life experiences without having ever met me......

 

Thanks for the vote of support Stone holm.

[Calm]

I was under the impression the lack of confidence in your opinion was based on a realisation they know nothing about you, not the opposite of knowing everything.

[Sevenbak]

Here is a side by side comparison of a Carl Bloch painting used on page 54 of the Dec. 2011 Ensign.

 

You will notice the angels have had their wings removed and most interestingly, they have also been given a modest "temple worthy" cap sleeve added to their angelic robes...... 

 

Picky? Obsessive? Detail oriented? I think this speaks for itself.........

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, that's nothing.  This little gem below that we all know, was originally painted for the Church with wings on the angles.  The artist is Harry Anderson.  The CHurch had Tom Lovell make replications and remove the wings (and add longer hair to Christ)  Apparently Harry Anderson wasn't too concerned about the alteration, he continued to do commission work for the Church.

 

[Palerider]

I was under the impression the lack of confidence in your opinion was based on a realisation they know nothing about you, not the opposite of knowing everything.

 

Not so.

 

I believe the paraphrase was "you (Palerider) have no way of knowing". That implies that they know enough about my life experiences to make the statement, which is not only preposterous but prideful and ignorant as well, especially in light of never having met me.

 

The concept that I may have been in the COB on official business would wreck their entire image of me that they have have constructed in their own imaginations in order to keep me as the villain they hope me to be. 

Edited November 26, 2013 by Palerider

[Palerider]

Oh, that's nothing.  This little gem below that we all know, was originally painted for the Church with wings on the angles.  The artist is Harry Anderson.  The CHurch had Tom Lovell make replications and remove the wings (and add longer hair to Christ)  Apparently Harry Anderson wasn't too concerned about the alteration, he continued to do commission work for the Church.

 

 

 

Lovell and Anderson were both fairly humble guys (having read a bit of their histories). Anderson was Seventh Day Adventist as I recall.

 

I really don't see that big of a problem using a wing as a symbol of a character's angelic nature. The church must turn itself inside out when thinking about a depiction of the Ark of the Covenant with it's two winged cherubs and the two great winged cherubs in Solomon's temple.

 

To wing or not to wing........that is the question........

[Sevenbak]

Lovell and Anderson were both fairly humble guys (having read a bit of their histories). Anderson was Seventh Day Adventist as I recall.

 

I really don't see that big of a problem using a wing as a symbol of a character's angelic nature. The church must turn itself inside out when thinking about a depiction of the Ark of the Covenant with it's two winged cherubs and the two great winged cherubs in Solomon's temple.

 

To wing or not to wing........that is the question........

Why would the Church turn itself inside out?  D&C 77:4 describes wings as being a representation of power.  Christ is also described in the scriptures as having wings.  So is the earth.

[Tacenda]

Why would the Church turn itself inside out? D&C 77:4 describes wings as being a representation of power. Christ is also described in the scriptures as having wings. So is the earth.

Then it begs the question why. I think it might be they want individuals to not really think of angels but of becoming as God. Yes, they believe in angels, but that's not the end goal. Edited November 26, 2013 by Tacenda

[Calm]

Then it begs the question why. I think it might be they want individuals to not really think of angels but of becoming as God. Yes, they believe in angels, but that's not the end goal.

I think it is more likely that it is the much more popular view that angels have wings and are a different species from men.  It could be very confusing to children and new members if verbally it was said that angels were human beings like ourselves and then all the pictures showed them with wings.

 

I do think the tradition of not showing angels with wings is taken too far, but I can understand why it is the typical position for our faith.

[Stone holm]

Lovell and Anderson were both fairly humble guys (having read a bit of their histories). Anderson was Seventh Day Adventist as I recall.

 

I really don't see that big of a problem using a wing as a symbol of a character's angelic nature. The church must turn itself inside out when thinking about a depiction of the Ark of the Covenant with it's two winged cherubs and the two great winged cherubs in Solomon's temple.

 

To wing or not to wing........that is the question........

 

The problem with wings is that it implies that Angels are some type of supranatural species which is different than humans.  While quite possibly wings on Angels historically only was intended to connote power or some other issue, people take pictures literally -- hence the reason for clipping angel wings.  Angels in our belief system are either pre-mortal spirits or resurrected humans, neither of which have wings.  So "not to wing" for us.  Except, I have always wondered about the Cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant -- would we alter God's construction instructions to make them wingless now, or are there in fact some type of winged creatures flying around us unseen?

[Tacenda]

The problem with wings is that it implies that Angels are some type of supranatural species which is different than humans.  While quite possibly wings on Angels historically only was intended to connote power or some other issue, people take pictures literally -- hence the reason for clipping angel wings.  Angels in our belief system are either pre-mortal spirits or resurrected humans, neither of which have wings.  So "not to wing" for us.  Except, I have always wondered about the Cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant -- would we alter God's construction instructions to make them wingless now, or are there in fact some type of winged creatures flying around us unseen?

Does the church give us a little credit that we won't take it literally?  When I think of angels I don't think about wings or harps.  So many LDS on here have mentioned how boring an angel's life will be compared to a god or goddess.  They think angels will be playing harps.  So maybe for these people the wings had to come off.  Hey, good for the church then.  But if not, just let it be.  What about the movie "It's a Wonderful Life"  where the angel Clarence gets his wings for helping George.  It's metaphorical.  

[Palerider]

Why would the Church turn itself inside out?  D&C 77:4 describes wings as being a representation of power.  Christ is also described in the scriptures as having wings.  So is the earth.

 

 

Said more in jest than seriousness.........

[Palerider]

The problem with wings is that it implies that Angels are some type of supranatural species which is different than humans.  While quite possibly wings on Angels historically only was intended to connote power or some other issue, people take pictures literally -- hence the reason for clipping angel wings.  Angels in our belief system are either pre-mortal spirits or resurrected humans, neither of which have wings.  So "not to wing" for us.  Except, I have always wondered about the Cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant -- would we alter God's construction instructions to make them wingless now, or are there in fact some type of winged creatures flying around us unseen?

 

  This was exactly my point and it was done somewhat tongue in cheek. Probably didn't come off that way......... 

[Palerider]

игры для трех мальчиков масяня игры бесплатно онлайн игры видео

 

Along with my not understanding this language, the link comes up as dead when I try to access it.

 

Sorry!

[Stone holm]

Does the church give us a little credit that we won't take it literally?  When I think of angels I don't think about wings or harps.  So many LDS on here have mentioned how boring an angel's life will be compared to a god or goddess.  They think angels will be playing harps.  So maybe for these people the wings had to come off.  Hey, good for the church then.  But if not, just let it be.  What about the movie "It's a Wonderful Life"  where the angel Clarence gets his wings for helping George.  It's metaphorical.  

 

I think the Church is probably right in not extending that credit.  At Notre Dame they had a replica of the Michelangelo "Moses" sculpture in bronze outside the Hesburgh Library complete with horns.

[Palerider]

I think the Church is probably right in not extending that credit.  At Notre Dame they had a replica of the Michelangelo "Moses" sculpture in bronze outside the Hesburgh Library complete with horns.

 

 

Of course you know that those "horns" are actually representations of "light" as in the light of one who is receiving revelation......

[Stone holm]

Of course you know that those "horns" are actually representations of "light" as in the light of one who is receiving revelation......

Yes, I know that...but do most people know that, and we look at ancient hieroglyphs and exactly what do we assume the Pharoahs actually thought their gods looked like?

[Palerider]

Yes, I know that...but do most people know that, and we look at ancient hieroglyphs and exactly what do we assume the Pharoahs actually thought their gods looked like?

 

In the long view of things, if I ever get a chance to talk to an egyptian from that time period I intend to ask.......

[Stone holm]

In the long view of things, if I ever get a chance to talk to an egyptian from that time period I intend to ask.......

Well I guess wings and horns are better than bird heads.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I was wondering if anyone knew if the church has ever made a serious, concerted effort to find the stone box that supposedly held the gold plates, seer stones, breast plate and sword of Laban?

It seems to me that it would be a fairly large stone box (much larger than depicted in LDS art) and that the large domed stone covering it would be quite a tell-tale marker.

I suspect the church has funded efforts to find archeological B of M evidence in Central America with possibly millions of dollars.

Dosen't it seem strange that, having a nearly pinpointed location for the stone box, they haven't expended the same effort on the hilll Cumorah? I would think that they would surely want that box as prized evidence of Joseph's claims.

Joseph could have relocated it, but doing so would not prove what or if anything was in it. Knowing what I do of Church History, little was done to provide physical proof as it usually case scorn.

An example, if I had the original manuscripts of the Bible, it would not prove what is reported on or in them is true.

Edited November 30, 2013 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[Palerider]

Joseph could have relocated it, but doing so would not prove what or if anything was in it. Knowing what I do of Church History, little was done to provide physical proof as it usually case scorn.

An example, if I had the original manuscripts of the Bible, it would not prove what is reported on or in them is true.

 

Yes, but having the originals would allow for an accurate translation that would put to rest some of the claims of mis-translation and additions or deletions made out of self-interest, don't you think?

Edited November 30, 2013 by Palerider