Wiki Wonka Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 One of the complaints about the new essays was that they were "buried" in a location that wasn't obvious. Well...you had to select "Teachings" from the menu, then "Gospel Topics," then the letter of the item that you were interested in. That has changed. In addition to the menu access, the entire top left section of LDS.org now features a large picture and link to the Gospel Topics section. The caption is interesting: Study by Topic.Answers to Your QuestionsStudying inspired words can help you find answers to tough questions. So, there it is, the very first and most prominent thing you see when you go to LDS.org. And, speaking of the essays, there is a lot of fun being made on ex-Mormon boards about an article in the April 2014 New Era called "True or False?" Specifically, much fun is being made of the "True or False" question related to the Book of Mormon. However, it seems that none of those folks have noticed the hyperlink that is included there: It links the youth (the target audience for the New Era) directly to the Church's new Gospel Topics essay "Book of Mormon Translation." What is this? I simply have to conclude that the Church is failing to adequately hide the new essays that they are publishing. How are they going to keep these essays "buried" if they keep linking to them? FAIL! WW 4
Tacenda Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 Yay!! I'm so pleased and happy, this is great news and a prayer might soon be answered.
MichelleD Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 This is great! Thanks for the update. No one can claim they're hidden away or hard to find now!I am curious to see what they'll write in the essay about polygamy during the Nauvoo years. I've heard there will be one published on this topic. Does anyone know anything about this one?
BCSpace Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 (edited) No one can claim they're hidden away or hard to find now! Considering how much study the average LDS person does, I'd say millions will never know of their existence. But that doesn't remove by any means the onus to inform themselves. However, in our neck of the woods, we've made sure our Sunday School Presidencies and GD teachers are aware of them. Edited March 25, 2014 by BCSpace 1
cinepro Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 Perhaps the initial "quiet launch" was a sort of beta test to see what the initial reaction would be? Sometimes I really, really wish I could see the Church the way the COB sees the Church, with all the data and statistics (and anecdotal data) about what is really going on. But I'm also really glad that I'm not the guy in charge of trying to "help the youth deal with the easily available difficult information about Church history" or trying to "develop a program that actually works to get LDS men and women to stop looking at pornography". I'll gladly live with ignorance if I can also avoid such responsibility.
Gray Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 Cool! Most of the members of my ward who I've talked to about this haven't even heard of the essays. It's nice that they're easier to find now
Scott Lloyd Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 (edited) One of the complaints about the new essays was that they were "buried" in a location that wasn't obvious. Well...you had to select "Teachings" from the menu, then "Gospel Topics," then the letter of the item that you were interested in. That has changed. In addition to the menu access, the entire top left section of LDS.org now features a large picture and link to the Gospel Topics section. The caption is interesting: Study by Topic.Answers to Your QuestionsStudying inspired words can help you find answers to tough questions. So, there it is, the very first and most prominent thing you see when you go to LDS.org. And, speaking of the essays, there is a lot of fun being made on ex-Mormon boards about an article in the April 2014 New Era called "True or False?" Specifically, much fun is being made of the "True or False" question related to the Book of Mormon. However, it seems that none of those folks have noticed the hyperlink that is included there: It links the youth (the target audience for the New Era) directly to the Church's new Gospel Topics essay "Book of Mormon Translation." What is this? I simply have to conclude that the Church is failing to adequately hide the new essays that they are publishing. How are they going to keep these essays "buried" if they keep linking to them? FAIL! WWI like that some of the topics that are getting a lot of attention these days are prominently featured with photo links so one is not compelled to search alphabetically to find them. Edited March 25, 2014 by Scott Lloyd
Wiki Wonka Posted March 26, 2014 Author Posted March 26, 2014 I like that some of the topics that are getting a lot of attention these days are prominently featured with photo links so one is not compelled to search alphabetically to find them. Right, and one of those photo links is "Book of Mormon Translation." The "stone and the hat" are a mere two clicks away from the main page of LDS.org.
Calm Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 Perhaps the initial "quiet launch" was a sort of beta test to see what the initial reaction would be? .My bet is on making sure the tech issues were taken care of before they started getting heavier use. It is hard to access some stt on Sunday when everyone else wants it.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 Right, and one of those photo links is "Book of Mormon Translation." The "stone and the hat" are a mere two clicks away from the main page of LDS.org.So are the folks who abandoned their faith because they felt the Church had not been candid with them going to return now, or are they too far and too long gone to be mollified now? (That's mostly a rhetorical question. I'm certain it depends on the individual mindset.)
Tacenda Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 So are the folks who abandoned their faith because they felt the Church had not been candid with them going to return now, or are they too far and too long gone to be mollified now?(That's mostly a rhetorical question. I'm certain it depends on the individual mindset.)That may be the case, but who is left might benefit. Though there might be some that won't accept the explanations. I know that the essay on the PH ban, saying it had racist tendencies, didn't sit well with some TBM's, where they believed and taught that it came wholly from God. There might be some that taught and thought, that the translation process was only done using gold plates and the U&T. In their mind, like mine at one time, the U&T was some special glasses, lame as that sounds.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 (edited) That may be the case, but who is left might benefit. Though there might be some that won't accept the explanations. I know that the essay on the PH ban, saying it had racist tendencies, didn't sit well with some TBM's, where they believed and taught that it came wholly from God. There might be some that taught and thought, that the translation process was only done using gold plates and the U&T. In their mind, like mine at one time, the U&T was some special glasses, lame as that sounds.I don't accept that the essay says that. Some of the attempted explanations for it, perhaps, but not the policy itself. But this doesn't really address my question. If their reason for departing in the first place was that they felt the Church had not been candid with them, are they going to come back now that the Church is (as they might see it) mending its ways? And if not, why not? Edited March 26, 2014 by Scott Lloyd
Tacenda Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 I don't accept that the essay says that. Some of the attempted explanations for it, perhaps, but not the policy itself. But this doesn't really address my question. If their reason for departing in the first place was that they felt the Church had not been candid with them, are they going to come back now that the Church is (as they might see it) mending its ways? And if not, why not?The finding something out from an anti source part, and then the finding out that it was true part, those two combined might counteract the part that the church is mending it's ways and putting it out there. I'm still finding my way in the church, but there is one thing holding me back....the true part. Is that enough "parts" for one post? I'd probably get fired the first day at DN!!
Tacenda Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 Right, and one of those photo links is "Book of Mormon Translation." The "stone and the hat" are a mere two clicks away from the main page of LDS.org.Wiki, is there a link to the "stone and the hat" with a portrayal. I guess I've been lazy.
Wiki Wonka Posted March 27, 2014 Author Posted March 27, 2014 Wiki, is there a link to the "stone and the hat" with a portrayal. I guess I've been lazy. No, it is a picture of gold plates. We still do not have a good image of the "stone and hat" being used. I do, however, think that will eventually change. 2
omni Posted March 27, 2014 Posted March 27, 2014 No, it is a picture of gold plates. We still do not have a good image of the "stone and hat" being used. I do, however, think that will eventually change.Interesting...is this insider information or just a guess? 1
Wiki Wonka Posted March 27, 2014 Author Posted March 27, 2014 Just a guess based upon the direction that the Church has been taking so far. I believe that we will eventually see such a representation. 2
Rivers Posted March 27, 2014 Posted March 27, 2014 A picture if Joseph Smith with his face in a hat would be too goofy. They would need to find a highly skilled artist to portray it in a dignified manner. Is that something that could possibly be done?
MiserereNobis Posted March 27, 2014 Posted March 27, 2014 (edited) I went to lds.org and it (the prominent link) is no longer there. Maybe because the focus is on General Conference (most of the links seem to deal with that) they decided to put it on the backburner for a bit. I was thinking, while reading this thread, that the website for the Holy See (vatican.va) doesn't really deal at all with controversy in the Catholic Church. Maybe because we are so large and there are so many other apologetic sites that there is no need. Also, the history of the Catholic Church is pretty open and out there for anyone to study -- if you've had to take a class on the history of Europe you've studied Catholic history. I will say that lds.org offers many more language options than vatican.va, but vatican.va offers stuff in Latin, so take that! ETA: there is a link about the abuse of children and the Church's response on the Holy See website. That falls into the category of dealing with controversy. Edited March 27, 2014 by MiserereNobis
Calm Posted March 28, 2014 Posted March 28, 2014 (edited) A picture if Joseph Smith with his face in a hat would be too goofy. They would need to find a highly skilled artist to portray it in a dignified manner. Is that something that could possibly be done?I think a picture from the perspective of looking over his shoulder into the hat with a glowing stone in it where the hat is not yet pressed against his face, but he is holding it in front of it looking in might portray the reason for the hat sufficiently enough plus avoid the 'what in the world is going on' that is the most likely result imo of just showing him with his head in a hat because one doesn't have any visual cues to what is going on (you can't see in the hat, there is no reference to the plates or even the seerstone or interpreters). There would still have to be sufficient explanation to begin with though. Edited March 28, 2014 by calmoriah
Wiki Wonka Posted March 28, 2014 Author Posted March 28, 2014 (edited) I went to lds.org and it (the prominent link) is no longer there. Maybe because the focus is on General Conference (most of the links seem to deal with that) they decided to put it on the backburner for a bit. I was thinking, while reading this thread, that the website for the Holy See (vatican.va) doesn't really deal at all with controversy in the Catholic Church. Maybe because we are so large and there are so many other apologetic sites that there is no need. Also, the history of the Catholic Church is pretty open and out there for anyone to study -- if you've had to take a class on the history of Europe you've studied Catholic history. I will say that lds.org offers many more language options than vatican.va, but vatican.va offers stuff in Latin, so take that! ETA: there is a link about the abuse of children and the Church's response on the Holy See website. That falls into the category of dealing with controversy. I think that they may be rotating different images/links into that slot. The new link is for the Women's Conference, which makes sense. They appear to be using that spot to advertise current or new items. We will probably see the "Tough Questions" link rotate back in periodically. I think that Latin is cool. I want Wiki in Latin. Edited March 28, 2014 by Wiki Wonka 1
Wiki Wonka Posted March 28, 2014 Author Posted March 28, 2014 A picture if Joseph Smith with his face in a hat would be too goofy. They would need to find a highly skilled artist to portray it in a dignified manner. Is that something that could possibly be done? I think any portrayal of the Nephite Interpreters in use would be equally challenging. It gets more complicated when you consider that Joseph may have put the Nephite interpreters in a hat as well. However, I believe that it can be done, and I believe that it is simply a matter of time before it is done in a tasteful way by an artist who is not doing it just to try to make the process look stupid.
sdc999 Posted March 28, 2014 Posted March 28, 2014 (edited) So are the folks who abandoned their faith because they felt the Church had not been candid with them going to return now, or are they too far and too long gone to be mollified now? (That's mostly a rhetorical question. I'm certain it depends on the individual mindset.)I don't think most people leave the church because the church had not been 'candid' with them. I think they leave because when they find out different facts, they weigh those facts as to the truthfulness of the of the new fact itself vs the old non-candid fact. Example. Polygamy - explanation given to me. Many men died on the trek and women needed to be taken care of and also could not own land on their own. I could really buy into that with a loving God wanting to take care of these women. Newer explanation : to raise up seed : Nobody now wants to say Joseph had children with any of these ladies. Where are the seed? My own conclusion is that Smith used his 'authority' to further his sexual wants and desires. I've been misled several times in my life after giving trust to someone. Sometimes intentional, sometimes unintentional. Sometimes detrimental to the relationship and sometimes not. I believe if the church opened up their finances (Hey, the church is really trying to be more candid these days), many more people would pack up and leave than stay. Wow, look at how open this church is, I believe I will join them because they don't like to hide anything. Edited March 28, 2014 by sdc999
MiserereNobis Posted March 28, 2014 Posted March 28, 2014 (edited) I think that Latin is cool. I want Wiki in Latin. Ask and you shall receive: Vicipaedia (and yes, Latin is most definitely cool) ETA: And here is the Latin Wikipedia page for Mormonism: Ecclesia Iesu Christi Diebus Ultimis Sanctorum I almost want to make this its own thread so all can read about Mormonism in Latin P.S. Most everyone has heard that the Pope has a twitter account, but not many know that one of the language for his twitter is Latin. Here it is. Edited March 28, 2014 by MiserereNobis
Scott Lloyd Posted March 28, 2014 Posted March 28, 2014 I think a picture from the perspective of looking over his shoulder into the hat with a glowing stone in it where the hat is not yet pressed against his face, but he is holding it in front of it looking in might portray the reason for the hat sufficiently enough plus avoid the 'what in the world is going on' that is the most likely result imo of just showing him with his head in a hat because one doesn't have any visual cues to what is going on (you can't see in the hat, there is no reference to the plates or even the seerstone or interpreters). There would still have to be sufficient explanation to begin with though.I'm not sure even that would convey an accurate understanding, though. To others present would the stone have appeared to glow, or only to the prophet using the stone as a medium or focus point for the exercise of his divine gift? If Brant Gardner's theory is correct, I suspect it's the latter.
Recommended Posts