pogi Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 I generally don't have an opinion on what motivates other people. That's a dangerous way to live...just sayin' That would make you the most susceptible to classic misdirection.
jkwilliams Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 Without suggesting a credible motive, your accusation of fraud seems vacuous It's not an accusation, just my rather reluctant conclusion. If I were to hazard a guess, I'd agree with what Dale Broadhurst said years ago to me: they were both building the kingdom of God on earth and running a scam. 2
jkwilliams Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 That's a dangerous way to live...just sayin' That would make you the most susceptible to classic misdirection. I generally give people the benefit of the doubt until I learn I shouldn't. Yeah, it can cause problems, but it's better than being a total cynic.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 (edited) Never said that. But are seriously saying that the illustrations included in the article are honest and accurate depictions of how Joseph used the seer stone to translate the Book of Mormon? Have you even read the numerous eye witness statements?You mean you didn't even read the captions with the pictures? Those pictures were there as specific examples of art in the Church that has conflcted with witness statements, supporting the very argument you make. I am dumbfounded! Read the text, man!When you return. I hope it is to report that you have actually done more than click on the link and merely glance at the art. I know you can do it. You can type a post, so you must be literate. Edited August 5, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
pogi Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 (edited) I generally give people the benefit of the doubt until I learn I shouldn't. Yeah, it can cause problems, but it's better than being a total cynic. Then why aren't you giving OC the benefit of the doubt? What have you learned about his character that I don't know that would cause doubt? Having an opinion of motive doesn't make you a cynic. Your approach to OC is more cynical than anything. Edited August 5, 2015 by pogi
Scott Lloyd Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 It's not an accusation, just my rather reluctant conclusion. If I were to hazard a guess, I'd agree with what Dale Broadhurst said years ago to me: they were both building the kingdom of God on earth and running a scam.If you say they were engaging in "misdirection" and "running a scam" you are making accusations. 2
mnn727 Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 (edited) Does anyone honestly believe that this stone had magical properties? No, I don't believe the stone has magical properties, what I do believe is that God can use anything to communicate with -- burning bushes, dreams, moving fingers, a donkey, etc. so why not a rock? No Christian that I know doubts a burning bush, so why not a rock? ***btw, its a cool looking rock Edited August 5, 2015 by mnn727 1
Scott Lloyd Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 Then why aren't you giving OC the benefit of the doubt? What have you learned about his character that I don't know that would cause doubt? Having an opinion of motive doesn't make you a cynic. Your approach to OC is more cynical than anything.I can think of nothing more cynical than accusing someone of wrongdoing without suggesting a credible motive. 2
jkwilliams Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 If you say they were engaging in "misdirection" and "running a scam" you are making accusations. Not really. That's what I think, nothing more. If I were making an accusation, I'd try to get other people to agree with me. My conclusions are mine alone, and I think they explain things better than any other explanation.
stemelbow Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 (edited) ... it's better than being a total cynic. oh you think you're better than me, now? (-; Edited August 5, 2015 by stemelbow
hope_for_things Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 The article was mentioned yesterday before a crowd of newspaper reporters and bloggers. Richard Turley himself spoke about the seer stone and artistic depiction in interviews. I myself linked to the Ensign piece in a news story I wrote for the Church News.I have the impression nothing will satisfy you, not even having it talked about in Sunday School. I’ll tell you what would satisfy me:· Get rid of the old artwork and replace it with new artwork that is more accurate. · Remove the erroneous accounts from all manuals, and insert newly updated accounts similar to the Turley article that will be published in the Ensign (its not perfect, but it’s a good start)· Lastly, they should apologize for hiding pictures of the stone, apologize for demonizing and calling people anti Mormon who talked about the history, apologize for having the arrogance that God wants them to lie about things because the truth isn’t useful. Apologize for playing scriptural semantics and insulting our intelligence by saying the word apology isn’t found in the scriptures. I could go on, but you get the picture… Stating all the above, I can honestly say that I don’t expect to ever be satisfied, because I see no evidence that the institutional church would ever humble itself enough to do the above penance, at least in my lifetime. The church doesn’t repent for its mistakes, it just pretends they didn’t happen in the first place. 3
Scott Lloyd Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 Not really. That's what I think, nothing more. If I were making an accusation, I'd try to get other people to agree with me. My conclusions are mine alone, and I think they explain things better than any other explanation.The very act of posting on this board is an effort to persuade others. There would be no point to it otherwise.
jkwilliams Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 Then why aren't you giving OC the benefit of the doubt? What have you learned about his character that I don't know that would cause doubt? Having an opinion of motive doesn't make you a cynic. Your approach to OC is more cynical than anything. It's not about Oliver's character but it's where the evidence points. I have no idea what kind of man Oliver Cowdery was, but what he and Joseph Smith produced was, to me, obviously not an ancient record translated by the gift and power of God. That's what I mean about not assigning motives. If one of my kids leaves a cell phone in my car, I have no trouble concluding that a cell phone was left in my car and who left it, but I don't necessarily have to know why it was left in the car.
jkwilliams Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 The very act of posting on this board is an effort to persuade others. There would be no point to it otherwise. Really? I find it fun and interesting to toss ideas around and compare perspectives. Yeah, sometimes I'll argue a point, but I'm not here to convince anyone of anything. Frankly, I'd have to be crazy to think I could convince anyone of anything here, especially given my history.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 I’ll tell you what would satisfy me:· Get rid of the old artwork and replace it with new artwork that is more accurate. · Remove the erroneous accounts from all manuals, and insert newly updated accounts similar to the Turley article that will be published in the Ensign (its not perfect, but it’s a good start)· Lastly, they should apologize for hiding pictures of the stone, apologize for demonizing and calling people anti Mormon who talked about the history, apologize for having the arrogance that God wants them to lie about things because the truth isn’t useful. Apologize for playing scriptural semantics and insulting our intelligence by saying the word apology isn’t found in the scriptures. I could go on, but you get the picture…Stating all the above, I can honestly say that I don’t expect to ever be satisfied, because I see no evidence that the institutional church would ever humble itself enough to do the above penance, at least in my lifetime. The church doesn’t repent for its mistakes, it just pretends they didn’t happen in the first place.You'll never be satisfied, because you're making unreasonable demands based a jaundiced and hostile view toward the Church of Jesus Christ. 3
stemelbow Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 The very act of posting on this board is an effort to persuade others. There would be no point to it otherwise. What do you mean, learning and growing from others isn't in the mix? I guess I'm here for the wrong reasons.
stemelbow Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 Really? I find it fun and interesting to toss ideas around and compare perspectives. Yeah, sometimes I'll argue a point, but I'm not here to convince anyone of anything. Frankly, I'd have to be crazy to think I could convince anyone of anything here, especially given my history. Not to mention your reasoning ability. (-' Follow that up with another grin and any offense goes away
jkwilliams Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 What do you mean, learning and growing from others isn't in the mix? I guess I'm here for the wrong reasons. Me too. Hell, I'm almost never right, so trying to persuade would be kind of stupid.
mnn727 Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 (edited) I’ll tell you what would satisfy me:· Get rid of the old artwork and replace it with new artwork that is more accurate. · Remove the erroneous accounts from all manuals, and insert newly updated accounts similar to the Turley article that will be published in the Ensign (its not perfect, but it’s a good start)· Lastly, they should apologize for hiding pictures of the stone, apologize for demonizing and calling people anti Mormon who talked about the history, apologize for having the arrogance that God wants them to lie about things because the truth isn’t useful. Apologize for playing scriptural semantics and insulting our intelligence by saying the word apology isn’t found in the scriptures. I could go on, but you get the picture… Stating all the above, I can honestly say that I don’t expect to ever be satisfied, because I see no evidence that the institutional church would ever humble itself enough to do the above penance, at least in my lifetime. The church doesn’t repent for its mistakes, it just pretends they didn’t happen in the first place. Perhaps you could offer proof that 'The Church' did any of that. As far as Art work can you prove JS never used any other method (hint: there are first hand accounts stating he did use methods portrayed in the artwork at times) Edited August 5, 2015 by mnn727
ALarson Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 (edited) You mean you didn't even read the captions with the pictures? Those pictures were there as specific examples of artin the Church that has conflcted with witness statements, supporting the very argument you make.I am dumbfounded!Read the text, man!When you return. I hope it is to report that you have actually done more than click on the link and merely glance at the art. I know you can do it. You can type a post, so you must be literate.I have read them. And? Here they are: Artist’s rendition of Joseph Smith studying the plates. Joseph recalled that he “copied a considerable number” of characters from the plates. After he translated these characters “by means of the Urim and Thummim,” Martin Harris took the characters to Charles Anthon and other scholars to confirm the translation (Joseph Smith—History 1:62–64). Artist’s portrayal of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery working on the translation of the Book of Mormon. Unlike what is depicted here, Oliver Cowdery stated that he did not see the plates until after the translation was finished. Witnesses of the process reported that during the translation, the plates were shielded from view, such as by being covered with a linen cloth. Artist’s rendition of Joseph Smith translating while wearing the breastplate with the attached interpreters or spectacles, later referred to as the Urim and Thummim. Artist’s depiction of Joseph Smith and a scribe translating with a blanket between them. Although no blanket is mentioned in most descriptions of the translation process, one was apparently used at an early point to shield the scribe from a view of the plates, spectacles, or breastplate. During the latter part of the translation effort, a blanket may have been used to shield the translator and scribe from other individuals curious to observe the translation. Although there are a couple of inaccuracies mentioned, please show me where it states that Joseph actually used his seer stone in his hat and put his head in the hat when he translated? I'm dumbfounded that you infer this was included in the captions. And, why (with all the accurate artist's portrayals now available showing the truth) wasn't at least one illustration included that portrays how Joseph used the stone (which is the subject of this article)? Edited August 5, 2015 by ALarson 1
pogi Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 (edited) It's not about Oliver's character but it's where the evidence points. It becomes about Oliver's character once you believe the evidence point's elsewhere. Evidence can point in many directions depending on who is looking at it. Character and motivation help to solidify your interpretation of evidence. The evidence of OC's character and motivation should direct you in how to interpret the other evidence. It all supports each other. Edited August 5, 2015 by pogi
jkwilliams Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 Not to mention your reasoning ability. (-' Follow that up with another grin and any offense goes away My powers of reason are impeccable. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably ... wait, what was I saying?
Scott Lloyd Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 (edited) Really? I find it fun and interesting to toss ideas around and compare perspectives. Yeah, sometimes I'll argue a point, but I'm not here to convince anyone of anything. Frankly, I'd have to be crazy to think I could convince anyone of anything here, especially given my history.So you're yanking our chains, then? And turning it back to the recurring theme about how put upon you are because of your "history"? Been down this road before. This is where I step away from the conversation. Edited August 5, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
stemelbow Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 I have read them. And? Here they are: Although there are a couple of inaccuracies mentioned, please show me where it states that Joseph actually used his seer stone in his hat and put his head in the hat when he translated? And, why (with all the accurate artist's portrayals no available showing the truth) wasn't an illustration included portraying how he used the stone (which is the subject of he article)? it'd be weird now that the majority of members have the impression that Joseph looked at the plates while reading off the words to his scribes.
jkwilliams Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 It becomes about Olive's character once you believe the evidence point's elsewhere. Evidence can point in many directions depending on who is looking at it. Character and motivation help to solidify your interpretation of evidence. OC's character and motivation should direct you in how to interpret the evidence. I don't think so. As I said, I give people the benefit of the doubt until there's a reason not to. The evidence in this case gives me a reason not to give Joseph or Oliver the benefit of the doubt. After that, I don't think I need to bother making a judgment about his character.
Recommended Posts