rockpond Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 As much as I admire and respect BH Roberts and the CHC. I go by what our Scriptures say. There would be no need for the Lord to chasten Oliver with D&C 9 if was as simple as reading words off of a paper(stone).SEE D&C 9:6-9.6 Do not murmur, my son, for it is wisdom in me that I have dealt with you after this manner. 7 Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me. 8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right. 9 But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong; therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me. I would presume that Oliver was using the U&T, not Joseph's seer stone.
rockpond Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 I would say I don't have any idea what happened, I wasn't there. Oliver Cowdery seems to indicate that the "Nephite Interpreters" were used (from the pearl of great price). Other people thought that moroni took the "Nephite Intrepreters" away after Joseph Smith lost the 116 pages. It was also reported that at times, a rock was used, in a hat to exclude light. I would tend to believe Oliver Cowdery had the best knowlege understanding (he being most constantly with the prophet during translation). However, it is possible that Oliver Cowdery meant something else. It is also possible that Joseph smith used different methods, at different times as an aid to revelation. In the end, while I am not aware of the mechanics of the process, I have received revelation that it was through the gift and power of god that the plates were translated. For me, whether the prophet used one rock or two rocks and which rocks he used doesn't affect the story one way or other. Apparently, for some people it is extremely important which rocks and how many rocks Joseph Smith used. I think it is important for some because of the scriptures cited earlier indicating that the Book of Mormon would be translated with the U&T given to Joseph by the angel. I think it's also disturbing to members to find out that the method they had been taught all their lives was not the actual method. It's good that this is not an impediment to your faith but its short-sighted to dismiss the impact it has on some of our fellow church members.
thesometimesaint Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 I would presume that Oliver was using the U&T, not Joseph's seer stone. I guess we'll have to wait to ask him
Danzo Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 (edited) I would presume that Oliver was using the U&T, not Joseph's seer stone. So you think the U&T was still present when Oliver was attempting to Translate? Edited August 12, 2015 by Danzo
ALarson Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 Maybe someone with more time on their hands than I do can interview the artists and find out how much influence the brethren had over their illustrations. I have to believe that any illustration or painting used in a temple visitor's center, lesson materials and so on were all approved prior to them being published or displayed. To think otherwise is pretty naive.
jkwilliams Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 I have to believe that any illustration or painting used in a temple visitor's center, lesson materials and so on were all approved prior to them being published or displayed. To think otherwise is pretty naive. That is the case. Everything the church publishes is reviewed by the Correlation Committee. If it is published by the church (bearing the church's copyright), this means it has been approved by Correlation. Nobody goes rogue. 2
rockpond Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 So you think the U&T was still present when Oliver was attempting to Translate? That was always my assumption. Is there an account somewhere that says I should question that?
Danzo Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 I think it's also disturbing to members to find out that the method they had been taught all their lives was not the actual method. It may shock you to know that pioneer children didn't always sing as they walked and walked and walked . . . Joseph had to be called to repentance (read D&C 3 for starters) Actually history is always more complicated than the first presentation. "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/1-cor/13?lang=eng
Danzo Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 That was always my assumption. Is there an account somewhere that says I should question that? Your post 321
ALarson Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 So you think the U&T was still present when Oliver was attempting to Translate?The seer stone was also referred to as a Urim & Thummim but you seem to keep forgetting this fact.
thesometimesaint Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 As the Church has "approved" of many differing paintings and illustrations of Christ and people and events it is naive and dishonest to say the Church agrees with all of them. IE; In my lifetime more recent paintings of Joseph Smith look different than earlier ones.
Danzo Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 The seer stone was also referred to as a Urim & Thummim but you seem to keep forgetting this fact.Oliver's account refers to "Nephite Intrepreters" plural.
ALarson Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 As the Church has "approved" of many differing paintings and illustrations of Christ and people and events it is naive and dishonest to say the Church agrees with all of them. IE; In my lifetime more recent paintings of Joseph Smith look different than earlier ones. I agree. But we are discussing the portrayals of Joseph translating that have been published in church approved publications and displayed in the different temple visitor's centers.
jkwilliams Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 As the Church has "approved" of many differing paintings and illustrations of Christ and people and events it is naive and dishonest to say the Church agrees with all of them. IE; In my lifetime more recent paintings of Joseph Smith look different than earlier ones. Yeah, what is up with the new Joseph Smith that looks kind of like a Ken doll? We know essentially what he looked like because of the death mask and x-rays of his skull, so I don't understand why someone would paint a portrait that doesn't look like him. (I'm not saying it's dishonest, just odd.) 2
ALarson Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 Oliver's account refers to "Nephite Intrepreters" plural. And there was more than one seer stone.
Danzo Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 That is the case. Everything the church publishes is reviewed by the Correlation Committee. If it is published by the church (bearing the church's copyright), this means it has been approved by Correlation. Nobody goes rogue. Are illustrations often asked to be correct for historical details? is that a big concern?
jkwilliams Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 Are illustrations often asked to be correct for historical details? is that a big concern? The primary concern is to be consistent with doctrine. At least it was when I worked there. I would say that the newer portraits of Joseph Smith are a pretty good indicator that historical accuracy is not high on the list of concerns. 1
Danzo Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 And there was more than one seer stone. Yes, there were at least two, found with the plates. He said "Nephite Interpreters" It seems to be referring to the stones found with the plates. What makes you think he was referring to a different set of stones?
Danzo Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 The primary concern is to be consistent with doctrine. At least it was when I worked there. I would say that the newer portraits of Joseph Smith are a pretty good indicator that historical accuracy is not high on the list of concerns. Did you ever get the impression that their lack of concern for historical accuracy was part of an attempt to deceive the saints? or was it just that it didn't seem important to them?
jkwilliams Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 Did you ever get the impression that their lack of concern for historical accuracy was part of an attempt to deceive the saints? or was it just that it didn't seem important to them? Nope, I never saw any intent to deceive. We were focused on teaching gospel principles. If we found a citation that was inaccurate or misleading, we definitely fixed it. Once I was source-checking a conference talk, and numerous quotes from a pioneer journal were not actually from that journal. I couldn't find the source, so we just changed the wording so that it was no longer quote material but paraphrase. That's the only time I can think of that we worried about historical accuracy. Oh, and I was sent to verify that Brigham Young had "made the Word of Wisdom a commandment" at a conference in 1851, but that turned out to be incorrect. I don't think it would have occurred to me to question the historical accuracy of an illustration. Maybe the graphics department worries about that, but we editors didn't, and apparently the Correlation Committee was OK with historically inaccurate illustrations, whether they realized it or not. 2
rockpond Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 Your post 321 Yes, Joseph used the seer stone. That doesn't mean that the U&T wasn't still present.
rockpond Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 It may shock you to know that pioneer children didn't always sing as they walked and walked and walked . . . Joseph had to be called to repentance (read D&C 3 for starters) Actually history is always more complicated than the first presentation. "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/1-cor/13?lang=eng Right... because those examples are similar. I don't have a problem with history being complicated. Oversimplifying it is what has gotten us into trouble.
ALarson Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 (edited) Yes, there were at least two, found with the plates. He said "Nephite Interpreters" It seems to be referring to the stones found with the plates. What makes you think he was referring to a different set of stones? Witnesses state that he used the "head in the hat" translation method along with a description of the seer stone. Do you believe he put the Nephite Interpreters in his hat? He might have. There are conflicting statements as to whether or not Joseph ever received the Interpreters back after they were taken away from him (after the loss of the 116 pages). So, it's not clear if he even had them in his possession to translate the Book of Mormon that we have today. Most eye witness statements confirm that he used his seer stone in the hat. Edited August 12, 2015 by ALarson 1
Danzo Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 Right... because those examples are similar. I don't have a problem with history being complicated. Oversimplifying it is what has gotten us into trouble. Oversimplifying history is necessary, otherwise no one would ever get past the roman empire. You start with the big picture and then as time permits, you get into the details.
Danzo Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 Witnesses state that he used the "head in the hat" translation method with the seer stone description. Do you believe he put the Nephite Interpreters in his hat? He might have. There are conflicting statements as to whether or not Joseph ever received the Interpreters back after they were taken away from him (after the loss of the 116 pages). So, it's not clear if he even had them in his possession to translate the Book of Mormon that we have today. Most eye witness statements confirm that he used his seer stone in the hat. You don't think Oliver cowdrey was a witness?
Recommended Posts