rockpond Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 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. Four decades of activity in the church wasn't enough time to share with me how the Book of Mormon was translated? In that time I graduated from seminary, served a mission, graduated from BYU, and taught early morning seminary. If that wasn't enough time for the Church to move past the oversimplification, I don't know what they were waiting for. Fortunately, I ventured out on my own before the Brethren got pushed into revealing the non-simplified version. 2
ALarson Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 (edited) You don't think Oliver cowdrey was a witness?I never said that. And, I'm not going to repeat all that I've already posted about this. Maybe try to read what I actually did post. Do you believe he put the ancient interpreters into his hat? I think this is mentioned in the essay. Edited August 12, 2015 by ALarson
jkwilliams Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 Four decades of activity in the church wasn't enough time to share with me how the Book of Mormon was translated? In that time I graduated from seminary, served a mission, graduated from BYU, and taught early morning seminary. If that wasn't enough time for the Church to move past the oversimplification, I don't know what they were waiting for. Fortunately, I ventured out on my own before the Brethren got pushed into revealing the non-simplified version. It's really frustrating when people respond to that with "You were lazy and intransigent. You would have known about this if you had been more diligent." Lots of people are finding out the "non-simplified version" these days, and not all of them are leaving the church. It's a big mistake to assume that the difference is that those who struggle enough to leave are somehow less faithful or want to sin or were never fully converted, though I've heard all three of these excuses in the last few days. It's just not helpful. 3
ALarson Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 Here's the quote regarding this from the church essay: Most of the accounts speak of Joseph’s use of the Urim and Thummim (either the interpreters or the seer stone), and many accounts refer to his use of a single stone. According to these accounts, Joseph placed either the interpreters or the seer stone in a hat, pressed his face into the hat to block out extraneous light, and read aloud the English words that appeared on the instrument. https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-translation?lang=eng So, depictions of Joseph translating with his head in his hat (whether the hat contained the seer stone or the interpreters) is the most accurate portrayal if you believe the statement above. 2
Danzo Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 Four decades of activity in the church wasn't enough time to share with me how the Book of Mormon was translated? In that time I graduated from seminary, served a mission, graduated from BYU, and taught early morning seminary. If that wasn't enough time for the Church to move past the oversimplification, I don't know what they were waiting for. Fortunately, I ventured out on my own before the Brethren got pushed into revealing the non-simplified version. Thats the trick, if you want to know you have to seek. You can't wait for it to be delivered to your plate. The church's job is to get you enough information to be saved.
rockpond Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 Thats the trick, if you want to know you have to seek. You can't wait for it to be delivered to your plate. The church's job is to get you enough information to be saved. Attending 3 hours of church each week, early morning seminary, BYU religion classes, a mission, teaching early morning seminary... all that wasn't enough seeking for you? I'm sorry, that's ridiculous. And that's why members are feeling betrayed by their leaders. That's an appropriate mission for the church but their approach is causing them to lose people. 2
Danzo Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 I never said that. And, I'm not going to repeat all that I've already posted about this. Maybe try to read what I actually did post. Do you believe he put the ancient interpreters into his hat? I think this is mentioned in the essay. He probably did, according to witnesses. I still don't understand why it is important, other than to look for an excuse to nitpick the church illustrators.
jkwilliams Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 Thats the trick, if you want to know you have to seek. You can't wait for it to be delivered to your plate. The church's job is to get you enough information to be saved. To seek something, you have to know you don't have it. How was rockpond supposed to know he wasn't being told the truth about the translation process? If I don't know that there's more information to be had, why should I be criticized for not looking for something I don't know exists? I never had any reason to believe there was something more to the translation process than what I was presented with by the church, but somehow I should have known what I was being taught wasn't the whole story. Seriously? 3
Danzo Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 Attending 3 hours of church each week, early morning seminary, BYU religion classes, a mission, teaching early morning seminary... all that wasn't enough seeking for you? I'm sorry, that's ridiculous. And that's why members are feeling betrayed by their leaders. That's an appropriate mission for the church but their approach is causing them to lose people. It was enough (hopefully) to teach you the things you needed to be converted to the gospel of Jesus Christ, a which is what you were there for!!! If you were there to get history degree, you could have reason to complain.
stemelbow 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. On the flip side the primary concern with the historical department, particularly as it relates to projects like the JSP, is historical accuracy, or the fact-based method of disseminating history. The change since your many years ago of working for the Church is certainly welcome on my end. But then again, the Church as an org is made up of many departments each of which have their own agenda. The correlation committee has an agenda and so does CES (a bit of a mix of fact-based and devotional/teaching), as does FamilySearch (another dept that likes fact-based material). it would have been quite different and very interesting if, from the beginning the Church, instead of correlation and CES used the Historical department's approach in each and every story and publication that dealt with history. Some of these troubling discussions would be far behind us and the essays that have been coming at us would probably be unnecessary at this point.
jkwilliams Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 It was enough (hopefully) to teach you the things you needed to be converted to the gospel of Jesus Christ, a which is what you were there for!!! If you were there to get history degree, you could have reason to complain. So, it's rockpond's fault for assuming that the church was teaching accurate information. This is the kind of stuff that drives people away. 2
stemelbow Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 It was enough (hopefully) to teach you the things you needed to be converted to the gospel of Jesus Christ, a which is what you were there for!!! If you were there to get history degree, you could have reason to complain. I think that's an interesting thought, but one must question why see it so separate? Why not helpful interesting fact-based history and gospel teaching? I'd say it's because the church is so far behind, particularly CES in scholarship. Why is that? Well, obviously because of the emphasis to separate the fields. that was unnecessary and put us where we need not be now.
ALarson Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 He probably did, according to witnesses. I still don't understand why it is important, other than to look for an excuse to nitpick the church illustrators.Are you really this dense? I quote the essay again:Most of the accounts speak of Joseph’s use of the Urim and Thummim (either the interpreters or the seer stone), and many accounts refer to his use of a single stone. According to these accounts, Joseph placed either the interpreters or the seer stone in a hat, pressed his face into the hat to block out extraneous light, and read aloud the English words that appeared on the instrument. So again, illustrations showing Joseph translating with his head in his hat are extremely accurate (whether he had the stone in the hat or the interpreters). But this is only important if you care about accuracy. 2
ALarson Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 It was enough (hopefully) to teach you the things you needed to be converted to the gospel of Jesus Christ, a which is what you were there for!!! If you were there to get history degree, you could have reason to complain.And according to you, you didn't even teach investigators about Joseph translating the Book of Mormon on your mission. Correct?
Popular Post jkwilliams Posted August 12, 2015 Popular Post Posted August 12, 2015 (edited) About 20 years ago, I was working on one of the leadership handbooks for the church. As I recall, the one I was working on was the third or fourth of the handbooks to be published. I had in the project file a letter from the Quorum of the Twelve outlining the purposes of the handbooks (IIRC there were maybe 10 or so) and the titles and format that had been agreed on for each handbook. At the last minute, the guy from the originating department told me that the Quorum of the Twelve had decided to change the name of this particular handbook. This was a problem because the new title wouldn't fit in the cover format that had already been decided. Much worse, however, was that the previous 2 or 3 handbooks already referred to this handbook and others by their approved names. I told the originator this and said we could not change the title. He got very upset and said, "But they're the Twelve! They can change anything they want!" I replied that they couldn't change it because they'd already approved the title and format and referred to the handbook. Then he got even angrier. Finally, I asked him, "Did you remind the Twelve that they had already made this decision and explain why it's a bad idea?" He said no, again saying that they could what they wanted because they were guided by revelation. I said you can't expect anyone to receive revelation when they don't have all the information they need. I told him I wasn't going to sign off on the handbook until he went over to the Twelve and explained why we couldn't make the change. He was very unhappy with me, but he went back to them, and their response was, "Oh, right, we forgot about that." Why do I tell this story? Because I believe it's wrong to expect people to pray about the truth of things and receive revelation when they aren't given accurate information, intentionally or not. Edited August 12, 2015 by jkwilliams 5
Danzo Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 To seek something, you have to know you don't have it. How was rockpond supposed to know he wasn't being told the truth about the translation process? If I don't know that there's more information to be had, why should I be criticized for not looking for something I don't know exists? I never had any reason to believe there was something more to the translation process than what I was presented with by the church, but somehow I should have known what I was being taught wasn't the whole story.Seriously? I am not criticizing someone for not looking for something they didn't know existed. I am criticizing people who complain about learning something they didn't know before and being upset about it. I am not mad at my history teacher for not telling me about stokes theorem. I don't get mad at my math teacher for not explain the difference between courts of equity and courts of law. I don't get mad at my biology teach for forgetting to teach me about demand curves. I don't get mad at my Sunday school teacher for not teaching me detailed history. I don't go there to learn history! To learn history, I read accounts by people who experienced it, read compliations by Historians, like bushman or Arrington. Sure the church teaches a simplified overview of history, but I have never expected my gospel doctrine teacher, with no training in history to teach me history. The lessons are for doctrine, not history. I learned church history from my institute teacher, who had a doctorate in church history. He taught about seer stones, and polygamy and other things. He even created courses to teach about history that the church didn't have manuals for. Did he teach me everything? no, and I didn't expect him to. He may have even taught me something incorrect. I still read books and I still learn new things. Do I hate my institute teacher because he didn't teach me everything?, no I am grateful for both what I learned from him and for the new knowledge. I think the Advice of Moroni serves when it comes to finding out that your leaders didn't tell you something "Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been." 1
Danzo Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 And according to you, you didn't even teach investigators about Joseph translating the Book of Mormon on your mission. Correct? I taught them that Joseph Smith translated the book of Mormon. I didn't teach them the mechanics of how. (I am still not completely sure of all the details and neither are you)
jkwilliams Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 I am not criticizing someone for not looking for something they didn't know existed. I am criticizing people who complain about learning something they didn't know before and being upset about it. I am not mad at my history teacher for not telling me about stokes theorem. I don't get mad at my math teacher for not explain the difference between courts of equity and courts of law. I don't get mad at my biology teach for forgetting to teach me about demand curves. I don't get mad at my Sunday school teacher for not teaching me detailed history. I don't go there to learn history! To learn history, I read accounts by people who experienced it, read compliations by Historians, like bushman or Arrington. Sure the church teaches a simplified overview of history, but I have never expected my gospel doctrine teacher, with no training in history to teach me history. The lessons are for doctrine, not history. I learned church history from my institute teacher, who had a doctorate in church history. He taught about seer stones, and polygamy and other things. He even created courses to teach about history that the church didn't have manuals for. Did he teach me everything? no, and I didn't expect him to. He may have even taught me something incorrect. I still read books and I still learn new things. Do I hate my institute teacher because he didn't teach me everything?, no I am grateful for both what I learned from him and for the new knowledge. I think the Advice of Moroni serves when it comes to finding out that your leaders didn't tell you something "Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been." In short, people are stupid for trusting the church to teach them accurate history. Again, this is the kind of stuff that drives people away. If you want them to continue to come to me, keep it up. 2
ALarson Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 (I am still not completely sure of all the details and neither are you)Maybe you should only speak for yourself regarding what you are or are "not completely sure of".
SteveO Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 Can anyone remember the last time the Pearl of Great Price was taught extensively from the pulpit or in class? I really can't--with the exception to Moses 1:39. Do we teach that the Gods watched the universe for the intelligencea that would obey? Do we place emphasis on Abraham's mathematical genius and his knowledge of Astronomy? When is the last time we discussed Kolob?Is the church being dishonest with regards to these subjects? Was Pres Hinckley dishonest when he said that we don't really teach the man becoming as God? Or was he (correctly) stating that there are things that shouldn't be taught without a very solid understanding of their context? You cannot simply state: "here's Joseph looking at a seer stone in a hat while translating the BoM" and then leave it at that. Yes I know. Roll the eyes because I'm gonna say it: Milk before meat.
stemelbow Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 In short, people are stupid for trusting the church to teach them accurate history. Again, this is the kind of stuff that drives people away. If you want them to continue to come to me, keep it up. It's not as if everyone who doesn't like the typical LDS response to issues like translating the BoM go running to you. Some might, I suppose, but even if they go to you it's not as if you are their only source. And with that all said, you're as harmless as they can get anyway. The more sources people consult the better. But certainly there will always be a number of people who will leave over something they learn in history. no one will ever stop that.
stemelbow Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 Maybe you should only speak for yourself regarding what you are or are "not completely sure of". I think it's fair to say that none of us can be sure of all the details of the "translation"/dictation process.
HappyJackWagon Posted August 12, 2015 Author Posted August 12, 2015 Can anyone remember the last time the Pearl of Great Price was taught extensively from the pulpit or in class? I really can't--with the exception to Moses 1:39. Do we teach that the Gods watched the universe for the intelligencea that would obey? Do we place emphasis on Abraham's mathematical genius and his knowledge of Astronomy? When is the last time we discussed Kolob?Is the church being dishonest with regards to these subjects? Was Pres Hinckley dishonest when he said that we don't really teach the man becoming as God? Or was he (correctly) stating that there are things that shouldn't be taught without a very solid understanding of their context?You cannot simply state: "here's Joseph looking at a seer stone in a hat while translating the BoM" and then leave it at that. Yes I know. Roll the eyes because I'm gonna say it: Milk before meat.2 weeks ago we had a gospel doctrine lesson referencing the PoGP. The instructor talked about how even the elements, rocks, water etc. were more faithful in "choosing" to obey God, than we are. Good grief. There's a good reason the church is allowing distance to grow between members and usage of the PoGP and the racist teachings are not the only reason.
ALarson Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 I think it's fair to say that none of us can be sure of all the details of the "translation"/dictation process.I'll still speak for myself here and also won't attempt to speak for others. I think that's fair.
ALarson Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 2 weeks ago we had a gospel doctrine lesson referencing the PoGP. The instructor talked about how even the elements, rocks, water etc. were more faithful in "choosing" to obey God, than we are. Good grief. There's a good reason the church is allowing distance to grow between members and usage of the PoGP and the racist teachings are not the only reason.I agree. The Book of Abraham is avoided (at least in my ward as I haven't heard mention of it for quite awhile). And, for good reason:A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus. https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/abr?lang=eng That just opens a can of worms that the leaders want to remain closed if possible.
Recommended Posts