ALarson Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 Yes! I LOVE this movie. Thanks for the comic relief, Kenngo (It was needed)
ALarson Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 (edited) While I understand what you're getting at, this is probably counter productive in several ways, IMOYa think? So much for those trying to have an open, honest, and respectful discussion here. At least you tried, HappyJackWagon. Edited August 12, 2015 by ALarson 1
rockpond Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 One story has Joseph smith looking at two rocks in a bow attached to a breastplate. The other story has Joseph smith looking at one rock in a hat. Some stories combine the two. I don't see how one story is any more ridiculous than the other one. The only other reason people seem to be upset is the sudden epiphany that the church is not completely accurate and correct in everything they teach. The way I see it, this should only surprise people who have never read the D&C, Book of Mormon or new testament, and have never been in a ward council. Each of these sources talks extensively on how the church is doing things wrong. That the church should teach something wrong, find out it is wrong and the make corrections is something we should expect. Maybe it doesn't happen as fast is you want it to. There are many corrections that I think that should happen in the church (much more important than the number of rocks used to translate the Book of Mormon) that don't happen as fast as I would like them to. Did I miss anything? Yes, you missed actually answering my question. Your hyperbole is not really productive. I don't think anyone expects everything the church teaches to be completely accurate but this a pretty important matter. As you said, there are two stories: One is problematic because it appears to contradict scripture. And because it was, for the most part, not told to members. So I ask again, can you understand why this new acknowledgement by the church is problematic for some members? Because being able to understand that and validate it to our fellow members would be helpful rather than your current condescending attitude which just tends to turn members away. 1
jkwilliams Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 While I understand what you're getting at, this is probably counter productive in several ways, IMO I understand what he's getting at, though I don't know what I'm supposed to be whining about. I made my choice a long time ago. So what? I came over here again because a friend linked to a thread he thought I might be interested in. Beats the hell out of me why I stuck around.
hoo rider Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 Here is another example of a Church published manual describing only one method of translation. From a primary manual: Explain that the writing on the plates was in a language that Joseph could not read. Joseph received a special tool to help him translate the writing on the plates.•Do any of you know what the Urim and Thummimare?Explain that the Urim and Thummim are like special glasses through which Joseph could look to help him translate the ancient writing on the plates. With Heavenly Father’s help and by using the Urim and Thummim, Joseph was able to translate the words on the gold plates into words we could understand. When the translation into English was completed, the book was printed. It was called the Book of Mormon.Hold up a Book of Mormon. Point out that this book is what Joseph translated from the gold plates. https://www.lds.org/manual/primary-3/lesson-15-the-coming-forth-of-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng Here, the urim and thummim is referred as special glasses, not a rock in a hat. Why teach children the glasses method when the stone in the hat method seems to be the more prevalent method? And if this is just an introduction for children (milk before meat and all), then where is the manual that teaches the entire method? 3
Kenngo1969 Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 Yes! I LOVE this movie. Thanks for the comic relief, Kenngo (It was needed)At least I'm good for somethin'!
jkwilliams Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 Ya think? So much for those trying to have an open, honest, and respectful discussion here. At least you tried, HappyJackWagon. I appreciate the attempt, too. When it's considered whining to suggest that people not condemn struggling members, it's time to ditch the thread. 1
Danzo Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 As you said, there are two stories: One is problematic because it appears to contradict scripture. Can you enlighten me on this?
rockpond Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 Can you enlighten me on this? I believe the one that Joseph Fielding Smith cited in Doctrines of Salvation, to discount reports of a seer stone, is Ether 3:22-24. But there are others that discuss the U&T being set apart to translate the Book of Mormon.
Danzo Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 Regarding your bolded statement above, this is the crux of the question. Why did the official manuals of the church (e.g. the one I quoted above) heavily favor one version, often never mentioning the other one? Probably Several reasons. 1. Church usually try to stick to things found in the standard works2. Ignorance. Highly likely that many didn't know about it3. It is Important that people recognize what is occurring by associating it with images they are familiar with. There is a reason Jesus is never depicted as bald, has a beard and rarely looks Jewish,even though we have no idea what he really looked like. People always will recognize a certain image and they will have little need to explain it.4. Its difficult to draw someone with a face in a hat and have it look good.5. Institutions are usually slow to change. and . . . The most likely reason is that the church elders from the highest councils sought to deceive the membership of the church and keep them in darkness, knowing that they could more easily control them if they didn't know the truth.
Gray Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 I understand what he's getting at, though I don't know what I'm supposed to be whining about. I made my choice a long time ago. So what? I came over here again because a friend linked to a thread he thought I might be interested in. Beats the hell out of me why I stuck around. I think it can be upsetting for the clinically orthodox (excuse the phrase, I use it in a light-hearted way, hopefully it's not offensive) to hear people talk about being upset at a beloved institution. It's easy to interpret it as whining, especially when you find it personally grating. Orthodoxy in Mormonism is so-church centered, it almost sounds blasphemous to hear criticism of the church. That can quickly lead to hurt feelings and defensiveness from the orthodox. The response is sometimes to close up and try to shout it down. They don't choose those feelings any more than people choose to feel hurt by issues of church history. And then there's me, clinically heterodox, not particularly bothered about the seer stone but not wanting to minimize things for those who are. None of us can directly choose how we feel about it all.
Gray Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 (edited) Here is another example of a Church published manual describing only one method of translation. From a primary manual: https://www.lds.org/manual/primary-3/lesson-15-the-coming-forth-of-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng Here, the urim and thummim is referred as special glasses, not a rock in a hat. Why teach children the glasses method when the stone in the hat method seems to be the more prevalent method? And if this is just an introduction for children (milk before meat and all), then where is the manual that teaches the entire method? There doesn't seem to be any evidence that the U&T was used for anything but the lost Book of Lehi, which does not feature in the Book of Mormon as we have it. So that manual is incorrect, but probably unintentionally. Edited August 12, 2015 by Gray
Danzo Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 I believe the one that Joseph Fielding Smith cited in Doctrines of Salvation, to discount reports of a seer stone, is Ether 3:22-24. But there are others that discuss the U&T being set apart to translate the Book of Mormon. Thanks for responding. Couldn't the stones have been used for Mosiah or Moroni? Obviously Moroni is only summarizing, he had to have translated them first before he could do it.
Danzo Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 There doesn't seem to be any evidence that the U&T was used for anything but the lost Book of Lehi, which does not feature in the Book of Mormon as we have it. What about Oliver Cowdreys statement in the Pearl of Great price? Oliver didn't start translating until after the book of Lehi was lost.
Gray Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 What about Oliver Cowdreys statement in the Pearl of Great price? Oliver didn't start translating until after the book of Lehi was lost. Hmm, I'm not sure about that. Someone with more expertise would have to clarify. Perhaps he was referring to the stone, using the term "U&T" loosely?
Danzo Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 Hmm, I'm not sure about that. Someone with more expertise would have to clarify. Perhaps he was referring to the stone, using the term "U&T" loosely? Could be, he seems to be pretty specific, talking about "Nephite Interpreters". Anyone who says that the U&T disappeared with the 116 pages does need to explain his statement.
rockpond Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 Thanks for responding. Couldn't the stones have been used for Mosiah or Moroni? Obviously Moroni is only summarizing, he had to have translated them first before he could do it. I don't know. Like I said, that's the verse that JFS used in Doctrines of Salvation to dismiss reports of Joseph using a seer stone. Frankly, the fact that Joseph switched to his old seer stone is miraculous. But admitting that forces one to address his other activities with the seer stone which I always felt the Church was trying to downplay.
jkwilliams Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 (edited) I think it can be upsetting for the clinically orthodox (excuse the phrase, I use it in a light-hearted way, hopefully it's not offensive) to hear people talk about being upset at a beloved institution. It's easy to interpret it as whining, especially when you find it personally grating. Orthodoxy in Mormonism is so-church centered, it almost sounds blasphemous to hear criticism of the church. That can quickly lead to hurt feelings and defensiveness from the orthodox. The response is sometimes to close up and try to shout it down. They don't choose those feelings any more than people choose to feel hurt by issues of church history. And then there's me, clinically heterodox, not particularly bothered about the seer stone but not wanting to minimize things for those who are. None of us can directly choose how we feel about it all. I know. I don't take it personally. It's just odd to be attacked for "whining" despite not having complained that the church has been "dishonest." Apparently, expressing sympathy for people who do feel that way is a bad thing here. Oh, well. ETA: It's official. My kids think this place is an anti-Mormon site designed to fool the unwitting. Isn't that sweet? Edited August 12, 2015 by jkwilliams 1
Recommended Posts