Bobbieaware Posted January 4, 2016 Posted January 4, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Tacenda said: Do you think the lessons in Sunday School this year will even mention the seerstones vs the gold plates as the only method of translation besides the first 116 pages? I kind of think not. Even if there's an essay on LDS.org and it was talked about in October 2015's Ensign. Hope someone proves me wrong. Who cares? The Bother of Jared took some ordinary pieces glass to the Lord, and when the Lord touched them with his spiritual finger those ordinary looking pieces of glass miraculously shined with intense brightness for months without any apparent outside power source. The Lord gave Moses a very ordinary looking stick of wood, but by his almighty power that unimpressive branch became a conduit of eternal power that opened the Red Sea and saved the children of Israel from certain destruction. The Book of Mormon"s liahona just looked like a strange-looking but useless contraption that served no useful purpose whatsoever. But it was the living faith of Lehi and company that transformed that seemingly useless material object into the miraculous means by which the Lehites were brought safely to the promised land. Who cares if the prophet Joseph Smith translated the entire Book of Mormon with the very large and awkward to use Urim and Thummim, or if he later learned how to tap into the power of God so as to miraculously change an ordinary looking stone into a smaller and easier to use Urim and Thummim (same thing as a seer stone) so that the work of translation could move forward more expeditiously? But the bottom line is that it's the miraculous, wondrous, and awe-inspiring content of the Book of Mormon itself that provide the greatest evidence for its divine authenticity. So if it could be proven to me that the prophet Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormom using Groucho Marx glasses, it wouldn't have the slightest affect on the strength of my testimony of its truthfulness and divine authenticity. Why? Because I know the power of God could transform even a pair of Groucho Marx glasses into holy instruments of his almighty power. Why else do you think that throughout the ages God has chosen lifeless sticks, pieces of glass, handkerchiefs and ordinary stones to show that through his power weak things can be made spiritually effectual unto the working of mighty miracles. Edited January 4, 2016 by Bobbieaware 3
Tacenda Posted January 4, 2016 Posted January 4, 2016 Bobbieaware, I don't care, I just care that it's taught correctly in Sunday School. Because as I sat in a youth class today, it wasn't taught. But that's just the first class of the new year, so maybe it'll be in the teacher's manual. I should look, since my husband is teaching primary again this year.
Bobbieaware Posted January 4, 2016 Posted January 4, 2016 42 minutes ago, Jeanne said: I don't think so. I believe in the lessons learned in Bible stories, So you believe in the Bible but you don't believe what the Bible says about miraculous power of the rod of Aaron?
mfbukowski Posted January 4, 2016 Posted January 4, 2016 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said: Who cares? The Bother of Jared took some ordinary pieces glass to the Lord, and when the Lord touched them with his spiritual finger those ordinary looking pieces of glass miraculously shined with intense brightness for months without any apparent outside power source. The Lord gave Moses a very ordinary looking stick of wood, but by his almighty power that unimpressive branch became a conduit of eternal power that opened the Red Sea and saved the children of Israel from certain destruction. The Book of Mormon"s liahona just looked like a strange-looking but useless contraption that served no useful purpose whatsoever. But it was the living faith of Lehi and company that transformed that seemingly useless material object into the miraculous means by which the Lehites were brought safely to the promised land. Who cares if the prophet Joseph Smith translated the entire Book of Mormon with the very large and awkward to use Urim and Thummim, or if he later learned how to tap into the power of God so as to miraculously change an ordinary looking stone into a smaller and easier to use Urim and Thummim (same thing as a seer stone) so that the work of translation could move forward more expeditiously? But the bottom line is that it's the miraculous, wondrous, and awe-inspiring contents of the Book of Mormon itself that provide the greatest evidence for its divine authenticity. So if it could be proven to me that the prophet Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormom using Groucho Marx glasses, it wouldn't have the slightest affect on the strength of my testimony of its truthfulness and divine authenticity. Why? Because I know the power of God could transform even a pair of Groucho Marx glasses into holy instruments of his almighty power. Why else do you think that throughout the ages God has chosen lifeless sticks, pieces of glass, handkerchiefs and ordinary stones to show that through his power weak things can be made spiritually effectual unto the working of mighty miracles. Bravo! Same with the Book of Abraham. A papyrus was transformed in Joseph's mind into the "real" Book of Abraham. Did he think it was a "translation"? Yes, and it was. Remember he used the same word - and we use it today- for the "Joseph Smith Translation" of the Bible which was delivered by the spirit to Joseph, essentially re-writing biblical passages with no intermediary tools or gadgets whatsoever. "Seers" in all cultures use objects to have religious experiences- gazing into flames, looking at patterns, mandalas etc which appear to others to have no meaning at all. I am convinced that such objects, like meditation also, open the mind and relax it to force out all the mundane concerns of the world to open one up to inspiration. By concentrating on "nothing" we free the mind to allow God to speak. It is the same principle as waiting for an answer after prayer. If one immediately resumes daily activities after praying, one makes it much more difficult to receive God's answer. Edited January 4, 2016 by mfbukowski 4
Bobbieaware Posted January 4, 2016 Posted January 4, 2016 7 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Bobbieaware, I don't care, I just care that it's taught correctly in Sunday School. Because as I sat in a youth class today, it wasn't taught. But that's just the first class of the new year, so maybe it'll be in the teacher's manual. I should look, since my husband is teaching primary again this year. Why do you seem to have more confidence in the stones that were in the Urim and Thummim than you do in the seer stone? Can't you see that in the end it's all the same thing -- lifeless stones transformed into instruments of divine power? There is no difference between a seer stone and a Urim and Thummim; they are the same thing. This is akin to what the Savior warned when he spoke of those who strain at a gnat but swallow a camel. 1
VideoGameJunkie Posted January 4, 2016 Author Posted January 4, 2016 Was Joseph Smith the only seer and translator in our church's history, because no one since him has attempted to translate or use powers to write anything. Don't we sustain all the Q15 as prophets, seers, and revelators?
Bobbieaware Posted January 4, 2016 Posted January 4, 2016 11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Bravo! Same with the Book of Abraham. A papyrus was transformed in Joseph's mind into the "real" Book of Abraham. Did he think it was a "translation"? Yes, and it was. Remember he used the same word - and we use it today- for the "Joseph Smith Translation" of the Bible which was delivered by the spirit to Joseph, essentially re-writing biblical passages with no intermediary tools or gadgets whatsoever. "Seers" in all cultures use objects to have religious experiences- gazing into flames, looking at patterns, mandalas etc which appear to others to have no meaning at all. I am convinced that such objects, like meditation also, open the mind and relax it to force out all the mundane concerns of the world to open one up to inspiration. By concentrating on "nothing" we free the mind to allow God to speak. It is the same principle as waiting for an answer after prayer. If one immediately resumes daily activities after praying, one makes it much more difficult to receive God's answer. I concur. And thank you, Mark... And a very happy new year!
CV75 Posted January 4, 2016 Posted January 4, 2016 5 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said: Was Joseph Smith the only seer and translator in our church's history, because no one since him has attempted to translate or use powers to write anything. Don't we sustain all the Q15 as prophets, seers, and revelators? How do these questions play into wanting to know if the church actually wasn't true?
VideoGameJunkie Posted January 4, 2016 Author Posted January 4, 2016 8 minutes ago, CV75 said: How do these questions play into wanting to know if the church actually wasn't true? To see if the church is run by true prophets. I mean wouldn't having false leaders affect the truth of a church?
Jeanne Posted January 4, 2016 Posted January 4, 2016 (edited) 31 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said: So you believe in the Bible but you don't believe what the Bible says about miraculous power of the rod of Aaron? I believe that the Bible has great value in lessons,,but I am not so sure about all that miraculous power. I enjoy and better understand the New Testament. Love the parables and the stories/lessons of Jesus. Edited January 4, 2016 by Jeanne
mfbukowski Posted January 4, 2016 Posted January 4, 2016 17 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said: I concur. And thank you, Mark... And a very happy new year! Right back atcha!
Tacenda Posted January 4, 2016 Posted January 4, 2016 25 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said: Why do you seem to have more confidence in the stones that were in the Urim and Thummim than you do in the seer stone? Can't you see that in the end it's all the same thing -- lifeless stones transformed into instruments of divine power? There is no difference between a seer stone and a Urim and Thummim; they are the same thing. This is akin to what the Savior warned when he spoke of those who strain at a gnat but swallow a camel. Are you putting words in my mouth? It seems you are. I know the stones are the same as the U and T. But most members believe it was an instrument to decipher the plates language, not seer stones to get revelation from.
VideoGameJunkie Posted January 4, 2016 Author Posted January 4, 2016 7 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Are you putting words in my mouth? It seems you are. I know the stones are the same as the U and T. But most members believe it was an instrument to decipher the plates language, not seer stones to get revelation from. That brings the question up of was it even necessary for Joseph to retrieve the plates and for Mormon and Moroni to go through all the work of writing them and burying them, if Joseph didn't even need them, and just got the words from the plates by putting a rock in a hat and his face in the hat, and the words appeared. It seemed the plates weren't even necessary.
sheilauk Posted January 4, 2016 Posted January 4, 2016 20 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said: I never believe people when they get up in fast and testimony meeting and say they KNOW all the stuff. I feel they should say they BELIEVE. Unless it's been revealed to them in a vision by an angel they are just believing. I think it should be ok to say I believe. You got 5 year olds going up in F&T and stating they KNOW the church is true. Really? At 5 I didn't even know how to play Super Mario Bros. Then you should testify that you believe. But, you can't dictate to anyone how they present their testimony nor can you say what someone may or may not know. At 5 years old, I knew that Jesus was my Saviour. At 18, I believed it but no longer knew it. A few years later, after a very personal spiritual experience, I was certain Jesus lives and is my friend. 10 years ago, after a period of staying away from Church, I was doubting His very existence. I have been on a long, spiritual journey and how I choose to express my testimony reflects that and what I have learned. As does yours and everyone else's - everyone has an individual journey. Knowing doesn't necessitate a vision or angels either. My default position is to believe them until/unless I learn more and to respect their right to express themselves as they choose. That said, I would agree that there should be no judgement about know vs believe and that people should be able to say they believe and not feel pressured to say they know. There are things that I don't know, only believe and I would say so. If you don't want to say I believe because it seems a lesser position, a useful phrase (which people in my ward use all the time) is "I have a testimony of" as its not really specific and whether you believe or know - its still a testimony. 4
Bobbieaware Posted January 4, 2016 Posted January 4, 2016 22 minutes ago, Jeanne said: I believe that the Bible has great value in lessons,,but I am not so sure about all that miraculous power. I enjoy and better understand the New Testament. Love the parables and the stories/lessons of Jesus. The central message of the Bible is that Christ died and on the third day miraculously rose from the dead. If that miraculous event did not occur, then the stories in the Bible have no more saving power than do the sayings of Confucius. 1
Jeanne Posted January 4, 2016 Posted January 4, 2016 8 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said: That brings the question up of was it even necessary for Joseph to retrieve the plates and for Mormon and Moroni to go through all the work of writing them and burying them, if Joseph didn't even need them, and just got the words from the plates by putting a rock in a hat and his face in the hat, and the words appeared. It seemed the plates weren't even necessary. I think about this. To have men in the Book of Mormon write tediously on plates when the story could have come from God to Joseph by inspiration. Perhaps it is meant to convey that they did it as a commandment but why have them to just take them away..and hardly used. 1
Jeanne Posted January 4, 2016 Posted January 4, 2016 4 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said: The central message of the Bible is that Christ died and on the third day miraculously rose from the dead. If that miraculous event did not occur, then the stories in the Bible have no more saving power than do the sayings of Confucius. I agree..that is why to me, they are stories and Jesus was a remarkable human being.
Bobbieaware Posted January 4, 2016 Posted January 4, 2016 20 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Are you putting words in my mouth? It seems you are. I know the stones are the same as the U and T. But most members believe it was an instrument to decipher the plates language, not seer stones to get revelation from. Is it not true you have been very open about the fact that at one time in your life you were fine with the prophet Joseph Smith translating the Book of Mormon by means of the Urim and Thummin, but after you learned he also translated using a seer stone that it (along with Joseph Smith's plural marriages) caused a crisis of faith? And why wouldn't a seer stone that enabled Joseph Smith to receive revelations and visions also make it possible for him translate (another form of revelation) the Book of Mormon?
Jeanne Posted January 4, 2016 Posted January 4, 2016 1 minute ago, Bobbieaware said: Is it not true you have been very open about the fact that at one time in your life you were fine with the prophet Joseph Smith translating the Book of Mormon by means of the Urim and Thummin, but after you learned he also translated using a seer stone that it (along with Joseph Smith's plural marriages) caused a crisis of faith? And why wouldn't a seer stone that enabled Joseph Smith to receive revelations and visions also make it possible for him translate (another form of revelation) the Book of Mormon? I am not answering here for Tacenda..but I am asking why would it bother the church so much if it took them umpteen years to really get it out there and Tacenda and I probably grew up with no idea and our primary pictures were with plates and the U and T...If it didn't matter..how come we didn't get that drill?
sheilauk Posted January 4, 2016 Posted January 4, 2016 23 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said: That brings the question up of was it even necessary for Joseph to retrieve the plates and for Mormon and Moroni to go through all the work of writing them and burying them, if Joseph didn't even need them, and just got the words from the plates by putting a rock in a hat and his face in the hat, and the words appeared. It seemed the plates weren't even necessary. Reread bobbieaware's and mfb's posts. I would suggest that Joseph needed them at first to be able to receive revelation/inspiration and after a time, he no longer did because he had learnt more about receiving revelation/inspiration. In addition, those writings would have been critical to the Nephites and Lamanites - the written word remains after the speaker is gone. Why did the monks go to such trouble to copy the Bible and keep old and ancient documents? Why do we still keep old and ancient books in these days of the internet? 2
sheilauk Posted January 4, 2016 Posted January 4, 2016 2 hours ago, Tacenda said: Do you think the lessons in Sunday School this year will even mention the seerstones vs the gold plates as the only method of translation besides the first 116 pages? I kind of think not. Even if there's an essay on LDS.org and it was talked about in October 2015's Ensign. Hope someone proves me wrong. Why would there be such a lesson? The study is of the Book of Mormon and what it contains, not how it came about.
Bobbieaware Posted January 4, 2016 Posted January 4, 2016 13 minutes ago, Jeanne said: I think about this. To have men in the Book of Mormon write tediously on plates when the story could have come from God to Joseph by inspiration. Perhaps it is meant to convey that they did it as a commandment but why have them to just take them away..and hardly used. At very least there needed to be witnesses to the Book of Mormon who were prophesied on the pages of the book to testify to the reality of the plates. Also, we have very little understanding of the miraculous phenomena that occurred as part of the translation process. So why jump the gun and deny the Book of Mormon is true just because the sketchy information we do have sounds strange and mysterious to our untutored ears. In addition, we have no idea whether or not the prophet studied the pertinent portions of the plates prior to using the sear stone to translate the portions he had previously studied. Until each of us are intimately familiar with the otherworldly nature of the translation process by doing some divine translation of our own, it seems to me it would be wise to reserve judgement on the matter until ALL the facts are in. 2
Tacenda Posted January 4, 2016 Posted January 4, 2016 17 minutes ago, sheilauk said: Reread bobbieaware's and mfb's posts. I would suggest that Joseph needed them at first to be able to receive revelation/inspiration and after a time, he no longer did because he had learnt more about receiving revelation/inspiration. In addition, those writings would have been critical to the Nephites and Lamanites - the written word remains after the speaker is gone. Why did the monks go to such trouble to copy the Bible and keep old and ancient documents? Why do we still keep old and ancient books in these days of the internet? Good, hopefully it's discussed this way in church from now on, that's all I'm saying. I have no trouble with this analogy.
VideoGameJunkie Posted January 4, 2016 Author Posted January 4, 2016 3 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said: At very least there needed to be witnesses to the Book of Mormon who were prophesied on the pages of the book to testify to the reality of the plates. Also, we have very little understanding of the miraculous phenomena that occurred as part of the translation process. So why jump the gun and deny the Book of Mormon is true just because the sketchy information we do have sounds strange and mysterious to our untutored ears. In addition, we have no idea whether or not the prophet studied the pertinent portions of the plates prior to using the sear stone to translate the portions he had previously studied. Until each of us are intimately familiar with the otherworldly nature of the translation process by doing some divine translation of our own, it seems to me it would be wise to reserve judgement on the matter until ALL the facts are in. Joseph didn't show the witnesses the engravings of the plates though. He had a cloth over them and the witnesses claimed they saw them with their spiritual eyes only. It seemed the plates weren't used much.
Tacenda Posted January 4, 2016 Posted January 4, 2016 8 minutes ago, sheilauk said: Why would there be such a lesson? The study is of the Book of Mormon and what it contains, not how it came about. Well we sure talk about the angel Moroni, isn't that one way it came about? I'm just saying we need to clear up a poor job in some areas, on the part of the people writing church manuals. And that deserves a whole topic in and of itself.
Recommended Posts