mdfxdb

OK, so how did he do it? Seer Stone, Urim and Thummin, Direct reading, and recitation? Which was it? How should we teach it in church? What illustrations should we be showing to depict said translation?

I'm sure you would know. You only have water for brushing your teeth, but on the other hand you only drink diet soda..... lol..

Well, since you all put it that way, I guess it is my fault for not researching out every little thing everyone has ever taught me either in school, or church..... my bad.....How dare I take my Sunday school teachers at their word.......How dare I believe that the illustrations they show, and continue to show are accurate...... Are you serious? Let's read the 1994 manual again... Whether or not you want to admit it, please read again, but carefully this time. 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 Thummim are? 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. The manual uses the word "translate" What do you think most primary teachers think of when they think of the word translate? The manual says Joseph could not read the plates, but he used the Urim and Thummin as glasses to look through to help him "translate". There's that word again. I wonder how most primary teachers think Joseph Smith Translated the Book of Mormon.........I wonder how they teach it? Then Joseph Smith completed the translation......No mention of him copying characters, no mention of a seer stone........

The point is, the church as a whole is teaching the translation process through visual aids, and historically through curriculum, that the Book of Mormon translation process was in fact a traditional translation process. For the simple folk (like me) we like to think that what we are being taught in primary and Sunday school is accurate as a preponderance of what actually occurred. I'm pretty sure the church isn't going to get torn down because I don't like how they teach the Joseph Smith translation to primary children..... I believe that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God. We either come clean about the whole process, including the Urim and Thummin, Seer Stone, and reading of characters, or we just leave it at Gift and Power of God.

You knew he viewed porn shortly after you were married. For some reason you decided he was good enough to make a baby with..... Then you had another baby... After more "relapses" You had another baby Then you had another baby.... So he is good enough to make your babies, but not good enough as a husband because he watches porn? Does he have a job, pay the bills, provide? If so, then you need to take a step back and re-evaluate. Sounds like he is seeing the bishop, you don't know his conversations with the bishop. How do you know he doesn't pray? You point to Porn as this big issue in your marriage yet you continue having babies, and are now contemplating leaving??? Maybe he watches porn, and it bothers you, but this is probably not even close to the biggest problem in your marriage.

As a primary child, I was taught the book of mormon was translated with the urim and thummin. I'm sure I even drew pictures/colored in worksheets very much like the one I posted here earlier. While growing up in the church the translation process was always illustrated as Joseph reading the plates to one of his scribes, separated by a sheet or some sort of obstruction so the other person could not view the plates. I'm not upset that it was taught this way, however it is incorrect. 2015 curriculum: “Nevertheless, the scribes and others who observed the translation left numerous accounts that give insight into the process. Some accounts indicate that Joseph studied the characters on the plates. 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. The process as described brings to mind a passage from the Book of Mormon that speaks of God preparing ‘a stone, which shall shine forth in darkness unto light’ [Alma 37: 23–24]” For those who are unaware, this is out of the Foundations of the Restoration 2015 manual. The quote is not definitive about Alma 37:23-24, nor does it prescribe any one way in which the Book of Mormon was translated, although it does state that most accounts describe urim and thummin and/or seer stone, while many describe seer stone only. Church members aren't lazy in general. As I was taught as a child I knew how the book of mormon was translated, I never thought I would need to reference a 1970-something ensign article, or review a speech Elder Maxwell gave in 1997 which mentions the stone, but leaves out the hat part. Even in light of these recent, and frequent........ proclamations by our Church, we are still being taught something in sunday school / primary, that just isn't correct. I for one firmly believed my sunday school teachers / primary teachers were teaching me history as it actually happened. Most members of the church feel the same way. They do not request bibliography's for sunday school classes just to make sure what they are being taught is correct, and certainly our primary children do not.

Why are you so obsessed that the translation process not appear as Joseph looking into a hat? I have been a member my whole life, and in all those years I have not once seen a depiction during sunday school of Joseph looking into a hat.....I wonder why? Nobody is suggesting Joseph never used the Nephite interpreters during the translation process. But he did not use them for the bulk of the translation process. The reality is most people do not know about the seer stone, and the hat.

This is what is being taught in church as recently as last Sunday. Someone please confirm that this is accurate..... I believe it is not.

I read this article. I must be a dummy like Omega, because it no where scripturaly references a "seer stone". I guess I have a lack of comprehension. The article references lots of scriptures that talk about the urim and thummin, and their origins, and how they were used (somewhat) in the translation process.... But it does not specifically represent the seer stone as a urim and thummin. In fact, the article is clear that the seer stone is not urim and thummin..... I couldn't find the D&C reference to the seer stone either...

LOL.....Omega can't read.......

Surely the church is not making an effort to change the cultural understanding of the "translation" process.

The reality is that most people don't know about the seer stone. I spoke with someone who is in a Bishopric, lifetime member, born and raised in Utah. He claimed to not know about the seer stone, and was very surprised when the purpose and use of the stone was presented to him.

People are passionate because this is not how the church has represented the translation process as coming to light. Interestingly enough, even today they are still teaching "translation" of the book of mormon by trying to show Joseph Smith "reading" the golden plates. I walked into a ctr 7 classroom yesterday and saw this posted on the wall (along with about 8 others):

This +1

20.2.2 Instructions for Naming and Blessing a Child When blessing a baby, Melchizedek Priesthood holders gather in a circle and place their hands under the baby. When blessing an older child, brethren place their hands lightly on the child’s head. The person who gives the blessing: 1. Addresses Heavenly Father. 2. States that the blessing is performed by the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood. 3. Gives the child a name. 4. Gives words of blessing as the Spirit directs. 5. Closes in the name of Jesus Christ. Seems like the handbook 2 states "holders". This would be more than just the individual.

I don't think she will have to worry about any regrets on this one. He's a cheater. I don't look back at my life and my relationships, and wish I was still friends with the guy who stole from me, or a girl who broke my heart...... He is human, let him live with his mistake. You don't have to.

The men can suck it up, and make it work....or get a real baby sitter.

Just because you may have access to MLS does not mean you have access / permissions to update callings. In my ward, only the Clerk can update callings on MLS.

That's true, Omega treats all haters alike...

Yup, we should avoid the ungodly 70's completely.

stop right there..... You barely know this person. Please do not consider marriage at this point. worry about marriage when it is right to get married.

Here is one: In 1924, Elder George Albert Smith, then an LDS apostle, was visiting with a local church leader on the roof terrace of a hotel overlooking San Francisco Bay. According to Chad S. Hawkins' book, "The First 100 Temples," Elder Smith “ceased talking and for several minutes gazed intently toward the hills above Oakland” before again speaking to his friend W. Aird MacDonald, Hawkins wrote. "Brother MacDonald, I can almost see in vision a white temple of the Lord high upon those hills, an ensign to all the world travelers as they sail through the Golden Gate into this wonderful harbor," said the future president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. "A great white temple of the Lord will grace those hills, a glorious ensign to the nations, to welcome our Father's children as they visit this great city." Those prophetic words were fulfilled 40 years later when President David O. McKay dedicated the Oakland California Temple in November 1964.

Prior to about 2007 the introduction to the Book of Mormon said the following "After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians." emphasis added - mine I don't think that means what you think it means.......are/among, very different words, wonder why they changed it.....hmmmm..... The truth is the happenings in the Book of Mormon had to have happened in a very local area, probably not more than 1,000 square miles. We know that when Lehi landed wherever he landed that the continent was likely already very populated, and he probably did mix with the locals.... but the Andes are hard to cross, the isthmus of Panama is hard to cross, the desert of the Great Basin is hard to cross. There were no north/south trade routes in the Americas. People just did not move very far at all.

Because there is no cogent case for it. Depending on where Lehi landed, and if there were other populations there, and depending how far they traveled, one would need to know all of these things to make a blanket statement that Lehi is an ancestor of all / vast majority of American Indians. If Lehi landed in South America did they cross the Andes? If Lehi landed in central america did he cross the Andes / isthmus of Panama to go south? What set of his population went north? How far north? If the Nephites went north, and found another civilization, did they mix with them? What about the Indians in the Northern States/Canada? Too many geographic barriers/cultural barriers for it to be possible that Lehi is an ancestor of all or the vast majority of Native Americans. "After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians." Introduction to the Book of Mormon, emphasis mine.

the term Lamanite may apply to all living descendants of Lehi. It can also mean all those remainders in the Americas, which we know to be Native American Indians, and populations of Central and South America who are not descendants of Lehi. We simply do not know. To blanket state that the "native Americans" are all descendants of Lehi is a stretch..