Shelly200

Thanks for all of your explanations, they were pretty helpful. The whole thing with the seer stone is what gets me, I guess. If God endowed the U&T with the ability to help someone translate the plates, and Moroni buried them for that reason, then how could anything else be used in their place? Especially a stone that Smith found before he even got to see the plates? How is it possible that something unrelated to Moroni, God, Smith, or the plates at all had the power to tell him what the plates meant? And didn't Smith condemn one of his followers for also using a seer stone to receive revelation? How do we know that Smith's seer stone (which wasn't in any way related to the plates) was able to give him revelation, but another stone wasn't able to give him or anyone else a revelation? If Smith had used strictly the U&T that were buried with the plates to translate the plates I think I'd have a less difficult time with the BofM.

RM- I also read about the plates not being in the room during translation. Which makes zero sense to me. One: Joseph wouldn't really be a "translator" then, would he? The U&M/stones didn't help him translate, they just told him what to write. How would he even know that's what the plates said if he wasn't looking at the plates? Two: Why have the plates at all, if they aren't needed? Without using the plates, it's really just one long revelation from God in a way, right? The plates seem superfluous. Three: Aren't there records of Joseph doing translating notes? Like, papers with Egyptian-looking symbols on them, and notes on translations? (I might be remembering something wrong.) If that's the case, then, he really *would* be actively translating things... but at the same time, then, the U&T would be superfluous, because they're not telling him what the words mean, he's just learning it on his own?

Those were the two ways I remember being described: the Urim and Thummim, and a seer stone. I'm just confused as to why Smith would use a seer stone if the Urim and Thummim were purposely buried with the plates for that purpose. (Also- how did Moroni know to bury them together? Did he just know that the language they were written in would die out?) I know that the plates were taken away from Smith for a time, and then given back. Were the Urim and Thummim taken away and given back as well? Should they all be a package deal? And can someone please explain to me one more time why we only have 1/3 of the translation? I thought we had all of the translation from all of the plates that Smith had. Except that he just didn't re-translate the pages that were stolen (but it didn't matter, because the abridgment was translated later). Where does it mention the other 2/3? I have a BofM, D&C, and POGP, and I'd be interested in looking this up. Thanks for all of your answers!

How exactly did Joseph Smith translate the BofM anyway? I've heard different stories. Weren't the instruments needed to translate them, the Urim and Thummim, buried with the plates? And wasn't there a breastplate buried with them as well? Why did Moroni bury them with the plates? What happened to the plates after they were translated? Why weren't they preserved, like some manuscripts of the Bible were?

Spamlds-- Yes, non-LDS say the Trinity is a mystery -- not because we needed an out, but because there are lots of mysteries within the Church that we can't fully explain in human terms. Remember, God is outside our realm of thinking; His ways are not our ways; He neither expects, nor wants us to know every single thing about Him while we're on Earth. You raise a lot of good questions about the Trinity. While Christ was on Earth, He was both God *and* Man, and therefore, in His human person, He could pray to the Father in Heaven (to answer your question - God *was* still in Heaven answering prayers while Christ was alive), and the Father in Heaven could speak to those on Earth (the scene of Christ's baptism is a wonderful example of all three persons of the Trinity being in the same earthly scene). The Trinity teaches that God is One, in three persons. The Trinity is one *being* that has three distinct *persons.* As to Christ's body -- yes, He still has one. It is a perfected, transfigured body, but a body nonetheless. Catholics, and as far as I know, most Protestants teach this. So there's the answer to those questions. It is also important to note that the Bible frequently makes note that there is only *one* God. And if Christ is *also* God (which He is), and there can only be *one* God, then God has at least two persons within His being. Add into that the Holy Spirit (also God), and God is One in three persons. Though it doesn't always make sense to our human minds (below God's mind), I still don't find the doctrine bankrupt scripturally or otherwise. And for those who don't recognize the validity of the First Vision, that can't be used to prove or disprove the essence of the Godhead/Trinity/God in general. I personally feel nice in a church that recognizes it *doesn't* have all the answers. It has most, it tries to explain what it can in human terms, but it in itself isn't God, so it doesn't know everything.

I think scholasticpastic is right in regards to the LDS church. From what I know of it, it's a very rewards-based faith: as opposed to a church that would say "do this or go to hell" the LDS church seems to emphasize "do this and you will be rewarded with ..." Other churches are mostly slightly different. The SBC (Southern Baptist) church is very fear-based. Hell is spoken of more frequently than almost any other topic. The Catholic Church, however, is more love-based: there *is* and can be a mixture of fear of Hell (a very real place), and love of God. However, if a person confesses a sin *solely* or even *mostly* out of fear, then that sin is not absolved. There *must* be love of God in that act of contrition for it to be valid. At the end of the sacrament of Reconciliation (Confession), the sinner must recite an Act of Contrition, which shows his guilt, repentence, love of God, and vow to turn from sin. A common Act says "...I detest all of my sins, because of Your just punishments, *but most of all because they offend You, my God, who are all-good and deserving of all my love..." and another version states, "...I have sinned against You, whom I should love above all things..." So love of God must be in the repentence for it to be valid.

I will admit to not reading over every single reply to this post (there are 6 pages of replies), but I thought I'd add my two cents in, if that's alright. I grew up Southern Baptist, and was always taught to think of the Trinity like a triangle, with God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit on each point of the triangle. One shape-a triangle. But three points on the shape. Not separate (otherwise it wouldn't be a triangle), but not all the same point (otherwise there would just be three points one on top of the other). A very simplistic way to view the Trinity, but that's how I was taught as a kid. In the Catholic Church, the Trinity is viewed as "the central mystery of Christian faith and life" and "the source of all the other mysteries of faith," and is "the most fundamental and essential teaching in the hierarchy of the truths of faith." (Which - not to go off topic - is one reason that many Christians deny that the LDS [among others] are not Christians. Because of the denial of the Trinity.) The Catholic Church refers frequently to "mysteries," which are truths we know about God, but can't explain in human or earthly terms. We can't define God always in our own terms, because God is not human. We can't force Him to fit into our molds. The Church says that God is Father in that "God is the first origin of everything and transcendent authority" and "he is at the same time goodness and loving care for all his children." "The language of faith thus draws on the human experience of parents," although He "transcends human fatherhood" because "no one is father as God is Father." Jesus reveals God to be Father "in relation to his only Son, who is eternally Son only in relation to his Father." The Holy Spirit was always in the beginning with the Father and Son- "at work since creation, having previously spoken through the prophets" - and was then bestowed to the disciples to guide them to truth. "The Spirit is sent to the apostles and to the Church both by the Father in the name of the Son, and by the Son in person, once he had returned to the Father. The sending of the person of the Spirit after Jesus' glorification reveals in its fullness the mystery of the Holy Trinity." "For as the Trinity has only one and the same nature, so too does it have only one and the same operation: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are not three principles of creation but on principle." The Catholic Church teaches that the Son is "consubstantial" with the Father - they are one and the same. The Church teaches that Mary conceived Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit - not through any physical, human, or earthly means. Yes, humans need DNA and sexual intercourse in order to be born. However, Christ is both man AND God, and can therefore work outside of the earthly realm. Christ did not need sex to be conceived - the Holy Spirit has the power to indwell Mary with the human nature of Christ anyway He so chooses. And that, to Catholics and most Protestants, was through a miracle, not through anything remotely physical. The Trinity *is* a difficult concept to wrap one's mind around. It's still difficult for me sometimes to explain it. But then I remember that God is above me - His ways are not my ways. So then I don't try to fit God into my ways - I simply acknowledge that He can work in ways I don't understand. And as far as the Trinity being a spirit - I was always taught in my Baptist church that Christ *does* currently have a physical body... He arose from the grave after three days, *with His body,* even showing it to some of the Apostles later. I believe the Catholic Church teaches something similar, at least that Christ has a transfigured body (as does Mary, who was assumed into Heaven without the taint of death). In the end of Earthly time we will all be granted a perfect, transfigured body in Heaven. What the characteristics of that body is we don't know; it's a mystery. However, that doesn't change the Trinity. When Christ was on Earth He was fully God and fully Man... but God the Father was still in Heaven at the same time. So it's possible for Christ to have a transfigured body, while the Father doesn't, and for them to *still* be one Triune God.

Vort- Big help. Thanks! I asked one of my LDS friends once also about something I had read in the BofM: one of the arguments FOR the BofM is the verse in the Bible in which Christ speaks of "other sheep"... these sheep are, to the LDS, the Americans. However, I believe I also read in the BofM that there were even *other* sheep that also kept records. So... there should be records from at least one other group of Christians that hasn't been found yet (or may never be), right? The girl I spoke with said yes, but I was just wondering if this was a common LDS belief. (Please excuse my sketchy knowledge of the BofM... I *have* read it, and recently, but it is completely and totally new to me, so I haven't grown up hearing the stories. So a lot of them kind of meld together or get lost in the language (I use a more modern translation of the Bible... I can understand KJV-sounding language, it just takes longer for me to read it, and therefore remember it later.).

I also wonder about taking the "Moroni Challenge" (I believe that is what I've heard it called). I have read the Book of Mormon, and am half-way through the D&C (just FYI-y'all should really promote deseretbooks.com... I bought a triple book of the BofM, D&C, and POGP, because it was only around $10), and, while I wouldn't say I'm not "feelin' it," I haven't been enlightened to its truthfulness. I wonder what Mormons think about this? Have I read it wrong? Have I not prayed properly? Was I pre-destined to deny it? Also- I'm wondering why the BofM is of greater importance than the D&C (the church doesn't give out free D&Cs as far as I know...). Because from my reading it seems that the majority of LDS doctrine comes from the D&C, and not the BofM (except, of course, the travelling to the Americans, the importance of the prohpets, and the foretelling of Joseph Smith). But the doctrine of revelation, celestial marriage, polygamy (which I know isn't practiced anymore, but was a doctrine at one point in time), pre-mortal existence, exaltation, etc. all comes through the revelations in the D&C, doesn't it? And yet, it seems to me that the BofM is promoted so much more than the other three books of scripture - even so far as to say that it (the BofM) is the most perfect book ever written. Why aren't copies of the D&C given out instead of the BofM? Just a thought.

I read the Book of Mormon a few weeks ago, and some of it was quite confusing to me. Doesn't the author (I guess that would be Moroni? Or Nephi? I'm honestly fuzzy about who wrote what, because it mentions multiple people passing the record keeping down to their sons...) mention that there are other records that weren't passed down? Is in, when the gold plates were buried, there were other plates that could've been buried also, but weren't? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought I had read that in the BofM somewhere. Like, maybe the other tablets were of things that they didn't think were that significant?