Reaching out for support after reading the Essays

[mdfxdb]

I'm not playing coy. I have been taught, just as anyone raised in the church, that Joseph translated through the power of God and that he used interpreters to do so. Everyone raised in the church knows that, in spite of the said picture, because it is what is taught.

 

But you are dodging. Inadvertently putting something across via picture is very different that outright teaching falsehoods.

 

What were you taught that was inaccurate? Were you not taught that Joseph used interpreters? Were you actually taught that he translated as it is shown in the picture? Were you taught that others saw the plates while he was translating (as it shows in the picture) or were you taught, as was I, that no one saw the plates except and until the experiences of the three and eight witnesses?

Please.

 

We were all taught he translated the Book of Mormon, and as such most of if not all members assume a traditional translation process where he used the Urim and Thummim to "read" the golden plates while he dictated the words to his scribe. 

 

The fact is what we were taught is not congruent with the pictoral depictions, nor the sunday school descriptions.   The image shown is what I was taught in sunday school.  It is currently not in the body of pictoral references if you purchase the new approved book. 

[mdfxdb]

If anyone believes all artistic depictions need to be 100% historically accurate....

What's next, are we going to complain about Jesus' skin color in our depictions? Are we sure the clothing is historically accurate? The sandals are correct? What about the nephite / lamanite depictions!? I've seen Nephi wearing a leopard skin in one picture, does that constitute official endorsement of a location for BoM events?

For the love of poo throwing monkeys come on! Don't be ridiculous.

Nobody really thinks there were leopards on the american continent.  That is a matter of fact.  Not a historical teaching that is not clear about a process from which came the keystone of our religion. 

[Vort]

Nobody really thinks there were leopards on the american continent.  That is a matter of fact.  Not a historical teaching that is not clear about a process from which came the keystone of our religion. 

Pretty sure those paintings represented jaguars, not leopards.

[jerome1232]

Pretty sure those paintings represented jaguars, not leopards.

I knew I got the wrong cat, I kept trying to think of the one that lives in S. America and couldn't, so I fired blindly. I guess being at a computer I could've searched real quick.

Edited December 18, 2014 by jerome1232

[Vort]

They're all big cats. Leopards and jaguars look a lot the same.

[Suzie]

I know, some of you are thinking...oh boy...a reply by Suzie, she will come and disagree with me, darn it. Don't worry little children of God, we are in the Christmas season.   

 

But seriously, this very crazy and not-so-conservative Mormon do not understand what is the issue about the methodology Smith used to translate part of the Book of Mormon (a.k.a "the stone in the hat").

 

The painting in question that shows Smith "translating" the plates was not meant to be purposely deceiving, it is the artist's interpretation of what it meant for him/her, a translation process. If we check the painting carefully, we see Smith using his finger as he traces words, a common method for those of us who speak more than one language and need to translate a document.

 

For those, criticizing Smith for utilizing this method. Please, cut him some slack would ya? When you read and study his life, you can see his growth and development throughout the years as a man, husband, father, Church leader and finally, as a  Prophet. A he grew and got more comfortable and confident with his calling, he was able to receive revelations in a different manner.

 

Now, think back when you were 14 and think what would you do if Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ himself visit you. Then think about the visits of Moroni telling you to translate a very important book....Yeah, yeah, yeah we know you would do it in a heartbeat and everything would be just perfect. The truth of the matter is that you would probably pee your pants just like the rest of us.

 

Now, with regards to the whole Urim and Thummim issue, I admit it is confusing because our early brethren used this term interchangeably to describe the actual interpreters that were used to translate the 116 lost pages  and Smith's seerstone that was used for the rest of the Book of Mormon.

 

The Church spoke back in the 90's about the stone-in the hat method through Elder Nelson,  who explained the details of the process and I believe there are more references on lds.org. If you happen to teach Sunday School, you are free to comment/teach/explain this methodology and I am very confident that most people will be normal about it.

[The Folk Prophet]

Please.

 

Please what? What did I said to garner such a scorn laden response?

 

We were all taught he translated the Book of Mormon, and as such most of if not all members assume a traditional translation process where he used the Urim and Thummim to "read" the golden plates while he dictated the words to his scribe. 

 

Who cares what most people assume? That has absolutely bearing on the question at hand whatsoever. People will assume any old idiotic thing. The question at hand is whether the church taught false history. I've already admitted that they did so inadvertently with their pictures. So once more, why the disdainful, "please" reply?

 

The fact is what we were taught is not congruent with the pictoral depictions, nor the sunday school descriptions.   The image shown is what I was taught in sunday school.  It is currently not in the body of pictoral references if you purchase the new approved book. 

 

Wait. You said what we're taught is not congruent with the pictures, then you say the image shown is what you were taught. Those two statements directly contradict one another. Which is it?

Edited December 18, 2014 by The Folk Prophet

[FunkyTown]

Has anyone noticed that the original poster made a single post and hasn't come back since?

Just puttin' that out there. Y'know. In case that was seen as relevant.

[PolarVortex]

Has anyone noticed that the original poster made a single post and hasn't come back since? Just puttin' that out there. Y'know. In case that was seen as relevant.

 

Maybe he was stunned by the size of the avalanche that resulted from tossing his little stone.  Fear not, WannaBelieve... this happens all the time, even among civilized personages.  I thought your original question was great.

[Guest]

I just scanned the past 3 pages...

 

Man-oh-man!

 

"The church didn't teach history accurately!... whine whine whine"... Man!  You won't last 2 days being a Catholic - you'd turn atheist.

 

Okay, for those of you who still doesn't know until today... The LDS Church (or any church, for that matter) is not an educational institution invested in the depiction of accurate historical and scientific events..  That's not its purpose.  When you read the account of Genesis, for example, it is not meant to be an accurate portrayal of the history of the planet Earth.  Rather, the LDS Church (and any church, for that matter) is invested in building FAITH in GOD to hopefully lead people to salvation and exaltation.  So, in the Catholic Church, for example, you will not get history lessons from Sunday School.  If you like, you can attend a Catholic School (you got BYU for the LDS Church) and drown yourself in history there.  But, fair warning - if your faith is weak, Catholic Schools and BYU is probably gonna hurt you more than help you.

 

If the faith of a mass of weak people cannot be built unless Nephi beheads Laban, then God - and the Church - will behead Laban.  Laban's place in heaven will be judged according to Laban's faith while alive and would not be curtailed just because he got killed.   If the faith of a mass of weak people cannot be built unless God - and the Church - kills all the innocent sons of Egyptians, the sons will be killed.  The sons' place in heaven will be judged according to their innocence and not shortchanged by their short mortal lives.  If the faith of a mass of weak people cannot be built unless God - and the Church - gives the people a lesser law, we are going to have a lesser law.  Moses and Aaron's place in heaven will not be shortchanged just because they had to suppress the higher law.

 

In that same token, if the faith of weak people cannot be built while blacks are holding the priesthood, then blacks will not hold the priesthood until such time that these weak people are ready for it.  The black's place in heaven will not be shortchanged by their lack of priesthood in mortality.  If the faith of weak people cannot be built while fielding accusations of sexual misconduct and depraved morality of Joseph Smith and his many wives by those who do not understand the principles of Eternal Marriage/Families, then the Church will suppress that information.  If the faith of a mass of weak people are better served by the simple teaching that Joseph translated the Book of Mormon and not by teaching that Joseph translated the Book of Mormon by first relying on a stone in a hat and a divining stick and whatever object he has to rely on until he got the hang of it... then that's what they're going to teach.  That's why as a Sunday School teacher, you have to be very very careful that what you teach is inspired to build Faith and not tear one down.

 

If you want to know the most historically accurate version of the history of the planet and the plight of Egyptians and Hebrews and the polygamy of Joseph Smith and the translation of the Book of Mormon, etc. etc... you go to the history experts.  These are not "faith building things".  These are "faith supporting" if you already have the faith.  But, what the Church teaches is the PRINCIPLES of the Kingdom of God through the prism of these historical events that you might build faith in God!

 

But no... some people have to find every possible way to feel offended for whatever it is the Church has to do to build the faith of weak people.. and teach of the Kingdom of God.  And happily point out the Church's "error" just to... what, make them feel superior?... completely missing the exercise of FAITH and the PURPOSE of having a Prophet and a Church in the first place.

 

Gah... I'm writing all this without my normal English filters in place.  I'm in my Christmas spirit and this thread is, frankly, so un-Christmassy...

Edited December 18, 2014 by anatess

[FunkyTown]

 

I just scanned the past 3 pages...

 

Man-oh-man!

 

"The church didn't teach history accurately!... whine whine whine"... Man!  You won't last 2 days being a Catholic - you'd turn atheist.

 

Okay, for those of you who still doesn't know until today... The LDS Church (or any church, for that matter) is not an educational institution invested in the depiction of accurate historical and scientific events..  That's not its purpose.  When you read the account of Genesis, for example, it is not meant to be an accurate portrayal of the history of the planet Earth.  Rather, the LDS Church (and any church, for that matter) is invested in building FAITH in GOD to hopefully lead people to salvation and exaltation.  So, in the Catholic Church, for example, you will not get history lessons from Sunday School.  If you like, you can attend a Catholic School (you got BYU for the LDS Church) and drown yourself in history there.  But, fair warning - if your faith is weak, Catholic Schools and BYU is probably gonna hurt you more than help you.

 

If the faith of a mass of weak people cannot be built unless Nephi beheads Laban, then God - and the Church - will behead Laban.  Laban's place in heaven will be judged according to Laban's faith while alive and would not be curtailed just because he got killed.   If the faith of a mass of weak people cannot be built unless God - and the Church - kills all the innocent sons of Egyptians, the sons will be killed.  The sons' place in heaven will be judged according to their innocence and not shortchanged by their short mortal lives.  If the faith of a mass of weak people cannot be built unless God - and the Church - gives the people a lesser law, we are going to have a lesser law.  Moses and Aaron's place in heaven will not be shortchanged just because they had to suppress the higher law.

 

In that same token, if the faith of weak people cannot be built while blacks are holding the priesthood, then blacks will not hold the priesthood until such time that these weak people are ready for it.  The black's place in heaven will not be shortchanged by their lack of priesthood in mortality.  If the faith of weak people cannot be built while fielding accusations of sexual misconduct and depraved morality of Joseph Smith and his many wives by those who do not understand the principles of Eternal Marriage/Families, then the Church will suppress that information.  If the faith of a mass of weak people are better served by the simple teaching that Joseph translated the Book of Mormon and not by teaching that Joseph translated the Book of Mormon by first relying on a stone in a hat and a divining stick and whatever object he has to rely on until he got the hang of it... then that's what they're going to teach.  That's why as a Sunday School teacher, you have to be very very careful that what you teach is inspired to build Faith and not tear one down.

 

If you want to know the most historically accurate version of the history of the planet and the plight of Egyptians and Hebrews and the polygamy of Joseph Smith and the translation of the Book of Mormon, etc. etc... you go to the history experts.  These are not "faith building things".  These are "faith supporting" if you already have the faith.  But, what the Church teaches is the PRINCIPLES of the Kingdom of God through the prism of these historical events that you might build faith in God!

 

But no... some people have to find every possible way to feel offended for whatever it is the Church has to do to build the faith of weak people.. and teach of the Kingdom of God.  And happily point out the Church's "error" just to... what, make them feel superior?... completely missing the exercise of FAITH and the PURPOSE of having a Prophet and a Church in the first place.

 

Gah... I'm writing all this without my normal English filters in place.  I'm in my Christmas spirit and this thread is, frankly, so un-Christmassy...

 

You know what I just realized? My signature no longer shows that I'm quoting Dorave, who was saying that he's the socialist. Sad. Good old Dorave. That guy was one heckuva socialist.

For me, I threw up my hands in disgust when I ate an apple and it didn't give me discernment between good and evil. Do you know how many times traditional Christianity shows that it was an apple that caused the fall?

And I've eaten a lot of apples: Granny Smith, Red Delicious, Golden Delicious, Macintosh - TONS of apples.

I still have no real discernment in anything. I feel ripped off. I'd better start a 50 page conversation about that.

[Vort]

You know what I just realized? My signature no longer shows that I'm quoting Dorave, who was saying that he's the socialist.

 

Sure it does.

 

***********************************************

 

dorave said

• Quote
• MultiQuote
•  
•  

[mdfxdb]

 

The fact is what we were taught is not congruent with the pictoral depictions, nor the sunday school descriptions.   The image shown is what I was taught in sunday school.  It is currently not in the body of pictoral references if you purchase the new approved book. 

 

Poorly worded.  My fault.

 

Sunday school implies,and shows pictures of Joseph Smith actually reading golden plates, and dictating them to his scribe.  The picture previously shown with Joseph looking at plates, with a curtain separating him from his scribe is what we were taught in Sunday School.

 

But it didn't really happen that way.

 

It is important because there are / were generations of church members who assumed, rightly or wrongly that the SS depiction/picture were accurate.  

[The Folk Prophet]

I still have no real discernment in anything. I feel ripped off. I'd better start a 50 page conversation about that.

 

Hey now...only 8 pages. (9 now)

[The Folk Prophet]

It is important because there are / were generations of church members who assumed, rightly or wrongly that the SS depiction/picture were accurate.  

 

Only important if said generations are a bunch of whiny little brats looking for any reason to criticize and complain about the church. Otherwise...really...it's not important at all.

Edited December 18, 2014 by The Folk Prophet

[mdfxdb]

  That's why as a Sunday School teacher, you have to be very very careful that what you teach is inspired to build Faith and not tear one down.

 

If you want to know the most historically accurate version of the history of the planet and the plight of Egyptians and Hebrews and the polygamy of Joseph Smith and the translation of the Book of Mormon, etc. etc... you go to the history experts.  These are not "faith building things".  These are "faith supporting" if you already have the faith.  But, what the Church teaches is the PRINCIPLES of the Kingdom of God through the prism of these historical events that you might build faith in God!

 

But no... some people have to find every possible way to feel offended for whatever it is the Church has to do to build the faith of weak people.. and teach of the Kingdom of God.  And happily point out the Church's "error" just to... what, make them feel superior?... completely missing the exercise of FAITH and the PURPOSE of having a Prophet and a Church in the first place.

I completely agree with all of this.

[mdfxdb]

Only important if said generations are a bunch of whiny little brats looking for any reason to criticize and complain about the church. Otherwise...really...it's not important at all.

 

Maybe unimportant to a true believer like you.

 

To those who have not spent the time researching and learning and building faith it is a big deal.  Most (the masses) do not take time to do independent research.  Most rely heavily on what they are spoon fed in SS.  So it is important to get it right.  

[estradling75]

It is important because there are / were generations of church members who assumed, rightly or wrongly that the SS depiction/picture were accurate.  

 

No...  Its important because church members ASSUMED it.  Then when their ASSUMPTION got challenge instead of taking the correction and moving on they choose to instead blame the Church and ASSUME that the Church lied to them.

 

Basically if the church didn't spoon feed them the "True History" then the Church lied to them.  That is were the error lies

[The Folk Prophet]

Maybe unimportant to a true believer like you.

 

Which is actually sort of the point. It's only important if people make it important. Stop making it important and it's not.

 

I'm fairly confident that with enough faith and humility, such things are truly non-issues. Without faith and humility (insert pride) there's no hope for the person any way. What's important...what the church/gospel's objective is, what all our objectives should be, is to help people find faith and humility. With that, none of this nit-picky sniveling that's so trending right now would hold any bearing whatsoever on anyone's eternal welfare.

 

The key is not to fix the organization. It is to fix the hearts of the members.

 

Replacing all the pictures in the church library with 100% historically accurate depictions would do NOTHING towards the salvation of mankind. Nothing! Those with humility would plainly accept the new pictures. Those without would complain anyhow.

[mdfxdb]

Which is actually sort of the point. It's only important if people make it important. Stop making it important and it's not.

 

I'm fairly confident that with enough faith and humility, such things are truly non-issues. Without faith and humility (insert pride) there's no hope for the person any way. What's important...what the church/gospel's objective is, what all our objectives should be, is to help people find faith and humility. With that, none of this nit-picky sniveling that's so trending right now would hold any bearing whatsoever on anyone's eternal welfare.

 

The key is not to fix the organization. It is to fix the hearts of the members.

 

Replacing all the pictures in the church library with 100% historically accurate depictions would do NOTHING towards the salvation of mankind. Nothing! Those with humility would plainly accept the new pictures. Those without would complain anyhow.

I actually agree with this.

 

My point is that when our leaders get it wrong, or when the "church" gets it wrong they should say they got it wrong. 

[The Folk Prophet]

My point is that when our leaders get it wrong, or when the "church" gets it wrong they should say they got it wrong. 

 

I find it truly fascinating that you think they have not.

[Vort]

My point is that when our leaders get it wrong, or when the "church" gets it wrong they should say they got it wrong. 

My point is that they do.

 

Those who insist that the Church "got it wrong" with regards to blacks and the Priesthood are themselves wrong, and are skirting the filthy edges of apostasy for the sake of their political hobby horse.

[Vort]

 

Sure it does.

 

***********************************************

 

dorave said

 

• Quote
• MultiQuote
•  
•  

 

Huh. This looked fine in my reply box before it posted.

 

Anyway, your Dorave quote and attribution show up find, Funky.

[omegaseamaster75]

My point is that they do.

 

Those who insist that the Church "got it wrong" with regards to blacks and the Priesthood are themselves wrong, and are skirting the filthy edges of apostasy for the sake of their political hobby horse.

We have been down this road, and I take offense to the idea that I may be "skirting" the filthy edges of apostasy, because I am not. We have a disagreement on historical facts, and how God speaks through our leaders and leads our church. 

 

From a historical standpoint denying Blacks the priesthood looks/is perceived as a negative on the church and the supporting "doctrine" that went with that policy.

 

As previously shown in the most current essay released by the church which we have been over, they have disavowed any policies and doctrinal claims as to the reasons why Blacks were denied the priesthood (they say theories).

 

You can't get any closer to "we were wrong" than that.

[Just_A_Guy]

I still have no real discernment in anything.

 

I'm stealing this for my signature.