cdowis Posted August 24, 2015 Report Share Posted August 24, 2015 (edited) We should teach what is always taught, which is that we need to read the Book of Mormon and pray for a testimony of its truthfulness. If we have a testimony of it being a true book of scripture, why should we care what exact tool was used to bring it about?Are you suggesting that we shut down this thread? The Joseph Smith Papers project is based on the assumption that such historical details are of interest to the church and some of its members. Edited August 24, 2015 by cdowis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 24, 2015 Report Share Posted August 24, 2015 no... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anddenex Posted August 25, 2015 Report Share Posted August 25, 2015 When Enoch was "translated", what other language did he become. I think that this word is very flexible in how it is applied. Angels dancing on a pinhead, so to speak. How does a word having multiple meanings; although, very clear as to which meaning is being used, come to the conclusion of "Angels dancing on a pinhead"? Then again, I think I get your point, when the Lord said keep the commandments, I should keep them in my house (in a safe place) and stand watch over and defend them so no thief steals my commandments. I am thinking this is a pretty big pinhead the angels are dancing on. Vort 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdowis Posted August 26, 2015 Report Share Posted August 26, 2015 (edited) How does a word having multiple meanings; although, very clear as to which meaning is being used, come to the conclusion of "Angels dancing on a pinhead"? Just ignore my post. The issue of "translation" gets interesting for me personally, considering that Joseph Smith refused to give any details of the process, and "loose" vs "tight" translation. And we then get The Joseph Smith "Translation" of the Bible -- simple answer is the translation of Enoch, from lower to higher level. The whole Isaiah thing simply contradicts our expectations of an answer -- one of those wonderful paradoxes. And the use of words and phrases which were obsolete by the time of the KJV? You call THAT a translation?Does the "chicken of the sea" problem have any relevance here -- you know, translating the "out in left field" phrase. It was translated correctly, but what does that really mean. Just thinking out loud, and sometimes how I express myself does not make sense. Just the random mutterings of an idiot, I guess. Edited August 26, 2015 by cdowis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted August 26, 2015 Report Share Posted August 26, 2015 Just ignore my post. The issue of "translation" gets interesting for me personally, considering that Joseph Smith refused to give any details of the process, and "loose" vs "tight" translation. And we then get The Joseph Smith "Translation" of the Bible -- simple answer is the translation of Enoch, from lower to higher level. I like this thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 26, 2015 Report Share Posted August 26, 2015 (edited) I got to page 5. I haven't read any post past that. I'm just putting this out there: Comment: "The translation process taught in Primary about the translation process (showing a picture of JS reading the plates) is inaccurate." My understanding is - whoever said this expects the Church to teach the process of translation. My Comment: Consider the Book of Genesis and how you are taught about how the Earth was made. When dinosaur bones got discovered, or when Galileo proclaimed the Earth revolves around the Sun, many people - including those who were very faithful, left the Church. They couldn't believe that the Church was so inaccurate about portraying history - they must be hiding something, or they must be wrong and don't know what they're yapping about. In the Catholic Church, there is Sunday School and there is Catholic School (Nursery through College as opposed to the LDS school which is only College). Sunday School only covers things of the Spirit - things about Faith, love, peace, God, etc. It only covers history as far as it supports the spiritual message. Because - when we talk about Genesis and the creation of the Earth, HOW it was created doesn't matter. What matters is WHY it was created and by WHO. Therefore, evolution nor creationism is not taught in Sunday School. Rather, it is touched on in the Physical Science classes in the Catholic School. So that, in a Sunday School class you will see the drawing of the birth of Christ with an angel floating on top of the stable with gigantic wings on it. Nowhere in the Bible or any other Catholic tradition does it teach that angels have wings. But, some artist trying to depict the spiritual symbolism of "not of this earth" used wings. Is it accurate? No. Is it wrong to have that picture in Sunday School? No. Because, it is not the WINGS that matter - it is that the angel is "not of this world" is what matters. This is the same as any picture depicting Joseph Smith reading the plates. Is it accurate? No. Is it wrong to have that picture in Sunday School? No. Because, it is not the STONES that matter - it is that Joseph translated the plates by the power of God is what matters. Man, this type of thing is EVERYWHERE in Catholic School and Sunday School. It is EVERYWHERE in the Bible - you have to go to secular sources to understand the history among the peoples mentioned in the Bible because the Bible doesn't tell you that. Catholic Sunday School doesn't tell you that either - they concentrate on teaching the spiritual lessons in the history presented. Catholic High School, on the other hand, teaches World History with all those stuff in detail. The problem here is that LDS folks expect the Church to act as both their Public School and their Sunday School. If that's what you expect, then you guys have to have classes like the Catholic School does - from 7:30-4:30 (at least that's Catholic School hours in the Philippines), Monday through Friday to get all the secular learning that goes with the spiritual lessons. Edited August 26, 2015 by anatess Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maureen Posted August 26, 2015 Report Share Posted August 26, 2015 ...The problem here is that LDS folks expect the Church to act as both their Public School and their Sunday School. If that's what you expect, then you guys have to have classes like the Catholic School does - from 7:30-4:30 (at least that's Catholic School hours in the Philippines), Monday through Friday to get all the secular learning that goes with the spiritual lessons. I know it only relates to High School, but isn't that what Seminary is all about? M. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted August 26, 2015 Report Share Posted August 26, 2015 I know it only relates to High School, but isn't that what Seminary is all about? Seminary is not about teaching historical nuance or the use of seer stones. Seminary is about teaching young men and women to repent and come unto Christ at a time when they desperately need such teachings and are just beginning to be adult enough to have a more mature look at things. Anddenex 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 26, 2015 Report Share Posted August 26, 2015 (edited) I know it only relates to High School, but isn't that what Seminary is all about? M. No. Seminary is teaching the gospel in-depth. Not teaching history in-depth. In Catholicism, Seminary is a 4-year Theology college course. It doesn't go in-depth into secular history either. It goes very in-depth on Philosophy and the teachings of the Church Fathers and building up certain skillsets like Public Discourse, Languages, Composition, and Management training that is needed by a Priest. There are Catholic Seminary High Schools as well. This is usually a boarding school where high-school aged young men finish high school while taking theology courses (counts towards Seminary college credits). Same goes - the Seminary classes are separate from the secular classes - that's why they're boarding schools because they stay in school a lot longer than regular high school. Regular Catholic Colleges (not Seminary) has Religious Education courses. Some of these classes are secular in nature and goes in-depth into the nitty-gritty secular history behind things like... the Templars, or the Schism, or how the Creeds came about, the Vatican Councils, etc. etc. These classes are also offered in Seminary as electives. Edited August 26, 2015 by anatess Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traveler Posted September 11, 2015 Report Share Posted September 11, 2015 Just wondering is there any reference or knowledge of the means by which a stone becomes a seer stone? Is the makeup of the stone critical? Has this been revealed? Or is a stone provided by divine means - outside of human observation or any participation? As far as I know - the only record we have is the molten stones created by the brother of Jared which were touched by the "finger" of G-d. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdowis Posted September 12, 2015 Report Share Posted September 12, 2015 (edited) As a primary child, I was taught the book of mormon was translated with the urim and thummin. snip 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. I was taught NOTHING as a child. I was a teenager when I joined, and I learned about the history of the church was thru my own personal study. I worked at this, my fine feathered friend. I'm so tired of whining, sobbing people ...cough...choke...sob "The church did not spoon feed me all this stuff, and it actually expects for me to do my OWN RESEARCH" whaaaaaaaaaa whaaaaa SOB SOB "It's soooooo unfair." Edited September 12, 2015 by cdowis Blackmarch and kapikui 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackmarch Posted September 14, 2015 Report Share Posted September 14, 2015 the other reason things are missed is because there is so much history and so little time, and you have to prioritize. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdowis Posted September 15, 2015 Report Share Posted September 15, 2015 It does take alot of time, but the videos from the Joseph Smith Project are very helpful. You can view them at kbyu.org. Blackmarch 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 14, 2015 Report Share Posted October 14, 2015 Hi guys. I just wanted to say thank you all for a very lively discussion about the topic. I daresay there were a few things stated I wasn't previously aware of. But all-in-all nothing to see here folks. I wonder why this is such a big deal. Happy Halloween. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackmarch Posted October 14, 2015 Report Share Posted October 14, 2015 a majority of the time that's what it boils down to... but it means something to somebody, somewhere.-------------------------------------some interesting tidbits on the urim and thummim at around the 44 minute mark and the 47 minute mark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maureen Posted October 14, 2015 Report Share Posted October 14, 2015 ...But all-in-all nothing to see here folks... You must hate museums. Well at least the LDS church doesn't share your view. "We wondered, what do you do with a sacred object like this?" Richard Turley Jr., an assistant LDS Church Historian, said in an interview with FOX 13. "On the one hand, we wanted to treat it with sacredness and respect. On the other hand, we wanted to make it publicly available. So we settled on the balance on having a full-color image available." M. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 14, 2015 Report Share Posted October 14, 2015 (edited) You must hate museums. Well at least the LDS church doesn't share your view. "We wondered, what do you do with a sacred object like this?" Richard Turley Jr., an assistant LDS Church Historian, said in an interview with FOX 13. "On the one hand, we wanted to treat it with sacredness and respect. On the other hand, we wanted to make it publicly available. So we settled on the balance on having a full-color image available." M. I find them somewhat fulfilling and sometimes moderately more educational than a book. But usually nothing truly edifying or inspiring. Regardless, I wasn't talking about the stone itself. I was talking about the debate in this thread about the stone, the translation, the Church's teaching about the stone... The stone itself... Yeah, I wondered what it looked like. After all I read about it, I couldn't figure out how all the descriptions fit together. This picture answered that question. Edited October 16, 2015 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erog84 Posted October 15, 2015 Report Share Posted October 15, 2015 You must hate museums. Well at least the LDS church doesn't share your view. "We wondered, what do you do with a sacred object like this?" Richard Turley Jr., an assistant LDS Church Historian, said in an interview with FOX 13. "On the one hand, we wanted to treat it with sacredness and respect. On the other hand, we wanted to make it publicly available. So we settled on the balance on having a full-color image available." M. While I don't agree with the dismissiveness of the stone, the church I would assume has had it in their position quite a while and this was the first release as far as I am aware. I personally think the Church as a whole is fine with keeping alot of things internal, but are changing the way they look at certain things due to a cultural change on how open and accessible everything is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 16, 2015 Report Share Posted October 16, 2015 So, is Fox13 News an "official Church" website now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maureen Posted October 16, 2015 Report Share Posted October 16, 2015 So, is Fox13 News an "official Church" website now? Are you saying if the LDS church has news, only the LDS church is allowed to tell it? https://www.lds.org/church/news/book-of-mormon-printers-manuscript-photos-of-seer-stone-featured-in-new-book?lang=eng M. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 17, 2015 Report Share Posted October 17, 2015 Are you saying if the LDS church has news, only the LDS church is allowed to tell it? https://www.lds.org/church/news/book-of-mormon-printers-manuscript-photos-of-seer-stone-featured-in-new-book?lang=eng M. Not at all. I was referring to the rules of the board specifically state Only official church websites should be used to report. Let's obey our own rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.