- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I’m so confused. The church teaches that JS translated the golden plates. Now I am finding references to claims that he used a ” seer stones” in his hat and looked into the hat to translate and the gold plate was not present. Who’s lying. Who’s telling the truth? Neither is lying; both are telling the truth. The “translation” happened in more than one way, but most visual depictions and discussions focus on only one method – whichever one the artist and/or speaker prefers or knows about.
Janes now wrote:I’m so confused. The church teaches that JS translated the golden plates. Now I am finding references to claims that he used a ” seer stones” in his hat and looked into the hat to translate and the gold plate was not present. Who’s lying. Who’s telling the truth?
I found the information around the Book of Mormon translation some of the most information at the time of reading. It just sounded so weird and freaky.
I reassure myself with the thought that no-one at the time was worried about it (at least not the contemporaries that were helping him with transcription services). There might have been some critics who later stigmatised it and so the church backed away from describing the process as anything other than conventional.
After a while I stepped back and thought, “I had never thought of it as an academic translation, Joseph couldn’t read and translate reformed Egyptian.” I’ve let it go for now. It bothers me that the church have appeared to hide it, though references do appear in the Ensign occasionally.
Joseph needed some way to channel the inspiration (whatever that means/however it’s done). If blocking out the distractions in the room and concentrating on a rock he had confidence in helped him get ‘in the zone’ the is it so bad?
Sometimes I still answer that question with h&\ yes!!!
Here are a coupe of Ensign references:
http://www.lds.org/friend/1974/09/a-peaceful-heart http://www.lds.org/ensign/1977/09/by-the-gift-and-power-of-god http://www.lds.org/ensign/2013/01/great-and-marvelous-are-the-revelations-of-god?lang=eng What is absolutely true is church art does a horrible job of accurately depicting any of this.
This one of Joseph Smith with the aid of Oliver Cowdery as scribe is wrong on so many levels.
Christian Vuissa directed a movie called “Joseph Smith: PLates of Gold”. Richard Bushman was one of the people consulted on teh film. It’s not put out by the church, but is VERY faith promoting. THe movie depicts the actual translation process, and clearly shows that Joseph translated with the plates no where near him. The movie hasn’t received much publicity, but I think it is an awesome movie: faith promoting, AND historically accurate. I highly recommend it. http://www.amazon.com/Joseph-Smith-Volume-1-Plates-Gold/dp/1608615383 I posted this on another thread a while ago: Seer StonesEnsign article from 1974“Joseph also used an egg-shaped, brown rock for translating called a seer stone.”
http://www.lds.org/friend/1974/09/a-peaceful-heart Ensign article from 1977 BY RICHARD LLOYD ANDERSON“On the means of translation Stevenson reported, ‘He said that the Prophet possessed a seer stone, by which he was enabled to translate as well as from the Urim and Thummim, and for convenience he then used the seer stone.’”
“David Whitmer’s idea of translation …’Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light…’”
http://www.lds.org/ensign/1977/09/by-the-gift-and-power-of-god Ensign article from 1987“Thirty years earlier, Wilford Woodruff had recorded Brigham Young’s version of ‘the seer stone which Joseph Smith first obtained’ by digging ’15 feet underground’ after seeing it first in another seer stone.”
http://www.lds.org/ensign/1987/08/the-alvin-smith-story-fact-and-fiction Ensign article from 1993 BY ELDER RUSSELL M. NELSON“The details of this miraculous method of translation are still not fully known. Yet we do have a few precious insights. David Whitmer wrote: ‘Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear…'”
Hi everybody! I have a question. In the Intro to the BofM (1989 ed.) it says: “The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as the Bible does, the fulness of the everlasting gospel”. In the new edition of the BofM the editors removed the words “as the Bible does”. Does it mean the Church does not believe any more the Bible contains the fulness of the everlasting gospel? PS Sorry for my English
:geek: AlexMormon wrote:Hi everybody! I have a question. In the Intro to the BofM (1989 ed.) it says: “The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains,
as the Bible does, the fulness of the everlasting gospel”. In the new edition of the BofM the editors removed the words “as the Bible does”. Does it mean the Church does not believe any more the Bible contains the fulness of the everlasting gospel? PS Sorry for my English
:geek:
First, welcome to StayLDS. Please post a message in introductions to let us know your story and your faith journey. It helps us get to know you so we can help each other.I would not impute any meaning from the change to the introduction to the Book of Mormon. The bible and the book of mormon work hand in hand as basic narrative from which we draw stories and lessons to strengthen our faith.
The book of Mormon is said to contain the fulness of the gospel or doctrine of Jesus Christ. As such, there is clearly a simple message that constitutes ‘fulness’ — as reflect in the last chapters of 2 Nephi, and in 3 Nephi 11, the gospel consists of the first principles and ordinances of the gospel, and very little more. It is this clarity that sets the book of Mormon apart.
As we get tripped up in our faith crisis among all the weird doctrines passed off as Mormonism, it’s really helpful to get back to the basics.
That, to me, is the beauty of the book of Mormon.
wayfarer wrote:First, welcome to StayLDS. Please post a message in introductions to let us know your story and your faith journey. It helps us get to know you so we can help each other.
I would not impute any meaning from the change to the introduction to the Book of Mormon. The bible and the book of mormon work hand in hand as basic narrative from which we draw stories and lessons to strengthen our faith.
The book of Mormon is said to contain the fulness of the gospel or doctrine of Jesus Christ. As such, there is clearly a simple message that constitutes ‘fulness’ — as reflect in the last chapters of 2 Nephi, and in 3 Nephi 11, the gospel consists of the first principles and ordinances of the gospel, and very little more. It is this clarity that sets the book of Mormon apart.
As we get tripped up in our faith crisis among all the weird doctrines passed off as Mormonism, it’s really helpful to get back to the basics.
That, to me, is the beauty of the book of Mormon.
Thanks for your answer. I live in Russia. I joined the LDS Church in 1997.
I also believe the Book of Mormon and love it. But my question was about the Bible and changing the Introduction to the BofM. I proceed from the premise that every action has its reason. So I just would like to know what was the reason to remove certain words from the Intro.
The people who did it made a mistake in doing it. It’s not more complicated than that for me. Fwiw, there are at least two places in the BoM that state, explicitly one of its primary purposes as being to convince people to believe the Bible – not to believe IN the Bible, but actually to believe the Bible. Those who think the Bible doesn’t contain the fulness of the Gospel while the BoM does simply misunderstand what the fulness of the Gospel means – and that’s true no matter what position they hold in the Church.
AlexMormon wrote:Thanks for your answer. I live in Russia. I joined the LDS Church in 1997.
I also believe the Book of Mormon and love it. But my question was about the Bible and changing the Introduction to the BofM. I proceed from the premise that every action has its reason. So I just would like to know what was the reason to remove certain words from the Intro.
I tend to agree that every action has its reason. Where I think we get into trouble in the church is assuming that everything done in the church has a divine reason. (A good example of this is where I read an early 20th century church Apostle [1906?] say that there is no reason why women couldn’t pass the sacrament. When I told this to my mom she responded, “But what then would the deacons do?” So it is possible that the reason deacons pass the sacrament in the church is
traditioncalcified into policy and the desire to give the Aaronic priesthood holders a prominent and important job.) If I were to speculate, I might say that the words “as the Bible does” were removed because of the Article of Faith where it says that the Bible may not be translated correctly. Another possible reason might be a concern that if we go about saying that the Bible already contained the “fulness of the everlasting gospel” then that might de-emphasize the need of the BOM and the restoration to restore the “fulness of the everlasting gospel.” How do you restore what was already present in its fulness? Old-Timer wrote:The people who did it made a mistake in doing it. It’s not more complicated than that for me.
Fwiw, there are at least two places in the BoM that state, explicitly one of its primary purposes as being to convince people to believe the Bible – not to believe IN the Bible, but actually to believe the Bible. Those who think the Bible doesn’t contain the fulness of the Gospel while the BoM does simply misunderstand what the fulness of the Gospel means – and that’s true no matter what position they hold in the Church.
So sad that people made mistakes which change the meaning. Especially in the books approved by the Church…
😥 Quote:I tend to agree that every action has its reason. Where I think we get into trouble in the church is assuming that everything done in the church has a divine reason. (A good example of this is where I read an early 20th century church Apostle [1906?] say that there is no reason why women couldn’t pass the sacrament. When I told this to my mom she responded, “But what then would the deacons do?” So it is possible that the reason deacons pass the sacrament in the church is
traditioncalcified into policy and the desire to give the Aaronic priesthood holders a prominent and important job.) If I were to speculate, I might say that the words “as the Bible does” were removed because of the Article of Faith where it says that the Bible may not be translated correctly. Another possible reason might be a concern that if we go about saying that the Bible already contained the “fulness of the everlasting gospel” then that might de-emphasize the need of the BOM and the restoration to restore the “fulness of the everlasting gospel.” How do you restore what was already present in its fulness? I agree. But it looks bit strange when one doctrine says “yes” and another “no”.
Doctrine is just what is believed generally and taught at any point. Nothing strange about doctrine changing or conflicting. “We see through a glass, darkly” is foundational to my understanding of pretty much everything. The difficulty for many people is really believing it.
If the Book of Mormon is not historical but still “true” in a true principlessort of way, 1. What are the principles in it that are true?
2. Are these unique to the Book of Mormon?
3. Are there principles in it which are
nottrue?* 4. How worthwhile is it to read over and over, if it has bad principles as well as good principles?
5. How worthwhile is it to read over and over, when there are so many books in the world with true principles?
I’m not trying to be difficult; this is a real issue I am thinking about. Lately I have not been inclined to read the Book of Mormon again, but I am willing to be convinced.
*For example, Captain Moroni compelling people to go to war, “skins of blackness” related to wickedness, etc.1. What are the principles in it that are true? Adult baptism. Don’t agree with infant baptism at all./
2. Are these unique to the Book of Mormon?
No.
3. Are there principles in it which are not true?*
Maybe. I’d have to think on that.
4. How worthwhile is it to read over and over, if it has bad principles as well as good principles?
Very. There’s enough worthwhile in there.
5. How worthwhile is it to read over and over, when there are so many books in the world with true principles?
The vast majority are really not the same. And I say that as an avid reader.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.