- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
If a person has never been touched by the still small voice, in other words a testimony, they are like a pin in a bowling alley just waiting to be struck down. There are hundreds of issues waiting to distroy the person who has no testimony. The book of Moses and Abraham are just as good as any, good luck on asking good honest questions about these and any other subject. One thing I have learned from learning. ” The more I learn the more questions I become capable of asking for which I cannot get answers,” There are also as many ways to strengthen a testimony as there are ways to distroy one. Here is one: I read alot of science, it’s history, the people involved, and enjoy comparing science and religion in light of mormonism’s special insight. To make a long story short I have reduced it down to this one sentence. ” Joseph Smith did for religion what Einstein did for science.” God sends the right people to earth at just the right time to do just the right job. Both Joseph Smith and Einstein did their job.
It is hard for people to get a story right that has just happened, how hard do you think it is to go back and sort out the truth fifty to two hundred years after the fact. Don’t throw away the best good news the world has received, 1820 & 1905. Joseph Smith and Einstein work for the same boss, true science and true religion will never conflict.
Lady wisdom said….Taken at face value, this passage clearly teaches monotheism. The “Testimony of the Three Witnesses” that appears in the Preface to the Book of Mormon supports such a monotheistic interpretation. It concludes with the statement, “And honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.”
TO MY MIND this is a case of making a mountain out of a mole hill. The above shows we believe in the trinity yet each person can say something in the same breath that appears to confuse the issue. As long as you once have it down straight what you beleive (the trinity), personal style should not be taken too literally. These kinds of issues can be brought out by the hundreds. If you know your doctrine and you know the truth, I see no good purpose in it.
The last part ” Which is one God.” any sixteen year old knows that means one in purpose, they are PERFECTLY one in purpose.
Good points. And if one looks at Father, Son, Holy Ghost, Jehovah, Christ, etc. as office/titles (which they are) instead of the names of individuals (which they are not), the whole thing opens up.
Fundamentalist opinion only…
Mileage varies wildly…
Bruce in Montana, I hope I can say this without coming across as rude. [Moderator: What followed was rude, and it is not appropriate for this forum.] Thank you, moderator. The recent Pew Forum survey highlighted Mormons, and there was an interesting result about scriptural literalness that I think bears mentioning. Although 91% of Mormons stated that they believed the Bible to be the Word of God, only 35% believed the Bible should be taken literally. 57% said that it should not be taken literally. (4% said it was written by men). I think there are two ways to view this data:
1 – Mormons are skeptical of the Bible because of translation errors and its convoluted history (We believe the Bible to be the word of God so far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the BOM to be the word of God.)
2 – Mormons view all scriptures as “non-literal” or “less literal” because they recognize the role of man in interpreting revelation.
I subscribe to the second approach, but I suspect most Mormons subscribe to the first. However, even a cursory glance at the “translation process” employed by JS in the BOM, but especially with the JST and the POGP draws me to the second conclusion. If only the article of faith said, “We also believe the BOM to be the word of God so far as it is translated correctly.”
Thank you moderator, I support the format of this thread and don’t mind one bit learning how to conform to the rules. Just bumping up this thread, as I was reviewing where I was in my journey back in 2009, and remembered it was here at StayLDS I first became aware of Joseph “translating” without plates or anything but a hat present. The book of Moses and Abraham are interesting texts. I appreciated everyone’s comments in this thread.
Heber13 wrote:I first became aware of Joseph “translating” without plates or anything but a hat present.
… and a peep-stone …
What do you think about that Doug? And why do u think the paintings we see are of the plates being translated and not the hat and peepstones? I think for the most part the paintings and images come from Joseph saying so little on the subject himself. A time or two when specifically asked to describe the translation process he refused to give details. We get the stone in the hat version from David Whitmer and Emma I believe, maybe along with a few others. Heber13 wrote:What do you think about that Doug? And why do u think the paintings we see are of the plates being translated and not the hat and peepstones?
Hmmm. I suppose that over the years, as I have become aware of these kinds of things, I have gone through all those feelings you would typically associate with the stages of grief or acceptance, with a lot of feelings of betrayal thrown in for good measure. In the end, though, I think it’s all good. In a way, knowing that the party line isn’t necessarily accurate, and that there even
isa party line, gives me the freedom to forge my own relationship with God in the way I see fit and that works for me, without all the trappings that I simply can’t make work for me in my worldview. As to why church artwork prortrays things in the correlated way, I can only guess. Ignorance, probably, but even when the artist isn’t ignorant, the point of the artwork is to promote faith, and so naturally they portray things in a way that they feel will promote faith for the greatest proportion of people who will see it. The church artwork we see is part of the church’s PR effort, so we shouldn’t be surprised to see it (the church) and its history portrayed in the most wholsesome and uncontroversial manner possible.
doug wrote:As to why church artwork prortrays things in the correlated way, I can only guess. Ignorance, probably, but even when the artist isn’t ignorant, the point of the artwork is to promote faith, and so naturally they portray things in a way that they feel will promote faith for the greatest proportion of people who will see it. The church artwork we see is part of the church’s PR effort, so we shouldn’t be surprised to see it (the church) and its history portrayed in the most wholsesome and uncontroversial manner possible.
I agree, and am not surprised. I do however wish that we could just tell the whole story straight, that’s my personality. If I know some details are most likely accurate I want them to be told. I plan to have FHE lessons where we talk about the following, plus additional sources:
Quote:
(From the July ’93 Ensign, Russell M. Nelson “A Treasured Testament”)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, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.” (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887, p. 12.)
I actually like the rougher version of Joseph Smith. It makes him look like a human. The Soviets tried the same thing with Lenin, made his tomb a shrine and made him out to be an infallible saint.
I don’t think Smith was everything his opponents said he was, but I think he was a very talented individual, who had been touched by something strange.
I agree, Sam. I also think that was very much Bushman’s approach, that there is more beauty and value to showing a flawed and interesting human being, that also can be a part of such amazing things, is a more powerful image of God’s hand in our world. I’m deeply flawed, maybe God can even work in my life too.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.