- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Records indicate Joseph used multiple methods during the process and that, generally, he didn’t show the plates to those who were acting as his scribes. Given the multiple possibilities, the one that would cause the least controversy at the time was chosen – and, remember, it was chosen at a time when not as much of the overall record was known as it is now. I am quite certain the people who picked that picture thought it was an accurate representation of what happened at some point, even if they knew about the other methods (like his head in a hat or with a curtain between the people).
I still want it retired, ideally – but I am less prone to assume dishonesty or anything like that at the time it was chosen.
Thanks everyone for your thought on this matter. I especially liked the following idea:
Quote:And when I find the contradictions that dont’ seem to be easily talked through or agreed by others, I focus on the common gospel theme (like love or faith or progress) and work down until I find where we part ways. That way I know what common ground I have to speak to with others.
For example, Recently I was talking with extended family about welfare abuse and the temptation to live on the dole forever. They are quite conservative TBM’s and they were very harsh towards the concept of welfare at all. I brought up that I think that if we pull back to broad principles that we can find agreement. I said that I think we can all agree that we want to live in a society that helps its least priveledged members. OTOH, i think we can all agree that personal accountability must be maintained. From there they started talking about church welfare and how the bishop will often expect you to do a service in exchange for assistance.
It was important to recognise that there are competing priciples at play that both have value. How these principles interact and when one might take priority over the other are still up for debate but at least we can agree that both sides have a noble and worthwhile purpose.
As for the temple square painting, let me apply the same process. If I were to pull back on this concept to the broadest point, it may be that God speaks to/ has not abandoned His children. OTOH, pain is real and bad things happen to good people. How do we reconcile the two? Some believe that God has a plan and purpose for us to pass through this mortal realm and that this plan was largely revealed by JS. The picture can be seen as a symbol of their belief that God has not abandoned His children. I agree that the particulars get messy – but my hope is that if we pull back far enough we will see how similarly good-willed most people are.
Roy, your point is well taken. I am not hostile in any way toward Ray’s side on the picture thing, or any other perspectives I’ve seen on this site. Motive plays a BIG role. For example, Ray indicated that at the time that particular picture was chosen, perhaps it was thought to be the best choice under the circumstances for the need
at that time. They were not trying to have bad motives when they chose that… IN fact, to a lot of people (and this is speculation)…it might seem hokey that JS put his head in a hat and read a rock. The idea of “crystal balls” comes to my mind. Did the GAs (or their delegates) feel similar at the time when they were tasked with choosing a picture? I don’t know,…and yes, I know this is speculation–but I can see a honest possibility that the “hokey” idea I alluded to may have crossed their mind. It is a difficult task to choose a presentation–a customer facing narrative, that meets everyone’s needs, and at the same time, portrays the Church in the best possible light.
Regarding the translation process. As has been pointed out, there were many methods used by JS. The Church chose to represent the least prejudicial style, in order not to lose the forest in the trees. The Church’s message is that the BofM was translated by JS via divine means. They don’t want to be bogged down in the specifics. Conversely, the anti-mormon faction almost always portrays the translation process using the head-in-the-hat method, including in artwork. They chose this because it is the most prejudicial style, in order to lose the forest in the trees. Each group has its agenda and has focused on what promotes their agenda best. The Church is going to reopen the Church History Museum this fall. That is a venue more geared toward this discussion. The museum is about history, the VC is about spirituality. From Deseret News article last September about the renovation:
Quote:One section of the exhibit will be about the translation methods of the Book of Mormon
Roy wrote:OTOH, pain is real and bad things happen to good people. How do we reconcile the two? Some believe that God has a plan and purpose for us to pass through this mortal realm and that this plan was largely revealed by JS. The picture can be seen as a symbol of their belief that God has not abandoned His children. I agree that the particulars get messy – but my hope is that if we pull back far enough we will see how similarly good-willed most people are.
I agree.
It seems if you pull back far enough to where it can look good…then I can fill in the gaps with my faith as I want it to be so it makes sense and overshadows the bad with my version of the story I hope it to be. That is one way to make it work.
I feel happier when trying to make it work and have a hopeful outlook, despite bumps in the road.
There have been times in my life the bumps get so great…it starts to become hard to not start asking if I’m fooling myself…and more realistically…I should realize there will always be bumps at a day to day level, no matter what the view is at the 30,000 foot level. So what matters? What should I strive to keep doing?
And then it just seems like I’m happiest when I’m striving…so that is my answer. Have faith. But keep refining it to match my daily experience, and not be blind to the realities of life. It is a balance of hope and reality.
Old-Timer wrote:I am quite certain the people who picked that picture thought it was an accurate representation of what happened at some point, even if they knew about the other methods
Rob4Hope wrote:It is a difficult task to choose a presentation–a customer facing narrative, that meets everyone’s needs, and at the same time, portrays the Church in the best possible light.
I also agree with these statements. And I think they cannot remove themselves from consequences of the choices they make. Simply…it may work as a story for some time, and may need to be changed as needs of people change. I don’t think that is dishonest. I think critics are dishonest with themselves if they think one version of a story must remain word for word unchanged forever in order for it to be true.
Then again, that is just me. I’m not looking for a history lesson. I’m looking for truth to enrich my experience.
Opposition in all things. Which is different than saying opposition to every good thing. Opposition
inall things. I commented in the other thread, I think the contradictions facilitate our agency. Contradictions give us choices, choices allow us to reflect on the positions we take. Contradictions allows us to defend our position, we become autonomous, part owners in our interpretation. Contradictions create necessary room to grow, we learn and adapt to hold new positions.
If there weren’t contradictions learning would be an all or nothing affair. You would understand the one truth or you would be blind to it. Contradictions allow us to go from grace to grace. Uncertainty keeps us engaged.
Certain kinds of contradictions would equal true or false, IMO. 2+2=5 is a contradiction to mathmatical laws. Not all contradiction is OK with me.
But some gospel truths are the same, regardless of some contradictions on opinions to get there or applying the gospel truth.
A picture of JS translating plates and knowing from other accounts he used a hat and stone is not a contradiction in the revelatory process, just like the Brother of Jared built a ship closed up to go under waves and Nephi build a ship to ride on top of waves are not conflicts in crossing the ocean, regardless of which picture the church decides to have painted to show primary kids.
The contrary details are not the problem. More problematic is how responsibly the contrary views are taught openly, although I understand the simple and clear message is more popular and widely used.
If the scriptures are to speak to us individually then it may be inevitable they have contradictions. As with he example of Grace and works people may identify with one more than the other. It may be impossible to have one exact consistent message if you are trying to get all of humanity moving in one direction. It may be best to embrace those things that appeal to us and acknowledge others may embrace other things.
Cadence wrote:If the scriptures are to speak to us individually then it may be inevitable they have contradictions. As with he example of Grace and works people may identify with one more than the other. It may be impossible to have one exact consistent message if you are trying to get all of humanity moving in one direction.
It may be best to embrace those things that appeal to us and acknowledge others may embrace other things.
Well said.
:thumbup: Amen, Cadence. I love differing voices and views specifically because I value finding what works for me while allowing others to find different things that work for them.
Another one on this site popped up…. https://www.lds.org/ensign/2003/02/divine-love?lang=eng God’s love is conditional. I see this as a contradiction. I don’t know what “love” is according to RMN, nor do I know how God, who is defined by John as Love incarnate, is conditional in that love.
I can understand that blessings are conditional…but love? OK…something is strange on this one….
Semantics. Plain and simple. When you read the whole thing, I think it is obvious that he was talking about the blessings being conditional, but he said it in a way that was easy to misinterpret his meaning. I think he phrased and framed it badly as an address to a very diverse audience, but we all do that at times – even here, when we have to clarify what we meant when it doesn’t get read the way we meant it.
I think those who have ridiculed that talk the most vehemently are making him an offender for a word in the classic sense in which that phrase was intended.
It doesn’t help that the little excerpt of the article next to Elder Nelson’s picture says: Quote:While divine love can be called perfect, infinite, enduring, and universal, it cannot correctly be characterized as unconditional.
He didn’t necessarily do that, it was likely an editor. Nevertheless, I always look at those excerpts and they inevitably influence my thinking as being the one statement that summarizes the talk – whether or not that is their intention.
Yeah, that is a good example of why I don’t like sound-bite summaries. They rarely are accurate. Yup, a good example of a contradiction. This seems to be a variation of the grace vs. works theme. DarkJedi wrote:While divine love can be called perfect, infinite, enduring, and universal, it cannot correctly be characterized as unconditional.
Funny thing is all those words used to describe love can be seen as synonyms for unconditional. What does it mean for love to be perfect? to be infinite without bottom? to be enduring without end? to be universal with no respecter of persons?
I suppose if I try to pull this back to the base principles I would say that love that is only reciprocal of what it can get in return is a poor sort of love. Humans are capable of loving someone even if we do not like their actions – this is one of the things that raises us above a machine just doing a cost benefit analysis of relationships. I would hope that God who has perfected love and loves all his children would love me despite my failings. To say otherwise would put me in constant danger of having God’s love withdrawn.
On the other hand I believe there is wisdom in giving different people different levels of privileges and responsibilities based upon their ability to handle it. A father can love his son in incarceration even while believing that the punishment was just or that the public needs to be protected from the son. Again, I hope that in heaven God has better methods for coaxing us to become our ultimate selves and preventing some children from harming others than a prison system (so called system of Justice).
In this life babies die in horrible ways. I therefore conclude that in this life our relative privileges, “blessings,” and circumstances are not tied to either God’s love for us or our personal merit. Perhaps things change in the next life. We can hope so. Does God’s love and mercy reign in heaven or does absolute justice prevail? Is there a compromise between the two? I trust that God is in charge up there and will use his perfect wisdom to determine how much mercy or Justice is most helpful.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.