- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
On the drive home from church yesterday I asked the kids what they’d been taught at church. My daughter (nearly 10) said “We learned about the Gold Plates. They told us that people tried to steal the plates and Emma hid them up her dress.”
Me: “They really told you that?”
DD: “I think so, they also hid it under floorboards and in a barrel so people couldn’t steal them.”
Me: (with slight hesitation) “Well… I don’t think she hid them up her dress, but Joseph did say he hid them. A lot of people were very interested when Joseph said he had plates. But most people never saw them except for a few close family and friends. He said he hid them away, even when translating the plates. Instead he put a seer stone in a hat and put his face in the hat and spoke the words of the Book of Mormon.”
DD: with a bit of a quizzical look on her face and a wrinkled nose, “Really?”
Me: “It’s kind of like when you want to do your homework in your room with no distractions. He blocked out everything else in the room and put his face in the hat. It wasn’t like when a professional translator has a foreign language book and does a perfect word-for-word translation. This was more of an inspired dictation of the words that Joseph felt were right. But probably not a literal translation of the characters.”
DD: “Oh…” (long pause)… “what’s for dinner?”
I’m now wondering whether that was the right thing to do. I don’t want my kids to get to their 20s and feel the same way about me as I do about the church. Deceived. I don’t think my parents really knew the whole history, so I can’t really hold a grudge. But I do know. If I say nothing I’d feel irresponsible.
My concern though is that there are aspects to the story that would seem fantastical on first hearing but because I’ve been taught since childhood they seem normal. “A native american appeared to a teenager 1400 years after he had died, looking like a Scandinavian and told him where some Gold Plates were, which he translated into a new book of scripture?” …Yep, that’s normal isn’t it? Am I at risk of normalising the ridiculous?
I’m also a little concerned about the phone-call I’m bound to have at some point in the next few years of a teacher/leader complaining about my kids teaching ‘false doctrine’ about heads in hats and suchlike.
Any other advice on teaching your kids the real version of the history?
I love this. We had a FHE about the translation. We talked about seer stones, divining rods, and joseph putting the stone in a hat. We even made a homemade dowsing rod out of a metal clothes hanger. It worked too…. it drove tthe point accross that we don’t learn everything at church, not enough time and some things from Joseph’s culture doesn’t fit ours but that doesn’t make it wrong or untrue DBMormon wrote:I love this. We had a FHE about the translation. We talked about seer stones, divining rods, and joseph putting the stone in a hat.
We even made a homemade dowsing rod out of a metal clothes hanger. It worked too…. it drove tthe point accross that we don’t learn everything at church, not enough time and some things from Joseph’s culture doesn’t fit ours but that doesn’t make it wrong or untrue The divining rod worked?
Glad to know it’s working in other homes
mackay11 wrote:DBMormon wrote:I love this. We had a FHE about the translation. We talked about seer stones, divining rods, and joseph putting the stone in a hat.
We even made a homemade dowsing rod out of a metal clothes hanger. It worked too…. it drove tthe point accross that we don’t learn everything at church, not enough time and some things from Joseph’s culture doesn’t fit ours but that doesn’t make it wrong or untrue The divining rod worked?
Glad to know it’s working in other homes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W95J85E7DNU I love the conversation. Quote:I’m also a little concerned about the phone-call I’m bound to have at some point in the next few years of a teacher/leader complaining about my kids teaching ‘false doctrine’ about heads in hats and suchlike.
I’m sure there will be a ripple effect, but these facts are easily verifiable from authentic primary source documents (like the Joseph Smith Papers). I hope the “Revelations in Context” site is a prelude to what will be available through LDS.org for us to truly understand how our history developed.
Maybe you’re going to get followup questions from DD like “Why don’t my teachers know about this?” “Why did they teach me that Joseph looked directly at the plates and used a Urim and Thummim, like in the paintings?” This might be a tough one to answer…
To the divining rods question — my dad was a journeyman plumber. He had a pair of metal rods about 36 inches long and maybe 3/16 inch diameter, bent at a right angle about 3/4 of the way down the length. When we were looking for the path a water line took from the meter into the house, he would take those rods and hold one in each hand. He’d put the angle in the crook of his thumbs with the short side pointing down and the long side facing out from him. He’d walk across the front yard, and sure enough the rods would start to bob and weave, and then slant in towards one another and completely cross one another. He’d stop and mark the grass with a bit of paint from a spray can. He’d do that several times across the lawn. We would then dig up the water line along that line to find the leak. Invariably, without fail, every single time, the marks he’d put on the grass was the exact path of the water line. I have no idea how or why this works. But it does. I’ve seen it work dozens and dozens of times. I’ve done it myself. It freakin’ works, man. :crazy: turinturambar wrote:Quote:I’m also a little concerned about the phone-call I’m bound to have at some point in the next few years of a teacher/leader complaining about my kids teaching ‘false doctrine’ about heads in hats and suchlike.
I’m sure there will be a ripple effect, but these facts are easily verifiable from authentic primary source documents (like the Joseph Smith Papers). I hope the “Revelations in Context” site is a prelude to what will be available through LDS.org for us to truly understand how our history developed.
Maybe you’re going to get followup questions from DD like “Why don’t my teachers know about this?” “Why did they teach me that Joseph looked directly at the plates and used a Urim and Thummim, like in the paintings?” This might be a tough one to answer…
It will. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. I don’t think the leaders and teachers are actively trying to deceive and manipulate. I would probably say ‘perhaps because leaders at some point felt that it would be better to give a simplified version of the church origins because they thought it would help us focus more on living the experience of being in the church today.”
I think the church can only move as fast as its slowest traveler. I think the history is simplified and “adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints.” I think some of the practices and programs are too. I’m aware that I travel slowly on some aspects and not on others. I suppose the church has slow travelers on every principle.
I had a lengthy discussion with a church historian over polygamy years ago. He did a great job setting the stage not only on Joseph’s practice/participation but also the public’s reactions, projections, witch hunting etc on it. The bad press and pressure followed this strange band of people all way outside of the United States of America. Utah was not a state. This group was fleeing for it’s life. Joseph and Hyrum were not the only deaths and casualties. The entire episode is very complicated. Key people stayed behind – 1st hand witnesses who could shape stories re established their lives a million miles behind (Emma and Lucy are prime examples). As I listened to his insights about the time period it occurred to me, that a fresh start may have been the impetus for the simpler version of events. It’s like salad. Sometimes a complicated, taste filled, salad with lettuce, cabbage, beans, beets, bacon bits, eggs, etc is perfect. Other times a few sliced greens works. I believe the few sliced greens were chosen.
In life we all do it. We don’t re hash every detail but we pick pieces to promote our senses.
Now the question exists when should the cat been let out of the bag, around the time of Fawn Brodie? Eugene England? I don’t know. All I do know is that there is some maturity and I will give it time. When I grew up – Emma was a name not mentioned. It was as if Joseph was nearly single. At times the mere mention of her name brought scorn – She was the problem, etc. Then a tide began to turn. Who started it I don’t know. Now Emma has statues, and stands hand in hand with Joseph. Suddenly she’s viable. The next generation will probably have all of his wives memorized. Enough of us know them. That tide will come forward.
Great job and discussion with your daughter Dad. In our home our older girls (college age) are the bastions of uncorrelated knowledge in their ward. As parents we are pleased, not because we want to cause problems, but we see them being apart of the army moving forth.
D&C 27 would also need an explanation. Why does it claim to be 1830, when only the first half and last verse are such. The second half (with reference to priesthood ordination from Angels) was added in 1835, but not mentioned as such. Why is the church so dishonest? How can I trust anything else it teaches me?
Today I think I can see no conclusion but exit. Sorry.
mackay11 wrote:D&C 27 would also need an explanation. Why does it claim to be 1830, when only the first half and last verse are such. The second half (with reference to priesthood ordination from Angels) was added in 1835, but not mentioned as such.
Okay, I’ll take a stab at this. What if we lived in 1835 when the new version was published, there is a good chance we also had access to some form of the earlier version – either by reading some leader’s copy of the 1833 BoC or an earlier published copy of the revelation. At that point would we be as alarmed at the additions? We know at that time there were new revelations and information/details coming out regularly, continuous change and growth of information was the norm. It was a common thing for Joseph to sit down and alter and clarify or expand prior revelations, I can’t imagine at that time we would be too surprised at the changes.
Another line of thought is Joseph seemed to be reluctant to talk about his visionary experiences, at least some of them. There was no record of the first vision until 1832, all of his closest friends and family members seem to conflate Moroni’s first visit with the first vision. In this vein his failure to record the priesthood restoration is simply characteristic of his personality. I realize the critics take this as evidence that he made things up as he went along, I think we can as easily see that he grew in his framing of his own experiences as time progressed.
Personally I think the best evidence for the Peter, James and John visit points to early July 1830. Most members will think this is unacceptable because of “authority” being needed to enact the organization. I respond to that with “who are you to direct the hand of God?” However it worked is the way it is. We can’t fully understand the mind and will of God as mortals, why do we think we can nail down the way things needed to work? In my opinion this is the whole problem with expectations around prophets, revelation, authority, only true and living, etc. and it largely points to our tendency to pride. To me God can just as effectively work through Joseph’s imagination as He can through tangible physical events as far as our personal learning and capacity for “becoming” are concerned. To me it’s just not about the physical reality of some line of authority — that may or may not be the case, I can’t determine the actual reality of it any more than I can prove Adam was a historical man. The spiritual reality is what is meaningful to me, and that has nothing to do with physical history.
mackay11 wrote:Why is the church so dishonest? How can I trust anything else it teaches me?
I guess that depends entirely on how you choose to define “dishonest.” Let’s first remember that “the church” is an organizational framework, only
peoplecan speak and teach. What if I teach my children something that I honestly believe, but in reality is inaccurate? Am I being dishonest to them? Should they always trust my words simply because I am their father? The problem is the assumption of authority behind everything that comes through “official” church channels. We do need to take responsibility for our own learning and conclusions.
The grand and divine irony of all this is the church works to further our progression even as, and
becauseit also serves as a stumbling block. The trouble is if one does one of two things 1.) assumes it is dishonesty on the part of the church that is the motive for this change
or
2.) In other situations, thinks Lying is always absolutely wrong. It isn’t though the instances it is justified are few and far between and include protecting the innocent life (mortal or eternal) of another.
If you do not believe #2, I can give you an example….. just ask
Thanks all, my D&C 27 comment was intended for DB’s thread on what needs to be addressed. Not sure how I accidentally put it on this one. But thanks for the comments.
I wish this wasn’t such a roller coaster of emotions. I’m just sick of the uncertainty.
The whole issue of the impact on the kids is really playing on my mind. I’m supposed to baptise my son later this year. I’m not sure I want to.
Sorry for just moping. Orson, I’m going to reply to your BoM question later today. mackay11 wrote:
I’m supposed to baptize my son later this year. I’m not sure I want to.I was in that exact position several years ago, extremely frustrated and emotional about all things church, feeling cornered and pressured, thinking there was no way I would be able to baptize my child in a few months while being honest about it.
Today I am extremely glad I didn’t do anything too rash, the wrong action at that time could have left a scar on our lives that would have only exacerbated the situation and made continued activity more difficult. I did perform the baptism. I figured if there was a loving God that understood all – there is no way he would condemn me for this action and that I wanted to show love and support to my family.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.