LDS.org Book of Mormon Translation

[Anonymous]

Harmony wrote:

This year has been the first year I have heard of the “head in hat” method of translation or the multiple accounts of the first vision, along with other things, and I am a lifelong church member. I am glad this information is being provided on the church’s website, but it does seem to be sort of slipped in there, and I think I would appreciate it more if it was being mentioned in church or brought to members’ attention. I know these things had never been brought up in church before. It should make things easier for the next generation in that it has at least been published on church websites. They hopefully won’t be caught off guard like I was.

I’m trying not to be cynical, but I do think the reason it’s not highly publicized is because of the stance of some in church leadership that the information was always there and we just didn’t look for it. It was there, but at least some of it was locked away in a vault and couldn’t be accessed and some was only to be found in anti materials – and who wants to read that when you can’t tell what is true and what isn’t?

That said, I applaud the church for being more open. There wasn’t really anything new in this particular article for me, but I have found new-to-me stuff in some of the others.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

I know these things had never been brought up in church before.

I understand completely that many people have not heard about these things, but I learned about them in Seminary. They also have been the subject of multiple Ensign articles over the years.

SO much of the issue in this sort of thing isn’t necessarily a global church leadership issue as much as it is a local church leadership issue. SO many people know about all of this at a fairly young age; SO many don’t. Unfortunately, there isn’t much the top leadership can do to change that, since they obviously can’t have a General Conference talk about every possible topic every year. About all they can do is put the information out there to the membership and pray its used – like it was by my Seminary teacher.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Quote:

I know these things had never been brought up in church before.

I understand completely that many people have not heard about these things, but I learned about them in Seminary. They also have been the subject of multiple Ensign articles over the years.

SO much of the issue in this sort of thing isn’t necessarily a global church leadership issue as much as it is a local church leadership issue. SO many people know about all of this at a fairly young age; SO many don’t. Unfortunately, there isn’t much the top leadership can do to change that, since they obviously can’t have a General Conference talk about every possible topic every year. About all they can do is put the information out there to the membership and pray its used – like it was by my Seminary teacher.

I’d have to disagree with you Ray. You can’t blame local leaders for the fact that most people don’t know about things like ‘head in a hat with a rock in the bottom’ translation method. Many of the local leaders don’t know this themselves so how can they be responsible for it not being taught.

Taking the translation topic as an example, it is the “top leadership” not the “local leadership” who:

– Commission and approve art that is inaccurate

– Influence and approve the content and resources of the lesson manuals

If the church want this information to be known it needs to be in the resources that are regularly accessed by the church membership, especially the lesson manuals.

The content of this lesson, for example, is factually incorrect, and yet it’s probably the details most people would recite if asked to tell the story of the translation:

http://www.lds.org/manual/church-history-in-the-fulness-of-times-student-manual/chapter-five-coming-forth-of-the-book-of-mormon-and-restoration-of-the-priesthood?lang=eng

[Anonymous]

I am all for the church putting at any info that least makes an attempt at a accuracy. My issue is more along the lines of the conclusions drawn. You can put out the facts, but if they still insist they do not matter because the church is true they are being somewhat disingenuous. To me admitting the facts are different than originally indicated necessitates admitting the conclusions may be in error also. When the church admits it is not all it claims to be that will be progress.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Anonymous]

I agree Cadence. A great example of this is the common First Vision account. Joseph says nothing about them other than they were to personages “whose brightness and glory defy all description” who spoke to him. I see no indication there that verifies the Father and Son had physical bodies, he only says he saw two personages. Yet, people draw the conclusion that this is how we know the God has a physical body. He very well may (and FWIW I believe he does) have a physical body, however this account does not prove that.

[Anonymous]

Cadence wrote:

My issue is more along the lines of the conclusions drawn. You can put out the facts, but if they still insist they do not matter because the church is true they are being somewhat disingenuous.

So, just trying to get this straight now… It’s OK for the Church and it’s people to draw the same conclusions as you, but if they draw different conclusions, they are being disingenuous. Is that your position?

[Anonymous]

Sorry if I break into the discussion but personally think it’s awesome that the church is putting out stuff like this! Who knows – in a couple of decades my opinions/view of the church might be pretty mainstream (heavens forbid! How then will I feel special!)

[Author]

Posts