If the Prophet Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon

[_Jersey Girl]

maklelan,

I take strong exception to your comments above. Please highlight any comment I've made in this series of posts that indicates "ridicule" on my part. If you're going to accuse me of something, I challenge you to demonstrate that. If you were to read the thread I posted explaining the reason for the series of "If" questions I have raised you would understand why I did so.

In answer to your comments about using other pictures to depict the translation of the Gold Plates, if the official website of the church used imagery that accurately portrayed the translation, I wouldn't be asking the question to start with.

Feel free to ask me any question regarding what I think of various aspects of the LDS Church and it's theology/doctrines however, I will ask you one time to refrain from characterizing my posts as "ridicule" where it doesn't exist.

Jersey Girl

I apologize. You're correct. You didn't ridicule anything, but your machine gun threads seem to be heading in that direction. If that's not your intention then I apologize. I still feel this question is based on a fallacy, though, because no matter how they depict it, in your mind it's going to be false. The fact that there are a few different translating methods attested to in the record, and you want the church to depict only the odd one makes me wonder why; and the only reason I can fathom is because you want the church to be embarrassed, or to have to account for some kind of perceived deception that was perpetrated in an attempt to avoid embarrassment. If this isn't the case then I would love to know why this thread is relevant to anything.

maklelan,

If you scan down the front page of the Forum Index you will see that I explained my reasons for the threads I created. Typically, you will not see me make disparaging remarks about your church. You will, hopefully, see me ask probing questions in order to (we hope) provoke thought and examination of various issues. If you ever see me posting stridently and somewhat passionately against your church it is likely a reaction to the hardship of someone I know whose hardship is compounded by membership in the church. The only other times you'd see me become aggressive would likely be in defense of myself against what I feel is a mischaracterization of myself or my intentions. Then, you could pretty much expect me to take it to the mat.

Would you rather me pump out a series of machine gun threads about FAIR/MAD or actual topics? I'm getting that "damned if I do, damned if I don't" kinda feeling from the other side of this screen.

Jersey Girl

[_maklelan]

maklelan,

If you scan down the front page of the Forum Index you will see that I explained my reasons for the threads I created. Typically, you will not see me make disparaging remarks about your church. You will, hopefully, see me ask probing questions in order to (we hope) provoke thought and examination of various issues. If you ever see me posting stridently and somewhat passionately against your church it is likely a reaction to the hardship of someone I know whose hardship is compounded by membership in the church. The only other times you'd see me become aggressive would likely be in defense of myself against what I feel is a mischaracterization of myself or my intentions. Then, you could pretty much expect me to take it to the mat.

Would you rather me pump out a series of machine gun threads about FAIR/MAD or actual topics? I'm getting that "damned if I do, damned if I don't" kinda feeling from the other side of this screen.

Jersey Girl

These aren't the kinds of questions that one comes up with when trying to stimulate conversation, though. This kind of thing is brought up to say, "You're doing something wrong!" But if it's honest then I'll answer it honestly:

The artists can do what they want, and depicting someone trying to crawl into a hat is aesthetically weak. Not only that, the painting will provoke more confusion from non-members than a simple painting probably should. In addition, people who don't know the story will immediately be struck by the oddness of it, and that will create a less conducive atmosphere for learning. Most will automatically shreak deception, but I was not deceived when I got baptized, and, as a professional artist, I understand it perfectly. In addition, there are a few different methods documented, so why would we pick the most unusual one for our paintings? I believe that should lay the thread to rest, but if you have any more concerns, feel free to ask.

[_harmony]

The artists can do what they want... [snip]

Not if they want the LDS church to buy their art. The LDS church has guidelines of what they will accept and what they won't. If it doesn't fit the criteria of "faith promoting", no matter how historically accurate it is, it's not going to be paid for and it's not going to be displayed in the Conference Center. Not all art is "faith promoting", as Ronan no doubt knows.

[_maklelan]

The artists can do what they want... [snip]

Not if they want the LDS church to buy their art. The LDS church has guidelines of what they will accept and what they won't. If it doesn't fit the criteria of "faith promoting", no matter how historically accurate it is, it's not going to be paid for and it's not going to be displayed in the Conference Center. Not all art is "faith promoting", as Ronan no doubt knows.

By all means, please share where you get this information, because many "official" pieces are wholly incorrect (as I earlier pointed out).

[_moksha]

Moksha, how do you know the Urim and Thummin were goggles?

I don't really. In the Bible, I believe they were just stones. Probably with a Hebrew character for yes on one side and a character for no on the other side. However at Church, they are spoken of as goggles or spectacles. Perhaps they were translated to use in the translation.

[_harmony]

The artists can do what they want... [snip]

Not if they want the LDS church to buy their art. The LDS church has guidelines of what they will accept and what they won't. If it doesn't fit the criteria of "faith promoting", no matter how historically accurate it is, it's not going to be paid for and it's not going to be displayed in the Conference Center. Not all art is "faith promoting", as Ronan no doubt knows.

By all means, please share where you get this information, because many "official" pieces are wholly incorrect (as I earlier pointed out).

They are not official, unless you're saying the church deliberately is deceiving people?

[_Mister Scratch]

The reason why Joseph Smith's seer stone tends not to be mentioned---especially to investigators---is the simple fact that it negatively affects his credibility. The seer stone ties him to his past, and his involvement with moneydigging, and also to his entanglements with the law.

[_Jersey Girl]

maklelan: These aren't the kinds of questions that one comes up with when trying to stimulate conversation, though.

Jersey Girl: The views totals and your responses would suggest otherwise.

[_maklelan]

And what of value has come of this particular topic? Is activity the sign of value? The Godmakers gets a lot of traffic still today, but that doesn't mean it's worth anything.

P.S. I'm not comparing you to the Godmakers, I'm just saying that attention does not equate to value.

[_Jersey Girl]

And what of value has come of this particular topic? Is activity the sign of value? The Godmakers gets a lot of traffic still today, but that doesn't mean it's worth anything.

P.S. I'm not comparing you to the Godmakers, I'm just saying that attention does not equate to value.

maklelan,

Did you by any chance read the post I suggested to you that explains the reasons for these "If" questions? My purpose and it's intended value is stated quite clearly there. You are under no obligation to participate in any of these threads. And please do not by any means of inferrence compare these threads to the Godmakers.

Jersey Girl