[MisterCurie]

Orson wrote:

I just got Royal Skousen’s BoM “The Earliest Text”, and the picture that his introduction paints is much closer to what David Whitmer and other witnesses describe. To them Joseph seemed to be reading written text.

While I like the thought of JS finding words to describe the impressions he got from the seer stone, and I think that it would explain a lot of things, but you are absolutely right, the quotes from those who saw JS translate say that he was reading it off of the stone. And it sounds like the original text supports that. Could be very interesting to see that. I’d be interested in hearing highlights from you, Orson, on what you find most interesting.

Based on Book of Abraham, I question whether the gold plates were actually needed for the translation, and whether a modern translation by academics would yield anything resembling the Book of Mormon (not that what we have wasn’t inspired . . .). But it also seems that the translation process was quite different between the book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon, with the Book of Mormon text appearing on the seer stone and the Book of Abraham being the result of much study of the text.

[MisterCurie]

I also understand it to be the other way around, the peepstone was primarily used for the translation.

I don’t have a specific concern with the use of a peepstone for the translation, God could even have used the peepstone as a crutch to build the faith of JS to be able to do the translation (and I favor the idea of images/ideas appearing in JS mind that he had to find words to match). I don’t think the peepstone, in particular, is any more difficult to believe than JS physically looking at the plates and being inspired on how to translate them (as LDS gospel art depicts). Both explanations require a leap of faith. My difficulty is that the church largely seems to foster one view of the translation (through Gospel art, implication by word choice, etc.) and largely seems to ignore the peepstone version which is well documented. Its not as if angelic visions/God appearing/etc are easy concepts for people to believe anyways, so why not just tell the story as it really seems to have happened, rather than giving a similarly miraculous, but “scrubbed” version? I had accepted one version of the translation account, but to find out that the factually correct account is not the version largely taught by the church, makes me distrust the church’s version and the factually correct version.

Of course, documented translation errors for the Book of Abraham don’t solidify my faith in JS translation abilibities. Even if you subscribe to the Book of Abraham translation was only a spiritucal catalyst for JS and the scroll didn’t actually contain the Book of Abraham, JS clearly thought he was translating the book of abraham, he referred to images within the scroll and misinterpreted those images, incorrectly “restoring/making up” lost parts of those images, etc. Since JS didn’t even seem to look at the gold plates for the translation process, I don’t think the presence of the gold plates would support his translation, in fact it would probably turn out to be a very similar story for the book of abraham.

[MisterCurie]

Roma,

Consider checking out Faces East (@ http://www.faceseast.org), which is a forum for believing spouses of disaffected members. You may find additional support there that will help you.

[MisterCurie]

timpanogos wrote:

Quote:

This is the softer/gentler definition we are used to hearing. In some ways it’s almost a contradiction of the industrial strength version I’ve referenced previously.

Maybe be need a new thread titled WTFlip is hope?

I’m struggling with the softest definitions of faith right now. Faith as a principle of power was something I used to ponder and grapple with, but now I’m just trying to hold on to the smallest bit of any faith I can muster.

[MisterCurie]

Thanks for bringing this thread back up. I’ve been thinking alot about faith recently as I’ve been struggling with church history. This scripture exactly has been sticking in my mind:

HiJolly wrote:

Alma 32:21 And now as I said concerning faith—faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true.

Mormonism seems to place a strong emphasis on something being true in order to be faith. Is the current “white-washing” of church history actually keeping people from developing true faith as they are not exposed to the actual facts? What do you think? Do you need to know the actual history of Joseph Smith before you can have faith in him as a Prophet of God (assuming of course he was actually a prophet)? Or is this “true” concept something in Mormon doctrine that people decide to ignore in their buffet approach?

[MisterCurie]

Timpanogas,

I think I understand where you are coming from on a lot of this stuff, especially pertaining to the temple. I also served as an ordinance worker for 2 years in the Provo temple when I was a BYU student. I loved officiating in the ordinances of the Holy Temple and found a great deal of meaning in the ordinances. I often felt that Sunday services paled in comparison to the truths of the temple and that the LDS church was essentially meaningless without the temple. Sacrament meeting was essential for the ordinance of the sacrament, but I often felt the other meetings were nearly useless as we discussed the same things over and over again with the same repetition of answers. I recognized that the meetings could be useful for fellowship of the saints, but I did not find my support with the saints, rather my support came from deep doctrinal understanding.

[MisterCurie]

Heber13 wrote:

1. Why was John doing baptisms in a pre-Christian era (before Christ established His church with His apostles)?

2. Why did John have the keys before and after Christ setup His church?

(MisterCurie…is that ok for me to ask my question along with yours, or is that taking your thoughts in a different direction???)

I am happy to have your questions along mine, could be a fascinating bit of research.

HiJolly wrote:

I feel like my first post is not being read, or that I accidentally wrote it in Russian, or something. Schto?

Do you speak Russian? I served a Russian-speaking mission and then majored in Russian at BYU.

[MisterCurie]

I will ask one of my Jewish friends at work this next week about how Jews understand John the Baptist and baptism in general. I am just not aware of baptism as a Jewish ordinance.

[MisterCurie]

Welcome, Green Apples. I love the city of Seattle.

greenapples wrote:

I still feel that I have somewhat of a testimony but not a totally 100% true believing Mormon that feels that everything every prophet has ever said is true gospel scripture…

I think it is very healthy to be hesitant to believe everything every prophet has ever said is true gospel scripture, even if it is not the official church view. This is a decision I came to long before MadamCurie and I met. There was simply no other way to reconcile such things as evolution, etc. I actually took a very interesting class at BYU, reconcilling evolution with an LDS worldview. The only way I could do it was by “twisting” the prophets words to mean something very different than they intended, sometimes dismissing the views of certain prophets. But for me, fact was more important than revealed “truth” and I soon realized that the prophets are not the ultimate source of fact, of course neither is current scientific understanding, but that is okay. If you blindly accept what the prophets say, you are going to be changing your mind quite frequently, as it seems the church is regularly adjusting its standing on issues (birth control is a great example), and many of the prophets have given contradictory statements. I find it mutually exclusive to believe God is unchanging and that the Prophets always speak from God, but perhaps God is not as inflexible as some may believe, and the Prophets do not always speak from God.

[MisterCurie]

mormonheretic wrote:

However, while she is living, she can only be sealed to one man at a time, so she have the sealing canceled to be sealed to another.

It is definately true that you seal a woman to all the men she was married to when you are doing work for the dead, assuming God will work things out. I had never thought about or heard about someone going to seal two spouses together who were married only for time due to it being the woman’s second wedding. I guess I can see it from a “cover your butt” perspective of the church when there is a civil divorce, it would be all too easy for someone to have a temple marriage, get a civil divorce, and have another temple marriage and believe the sealing power was stronger than the civil divorce, and effectively practice polygamy while also officially following the law of the land. But on that note, can a man get sealed to a new person in the life without a canceled sealing if his first temple marriage ended in divorce and his first wife is still alive? If so, that goes against my “cover your butt” theory as men could actually do what I suggested, but it discriminates against women.

However, in the case of when the marriage ended due to death of a spouse, if the new couple is just going to get sealed after they die, they might as well be able to get sealed to each other in this life, imo. Particularly since many such couples are married in the temple, but just not sealed. It doesn’t make much sense to me.

As far as my wife’s take on my remarriage if she dies young, I am allowed to get remarried as long as it is solely for providing DS a mother and does not involve a physical relationship. She must also be hideously ugly. I’m sure we must also only be married for time only, no sealing, even if its allowed for me by the church to get sealed. But she would be much happier if I could work to raise DS by myself.

[MisterCurie]

I think MadamCurie and myself were trying to get at why Jesus went to John the Baptist to be baptized and what significance baptism had for Jews back in the day (again, question of original intent). I had never thought about it before, but baptism isn’t really a Jewish ordinance, rather it is a Christian one.

[MisterCurie]

Tom Haws wrote:

Faith development in adulthood could be as simple as moves like restricting High Priest ordination to some advanced age (35 or 40 approx. post mid-life crisis), adding a “senior” Relief Society restricted likewise, extending the youth Sunday School groups in two or three year steps to age 30, restricting Gospel Doctrine attendance to the age of 30 or older, or splitting Gospel Doctrine into “adult” and “senior” (35 or 40+) sections. In general, small moves that could provide and tacitly, structurally, and institutionally in some way acknowledge the reality of “advancement” after true adulthood (post-college, post honeymoon, post-mission, age 25 or 30) and mid-life (age 40) would help a lot, I think. Creativity is of course needed, but something in the church is needed to point to the faith difference between a 45-year-old and a 20-year-old that are now in all the same classes. There is a time (sacrament meeting) for mixing, and a time for matching.

Clearly the current church curriculum is not suited for extending faith development into adulthood, when the manuals are strictly correlated and essentially no new concepts are introduced after the teenage years and discussion is strictly limited to “approved” topics. I don’t think that breaking things up by age is going to really encourage faith development if all of the classes use the same restricting manuals.

Anyone know the history of when the church began so thoroughly correlating the manuals and presenting a “scrubbed” view of history?

[MisterCurie]

Sounds great! I know essentially nothing about the theories, but I look forward to learning a lot.

[MisterCurie]

MWallace57 wrote:

Just be sure to love and validate your wife emotionally as she is going through this. This is such a positive way to strenghten your own marriage and the Church

I appreciate the concern for my wife’s concerns. I try very hard to validate her emotions and concerns and let her know that my love for her is stronger than any concern she may have. I hope that it is highly validating to her that I am embarking on a serious study of the things that have concerned her. I know there have been times in the past months as she has been struggling that she felt invalidated when I would quote her the “official” church response to her concerns or give her bad apologetics. I will try not to do that in the future, now that my eyes are being opened 😯 . Thanks for the reminder!

[MisterCurie]

Heber13 wrote:

The best advice I got was from Tom Haws, who told me to go slow. Don’t make 180-degree turnarounds…realize these things take time and there is no rush to decide truth about things today. Continue to go to church, read scriptures, read other sources, pray, do whatever makes you feel good because you want to, not because you should or your scared to do something or not do something. Pace yourself for the marathon.

Excellent advice. I have been running a bit faster than I have strength this past week, since learning of MadamCurie’s decision, when it comes to trying to investigate things. She is helping me to slow down a little. There is a lot out there to consider. I certainly don’t want to jump out of my religion as quickly as some converts jump into it.

Heber13 wrote:

There are a lot of opinions on these blogs, but sharing our ideas is a good outlet, but other deep study in resources off-line are critical to formulating and challenging your opinions. Have you ever read, David O McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism? I was recommended that by Hawkgrrrl and I really, really, really liked that book. You may want to check it out.

My wife has ordered this book, so I’m sure that we will be reading it and discussing it together. I decided to start by reading “Rough Stone Rolling.” We have also gotten several books by D. Michael Quinn that look very interesting.

Tom Haws wrote:

And of course we are very happy to walk all around an issue rubbing our chins and giving our opinions rather than pronouncing a binding ruling.

LOL. 😆 I look forward to it!

[Author]

Posts