User:InProgress/Website reviews/T - Revision history

RogerNicholson: redirect

2012-05-01T15:11:34Z

redirect

RogerNicholson: mod

2012-05-01T15:06:47Z

mod

@@ Line 344: / Line 344: @@
 *Why is this "astonishing?" Both the Maxwell Institute (formerly FARMS) and FAIR have posted extensive information about the "stone in the hat," some of which MormonThink just linked to. So, why is it "astonishing" that a faithful LDS scholar should mention this? It is part of the historical record.
 *So to summarize, the Church tries to hide knowledge of the stone and the hat, except when Apostles mention it in public discourses, and believing defenders of the faith mention it on television. It would seem that some of these folks didn't "get the memo."
 }}

GregSmith at 03:46, 30 April 2012

2012-04-30T03:46:01Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:46, 30 April 2012
Line 13:		Line 13:
	==A FAIR analysis of the web site ''MormonThink'' page "Translation of the Book of Mormon"==		==A FAIR analysis of the web site ''MormonThink'' page "Translation of the Book of Mormon"==
	==== ====		==== ====
	{{Website response summary}}		{{Website response summary\|date=27 April 2012}}

	The positions that this MormonThink article appear to take are the following:		The positions that this MormonThink article appear to take are the following:

RogerNicholson: /* FAIR's evaluation of the web site MormonThink page "Translation of the Book of Mormon" */ mod

2012-04-29T17:19:15Z

FAIR's evaluation of the web site MormonThink page "Translation of the Book of Mormon": mod

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:19, 29 April 2012
Line 11:		Line 11:
	}}		}}

	==FAIR~~'s evaluation~~ of the web site ''MormonThink'' page "Translation of the Book of Mormon"==		==A FAIR analysis of the web site ''MormonThink'' page "Translation of the Book of Mormon"==
	==== ====		==== ====
	{{Website response summary}}		{{Website response summary}}

RogerNicholson: mod

2012-04-29T17:18:32Z

mod

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:18, 29 April 2012
Line 5:		Line 5:
	\|author=Anonymous		\|author=Anonymous
	\|noauthor=		\|noauthor=
	\|section=~~Overview~~		\|section=Translation of the Book of Mormon
	\|previous=		\|previous=
	\|next=		\|next=
Line 11:		Line 11:
	}}		}}

	==FAIR's evaluation of the web site ''MormonThink'' page "Translation"==		==FAIR's evaluation of the web site ''MormonThink'' page "Translation of the Book of Mormon"==
	==== ====		==== ====
	{{Website response summary}}		{{Website response summary}}

RogerNicholson: /* */ mod

2012-04-29T17:17:32Z

: mod

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:17, 29 April 2012
Line 15:		Line 15:
	{{Website response summary}}		{{Website response summary}}

	The positions that this MormonThink article ~~appears~~ to take are the following:		The positions that this MormonThink article appear to take are the following:
	*The Church attempts to hide the use of the stone in the hat during the translation of the Book of Mormon by allowing artwork which shows Joseph and Oliver sitting at the same table with the gold plates in full view. The Church may be using these paintings to attempt to promote the idea that Oliver saw the plates prior to being a witness, but continues to teach that Oliver did not see the plates until he became one of the three witnesses.		*The Church attempts to hide the use of the stone in the hat during the translation of the Book of Mormon by allowing artwork which shows Joseph and Oliver sitting at the same table with the gold plates in full view. The Church may be using these paintings to attempt to promote the idea that Oliver saw the plates prior to being a witness, but continues to teach that Oliver did not see the plates until he became one of the three witnesses.
	*In addition, at least two Apostles have mentioned the use of the hat in public discourses which appeared in print, and at least one believing LDS defender of the faith has mentioned it on television. This is apparently astonishing, since if members or investigators knew that Joseph used a stone and a hat instead of two stones in a set of spectacles, and that he didn't need to look directly at the plates instead of viewing a mysterious conversion of reformed Egyptian characters to English words, then they wouldn't want to join the Church. But, the use of the stone isn't that much of a problem, it's really the ''hat'' that is the problem.		*In addition, at least two Apostles have mentioned the use of the hat in public discourses which appeared in print, and at least one believing LDS defender of the faith has mentioned it on television. This is apparently astonishing, since if members or investigators knew that Joseph used a stone and a hat instead of two stones in a set of spectacles, and that he didn't need to look directly at the plates instead of viewing a mysterious conversion of reformed Egyptian characters to English words, then they wouldn't want to join the Church. But, the use of the stone isn't that much of a problem, it's really the ''hat'' that is the problem.

RogerNicholson: mod

2012-04-29T17:17:05Z

mod

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 __NOTOC__
-=A FAIR Analysis of "Translation"=
+{{FAIRAnalysisHeader
 ==== ====
 {{Website response summary}}

RogerNicholson: /* */ mod

2012-04-29T17:13:58Z

: mod

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:13, 29 April 2012
Line 240:		Line 240:
	The short answer of course is that it would make the whole story sound unbelievable. No one would join the church if the missionaries plainly taught that Joseph put his face in a hat with a stone in it and translated the Book of Mormon when the plates were either covered so no one, including Joseph could see them or that the plates were hidden in the woods when he translated them. But that doesn't make it right to deceive innocent truthseekers, does it?		The short answer of course is that it would make the whole story sound unbelievable. No one would join the church if the missionaries plainly taught that Joseph put his face in a hat with a stone in it and translated the Book of Mormon when the plates were either covered so no one, including Joseph could see them or that the plates were hidden in the woods when he translated them. But that doesn't make it right to deceive innocent truthseekers, does it?
	\|think=		\|think=
	*~~The~~ whole story ~~would~~ "sound unbelievable?" You mean that the current story ''does''? It sounds ''so'' much more "believable" to tell investigators a story that Joseph saw God and Jesus Christ, saw an angel, found an ancient relic and plates, and looked at that relic to dictate a document over 500 pages long in approximately 90 days.		*So, the stone and the hat would make the whole story "sound unbelievable?" You mean that the current story ''does'' sound believable? It sounds ''so'' much more "believable" to tell investigators a story that Joseph saw God and Jesus Christ, saw an angel, found an ancient relic and plates, and looked at that relic to dictate a document over 500 pages long in approximately 90 days.
	*Everybody in the early days of the Church knew about the stone and the hat, and ''they'' still joined the Church.		*Everybody in the early days of the Church knew about the stone and the hat, and ''they'' still joined the Church.
	}}		}}

RogerNicholson: /* */ mod

2012-04-29T17:12:18Z

: mod

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:12, 29 April 2012
Line 212:		Line 212:
	* MormonThink seems to have proven that Joseph's ideas on this point are astonishingly self-consistent. Not bad for a total fraud.		* MormonThink seems to have proven that Joseph's ideas on this point are astonishingly self-consistent. Not bad for a total fraud.
	\|quote=		\|quote=
	"LDS defenders" say this because it's what Joseph Smith said about it. Unlike MormonThink, we try to follow all the historical evidence. Orson Pratt, who watched the New Testament revision (JST) and wondered why the use of seer stones/interpreters (as with the Book of Mormon) was not continued reported:		"LDS defenders" say this because it's what Joseph Smith said about it. Unlike MormonThink, we try to follow all the historical evidence instead of simply copying the historical references from anti-Mormon websites without checking the actual sources themselves. Orson Pratt, who watched the New Testament revision (JST) and wondered why the use of seer stones/interpreters (as with the Book of Mormon) was not continued reported:

	:While this thought passed through the speaker's mind, Joseph, as if he read his thoughts, looked up and explained that the Lord gave him the Urim and Thummim when he was inexperienced in the Spirit of inspiration. But now he had advanced so far that he understood the operations of that Spirit and did not need the assistance of that instrument.{{ref\|pratt.1}}		:While this thought passed through the speaker's mind, Joseph, as if he read his thoughts, looked up and explained that the Lord gave him the Urim and Thummim when he was inexperienced in the Spirit of inspiration. But now he had advanced so far that he understood the operations of that Spirit and did not need the assistance of that instrument.{{ref\|pratt.1}}

RogerNicholson: /* */ mod

2012-04-29T17:10:47Z

: mod

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:10, 29 April 2012
Line 166:		Line 166:
	\|claim=Critic's Comment: It is no wonder that the church never talks about this stone in modern times. We're sure it is buried deep inside the church's vault. Can you imagine the embarrassment if this stone was actually shown to the world as the stone Joseph put in a hat and buried his face in the hat to bring forth the Book of Mormon? In 2006 the LDS Church had a special display at their Church Museum of different Joseph Smith artifacts. They even had a mockup of the gold plates. However, they chose not to display any of Joseph Smith's seer stones. Since one of these stones was used to translate all of the published Book of Mormon, one wonders why it wasn't included in the display? Could it be that the current prophet is embarrassed by the very instrument used to produce LDS scripture?		\|claim=Critic's Comment: It is no wonder that the church never talks about this stone in modern times. We're sure it is buried deep inside the church's vault. Can you imagine the embarrassment if this stone was actually shown to the world as the stone Joseph put in a hat and buried his face in the hat to bring forth the Book of Mormon? In 2006 the LDS Church had a special display at their Church Museum of different Joseph Smith artifacts. They even had a mockup of the gold plates. However, they chose not to display any of Joseph Smith's seer stones. Since one of these stones was used to translate all of the published Book of Mormon, one wonders why it wasn't included in the display? Could it be that the current prophet is embarrassed by the very instrument used to produce LDS scripture?
	\|think=		\|think=
	* If "the church never talks about this stone in modern times," then how does MormonThink explain references ~~like~~ these?		* If "the church never talks about this stone in modern times," then how does MormonThink explain references all of these references in the ''Ensign'' and even the ''Friend''? They actually quote some of them on the same page as the "Critic's Comment" mentioned above. Why quote a "Critic's Comment" and then show the data contradicting it on the same page?
	* How is it the ~~Church~~'s ~~fault that MormonThink doesn~~'~~t know about these examples~~?
	\|quote=		\|quote=
	Note the mention of the stone in the official children's magazine, ''The Friend'' (available online at lds.org):		Note the mention of the stone in the official children's magazine, ''The Friend'' (available online at lds.org):