Whose fault? Yours or the church's?

[Fiyero]

WML=?

White Melchizedek Leader?

Women's Melaluka Liaison?

Willing McConkie Lapdog?

I think it's the Ward Mission Lasagna.

[Rosebud]

I think it's the Ward Mission Lasagna.

Much better avatar Fiyero.... thanks. I get really sick of all the cleavage around here.

[UtahDan]

The main problem with this method is that the plates were not used. Translation as it is generally understood requires looking at the plates. From the accounts given by the scribes Joseph had the plates hidden away.

Joseph used the head in hat method to "translate" most of the Book of Mormon.

Why did he need the plates at all?

I have long wondered what had happened to you. Welcome (and drop by Ellis Island).

[pellegrino]

Much better avatar Fiyero.... thanks. I get really sick of all the cleavage around here.

but that's what keeps most of us coming back

[Rosebud]

but that's what keeps most of us coming back

Maybe some of the women on the board need to start using male models as avatars..... that might do something about the dearth of "chicks" around here.

[Jarid in Cedar]

The main problem with this method is that the plates were not used. Translation as it is generally understood requires looking at the plates. From the accounts given by the scribes Joseph had the plates hidden away.

Joseph used the head in hat method to "translate" most of the Book of Mormon.

Why did he need the plates at all?

Hack

[byu71]

The ending was the best of all. Even though the "mormon" family were protrayed as dorks, you could end up with worse people to hang out with. I loved the goody, goody naive portrayal of mormons through the episode.

The end though, the end. Kiss my balls. Now that is the mormon attitude I know and love.

[pellegrino]

A year and a half ago a friend from our neighborhood got baptized (my wife gets all the credit) and we attended gospel essentials with her for a couple months. She is a bright gal who works in academia, teaches a course on feminism among other things and is finishing her PhD in anthropology. Anyway, she would ask these great questions that a person who has been socialized into the church very long would not feel comfortable asking. It was kind of fun watching the instructor (a guy in his 60s) take a very weak stab at answers. Partly we attended with her because we were afraid of what he was going to say (based on some experience with him).

I guess my point is that there is a socialization that occurs where people start worrying that they question too much or are not faithful enough. But this need not be. I'm not sure why it is. Those discussions in gospel essentials where great and no one was uncomfortable with the discussion because it was a new convert asking. I wish we could bottle that somehow and dump it out in our other classess.

I know what you mean with regards to the socialization aspect. People are afraid to ask any questions they have that may imply doubt, which is silly for numerous reasons. I think that frank open discussions can happen in a GD lesson, but it depends on the GD class and the teacher. I've been in a couple where we've openly discussed some hard topics. Of course I was leading the discussion as the instructor, but the responses I got were encouraging. I think there are a number of people who would like to discuss those troubling aspects of church history and doctrine but are afraid or unwilling to appear as rabble-rousers. Until the fear subsides or the prevailing cultural attitudes change this won't happen, but I'm optimistic that things are changing on both sides.

[pellegrino]

Maybe some of the women on the board need to start using male models as avatars..... that might do something about the dearth of "chicks" around here.

somehow I don't think that will attract the type of posters you're looking for.

[LA Ute]

I know what you mean with regards to the socialization aspect. People are afraid to ask any questions they have that may imply doubt, which is silly for numerous reasons. I think that frank open discussions can happen in a GD lesson, but it depends on the GD class and the teacher. I've been in a couple where we've openly discussed some hard topics. Of course I was leading the discussion as the instructor, but the responses I got were encouraging. I think there are a number of people who would like to discuss those troubling aspects of church history and doctrine but are afraid or unwilling to appear as rabble-rousers. Until the fear subsides or the prevailing cultural attitudes change this won't happen, but I'm optimistic that things are changing on both sides.

Just a quick comment (whicih I have made before) - in those situations I very much fear harming someone who's not ready spiritually for "meat" and still needs "milk." I don't have a solution but I think it is a real concern. (And I am not saying you think otherwise. I'm probably just kibitzing.)

[CardiacCoug]

I think calling the way Joseph produced the Book of Mormon "translation" is misleading and somewhat dishonest.

In church, I call it an "inspired translation" -- implying (at least in my mind) that it was not translated in a conventional sense. I think a more accurate way to describe Joseph's role would be "inspired authorship."

[Taq Man]

Hack

Sorry Jarid, I got to Indy's post and responded before reading the thread through.

[All-American]

The bottom line is that people looking for dirt against the Mormon church usually find something a lot more juicy than a head in a hat. In fact, those impressed in any way by the text can only be doubly impressed by the fact that he did it not with notes or extensive plot summaries, but with his head buried in his hat.

[Taq Man]

The bottom line is that people looking for dirt against the Mormon church usually find something a lot more juicy than a head in a hat. In fact, those impressed in any way by the text can only be doubly impressed by the fact that he did it not with notes or extensive plot summaries, but with his head buried in his hat.

For those looking to harm the church I think they look more on this as evidence that the plates did not exist. Joseph used the stone and hat because he never had the plates to begin with. Less chance of someone discovering his prop.

[Indy Coug]

My issue is this:

If you have the hat and the seer stone, why do you need the golden plates at all? That is not translating as much as divining.

For 11 witnesses?