Chap wrote: Joseph Smith was holding it in his right hand, so at the moment the camera went off it was out of sight on the other side of his head.
But it was there all right.
The right hand is in a strange position. I think that it is holding something. Good point. :0
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
This was done by holding the ‘translators’ over the hieroglyphics, the translation appearing distinctly on the instrument, which had been touched by the finger of God and dedicated and consecrated for the express purpose of translating languages. Every word was distinctly visible even to every letter; and if Oliver omitted a word or failed to spell a word correctly, the translation remained on the ‘interpreter’ until it was copied correctly.
I think that it does. It is up to the artist to interpret what was said by richards. Since no one was there that is now on this board, we cannot say just how the whole process looked like. But, and this is the point, there is a recollection of the translation process that did not include a hat. Got the point? So, the artist interpretation is not that far off, especially since the urim and thummin is mentioned quite often when it comes to the translation process.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
sock puppet wrote:Good forensic point, brade. The more vague, oblique account by Brother Richards is preferred by the LDS Church to the more specific, detailed account by Oliver Cowdery.
Since various accounts of the translation process have been in the Ensign, I can not say which the LDS church prefers. However, the artist gave his or her interpretation of the translation process and he most likely drew his or her inspiration from the Richards account. Now since we do not know that Richards lied or did not exactly remember the LDS church can also use his interpretation. As can an artist.
If I paint a picture of JSJr schtupping Fanny in the barn, will the Ensign editorial board publish it in the next issue because that is my artistic interpretation?
Get a clue, why me. Oh, by the way, did you sluff attending either a 3-hour block of Mormon church services today or morning mass? I'm betting you took a powder on both.
ETA: Corrected my Yiddish, per Chap
Last edited by Guest on Sun Dec 04, 2011 8:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
sock puppet wrote:If I paint a picture of JSJr stooping Fanny in the barn, will the Ensign editorial board publish it in the next issue because that is my artistic interpretation?
Hey, your phonetic Yiddish risks being misleading. You mean 'Schtupping', surely?
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
sock puppet wrote:I imagine if we show that picture to somebody unfamiliar with Mormonism they will not look at it and say something like "Oh, hey, that's a picture of somebody with a gold book reading it with an ancient mystical instrument/magic rock."
The Church never should have stopped using this picture (from the older "Book of Mormon Reader" for Primary kids):
cinepro wrote:The Church never should have stopped using this picture (from the older "Book of Mormon Reader" for Primary kids):
Imagine the astonishment of the ancients to see that technology has advanced so far as to have produced a mechanism to hold glasses to the eyes without a giant metal breastplate.
