The early experiences of Oliver Cowdery (Richard Dutcher) serve as an example to help us understand principles of personal revelation, based on D&C Sections 6, 8, and 9.
Well that was a gross misrepresentation of those events. Where is Joseph's brown seer stone? The plates were not out for Oliver to see, because we know that had he seen them at this point, he wouldn't have needed to be shown the plates as one of the three witnesses. There was no depiction of Oliver's use of a divining rod during his attempt to translate (see original revelation in the Book of Commandments). The church hierarchy know these things, yet sign off on these representations that obfuscate what really happened. Why? Embarrassment?
For the same reason that the Three Wise men are shown at the manger with the shepherds. It is artistic license to focus on the main message. It is a common device in teaching. It is so sad that your doubts and bitterness has blinded you to the lesson in this video on receiving revelation.
@@cdowis who commissioned and approved of this version of events? The leadership. Why is it okay to mislead members when the facts of how it really happened are known (unlike the wise men)?
In these situations, I think that it's really important to remember the principle of presentism, which is when we judge historical events with our current standards. The focus was not on specifically how the translation took place, which was not a big deal back then as it is today when we are so analytical of processes. Instead, the focus was on Oliver Cowdrey's revelation. I give whoever made this video a pass, and I'd like to think they did the best that they could with what understanding they had.
Thank you for uploading this!
Maybe Brother Dutcher will come back to the church just as Oliver did
Well that was a gross misrepresentation of those events. Where is Joseph's brown seer stone? The plates were not out for Oliver to see, because we know that had he seen them at this point, he wouldn't have needed to be shown the plates as one of the three witnesses. There was no depiction of Oliver's use of a divining rod during his attempt to translate (see original revelation in the Book of Commandments).
The church hierarchy know these things, yet sign off on these representations that obfuscate what really happened. Why? Embarrassment?
For the same reason that the Three Wise men are shown at the manger with the shepherds. It is artistic license to focus on the main message. It is a common device in teaching.
It is so sad that your doubts and bitterness has blinded you to the lesson in this video on receiving revelation.
@@cdowis who commissioned and approved of this version of events? The leadership.
Why is it okay to mislead members when the facts of how it really happened are known (unlike the wise men)?
Good question
In these situations, I think that it's really important to remember the principle of presentism, which is when we judge historical events with our current standards. The focus was not on specifically how the translation took place, which was not a big deal back then as it is today when we are so analytical of processes. Instead, the focus was on Oliver Cowdrey's revelation. I give whoever made this video a pass, and I'd like to think they did the best that they could with what understanding they had.
The revelation was really about Oliver's Divining rod. Add Joseph Smith's seer stone, and we see the Church of Superstition.