Can The Church Admit Some Fault In Order To Heal And Move On?

[thesometimesaint]

Brian 2.0:

While "possible", the probability is fast approaching zero.

[LeSellers]

So because we do NOT know every detail of Joseph's translating the plates, we can assume anything about those gaps and portray it?

No, only reasonable ones. It is reasonable to see Joseph looking at the plates, reasoning it out in his mind. It's substantially less reasonable to see him "translating the [book of Mormon] by putting the plates into a bowl of oatmeal and doing a handstand looking down into the oatmeal."

Lehi

[bookofmormontruth]

You can always tell when someone has been reading anti-Mormon material a little bit too long.

[Brian 2.0]

No, only reasonable ones. It is reasonable to see Joseph looking at the plates, reasoning it out in his mind. It's substantially less reasonable to see him "translating the [book of Mormon] by putting the plates into a bowl of oatmeal and doing a handstand looking down into the oatmeal."

I 100% agree with you.

First. what I'm NOT saying:

I am NOT saying Joseph Smith didn't translate the BOM with the gift and power of God

I am NOT saying that Joseph Smith isn't an inspired prophet of God.

I am NOT saying that the BOM isn't the inspired word of God.

So please (everyone) do not accuse me of those things.

We are talking about the translations process of the BOM and one specific piece of artwork showing that process.

What got my blood boiling was the a post discounting evidence based upon historical documents because they were fragmented and from different people from a different time period (don't understand why time period was used because you would want documents from that time period). And after discounting it, the poster was using a lack of complete evidence to support a claim that is "reasonable" but doesn't have any historical documents backing it up (there may be documents, i don't know). Post #109

[Brian 2.0]

You can always tell when someone has been reading anti-Mormon material a little bit too long.

I actually don't read anti-mormon literature. Unless you consider Rough Stone Rolling to be anti-mormon.

But I do try to read a lot on critical thinking skill and logical fallacies and don't like my points tossed aside and discounted by faulty logic, and then calling my logic faulty.

[thesometimesaint]

Brian 2.0:

The problem with second hand late recordings of events need not be malicious, it is just that time, and human frailty limits their value.

[Libs]

This is all just another version of "any criticism against the church is a lie". <sigh>

Carry on.

[Brian 2.0]

Trying to get back to the original point for putting the artwork in my post (which wasn't even the main point of that point):

If you are going to promote a piece of artwork showing the Translation of the Book of Mormon by Joseph Smith, and you look at how that translation process was done. And the historical documents that are available depict the translation process is slightly different ways, with a good deal of that evidence pointing toward a seer-stone in a hat. You then need to pick a way to promote that translation process in that artwork. You can choose from those historical accounts which ever one you really want, even if it's not the one with the most amount or most reliable pieces of evidence (though I wouldn't recommend that)... but is it right to choose a depiction that is NOT in the historical documents available to us, even if it is reasonable?

[ELF1024]

Since it is quite obvious that Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and other top leaders of the church made mistakes (just like any other person on this earth has done), do you think the Church will ever decide to make a big announcement to the world that these mistakes were made in an effort to heal and move on with their current agenda of becoming a more "mainstream" church?

For example, they could announce on www.lds.org and Deseret Morning News something about Joseph's practice of polygamy. They don't need to go into detail, but they could just say Joseph made a mistake in the way he practiced plural marriage. If the public asks for more, they could point them to FAIR.

What good would this action take?

It would provide a way for the church to truly move on. It would be a way of repenting and healing. I think the public would appreciate this as a sign of maturity in the organization.

Now when young people start looking on the Internet and see weird LDS church history, they will know it was a mistake and be able to understand that their beloved church is in a better place now. It would provide some comfort to those who wish to stay LDS.

Thoughts?

Nothing good would come of it.

[Calm]

It's a reasonable supposition that Joseph may at some point have handled and looked at the plates directly, and that is justification enough to use the painting for the simple purpose I suggested earlier: to convey the understanding that Joseph translated the plates by the gift and power of God.

Since he wrote down the characters for Martin Harris in the whole Anthon thing, we know that he actually did this at least once....

If the picture is meant to tell a story (as opposed to documenting an event), then how does it tell the story on Joseph translating the plates without the plates being in the picture? How would anyone not familiar already know what the picture was about? The pictures the Church uses for the Gospel Art Kit are meant to be used primarily with children. Such pictures have to be pretty simple to get the main point across. By the time they are old enough to understand a complicated situation or process, they are old enough to understand without visual aids so why not just tell them rather than producing confusing art?

[Calm]

A: This was taught early on but we realize now that we really just don't know. The men who taught this were just stating their opinion, which could very likely be wrong.

If we do not know much about this, then how can we be sure these men were only stating their opinion or that their opinion could likely be wrong? Don't you think we should know that something is a mistake before 'admitting' it?

The men who originally taught it [polygamy] as doctrinal were mistaken. We know better now

Do we actually know better? Again don't you think we should know that something is actually a mistake before 'admitting' it?

The Church has been quite clear that its leaders are human and that mistakes can therefore occur. You even have prophets being scolded by God in the scriptures for their errors, for goodness sake. That "admission" has been made from the earliest times in the LDS faith.

However, knowing---even knowing beyond the shadow of a doubt---that there are mistakes is not the same thing as knowing what those mistakes are, however. And using one's own opinions to correct what one believes is someone else's opinion seems to me to most likely just compound the problem.

[Calm]

Excellent point; what do we apologize for? We have insufficient information to make these judgments......

“We” have no right to apologize for them without “all of the information”.

A point that was ignored as far as I could tell, perhaps you will have better luck.

[Brian 2.0]

If the picture is meant to tell a story (as opposed to documenting an event), then how does it tell the story on Joseph translating the plates without the plates being in the picture? How would anyone not familiar already know what the picture was about? The pictures the Church uses for the Gospel Art Kit are meant to be used primarily with children. Such pictures have to be pretty simple to get the main point across. By the time they are old enough to understand a complicated situation or process, they are old enough to understand without visual aids so why not just tell them rather than producing confusing art?

I'm not recommending showing new artwork of Joseph Smith with his head in his hat. If the church does not want to portray that image, that is fine. But the current gospel art kit piece we are talking about could have a drawing of the golden plates then and arrow pointing from those plates to a translated English Book of Mormon. It's not as cool looking maybe, but it's more accurate.

The problem is when by trying to simplify the story you create a misconception of the event. This can lead to awkward interactions and false rebuttals when confronted with historical documents.

Case in point:

A missionary is teaching an investigator about the translation of the BOM and the investigator says, "Didn't he translate it by putting a rock into a top hat and looking into it?" Maybe missionaries are more savvy today, but on my mission we would have said, "no. you must have been reading anti-mormon literature. That's a lie. That's not what happened."

Then when teaching about Polygamy, the investigator asks, "Did Joseph Smith marry women that were already married, even when their husbands were active Mormons?" Again, I would have said, "no. you must have been reading anti-mormon literature. That's a lie. That's not what happened."

After the discussion, this investigator may go onto the internet, and find out that those things actually did happen. Now it's the missionary that lied. End of discussions for that investigator. Then after his mission, the missionary finds some of this stuff out, and realizes that he misled that investigator.

The idea of "inoculating" the members about the church's history is a hard topic. There are arguments to be made both ways. But it's a serious topic now with the availability of information via the internet.

[Scott Lloyd]

Trying to get back to the original point for putting the artwork in my post (which wasn't even the main point of that point):

If you are going to promote a piece of artwork showing the Translation of the Book of Mormon by Joseph Smith, and you look at how that translation process was done. And the historical documents that are available depict the translation process is slightly different ways, with a good deal of that evidence pointing toward a seer-stone in a hat. You then need to pick a way to promote that translation process in that artwork. You can choose from those historical accounts which ever one you really want, even if it's not the one with the most amount or most reliable pieces of evidence (though I wouldn't recommend that)... but is it right to choose a depiction that is NOT in the historical documents available to us, even if it is reasonable?

I think calmoriah nailed it when she said the picture (like most artists' conceptions) is meant to tell a story, not document with the minutest detail an event.

Consider the thousands of depictions of the Nativity. I doubt any of them would meet Brian 2.O's rigorous approval. But they have been relied upon for generations to tell the simple truth of the birth of the Christ child.

[Brian 2.0]

I think calmoriah nailed it when she said the picture (like most artists' conceptions) is meant to tell a story, not document with the minutest detail an event.

see post #138 above

Consider the thousands of depictions of the Nativity. I doubt any of them would meet Brian 2.O's rigorous approval. But they have been relied upon for generations to tell the simple truth of the birth of the Christ child.

Actually Scott, these do meet my standards for rigorous approval. Looking back at the historical documents that are available, which include the Biblical texts, the Nativity seems a perfectly good depiction of the event based on the evidence looked at. The nativity scene was in no means depicted the way it was because it was a reasonable way it could have happened without looking to evidence. It was depicted that way because of the writings of the gospels in the Bible.

[Scott Lloyd]

The problem is when by trying to simply the story your create a mis-perception on the event. This can lead to awkward interaction and false rebuttals when confronted with historical documents.

A less awkward word is misperceive. And I don't concede that a reasonable supposition of what might have occurred is a misconception.

Case in point:

A missionary is teaching an investigator about the translation of the BOM and the investigator says, "Didn't he translate it by putting a rock into a top hat and looking into it?" Maybe missionaries are more savvy today, but on my mission we would have said, "no. you must have been reading anti-mormon literature. That's a lie. That's not what happened."

Then when teaching about Polygamy, the investigator asks, "Did Joseph Smith marry women that were already married, even when their husbands were active Mormons?" Again, I would have said, "no. you must have been reading anti-mormon literature. That's a lie. That's not what happened."

After the discussion, this investigator may go onto the internet, and find out that those things actually did happen. Now it's the missionary that lied. End of discussions for that investigator. Then after his mission, the missionary finds some of this stuff out, and realizes that he misled that investigator.

The idea of "inoculating" the members about the church's history is a hard topic. There are arguments to be made both ways. But it's a serious topic now with the availability of information via the internet.

Nobody here is countenancing ignorance or false rebuttal. That strikes me as a separate matter from discarding a reasonably good and clear artist's conception that, so far, has not bee proven inaccurate.

[Libs]

A point that was ignored as far as I could tell, perhaps you will have better luck.

It wasn't ignored, by me. I agree that an apology should be specific and it should be for a actual mistake. I agree that no apology should be issued for polygamy or the handling of the plates or anything like that. I do think an apology for past racism would be a very good thing, and helpful to CURRENT, faithful members, some of whom struggle with that issue.

The problem I see with all of this, "admitting that mistakes were made...prophets are only human", etc, etc, is that people will say that, but then turn around and argue, with their last breath, that no such mistakes exists. It's a paradox...and, frankly, very frustrating. It's like having your cake and eating it, too.

Past prophets were most definitely racist and said many racist things. And, that doesn't even take into account the Priesthood ban on blacks. No one wants to admit that this was actual racism. Always excuses. There was one woman, whom I truly admired, and had the pleasure of meeting her in person once, who said (paraphrased), when people accuse the church of racism, instead of defending, agree with them. They won't be expecting that, and it's true. It was both funny and true...she did not dismiss the racism. She was an African-American woman, who knew about the racism in the church, didn't excuse it or step around it, but ADMITTED it, both to herself and to the critics...and, then, moved on. (Her name was Renee Olson - she passed away a year or so ago)..

[Calm]

This is all just another version of "any criticism against the church is a lie". <sigh>

The "all" seems to mean that all those who are cautious about just coming about and apologizing no matter what the circumstances are surrounding the issue because there are those who are uncomfortable in some way with that issue are doing so because they believe "any criticism against the church is a lie". I would hope that after our discussion about various criticisms that you know better about how I approach criticisms and if you can accept that I don't hold that position, that there are many others here who do the same.

Remember that most have responded to the claim that mistakes have been made with an affirmative, the issue is not that, but whether or not we nowadays have a right to apologize for those in the past as well as if the mistakes were of a personal nature, whether it is appropriate for an institution to issue apologies.

If there is a particular post or some other part of the discussion that you were responding to, it would be better to quote it to avoid confusion.

[Libs]

See my post, right before yours, Cal. Seems we were typing at the same time.

[Scott Lloyd]

Actually Scott, these do meet my standards for rigorous approval. Looking back at the historical documents that are available, which include the Biblical texts, the Nativity seems a perfectly good depiction of the event based on the evidence looked at. The nativity scene was in no means depicted the way it was because it was a reasonable way it could have happened without looking to evidence. It was depicted that way because of the writings of the gospels in the Bible.

Those writings are eminently sparse in detail.

Take a look at the diversity in these Nativity images

And most Nativity scenes depict the presence of the wise men at the stable along with the shepherds; knowledgeable people understand the wise men did not come until later, and, as the scriptures relate, they visited the Christ child in a "house" not a stable.

You are remarkably inconsistent in your scrutiny of detail relating to Bible as opposed to Church history depictions.

[Calm]

Maybe missionaries are more savvy today, but on my mission we would have said, "no. you must have been reading anti-mormon literature. That's a lie. That's not what happened."

Were you taught to say this or is this something you assumed? If it had been me and I wasn't familiar with it, I would have said "That's not something I've heard of, I don't know about it, would you mind if I get back to you on it?" I don't make assumptions that something is a lie just because I haven't heard of it before, never have, something I learned in my youth I guess....and it's something I've made sure my kids and those I've taught have also learned.

I do not know if the MTC addresses what to do in situations when one is not familiar with a comment. Hopefully they teach that saying "I don't know" is a valid option.

[Brian 2.0]

A less awkward word is misperceive. And I don't concede that a reasonable supposition of what might have occurred is a misconception.

funny, i actually edited the post before i even read this to change it, still don't know if i used the right word or not.

Nobody here is countenancing ignorance or false rebuttal. That strikes me as a separate matter from discarding a reasonably good and clear artist's conception that, so far, has not bee proven inaccurate.

See my post #133.

The artist can draw whatever he wants, and I will admit it can not be proven inaccurate (though as explained a million time before, lack of definitive proof of something is not proof for it's accuracy).

The question is whether or not the church should use artwork that is reasonable but unproved by any historical documents when there are historical documents that show a very different means of the action being depicted in the artwork.

[LeSellers]

The problem I see with all of this, "admitting that mistakes were made...prophets are only human", etc, etc, is that people will say that, but then turn around and argue, with their last breath, that no such mistakes exists. It's a paradox...and, frankly, very frustrating.

It's not that we don't recognize that prophets can, and even do, make mistakes. It's that the mistakes they make are not those the people who want some admission about want us to apologize for.

The revelations on Plural Marriage were not mistakes.

The so-called "Priesthood ban" was not a mistake.

Sealings and other Temple ordinances for the dead (and for the living as far as that goes) are not mistakes.

Declaring the creeds to be abominations is not a mistake.

The Book of Abraham is not a mistake.

Eighteen month missions for young men may have been a mistake.

I could list others, but as they are not doctrinal, no one would be interested. The only reason people want us to apologize is to weaken The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or to make h er look like any other church: man-made, not the eternal and divine church of our Master.

Lehi

[Calm]

I'm not recommending showing new artwork of Joseph Smith with his head in his hat. If the church does not want to portray that image, that is fine. But the current gospel art kit piece we are talking about could have a drawing of the golden plates then and arrow pointing from those plates to a translated English Book of Mormon. It's not as cool looking maybe, but it's more accurate.

Have you taught Junior Primary age children? That picture is not going to make any sense to them, it would be useless as a visual aid in telling the story of Joseph Smith translating the plates as it's too abstract. Senior Primary that might work as an attention getter, but it conveys so little info that it wouldn't be worth the cost of producing it or the effort of remember to pick it up from the library to use or even pull out of the picture kit that comes with the manuals. And by that age, they would most be able to understand the story better by just telling it rather than confuse them with that specific visual aid.

[cion]

Have you taught Junior Primary age children? That picture is not going to make any sense to them, it would be useless as a visual aid in telling the story of Joseph Smith translating the plates as it's too abstract. Senior Primary that might work as an attention getter, but it conveys so little info that it wouldn't be worth the cost of producing it or the effort of remember to pick it up from the library to use or even pull out of the picture kit that comes with the manuals. And by that age, they would most be able to understand the story better by just telling it rather than confuse them with that specific visual aid.

Actually, my 4 yr old and 7 yr old understood just fine when I told them about the rocks in hat translation story.