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

[Scott Lloyd]

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The question is whether or not the church should use artwork that is reasonable but unproved by any historical documents when there are historical documents that show a very different means of the action being depicted in the artwork.

Again, the purpose of the art piece is germane to the point. If the purpose is to depict with painstaking detail Martin Harris's or David Whitmer's or Oliver Cowdery's individual reminiscence, that's one thing. If the purpose is to illustrate the simple truth that Joseph Smith produced the Book of Mormon from the Nephite record — and to do it in a way that is non-confusing — that is quite another.

[Scott Lloyd]

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

I hope you didn't give them the impression that was the only means of translation. That would be just as inaccurate as Brian 2.0 says the picture he objects to is.

[Brian 2.0]

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.

Then perhaps I'm arguing to not use it at all and in Senior Primary you talk about it without visual aides.

I guess I am arguing that for some, the use of that visual aide combined with how the seer-stone-in-a-hat method is never discussed in later correlated materials provides them with a specific conception of what that process was like, and when the person learns on their own that Joseph Smith used a seer stone in a hat, it creates a bit of cognitive dissonance in them. So much so that is harms them in a faith perspective.

I agree that the Church should not apologize for things they don't need to apologize for, or air dirty laundry about church history. I am agreeing the the Dallin H. Oaks/Boyd K. Packer comments about focusing on things that will build faithfulness. And keeping that it mind, it may be best, from a building faithfulness point of view, to not have the specific gospel art kit piece to lessen that specific conception so it doesn't cause a problem for them if they come across the stone-in-a-hat thing later.

I may be wrong, and the brethren have thought about that, and it makes more sense to have the artwork in so the Jr. Primary kids and learn the general concept, and that benefit outweighs the negatives that can happen later.

[Calm]

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.

This is what comes from reading a thread over multiple days, you forget who says what.

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.

]Some people do that, but if my memory serves me, that has only been one or two people on the thread, most have just asked for identification of what mistakes people are talking about.

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)..

I knew Renee, she was a great woman and very insightful. I have never had a problem saying that past prophets said and did racist things. My grandparents, who were good LDS, were racist and used to make me cringe when I heard them talk (though they never said anything bad about nonwhites or used vulgar language, their attitude was very paternal as if such were more children than adults) and they didn't have a clue their attitude was racist when we kids would challenge them on it.

Knowing someone is racist is one thing though, knowing doctrine or a practice is racist depends on if the motivation behind such is known so knowing that past prophets were racist in some fashion is separate from being able to say that the ban itself was racist. It was certainly discrimination just as women and children and nonmembers not having the priesthood today is discrimination, but I don't know if it was racist until I know what the reason for the ban was and at this point, I haven't seen anyone who can demonstrate what that was. IF the ban was not revelation, but just constructed out of people's interpretations, then I think it highly likely it was racist, especially since two of the individuals who apparently influenced BY's position on it who made claims about the revelation starting with Joseph were slaveowners possibly attempting to justify their continued ownership of what was being taught even then were God's children. However if the ban was revelation, and while I consider that unlikely, I don't know for sure, then unless I am willing to call God racist even though I have no clue about why he would require the ban, I have to admit the possibility that the origin of the ban wasn't racist even if many of the speculative reasons that men gave for it were.

[Brian 2.0]

cion, on 20 May 2011 - 03:00 PM, said:

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

I hope you didn't give them the impression that was the only means of translation. That would be just as inaccurate as Brian 2.0 says the picture he objects to is.

I resent that statement Scott, because it's not "just as inaccurate" as the picture.

As explained before, there are historical documents about seer-stone-in-hat method for translation. I was asking you for historical documents which talked about the translation by means of reading-the-characters-off-the-golden-plates, which is what the picture depicts.

If there are historical documents that show that, then yes, both accounts are are "just as inaccurate" But if there are not, then they are not on the same footing.

I'm totally happy to look at an accept those account. I just haven't found those accounts, nor did I find them being talked about in Rough Stone Rolling, or anywhere. Which is why I was asking for them.

[Calm]

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

[cinepro]

I really have a hard time with those who think we need to apologize and some how make reparations for what our ancestors did.

Just so I'm clear on where everybody stands on the issue of "apologizing for what our ancestors did", can you please tell me if you supported the state of Illinois when, in 2004, they apologized for the expulsion of the Mormons in 1844?

When you think about the history of the Church in Illinois, does this apology mean anything? If so, what?

And we shouldn't forget that the Church has apologized for something in the past: The Mountain Meadows Massacre.

When you read about this apology, what is your reaction? Do you feel the apology is superfluous? Meaningless? Unneeded because the massacre wasn't carried out under official Church sanction? Unneeded because the men who perpetrated the massacre are dead, so we bear no culpability (or ability to apologize) for their actions? And does such an apology mean anything to the descendants of the victims? Should it?

[Scott Lloyd]

Then perhaps I'm arguing to not use it at all and in Senior Primary you talk about it without visual aides.

You may please yourself. I will continue to use it on appropriate occasions — for children or adults — and will be comfortable in the knowledge that I do so with the blessing of the Church and the Brethren.

I guess I am arguing that for some, the use of that visual aide combined with how the seer-stone-in-a-hat method is never discussed in later correlated materials ...

It is not accurate to say it is never discussed in later correlated materials. See this Ensign article by Elder Russel M. Nelson of the Quorum of the Twelve. The Ensign, of course, is subject to Church correlation.

... provides them with a specific conception of what that process was like,

I submit that no one's knowledge about "what the process was like" is definitive enough to discount this depiction. And is it so difficult to conceive that a teacher, in showing the painting, could add a bit of explanation? Something like this: "While they are not shown in this particular painting, some divine instruments at times were used by the Prophet in the translation process, including the Urim and Thummin and a seer stone." It seems that would alleviate your concerns better than banning the use of the painting altogether.

and when the person learns on their own that Joseph Smith used a seer stone in a hat, it creates a bit of cognitive dissonance in them.

Already addressed. To a reasonable person, it need not do so. The important message is that Joseph effected the translation by divine means. The specific mechanics, though interesting, is non-essential knowledge.

So much so that is harms them in a faith perspective.

I have never understood how a person, once having accepted that the Book of Mormon was brought forth by divine revelation and miraculous means, could choke on the concept that, to some extent, divine instruments were used in the process, just as in Bible and Book of Mormon times.

[Calm]

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

And I would suspect that a good percentage of children would, however having taught at least a hundred junior primary kids (over 20 years of service for that age) over the years I can say that many would be confused about the situation. This group don't even really understand the issue of having to translate if they are not familiar with more than one language, they instead simply equate the experience of translation with reading. And when it comes to teaching a group of kids, it is essential to keep everyone's attention because once you lose them, it's hard to get back on track, thus in most cases you can't afford to take the time to clarify things for those who don't understand or add too many more details for those who do.

[cinepro]

This group don't even really understand the issue of having to translate if they are not familiar with more than one language, they instead simply equate the experience of translation with reading.

Since Joseph was only familiar with one language, how many languages do we need to be familiar with in order to understand his experience?

[Scott Lloyd]

cion, on 20 May 2011 - 03:00 PM, said:

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

I resent that statement Scott, because it's not "just as inaccurate" as the picture.

Are you declaring, then, that the seer stone in the hat was the only means of translation involved? What about the Urim and Thummim in the breastplate? What about translation by pure revelation without the use of any divine aids at all?

[Brian 2.0]

I have never understood how a person, once having accepted that the Book of Mormon was brought forth by divine revelation and miraculous means, could choke on the concept that, to some extent, divine instruments were used in the process, just as in Bible and Book of Mormon times.

Thank you for quoting the first part of my post and not talking about the second part.

Whether or not you can understand it happening, IT HAPPENS. When some people find out that he used a seer stone he found while digging a well and put that stone in a hat and used it to translate the plate, they choke on it. It's happens. This is no debate on that.

The question can the church do to lessen those occurrences. And I posed that not having that artwork could be a way to go. But as said before, the Brethren may think that removing that artwork would hurt more than it would help.

[Scott Lloyd]

Just so I'm clear on where everybody stands on the issue of "apologizing for what our ancestors did", can you please tell me if you supported the state of Illinois when, in 2004, they apologized for the expulsion of the Mormons in 1844?

When you think about the history of the Church in Illinois, does this apology mean anything? If so, what?

I addressed this sometime ago on this board.

While I appreciate the sentiment of the Illinois state government delegation, I don't agree that they had standing to apologize. At the press conference, I asked any of them if they had ancestors who were involved in the persecutions of the Mormons or the murder of Joseph and Hyrum Smith; none did.

[Brian 2.0]

Are you declaring, then, that the seer stone in the hat was the only means of translation involved? What about the Urim and Thummim in the breastplate? What about translation by pure revelation without the use of any divine aids at all?

NO! I am not declaring that AT ALL! Do you even read my whole posts? Or do you hit reply at the first thing that doesn't sit well?

Let me quote myself from the same post you were quoting me from.

"If there are historical documents that show that, then yes, both accounts are are "just as inaccurate" But if there are not, then they are not on the same footing.

I'm totally happy to look at an accept those account. I just haven't found those accounts, nor did I find them being talked about in Rough Stone Rolling, or anywhere. Which is why I was asking for them."

I am letting all historical accounts of the translation process have equal footing (which is saying a lot), so if I could read a historical account of the process that is like the artwork, I would end my discussion.

[Calm]

Then perhaps I'm arguing to not use it at all and in Senior Primary you talk about it without visual aides.

I guess I am arguing that for some, the use of that visual aide combined with how the seer-stone-in-a-hat method is never discussed in later correlated materials provides them with a specific conception of what that process was like....

Translating by the UandT is mentioned right above the picture I believe you have problems with in the Institute manual by a direct quote from OC. If you are unhappy with this or other manuals' methods and want it to be done a different way, then it seems to me your best course of action is to write the Curriculum Department and give them the feedback they have requested.

As for not using the aid in Senior Primary, depending on the class if you can explain a story clearly and quickly while keeping attention (pictures are as much attention getters as aids in telling stories for visual learners) then it is possible to use the picture while adding other details which is something I did when I taught the youth, not having the chance to teach Senior Primary for the Church History year (Old and New Testament IIRC).

[Libs]

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 thoe 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 nto 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 abominatiuons is not a mistake.

The Book of Abraham is not a mistake.

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

I cold list others, but as they are not doctinal, 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 anyother church: man-made, not the eternal and divine church of our Master.

Lehi

I think you are a bit too cynical about the reasons. Understandable, if you've spent much time talking to critics of the church (really, I mean that). It's almost enough to drive one back into the church. But, do you not believe there are "members" of the church, who would benefit from an apology for past racism?

I don't really understand why some people still believe the priethood ban was from God. (I don't believe it was..and never did). As far as I could tell, when Gordon B. Hinckley (whom I love and respect) said that, "we don't know why the ban was put in place - we don't know the reasons", was IMHO admitting that he wasn't even sure, himself, that it was from God. I know a lot of members don't believe it was. Does President Monson believe this ban was from God? I don't think I've ever heard him talk about it.

[ELF1024]

As far as I could tell, when Gordon B. Hinckley (whom I love and respect) said that, "we don't know why the ban was put in place - we don't know the reasons", was IMHO admitting that he wasn't even sure, himself, that it was from God. I know a lot of members don't believe it was. Does President Monson believe this ban was from God? I don't think I've ever heard him talk about it.

I think you and I are going to have to agree to disagree on that point.

I didn't see President Hinkley's comment as admitting that he didn't know it was from God. I would say it was an admission that he didn't know why God had done it.

[Calm]

ISomething like this: "While they are not shown in this particular painting, some divine instruments at times were used by the Prophet in the translation process, including the Urim and Thummin and a seer stone." It seems that would alleviate your concerns better than banning the use of the painting altogether.

The UandT are already mentioned in the Primary and Institute manuals as being used in translation, though not the methodology. The emphasis is on the requirement of Holy Ghost to translate.

[Libs]

This is what comes from reading a thread over multiple days, you forget who says what.

]Some people do that, but if my memory serves me, that has only been one or two people on the thread, most have just asked for identification of what mistakes people are talking about.

I knew Renee, she was a great woman and very insightful. I have never had a problem saying that past prophets said and did racist things. My grandparents, who were good LDS, were racist and used to make me cringe when I heard them talk (though they never said anything bad about nonwhites or used vulgar language, their attitude was very paternal as if such were more children than adults) and they didn't have a clue their attitude was racist when we kids would challenge them on it.

Knowing someone is racist is one thing though, knowing doctrine or a practice is racist depends on if the motivation behind such is known so knowing that past prophets were racist in some fashion is separate from being able to say that the ban itself was racist. It was certainly discrimination just as women and children and nonmembers not having the priesthood today is discrimination, but I don't know if it was racist until I know what the reason for the ban was and at this point, I haven't seen anyone who can demonstrate what that was. IF the ban was not revelation, but just constructed out of people's interpretations, then I think it highly likely it was racist, especially since two of the individuals who apparently influenced BY's position on it who made claims about the revelation starting with Joseph were slaveowners possibly attempting to justify their continued ownership of what was being taught even then were God's children. However if the ban was revelation, and while I consider that unlikely, I don't know for sure, then unless I am willing to call God racist even though I have no clue about why he would require the ban, I have to admit the possibility that the origin of the ban wasn't racist even if many of the speculative reasons that men gave for it were.

Thanks, Cal.

I know that many of the "reasons", members concocted over the years (even prophets), were racist. That was what GBH was clarifying in his statement that I mentioned above. Maybe, that's as close to an apology as the church will get...and maybe that's fine...I donno. I do know people's testimonies can be fragile and things like this do matter, to some...especially, if they happen to be of the race that was banned. It's difficult to hear that the prophets, who were leading this church, didn't know "why" such a ban was put in place. You don't have to be a critic, to wonder if it was truly inspired. (And even prophets make mistakes, right?)

[Calm]

Since Joseph was only familiar with one language, how many languages do we need to be familiar with in order to understand his experience?

I am saying certain children do not understand the concept of multiple languages yet---often simply because they lack experience in this area---so they wouldn't understand the need for translation. These days with the presence of nonEnglish shows on TV and the inclusion of nonEnglish speakers in children's programing, I suspect that the number of children who have this lack of understanding by the time they reach Junior Primary or at least when we start talking about the BoM is quite low. I made sure my kids understood the concept by teaching them easy Spanish quite early, though that probably wasn't even needed for my daughter since she grew up in Canada where everything had both English and French on it.

[Calm]

Are you declaring, then, that the seer stone in the hat was the only means of translation involved? What about the Urim and Thummim in the breastplate? What about translation by pure revelation without the use of any divine aids at all?

And don't forget that the term Uand T and seer stone were somewhat interchangeable earlier in church history.

[Brian 2.0]

The UandT are already mentioned in the Primary and Institute manuals as being used in translation, though not the methodology. The emphasis is on the requirement of Holy Ghost to translate.

I will agree that other methodologies are mentioned in the manuals. And having a quote like you said above it is nice and completely appropriate. There were various documented methods used in translating the BOM. I am not challenging that. My challenge is that the one in the artwork (translating by means of reading characters from the plates) is not one of the documented "various methods."

[ELF1024]

You don't have to be a critic, to wonder if it was truly inspired. (And even prophets make mistakes, right?)

Prophets may make mistakes, however I think those mistakes would be limited to those things that do not directly impact salvation. I would think that a Priesthood Ban would be something that would have impacted the salvation of all those who were "banned". That would be a mistake that I would hope, and I believe that God could not allow a Prophet to make.

[Calm]

I will agree that other methodologies are mentioned in the manuals. And having a quote like you said above it is nice and completely appropriate. There were various documented methods used in translating the BOM. I am not challenging that. My challenge is that the one in the artwork (translating by means of reading characters from the plates) is not one of the documented "various methods."

So when are you going to write the Curriculum Planning Department to make the suggestion they get another picture to use?

[Libs]

Prophets may make mistakes, however I think those mistakes would be limited to those things that do not directly impact salvation. I would think that a Priesthood Ban would be something that would have impacted the salvation of all those who were "banned". That would be a mistake that I would hope, and I believe that God could not allow a Prophet to make.

Would it, really, affect someone's salvation, in the long term? I hadn't thought about this, but if there was a ban on blacks in the priesthood, in this lifetime, would that have automatically extended into the hereafter? I always thought, if there was a ban, that would not stand in the eternities.