Gospel Topics: Book Of Mormon Translation

[cdowis]

Artistic renditions of the translation ==>> something called artistic license, such as the three Magi in the manger scene.

Edited January 2, 2014 by cdowis

[cinepro]

Artistic renditions of the translation ==>> something called artistic license, such as the three Magi in the manger scene.

 

Why is it too much to ask for artistic license that actually coincides with the eye-witness accounts of the manner in which Joseph translated?

 

Certainly, having the plates sitting on the table in plain view of Oliver is a huge, huge blunder.  I can't believe the Church ever allowed that to be published. 

 

I suspect there is an overriding desire on the part of some people (artists and/or church leaders and publishers) to present the process as being as normal as possible (i.e. Joseph sitting at the table with the plates and being able to translate them by reading them, just as all other "translations" are done).  When it comes to pictures of the translation process, if there is anything unusual, weird or of odd report or noteworthy, we do not seek after those things.

Edited January 3, 2014 by cinepro

[strappinglad]

OK, let's get serious about all this. We must find these dastardly artists and send a strongly worded note of condemnation. While we're at it we must disavow all of Freiberg's works because we all know exactly how the Nephites were dressed and it definitely was NOT how they were depicted.

cinepro, I expect you to write to the makers of " Braveheart " and point out that kilts should never have been shown in that movie. It was obviously an anachronism . While you are doing so , please complain about all the historical inaccuracies in " The Patriot " . Oh what the heck, dump on any Hollywood depiction of any historical event. They clearly shouldn't get away with the disclaimer that a film was " based on actual events" ? They should be held way more accountable than our struggling Mormon artists because they had access to all the research available before the film was made.

[mormonnewb]

OK, let's get serious about all this. We must find these dastardly artists and send a strongly worded note of condemnation. While we're at it we must disavow all of Freiberg's works because we all know exactly how the Nephites were dressed and it definitely was NOT how they were depicted.

cinepro, I expect you to write to the makers of " Braveheart " and point out that kilts should never have been shown in that movie. It was obviously an anachronism . While you are doing so , please complain about all the historical inaccuracies in " The Patriot " . Oh what the heck, dump on any Hollywood depiction of any historical event. They clearly shouldn't get away with the disclaimer that a film was " based on actual events" ? They should be held way more accountable than our struggling Mormon artists because they had access to all the research available before the film was made.

Can we also slate the following Biblical artists for condemnation?

The artists who draw Noah's ark with the rounded bow and stern

The artists who draw a muscular Sampson (if he was that muscular, Delilah never would asked where he got his strength from ... Duh?).

The artists who draw the Nordic Jesus.

It seems to me that the Biblical Artists Guild (BAG) has a commitment to historical inaccuracies.

[cinepro]

OK, let's get serious about all this. We must find these dastardly artists and send a strongly worded note of condemnation. While we're at it we must disavow all of Freiberg's works because we all know exactly how the Nephites were dressed and it definitely was NOT how they were depicted.

cinepro, I expect you to write to the makers of " Braveheart " and point out that kilts should never have been shown in that movie. It was obviously an anachronism . While you are doing so , please complain about all the historical inaccuracies in " The Patriot " . Oh what the heck, dump on any Hollywood depiction of any historical event. They clearly shouldn't get away with the disclaimer that a film was " based on actual events" ? They should be held way more accountable than our struggling Mormon artists because they had access to all the research available before the film was made.

 

If the makers of Braveheart were asking me to send them 10% of my increase based on the historicity of their stories, I might spend a few minutes pointing out such aberrations. 

 

As it is, they are only asking for $10 and two hours of my time, so my standards are quite a bit lower.

[Robert F. Smith]

Why is it too much to ask for artistic license that actually coincides with the eye-witness accounts of the manner in which Joseph translated?

 

Certainly, having the plates sitting on the table in plain view of Oliver is a huge, huge blunder.  I can't believe the Church ever allowed that to be published. 

 

I suspect there is an overriding desire on the part of some people (artists and/or church leaders and publishers) to present the process as being as normal as possible (i.e. Joseph sitting at the table with the plates and being able to translate them by reading them, just as all other "translations" are done).  When it comes to pictures of the translation process, if there is anything unusual, weird or of odd report or noteworthy, we do not seek after those things.

You speak of the "Church" doing this or the "Church" doing that, which is nonsense reminiscent of the U.S. Supreme Court declaring corporations to be persons..  People make choices, and their choices may not coincide with what you or I consider realistic.  Since you and I don't actually know the name(s) of the person(s) who made those choices it is all too easy to anthropmorphize the Church, which is a fallacy.  There may even be an ebb and flow of realism and surrealism with changes in staff over time.  You need to be more realistic, cinepro.  How do you expect the Church writers, artists, and publication people to be realistic if you are not realistic?   

[why me]

You speak of the "Church" doing this or the "Church" doing that, which is nonsense reminiscent of the U.S. Supreme Court declaring corporations to be persons..  People make choices, and their choices may not coincide with what you or I consider realistic.  Since you and I don't actually know the name(s) of the person(s) who made those choices it is all too easy to anthropmorphize the Church, which is a fallacy.  There may even be an ebb and flow of realism and surrealism with changes in staff over time.  You need to be more realistic, cinepro.  How do you expect the Church writers, artists, and publication people to be realistic if you are not realistic?   

I think that you bring up a good point. People, especially exmormons and critics and also church members keep on mentioning 'the church'. But what does that mean? The lds church is made up  of individuals with their own brains and analysis. It is not the church but individuals who make decisions after meetings, consultations, lunches etc that are responsible for what may go into manuals etc. The lds church is not a monolith all its own.

 

Karl Marx once made an interesting statement: we must educate the educator. Or how he stated it:

 

The materialist doctrine that men are products of circumstances and upbringing, and that, therefore, changed men are products of changed circumstances and changed upbringing, forgets that it is men who change circumstances and that the educator must himself be educated.

 

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/index.htm#004

 

And this would go for the lds correlation committee too.

Edited January 3, 2014 by why me

[cdowis]

You speak of the "Church" doing this or the "Church" doing that, which is nonsense reminiscent of the U.S. Supreme Court declaring corporations to be persons..  People make choices, and their choices may not coincide with what you or I consider realistic.  Since you and I don't actually know the name(s) of the person(s) who made those choices it is all too easy to anthropmorphize the Church, which is a fallacy.

 

 

OK, instead of "the church decided", which is a fallacy, we could say "the brethren decided".  We not only know their names, but can show you pictures.

[why me]

OK, instead of "the church decided", which is a fallacy, we could say "the brethren decided".  We not only know their names, but can show you pictures.

I don't think that this is any better. The brethren seems to cultish and misled and it implies that the workers in the church office building have no freedom to be creative when deciding what to include in manuals and magazines. I think that Robert addressed this on this thread earlier. The so called brethren travel around the world, giving talks, having meetings etc. I don't think that they are a hands on group when it comes to what should or shouldn't be included in church education publications.

[cdowis]

I don't think that this is any better. The brethren seems to cultish and misled and it implies that the workers in the church office building have no freedom to be creative when deciding what to include in manuals and magazines. I think that Robert addressed this on this thread earlier. The so called brethren travel around the world, giving talks, having meetings etc. I don't think that they are a hands on group when it comes to what should or shouldn't be included in church education publications.

 

It would be interesting to know what permission was necessary to publish certain articles (race and priesthood, etc) on lds.org.

 

I sent some feedback on the article, and wonder if someone simply said, "Can't touch that one because it is 'brethern approved'". 

Edited January 3, 2014 by cdowis

[omni]

OK, let's get serious about all this. We must find these dastardly artists and send a strongly worded note of condemnation. While we're at it we must disavow all of Freiberg's works because we all know exactly how the Nephites were dressed and it definitely was NOT how they were depicted.

cinepro, I expect you to write to the makers of " Braveheart " and point out that kilts should never have been shown in that movie. It was obviously an anachronism . While you are doing so , please complain about all the historical inaccuracies in " The Patriot " . Oh what the heck, dump on any Hollywood depiction of any historical event. They clearly shouldn't get away with the disclaimer that a film was " based on actual events" ? They should be held way more accountable than our struggling Mormon artists because they had access to all the research available before the film was made.

 

The argument of artistic expression often gets brought up when discussing this issue.  Why is it that those charged with approving the artwork in the Ensign thought Carl Bloch's artistic expression was inappropriate, but not of that art depicting the translation?  What do you feel is a greater misrepresentation, angels wearing sleeveless clothing or the commonly portrayed BoM translation method?

 

I think a better example for your Braveheart/Patriot analogy would be if the church art showed Joseph looking in a Stetson hat (which weren't invented until decades later) instead of a hat common to the time period.  This would be an inconsequential issue and I can't imagine anybody having a problem with it. 

 

Suppose the church art had always mistakenly represented Joseph sticking his head in a black steaming cauldren instead of a hat during translation. IMO, even something like this wouldn't cause a big stir (ouside of historians who would insist on accuracy) because it would be seen as equally odd and occultish.  Critics couldn't charge the church with whitewashing history when the altered history would be seen as just as bizarre as the actual history. 

Edited January 3, 2014 by omni

[Coreyb]

 

 

“Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.” (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887, p. 12.)

Emma Smith, who acted as an earlier scribe for Joseph, gave this account in 1856:

“When my husband was translating the Book of Mormon, I wrote a part of it, as he dictated each sentence, word for word, and when he came to proper names he could not pronounce, or long words, he spelled them out, and while I was writing them, if I made any mistake in spelling, he would stop me and correct my spelling although it was impossible for him to see how I was writing them down at the time. Even the word Sarah he could not pronounce at first, but had to spell it, and I would pronounce it for him.

“When he stopped for any purpose at any time he would, when he commenced again, begin where he left off without any hesitation, and one time while he was translating he stopped suddenly, pale as a sheet, and said, ‘Emma, did Jerusalem have walls around it?’ When I answered, ‘Yes,’ he replied, ‘Oh! [i didn’t know.] I was afraid I had been deceived.’ He had such a limited knowledge of history at that time that he did not even know that Jerusalem was surrounded by walls.” (Edmund C. Briggs, “A Visit to Nauvoo in 1856,” Journal of History, Jan. 1916, p. 454.)

On another occasion, Emma Smith recorded:

“The plates often lay on the table without any attempt at concealment, wrapped in a small linen tablecloth, which I had given him to fold them in. I once felt of the plates as they thus lay on the table, tracing their outline and shape. They seemed to be pliable like thick paper, and would rustle with a metallic sound when the edges were moved by the thumb, as one does sometimes thumb the edges of a book.” (“Last Testimony of Sister Emma,” Saints’ Herald, 1 Oct. 1879, p. 290; spelling modernized.)

Although the Prophet would polish his skills over the years, Emma acknowledged that Joseph possessed only rudimentary literacy at the time he translated the gold plates:

“Joseph Smith … could neither write nor dictate a coherent and well-worded letter; let alone dictating a book like the Book of Mormon. And, though I was an active participant in the scenes that transpired, it is marvelous to me, ‘a marvel and a wonder,’ as much so as to any one else.” (Ibid.)

 

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1993/07/a-treasured-testament?lang=eng

 

What I found interesting is the article above that was in the ensign in 1993. No one seemed to care about the head in the hat. It is only with the exmormon spin do people seem to care. But the head in the hat was known years ago.

True, my Dad taught me about the stone in the hat while I was but a child and I thought nothing of it. And he is just a blue collar theologian, not a church history scholar.

[why me]

True, my Dad taught me about the stone in the hat while I was but a child and I thought nothing of it. And he is just a blue collar theologian, not a church history scholar.

And this is what is overlooked by the exmormons and critics. The church did not hide it. They just decided to change the conversation. And that is a major point that members need to remember. The question is not why did the church hide it? It didn't. The question that should be asked is: why did the church change the conversation?

 

But of course the use of the word hide is much more negative and effective if one wishes to lead people out of the church.

[Brian 2.0]

I think that you bring up a good point. People, especially exmormons and critics and also church members keep on mentioning 'the church'. But what does that mean? The lds church is made up  of individuals with their own brains and analysis. It is not the church but individuals who make decisions after meetings, consultations, lunches etc that are responsible for what may go into manuals etc. The lds church is not a monolith all its own.

 

We should also stop saying things like "Apple announced the new iPad today" or "Apple's new operating system has some bugs" or "Apple chose to not release a purple version of the iPod."  Because what does "apple" mean really?  Apple is made up of individuals with their own brains and analysis.  It is not "apple" but individuals who make decisions after meetings, consultations, lunches etc that are responsible for what may go into press releases, product announcments, tv commericals etc.  Apple is not a monolith all its own.

Edited January 3, 2014 by Brian 2.0

[cinepro]

You speak of the "Church" doing this or the "Church" doing that, which is nonsense reminiscent of the U.S. Supreme Court declaring corporations to be persons..  People make choices, and their choices may not coincide with what you or I consider realistic.  Since you and I don't actually know the name(s) of the person(s) who made those choices it is all too easy to anthropmorphize the Church, which is a fallacy.  There may even be an ebb and flow of realism and surrealism with changes in staff over time.  You need to be more realistic, cinepro.  How do you expect the Church writers, artists, and publication people to be realistic if you are not realistic?   

 

 

4 For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office:

 5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.

 

Romans 12:4-50

 

 21 Therefore they did assemble themselves together in different bodies, being called churches; every church having their priests and their teachers, and every priest preaching the word according as it was delivered to him by the mouth of Alma.

 

Mosiah 25:21

 

The scriptures and modern LDS leaders frequently refer to the Church as an independent entity, having its own "body" and its actions referred to apart from the individuals responsible for those actions.  

 

I suspect your feigning exception to such characterizations is the last gasp of someone who knows they are losing an argument.

[Tacenda]

Cinepro, IMO the church is a top down organization, therefore we say the church or brethren.  It's never a bottom up situation, so I agree with you!  And if this might make you look bad, having agreements with the likes of me, sorry.     

[Robert F. Smith]

OK, instead of "the church decided", which is a fallacy, we could say "the brethren decided".  We not only know their names, but can show you pictures.

In the old days, when the LDS Church was small, many of the Brethren actually wrote and published newspapers and detailed commentary all on their own.  Today they delegate to trusted staffers.  The Brethren may give a stamp of approval to some effort and review what is being done, with a view to improvement, but they constitute the Board of Directors of a massive conglomerate with worldwide reach.  No time for micromanagement.

[Robert F. Smith]

 

The scriptures and modern LDS leaders frequently refer to the Church as an independent entity, having its own "body" and its actions referred to apart from the individuals responsible for those actions.  

 

I suspect your feigning exception to such characterizations is the last gasp of someone who knows they are losing an argument.

 

I use the term "body of Christ" frequently to refer to the LDS Church, which is the Kingdom of God on Earth.  Not everyone hearing me say that understands what I am saying, but I am not personifying the Church when I say that.  I am not attributing individual human decision-making to some faceless organization -- which is a cop-out in addition to being fallacious.

 

I simply think it more honest to attribute real decision-making to real people.  I also find that, when I write a private critique of someone's authorized comments on behalf of the Church, I receive back a very polite and humble reply.  I get a far different picture of reality than you do.  How can that be?

Edited January 4, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[why me]

Cinepro, IMO the church is a top down organization, therefore we say the church or brethren.  It's never a bottom up situation, so I agree with you!  And if this might make you look bad, having agreements with the likes of me, sorry.     

I think that critics use the expression 'the church' for all sorts of reasons. If a bishop does something wrong or makes a wrong decision, it becomes 'the churches' fault. If a stake president was felt to be harsh in his opinion, it becomes 'a church' problem. People are using all sorts of generalizations for 'the church'. Local wards or bishops are not 'the church'. As Robert said, to assume the church leaders are responsible for every article, decision, and for putting what is in the manuals would be most likely incorrect.

 

Most churches are top down unless they are independent entities. The espiscopal church is top down as is the methodist church. They both have headquarters somewhere. As is the catholic church. However, I never hear them mention 'the church' when commenting about something. So, it must be a cultural construction for the lds church to say such a phrase. Here is the site for the episcopal church:

 

http://www.episcopalchurch.org/

Edited January 4, 2014 by why me

[Calm]

  It's never a bottom up situation, so I agree with you!

 

Having seen the interest of the "top" in what the "bottom" is doing, including through the FairMormon conferences that have been reported in the Church News as well as other activities that have spread from a particular ward or stake to church wide or at least a good portion of the Church, I very much disagree with you.

[Tacenda]

Having seen the interest of the "top" in what the "bottom" is doing, including through the FairMormon conferences that have been reported in the Church News as well as other activities that have spread from a particular ward or stake to church wide or at least a good portion of the Church, I very much disagree with you.

 

 

But they do need the ok don't they?  That's what I was meaning.     

[Calm]

FairMormon never went looking for an okay that I know of or has been reported to get approval for what they were doing. I would not be surprised if they issued an invite to Church News to send someone to the conference, but that is different. Nor am I aware that approval is sought from SLC for local programs such as the humanitarian efforts that get reported all the time in the Ensign and Church News.

[Tacenda]

FairMormon never went looking for an okay that I know of or has been reported to get approval for what they were doing. I would not be surprised if they issued an invite to Church News to send someone to the conference, but that is different. Nor am I aware that approval is sought from SLC for local programs such as the humanitarian efforts that get reported all the time in the Ensign and Church News.

Hey Cal, I just barely referred someone to the FairMormon.org site.  They posted on FB and said they needed some questions answered that they were not getting answered by their leaders or the missionaries!  And I thought of you guys, perfect!   

 

Ok, I think we are misunderstanding one another.  True, members can do things without going to the top, but usually if it's something pertinent, they do at least need permission from the bishop or SP and they in turn go up the chain of command.  So it may come from the bottom and work up but needs to have the ok, and go back down, at least I thought it did.  

 

You brought up FairMormon not needing approval for what they are doing, but didn't it start out as fairlds.org?  And didn't they start out at BYU?  So at it's roots it had to have had some kind of ok from the top.

[why me]

But they do need the ok don't they?  That's what I was meaning.     

No. They don't. FAIR acts independently as do other mormon sites. People give too much credit for the people at the top. They are not supermen and superwomen. They are just people too. Also who are the brethren? The name is too general.

[Calm]

You brought up FairMormon not needing approval for what they are doing, but didn't it start out as fairlds.org? And didn't they start out at BYU? So at it's roots it had to have had some kind of ok from the top.

The lds referred to us being lds, not connected with lds.org. We have never had any official connection or approval or that save for some references to us in the Church News and a number referring people to us for answers..

FAIR (now FairMormon) started out as a group of people answering criticisms on the aol newsgroup or whatever they were called. That was before my time, but Juliann was there and she can relate how she got the ball rolling on getting it organised. Had nothing to do with BYU save some BYU profs became members.

So no, no okay at its roots from the top or bottom.

Edited January 4, 2014 by calmoriah