Gospel Topics: Book Of Mormon Translation

[mormonnewb]

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/

I'm not so sure that I'd describe most Protestant churches as "top down." For instance, my last church was part of the Full Gospel Baptist Church Fellowship, yet I couldn't pick their President/Pope/Grand Pooba or whatever out of a police line-up. As a member of a local congregation, the only leaders whom I recognized were my pastor and his staff. As I saw it, the FGBCF was simply an ordination body and I had about as much loyalty to it as I would to my pastor's bible college (ie, none). My suspicion is that this is the case for almost all Protestant denominations. The national or international organization has little meaning as the parishioners take their guidance solely from local pastors. In fact, I couldn't even fathom my pastor reading a letter over the pulpit from the First Presidency (or whatever they are called in the FGBCF).

Obviously, this is not the case with Mormons (or Catholics). ALL Mormons know the name of our church's leaders. We even make it a requirement for admission (ie, sustaining Pres Monson as a prophet, seer and revelator). We sing songs about following the prophet. We buy their books. We hang their pictures in our homes.

That being said, I agree that the church will often look to local leadership to solve problems and even take their lead in applying them to the church as a well (as I understand it, this is how the bishop's storehouse got its start). Nevertheless, in comparison to other churches, we (and the Catholics) are about as "top down" as you get.

[Palerider]

What I think you miss here is the fact that ordinary people, some of them scholars, are assigned to write manuals and devise curricula.  The "Church" does not write anything.  People do.   The same for artists who are asked to prepare illustrations, or whose preexisting illustrations are used by the curriculum people.  It may be inaccurate, but it is not a plot by the Brethren to mislead.

 

I often have the same complaint about medieval and Renaissance art attempting (and failing) to correctly depict biblical scenes.  I don't accuse the Roman Catholic Church of creating those art works, no matter how out of touch with reality they may be.  They are merely examples of the contemporary art that was available.

 

 

Robert,

 

I want you to imagine me holding you by the ears and looking directly into your eyes (I know it's unsavory but do it any way).

 

This is not the way illustrations are currently (or for the past 30 years) done for church publications.

 

I know.

 

You don't have to take my word for it but you will be a more uneducated man for not doing so. I generally take your word for the things you know about. 

 

There is micromanagement on things effecting church image.

[Robert F. Smith]

..............................................................   

This is not the way illustrations are currently (or for the past 30 years) done for church publications.

 

I know.

 

You don't have to take my word for it but you will be a more uneducated man for not doing so. I generally take your word for the things you know about. 

 

There is micromanagement on things effecting church image.

Whether such "micromanagement" was effected through the good offices of my old friend Dan Ludlow, or higher up remains a matter of mystery, since Church officials don't ordinarily disclose the inner workings of illustration selection and commissions.  We must judge by the results, which are mixed.

 

Thus, although I don't know whether Arnold Friberg's Nordic Nephite Realism continued to be used within the last 30 years, I do know that Minerva Teichert's wonderful paintings (which she created on her own, following serious study in Mexico) have been utilized in Church magazines and manuals within the last 30 years.  I refer you to a book of her art, which I treasure, The Book of Mormon Paintings of Minerva Teichert (BYU Studies/Bookcraft, 1997), and you can find references to her paintings on lds.org.

 

We have also seen on this board (in recent years) various responders citing instances in which art has been out of synch with the supposed monolithic ideological control.  I imagine that these differences follow changes in editors from time to time.  I don't see how that would be possible if the Brethren were the control freaks you seem to suggest.

Edited January 5, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

.......................................................  

 

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.

FAIR, FARMS, and similar organizations, were entirely private organizations formed without permission from any LDS Church entity.  FARMS did suffer what some see as a hostile takeover and was eventually destroyed, but FAIRMormon remains entirely independent.

[Tacenda]

FAIR, FARMS, and similar organizations, were entirely private organizations formed without permission from any LDS Church entity. FARMS did suffer what some see as a hostile takeover and was eventually destroyed, but FAIRMormon remains entirely independent.

I guess I thought they were once on the BYU campus.

[Robert F. Smith]

I guess I thought they were once on the BYU campus.

Correct for FARMS, not FAIR.

Even though it was formed as a California foundation in 1979, FARMS later became adjacent to the main BYU campus, and then finally part of BYU in 1997.  It ceased to exist in 2013.

[why me]

I'm not so sure that I'd describe most Protestant churches as "top down." For instance, my last church was part of the Full Gospel Baptist Church Fellowship, yet I couldn't pick their President/Pope/Grand Pooba or whatever out of a police line-up. As a member of a local congregation, the only leaders whom I recognized were my pastor and his staff. As I saw it, the FGBCF was simply an ordination body and I had about as much loyalty to it as I would to my pastor's bible college (ie, none). My suspicion is that this is the case for almost all Protestant denominations. The national or international organization has little meaning as the parishioners take their guidance solely from local pastors. In fact, I couldn't even fathom my pastor reading a letter over the pulpit from the First Presidency (or whatever they are called in the FGBCF).

 

I think that you will find that the major protestant denominations are top down. For example, a local methodist church does not have absolute freedom in change doctrinal beliefs. If they step out of line, they will hear from headquarters. Likewise for local lutheran churches etc. The church of england is another example. It is also top down. It must be so or there would be chaos if every local church could do what they want. However, the smaller churches may have more freedom. But the established christian religions have much more control over local churches when it comes to doctrine and what is and not permitted.

 

I think that in the lds church the leadership does oversee church departments but I do believe that much is dependent on the people who are working in those departments. I know that the ensign changed direction a coupld of decades ago with the kind of articles that we being published. In the past, the articles were much more intellectual, handling issues from church history. But today, I don't see it doing this. And if I am correct, someone was in the decision making process. In the past, we knew about JSs polygamy, the ways in which the book of mormon was perhaps translated etc. It was in the ensign. But who made the change of direction...well...I just don't know.

Edited January 5, 2014 by why me

[Gervin]

I think that you will find that the major protestant denominations are top down. For example, a local methodist church does not have absolute freedom in change doctrinal beliefs. If they step out of line, they will hear from headquarters. Likewise for local lutheran churches etc. The church of england is another example. It is also top down. It must be so or there would be chaos if every local church could do what they want. However, the smaller churches may have more freedom. But the established christian religions have much more control over local churches when it comes to doctrine and what is and not permitted.

 

I think that in the lds church the leadership does oversee church departments but I do believe that much is dependent on the people who are working in those departments. I know that the ensign changed direction a coupld of decades ago with the kind of articles that we being published. In the past, the articles were much more intellectual, handling issues from church history. But today, I don't see it doing this. And if I am correct, someone was in the decision making process. In the past, we knew about JSs polygamy, the ways in which the book of mormon was perhaps translated etc. It was in the ensign. But who made the change of direction...well...I just don't know.

 

I think you're off-base, at least in terms of baptist practices.

 

I believe the Southern Baptist Convention is the largest American protestant denomination and it is decidedly bottom up; from the priesthood of the believer to the autonomy of the local church, each congregation calls its own ministers, decides how tithes and offerings are used, determines practices in worship and teaching materials, etc.  Some may decide to call women as deacons - others not.  Some may choose to give a higher % to the SBC than other churches.  Some, like my church, may have a praise and worship service and a traditional hymn service, etc. We have to be accountable, for sure (open financial records, like that of the SBC) and believe in the same basics.  A church could certainly do or preach things that might cause it to be kicked out of the Convention, but the idea is that under the guidance of the Spirit and through the teachings of Christ, the "church" can encompass a wide diversity of styles, creativity, worship, and service.  We are free in Christ and not under the constrictions of the law or rules about how we practice or live our faith.

[why me]

I think you're off-base, at least in terms of baptist practices.

http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/positionstatements.asp

 

The still need a mission statement as can be seen in the above link.

 

But here is the introduction to the mission statement:

 

Position Statements

Every denomination is experiencing tension, and Southern Baptists are no exception. Of course, tension can be healthy. It serves to clarify beliefs. But tension also has a down side. It can generate misleading statements and create confusion in the local church. We know that some may be struggling to sort out truth from fiction.

Because this is so, we offer you these simple position statements which reflect the actions of the Convention and its entities. We hope that they will prove helpful to you.

[Gervin]

http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/positionstatements.asp

 

The still need a mission statement as can be seen in the above link.

 

But here is the introduction to the mission statement:

 

Position Statements

Every denomination is experiencing tension, and Southern Baptists are no exception. Of course, tension can be healthy. It serves to clarify beliefs. But tension also has a down side. It can generate misleading statements and create confusion in the local church. We know that some may be struggling to sort out truth from fiction.

Because this is so, we offer you these simple position statements which reflect the actions of the Convention and its entities. We hope that they will prove helpful to you.

what's your point?  Is it not like I characterized?

From the above link: Autonomy

We affirm the autonomy of the local church. Each church is free to determine its own membership and to set its own course under the headship of Jesus. It may enter into alliance with other churches as it chooses, so long as those other churches are willing.

The same is true for other Baptist bodies – local associations; state conventions; national conventions. They, too, may determine their membership and set their own course.

If, in its autonomy, a Baptist body expels a church from its fellowship, it does not negate that church's autonomy. The church is perfectly free to go on with its business – but not as a member of that larger Baptist body.