Dishonesty

[ALarson]

 

That's not the image I linked to, this is:

 

Edited August 10, 2015 by ALarson

[Danzo]

I think there is an inverse relationship between the standard for evidence one sets as proof of the Church hiding its history and the standard the same person sets for accepting evidence of the historicity Book of Mormon and vice versa.

 

 

And how is this relevant to the discussion?

[KevinG]

 

An artist rendition, hardly a lie.  Maybe the artist was interpreting this description from the pearl of great price

 

"Oliver Cowdery describes these events thus: “These were days never to be forgotten—to sit under the sound of a voice dictated by the inspiration of heaven, awakened the utmost gratitude of this bosom! Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his mouth, as he translated with the Urim and Thummim, or, as the Nephites would have said, ‘Interpreters,’ the history or record called ‘The Book of Mormon.’'

 

Maybe it happened differently some times but hardly a lie.  Are you saying that some people think that this illustration was supposed to be by someone who was an eyewitness?

 

I suppose someone could blame Renaissance artists for destroying faith in Christ because they painted Jesus as a white European.

[KevinG]

That's not the image I linked to, this is:

 

 

It is an image found on the same search page that picked up the image you presented.  If you are going to say the one represents the church portrayal then include the other.  Ironic that you present an image that promotes your story while omitting another, in arguing that the church is dishonest for presenting a faith promoting story.

Edited August 10, 2015 by KevinG

[KevinG]

This may have gotten lost in my edits...

 

Church resources going back to 1982 that discuss the use of the Hat and Seer Stones in the translation process:  http://en.fairmormon...lation_process? along with a citation of a 1960 publication that mentions that method.

[ttribe]

A problem I see in some of the defense tactics in here:  You cannot say members were too lazy for not knowing because it was always out there, while simultaneously suggesting Church leadership didn't know (e.g former businessmen, lawyers; not historian) and should be excused for not knowing.

 

Here's what I know, at this point:  The Church did publish this information in various forms over the years, but the information never found its way (in any meaningful way) into the main media used to teach the membership masses.  Intentional?  Don't know.  But, it happened.

Edited August 10, 2015 by ttribe

[Zakuska]

I suppose someone could blame Renaissance artists for destroying faith in Christ because they painted Jesus as a white European.

Rep points for this post. (I'm limited and cannot give any)

[ALarson]

It is an image found on the same search page that picked up the image you presented..

 

There is only ONE image at this link (you can search around and find more here, I'm sure), but the link I gave goes to only this image (at least on my computer):

 

https://www.lds.org/media-library/images/translating-plates-82841?lang=eng

 

 

Either way, this is the image I was giving as an example of an inaccurate portrayal of how Joseph translated the Book of Mormon.  Someone asked for an example and I provided one.

Edited August 10, 2015 by ALarson

[ttribe]

I suppose someone could blame Renaissance artists for destroying faith in Christ because they painted Jesus as a white European.

 

So, you don't see a difference between a portrayal of a person from more than 1,000 years before the painting was created, and who lived in a period with relatively unsophisticated record-keeping, and certainly no image capturing devices, and the portrayal of an event from less than 150 years beforehand and which occurred in a relatively modern era?

[Danzo]

I suppose someone could blame Renaissance artists for destroying faith in Christ because they painted Jesus as a white European.

 

And they must have done it to  be deliberately deceptive.  I think they must have conspired together, those evil renaissance artists.

[bluebell]

I'm sure this has already been said, but i think the church handled the seer stone the way it did because they already ask people to accept a large degree of 'supernatural' as far as the gospel is concerned and they didn't feel there was any reason to add any more to the weirdness by sharing information that absolutely had no impact in the truth narrative of what they were trying to share.

 

Kind of a 'put your best foot forward when the omitted information is pretty irrelevant to the question you want someone to consider' thing.

 

Just a guess, but that's where I would probably put my money.

[Danzo]

So, you don't see a difference between a portrayal of a person from more than 1,000 years before the painting was created, and who lived in a period with relatively unsophisticated record-keeping, and certainly no image capturing devices, and the portrayal of an event from less than 150 years beforehand and which occurred in a relatively modern era?

 

That's just silly, What difference would that make? 

[ttribe]

And they must have done it to  be deliberately deceptive.  I think they must have conspired together, those evil renaissance artists.

 

It's a bad argument, and mocking people who struggle with this issue doesn't help.

[ttribe]

That's just silly, What difference would that make? 

 

Can you elaborate on what you mean by your comments, other than being glibly dismissive, of course?

[KevinG]

It's a bad argument, and mocking people who struggle with this issue doesn't help.

 

I don't mock those who struggle.  I mock those who continue to sell them the false narrative that the church hid things when they were published in the Friend, Ensign, Institute Manuals, and other official church publications going back decades.

 

Church resources going back to 1982 that discuss the use of the Hat and Seer Stones in the translation process:  http://en.fairmormon...lation_process? along with a citation of a 1960 publication that mentions that method.

Edited August 10, 2015 by KevinG

[ttribe]

I don't mock those who struggle.  I mock those who continue to sell them the false narrative that the church hid things when they were published in the Friend, Ensign, Institute Manuals, and other official church publications going back decades.

 

Church resources going back to 1982 that discuss the use of the Hat and Seer Stones in the translation process:  http://en.fairmormon...lation_process? along with a citation of a 1960 publication that mentions that method.

 

The mocking comment wasn't made to you, and I'm quite aware of the publication of the material going back for some time (I said as much in another post).

[Danzo]

It's a bad argument, and mocking people who struggle with this issue doesn't help.

 

So you are not concerned with the substance, just the tone.

 

Good to know

[Danzo]

It's a bad argument, and mocking people who struggle with this issue doesn't help.

 

Why is it a bad argument?

Because you say so?

[ttribe]

So you are not concerned with the substance, just the tone.

 

Good to know

 

Perhaps you could do me the courtesy of not presuming to know my thoughts.

[Danzo]

Can you elaborate on what you mean by your comments, other than being glibly dismissive, of course?

 

why is the time that has passed between an event and an artistic interpretation important?

[Zakuska]

Why is it a bad argument?

Because you say so?

The Minions did it!

[ttribe]

Why is it a bad argument?

Because you say so?

 

I already pointed it out to KevinG, but you dismissed it with a wave of the hand.

 

Let me clarify - The more recent the event, the higher the expectation of accuracy in its representation.

[Danzo]

Perhaps you could do me the courtesy of not presuming to know my thoughts.

If you are concerned with the substance, address the substance.

[Danzo]

I already pointed it out to KevinG, but you dismissed it with a wave of the hand.

 

Let me clarify - The more recent the event, the higher the expectation of accuracy in its representation.

Why? I have never heard of artist being more accountable to accuracy based on time passed.

 

Logic might say that accuracy should be based on information available to the artist, but not time since the event.

 

even then, artist never seem to be that concerned with accuracy. do you think Picasso's Guernica should be criticized for its accuracy? it is much more recent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guernica_(Picasso)#/media/File:PicassoGuernica.jpg

Edited August 10, 2015 by Danzo

[KevinG]

I already pointed it out to KevinG, but you dismissed it with a wave of the hand.

 

Let me clarify - The more recent the event, the higher the expectation of accuracy in its representation.

 

If someone is interested in exacting accuracy shouldn't they present all of the church resources published in recent decades that include all of the descriptions of Joseph's translation methods?

 

Still waithing for a response to:  Church resources going back to 1982 that discuss the use of the Hat and Seer Stones in the translation process:  http://en.fairmormon...lation_process? along with a citation of a 1960 publication that mentions that method.