Church News Downplays Significance of Book of Abraham

[Taq Man]

Of course no one is free from bias. But there's a difference between having a bias and having an agenda.

Am I to understand that the LDS church has no agenda?????

I think they have stated pretty clearly that they not only have an agenda, they have a mission.

Some (me) would argue that they cover up the warts to accomplish that mission. Hardly the actions of an organization with no agenda.

[Solon]

Of course no one is free from bias. But there's a difference between having a bias and having an agenda.

I agree, and Taq Man is wearing his colors on his sleeve by choosing that avatar. But he has a point - his picture is more historically accurate than, say, this official image from the Gospel Art Kit.





http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.js...003a94610aRCRD

[LA Ute]

I agree, and Taq Man is wearing his colors on his sleeve by choosing that avatar. But he has a point - his picture is more historically accurate than, say, this official image from the Gospel Art Kit.





http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.js...003a94610aRCRD

I just love Church art.

[SeattleUte]

You have to admit that Taq's avatar looks just like that cheesy LDS art. The Evangelicals are very good at parodying Mormons. See also, the animated film about Mormon doctrines, basically on the money in every respect. It must be because they're so much alike.

[LA Ute]

You have to admit that Taq's avatar looks just like that cheesy LDS art. The Evangelicals are very good at parodying Mormons. See also, the animated film about Mormon doctrines, basically on the money in every respect. It must be because they're so much alike.

You're just bitter because you can't draw.

[Solon]

You're just bitter because you can't draw.

Taq-man referenced the Southpark episode. It's clear that the artists of that episode were up on their LDS art:



and

[SeattleUte]

Taq-man referenced the Southpark episode. It's clear that the artists of that episode were up on their LDS art:



and

lol look at the quilts

[Moliere]

Taq-man referenced the Southpark episode. It's clear that the artists of that episode were up on their LDS art:



and

Is there a non-cheesy way to depict an angel appearing in the room of a teenager to discuss golden plates? I know we aren't talking about Raphaelesque artists here but we are also not talking about a subject like the School of Athens. Maybe most LDS historic events are better not depicted as art and left to the imagination of the reader.

[RobinFinderson]

Robin, the copyright is held claimed by the Institute for Religious Research.

I asked the question because I didn't know the answer. You offered an answer with a good link, so I consider myself educated on the matter and I thank you.

Still, I agree with Taq. You can't/shouldn't attack an historically accurate depiction of an event just because you don't like who painted it (Caravaggio was also a serious asshole). This especially holds when the church itself is providing art that misrepresents the alleged history. When the two paintings are viewed in the light of the history, it is the church that appears to be obfuscating. And if an institution is going to run roughshod over minor details like this, then why shouldn't the world expect more of the same when it comes to the big details? Members need to stand up for their history, take ownership of it, look the anti in the eye and say:

"Yer gosh darn right Joseph Smith translated the gold plates by looking at a seer stone placed in a hat, and I thank your fine artist for that lovely depiction of the Lord's Servant, The First Prophet of the Last Dispensation of Times, Joseph Smith, receiving revelation from God. And do you know what, sir? Your artist depicted a real event, and that event has consequences, one being this, sir -- I stand before you today, and testify in the name of our Lord, Jesus Christ, that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and that he received the word of God through the use of seer stones in a hat, and I will tell you this, sir, if God had spoken to Joseph Smith through the yellow lips of a rubber chicken, it would be just as much the word of God as were the words the emerged to Moses from a burning bush. Please, sir, share that image with everyone that you know, because it depicts the truth, and God has a funny way of working with the truth. Now pray about my testimony, and God will let you, too, know that what I am saying is true."

Be a man. Real men stand up for the truth, no matter the source.

[LA Ute]

Be a man. Real men stand up for the truth, no matter the source.

Thanks, Robin. I will buck up.

[UtahDan]

Thanks, Robin. I will buck up.

Me too, that was pretty inspiring.

[RobinFinderson]

Thanks, Robin. I will buck up.

Me too, that was pretty inspiring.

RobinFinderson: Showing Mormons how to do it since 2010.

[TripletDaddy]

I must have missed something, because those sound like arguments that underscore at least the possibility that he thought he was translating and wasn't. As we know with the BOM, the "translation" was often done without the gold plates so however these things came to Joseph there is precedent for not using the document. Look, I'm not saying I know. This is not an easy thing to defend. I'm simply holding the door open here that he was wrong.

I have read what the apologists say and the only thing they say that doesn't sound like hog wash is that you cannot look only at the process and not the product. Many people look at that product and have a hard time getting away from it being inspired for reasons that are not reason based. This is not a thought process unique to the LDS faith, and it is not evidence based, which means that there is no "winning" that argument.

UtahDan, based on the subject matter at hand, how would you reconcile (if at all) the following quotes with the allegations surrounding the BoA and doctrine subsequently culled from the same?

When did I ever teach anything wrong from this stand? When was I ever confounded? I want to triumph in Israel before I depart hence and am no more seen. I never told you I was perfect; but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught.--Joseph Smith

Having accepted this truth [that the First Vision is the second greatest event in history, behind the Atonement], I find it easy to accept of every other truth that he enunciated and declared during his mission...in the world. He never taught a doctrine that was not true. He never practiced a doctrine that he was not commanded to practice. He never advocated error. He was not deceived.--Joseph F. Smith, speaking of Joseph Smith

These quotes are taken from the TOPOTC manual and were part of one of the very last lessons....maybe from back in early December? I have been mulling those around since I heard them in my EQ lesson and have a hard time reconciling them with things like the BoA, Kinderhook Plates, etc, in a way that resonates.

Interested in any opinions if you are so inclined.

[SeattleUte]

UtahDan, based on the subject matter at hand, how would you reconcile (if at all) the following quotes with the allegations surrounding the BoA and doctrine subsequently culled from the same?

These quotes are taken from the TOPOTC manual and were part of one of the very last lessons....maybe from back in early December? I have been mulling those around since I heard them in my EQ lesson and have a hard time reconciling them with things like the BoA, Kinderhook Plates, etc, in a way that resonates.

Interested in any opinions if you are so inclined.

I think MikeWaters copies his shtick from Joseph Smith. Anymore I have a hard time reading self-agrandizing quotes like this and not hearing MikeWaters. I do know MikeWaters is the biggest Joseph Smith cheerleader probably since Joseph Fielding Smith.

[UtahDan]

UtahDan, based on the subject matter at hand, how would you reconcile (if at all) the following quotes with the allegations surrounding the BoA and doctrine subsequently culled from the same?

These quotes are taken from the TOPOTC manual and were part of one of the very last lessons....maybe from back in early December? I have been mulling those around since I heard them in my EQ lesson and have a hard time reconciling them with things like the BoA, Kinderhook Plates, etc, in a way that resonates.

Interested in any opinions if you are so inclined.

This is a tough thing to grapple with from a believing perspective. It is very hard for me to agree with either one of those quotes, I think they both overstate what, to me, appear to be the reality. On the other hand, I think that Joseph was a "visionary man" much in the same sense as Lehi describes himself almost as an apology to his wife.

So did Joseph receive revelation, did he take as revelation his own thoughts, did he say that some things were revealed knowing that they were his opinions? I lean toward saying yes to all three and I appreciate that this probably exposes me to some ridicule because that might not be the most logical thing to think. Still, I view Joseph as seer/rascal and I find him at turns full of revelation and full of mischief/nonsense. I think that a great many of the things said about him good or bad are all in some measure true.

This sticks you with the question of whether God would use a person like that to deliver His message and, to me, that is something that is better answered by examining the texts themselves and deciding whether you can have faith that they are inspired. As I said above, the "how" is an important part of the analysis but only part of it. The other critical part is the product. If the product is something that you find inspiring, that you find to contain truth and you believe to contain the thoughts of God then it really is a pearl of great price. To me it is a pearl that some think is the genuine article and some think is a fake made of plastic. You can't sell it, so the question is, do you want to wear it? (If that makes sense).

(This is good stuff here, feel free to throw me a nomination)