I noticed the the Church has released a new book of Gospel Art to aid in teaching about the Chruch which can be found here.
I browsed through the selection and sure enough this image is included:
To me it is more proof of the old dichotomy. For members and those who don't know any better, the Church will go on perpetuating the simple mythology while the apologists will deal with the actual history in dusty articles and dark corners of the internet.
The Church clearly banks on the fact that most people will just accept the myth for truth. Then, when someone learns a little more, they can refer them to Bushman or Peterson or whoever else and say, "we really knew this all along." It appears innocent, but it is a brilliant study in propaganda.
Pictures like this raise the question of how gospel art gets commissioned in the first place. Does the Church have a roster of artists that it goes to? Or do people just submit their work for consideration? Basically, if the artist doesn't do their own research, does the Church have someone to suggest corrections?
And in this case, what are the odds of the Church publishing a picture showing the translation being done as the eyewitnesses described? I would say 0.
Better yet, the artwork is not considered scripture or authoritative, so although it shows versions of events which are not supported by even the Church's own scholars, there is little pressure on the leadership to change the misleading artwork.
There is good reason why the Church makes sure that its materials are not officially considered to be on the same level as scripture or revelation. The indoctrination occurs independent of these terms, while the terms themselves can be difficult to work around in the long run.
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!" Nothing beside remains.
I can understand avoiding the stone and hat depiction, but where is the U&T? This makes it look like the translation is happening with no aids at all, much like you or I would translate from a language we know intimately.
"The DNA of fictional populations appears to be the most susceptible to extinction." - Simon Southerton
krose wrote:I can understand avoiding the stone and hat depiction, but where is the U&T? This makes it look like the translation is happening with no aids at all, much like you or I would translate from a language we know intimately.
They used to show it in the "Book of Mormon Reader" (a Church-published illustrated picture book of the Book of Mormon for children):
John Larsen wrote:I noticed the the Church has released a new book of Gospel Art to aid in teaching about the Chruch which can be found here.
I browsed through the selection and sure enough this image is included:
To me it is more proof of the old dichotomy. For members and those who don't know any better, the Church will go on perpetuating the simple mythology while the apologists will deal with the actual history in dusty articles and dark corners of the internet.
The Church clearly banks on the fact that most people will just accept the myth for truth. Then, when someone learns a little more, they can refer them to Bushman or Peterson or whoever else and say, "we really knew this all along." It appears innocent, but it is a brilliant study in propaganda.
That image is deceitful in more ways than one. It's quite romanticized. Oliver Cowdrey looks downright delicious there, but in real life he wasn't quite so handsome:
The Mormon church also has a habit of making Joseph Smith more handsome than he really was. I don't understand that. Most folks aren't incredibly attractive and no one should expect historical figures, even those most beloved, to be something they weren't.
KimberlyAnn wrote:The Mormon church also has a habit of making Joseph Smith more handsome than he really was. I don't understand that. Most folks aren't incredibly attractive and no one should expect historical figures, even those most beloved, to be something they weren't. KA
When I was younger, this is what Joseph Smith looked like:
