DiscussMormonism.com

One of the common complaints that critics of the church make is that all artistic renderings of the translation of the Book of Mormon are completely wrong. They always show Joseph poring over gold plates or using the Urim and Thummim, or deep in thought, or something that accords with common Mormon misunderstandings of how the translation happened. They never show it how it happened, with Joseph sticking his head in a hat.

LDS apologists have generally retorted that it's artistic license or the artists don't know what is going on. I mean the artists just paint the stuff and the GAs believe in the freedom and integrity of the artist and his/her product so they wouldn't dare tell the artists to go back to their studios and get the paintings correct. Above all they always emphasize that art isn't doctrine and that only bozos get their doctrine from art.

Up until now I have sided with the apologists, but I am now switching sides to the critics on this one. Why? Because of this art work put in the December 2011 issue of the Ensign. Please take a minute to compare the original art work on the left and the Enisgn's version of the art work on the right at this web page:

http://www.dovesandserpents.org/wp/2012 ... st-angels/

Basically, someone at the COB decided to edit Carl Bloch's "The Resurrection" to make it more in harmony with LDS beliefs. Specifically, the angels in the Ensign version lack wings and are dressed more modestly.

If the LDS church can censor and edit a great painting to accord more with Mormon doctrine, then they sure as hell can tell their in house and contract artists to get the translation renditions correct. From this we can conclude that the COB doesn't give a care about artistic integrity. And they sure are worried that people are getting their doctrine from art work. Since this is the case, the COB has no excuse to continue publishing the misleading pictures of the Book of Mormon translation. They either need to commission new works of art to reflect reality or it's time to edit in Joseph's face in a hat in all of the existing LDS artwork depicting the translation process.

ETA: I found the pdf of the original Ensign article to see for yourself, it's on page 54:

http://media.ldscdn.org/pdf/lds-magazin ... st-eng.pdf

ETA 2: I just found something else interesting. In the first page of the above pdf article there is another photoshopped image. They composited two Bloch paintings. On the next page, this is the attribution given:

Ensign wrote:Composite Image of The Crucifixion and The Resurrection by Carl Heinrich Bloch. Images of paintings used by permission of the National Historic Museum at Frederiksborg in Hillerod

OK, so they are saying basically, "We Photoshopped these two together."

Now look at the attribution for the image of the resurrection on page 54:

Ensign wrote:The Resurrection by Carl Heinrich Bloch; Used by permission of the National Historic Museum at Frederiksborg in Hillerod

No indication given that they photoshopped anything. Why admit to photshopping the composite image, but no indication that they photoshopped the second?

Yup, that pretty much blows apologetic excuses out of the water.

The LDS church practices deception to the extreme and frosts it over with the sweet claims of the Holy Ghost making you feel good.

(Ok, I won't mention Facsimile No. 3. and how the church has poluted *that* artwork)

Anyway, I don't trust the LDS church any further than I could throw it. The church has lost all credibility with me as far as being an honest organization that practices a decent measure of transparency acceptable to good people everywhere.

The LDS church really is loosing ground, bleeding members, and losing credibility of being honest that they once enjoyed.

Paul O

Buffalo wrote:Yup, that pretty much blows apologetic excuses out of the water.

That's the way it is, though. It was that way when they censored the Rodin exhibit at BYU because, among other things, it was offensive to local Mormon folk that Rodin had depicted John the Baptist's genitals.

It goes with the territory. There is a reason the director of the revisionist version of the crucifixion in Gore Vidal's Live From Golgotha was a Mormon. The guy knew what he was talking about there.

This is Disneyfication in accordance with Mormon standards.

Kishkumen wrote:

Buffalo wrote:Yup, that pretty much blows apologetic excuses out of the water.

That's the way it is, though. It was that way when they censored the Rodin exhibit at BYU because, among other things, it was offensive to local Mormon folk that Rodin had depicted John the Baptist's genitals.

At BYU only?

In my post viewtopic.php?p=568366#p568366 there is a [*color=red][image deleted][*/color] among the Thinker's paraphrases.

The deleted image was THIS, because of breasts...

Just when I think the LDS church's obsession with its own manufactured female standards of "modesty" couldn't get any more absurd, it keeps right on publishing.

Aristotle Smith wrote:One of the common complaints that critics of the church make is that all artistic renderings of the translation of the Book of Mormon are completely wrong. They always show Joseph poring over gold plates or using the Urim and Thummim, or deep in thought, or something that accords with common Mormon misunderstandings of how the translation happened. They never show it how it happened, with Joseph sticking his head in a hat.

LDS apologists have generally retorted that it's artistic license or the artists don't know what is going on. I mean the artists just paint the stuff and the GAs believe in the freedom and integrity of the artist and his/her product so they wouldn't dare tell the artists to go back to their studios and get the paintings correct. Above all they always emphasize that art isn't doctrine and that only bozos get their doctrine from art.

Up until now I have sided with the apologists, but I am now switching sides to the critics on this one. Why? Because of this art work put in the December 2011 issue of the Ensign. Please take a minute to compare the original art work on the left and the Enisgn's version of the art work on the right at this web page:

http://www.dovesandserpents.org/wp/2012 ... st-angels/

Basically, someone at the COB decided to edit Carl Bloch's "The Resurrection" to make it more in harmony with LDS beliefs. Specifically, the angels in the Ensign version lack wings and are dressed more modestly.

If the LDS church can censor and edit a great painting to accord more with Mormon doctrine, then they sure as hell can tell their in house and contract artists to get the translation renditions correct. From this we can conclude that the COB doesn't give a care about artistic integrity. And they sure are worried that people are getting their doctrine from art work. Since this is the case, the COB has no excuse to continue publishing the misleading pictures of the Book of Mormon translation. They either need to commission new works of art to reflect reality or it's time to edit in Joseph's face in a hat in all of the existing LDS artwork depicting the translation process.

ETA: I found the pdf of the original Ensign article to see for yourself, it's on page 54:

http://media.ldscdn.org/pdf/lds-magazin ... st-eng.pdf

Wow. Thanks for looking that up as I was concerned that this was some sort of satire...just. wow.

Aristotle Smith wrote:Up until now I have sided with the apologists, but I am now switching sides to the critics on this one. Why? Because of this art work put in the December 2011 issue of the Ensign.

[*snip*]

If the LDS church can censor and edit a great painting to accord more with Mormon doctrine, then they sure as hell can tell their in house and contract artists to get the translation renditions correct. From this we can conclude that the COB doesn't give a care about artistic integrity. And they sure are worried that people are getting their doctrine from art work. Since this is the case, the COB has no excuse to continue publishing the misleading pictures of the Book of Mormon translation. They either need to commission new works of art to reflect reality or it's time to edit in Joseph's face in a hat in all of the existing LDS artwork depicting the translation process.

Of course the LDS Church has control over artwork it commissions. This has always been the case. There is no reasonable explanation for the Church's strategy of using artwork to distort or change uncomfortable facts, other than willful deception. It is sometimes difficult, however, for people to come to grips with that, and its implications.

-JV

Please remind me - when did Latter-Day revelation reveal that angels don't have wings?

I mean, Old Testament seraphim certainly had wings - no less than three pairs each:

Isaiah 6 (as quoted in 2 Nephi 16, no less!!)

1 In the year that king Uzziah died, I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple.

2 Above it stood the seraphim; each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly.

The Prophet Joseph Smith taught: “An angel of God never has wings. Some will say that they have seen a spirit; that he offered them his hand, but they did not touch it. This is a lie. First, it is contrary to the plan of God: a spirit cannot come but in glory; an angel has flesh and bones; we see not their glory. The devil may appear as an angel of light. Ask God to reveal it; if it be of the devil, he will flee from you; if of God, He will manifest Himself, or make it manifest. We may come to Jesus and ask Him; He will know all about it.” ( History of the Church, 3:392.)

http://institute.LDS.org/manuals/doctrine-and-covenants-institute-student-manual/dc-in-121-129.asp

Tobin might want to review that lesson.