DiscussMormonism.com

ludwigm wrote:

Chap wrote:So how could anyone dare to 'redact' them in this manner?

1984 by Orwell. That man was a prophet...

Or, if any of You don't like written fictions, then see Stalin.

- -
- -

Should there not be a corpse floating in the river in the lower photo?

DrW wrote:Should there not be a corpse floating in the river in the lower photo?

Shouldn't.
Yezhov was shot at his scrag, in the downward stairways of clubhouse of NKVD, a place he know well --- he was head of...

His time in office is known as the "Yezhovshchina" (Russian: Ежовщина)

I have a question wrote:

hagoth7 wrote:Is there a thread here or elsewhere that documents some of this institutional dishonesty?

Are you joking?

Not at all. (While I have somewhat of a sense of humor, which may at times be slightly dry and twisted)...that was a serious question. I appreciate Mak taking the time to provide a detailed. I intend on looking into what he's offered here, and responding, where appropriate.

I have a question wrote:

hagoth7 wrote:Is there a thread here or elsewhere that documents some of this institutional dishonesty?

Are you joking?

hagoth7 wrote:Not at all. (While I have somewhat of a sense of humor, which may at times be slightly dry and twisted)...that was a serious question. I appreciate Mak taking the time to provide a detailed. I intend on looking into what he's offered here, and responding, where appropriate.

The reason for my exclamation is that you cannot have missed the recent furore from members over theChurch's publication of the recent essays and the shock that members felt over what they were reading. That alone should be confirmation enough that there has been institutional dishonesty in Church materials for generations.

Maksutov wrote:

hagoth7 wrote:Is there a thread here or elsewhere that documents some of this institutional dishonesty?

...........

http://postmormon.blogspot.com/2010/01/ ... ising.html

The leaders of the Mormon Church also present dishonest information and a false image to the world by promoting false advertising and marketing stratagies which are perpetuated by the uninformed LDS membership. The following brief list of just a few examples is provided with links for more information.

• The LDS church claims Smith saw two Deities in his First Vision, and after this vision he immediately knew and proclaimed that the Father is a personage of tabernacle (flesh and bone). This is false.

• The LDS church presents images of Smith actually reading and translating from the alleged Gold Plates in front of him as if he learned Egyptian and translated it into English. This is false...

Wow. Thanks for the response. There's a lot to chew on there.

I'll respond to the first three for now. Getting to Kishkumen's concern is my more pressing priority this weekend only in part because it came first, but I hope to be able to consider and respond to more of what you've cited here at some point later.

1) As to the first issue, I suggest considering President Uchtdorf's recent conference address "On Being Genuine"...just listened to it while driving this week. https://www.lds.org/general-conference/ ... e?lang=eng He mentioned the tendency of forming a "Potemkin Village" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potemkin_village ...trying to merely make things look better than they are for nothing more than appearances...and he emphasized the need to be more honest, open and genuine. If the church has done something other than that in the past about its doctrines and practices, as you assert, I have reason to hope that following such counsel will improve things in the future. I suspect the recent church publications are a step in that general direction.

2) As to the first vision, I was never under the impression, either growing up or as a young missionary, that Joseph knew from that early experience that the Father had a body of flesh and bone. We are repeatedly taught in the scriptures that we learn line upon line, bit by bit, piece by piece. And Joseph was no different. The written revelation on the nature of the Father having a tangible body was years later (decades later actually) - which is always what I have believed. If the church is hiding it, why is 1843 giving as the date of section 130 of the Doctrine and Covenants, approximately 23 years after the first vision? Based on the above, I believe you've constructed a straw men on this issue. Thoughts?

3) As to imagery used in LDS publications, I am not, by way of a parallel example, under the impression that the final Nephite leaders wore horns on their helmets. (Nor do I swallow the once-common public myth that Vikings wore such a thing into battle either.) Yet I see no need to criticize Friberg for taking creative license. Nor do I see a need to criticize the church for publishing such an image that nonetheless attempts to depict the tragedy of the last days of the Nephite civilization in the ancient Americas. However, Friberg's painting demonstrates the essential message well enough that the minor details don't distract or offend me. Likewise, if artists have chosen to depict Joseph as actually reading from the plates, I can see how others may choose to see that as dishonest or deceptive. As a partial response, I would imagine relatively few artists and relatively few church leaders (other than those who have come up through the ranks of the church seminary or institute programs) have taken the time to study the history in considerable depth. (I'm just a newbie.) I would imagine most of them have been otherwise busy serving and administering in the church. By way of example, my father was almost always busy in a number of callings, and spent considerable more spare time helping others, and I never once saw him sitting down to study church history. Same goes with my mother. They focused instead on things (that they taught me by example) that are important to focus on: service - putting their faith to work to benefit others. If some find such pictures offensive, I would encourage them to be patient. With the rise of the internet, criticisms such as the above will likely help artists and publishers take more consideration into what the history actually says.

Apologies for the lengthy response.

hagoth7 wrote:Likewise, if artists have chosen to depict Joseph as actually reading from the plates, I can see how others may choose to see that as dishonest or deceptive. As a partial response, I would imagine relatively few artists and relatively few church leaders (other than those who have come up through the ranks of the church seminary or institute programs) have taken the time to study the history in considerable depth. (I'm just a newbie.) I would imagine most of them have been otherwise busy serving and administering in the church. By way of example, my father was almost always busy in a number of callings, and spent considerable more spare time helping others, and I never once saw him sitting down to study church history. Same goes with my mother. They focused instead on things (that they taught me by example) that are important to focus on: service - putting their faith to work to benefit others. If some find such pictures offensive, I would encourage them to be patient. With the rise of the internet, criticisms such as the above will likely help artists and publishers take more consideration into what the history actually says.

Are you suggesting that the General Authorities of the Church who sanction the media used in Church materials were unfamiliar with how Joseph actually translated the plates? Seriously?

For reference, here is how the Church defines dishonesty:

Lying is intentionally deceiving others. Bearing false witness is one form of lying. The Lord gave this commandment to the children of Israel: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour” (Exodus 20:16). Jesus also taught this when He was on earth (see Matthew 19:18). There are many other forms of lying. When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.

https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-princ ... y?lang=eng

I have a question wrote:The reason for my exclamation is that you cannot have missed the recent furore from members over the Church's publication of the recent essays and the shock that members felt over what they were reading. That alone should be confirmation enough that there has been institutional dishonesty in Church materials for generations.

I can understand why such things can be a shock for those who have never considered and weighed every nook and cranny of church history.
I studied and considered some of it years back, so I don't see the cause for furor. Main point being: my sources back then were LDS sources.
Some things are simply better suited for more advanced personal study, and aren't part of the core basic instruction you can get spoon-fed in a 40-minute lesson.
I don't imagine Lutheran or other protestant churches teach every aspect of their denominational origins and history, especially the parts that aren't flattering or edifying. But if people choose to criticize the LDS faith, so be it.
Frankly, I think a lot of this is much ado about nothing. Based on the context above, I think that a number of people aren't being reasonable or fair about such things.

I have a question wrote:

hagoth7 wrote:Likewise, if artists have chosen to depict Joseph as actually reading from the plates, I can see how others may choose to see that as dishonest or deceptive. As a partial response, I would imagine relatively few artists and relatively few church leaders (other than those who have come up through the ranks of the church seminary or institute programs) have taken the time to study the history in considerable depth. (I'm just a newbie.) I would imagine most of them have been otherwise busy serving and administering in the church. By way of example, my father was almost always busy in a number of callings, and spent considerable more spare time helping others, and I never once saw him sitting down to study church history. Same goes with my mother. They focused instead on things (that they taught me by example) that are important to focus on: service - putting their faith to work to benefit others. If some find such pictures offensive, I would encourage them to be patient. With the rise of the internet, criticisms such as the above will likely help artists and publishers take more consideration into what the history actually says.

Are you suggesting that the General Authorities of the Church who sanction the media used in Church materials were unfamiliar with how Joseph actually translated the plates? Seriously?

Quite serious. Consider again my bolded and underlined statement above. I've served several bishops, and know quite well just a fraction of the tremendous demands on their time that they give freely, week after week. The majority of those who have come up through bishoprics, stake presidencies, and the like frankly do not have the free time to also spend studying church history in depth. What little free time they have left (after their demands with the paying job that keeps the bills at bay) can and should go to quality time with their family. Keep in mind that this is largely a lay ministry. Keep in mind that such men are also generally attempting to follow the counsel to earn sufficiently to keep their better half at home to rear the kids - so in the vast majority of such homes, we're talking single-income families.

I take it you may not have grown up in a family where parents served extensively in local callings. Or perhaps, if you have, you've forgotten. They don't have the time to focus on the past. They're focusing on the present and the future.

hagoth7 wrote:Some things are simply better suited for more advanced personal study, and aren't part of the core basic instruction you can get spoon-fed in a 40-minute lesson.

The problem is not that there are other doctrines or ideas that are not taught with the basics we see in Sunday school each week. The problem is that the basics are not accurate, and since you admit deeper study will inform you, the church being ignorant of inaccuracies is unlikely. There have been many threads about many of the things the church has not been honest about. Much the same as your cherished narrative about spiritual experiences, the church has a cherished narrative about it's origins even though they would know some things are not accurate.

hagoth7 wrote:Quite serious. Consider again my bolded and underlined statement above. I've served several bishops, and know quite well just a fraction of the tremendous demands on their time that they give freely, week after week. The majority of those who have come up through bishoprics, stake presidencies, and the like frankly do not have the free time to also spend studying church history in depth. What little free time they have left (after their demands with the paying job that keeps the bills at bay) can and should go to quality time with their family. Keep in mind that this is largely a lay ministry.

I take it you may not have grown up in a family where parents served extensively in local callings. Or perhaps, if you have, you've forgotten. They don't have the time to focus on the past. They're focusing on the present and the future.

Most of the GA's, and in particular the Apostles, have not shown the amount of ignorance you seem to be suggesting here. The other problem is that manuals and such are created by those who do know the history very well. So are they being dishonest? Even though they create the manuals they have to be approved by the GA's, so I doubt the GA's are approving what goes in or not in ignorance.