How the Book of Mormon was translated...

[_Inconceivable]

What are the reasons the church does not accurately show how the translation took place?

Here are three reasons:

1) Most members don't know much about Church history.

2) Mormon artists and their editors are pretty representative, in this sense, of the general membership.

3) Artistic representations of historical events are often quite inaccurate, in and out of the Church.

Hi Thews,
Not sure how anyone could call these reasons.

1) The members don't run the church, the suits do. They have made it clear, ad nausium, that priesthood authority/revelation comes from the top down. Not the other way around - ever.

2) Artists are commissioned in many instances by the suits. Regardless, art is approved before it is included in church based material. It is either owned and copyrighted by the church or liscenced to the church by the artist. The suits know exactly what they have. They specifically asked for it.

3) see number 1. If there is an innacuracy that is important to set straight, the suits will clear it up. Here are some examples:

I recall Bruce McConkie's talk on our relationship to Christ
"To the Mothers (and Fathers) in Israel talks by Benson
The immaculate conception talk by a so-called apostle while I was at the MTC.
What Mormons can and can't do on Sunday.
The Pine Box doctrine as well as Kimball's Miracle of Forgiveness (which is neither)
The Plan of Salvation being God's idea, not Jesus'
The requirement to re-say the sacrament or baptismal prayer if there is one word missing.
1/10 of a Mormon's increase constituting a full tithe.
The authorized First Vision story
Cain's cursed children now receiving the temple and priesthood privileges
The temple endowment ceremony changes of 1990 (as well as previous changes)

Accuracy is important..

..only when it's important.

This is why Daniel Peterson was not particularly accurate in his remarks.

[_Inconceivable]

The original artwork had the resurrected Peter and James and the transfigured John floating in air. This innacurate depiction was corrected. The lazy hack artist redrew and extended the feet so that it appeared that they were all touching the ground.

Look at John's legs in proportion to the location of is butt. And what's with James height? Is he standing on a tapir?

Still not sure why all of Arnold Frieburgs painting depict ripped Nephites with thimble heads:

love the horns - seeing there were probably no cows in mesoamerica with that kind of rack in the americas at the time. I think it just shows the ignorance and lack of inspiration of the leadership that approve of the paintings.

[_LDS truthseeker]

...
I can only guess that the truth would be too devastating to many members. It would lead to unwanted discussion on the matter. Of course investigators would never join the church if they saw missionaries whip out a slide that had Joseph translating the Book of Mormon with his face in a hat.
...

I suppose that the same missionary problem would occur
if they were passing out reading material showing Smith
wearing the ancient Nephite breastplate, and peering
through over-sized magical spectacles.

Perhaps, but probably not as bad if they showed it to the members this way. They use to have the image of Joseph with the breastplate and spectacles in at least one church publication - 1970s version of the Book of Mormon reader. And I have yet to see Joseph's face in a hat in any official Mormon publication. I wonder why they no longer show this image commonly anymore. I guess they think the members can't even handle this. One thing to see it in print, another to "see" it.

[_thews]

Hi Thews,
Not sure how anyone could call these reasons.

1) The members don't run the church, the suits do. They have made it clear, ad nausium, that priesthood authority/revelation comes from the top down. Not the other way around - ever.

I agree. The translation method is actually level 2. Level 1 is the seer stones themselves. The LDS corporation hides the fact that Urim and Thummim were taken back with the so-called lost pages using the D&C 10-1:3. Unveil the mask that hides the translation method and the Urim and Thimmum are right behind.

An old thread with a newer TBM who happened by: http://www.exmormonforums.com/viewtopic ... &sk=t&sd=a

2) Artists are commissioned in many instances by the suits. Regardless, art is approved before it is included in church based material. It is either owned and copyrighted by the church or licensed to the church by the artist. The suits know exactly what they have. They specifically asked for it.

Agree 100%... the deception is intentional, just as the apologists who know the truth and skew it. There are a feww who don't; Brant Gardner is one of them. This is an old thread and quite long, but I found Brandt to be very honest: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=12999

3) see number 1. If there is an inaccuracy that is important to set straight, the suits will clear it up. Here are some examples:

I recall Bruce McConkie's talk on our relationship to Christ
"To the Mothers (and Fathers) in Israel talks by Benson
The immaculate conception talk by a so-called apostle while I was at the MTC.
What Mormons can and can't do on Sunday.
The Pine Box doctrine as well as Kimball's Miracle of Forgiveness (which is neither)
The Plan of Salvation being God's idea, not Jesus'
The requirement to re-say the sacrament or baptismal prayer if there is one word missing.
1/10 of a Mormon's increase constituting a full tithe.
The authorized First Vision story
Cain's cursed children now receiving the temple and priesthood privileges
The temple endowment ceremony changes of 1990 (as well as previous changes)

Accuracy is important..

..only when it's important.

This is why Daniel Peterson was not particularly accurate in his remarks.

I agree, but I was shocked when I read them. Sometimes Dr. Peterson can be honest enough to address the issue, when the most common ploy is to distort the truth by stating things that are known to be untrue; things the Mormon apologists know are untrue but pretend they don't. When he said most Mormons don't know the real history of Mormonism, he was correct. The LDS websites continue to distort it; Jeff Lindsay's website is the worst regarding deception in my opinion.