Mormon Myths

[Aristotle]

Another Mormon member myth (say that 3 times real fast) :

If you dring coffee your knees will turn green...

M.

I've not heard any of those, but they sure are funny!

[Guest Unorthodox]

Yes you have a problem with all of it and the way you are handling this discussion clearly shows it. Why don't you just say that you want the pictures destroyed and painted waith JS with his face in a hat?

I would never advocate destroying art. That is like burning books.

Just because something is considered "myth" does not make it wrong. Read Joseph Campbell's "Power of Myth" and you will see that mythology can teach us lessons through symbolic, but not literal, truths.

We know that he wasn't the one writing the book and who knows who this artist is who decided to paint this nice picture of Joseph at a desk and call it 'translation' as you must know that the painter's name their paintings, the church doesn't.

Actually, I am not sure if that was the actual name of the painting. It was the title put on the painting by someone with authority from the Church in the Gospel art kit.

The artist was simply taking artistic license or...more likely...did not know the facts behind the tranlation process. In any case, the art teaches us a simple religious idea...that JS translated the plates.

Oh

~ and while we are at it, lets make sure all of the paintings that depict bibilical stories with angels and wings are also destroyed. Hmmmm that wouldn't be enough would it, we should decide if Christ really had that long of hair or a beard and maybe he has the wrong color eyes.

Of course if it is non-LDS art, there would be no reason to change it. Many people believe angels DO have wings.

Is there LDS art that depicts angels with wings? That would be strange, considering that they have emphasized that angels do not have wings.

But again, I must stress that I am all for artistic licence. An artist could give Moroni wings...it doesn't change the message of his visit to JS.

And the physical appearance of Jesus...well, we all know he didn't look like a white European. Fortunately, people of all cultures have painted pictures of Christ to make him closer to their own "race". We have seen paintings of Jesus that range from white to black. As I consider the biblical Jesus a mythical figure (though at the same time I think he actually existed as a historical person), I think there is no better subject on which to allow total artistic license.

What right do these folks have putting out such trash that we might become lost and desolate people spiritually>?

Artistic license is a basic human right given to us by God.

I would dare say...from my non-Christian point of view...that art is one of the purest forms of true revelation.

I am trying to overcome my obsession with historical details, and remind myself that much of history is subjective, and even mythological.

I do apologize if I appeared too critical in yesterday's posts. I was in "historian" mode. Today I am in "artist" mode. :)

<div class='quotemain'>

Those plates are wide out in the open for the scribe to see, though historical documents indicate that they were always hidden.

No, that's not exactly right. Better put: The historical accounts that we have indicate that while translating the plates were covered or not present. The accounts do not purport to tells us that it was that way and that way only at all times. No statement or statements cover all cases of translation.

I may have made a mistake. I thought that Harris was the scribe...and that he claimed to have never seen the plates physically...but only in a vision...so I assumed that was Harris in the painting. I admit I could be wrong.

Besides, in my last post I have admitted that historical accuracy is not always needed in art...I was being a nit-picky historian. Artistically, the paintings are "true" in a mythological sense (even if they are indeed inaccurate in a historical sense).

Sybil made a good point that lots of art is inaccurate, and we should accept it that way.

Furthermore, I am sorry for criticizing "faith promoting" history, even if it is not entirely accurate. As I said above, history is subjective. It is up to the reader to research the facts and decide what is true and what is exaggerated or ommitted.

[Aristotle]

That which is true "in a mythological sense" is an oxymoron. ;-)

Its "innacuracy in a historical sense" would classify it as being a myth.

[Guest Unorthodox]

That which is true" in a mythological sense" is an oxymoron. ;-)

What I mean is that things can be metaphorically true, while not literally true. For example, many people consider The Fall of Adam to be a myth. However, even if Adam never existed, and if evolution is true, the story is still mythologically true in the sense that humans achieved self-awareness, and thus there was a "Fall" from innocence as we believed ourselves to be separate from the natural world. It is also symbolic of our free will.

Now, even if you believe Adam to have been a historical person, there are many other myths that YOU might not believe in literally, which can be read as metphorically true.

Look at Greek myths, for example. There is a Titan named Chronos who emerged form Chaos. While we do not believe that he literally existed, he was a metaphor...a personification...of "Time". There is a truth there. If the world is indeed chaos, with an illusion of order, then Time is what gives us that sense of order.

You may not believe in chaos...but there are many other examples of such myths, and in some cases the myth can teach you an alleged "truth" that you actually believe...therefore making the myth "true".

[Aristotle]

You may not believe in chaos...but there are many other examples of such myths, and in some cases the myth can teach you an alleged "truth" that you actually believe...therefore making the myth "true".

Did you know that some people have traced their genealogy back to Adam?

Hmm...chaos theory...that sounds like a job for Dr. Ian Malcolm! ;-)

The alleged "truth", which is in fact, myth; i.e., "false member teaching".

[Guest Unorthodox]

<div class='quotemain'>

You may not believe in chaos...but there are many other examples of such myths, and in some cases the myth can teach you an alleged "truth" that you actually believe...therefore making the myth "true".

Did you know that some people have traced their genealogy back to Adam?

Hmm...chaos theory...that sounds like a job for Dr. Ian Malcolm! ;-)

If you believe Adam is literal history, that is fine (yes, I know people have traced their geneology to Adam, but that assumes the biblical geneologies are true, which is a whole other topic).

If you don't believe in chaos theory, find a theory you do believe in, and I bet there is a myth that describes it through metaphors. Even if it is just a fable with a moral.

The

alleged "truth", which is in fact, myth; i.e., "false member teaching".

By alleged truth, I meant that there are many things we believe that are not proven...but we accept them as truth. For example, I believe in Evolution. So to me, "The Fall" teaches a truth about evolution...that when we evolved into humans we became self-aware, and gained knowledge of good and evil.

As for this thread, I think that you were using a different definition of "myth". I think you were defining myth as "exaggeration", "lie", "faith promoting rumor", etc.

By THAT definition, I agree such myths are not necessarily true.

I hope that clears up the misunderstanding we seem to be having :)

[Ray]

Did you know that some people have traced their genealogy back to Adam?

I began mine with Adam. Does that count?

[Aristotle]

I hope that clears up the misunderstanding we seem to be having :)

No misunderstanding here...thanks! :-)

I began mine with Adam. Does that count?

Yes, the Adam factor works...as opposed to the factor. LOL

[Guest Syble]

Adam is not only a real person, but he is also a symbolic creature as the Lord has created many worlds and many Adams. IOWs He represents the first man of each created world.

But not only this He represents all men and is called to 'RE-plenish' the earth, as it was already plenished before by other men, (great-great-great-great-great-great- grand fathers) who lived before them, and generation after generation is called forth to RE-plenish the earth otherwise man would cease to exist upon the earth and it would destroy the works and plans of God for this earth and other earths.

This is the reason Satan has introduced small to non-existing families as well as homosexuality. It fights against the procreation and continuation of man on earth.

[Ray]

Adam is not only a real person, but he is also a symbolic creature as the Lord has created many worlds and many Adams. IOWs He represents the first man of each created world.

But not only this He represents all men and is called to 'RE-plenish' the earth, as it was already plenished before by other men, (great-great-great-great-great-great- grand fathers) who lived before them, and generation after generation is called forth to RE-plenish the earth otherwise man would cease to exist upon the earth and it would destroy the works and plans of God for this earth and other earths.

This is the reason Satan has introduced small to non-existing families as well as homosexuality. It fights against the procreation and continuation of man on earth.

Hugh Nibley’s book called “Abraham in Egypt” reveals a lot about the connections between Abraham and Egypt, as well as connections to Egypt and Adam throughout history, for those who want to know more.

And btw, I think the purpose of “replenishing” the Earth is to fill the positions we leave, hopefully striving to honor their parents as we should strive to honor ours.

[Maureen]

This is the reason Satan has introduced small to non-existing families as well as homosexuality. It fights against the procreation and continuation of man on earth.

Syble, are you related to Fiannan?

M.

[Snow]

I may have made a mistake. I thought that Harris was the scribe...and that he claimed to have never seen the plates physically...but only in a vision...so I assumed that was Harris in the painting. I admit I could be wrong.

Harris was ONE of the scribes. No statement by anyone specifies the mechanics of the entire translation process. Different things happened at different times. JS used the Urim and Thummin early on but later took to the seer stone and hat. Oliver Cowdery mistakes the seer stone for the Urim and Thummin in one of his account. In total their are something like 7 or 9 known witnesses to the process but not all of them commented and none of the account seperately or in total cover the whole shebang. Joseph himself is mostly silent.

[Guest Syble]

Syble, are you related to Fiannan?

M.

Yes and I am related to you as well. We are all God's children, making us all brothers and sisters. Like or lump it, it still stands.

[Guest Syble]

Sybil made a good point that lots of art is inaccurate, and we should accept it that way.

Furthermore, I am sorry for criticizing "faith promoting" history, even if it is not entirely accurate. As I said above, history is subjective. It is up to the reader to research the facts and decide what is true and what is exaggerated or ommitted.

It is also up to the reader to get past themselves long enough to allow God to have a say when it comes to His works among men. The Holy Ghost is not mythical and neither is anything he confirms to be true.

OTOH I appreciate you acknowledging that art is art and does as best it can to promote good things when put forth by the church.

Paintings of Satan with a legs of beasts with cloven hooves, head of a goat yet a evil mans face and horns were popular when I was a kid. There were stories of people seeing him in this form. I don't hear much if anything of this nature anymore.

But the art was very well done and used, I think, for a good purpose. Myth or truth, doesn't matter if good came of it and the purpose was served.

There is a breed of Mormons and Exed Mos these days which have put their brand of truth as superior to that of the church and found themselves feeling all superior because of the standard they set for seeking out truth.

I once saw things this same way. It is a trap my friend. Pure and simple. Truth is not always a good thing. Consider telling your mother-in-law that you wouldn't think of having her babysit because she doesn't keep her house clean. It may be truth, but it something that is going to improve your circumstances? Is it going to promote family closeness? What does it really do?

If the truth is destructive, is it necessary, for truths sake alone, to push it on people?

[LionHeart]

I agree with unorthodox. It is a lovely picture, however it is historically inaccurate; either because the artist was not up to speed with his/her history, or he/she had a great desire to paint such a picture, however the image of Joseph Smith with his face in a hat was not particularly appealing.

And the physical appearance of Jesus...well, we all know he didn't look like a white European.

I, however, disagree with this statement. I do believe that Jesus did look like a white European. The true blood jews are of the caucasian race. People assume that Jesus was of the Arabic race because that is who occupies Jerusalem and Israel today, however, Jerusalem and Israel were conquered by the Turkish nation during the dark ages. This was the purpose for the European crusades; to re-take the holy land. The Europeans from the first crusade conquered Jerusalem and massacred the inhabitants. It was later conquered by the turks again. It changed hands several times until the '60s when it was established as a safe haven for persecuted jews. By this time however, the jewish people had mixed with the Arabic people so much that they were basically all of the Arabic ethnicity.

Just on another note; and a little off topic but very interesting, there is speculation that Jesus spent his unaccounted years in Euorope; and that he actually raised a family, and built a church house there. I have heard that there is an old church house in Glastonbury England which, when asked about it, the locals say "it is the church that Jesus built." So if you are of English descent, it is slightly possible that you are descended from Jesus.

[Guest Syble]

I agree with unorthodox. It is a lovely picture, however it is historically inaccurate; either because the artist was not up to speed with his/her history, or he/she had a great desire to paint such a picture, however the image of Joseph Smith with his face in a hat was not particularly appealing.

<div class='quotemain'>

And the physical appearance of Jesus...well, we all know he didn't look like a white European.

I, however, disagree with this statement. I do believe that Jesus did look like a white European. The true blood jews are of the caucasian race. People assume that Jesus was of the Arabic race because that is who occupies Jerusalem and Israel today, however, Jerusalem and Israel were conquered by the Turkish nation during the dark ages. This was the purpose for the European crusades; to re-take the holy land. The Europeans from the first crusade conquered Jerusalem and massacred the inhabitants. It was later conquered by the turks again. It changed hands several times until the '60s when it was established as a safe haven for persecuted jews. By this time however, the jewish people had mixed with the Arabic people so much that they were basically all of the Arabic ethnicity.

Just on another note; and a little off topic but very interesting, there is speculation that Jesus spent his unaccounted years in Euorope; and that he actually raised a family, and built a church house there. I have heard that there is an old church house in Glastonbury England which, when asked about it, the locals say "it is the church that Jesus built." So if you are of English descent, it is slightly possible that you are descended from Jesus.

Isn't that interesting. I do believe there are chosen decendants, unknown among all of us here. There is a scripture which states: A prince will walk, while a servant rides.

Eccl. 10: 7

7 I have seen servants upon horses, and princes walking as servants upon the earth.

It means that we don't really know our eternal status and maybe, like Christ, born in lowly servant like conditions, while those who are not eternally of noble and great heritage may have been of high birth here.

Only the Lord can know for sure. The rest is speculation, unless revealed as it was to Moses.

[Outshined]

Harris was ONE of the scribes. No statement by anyone specifies the mechanics of the entire translation process. Different things happened at different times. JS used the Urim and Thummin early on but later took to the seer stone and hat. Oliver Cowdery mistakes the seer stone for the Urim and Thummin in one of his account. In total their are something like 7 or 9 known witnesses to the process but not all of them commented and none of the account seperately or in total cover the whole shebang. Joseph himself is mostly silent.

Plus we know that on a least one occasion symbols from the pates were copied down to be examined by Charles Anthon. The picture may only show a part of the process, but should not be labeled "inaccurate."

[Guest bizabra]

Yes you have a problem with all of it and the way you are handling this discussion clearly shows it. Why don't you just say that you want the pictures destroyed and painted waith JS with his face in a hat?

I would never advocate destroying art. That is like burning books.

Just because something is considered "myth" does not make it wrong. Read Joseph Campbell's "Power of Myth" and you will see that mythology can teach us lessons through symbolic, but not literal, truths.

We know that he wasn't the one writing the book and who knows who this artist is who decided to paint this nice picture of Joseph at a desk and call it 'translation' as you must know that the painter's name their paintings, the church doesn't.

Actually, I am not sure if that was the actual name of the painting. It was the title put on the painting by someone with authority from the Church in the Gospel art kit.

The artist was simply taking artistic license or...more likely...did not know the facts behind the tranlation process. In any case, the art teaches us a simple religious idea...that JS translated the plates.

Oh

~ and while we are at it, lets make sure all of the paintings that depict bibilical stories with angels and wings are also destroyed. Hmmmm that wouldn't be enough would it, we should decide if Christ really had that long of hair or a beard and maybe he has the wrong color eyes.

Of course if it is non-LDS art, there would be no reason to change it. Many people believe angels DO have wings.

Is there LDS art that depicts angels with wings? That would be strange, considering that they have emphasized that angels do not have wings.

But again, I must stress that I am all for artistic licence. An artist could give Moroni wings...it doesn't change the message of his visit to JS.

And the physical appearance of Jesus...well, we all know he didn't look like a white European. Fortunately, people of all cultures have painted pictures of Christ to make him closer to their own "race". We have seen paintings of Jesus that range from white to black. As I consider the biblical Jesus a mythical figure (though at the same time I think he actually existed as a historical person), I think there is no better subject on which to allow total artistic license.

What right do these folks have putting out such trash that we might become lost and desolate people spiritually>?

Artistic license is a basic human right given to us by God.

I would dare say...from my non-Christian point of view...that art is one of the purest forms of true revelation.

I am trying to overcome my obsession with historical details, and remind myself that much of history is subjective, and even mythological.

I do apologize if I appeared too critical in yesterday's posts. I was in "historian" mode. Today I am in "artist" mode. :)

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

Those plates are wide out in the open for the scribe to see, though historical documents indicate that they were always hidden.

No, that's not exactly right. Better put: The historical accounts that we have indicate that while translating the plates were covered or not present. The accounts do not purport to tells us that it was that way and that way only at all times. No statement or statements cover all cases of translation.

I may have made a mistake. I thought that Harris was the scribe...and that he claimed to have never seen the plates physically...but only in a vision...so I assumed that was Harris in the painting. I admit I could be wrong.

Besides, in my last post I have admitted that historical accuracy is not always needed in art...I was being a nit-picky historian. Artistically, the paintings are "true" in a mythological sense (even if they are indeed inaccurate in a historical sense).

Sybil made a good point that lots of art is inaccurate, and we should accept it that way.

Furthermore, I am sorry for criticizing "faith promoting" history, even if it is not entirely accurate. As I said above, history is subjective. It is up to the reader to research the facts and decide what is true and what is exaggerated or ommitted.

BIZ: Would you consider Oliver Stone's movie about JFK to be historically "true" or just artistic license? Problem with artistic license, is that folks see it and believe it to BE THE TRUTH. They no longer feel a healthy scepticism or doubt, but believe what they have seen and then KNOW the "TRUTH" of the matter.

I read somewere (please don't ask for references, 'cuz I don't remember) of a study in which they had people recount a childhood memory, then later they showed them a video that had actors dramatizing the memory. The video script had been changed somewhat, and key elements of the story changed slightly. After showing the test subjects the altered re-enactment video, they asked them to recount the childhood memory again. Almost everyone would then "remember" the memory the way the video dramatization had portrayed it and NOT how they had originally recounted it.

Point was that memory is very subjective and easily altered and manipulated. Seeing IS believing, apparently.

This is my problem with historical dramas that take major license with what actually happened, and do not go to great lengths to alert the viewer that this NOT actual history and has been greatly altered for the sake of DRAMA. It then becomes something OTHER than history.

The painting of the scribe, Joseph, and the plates out there in the open would no doubt leave a major mental image in the viewers mind. Couple that with folks who seldom dig deeper or read more about how that process was described by the participants themselves, and you end up wth members who FERVENTLY BELIEVE that this image was the way it actually happened. THE CHURCH is complicit in this deception becuase it serves it's purpose of firmly fixing the STORY of the golden plates being actual and real into the mind of the viewer. Else why WOULD THE CHURCH allow "historically altered" images to be distributed under it's name?

<div class='quotemain'>

You may not believe in chaos...but there are many other examples of such myths, and in some cases the myth can teach you an alleged "truth" that you actually believe...therefore making the myth "true".

Did you know that some people have traced their genealogy back to Adam?

Hmm...chaos theory...that sounds like a job for Dr. Ian Malcolm! ;-)

The alleged "truth", which is in fact, myth; i.e., "false member teaching".

BIZ: Yeah, sure they did! I alwasy get a chuckle out of this particular myth. Traced back to Adam, indeed!

LOL

[Snow]

<div class='quotemain'>

And the physical appearance of Jesus...well, we all know he didn't look like a white European.

I, however, disagree with this statement. I do believe that Jesus did look like a white European. The true blood jews are of the caucasian race. People assume that Jesus was of the Arabic race because that is who occupies Jerusalem and Israel today, however, Jerusalem and Israel were conquered by the Turkish nation during the dark ages. This was the purpose for the European crusades; to re-take the holy land. The Europeans from the first crusade conquered Jerusalem and massacred the inhabitants. It was later conquered by the turks again. It changed hands several times until the '60s when it was established as a safe haven for persecuted jews. By this time however, the jewish people had mixed with the Arabic people so much that they were basically all of the Arabic ethnicity.

That's an interesting idea. Completely untrue but interesting. You know, you don't have to guess at this stuff - you can look it up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew

Just on another note; and a little off topic but very interesting, there is speculation that Jesus spent his unaccounted years in Euorope; and that he actually raised a family, and built a church house there. I have heard that there is an old church house in Glastonbury England which, when asked about it, the locals say "it is the church that Jesus built." So if you are of English descent, it is slightly possible that you are descended from Jesus.

Just on another note: There was an old woman who lived in a shoe. She had so many children she didn't know what to do. (I love fairy tales too.)

[LionHeart]

Actually, no one was allowed to see the plates until the time that the Lord appointed. Only then, were the first three witnesses allowed to see them; who were showed them by an angel. And then later, the eight witnesses were showed them by Joseph Smith. Another inaccuracy about the painting is that in reality, there was a curtain dividing the room; Joseph Smith on one side and the scribe on the other. Emma Smith was his first scribe, who was later replaced by Martin Harrris, who was also later replaced by Oliver Cowdery. Sometimes, when Oliver Cowdery couldn't be present, David Whitmer filled in for him.

So the painting is literally inaccurate. Not to say it is not a lovely painting though. Like I mentioned before, the true scene probably would have been less appealing. The painting would give the wrong impression to someone who didn't know the facts about the incident.

[Outshined]

If no one saw them like that, how were the symbols copied from the plates for Anton's perusal? I see no inaccuracy.

[Sugarbay]

Actually, no one was allowed to see the plates until the time that the Lord appointed. Only then, were the first three witnesses allowed to see them; who were showed them by an angel. And then later, the eight witnesses were showed them by Joseph Smith. Another inaccuracy about the painting is that in reality, there was a curtain dividing the room; Joseph Smith on one side and the scribe on the other. Emma Smith was his first scribe, who was later replaced by Martin Harrris, who was also later replaced by Oliver Cowdery. Sometimes, when Oliver Cowdery couldn't be present, David Whitmer filled in for him.

So the painting is literally inaccurate. Not to say it is not a lovely painting though. Like I mentioned before, the true scene probably would have been less appealing. The painting would give the wrong impression to someone who didn't know the facts about the incident.

Won't it be wonderful when this is all over with and we know the facts, but then, perhaps they won't be so darned important then and we will be busy about Father's work. Just a thought...

B)

[LionHeart]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

And the physical appearance of Jesus...well, we all know he didn't look like a white European.

I, however, disagree with this statement. I do believe that Jesus did look like a white European. The true blood jews are of the caucasian race. People assume that Jesus was of the Arabic race because that is who occupies Jerusalem and Israel today, however, Jerusalem and Israel were conquered by the Turkish nation during the dark ages. This was the purpose for the European crusades; to re-take the holy land. The Europeans from the first crusade conquered Jerusalem and massacred the inhabitants. It was later conquered by the turks again. It changed hands several times until the '60s when it was established as a safe haven for persecuted jews. By this time however, the jewish people had mixed with the Arabic people so much that they were basically all of the Arabic ethnicity.

That's an interesting idea. Completely untrue but interesting. You know, you don't have to guess at this stuff - you can look it up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew

Actually, I did look it up. This wikipedia article appears to talk about Jews as a religion, however, I'm referring to the jews that actually live in jerusalem. This is more understandable if one knows about the origins of the jews, the gentiles, and the canaanites. This, however, requires a belief in the bible.

Just on another note; and a little off topic but very interesting, there is speculation that Jesus spent his unaccounted years in Euorope; and that he actually raised a family, and built a church house there. I have heard that there is an old church house in Glastonbury England which, when asked about it, the locals say "it is the church that Jesus built." So if you are of English descent, it is slightly possible that you are descended from Jesus.

Just on another note: There was an old woman who lived in a shoe. She had so many children she didn't know what to do. (I love fairy tales too.)

Nobody requires anyone to believe this stuff. Some of us choose to keep an open mind however.

[LionHeart]

If no one saw them like that, how were the symbols copied from the plates for Anton's perusal? I see no inaccuracy.

Joseph Smith copied the characters onto a paper and then gave it to Martin Harris to show to professor Anthon.

[Snow]

Actually, I did look it up. This wikipedia article appears to talk about Jews as a religion, however, I'm referring to the jews that actually live in jerusalem. This is more understandable if one knows about the origins of the jews, the gentiles, and the canaanites. This, however, requires a belief in the bible.

You neednt believe in the Bible to understand that the Jews in Israel date back thousands of years and are near or middle eastern in their origen. DNA evidence is available on the matter.

http://foundationstone.com.au/HtmlSupport/...icGenetics.html

Are you aware of any credible evidence (I already know the answer to this) that Jews are European in origen?