NOM

My DW gave a lesson for primary yesterday and ran it past me before presenting. Since this year is D&C, she included a brief review of the restoration they've learned about so far. Since she is teaching kids, it was mostly pictures. I mostly kept my mouth shut, but she included an image to cover the translation of the Book of Mormon which showed Joseph on one side of a sheet studying the gold plates with not hats or rocks or spectacles to be seen. So I brought up that the church now accepts that he used a rock in a hat, and that the image is not accurate. She was a bit peeved that I would say anything, but her response was golden, "Well, I pulled it off the church website." I'm sure her frustration won't get past me to the church, but it is telling that she found the picture that told a fake story on the churches website.

I did a little searching and it looks like she just found the picture she wanted on the website. The church included a different picture with more ambiguity in the packet for this lesson. See both pictures below.

Image DW used:



Image included in the lesson's materials:

I think I can see the hat in the second picture.

If I close my left eye and squint cross eyed.

The Church will never let go of the gold plate image, but at least it is not pushing the Urim and Thummin usage.


Not forced to wear Urim and Thummin for the pictures.

The second illustration is attempting to portray Joseph and Oliver as these well dressed upper middle class guys with loads of integrity.

I doubt their true clothing looked anything near this classy.

Even the second one is super dishonest, which is why the church's moves to stop using the images of him looking at the plates is just a deflection.

It's funny because my wife teaches sunday school and she's aware of the problems even if she doesn't want to look into them, so I have to wonder what going through these lessons does to her knowing that it's just not historically accurate.

I would like to know how the "leadership" apply their Plausible Deniability™ to this one:



"It was the artist's fault. We have no control whatsoever what we publish on the cover of LDS-Inc.'s flagship monthly magazine."

Linked wrote: ↑Mon Mar 08, 2021 12:14 pm She was a bit peeved that I would say anything, but her response was golden, "Well, I pulled it off the church website."

Be warned that this excuse will not save you if you quote from the Gospel Topic Essays or use phrases like "several months before her 15th birthday".

wtfluff wrote: ↑Mon Mar 08, 2021 7:49 pm I would like to know how the "leadership" apply their Plausible Deniability™ to this one:

The date on that ensign is Feb 2001. That’s clearly BEFORE the rock and the hat was rolled out in the gospel topic essays.

Isn’t continuous revelation marvelous?

This is from the January 2021 Liahona:



Yes, they are still absolutely lying to members and only showing the "new" (and still misleading) artwork only when absolutely forced to.

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Tue Mar 09, 2021 9:57 am

wtfluff wrote: ↑Mon Mar 08, 2021 7:49 pm I would like to know how the "leadership" apply their Plausible Deniability™ to this one:

The date on that ensign is Feb 2001. That’s clearly BEFORE the rock and the hat was rolled out in the gospel topic essays.

Isn’t continuous revelation marvelous?

Sorry Red, the powers of your apologist hat seem to be waning.

I’m pretty sure in the second picture that is Fanny Alger in the background. When Oliver steps outside for a smoke break, she is going to meet Joseph out back in the barn...

jfro18 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 09, 2021 11:20 am This is from the January 2021 Liahona:



Yes, they are still absolutely lying to members and only showing the "new" (and still misleading) artwork only when absolutely forced to.

This could be due to an apostate in the editorial department who wishes members to discover this multi-century lie and leave the Church.

You can find this a few clicks down in the church website's Church History Topics section:



But you kinda have to know what you're looking for. Looking at this picture you can almost hear the debate in the conference room that led them to begrudgingly including some of the elements of the true history without actually showing what was really happening. How much do we HAVE to show to stop people from accurately calling us liars? What I don't see here is, the main ingredient: the rock.

What you will NOT ever find, apparently, is an honest picture of Joseph's face making contact with a hat, as described by the witnesses, Or any hint of a rock and hat in a publication (e.g. the Liahona) that is sent out for the general consumption of the membership of the church. This is excellent CYA tactics. They can claim to be open and honest by keeping Exhibit B (a photo of the defendant beating his wife) in the back of the closet under box of old Popular Mechanics issues, while only presenting Exhibit A (a picture of the defendant hugging his wife) to the jury. It's the ol' "it's your own fault for not knowing about it" trick.

They say they are being as honest as they know how to be. Apparently they just don't know how to be all that honest. I kind of feel some minor sympathy pains for them, stuck there between a seer stone and a hard place as they are. The truth is not always useful, you know.

My wife said our Gospel Doctrine teacher last week made a huge point of telling the class not to believe the ridiculous rumors about a rock and a hat - it's all anti-Mormon lies! And they should take his word as authoritative - he's a direct descendant of Hyrum Smith, for cryin' out loud. The thing is, this guy is very smart and knowledgeable. He has the unofficial title of Ward Scriptorian and is one of those local gurus who people go to for answers. I know he has read Rough Stone Rolling. He told me how much he hated it when he came across me reading it in the foyer one day. I don't get it. Or maybe he just started RSR and tossed it out the window when it diverged from his version of history (somewhere around page 1).

That picture gives the impression that Joseph is simply trying to keep the rabbit from prematurely popping out of the hat.

moksha wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 7:33 am That picture gives the impression that Joseph is simply trying to keep the rabbit from prematurely popping out of the hat.

No, that's what the modern church is trying to do.