Radio Free Mormon: 98: My Meeting with the Stake President

The word “Doctrine” would naturally cover up “Christ” in Mormonism because doctrine covers far more ground and can morph and change as desired to cover any and all things. That Mormon hat trick is harder to do with very simplified Christ. Think “Two Great Commandments.” The higher law is really just simpler, too simple for the motives of many.

We all enjoy your commentary. That’s why we listen, not just to see when you get called on the carpet.

Of course all church paintings are directed By and approved By the church (by the Very Anal Q15 specifically). The gold plates translation paintings are done Exactly how the church wants(ed) you to see “history.” They are feeling cornered on this lie too and therefore “must” throw the artists under the bus because they can’t throw Jesus under the bus on this one. That’s just how the Church of Kirton McChrist rolls.

The church is quite convoluted from too many “cooks,” bickering control-freak “cooks.” Bishop and Stake president roulette is the only church-approved gambling. Leading people out of the church would be the primary legitimate(?) concern of those lesser gambles. Though some just get control freakishly petty and want to threaten and keep everybody in lock-step goose-step. The essays lead many out of the church. No wonder they are burred, “deep in the mountain side.” Yes, “Here there be dragons” and more than a jumbo closet full of skeletons, which the church has lost control of the keys to.

Will exing everyone who has found a copy of the key to their skeleton-closet make the problem better or worse?

Not quite so fast. I remember when Mitt Romney ran for President in 2007 (or 2011?) someone challenged him about a statement made in one of his ads. Romney said he had not seen the ad, despite the fact that his voice was on the ad, saying, “I’m Mitt Romney, and I approve this message.” Of course, Romney looks bad for not seeing his own ad but busy people do delegate.

The third-hand accounts regarding the paintings are interesting, certainly, and it is clear that the Church leaders did not go out of their way to insist on a hat being depicted, but was it something that even occurred to them? Did a painter ever raise the issue and have it shot down?

Moreover, if they micromanage paintings depicting the Savior and Heavenly Messengers, this would not mean they micromanage every type of painting. The claim that they micromanage paintings is not mutually exclusive with the claim that they allow artists to make choices which the Brethren either approve or reject. Again, did a painter ever submit a hat sketch for approval?

The Brethren are not historians, and I doubt this thought ever crossed their busy minds – but even if it did, it’s not a detail that Joseph Smith ever explained. Would it be wrong to limit the elements in the paintings to the things Joseph Smith confirmed? He said there were plates. He said there were scribes. And he specifically said he didn’t want to reveal more details. Is honoring that request so bad? Especially when we don’t know what other information Joseph may have been able to provide which could put the hat in context. Did he only use the hat when he needed to concentrate? Or around certain people but not around others? Study of the accounts suggests he likely used the hat all the time, but the Brethren likely did not sit down and conduct a careful study of all accounts. As far as they likely were concerned, it was not an issue.