NOM

I just listened to the first Backyard Professor episode on the Mormon Discussion lineup. Kerry, you're a brass knuckle to the face of lame apologetics.

Kerry's Backyard Professor review of the recent RFM vs the Midnight Mormons debate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7IGcUbOL6U

Having listened to part of Kerry's presentation, I have to address this issue again.

This idea that the church didn't control how Joseph was depicted during the translation of the BoM is absolutely ludicrous. For the MM's to suggest it shows a complete ignorance of the process of how the church has/had illustration created for the old Ensign.

I know and have spoken in depth with a number of illustrators/painters who have all recounted the exact same experience working with the church art department.

The church sends the artist a page layout mock-up that shows where the artwork will be arranged and they include specific instructions on how they want the subject portrayed. If the artist fails to follow the instructions the church will ask for corrections to be made. If the artist fails enough times to follow instructions they don't get anymore calls from the church requesting artwork. It's that simple.

All artwork is approved by a GA BEFORE PUBLICATION!

If it doesn't meet with their approval there is a scramble to either make the artwork acceptable or get it replaced before publication.

If someone tells you differently they aren't educated on the subject and you can ignore them.

Palerider wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 18, 2021 10:51 am

The church sends the artist a page layout mock-up that shows where the artwork will be arranged and they include specific instructions on how they want the subject portrayed. If the artist fails to follow the instructions the church will ask for corrections to be made. If the artist fails enough times to follow instructions they don't get anymore calls from the church requesting artwork. It's that simple.

I can attest to this. I used to be an art director (not for the church) and I talked to numerous artists who had worked for the church. I had a friend who was the art director for a church magazine, and another who had illustrations in the church magazines pretty much every month for many years. I remember one occasion when my friend asked me for some advice about a composition. Before I knew it he was telling me that Boyd K. Packer had gotten involved and it had gone back and forth many times with minute detail changes. The illustration was of a sailboat boat on the water. Boyd had him changing things like the way the lines attached to the sails, but he was making it less accurate for n apparent reason because he didn't know what the hell he was talking about, but for some reason he felt he needed absolute and arbitrary control of every detail.

Maybe he was so busy changing up the boat rigging that it distracted him from noticing that Joseph was depicted in another illustration using a pair of magical spectacles attached to a breast plate, rather than pressing his face into a hat. Makes sense.

Another artist told me that Boyd completely flipped his lid when she submitted a (really gorgeous!) illustration for the Friend that showed animals wearing clothes. She was never invited back.

A little off topic but Boyd had enough ego to fancy himself an artist, not knowing that anyone with a fair eye and a good photo of a bird (which he apparently loved) can copy that photo in another medium and make it turn out with some practice.

What I'd really love to have seen would have been Boyd's reaction when a model (male or female) walks out in real life in front of a studio full of real artists and drops their robe and stands there in the altogether with the implicit challenge of "See if you can draw ME...!!"

I'm quite sure he would have buckled under the pressure. And he might have even revoked his own temple recommend (if GA's even have one) for a week or two.

I would like to hit back hard on the idea that RFM did not answer a question until he was pressed. The MMs accused him of ad hominem and straw man without any basis. These guys know the words, but they are otherwise ignorant of the rules of evidence, how to craft an argument, and how to respond to people who disagree. I hesitate to call them liars, like Oaks, but I do think that they hear what others say about their rhetoric which is filled with rhetoric and straw man arguments. They then want to pin that on someone else.

I think Bill Reel's plan of an in depth discussion would be a better format for talking to them, but still not very fruitful. They just don't know enough. I guess the discussion would just demonstrate that.