Recently Menachem Wecker contacted FAIR, at the referral of the Church’s PR department, for a reaction to a blog that has re-envisioned scenes from Church history through a critical lens. A lens that focuses on the sensational and weird under the self-justifying guise of correcting mistakes that have cropped up in Church published art. Scott Gordon, myself, and others provided Wecker with our individual takes on the revisionist blog’s artwork. Greg Smith created an illustrated wiki article that combined the contributions of FAIR members and his own to treat the subject with much more clarity than my own response to Wecker**, a portion of which is included below. First let me note that Blake Ostler and I (more Blake than me) addressed this topic on the Mormon Stories blog as well.
**Update 2/26/’08: See Greg Smith’s comment below. My original wording is in error. Greg had already had most of his article independently conceived/written to respond to general art-based criticism levied much before being aware of the art blog in Wecker’s article.
The prime example that critics use to complain that the LDS Church’s art misrepresents historical facts are pictures that show Joseph Smith translating the Book of Mormon with the golden plates present, rather than placing his face in a hat to limit outside light from interfering with revelation received from a seer stone.
I suspect there are two main reasons for this. First, I do not think the artists were aware of the historical accounts that report the seer stone in a hat method, although those accounts have appeared in church publications. Second, the accounts show that the translation process did not always occur the same way. Joseph translated the Book of Mormon in two locations: first Harmony, PA and second Fayette, NY. Witnesses to the Fayette process all report the seer stone in the hat method, while most witnesses in Harmony report there being a curtain between Joseph Smith and his scribe, with the golden plates being present. One of Smith’s first scribes, Martin Harris, reported that Joseph switched processes, hence he would have likely done so before Oliver Cowdery took over as a scribe in Harmony. Since the translation pictures in church publications usually portray Joseph and Oliver together, they mix and match elements from different translation periods.
None of the historical accounts have Joseph Smith sitting on stairs while translating, so that blog is taking some artistic liberties.
Given that church historians were aware of the various accounts it is a puzzle that the art made it into church publications. However, an interview of one scholar, Robert J. Matthews, on a related topic shows how that might have happened:
“JBMS: Do you think there are things that artists could do in portraying the Book of Mormon?
RJM: Possibly. To me it would be particularly helpful if they could illustrate what scholars have done. When I was on the Correlation Committee [of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints], there were groups producing scripture films. They would send to us for approval the text of the words that were to be spoken. We would read the text and decide whether we liked it or not. They would never send us the artwork for clearance. But when you see the artwork, that makes all the difference in the world. It was always too late then. I decided at that point that it is so difficult to create a motion picture, or any illustration, and not convey more than should be conveyed. If you paint a man or woman, they have to have clothes on. And the minute you paint that clothing, you have said something either right or wrong. It would be a marvelous help if there were artists who could illustrate things that researchers and archaeologists had discovered.”
About the Author
Unfortunately a critical understanding of history and doctrine does not always occur in the same person or persons as artistic talent. we are all influenced by both current Church and non church cultural ides and information.
Larry P
I see critic’s as wanting them portrayed as magic rock’s. That Joseph Smith was using an occult method of divination forbidden by the Bible.(Deut. 18:10;Jeremiah 29:8,9) That he never ever did use in translation the interpreter’s. That he never ever had anything, but the magic rock’s.
I have seen two Anti-Restoration film’s where Joseph Smith is portrayed as being under the hypnotic power of the Devil. And the Devil’s light shine’s upon his eye’s.
I have had the magic rock conversation with several critic’s of Joseph Smith. And i could not find FAIR as dealing with scripture based objection’s to his so-called magic rock method of translation. If it has dealt with Deut.18:10, or Jeremiah 29:8,9 i missed it. I myself merely point out the law and it’s rule’s have been abolished so Jesus can allow the method for translation if he wishe’s.
Using an apostrophe before an “S” is improper written English. It weakens your argument because it makes you look stupid.
S’orry, it make’s you look s’tupid.
So are you saying i don’t need it when talking of critic’s or rock’s. I am terrible at writing. I make mistake’s in what i write all the time. Should i be writing mistakes or mistake’s? It just sounds dumb to me to write mistake’s mistakes if that’s what you were suggesting. But i would write it the other way if you think thats better. Should i write that’s or thats?
Maybe it’s better to give up on me. I am a smart guy and it’s not how you write thing’s badly, but your ideas. But if writing ideas is better than writing it idea’s i will do so. I alway’s write plural thing’s with them.
It is incorrect. The apostrophe is only used to show possession.
Seth,
It’s (“It is”) also used for contractions.
Many people mistakenly use it for plural nouns (“noun’s”), where it’s inappropriate.
One of my favorite drawings: Bob’s Quick Guide to the Apostrophe, You Idiots.
David wrote:
In in interests of clarity, I should point out that the issues and perspectives raised on the wiki page article were developed well before this current article or any interviews about it, though I let it languish until I heard someone actually thought this was a live issue.
I added a quote provided by David from Robert J. Matthews when he mentioned his interview, as he describes. The rest of the material was older.
My article was stimulated by a related discussion on the MADB; it was intended to be a general approach to the topic in artistic context. As a general treatment of the underlying issues, no specific piece(s) of art are discussed.
Readers will have to decide for themselves what relevance (if any) it has.
How weird. I just had this conversation with a co-worker today. I honestly wish that if the Church is going to use an artistic depiction of Joseph Smith translating the BoM, that it include the seer stone and the U/T process. I understand that often the picture of him translating as a person would if they knew the language in front of them is to help people see that he was ‘translating’, but it also gives off the impression that this is how he did translate and to my understanding he never did. I guess I am into the idea of being a bit more honest with the rendition here. I personally see nothing wrong with his using the seer stone as it still is impressive (maybe even more so) and it does speak to me of priestcraft or occult like. Power of God comes in many forms.