More Discussion on Mormon Art
February 16th, 2008 by Menachem Wecker
My article on Mormon art (see the complete text on beliefnet) has led to some interesting comments on FAIR Blog (The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research). FAIR also created a Wiki page titled “Church art and historical accuracy” and a podcast.
JV Says
Just to clarify, the Mormon Stories podcast you have linked to is not affiliated with FAIR. In fact, FAIR representatives did not actually appear in the podcast episode they linked to, rather, they made comments to the blog post itself (mostly by the poster named “Blake”, apparently).
I am disappointed that in their wiki entry FAIR resorted to straw men (Christian nativity art), ad hominem arguments (the last section), and that they failed to link to the images they were refuting.
I am disappointed that the LDS Church sent you to FAIR for answers instead of addressing your questions itself.
unFAIR.
-JV
Feb 17th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Greg Smith Says
I wrote the vast part of the wiki article to which you are referring.
I’m disappointed that you would draw conclusions without better information.
1) The reason there are no links to “images that they are refuting,” is because I wasn’t replying to any specific images. The critics to whom I was responding were rather generic message board people complaining about Book of Mormon translation images, not any particular “alternate” image.
I had specifically NOT seen “Images of the Restoration” or any other “revisionist” art (for lack of a better word) until someone made me aware of it after the article was written.
2) The Nativity images are a simple example that I trust most readers would easily identify with, or an analogy. All analogies fail on some level. Any study of western art would reveal similar patterns on all levels (one thinks, for example, of the magnificent blue Madonna in Chartres cathedral in which she is deliberately shaped like a throne…)
3) I’m also confused by what you mean by ad hominem arguments. I know what ad hominem is, and I didn’t do it. But, accusing someone of ad hominem, raather than engaging the arguments presented, is a classic example of that very fallacy.
Irony, it would seem, is not dead. :-)
4) And, finally, the LDS Church did not assign me to write what I wrote, or dictate the content. I saw what I thought was a stupid, rather myopic opinion expressed about Church art, and tried to provide some needed perspective. (Not that I’m a huge fan of most Church art; I’d rather look at Catholic any day. And, Anglicans and Lutherans write far better music.)
unFAIR indeed….
Best,
Greg Smith
FAIR wiki volunteer
Feb 20th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
David Keller Says
Another correction for JV, Blake Ostler is not a FAIR representative or volunteer, like myself or Greg, although he has spoken at some of FAIR’s yearly conferences. For example see http://www.fairlds.org/conf07b.html . Ostler is a well known Mormon author who has an internet presence.
My brief blog entry referencing Greg’s wiki article overemphasized its connection to Wecker’s inquiry. Criticism about the LDS Church’s art is not a recent development and many other message board threads could be referenced. The responses in the wiki are usually aimed at teaching general principles and are usually not focused on any one critic in particular, unless otherwise noted.
And I am glad the LDS Church refuses to go tit-for-tat with its critics, instead focusing on its mission to bring people to Christ.
NOTE: This comment was marked as spam by Iconia’s spam monitor, and as such, it only surfaced on the page later, though it appears here with the timestamp of when it was submitted. –Menachem
Feb 21st, 2008 at 1:44 pm
JV Says
Greg,
My responses below correspond to your numbered items above:
1) I assumed (and perhaps Mr. Wecker made the same assumption) that your Wiki page was a response to his interviews with FAIR representatives in preparation for his beliefnet article about the IOTR website, since (as far as I can tell) the page went up on January 21, 2008, after those interviews took place. The timing seems like a strange coincidence, but I will take you at your word that no aspects of the arguments you have made on that page are responding to any specific images. (You have permission, by the way, to link to or display my “revisionist”, historically accurate image, found at http://www.imagesoftherestoration.org/blog/?p=8, should your argument change to incorporate a response to that image.)
2) Your Christian nativity paintings analogy responds to an argument that nobody is making. It is a straw man argument in that it misrepresents criticism of inaccurate LDS art by equating it to a nonsensical insistence on realism that would be silenced after “a cursory tour through religious art”. Painting a nativity scene into a European, Asian, or African context is not the kind of artistic license that people like me are taking issue with. Those nativity paintings were not painted to replace some “uninspiring” or “intrinsically less plausible” version of the original story; the LDS Church’s Book of Mormon translation images, depicting handsome young men sitting together at a desk reading shiny golden plates, do just that.
Now that you have thrashed the straw man, here is the actual criticism I have, which your Wiki page is not adequately addressing: The images that the LDS Church uses (in its PR websites, magazines, manuals, etc.) to show the world how the Book of Mormon was translated are materially inaccurate and misrepresent key facts about the translation process. This causes people, both Mormons and non-Mormons alike, to hold demonstrably false beliefs about the origins of the Book of Mormon.
3) Irony? You have lost me. The substance of your critique of “critics” in the last section of your Wiki page (”What message does the translation painting convey?”) is almost completely composed of ad hominem fallacies. The act of pointing this fact out is not an ad hominem argument. I don’t see the irony.
You state that you know what an ad hominem fallacy is, but just to be clear, it consists of asserting that someone’s argument is wrong (or that s/he is wrong to argue at all) because of something bad about the person rather than the soundness of the person’s argument itself.
You commit this fallacy in the last section of your Wiki page by implying that critics’ arguments are wrong because their motives for making those arguments are bad. For example, you state that critics of inaccurate Mormon art (a) “are not anxious to ‘reveal the truth’”; (b) “aren’t even worried about historical accuracy”; (c) “want above all to make the translation alienating…bizarre, even eerie”; (d) “hope that a historical truth in visual form will allow them to slip a bigger lie by us”; and (e) “want a portrait of the translation that will convey something to a modern audience that it never portrayed to the participants”. Each of these statements says something bad about critics without addressing the critics’ actual argument–that the images used by the LDS Church to show the world how the Book of Mormon was translated are materially inaccurate and misrepresent key facts about the translation process.
4) Nobody has said that you wrote the Wiki page on behalf of the LDS Church, but your clarification is helpful. I understand that you wrote what you wrote on behalf of FAIR. When Mr. Wecker attempted to discuss the IOTR website with the LDS Church, the Church explained that it has “zero interest” in commenting, and sent him to FAIR for substantive discussion instead. I am disappointed (not surprised) that the LDS Church handles inquiries from journalists by sending them to places like your Wiki page for information.
-JV
Feb 25th, 2008 at 5:39 am
Mayan Elephant Says
Greg, Greg, Greg.
Yowza. I need to catch my breath and look for remnants of my elephantine posterior after reading your stuff. Note, that is not an ad hominem attack of you, but rather, a compliment on your ability to amuse, and an auto ad hominimen attack of my inability to keep from LingMAO.
The comparison to nativity pictures is a gem. Why stop there? I mean hell. Last night was the Academy awards, why not compare the art in Hollywood to reality. The actresses had everything from the dust to the dome all dolled up in make-up and Botox. The analogy, as, you pointed out, is flawed. It serves no purpose whatsoever.
There is a big huge issue here that the Church and you are ignoring – there is NO art about the real hatrick with a stone. NONE. Why? Because the church doesn’t want the whole story to be kooky. So, rather than defend the facts and declare that the hat-trick wasn’t kooky, or eerie, they present the process incorrectly. Sorry dude, there is no integrity in that. And worse, they accuse those that present the truth in written form or art as trying to make it kooky. Whaaaaaa?
If all Gore can convince the world that the Earth is a boiling time bomb, you would think that the living prophet, the voice of God, he who communes with Jehovah, the holder of all the keys, could convince less than 2% of the US population that a hat-trick with a rock is not eerie.
The other issue I have with you and much of FAIR’s BS is that all positions seem to start with one big huge assumption – The church didn’t do no wrong. This ‘We was robbed’ victim line is tired. Tired. So Tired. Its not the church’s fault – it’s the artists. Gimme a break.
I love the FAIR article and the examples of where the hat-trick has been mentioned. 1895? Are you effing kidding me? 1895? Hells bells. And then some random citing by some random authors. In the meantime, Tommy Monson is hanging up that whack picture of the two Abercrombie and Fitch models in their Seinfeld puffy shirts looking at America Shaftoe’s gold bars. The hat-trick has been mentioned about 20 times in my lifetime, none of which were in gospel doctrine curriculum publications. So, this is not to say there is a conspiracy theory to hide it all, only a complete lack of integrity in presenting a cutsie simple version that is much more palatable to those that are less zealous than Blake Ostler and his co-authors.
So Greg. Here is your chance. We can all agree that much of the art is lame. Some aint. But a lot of it is. And, can we please agree that the church and its leaders are not blameless in this? They could repair the situation if they chose to do so, no? Tommy really could rewrite Truth Restored and not lose his job. Agreed?
Feb 25th, 2008 at 7:11 am
Dan Page Says
Since irony has become a primary topic of this conversation, it is VERY ironic to me that Greg Smith categorizes the IOTC artwork as revisionist art (for lack of a better term) when the IOTC art is more accurate to the historic accounts of Mormonism than the church’s own art.
Take for instance the picture of Oliver Cowdery using a divining rod. This is actually what took place, based on many historical accounts. Yet you classify it as “revisionist” in some way? Not really. Greg, your light analysis betrays your bias. The church obviously doesn’t want this kind of accurate history to get out, because of the ridiculous nature of it, but the facts are the facts. That’s how it happened. Oliver’s rod of Aaron (in the D&C) was originally called a rod of nature in the original versions of the revelation. But the church conveniently changed those verses so as to distract people from the making the conclusion that Oliver Cowdery was using a divining rod to attempt to receive revelation from God. Get your facts straight Greg before typing any more wikipedia entries. It may be helpful to preserving your integrity.
People, including members, will eventually see through the ruse the church is trying to pull. It’s just funny to see apologists such as yourself attempting to label accurate art as “revisionist” art. It’s highly entertaining, but not very flattering to your character or integrity.
Feb 25th, 2008 at 9:33 am
Greg Smith Says
Thank-you. The ideas were longstanding. They merely went up because someone mentioned (I think it was Dave Keller) that he’d been interviewed about the art issue. I thought, “Oh yeah, I really ought to post my bit on that.”
As I said, I was utterly ignorant of your site until after the fact.
YOU may not be making it, but that does not mean that others are not making it. As I said, my reply was couched toward a MADB disussion which I read, and had nothing to do with your site. I don’t see why this is difficult to understand.
You still seem to think this is about you, when it isn’t, except incidentally and coincidentally.
And, I responded to this charge as well. It’s not clear to me why believing that a seer stone in a hat was used instead of some other method of translating “by the gift and power of God,” (especially since the data demonstrates that a variety of configurations and techniques were used throughout the process) really matters to a belief in the Book of Mormon as divine scripture.
And such an argument as you launch ignores the fact that images which may be alienating or strange may well convey ideas that are likewise false, even if historically “accurate” in a material sense. Art is about more than pure representation or realism.
Hence the applicability of various Christian treatments of the Nativity, or a host of other religious subjects (e.g. Mary and Elizabeth as Catholic nuns, to pick yet another example).
By that point, I had already demonstrated why I think the criticisms to which I’m responding are in error, and miss the point entirely.
The conclusion merely points out that there is another level to such things since this really is a bizarre attack, until (I believe) one understands the subtext of the argument–such critics are not, generally, faithful Church members merely interested in heightening the rank-and-file members’ appreciation of historical nuance. They have an agenda, and it is often hostile. (Having glanced through it, your site does not exactly strike me as done in a friendly spirit, for example. That perception may be in error, but perception counts for a lot in art.) :-)
And, it is worth pointing out what the agenda is. I don’t think people should reject something because of an agenda, since everyone has an agenda–I just think potential agendas should be considered in any presentation of historical issues, where bias and selection are inevitable–how much more so in art?
People like Peter Novick (That Noble Dream) agree with me. Even if one grants that it is ad hominem (which I do not), that is not ad hominem in a fallacious sense:
Actually, I wrote it simply for myself on no authority but my own. FAIR provides a venue, but there is no official “FAIR position” on any save a few core issues (i.e., the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is what it purports to be.)
FAIR is otherwise merely a means of sharing resources and gathering things in a convenient form for one-stop-shopping. Other members may well agree with my take, and may well provide an alternative point of view.
IIRC, I believe it had zero interest in commenting on what they regard as an anti-Mormon website, many of the contributors to which decline to publicly take responsibility for their art. This does not surprise or shock me. Why shadow-box with pseudonyms?
Given that my wiki page did not exist at the time, I doubt that the Church sent the journalist to it.
Given that the Church likely has no official position on “revisionist art,” or whatever one wants to call it, I can’t see why one would expect “substantive discussion” from them, other than “no comment.” Anything the Church says will be interpreted by someone as binding or official, so I don’t doubt they have learned caution.
FAIR, on the other hand, is cheerfully independent, and not monolithic. We can say what we think, and if we’re wrong–well, then it’s only me that screwed up.
Best,
Greg
Feb 25th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Menachem Wecker Says
Since there are so many comments on this, I am going to try to post the texts of some of the interviews I did for the article (or at least the ones I did over email). I will try to get these up in a timely fashion…
Feb 25th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Greg Smith Says
My, my, my. I do seem to have struck a nerve. Now I have no “integrity,” etc.
Dan Page quoth:
I picked a one word term for convenience. Since it was aimed (I presume) as “revising” the semi-canonical art (again, for lack of a better word; I’m not suggesting that any art has been canonized), I thought it might be a useful term.
That’s why I stuck it in quotations marks–to suggest that the term isn’t really accurate, but I’m using it in a sort of ad hoc way. I apologize if you were confused.
“Ideological art” got used in the article, but arguably all art is ideological in some sense, so that didn’t strike me as particularly a propos either…you’re welcome to make me an offender for a word on this one, but I just picked the term for ease of communication. You needn’t read in some dark or ominous mental disconnect.
The Aztec Pachyderm then got busy:
Sigh. What I said, actually, was that ALL analogies are flawed at some level. People complaining about artistic distortion ought to be careful about distorting what others say.
I disagree that it served no purpose.
My point (I shall repeat it again) is that religious art does not always–indeed, one might argue RARELY–intends to show literal, historical events “exactly as they happened.” I think that’s a modern conceit, and a particularly naive one at that.
The presumption here seems to be (as JV put it) that “The images that the LDS Church uses (in its PR websites, magazines, manuals, etc.) to show the world how the Book of Mormon was translated…”
The artists have now added mind reading to their powers? How do you know that the point of the image was to show “how the Book of Mormon was translated?” Joseph Smith himself always insisted that the “hows” were not particularly germane, and refused to detail them. As I argued, I think the point of the artwork is to convey several messages:
1. The translation was carried out openly—Joseph had no opportunity to hide notes or books. This was confirmed by Elizabeth Ann Cowdery and Emma Smith.[16]
2. The plates had a physical reality, and Oliver Cowdery and others were sincerely convinced of this reality by what they regarded as unmistakeable proofs. Unlike some of the other Three Witnesses, who spoke only of seeing the angel and the plates, Oliver Cowdery insisted that “I beheld with my eyes and handled with my hands the gold plates from which it was translated. I also beheld the Interpreters. That book is true…I wrote it myself as it fell from the lips of the Prophet.”
3. The translation was not a weird, esoteric exercise.
Arguably, the Del Parson image does this better than the art on your blog, in this viewer’s opinion. I wouldn’t hang any of them on my wall, though.
Again, you keep insisting that art must be some sort of pseudo-photograph of reality “as it was.” But, art in religion has a far more broad purpose, a point which must be studiously ignored, apparently–otherwise, the Church isn’t evil and trying to Hide the Truth ™.
Fundamentalist artists–who would have guessed it?
Hmm. More mind reading. “Assumptions” that I make. Well, in this case you’re wrong, again. (I’ve written things on the wiki, for example, which argue that mistakes WERE made by leaders. I don’t believe in an infallible Church or an infallible set of prophets.)
I think we differ on what the Church’s intent was. I don’t think the Church’s intent was to show, in great detail, “how” the Book of Mormon was translated (it hardly could be, since various images used over the years are not all the same).
As I recall the missionary discussions, that issue was given exactly zero time–no seer stones, no urim and thummim, no nothing. Simply–Joseph got this book, here it is.
I think in SOME cases, artists are to “blame,” even though I don’t think “blame” is the right word. They drew things as they imagined them, and nobody stopped them. Plenty of Book of Mormon scenes, for example, are highly anachronistic and unlikely. (Nephi as Gold’s Gym member.)
But, unless you’re expecting photo-realism, that’s not really a problem.
I think Church art (like all religious art) serves mainly to set a “mood” or convey something more viscerally in an efficient (for lack of a better word) manner. Art is more like a poem, as it were, than a historical essay.
You all keep presuming the point at issue–that the Church is somehow conspiring to keep the details secret. I think that obvious nonsense.
You mock me for citing a work from 1895, neglecting (of course) to point out that this was one of a series of works (”random,” you called them; they aren’t “random,” they’re from a broad spectrum in intent and time about the same issue–how else would one demonstrate widespread mention in time and space?) mentioned all the way to 2000 published by LDS presses and often under the auspices of the Church itself discussing the “stone in the hat.”
Again, this is a strange way to keep a secret, if that’s the goal. Apostles use the stone episode as an example to illustrate what are essentially unrelated matters–why on earth go there if hiding it is the institutional goal?
Is it just not possible that you’ve misunderstood the intent?
Gee, I must have been pretty zealous. I knew about the stone in the hat in my early to mid teens. BYU Studies and the Ensign ain’t exactly Hegel.
I guess breaking into the secret vault as a rowdy teen really foiled my Mormon Overlords….
My chance? My chance to have the approval of anonymous critics who label me as spouting “B.S.,” starting with a priori assumptions, and who treat the leaders of my faith in a trivial and disrespectful manner for rhetorical gain? Goody. My ship has arrived.
Gee, I can’t imagine why the LDS spokespeople thought that those behind all this were “anti-Mormon.” ;-)
Anyway, my chance. Can hardly wait. :-)
If the art wasn’t doing what the Church wanted it to do, they could doubtless change it. We differ on what the goals of it are, and thus whether there is any need for “repair.”
One might seek for different goals or intent than ascribing malice, you know. Honest people might actually look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions, you know. We might not all be just disingenuous or mentally unable to consider the option that you think is obvious, you know.
For the record, I think that in terms of art qua art, the Church stuff is better than the website, if only marginally. Frankly, not much present-day art moves me at all, in or out of the Church, especially visual art.
As for fixing that, one can’t magic up a Rembrant or Monet–I don’t think the Church has created much great art in ANY field (literature is a possible exception), but there’s not much great art that moves me outside of the Church in the same time period either.
But, at the very least, this series of recent posts has demonstrated that I was not too far wrong in my article on why some critics on this matter say they want the changes made. That was clear from the MADB discussion to which I was replying, but it’s nice to see my theory confirmed by a few more data points.
Kind regards,
Greg, Spreader of B.S.
Feb 25th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Mayan Elephant Says
Wow Greg. Thanks for your spread. Very thought out indeed.
i agree that even if one could commission a rembrant or a monet, there is no guarantee it wont turn out to be just another mary engelbreit or steve benson. or worse, a hofmann.
and how dare you discredit the artistic creations of all mormon artists or writers? i happen to think joseph smith created one helluva creative piece.
i think in some ways we both get to be right here. in your case, the artist gets a free pass for sticking to his criteria, whatever it may be. and the church gets a pass because the art, when used as a pr tool, can technically be partially accurate at some point to some person under whatever limits.
i dont think anyone is claiming artists cant create whatever the hell they want whenever they want. or that they are bound by anything, including facts.
what is at issue here is, again, the constant reinforcement by the church that something happened a specific way, and then the “huh, wha, no, not me not us we didnt mislead you” response when someone finds out that reality and the picture on page 52 of the preach my gospel manual dont match up too well.
and more, your response, as well as many others, including the response at FAIR shows the institutional, apologetic and cultural response to art that is not in-line with the images shown in the semi-annual whiteshirted, darksuited, officiallycadenced conference.
oh boy. do we really really get to hear the excuse that since you heard about the hat at 14 then everyone else should have heard it too? call your buddy midgley. he already paraded that bit around the internets. he called it slothful to have not figured it out early or to have ever been surprised by the story. which is funny. cuz page 52 of the preach my gospel manual says this (accompanied by the Seinfeld Puffy Shirt picture):
“Joseph Smith was directed by a heavenly messenger named Moroni to a hill where gold plates had lain hidden for centuries. These gold plates contained the writings of prophets giving an account of God’s dealings with some of the ancient inhabitants of the Americas. Joseph Smith translated the contents of these plates by the power of God”
and page 54 says this:
During this or any other lesson, do not hesitate to invite people to be baptized and confirmed.To prepare people for an invitation to be baptized and confirmed, teach the doctrine of baptism and testify often of the importance of all people being baptized by authority, of receiving a remission of sins, and of the wonderful gift of the Holy Ghost. You might say, “As the Lord answers your prayers and you feel that this message is true, will you follow the example of Jesus Christ by being baptized?” The invitation to be baptized and confirmed should be specific and direct: “Will you follow the example of Jesus Christ by being baptized by someone holding the priesthood authority of God? We will be holding a baptismal service on (date). Will you prepare yourself to be baptized on that date?”
you know what busts my stuff up the most about this. is that the damn baptism invitation that is in the instructions for missionaries encourages the missionaries to LIE and suggest that they are already having a baptismal service on a given day and to suggest to someone that a service is already scheduled. i used that tactic a bunch myself, it worked.
anyways. for something as critical as how the book was dictated, you would think a lesson or two may explain the details. i only point this out to counter your ridiculous claim that since you figured it out as a punk, every other member should too. hell, according to the peeps in SLC it’s sufficient to just look at the picture, read a chapter, and ask if the book is true.
yeah. i guess you are right. if the picture had a cat in the hat, someone might not think that cat saw Jesus, God, Peter, James, John, John the Baptist and Moroni and then had an angel come show off the gold plates that had been out in the barn while the cat was in the hat. a cat in a puffy shirt works much better and is much less kooky. good call mate.
Feb 25th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Sister Mary Lisa Says
Well-said, Mayan Elephant. Both comments.
I think there really is a shortage of accurate artistic portrayals of church history available to the public. Reading this thread makes me think it may be time to dust off the ol’ paintbrush and get to work on some new art.
Feb 25th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Greg Smith Says
I’m only speaking personally to what speaks to me.
Ah, so it isn’t about the art at all. This just one more data point in the “Church misled me about its history” mantra.
I didn’t say that. Please don’t put words in my mouth.
I just find it very difficult to believe that the Church is hiding anything, because from a fairly tender age I was able to find out all this stuff that is apparently so shocking.
I find the claim that the Church hid these things non-sensical. I don’t live in Utah, I’m from Canada–not exactly bathing in Mormanica. Up in the middle of nowhere, essentially, I was exposed to virtually every historical and anti-Mormon canard I can think of. And, that was just from reading and poking around in what interested me.
Now, I can appreciate that when one feels they’ve been deceived or misled, there can be anger. But, my own experience just doesn’t match with the claim that there is some cabal or conspiracy to hide the truth.
I didn’t make that claim. I said I don’t believe it’s hidden, because I found out with no difficulty. Most people don’t read much; even fewer people are interested in the stuff that interested me. But, the claim that it’s hidden just strikes me as bizarre, because it wasn’t.
I can’t ever recall lying about having baptismal services. What would be the point?
Many missions/areas have routine baptisms scheduled on a regular basis–I know ours here does. I was in France, so we scheduled baptisms about as often as there was no strike in a civil service union. :-)
So, you may have lied, but that certainly isn’t how we understood or implemented this idea. Once again, not everyone sees it or reads it or does it as you do.
I disagree that this is super important. I think it is trivial. (What’s the difference, practically, between a book dictated by seer stone vs. a book dictated by Nephite interpreters vs. a book dropped in translated English by an angel?) Joseph Smith didn’t think it was important–he declined to give a detailed account of the hows and wherefores.
Yet again, what you think is vital isn’t what many, many others think is vital. You might consider that differences of opinion about such things don’t automatically translate into ill intent or corruption.
Best,
Greg
Feb 25th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Tom Lincoln Says
“Greg, Spreader of B.S.”
I could not have said that better myself. Joseph Smith would be proud of you, his lying devout follower. The official doctrinal principle constitutes “lying for the Lord” does it not Greg? Lying for the Lord is encouraged in Mormonism from what I understand.
Feb 25th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
JV Says
Greg,
Are you saying you perceive an unfriendly spirit, or just a neutral spirit at IOTR? If neutral, then I suggest that you e-mail that compliment to the site administrator, because that is what the site tries for. If unfriendly, then I will point you to your own advice:
I agree with this sentiment. It also applies to your evaluation of others who disagree with the LDS Church’s use of art. With that in mind, please consider retracting the last section of your FAIR Wiki page.
-JV
Feb 25th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Mayan Elephant Says
Oh ferthuluvapete. Greg, can you please find a word other than anti-mormon? That so-called word is overdone.
How is that eaten cake? Per you, the church has officially proclaimed that the hatmaskoflight is true, but an artist depicting the hatmask to the face of the prophet joseph smith is naughty, or even antimormon, or a creator of South Park.
Better,
Mayan
Feb 25th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Mayan Elephant Says
Oh ferthuluvapete. Greg, can. you please find a word other than anti-mormon? That so-called word is overdone.
How is that eaten cake? Per you, the church has officially proclaimed that the hatmaskoflight is true, but an artist depicting the hatmask to the face of the prophet joseph smith is naughty, or even antimormon, or a creator of South Park.
Better,
Mayan
Feb 25th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Greg Smith Says
Unfriendly, on first glance. I haven’t given it more than that.
Again, whether any presentation of history, much less religion (especially when it critiques a religion) can ever be truly “neutral,” is a pretty dubious claim.
In general, I have little patience for those who claim to wrap themselves in the banner of “objectivity” or “neutrality.” It betrays either an incredible lack of self-awareness or epistimological naivite, or a hidden agenda. (I apply neither in your case.)
I was trained in the biologic sciences; I know how hard it is to remove bias from that field. I am skeptical in the extreme of anyone who claims to do so in the humanities. Especially about religion.
How many times do I have to tell you this? My page was not in reference to your site. I had not seen your site prior to writing it. I had not seen your site until well after I wrote it. Your site is not mentioned on that page. The page is not about your site. I would have to look at your site in more detail before I bothered to write anything about it, did I choose to do so.
See my first post. This is the reason I posted here in the first place, to correct your misapprehension.
I don’t know how much more clear I can make it. I thought you had accepted my explanation. I see it is called for yet again.
What I wrote was not intended to apply to you. Whether it does apply to you–well, I guess that would be up to the reader/viewer. After this exchange, I’m starting to think there’s much more overlap than I might have initially thought.
It is not clear to me why I ought to retract my opinion, based on my observation of discussions of this issue on MADB.
You will note, by the way, that it is marked as my opinion:
That’s my opinion. It’s a considered and informed opinion, I think, formed from reading complaints on this topic from a variety of perspectives. Reading the threads on the blog linked in your original post might tend to confirm that impression for the interested reader as well.
And, you were kind enough to confirm my theory in your own case:
So, you’re upset, it would seem, because you presume that the Church DID choose to do different art because the True(tm) version would be “uninspiring” or “intrinsically less plausible.”
(A point still unproven, I point out yet again, unless you read minds or have the Church explaining that this is their reasoning or intent. I think there are several other options..)
Well, unless you thought that presenting art that made the Book of Mormon look “uninspiring” or “intrinsically less plausible,” was a desirable end to persue, this wouldn’t be a problem…..right?
So, if I ever do get around to addressing anything on your site, thanks for your support for my theory. :-)
I agree that opposition or disagreement with the Church may not be hostile. But, as this thread and its fellows have demonstrated, plenty of it is.
(Let’s see, just to review: so far in just this thread, I’ve been accused of lack of integrity, refusing to think or write that the Church or its leaders could be wrong about something, and approaching this issue with preconceived notions which dictated my conclusion. All pretty hostile claims, and all false. We won’t address the issue of how laughable my efforts are, since de gustibus non est disputandum.
Also in just this thread, the Church of Jesus Christ has been accused of lying about its history, getting missionaries to lie to get baptismal dates, and the present leader of the Church treated with a rather infantile disrespect. All seems pretty hostile.)
And, I’m not so naive to think–and I would hope no one would be–that those with such clear and overt hostility (unwilling to sign their names to their writings) might, just possibly might, not be approaching the issue with all the objectivity and open mindedness one might like. And, they might–just might–miss an alternative explanation that isn’t sinister. Especially when they’ve made several faulty conclusions about me which I know as well as I can know anything are false.
That isn’t ad hominem, that’s human nature folks.
It’s a bit strange to have to spell all this out, but c’est la vie.
Kind regards,
Greg
Feb 25th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Greg Smith Says
Elephant quoth:
I was quoting LDS public affairs. I see no other use of the word, except my description of generic anti-Mormon canards.
Sorry to disappoint, but when I quote people I tend to actually, you know, use the actual words they actually say. I don’t feel at liberty to alter them.
And, I think you’ll find that anti-Mormon is a perfectly servicable word, found in many fine dictionaries, and going all the way back to the 1830s in both friendly and hostile accounts of the Church. Great pedigree.
Kind regards,
Greg
Feb 25th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Mayan Elephant Says
So, what is an example of antimormon artwork? And why?
Antimormon is a subjective term. Claiming its use dates back to whenever is about as relevent as claiming the term ‘fag’ is not perjorative if it dates back to the 1800s.
Feb 26th, 2008 at 12:27 am
JV Says
Greg wrote:
I apologize for my density here, but I don’t understand what you mean by “(I apply neither in your case.)”, since it follows a list of three things. Are you saying that none of those really bad things applies to me? I hope not, because I haven’t attempted at all to wrap myself in a banner of neutrality. I’m critical of the way the LDS Church has been dealing with Mormon historical art. I merely claimed that the website, to which I contribute artwork, tries for the worthy goal of neutrality (unreachable as it is).
***
Greg wrote:
Hmmm, Greg. Two thoughts here:
1) No, your additional explanation was not called for–I got it the first time. Read what I wrote again, carefully. You will note that it applies whether or not you wrote the Wiki page about the IOTR website. I haven’t written anything (that I can remember) to imply that you did.
2) Since you are pushing the point so strenuously, I must say that regardless of your personal intent in writing the FAIR Wiki page, the FAIR blog has stated since February 15 that you did, in fact, assemble the Wiki page in response to Mr. Wecker’s presentation of the IOTR website to FAIR representatives. Specifically, Dave Keller wrote:
In light of Mr. Keller’s statement, a reader of the FAIR website has a really good reason to believe that what you wrote was intended as a comment on IOTR’s artwork. If you were not part of the FAIR team responding to IOTR’s artwork, then I suggest you go tell Mr. Keller to stop saying so, and to retract his statement on the blog. As a treatment of my artwork, your argumentation is especially flawed. All of my earlier criticism (and more, yet unexpressed) still applies.
***
Greg wrote:
You ought to retract your ad hominem arguments (attacking the motives of the critics) because they are logical fallacies, serving to demonize a whole group of people, rather than to respond to the substance of their arguments. I may be mistaken, but I don’t think demonization is a purpose of the FAIR Wiki. It doesn’t matter whether or not the sentiments you express are your opinions–they are still invalid as refutations of the critics’ claims. Add to that the fact that if a reader were to believe what the FAIR blog says about your FAIR Wiki page, the reader would think that you are saying those things about me.
I also think that if you are not going to cite a specific statement from the MADB that you are refuting, you should retract your nativity image analogy. Without any evidence that people are making a relevant argument, I maintain that your analogy is a straw man. Additionally, if a reader were to believe what the FAIR blog says about your FAIR Wiki page, your analogy is even more clearly a straw man because it is completely inapplicable to any argument I have made, and any statements that appear on the IOTR website.
***
Greg wrote:
No, I’m not upset about that. In fact, that is not actually the presumption implied in my quote. My presumption is that the painting was made to replace the original story with a less weird story. You make the exact same presumption in your Wiki page when you state that the 3rd message conveyed by the Del Parson painting is “the translation was not a weird, esoteric exercise.” In fact, the terms you have emphasized in my statement above are actually the terms you used to contrast with the message of the Del Parson painting. Clearly, we both agree on this point–the Del Parson painting says “not weird” in a way that an historically accurate painting wouldn’t.
Where we seem to differ is that you believe “a historical truth in visual form will allow [critics] to slip a bigger lie by us”, the lie being that the Book of Mormon will seem uninspired, while I believe that historical lies in visual form used by the LDS Church do not preserve or express a larger truth about the inspiration of the Book of Mormon–they mostly just mislead sincere people.
-JV
Feb 26th, 2008 at 6:11 am
Greg Smith Says
I don’t have a particular example in mind. I didn’t refer to anything as anti-Mormon artwork. I quoted Church public affairs as saying the website was “anti-Mormon,” and said I could see why that might be the case. You’d have to take it up with them as to what they meant specifically. Good luck.
I’m not claiming there’s not an element of fuzziness at the borders. You referred to it as a “so-called word.” I presume this means you doubt it’s a real word, or that it’s some kind of neologism coined to smear people. It is a real word, which dates back to the 1830s. It was first used as a self-appelation for opponents of the Church.
I don’t consider the term pejorative; I consider it descriptive, like such other terms using the prefix like “anti-abortion,” “anti-communist,” “anti-psychiatry,” etc.
As for what it means or how I would tend to apply it, see:
http://en.fairmormon.org/Anti-Mormon
Greg
Feb 26th, 2008 at 8:25 am
Greg Smith Says
If you look, you’ll note that there’s a comma between “lack of self awareness or epistimological naivite” and “or a hidden agenda.” Part of the lack of self-awareness is epistimological naivite.
I’m saying I’m not making either of these dichotomous claims [which are really more of a spectrum, in most people, I suspect] about which (if any) of these apply to you. As I said, this isn’t about you, and never has been.
Mr. Keller is, indeed, mistaken. He mentioned the quote from Matthews which the wiki cited (it was the only recent addition to the ideas there), so I expect that’s what he’s referring to. I’ll make sure that a clarification gets posted.
The Matthews quote was interesting, incidentally, because it suggests much less correlation in visual images of a variety of sorts that I had presumed. But, the difficulties in that kind of undertaking are clear the way he explains them.
I’ve already dealt with the arguments in the previous sections. You may not agree with that, or find them persuasive, but I wouldn’t expect you to.
Having done that, it becomes an interesting (and relevant) question as to WHY such a bizarre criticism gets made. Welcome to intellectual history–arguments do not arise, and are not made, in an intellectual, moral, and agenda-free vacuum.
The reasons that people make errors and mistakes in judgment are interesting, and relevant. Again, read Novak, and take it up with him.
If you want examples, just look at the linked blog:
QED.
There were plenty more like this on MADB, which I regret not saving. (I thought it so silly at the time, that I didn’t write anything about it.)
In the interests of clarity, I have made a minor edit to make it clear that I am not speaking of ALL critics of Church art (which would, after all, include me to a degree, since I think much Church art is rather jejune, so I’m a critic in that sense at least).
If the shoe fits, one may wear it.
We will simply have to disagree, I guess. Others have found the comparison both very relevant, and illuminating. Your failure to appreciate it doesn’t surprise or worry me, particularly.
I don’t think it necessarily true that a painting true to all historical details would be off-putting. I agree that it would be much harder, simply because of assumptions and baggage which a modern viewer brings to the matter. Hiding the face of a subject is going to off-putting in just about any work on any subject: I imagine that the most effective way to display it would be Joseph holding the hat with his face raised out of it, perhaps speaking with Martin Harris or Emma during the translation. I think that would be much more accessible.
We also disagree on whether the intent was to “illustrate” Church history versus create artwork about Church history.
What we disagree on is that historical accuracy in the details was the goal–or should be the goal–even at the price of sacrificing a greater historical accuracy as seen by the participants.
We also disagree about whether the intent was to illustrate “how” the Book of Mormon was translated, a stance for which no one has yet presented any evidence whatever. Joseph and the Church have displayed considerable insoucience as to whether the mechanical details were appreciated at all. The Book’s text has always been primary, and continues so.
Again, you’re looking at it like a historical essay, and I see it more as a poem. Both are legitimate traditions in religious art, but I think the latter far more common (and more important) than the former.
Hmmm. More mind reading. “Lying” requires intent. You have evidence, I suppose, that the Church intended to “lie”? That artists were aware of the details and knowing suppressed them?
You always assume the worst.
Do you believe the Book of Mormon is scripture?
Were there actual golden plates, delivered by an actual angel?
Did eight witnesses handle them? Did three witnesses have a vision of them?
Best,
Greg
Feb 26th, 2008 at 9:01 am
Greg Smith Says
Tom Lincoln (who is at least willing to sign his name to his remarks; a refreshing display of candor) writes:
I consider myself a follower of Christ, albeit a horribly imperfect one. Joseph Smith is one tool among many in my efforts in that discpleship.
You misunderstand considerably.
http://en.fairmormon.org/Lying_for_the_Lord%3F
Insofar as I know, I am not lying. Since lying requires intent to deceive, I’m pretty sure that’s true. I might well be mistaken, but I’m honestly so.
Thanks for checking. :-)
Kind regards,
Greg Smith
Feb 26th, 2008 at 9:06 am
David Keller Says
Greg,
Sorry for getting you into this mess. I tried to comment earlier on this blog but it either got caught in a spam filter or my browser was acting up. My comment was to the effect that I overstated the connection between Wecker’s query and your article that was published on the wiki. I accept all your clarifications that you have posted here and on the FAIR blog.
Feb 26th, 2008 at 10:08 am
Greg Smith Says
FYI:
David Keller and I have each posted a clarification on the fairblog here:
http://www.fairblog.org/2008/02/15/fair-in-religious-news-service/
Best,
Greg
Feb 26th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Tom Lincoln Says
“Joseph Smith is one tool”
Once again Greg, I couldn’t have said it better myself!
Feb 26th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Menachem Wecker Says
I apologize that some of the comments seem to end up in the spam blocker (which gets hundreds of comments), so if you don’t see your comment go up soon, please send me an email and let me know to go dig it out. Thanks for your patience.
Feb 26th, 2008 at 11:42 am
David Keller Says
Thanks Menachem. I see my original correction now appears as the third comment on this thread.
Feb 26th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Greg Smith Says
Tom Lincoln reaches deep in his toolbox for:
See, here’s yet more of the deep, substantive analysis that is the stock in trade of Joseph’s neutral, truth-seeking critics.
I am always amazed that there are people who feel that mockery of that which others regard with reverence reflects well on them, or constitutes an actual argument.
Probably a sign the thread has run its course.
Kind regards,
Greg
Feb 26th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
JV Says
You are quibbling about the word “lies” in my statement, when my statement reflects your reasoning that critics are all trying to “to slip a bigger lie by”? How about providing some evidence that what the critics are advocating is objectively a lie in the first place?
As for the lie I was referencing, it doesn’t take a mind reader–the Del Parson image speaks for itself. Mr. Parson clearly intended to paint shiny golden plates exposed for everybody to see on the table, even though he has seen no evidence that such a thing happened (because there isn’t any). If you believe he didn’t intend for his painting to deliver false information, then you are assuming the worst about Mr. Parson–that, as a religious artist, he failed to know or understand the subject of his art.
With respect to the LDS Church’s use of Del’s (and several other artists’) inaccurate imagery to illustrate the Book of Mormon translation story (CLICK HERE, for example), the Church clearly intended to display paintings depicting shiny golden plates exposed for everybody to see on the table, when there is no evidence that such a thing happened. If you believe the Church doesn’t intend for those illustrations to deliver false information, then you are assuming the worst about the LDS Church–that it fails to know or understand its own institutional history. That, in my opinion, is a completely unreasonable assumption to make.
The Book of Mormon is clearly LDS scripture. My beliefs about it can’t change that. I don’t see how this is relevant to our discussion, except as possible fodder for an ad hominem attack (i.e., JV does not believe in the divine provenance of the Book of Mormon, therefore he can’t be trusted to make a good argument about it). Please clarify why you are asking me this.
If there were, Joseph Smith is the only witness, so the answer to that question depends on the truthfulness of Joseph Smith’s account. That is far from clear, given what the historical record tells us about his trustworthiness. Again, I’m not sure where you are going with this, but I would appreciate you kindly refraining from using my answer as a basis for an ad hominem attack.
There are joint statements signed by those men to that effect, but as I understand it the circumstances surrounding how those statements came about, and whether they are accurate statements of what happened are not clear, given what the historical record tells us about the trustworthiness (and the 19th century religious worldview) of the men who signed the statements. I’m not sure where you are going with this question either, but, again, I would appreciate you kindly refraining from using my answer as a basis for an ad hominem attack.
-JV
Feb 26th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
JV Says
Menachem,
For the sake of accurately framing the discussion we have been having, I suggest adding an administrator’s note to David Keller’s first post above to indicate that it was posted well after the discussion below had developed. Thanks.
-JV
Feb 26th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Mayan Elephant Says
greg,
oh, i get it. you werent saying something or someone was anti-mormon, you were saying the church said someone or something was anti-mormon.
sorta reminds me when i was a kid, and i would cuss, i would just say i was repeating what i had heard, therefore i wasnt cussing. my grandfather, god bless his damn soul from hell, was my favorite to quote.
you gave a link that had this:
anti-semitic is pejorative. gimme a break.
now. let me quote this weeks lds.org from this link:
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/church-will-work-to-increaseunderstanding-apostles-say
greg, can you or the church show me that strain? where is it? examples please? or maybe, she meant being anti-mormon was like being anti-child-abuse, its a good thing?
admittedly, the lds church used the same tactic you are using. WE didnt say it, we are only QUOTING someone ELSE that said it. such nonsense.
i give you no pass. and i give ballard no pass on this one.
as for so-called. you do have to be joking or drunk or just funny or something. you must recognize the use of so-called. have you really not seen that so-called tactic used ad nauseum by your fearless leaders? i realize that some deities are not to be mocked, so i was not doing that, rather, i was mocking the words that come out of some humans so-called mouths. i am not saying they are not actually words or from an actual mouth, only repeating what others have said, or written.
for example, check this out.
http://zarahemlacitylimits.com/wiki/index.php/So-called
Wecker, you may appreciate some of the uses of so-called by leaders of the church, especially where it applies to intellectuals or culture.
i do believe, greg, you mentioned reading anti-mormon material. what did you read? perhaps in that we can explore some artistic expression and compare it to newer examples.
Feb 26th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Greg Smith Says
Objectively, there can be no reasonable question that Joseph and those who witnessed the translation at any stage considered the translation real and sacred, despite what you or I might think.
They found it “marvelous,” but not off-putting in the least. (This includes the three and eight witnesses, Joseph, Emma, Lucy Smith, Joseph’s sisters, the Knights, and the extended Whitmer clan not listed as witnesses. One can also add the treasure-diggers who were convinced that Joseph had plates at the least, to the point of ransacking the property looking for them.)
If art leads one to conclude that the translation was a farce or hoax–and one pushes such artwork with the intention of conveying that, as I have already cited two authors as hoping would happen, in addition to having seen many more–then that is clearly a bigger issue to representing the past as it was lived by the participants than the mechanical details of translation.
Thus, if one’s goal is to show how things “really were” to those who participated (a laudable goal) it is distortion to provide art which consciously aims to send a different message by trading on cultural differences to the exclusion of the larger meaning.
When urged by Hyrum to describe the Book of Mormon translation mechanics in detail, Joseph Smith said:
Martin Harris said that “he wished to “stop the mouths of fools” who told him that the Prophet memorized sentences and merely repeated them.” - MS 44:87.
I’m not merely quibbling about the term “lie”–there’s a big difference between simply being uninformed or considering something unimportant (which is what I think the stance of artists and Church are), and lying as part of a strategy to “hide the truth” from members and investigators, as has been repeatedly charged here by you and others.
So, are you backing off the claim that this is a deliberate effort by the Church to hide the past? Did you not mean it was a “lie”? Or did you unintentionally tip your hand? :-)
C’mon, have the courage of your convictions. If you think it’s a lie, then call it a lie.
It should be clear, and No, it has nothing to do with your elusive ad hominem. (Still haven’t grappled with Novick, I see.) Repetition doesn’t equal an argument. I don’t know that it is worth my time to keep answering the same question when you never deal with the answer I give.
You’ve said you disagree with me in that you don’t think anything of value and truth is “lost” in your version of the translation event.
If there were not real plates, no real translation, then of course there’s nothing to lose, because there is no there there.
But, if there were real plates, and there was a real translation, and if it was divine and sacred (rather than eerie or bizarre) then that has great relevance to how it is portrayed–if accuracy is one’s goal, or even if one wishes to portray it as the participants understood and saw it.
But of course, if you don’t think Joseph did anything divine, it’s hardly surprising that you can’t see that anything important–or anything true–might be lost.
Actually, there are something like 200 private statements by various witnesses over about a 50 year period, in addition to the joint statements published in the Book of Mormon. Glad to see you’re up on the relevant literature. :-)
And, for the record, your reading of the “historical record” on Joseph’s reliability and the “trustworthiness (and the 19th century religious worldview) of the men who signed the statements” betrays considerable ignorance of the data. It betrays having bought into some rather poor glosses on the data, though.
The three witnesses, for example, were regarded by their non-Mormon contemporaries as extremely reliable and honest. This was one thing which many of their contemporaries found so difficult to deal with, especially in the case of David Whitmer, who never returned to the Church. (See the quotes on Whitmer’s death by his hometown paper, for example.)
Richard L. Anderson is probably the living authority on this matter. Anything he’s written on the matter is worth reading to get up to speed.
Just trying to get some assessment of how good your grasp of the relevant historiography is. My suspicions were confirmed.
Since you don’t believe in the plates, and don’t seem very familiar with the relevant literature on the witnesses (as well as apparently buying into some of the attempts to downgrade the witnesses by claiming they were not reliable), it just further helps explain why you can’t appreciate my point that your approach loses things of greater value than that which you claim to restore.
As I’ve said before, if someone is wrong it is often interesting to know why they are wrong, or what may have led them there. If nothing else, it helps us guard against similar errors in our own thinking.
On this, one could probably profitably read Novick in his address at Sunstone to the issue of the so-called “New Mormon Historians,” and his observation that for all their bombast about being ‘historically accurate,’ and ‘neutral,’ the value of their work was considerably less for understanding the past than the disparaged historians who wrote [insert “painted”] from a position of faith. Like the historians to which he addressed himself, you seem stuck in a rather dated posture about such matters. It apparently gives you a sense of ill-deserved superiority over other approaches.
Some of Novick’s discussion is outlined here: Louis Midgley, “Editor’s Introduction: Knowing Brother Joseph Again,” FARMS Review 18/1 (2006): xi–lxxiv.
But, I’m sure Novak was just engaging in ad hominem.
You still seem pretty worried about something that isn’t about you, though.
But, bottom line–if my paper is so horrible, then I’m sure you can link to it profusely. It should serve as a wonderful case study of how unassailable your position is, and how poor the response to your concerns is. This should help your case, even though it has nothing to do with you, except accidentally and incidentally.
In fact, maybe you should give FAIR a donation, to increase FAIR’s ability to embarass itself with mere ad hominem and straw men. It’s tax deductible.
In my experience, when people get upset and insist how terrible something we’ve done is, that usually means we’ve hit uncomfortably close to the truth. In this case, if so, I can only claim good luck.
Kind regards,
Greg
Feb 26th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
JV Says
My apologies, I hadn’t looked closely enough at the LDS Church website I linked to above (CLICK HERE). It appears that the LDS Church doesn’t just acquire and use art that inaccurately illustrates the Book of Mormon translation process, it actually produces misleading art as well. Note that one of the images on the linked page (the last one on the right) is a clip from a short Church-produced film depicting a reenactment of the translation process. It features Joseph Smith, without a hat or a stone, dictating a translation directly from the golden plates sitting in his lap, while his scribe Oliver Cowdery writes on paper with a quill pen.
Indeed, nowhere on www.josephsmith.net have I found an image depicting the actual translation process. If there is one, please point me to it.
It seems unreasonable to me to consider the inaccurate and misleading depictions on the site–particularly in the context of teaching people about the translation process–to be something other than purposeful deception. Even if it is meant to preserve a “greater truth” about the inspired status of the Book of Mormon, it is still deception.
-JV
Feb 26th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
JV Says
Your entire comment up to the paragraph I have quoted here is an argument refuting the assertion that the participants in the historical events were not sincere. That is not an assertion I have made, nor is it responsive to my questions you purport to be answering.
I don’t know where the confusion came in, but instead of reframing the question and asking you to respond again, I will just give you my take on the merits of your claim that critics who want to see the mechanics of translating the Book of Mormon accurately depicted are trying to slip a “bigger lie” by you. You already indicated, on your Wiki page, that the “bigger lie” told by the critics is “that the Book of Mormon was uninspired and uninspiring”. The “bigger lie” you are pointing to is just a subjective value judgment about the book, and it is a lie only if the critics making the statement personally believe that the Book of Mormon was uninspired and uninspiring.
With that in mind, your criticism that the critics’ approach (embracing “a historical truth in visual form”) leads to a lie is very confusing; their approach may (or may not) lead to a negative value judgment about the Book of Mormon, but that value judgment is certainly not a lie.
On the other hand, your defense of Del Parson’s choice to paint golden plates instead of a top hat is an endorsement of the opposite approach, which protects the Book of Mormon from negative value judgments by presenting a false historical image. Where I come from, that is called “whitewashing” history. Using your formulation, one could also call it “a lie in visual form that allows the artist to slip a bigger truth by the rest of the world”. As much as I understand wanting people to make positive value judgments about things that you value, I must say that this approach is problematic, to say the least. There are lemon laws that protect consumers from car salesmen who use this approach.
In light of your explanation, then, it appears that with respect to the Book of Mormon translation process, the Church and the artists whose work it uses all deem certain facts to be unimportant (e.g., the “mechanical details of translation”), and those unimportant facts just happen to be the ones that are “eerie” and “uninspiring” for many members and investigators. Well, you’ll have to pardon me for thinking that looks a little too convenient.
A much simpler explanation that doesn’t rely on such odd coincidences would be that the Church and its artists disregard those facts (and replace them with new ones, if necessary) because they are not useful for the Church’s purposes (i.e., protecting Joseph Smith from looking “weird” to members and investigators). I’ll even accept that they are probably doing so with good intentions.
Okay, fine. I understand Novick’s point that in historical analysis the historian’s statements represent a synthesis of information that can be affected one way or another by elements of the historian’s character and worldview. I agree. I have no problem with that. Here is your money quote:
“And arguments which are illegitimate when addressed to the author of a transparently followable syllogism are quite appropriate in the case of a witness.”
I agree with this too. In certain contexts, it can be reasonable to look at the messenger in order to understand the message. It doesn’t appear in your quote, but I assume Novick recognizes that ad hominem can be used just as effectively to taint valid arguments in a historical discussion as it can in any other context, so it has to be used judiciously. For example, when somebody is making a history-based claim using something approaching a “transparently followable syllogism” (e.g., “the eyewitness accounts describe the Book of Mormon translation process as X, the eyewitness accounts are accurate, therefore the mechanics of the Book of Mormon translation process are X”), using ad hominem to inform your opinion is not appropriate, even if you disagree with the claim. The more broad and complicated the historian’s argument, of course, the more appropriate evaluating the messenger can be.
That is not an excuse, however, to shoot the messenger, and this is where I believe you and your man Novick part ways. You are using your money quote as an excuse to demonize people who object to the incorporation of manufactured facts into images that purport to be historical illustrations. You are invoking Novick to help you defend demonstrably inaccurate historical illustrations. Novick would laugh at you for taking his words so far out of context.
My grasp of the “relevant literature on the [golden plates] witnesses” is completely irrelevant to understanding what the Book of Mormon translation process looked like, since the plates were not in view during the process (in fact, the plates were sometimes buried outside in the woods while the translation process continued). You seem to be trying to persuade me to lie about what the process looked like in order to preserve the value of that event.
Indeed.
-JV
Feb 27th, 2008 at 7:09 am
Greg Smith Says
No, it is illustrative of the fact that the _initial participants_ regarded Joseph as sincere. This is an assertion which _I_ have made, and argue that art which does not represent that reality does considerable violence to displaying events “as they appeared” to the participants.
In other words, both versions may reveal some things, and obscure others. Those who believe in the historical testimony of the plates reality are going to find different things important and worthy of emphasis than those who regard the whole thing as a fraud.
As you said:
Again, you haven’t completely come to grips with Novick (have you read him aside from my quote?) but we’ll work with where you’re at here.
My point is that no one (that I know of) is questioning the syllogism of “this is what some witnesses said about the translation process.” That’s not in dispute. It’s in Church books and magazines and has been for at least a century.
What I am challenging, among other things, is the presentation, the over all “feel” of the art (dependent upon a thousand details and decisions of things done and undone) and the context in which it is presented, “See the Church has been lying to you all the along, here’s the real story.” That is a complex network of claim, supposition, innuendo, etc. I remain amazed that I need to point this out.
As I keep saying repeatedly, I think the stone in the hat version of the translation could be done with no concerns. I just don’t think it an important enough point to waste much time on.
And, as I keep insisting, since I’m convinced I’ve demonstrated that the critics’ complaints are misplaced, it becomes an interesting matter as to why they are misplaced. I recently learned of one group that had done something on this: the Institute for Religious Research. The IRR is not a group known for it’s good intentions toward the members of the Church of Jesus Christ. And, as I’ve proven by quotes on this very blog, there are plenty of other people who want this version of the truth shown simply to make the Church and its origins look foolish.
You, on the other hand, can provide no quotes or proof whatever from the Church or its artists that their intent was to deceive. As I keep saying (I weary of repeating myself) I suspect they just don’t care about the mechanics. You think this is “unreasonable,” but reasonable people differ.
You’re pardoned, and given your biases it’s not surprising that you’d come to that conclusion–which is why I was hoping your grasp of the historiography would be better.
Yet, those same “eerie” or “uninspiring” elements get repeatedly mentioned in a variety of Church works. Crafty folks, those Mormons–hiding them in plain sight like that. Elders Maxwell and Nelson must not have got the Top Secret Memo. Someone should also alert the notorious liberal rag BYU Studies.
Demonize? Wow, I’m more vicious than I thought.
Do you really think the IRR (an “anti-cult” group) is motivated by warm fuzzies toward my faith?
Do the authors I’ve quoted on this blog not say they want people to see how foolish the Church’s founding narratives are? I’ve seen others along these lines; I regret not having them to hand, but c’est la vie.
Again, I think you are being far too hasty in assuming that the images were “manufactured.” There is some evidence from a variety of witnesses (John Whitmer and someone citing Oliver Cowdery, that I know of off hand) that describe some of the translation occurring with Oliver at one table with writing materials, and Joseph at the other table with the Nephite interpreters which he would hold over the plates.
The plates were, in fact, sometimes in the room. Emma describes moving them about, wrapped in a muslim handkerchief while she did her work. See also the quotes above about part of the work with Oliver, where they seem to have been visible. These are part of the witness narratives, which again confirms my suspicion that you have simply latched onto the version that YOU want to push, and aren’t terribly familiar with all the nuances and possibilities.
There are also accounts of Joseph with the plates open, but with a screen between him and the scribe (early in the process, mostly).
You’ve picked _one_ form of the translation account, and then castigate everyone who doesn’t use that form as liars out to distort history and the truth. But, there are other accounts and other versions, and since it doesn’t really matter (and Church folk back to Joseph has insisted it doesn’t matter) I think this is much ado about nothing.
I’m not trying to persuade YOU to do anything. As I keep saying, this was never about you.. Since I regard the issue as trivial, it doesn’t much matter to me what art you do or don’t do.
If I’m trying to persuade you of anything, it’s to suggest that your attribution of motive to the Church has no evidentiary support. MINE does. The IRR track record is clear. And, the blog quotes speak for themselves. On the other hand:
1) You don’t seem sufficiently familiar with the witness statements about the plates’ translation and attendant witnesses; you’re fixated on one version that must be displayed or you cry fraud.
2) You have no evidence that the Church intended to portray “how” the plates were translated, and yet castigate them for not reaching that goal which you’ve imposed.
3) You presume that the Church and its artists set out to deceive and lie to people, yet you have no quotes to that effect. The claim is also belied by the fact that the Church has not hidden the information which you consider them so desperate to keep under wraps.
What I’m saying is that I think it clear that SOME of the critics (remember, this isn’t about you) aggressively push the stone in the hat version because they see it as a tool to destroy the value of a founding narratives of Mormonism. Thus, their inability to abandon what I think is a silly argument is unsurprising.
What your excuse is, I have no idea. But, reasonable people can disagree, and we will have to agree to do just that.
This is becoming tedious. We’ve both expressed our opinion. This is far more than I intended to say, since I merely wanted to set the record straight as to misapprehensions about the article. It’s not intended to persuade you, and I’m not surprised in the least that it didn’t.
As I said before, if you think my work is so terrible, then I encourage you to link to it profusely, thus enhancing FAIR’s terrible reputation for being unable to come to grips with the devastating arguments of the critics.
Several other people think it quite cogent and useful, however.
Don’t worry; if I ever write something about your art, you’ll know it.
Best wishes,
Greg
Feb 27th, 2008 at 11:18 am
David Keller Says
JV,
This quote of yours really astonishes me.
You’ve been using a lot of bandwidth criticizing Mormon depictions of historical events from a position of incorrigible ignorance. This statement of yours seems to be saying “don’t bother me with the facts that embarrass me,” which is, ironically not too different from what you seem to be accusing the Church of Jesus Christ’s artists.
My main point I attempted to convey in Menachem’s article was that accounts of the translation process were not uniform. If IoTR artists want to be consistent with the idea of multiple accounts (like the site is with the First Vision ;) ), then perhaps we can assume some illustrations will be forthcoming to depict some of the earlier stages of translation?
Maybe it would be best not to get my hopes up that artists can be good historians as well :)
Here is some source material I assembled over a year ago in a comment on the Mormon Stories podcast. There are, of course many other accounts. A nice compilation of them can be found in the book “Opening the Heavens”
From the August 27, 1829 issue of the Niagara Courier reprinting an August 11, 1829 article in the Palmyra Freeman
Palmyra Reflector March 19, 1831
Charles Anthon’s 1834 letter in Mormonism Unvailed
Charles Anthon’s 1841 letter
From Mark Ashurst-McGee Master’s Thesis “A Pathway to Prophethood”
Feb 27th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Mayan Elephant Says
wow. those are long posts. just sayin. they is long as hell.
Feb 27th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Greg Smith Says
Maybe Freud was on to something.
:-)
Greg
Feb 27th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Menachem Wecker Says
“Maybe it would be best not to get my hopes up that artists can be good historians as well :)”
For me, one of the fascinating things I am taking out of this sto