You also hide behind a pseudonym so you can attack the Church without the risk of LOSING the ability to claim “I’m just a Mormon,”

When I said “So you can,” I did not mean “in order that you may,” in the sense of this being your intent. (I don’t know what your intent was.)

I meant it in the sense of “one consequence of the pseudonym is the (coincidental?) ability to avoid any potential consequences for publicly insisting that the Church seeks to deceive its members or the public.”

No mind-reading was intended, but on re-reading it sounded different than I meant.

Greg

I really like your analysis of the artistic challenges related to illustrating history. You present what I consider a good outline of the tough choices artists face in telling what they see as the truth of the situation.

Thank-you. So, can we agree that there MIGHT be something else motivating the artists and/or Church besides a desire to lie to the unsuspecting public?

This is progress.

[Incidentally, as I was looking at the Parsons’ image again, I wonder if he isn’t being more subtle than a first glance made me think. It looks like Joseph has suspenders on; this could be the strap from the breastplate. His far hand is also raised up to his eye; there are repeated witnesses that say that the Nephite Interpreters were too big for him, and so he had to look through only one eye. It would be interesting to ask Parsons if he chose this method to avoid having to ‘guess’ at the appearnace of the Nephite Urim, while still including it. If so, this would match a report by Oliver and John Whitmer (urim placed “over” the plates to decipher them), both of whom were scribes during the extant BoM text production period.]

What is my stance on the LDS Church that would disqualify my artwork from use in Church publications?

That the Church is lying. They probably don’t want to encourage those who hold that view, doncha think?

If you don’t hold that view, then I’d appreciate clarification on that point.

How am I supposed to take what you say seriously when I know that behind every 2000-word post you write is an assumption that you know how “my kind” thinks and acts? Knowing my status as a “critic” is an excuse for you to disregard things I say, and assume things I don’t say, as here:

As I said, I made an edit to the wiki page to make it clear I’m not talking about ALL critics. Go look.

I disregard what you say because of your failure to come to grips with all the data, not because I’m some sort of mind reader.

You do not have a reasonable basis for drawing any of these conclusions.

Oh, c’mon.

A) You claim the Church is trying to hide these facts.
B) You were asking David for a source for the translation accounts, which you admitted not reading.
C) You denied the necessity of being up on the broader picture of the Witness accounts in this issue.

I presumed, therefore, that you were unaware that the Church’s university, owned press, and Smith Institute had published around 200 of them all in one place.

Since you think the Church is trying to hide them, I supposed this meant that you were unaware that the Church had published them.

I suppose I could have been wrong. I suppose you DID know about this source. Did you?

Are you saying you DID know they published them, but chose to claim the church was trying to hide them anyway?

It’s not ad hominem to point out that a witness doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

Either your opinion on hiding history in this instance should be discounted because you haven’t read the historiographic literature, OR you should be discounted because you’re aware the Church made these materials public, but chose to hide that fact from your audience.

I don’t see another option, do you?

I was raised in the LDS Church, I spent two years as a missionary for the Church in a distant culture, I was married in an LDS temple. I have a degree from Brigham Young University. I went to church last week, I am going to church tomorrow. I am a Mormon. I am a critic.

Good for you.

You also hide behind a pseudonym so you can attack the Church without the risk of LOSING the ability to claim “I’m just a Mormon,” argue the Church is lying, and apparently don’t believe the testimonies of the three and eight witnesses of the Book of Mormon regarding the reality of the plates and the divine nature of the translation. That’s your privilege.

(If I’ve misunderstood your stance, feel free to correct me.)

But, I’m a Mormon too, who doesn’t think the Church is lying.

I’m reminded of Marvin J. Ashton’s remark:

Incidentally, some years ago I was contacted by an insurance agent. When he started his sales approach with “I am an active member of the Church,” the first thought that crossed my mind was, “Who said so?” - Marvin J. Ashton, Be of Good Cheer (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1987), 73-74.

So, when you want to sell your wares, your version of the Church’s perfidity by wrapping yourself in membership, one should perhaps take pause.

If your behavior gets you lumped with “critics,” maybe you ought to examine your behavior.

I haven’t seen you defend Joseph or Thomas S. Monson, or their call from the various attacks made during this thread. Strange for a Mormon, but stranger things have happened.

As Martin Luther King once said, “Don’t tell me you’re a Christian. Let me figure it out.”

Having known many Mormons and many critics, your membership in the previous group is hard to discern. That might mean that your approach–even to an area where you may have some valid contributions to make–should be rethought.

Kind regards,

Greg

My goodness, you have written a lot. I read it all, though. My response, however, will be relatively short.

I really like your analysis of the artistic challenges related to illustrating history. You present what I consider a good outline of the tough choices artists face in telling what they see as the truth of the situation. Obviously, you and I differ in our assessment of the importance of some of the choices, and the effect that the LDS Church has on those choices, but your approach is reasonable. You are hitting the criticism head-on. In fact, I would like to see it on your Wiki page instead of some of those other sections.

The Book of Mormon reprint probably isn’t going to include “Images of the Restoration” art in the flyleaf. (Could you blame them, given your stance toward the Church?)

What is my stance on the LDS Church that would disqualify my artwork from use in Church publications?

…the critics insist…
…the critics already HAVE all the portraits they want showing things they want…
What the critics want…
From the critics’ perspective…
The critics expect…
The critics can do whatever they want…
I think the CRITICS want…

I am getting really tired of you grouping all “critics” together and imputing to them a collective hive-mind. How am I supposed to take what you say seriously when I know that behind every 2000-word post you write is an assumption that you know how “my kind” thinks and acts? Knowing my status as a “critic” is an excuse for you to disregard things I say, and assume things I don’t say, as here:

But, you don’t even know about the documents. You haven’t read them. You don’t even know where to find all the documents. You don’t even seem to be aware that the Church is the best source of the documents. Yet, you continue to insist–facts be damned–that the Church is out to hide the truth simply because you disagree with artistic choices.

You do not have a reasonable basis for drawing any of these conclusions. This rant is completely understandable, however, in light your belief in the “critic” hive-mind. We’re all the same, right? This is why I have been so touchy about your use of ad hominem.

I am a member of your church, with ancestors who helped build the Nauvoo temple, who crossed the Rocky Mountains, and who helped settle the American West. I was raised in the LDS Church, I spent two years as a missionary for the Church in a distant culture, I was married in an LDS temple. I have a degree from Brigham Young University. I went to church last week, I am going to church tomorrow. I am a Mormon. I am a critic.

-JV

Don’t you see, [not knowing where to look for the documents is] the whole problem. The same could be said for millions of kids graduating from seminary, returning from missions, getting their BYU diplomas, etc. They’ve all seen the whitewashed art in primary, but only a very small percentage of them have ever encountered the primary accounts in their alienating detail. It doesn’t matter what measures the church undertakes to disclose this stuff–if the end result is that no one knows about it, then they are effectively hiding it.

I think you’re onto something here. My returned-missionary, relief society instructor wife did not find out about the seer stone/top-hat translation technique until several years into our marriage, when she watched the “Mormons” episode of South Park. Active participants in the LDS Church shouldn’t be learning the facts from Comedy Central.

-JV

wish I had the time to make some of the relevant accounts more accessible for you, but I don’t and it is a little unfair of you to ask me do your homework for you.

It is a more than a little unfair for you to accuse me of “incorrigible ignorance”, and then fail to demonstrate that I am actually ignorant. I’m not asking you to do my homework. I am asking you to support your condescending attitude with facts (namely, pointing to an eyewitness account of the translation of the Book of Mormon that features the plates sitting out in the open). From your response, it appears that you can’t do that.

I just visited the site you point to and I think that all but one picture accurately portrays a stage of the translation. All the pictures that have Joseph alone with the plates accurately capture the stage when he copied off characters from the plates. In fact, HC 1:62 is even sited as a source text.

Copying characters off of the plates is called “transcribing” not “translating”. All of the captions for images depicting him alone with the plates use some form of the word “translate”. The method of translation mentioned in HC 1:62 involves the “Urim and Thumim”, so none of those images accurately depicts the HC description. Interestingly, the image next to the HC quote doesn’t depict Joseph Smith transcribing characters–the words he has written on the paper are “I Nephi, having been born of goodly parents”–the first line of the Book of Mormon. He is translating the Book of Mormon directly from the gold plates.

Titles like “Joseph Smith Ponders the Gold Plates”, or “Investigating the Golden Plates” would work brilliantly for those images in which he is alone (and not explicitly translating), but “Joseph Smith Translates the Golden Plates”? No, that is misleading to me.

The proper thing to do, in my opinion, is to withdraw your assertion until you can back it up by demonstrating that you have mastered all the relevant primary sources (at the very least the one the Church artists clearly consulted).

Your analysis of the website images betrays a clear failure on your part to master the primary source you cite, or to examine the images in sufficient detail. The proper thing for you to do, in my opinion, is to please dial down the condescension.

I did not differentiate between the 116 pages and the text of the Book of Mormon as we have it today. I see no compelling reason to make that distinction unless some selection bias is in play that discriminate against certain elements in LDS portrayals.

My compelling reason is the fact that they are not the same book, and do not purport to have always featured the same method of translation. I see no reason not to make that distinction, unless some selection bias is in play that discriminates in favor of certain elements in LDS portrayals.

I realize that in saying that, I have rendered my image of Joseph Smith translating inaccurate. Since it is an attempt to depict the stage of translation in which Martin Harris was the scribe (the translation of the 116 pages), and I will have to re-title it “Joseph Smith Translating the Book of Lehi” or something like that. I think you can probably expect changes soon to IOTR.

-JV

As Dave Letterman once said to Bill O’Reilly, I’m not smart enough to debate you point to point on this, but…well, I’m sure you remember the rest.

So, you can’t dispute my rendering of the facts because you don’t know the details well enough, but I’m wrong anyway? A moving expression of faith, I suppose. :-)

I just can’t get past your assertion that the church isn’t hiding anything. Is it seriously your position that because this Welch book is made available by the church, they are meeting any reasonable standard of disclosure?

I’m not sure what “reasonable standard of disclosure” applies to historical matters. That would seem to be in the eye of the beholder.

I’m saying that a claim that they are hiding it is laughable when they’re publishing the primary sources (and this is really just a collection of them; most have been published in various venues elswehere previously).

Does the Church emphasize them? No. Do they hide them? No.

Don’t you see, that’s the whole problem. The same could be said for millions of kids graduating from seminary, returning from missions, getting their BYU diplomas, etc.

I wasn’t aware that seminary or missions were graduate degree programs in history. I thought their goal was to teach the gospel of Christ.

All those millions of kids aren’t holding themselves out as the “truth tellers” of Mormon history in art as opposed to the evil Church hiding it. That’s why it’s rather troubling that JV feels himself in a position to pontificate about what the Church is hiding, since he seems unaware of even readily-available sources. I would think if one were going to hold forth on inaccurate Book of Mormon translation art, one would familiarize oneself with the relevant literature.

This demonstrates my claim that there is more going on here than just a debate about pure historical issues.

Again, does the Church emphasize it? No. The Church teaches the gospel of Christ through the ordinances.

I think as a people we are much more historically sophisticated than we were a generation ago, and I expect (hope) that will continue.

It’s a long row to hoe. The Church tries to get everyone to read the scriptures every day. That’s been pushed for decades. I teach adult Sunday School. I am still astonished at the stuff that life-time members don’t know that’s in the scriptures, and not in an obscure corner either.

When I teach, I tend to have someone read a verse of scripture, and then I’ll ask a question like, “What does Paul say about X?”.

I do this because I’ve learned that unless I do that, people generally won’t follow what’s being discussed.

The question is virtually ALWAYS answered by what’s in the verse of scripture. Yet, more often than not, people will give some answer off the top of their heads that bears no resemblance whatever to the text we have read 5 seconds ago. It’s an amazing thing to watch.

So, I have some sympathy for how difficult it is to communicate even the basics, much less the more arcane details. And, that’s to lifetime members.

We live in a post-literate culture, in many ways, and getting people to read anything is difficult. Study of written texts is even more rare. Study of history even more so. It’s a difficult problem, and one without an ideal answer, I suspect.

But, if it gives you any comfort, I taught Elders’ quorum several weeks ago, and talked about the stone in the hat and various translation stages.

I have yet to be summoned to a disciplinary council, but I suspect Salt Lake just hasn’t gotten word yet.

Have you ever read a financial prospectus? Or seen a pharmaceutical ad? That’s what full disclosure looks like. Until the church requires the missionaries to give copies of Welch away with BoMs, the church will be far from it.

I see. So, the Church must dispense the primary documents on everything associated with its history to every investigator, before it can be judged not guitly of “hiding the truth”? Those missionary backpacks just got a whooooole lot heavier.

This standard certainly has the advantage of making it impossible for the Church to absolve itself of the charge of lying. I begin to see why Church public affairs didn’t want to waste their time.

A bizarre standard. When Jesus called apostles, he did not invite them to a twelve-week seminar on Judaic Messianism. He issued an invitation: Follow me.

Either God will speak to us by revelation, or He will not. The rest is details.

Let’s break it down.

Hypothesis: The Church of Jesus Christ hides the history of the Book of Mormon translation.

Evidence PRO:
* The Church’s artistic depiction of the Book of Mormon translation nowhere shows Joseph translating with his face in a hat.
* The Church’s sunday curriculum does not mention the seer stone in the hat.

Evidence Con:
* The Church’s Joseph Fielding Smith Institute publishes a couple of hundred descriptions, from pro, neutral, and anti-Mormon sources.
* Church books by general authorities and general authors mention the matter over the course of a century
* apostles mention the matter occasionally as an illustration of a broader point
* BYU studies and other journals publish primary sources and discuss the matter.
* rank and file members like me can teach it with no consequences whatever

Again, this looks to me like they don’t emphasize it, but how can they be hiding it?

DO you have any idea how many books this applies to?

Well, you tell me. How many books are:
* Published by BYU and Deseret Book jointly
* Produced by the Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for church history
* part of the “Documents in Church History” series?

Not a whole lot.

The point is that the Church has influence at multiple points: with BYU, with Deseret book, and with the Smith Institute. The Smith Institute is not, by nature, something that tends to liberalism or “revisionism” in history. If the Church had wanted to squash something, they could have at multiple choke points.

Are you ready to bestow quasi-official status on all of them?

I’m saying, I very much doubt that a book containing information which the Church heartily disproved of and was trying to keep hidden would be published by Derseret Book and BYU under the auspices of the Smith Institute. I’m surprised anyone would debate that.

You won’t find LDS temple ceremonies (something the Church DOES want to keep private) published by those groups.

How about McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine for starters?

McConkie’s book was neither published by BYU, nor prepared by a church historical institute. He was very clear in the title page that he alone bore responsibility for it. Deseret Book didn’t even publish it; it was Bookcraft, IIRC. I’ve heard rumors, actually, that it’s going out of print and will not be republished. Get your copy now!

I’ve read apologists who argue that the family proc isn’t even official doctrine.

I’m not saying it’s canonized; I’m saying it’s “quasi”-official; i.e., the Church is unlikely to disapprove of the dissemination of the material, since it has control over multiple groups involved in the production.

I feel no need to defend comments by anonymous “apologists.” :-)

I can see I’m going to have to revise my article slightly to make it crystal clear to what I’m referring in the last section, since there are apparently still grounds for misunderstanding. (JV has demonstrated that, for which I’m grateful. As I said above, I’ve already made one small edit to make it clear who I was addressing; I need to do a few more tweaks, it would seem.)

I’m going to hold off for a bit, though, so I’m not accused of trying to “cover my tracks.”

The goal should be to write not to be understood, but so that one cannot be misunderstood. Under the glare of a hostile reading, that is difficult, but I will try to improve.

Kind regards,

Greg

As Dave Letterman once said to Bill O’Reilly, I’m not smart enough to debate you point to point on this, but…well, I’m sure you remember the rest.

I just can’t get past your assertion that the church isn’t hiding anything. Is it seriously your position that because this Welch book is made available by the church, they are meeting any reasonable standard of disclosure?

You said:

“But, you don’t even know about the documents. You haven’t read them. You don’t even know where to find all the documents. You don’t even seem to be aware that the Church is the best source of the documents.”

Don’t you see, that’s the whole problem. The same could be said for millions of kids graduating from seminary, returning from missions, getting their BYU diplomas, etc. They’ve all seen the whitewashed art in primary, but only a very small percentage of them have ever encountered the primary accounts in their alienating detail. It doesn’t matter what measures the church undertakes to disclose this stuff–if the end result is that no one knows about it, then they are effectively hiding it.

Have you ever read a financial prospectus? Or seen a pharmaceutical ad? That’s what full disclosure looks like. Until the church requires the missionaries to give copies of Welch away with BoMs, the church will be far from it.

By the way, you also said:

“This book is in Church bookstores, printed by Deseret Book, co-sponsored by BYU, by a fairly conservative historical group under the Church’s direction. Short of canonizing the dang thing, it doesn’t get more quasi-official than that.”

DO you have any idea how many books this applies to? Are you ready to bestow quasi-official status on all of them? How about McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine for starters? Sheesh. I’ve read apologists who argue that the family proc isn’t even official doctrine.

I don’t need to have a quote to assert that the Church intends to deceive people about the mechanics of the Book of Mormon translation process. The Church’s Joseph Smith website is evidence that speaks for itself.

Evidence rarely–despite claims of fundamentalist historians still mired in positivism–“speaks for itself.” Facts are interpreted, and it is just this interpretation at issue.

I’ll do a bit of your homework for you, and point you to a collection of the statements about the translation. But, be careful–massive cognitive dissonance may await you.

The source is John W. Welch, “Miraculous Translation of the Book of Mormon,” in Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestations 1820-1844 (edited by John W. Welch and Erick B. Carlson (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press and Deseret Book, 2005), 77-214.

Now, brace yourself. You’ll note the book was published by BYU.

Danger, Will Robinson! Last chance to eject!

It is also part of the Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for Latter-day Saint History’s Documents in Church History series.

So, we have the Church’s historical arm publishing a book that contains every single mention of the translation process, including all those pesky stories about seer stones and hats that you claim they’re trying to keep secret. It’s even got all the silly anti-Mormon stuff from Dogberry/Cole, local newspapers, etc.

There’s no attempt to spin it or explain it away–all the primary sources, right in front of you.

And, you think the Church is trying to hide this stuff? Really? Really, really?

This is why I think this whole argument is just dumb, dumb, dumb. Whatever else the Church is up to, how does publishing all the documents contribute to hiding it? This book is in Church bookstores, printed by Deseret Book, co-sponsored by BYU, by a fairly conservative historical group under the Church’s direction. Short of canonizing the dang thing, it doesn’t get more quasi-official than that.

I don’t think you have established the “IRR track record”, but the quotes you have provided to support your assertion that “critics” are trying to “slip a bigger lie by us” establish only the conclusions they have reached about the Book of Mormon translation process (”gross stupidity”, “fraud”, “absurd”). Unless you can establish that these people do not believe it to be grossly stupid, fraudulent, or absurd, then you have not established a lie at all, let alone intent to deceive.

You don’t have to dig too far into the IRR version of the “countercult” to get the gist. I doubt you know anti-Mormon ministries as well as I do.

Anyone who thinks the IRR is a neutral, scholarly source, I have beach property in Kansas to sell you.

We seem to be talking past each other on this; let me try one more time.

I don’t have any problem with you or anyone else producing art about LDS origins or anything else any way you want. I’m not, as I said, saying that you must “lie,” or do anything you don’t think is justified. I don’t care.

What I have a problem with is people insisting that MORMON artists must alter the way THEY portray it, or be charged (along with the Church) with being frauds or dupes trying to keep a secret. The “lie” that I’m talking about slipping by is not lies produced by critics’ art; it is the lie of insisting that if the Mormons don’t follow suit and do it the way the critics insist it MUST be done, then the Mormons are guilty of fraud and distortion of their history.
If you look at my article, what I say is “They hope that a historical truth in visual form will allow them to slip a bigger lie by us. [para] They want a portrait of the translation that will convey something to a modern audience that it never portrayed to the participants—that the Book of Mormon was uninspired and uninspiring.” (emphasis added here)
Presumably, the critics already HAVE all the portraits they want showing things they want. But, those don’t get much play. You’re not going to see the IRR artwork on temple square. The Book of Mormon reprint probably isn’t going to include “Images of the Restoration” art in the flyleaf. (Could you blame them, given your stance toward the Church?)
What the critics want (I strongly suspect) is for the Church and its artists (and the audience for their attacks) to kowtow to their ideas about the purpose of art in the Church, and what ought to be represented and the manner in which that should happen. (If they don’t, they can always keep beating on the LDS as dishonest. From the critics’ perspective, it’s win-win.)
The critics expect the CHURCH and its artists to change, and will accuse them of dishonesty until they do so. That’s the lie, that the Church is scared of it, and hiding it, because the Book of Mormon isn’t inspired and they know everyone would see that if the “truth got out.” Never mind that the Church university and historical group published all the documents.
The critics can do whatever they want with their own art. I (and most Mormons, I suspect) couldn’t care less. I’m merely concerned with the attack on my faith and fellow religionists. I refuse to acceed to the accusation that they are dishonest or conniving without better evidence than this.
But, you don’t even know about the documents. You haven’t read them. You don’t even know where to find all the documents. You don’t even seem to be aware that the Church is the best source of the documents. Yet, you continue to insist–facts be damned–that the Church is out to hide the truth simply because you disagree with artistic choices.

Can’t you see how this might just be a little offensive? And, how one might even just suspect that your motives are not as pure as the driven snow when you continue to insist—that despite publishing all the data and mentioning it for the last 100 years in a variety of places that I found by spending 5 minutes looking–the Church is hiding the stone in the hat? Especially when you don’t even know this?
This is, incidentally, one reason why I made no reference to any particular work of art made by a “critic.” Their art doesn’t bother me—except if it’s bad art, and I hadn’t seen more than an image or two anyway—what bothers me is the attack on the Church, and the accusation that:
a) the Church hides the stone in the hat story: it doesn’t, as demonstrated.
b) Because of (a), the Church and its artists are in some sort of conspiracy to hide the truth. Since (a) has been shown to be false, there are surely other reasons for what the Church and its artists are doing than craven dishonesty.
The LDS artist sincerely, honestly believes that Joseph translated real plates. Depending on the artist’s skill, he will envisage and portray that event in a variety of ways, and there is historiographical support for a variety of views even if pure illustration was the goal.

But, he/she will probably NOT choose to represent the event in a way that he/she feels will misrepresent the status of the plates and the reality of the translation. Thus, I needn’t PROVE that the translation really happened; I only need demonstrate that Mormons genuinely believe that it did, and that many of the critics don’t, and therefore want to attack that idea by implying it is laughable, and insist that the Mormons must show the face in the hat or they’re lying because they’re afraid of what people will think when they “know the truth.”

Art is not life; it imitates life, and it has its own constraints. You can’t do everything you would like, and not every artist can do everything they want to that another might.

I understand, Greg, that one of your answers to this question is that the changed information is unimportant, however, given the fact that you also assert that such information is important enough to warrant changing the image to make it appropriately inspiring (see your Wiki page), I don’t think this is a reasonable answer.)

As I have said before, I think the CRITICS want the image changed because they think it is uninspiring. I think for an LDS artist, the problem is not a matter of it being “uninspiring,” but it being relatively unimportant and potentially creating a barrier to the viewer because of the nature of visual art. Artwork usually just gets a glance—everything that isn’t immediately self-evident is going to cause problems with understanding what the artist is on about.

Stopping someone short for a double-take and second look may be appropriate in some contexts: but over something that Joseph and we consider so trivial, it may not be worth it.

I’m not talking about “uninspiring,” but just the artistic challenges inherent in this.

As an artist, you’re already asking them to meet you a fair ways—you’ve got a picture of the early 1800s, which has more in common with the 1500s or 1200s than the year 2000. So, there’s historical and cultural distance right off the bat. You’re showing them metal plates with a sacred record engraved on them that an angel supposedly brought, that a farmboy is translating. Not the easiest thing to make accessible.

If you then introduce Joseph with his face hidden, that creates an immediate barrier—it’s hard for a viewer to identify with a figure whose face is intentionally hidden. Who is that guy, even? What is he doing? How do you even convey what he is doing without lots of accompanying text? How do you translate in a hat? Why a hat at all? Etc.

You can’t hear him dictate. You don’t see movement or the words that are dictated, and how he does so.

You can’t see the humanity, or the interaction, or the sacredness with which all involved approach the matter, and which a Mormon artist will doubtless feel is important, and dishonest for not including.

[This is why I say that I think to do the subject justice, the face would have to be out of the hat: again just by nature of the medium.]

If you read the witness accounts (account #79, 81, 87, 93, 94 among others of the Book of Forbidden Knowledge published by the Church, op cit.) of Joseph translating the Book of Mormon, you learn that everyone present would kneel down and ask for God’s blessing before starting. They then would begin translating, and scribes would spell each other as they got tired. When the men would come down from working, some non-converted, otherwise unaware witnesses who were visitors asked why they looked so bright and glowing, and what on earth was going on up there.

That’s all part of the story. Yet, how do you show it? How do you convey it? Is it fair to let a static medium undercut it? Or, can you use the medium in a way to convey it, even if all the details aren’t like a diagram in a monograph?

All this, of course, presumes that the LDS artists knew all this. I’m virtually certain that many of them did not. I think they generally just use their own view and imagination.

BTW, if you want a “Nephite interpreters” picture, there’s one in one version of the children’s picture edition of the Doctrine and Covenants (I think). It has Joseph wearing the spectacles. But, the artist got it wrong, IIRC, and the lenses were rose-coloured. (Insert joke here). The witnesses said they were white, with gray streaks, and translucent.

David already linked to it:

http://www.mormonthink.com/trans3.jpg

The Museum of Church art also has a reconstruction of the plates, Liahona, breast plate, Urim and Thummim, etc. I don’t think the U&T match the witness descriptions that well either–proving once more that artists often don’t know the texts, and Church art isn’t correlated. (Artist is David A. Baird if you want to look.)

http://www.lds.org/churchhistory/museum

Menachem Wecker, our host, said:

And I know it’s often bordered on personal attacks

Having been labeled someone who

* misrepresents criticism
* has poor “character or integrity”
* is spouting “B.S.,”
* is “lying”

…I shudder to think what would actually cross the border into a personal attack. :-)

Greg

The Church’s Joseph Smith website is evidence that speaks for itself. * Here, for the third time in this discussion, is a link to a page from that website titled “Joseph Smith Translates the Gold Plates” displaying inaccurate images titled “Joseph Smith Translating”, “Joseph Smith Translating the Book of Mormon”, and “Joseph Smith Translates the Golden Plates”, as well as a short film inaccurately depicting the mechanics of the process.

I just visited the site you point to and I think that all but one picture accurately portrays a stage of the translation. All the pictures that have Joseph alone with the plates accurately capture the stage when he copied off characters from the plates. In fact, HC 1:62 is even sited as a source text. At this stage there were no scribes present and no divining aid required to copy, and the plates were most definitely present for those like the Church artists who are inclined to accept Joseph Smith at his words in that text.

Like I have asserted before, the Parsons picture mixes and matches elements from the accounts of different translation stages. I don’t see how that statement is even debatable. I trust I have provided enough sources or pointers to sources to establish that point already.

*Note: I will seriously consider taking back this assertion if you can point me to an eyewitness account that fits the Church’s depictions.

This speaks well of you, that you can retract an allegation in light of further evidence. However you are the one prosecuting the assertion that Church artists are dishonest. The burden for backing your assertion lies on you. The proper thing to do, in my opinion, is to withdraw your assertion until you can back it up by demonstrating that you have mastered all the relevant primary sources (at the very least the one the Church artists clearly consulted).

Thanks for your clarification that you would be willing to consider source material that you weren’t previously aware of.

I wish I had the time to make some of the relevant accounts more accessible for you, but I don’t and it is a little unfair of you to ask me do your homework for you. If you wish to taken seriously as historically accurate artist it would do you some good to take some initiative in tracking down primary source material and using sound source criticism to create a plausible reconstruction from accounts. That is what historians do.

As I have said, the non-historian church artists have mixed and matched elements from the early and late stages of the Book of Mormon translation. I did not differentiate between the 116 pages and the text of the Book of Mormon as we have it today. I see no compelling reason to make that distinction unless some selection bias is in play that discriminate against certain elements in LDS portrayals.

I have seen at least a couple of portrayals of Joseph Smith using the Urim and Thummim. Not sure of their provenance, the second is RLDS. See: http://www.mormonthink.com/trans3.jpg
and http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/saga2/TRANS2.gif

If you are looking for an eyewitness account of Joseph Smith translating the Book of Mormon in the early stages with the plates in front of him, I am afraid I can’t help you, because a curtain separated Joseph Smith and his scribes. Yet taken together with the descriptions of the plates being in house in Harmony we have from Emma and the stated reasons for the curtain (see Anthon’s second hand account of Martin Harris for instance) a reasonable assumption by someone who accepts Book of Mormon truth claims on other grounds (say the Three and Eight Witnesses testimonies) is that Joseph had the plates behind the curtain with him.

Emma’s reports that the plates were present (albeit under a cloth while not translating) during the time period she acted as a scribe (between Martin Harris and Oliver Cowdery) should not be overlooked.

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.

I understand where you are coming from with this, but I hope my response to David, above, clarifies my position. And, as with David, I would really appreciate it if you could straighten me out on the relevancy of the plates to the mechanics of the Book of Mormon translation process by providing me with accounts that require the presence of the plates in plain view. If such accounts exist, you are right about the plates (and the existence thereof) being important considerations in depicting such accounts in an image.

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.

I don’t think you have established the “IRR track record”, but the quotes you have provided to support your assertion that “critics” are trying to “slip a bigger lie by us” establish only the conclusions they have reached about the Book of Mormon translation process (”gross stupidity”, “fraud”, “absurd”). Unless you can establish that these people do not believe it to be grossly stupid, fraudulent, or absurd, then you have not established a lie at all, let alone intent to deceive.

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.

I don’t need to have a quote to assert that the Church intends to deceive people about the mechanics of the Book of Mormon translation process. The Church’s Joseph Smith website is evidence that speaks for itself. * Here, for the third time in this discussion, is a link to a page from that website titled “Joseph Smith Translates the Gold Plates” displaying inaccurate images titled “Joseph Smith Translating”, “Joseph Smith Translating the Book of Mormon”, and “Joseph Smith Translates the Golden Plates”, as well as a short film inaccurately depicting the mechanics of the process. (CLICK HERE) Why else would the Church provide so many images, in more than one media, that all feature the same inaccuracy, on a site meant to provide information about Joseph Smith? (I understand, Greg, that one of your answers to this question is that the changed information is unimportant, however, given the fact that you also assert that such information is important enough to warrant changing the image to make it appropriately inspiring (see your Wiki page), I don’t think this is a reasonable answer.)

*Note: I will seriously consider taking back this assertion if you can point me to an eyewitness account that fits the Church’s depictions.

-JV

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.

David, I am definitely not saying that I will not consider facts that embarrass me. I can’t really think of any facts that do, actually.

I will grant you that I am ignorant about a lot of things, though. Upon rereading your quote, I realize that I have limited the “correct” view of the mechanics of the Book of Mormon translation process to one where the plates are not in view. Are you saying there is an account of the Book of Mormon translation process that includes having the golden plates in plain sight? If so, then an accurate depiction of that account would work for me, and I agree that if I were the one to depict it in a drawing, I would have to think hard about what the plates really looked like.

Since it appears that you have done your homework, and I do not have easy access to a comprehensive collection of accounts of the Book of Mormon translation process (I live outside of the United States), would you mind providing me with accounts that include visible plates, or at least referencing them? If I come across one of those accounts, I will take back saying that the plates are irrelevant to a depiction of the Book of Mormon translation process.

Mind you, I am not talking about Joseph Smith’s other attempts to translate, such as whatever happened during the earlier, aborted 116-page　attempt that was lost. Obviously, as you demonstrate with those quotes, there are many different accounts from different stages of Joseph Smith’s “translation” activities, not all of which produced the Book of Mormon that we have today, and the mechanics of translation didn’t always look the same. What I am specifically asking you for is accounts of the Book of Mormon translation process.

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?

I have no problem with the site providing several depictions of the mechanics of the translation process that accurately reflect existing evidence. The problem I have is that none of the several accounts that I would consider “accurate” are depicted in art used by the LDS Church. To take an example from the quotes you provided, where are the “very large pair of spectacles” on www.josephsmith.org?

-JV

But it might be helpful to step back for a minute and ask where else we find people of faith so willing to interrogate such a multi-disciplinary approach.

Here is my take on your observation:

Members of the LDS Church care a lot about history. It is a theological imperative, and has been from the beginning, because of the extraordinary claims made by Joseph Smith, including the fact that the church he established is the only church on Earth authorized and led by Jesus Christ (through a prophet). For an illustration of what is at stake for believing members, here are a couple of statements made by the late prophet of the LDS Church, Gorden B. Hinckley:

“Each of us has to face the matter—either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing.”

-2003 April General Conference

“Well, it’s either true or false. If it’s false, we’re engaged in a great fraud. If it’s true, it’s the most important thing in the world. Now, that’s the whole picture. It is either right or wrong, true or false, fraudulent or true. And that’s exactly where we stand, with a conviction in our hearts that it is true: that Joseph went into the Grove; that he saw the Father and the Son; that he talked with them; that Moroni came; that the Book of Mormon was translated from the plates; that the priesthood was restored by those who held it anciently. That’s our claim. That’s where we stand, and that’s where we fall, if we fall. But we don’t. We just stand secure in that faith.”

-Interview “The Mormons”; PBS Documentary, April 2007

With that belief in mind, it is easy for me to see why it really matters to believing Mormons, on a fundamental level, that Joseph Smith, in his perception of things, was absolutely right about the things he claimed to have seen and done. Unfortunately, some of the things he appears to have seen and done are either too “weird” or “uninspiring” for people to embrace, or they are too “unimportant” for people to bother with (or they are both at the same time, if you have been following Greg’s argument), and they find their way out of circulation, or they morph into a different story.

As I understand it, there has long existed a raging debate amongst historians about any number of Joseph Smith’s theological and historical claims. The IOTR website is the first internet effort I know of that attempts to bring that debate to Mormon historical art. This “bizarre” challenge to Mormon art is what you are seeing discussed in these comments. If you know of other places where this art debate is being held in Mormon circles, please let me know.

-JV

For me, one of the fascinating things I am taking out of this story is that there are artists who are truly trying to align themselves with Mormon history and theology, and there are folks who have invested a whole lot of time and effort in the history and theology who are willing to entertain art in a serious way.

I know this has been more of a debate than an effort in finding common ground. (And I know it’s often bordered on personal attacks, but I’ve held off, because there has been substantial information mixed with attacks, and I think everyone here has a backbone and can take it.) But it might be helpful to step back for a minute and ask where else we find people of faith so willing to interrogate such a multi-disciplinary approach. I am not seeing anything of this sort in any other religious art. Of course this does not mean it’s not happening, but I have been looking for it and have yet to uncover anything.

wow. those are long posts. just sayin. they is long as hell.

Maybe Freud was on to something.

:-)

Greg

This quote of yours really astonishes me.

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’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

Its proselytes give the following account of it: In the fall of 1827, a person by the name of Joseph Smith, of Manchester, Ontario county, reported that he had been visited in a dream by the spirit of the Almighty, and informed that in a certain hill in that town, was deposited this Golden Bible, containing an ancient record of a divine nature and origin. After having been thrice thus visited, as he states, he proceeded to the spot, and after having penetrating “mother earth” a short distance, the Bible was found, together with a huge pair of spectacles! He had directed, however, not to let any mortal being examine them, “under no less penalty” than instant death! They were therefore nicely wrapped up, and excluded from the vulgar gaze of poor wicked mortals!” It was said that the leaves of the Bible were plates, of gold about eight inches long, six wide, and one eighth of an inch thick, on which were engraved characters or hieroglyphics. By placing the spectacles in a hat, and looking into it, Smith could (he said so, at least) interpret these characters.

Palmyra Reflector March 19, 1831

Smith and Harris gave out that no mortal save Jo could look upon it and live; and Harris declares that when he acted as amanuenes, and wrote the translation, as Smith dictated, such was his fear of the Divine displeasure that a screen (sheet) was suspended between the prophet and himself.

Hence the magic spectacles were very opportunity found with the plates. The little low chamber in Smith’s house was used as a translating-room. The prophet and his plates were screened even from the sight of his scribes, Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery and Reuben Hale, by blankets secured with nails. While the translation was going on the neighbors frequently called to discuss the forthcoming book, which, it was alleged, would make the Hale family very rich. Occasionally a visitor was allowed to feel the thickness of the Golden Book as it reposed within a pillow-case, but no one was permitted to see it. *

* Among the callers was Samuel Brush, now a vigorous man of seventy-five, who carries on a large farm and a lumber-mill three miles south-west of the Susquehanna. At the time of the translation he often called Reuben Hale away from his work, and the pair went for a walk. Reuben also explained the phenomenon of the peek-stone on the theory of “deflected light.” Mr. Brush declares that Martin Harris was a believer in “second sight,” and that “Smith was a good and kind neighbor” — testimony which is also given by Mrs. McKune, Mrs. Squires and Mr. Skinner.

Charles Anthon’s 1834 letter in Mormonism Unvailed

When I asked the person, who brought it, how he obtained the writing, he gave me, as far as I can now recollect, the following account: A “gold book,” consisting of a number of plates of gold, fastened together in the shape of a book by wires of the same metal, had been dug up in the northern part of the state of New York, and along with the book an enormous pair of “gold spectacles”! These spectacles were so large, that, if a person attempted to look through them, his two eyes would have to be turned towards one of the glasses merely, the spectacles in question being altogether too large for the breadth of the human face. Whoever examined the plates through the spectacles, was enabled not only to read them, but fully to understand their meaning. All this knowledge, however, was confined at that time to a young man, who had the trunk containing the book and spectacles in his sole possession. This young man was placed behind a curtain, in the garret of a farmhouse, and, being thus concealed from view, put on the spectacles occasionally, or rather, looked through one of the glasses, decyphered the characters in the book, and, having committed some of them to paper, handed copies from behind the curtain, to those who stood on the outside. Not a word, however, was said about the plates having been decyphered “by the gift of God.” Everything, in this way, was effected by the large pair of spectacles.

On my asking him by whom the copy was made, he gravely stated, that along with the golden book there had been dug up a very large pair of spectacles! so large in fact that if a man were to hold them in front of his face, his two eyes would merely look through one of the glasses, and the remaining part of the spectacles would project a considerable distance sideways! These spectacles possessed, it seems a very valuable property, of enabling any one who looked through them, (or rather through one of the lenses,) not only to decypher the characters on the plates, but also to comprehend their exact meaning, and be able to translate them!! My informant assured me that this curious property of the spectacles had been actually tested, and found to be true. A young man, it seems, had been placed in the garret of a farm-house, with a curtain before him, and having fastened the spectacles to his head, had read several pages in the golden book, and communicated their contents in writing to certain persons stationed on the outside of the curtain. He had also copied off one page of the book in the original character, which he had in like manner handed over to those who were separated from him by the curtain, and this copy was the paper which the countryman had brought with him.

Charles Anthon’s 1841 letter

On my asking him by whom the copy was made, he gravely stated, that along with the golden book there had been dug up a very large pair of spectacles! so large in fact that if a man were to hold them in front of his face, his two eyes would merely look through one of the glasses, and the remaining part of the spectacles would project a considerable distance sideways! These spectacles possessed, it seems a very valuable property, of enabling any one who looked through them, (or rather through one of the lenses,) not only to decypher the characters on the plates, but also to comprehend their exact meaning, and be able to translate them!! My informant assured me that this curious property of the spectacles had been actually tested, and found to be true. A young man, it seems, had been placed in the garret of a farm-house, with a curtain before him, and having fastened the spectacles to his head, had read several pages in the golden book, and communicated their contents in writing to certain persons stationed on the outside of the curtain. He had also copied off one page of the book in the original character, which he had in like manner handed over to those who were separated from him by the curtain, and this copy was the paper which the countryman had brought with him.

From Mark Ashurst-McGee Master’s Thesis “A Pathway to Prophethood”

Martin Harris to Edward Stevenson 1870 (written in Dec. 18, 1831 Deseret Evening News)
“[Joseph] possessed a seer stone, by which he was able to translate as well as from the Urim and Thummin, and for convenience he then used the seer stone”

William Smith to J.W. Peterson in 1890 (written in the 1924 Rod of Iron “The Urim and Thummin”)
” the instruments were much too large for Joseph and he could see through one at a time using sometimes one and sometimes the other. By putting his head in a hat or some dark object it was not necessary to close one eye while looking through the stone with the other. In that way sometimes when his eyes grew [tired] he releaved them of the strain.”