October Ensign & Book Of Mormon Translation Illustrations

[Zakuska]

The artists are free (as they should be) to depict their own views of what is important to them.

I agree. How many different versions of the Last Supper are there?

You go to Europe and you'll find versions where they are eating lamb and wine etc. But you go to South America, and guess whats on the dinner table?

http://www.australia...75jCQQQU_fs.jpg

Guinee Pig!

Edited September 22, 2011 by Zakuska

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

The artists are free (as they should be) to depict their own views of what is important to them.

They are depicting a historical event in our official magazine. They are "free" to be as accurate as possible. If people are not as knowledgeable about the church as a 26-year old convert, perhaps one reason might be the utterly misleading art we use.

But fine, suppress my attitude that we should strive for a historically accurate picture. If I didn't have a firm testimony of the Restoration, it would've been beaten out of me by arguments like yours long ago.

[David T]

So have you written the curriculum dept about it yet? They ask for feedback on how they can improve things.

Here's the letter I wrote and sent:

I am writing as a concerned convert to the Church in regards to some of the material in the otherwise wonderful October Issue of the Ensign focusing on the Book of Mormon.

As a convert, some of my earliest introductions to the Church were through antagonists. As such, I developed a love for learning the actual history of the Church as told through its primary documents to ‘disarm’ false statements. I have been wonderfully pleasantly surprised with the recent incredible work from the Church History Department, such as the outstanding Joseph Smith Papers, and other books and archival material.

I have found that often there is a disconnect between some material presented or asserted in the correlated material of the Church, and what is also published by them in terms of the historical record, creating confusion where I feel none needs to be.

One example is in describing the translation process of the Book of Mormon. While many antagonistic sources love to use the historically attested description of Joseph’s use of seer stones in a hat as a means of harnessing the “Gift and Power of God” in translation – in order to ridicule and shock members - an understanding of Joseph’s historical and cultural background make his use of such a method very understandable part of who he was, and his development from a local boy to using what he was familiar with to develop into a full fledged Prophet of God.

Much of the scholastic material coming out of BYU and other respected faithful scholars (such as in Brant Gardner’s new and outstanding book “The Gift and Power: Translating the Book of Mormon”, published by Greg Kofford Books) acknowledges this, and makes clear that it is not a barrier to faith, and in fact helps us to appreciate and understand Joseph even more.

The problem comes when Correlated Church materials perpetuate historically inaccurate images that mislead members concerning the means Joseph and the Lord utilized to bring forth the Book of Mormon. The October 2011 issue presents 5 different images of Joseph looking at the plate text, uncovered, and giving the impression his translation came from studying the individual characters. One of the images even shows a scribe (Oliver Cowdery?) with the plates in plain sight with Joseph poring over the uncovered plate text.

While it is understandable that such images work in terms of visual shorthand to express an idea, a result is that when individuals learn of the historically documented process, there becomes a disconnect between what The Church is showing and teaching, and what historical sources are documenting. It creates the impression that the Church is embarrassed of, or hiding the methods Joseph and the Lord utilized to bring forth the record, even though their Historical Department is publishing this very information! There is a disconnect and contradictory information coming from the Church. This is confusing, and not faith-promoting, and in fact I know from personal experience that it has caused a stumbling block in the lives of members, and investigators.

This could easily be solved by an article describing this documented process (by either a General Authority, or a respected faithful scholar, like Brant Gardner, or Grant Hardy), along with newly commissioned artwork that is used to familiarize members with the visual concept. It would solve a stumbling block that does not need to be there.

In addition, I was very grateful for the LDS.ORG Study by Topic entry on “Book of Mormon, Changes To”, (http://lds.org/ldsor...0004d82620aRCRD ), which I now see has been removed from the main lds.org topical guide and relegated to the archives, which includes samples of and references to doctrinal updates or clarifiers to the Book of Mormon done by Joseph Smith himself in addition to the grammatical and typographical errors. Being so, I was disappointed that, not only was this section removed from the main online Study by Topic section, but in the section in the October 2011 Ensign answering the question about changes to the Book of Mormon, the impression was given that only silly grammatical and spelling errors had been altered, where even lds.org (and anyone familiar with Book of Mormon editions) recognizes that Joseph did indeed add some minor doctrinal clarifiers that could be perceived as altering the understanding of the meaning of certain (admittedly minor) aspects of the text.

While I understand the short amount of space, I think it also would significantly disarm against accusations of the Church ‘hiding’ such information if the fact was stated as matter of factly as it was on lds.org.

I am very grateful for such issues focusing on the power and history of the Book of Mormon, but find it unfortunate that there are significant missed opportunities to specifically address and disarm against very common accusations about both the Book, and the Church itself. As such, I cannot whole-heartedly recommend this issue as much as I would otherwise have liked to.

Thank you very much for considering my comments,

Edited September 22, 2011 by nackhadlow

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Perfectly-worded letter, nackhadlow. Excellent work.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

LeSellers: I apologize for getting frustrated. Rereading, I see I might've been too harsh. As a convert, history major, artist, and native-american, this is kind of a perfect storm of hot-button issues for me.

[wenglund]

Like most of LDS art, the accuracy of his artwork isn't always the goal...

Nor, in my view, ought it to be the goal. To suggest otherwise is to not really understand the key difference between art and science (like history).

However, regardless of their training or lack thereof, it seems that everyone is an art critics.

And, some of us may enjoy the art for the good and beauty it has to offer, while others may bemoan what the art make lack (like historical accuracy). To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[David T]

By the way, I suggest others who do care to also write a letter as well. In many cases, it's the only way they know there's an issue, or people notice or care about it. If you do, please be pleasant, and not make accusations of intent, but express how things as they stand appear to you, why it's important to you, and express that this is your perspective.

cur-development@ldschurch.org

Edited September 22, 2011 by nackhadlow

[LeSellers]

LeSellers: I apologize for getting frustrated. Rereading, I see I might've been too harsh. As a convert, history major, artist, and native-american, this is kind of a perfect storm of hot-button issues for me.

No need to apologize. I have a very thick skin. Occupational necessity.

Whether you (temporarily) intended to offend me or not, I was not offended. Not even someone as good as you deserves that much power over me.

Tell you what, though, call me Lehi and it's all not only forgiven, but forgotten.

Lehi

Edited September 22, 2011 by LeSellers

[David T]

Nor, in my view, ought it to be the goal. To suggest otherwise is to not really understand the key difference between art and science (like history).

However, regardless of their training or lack thereof, it seems that everyone is an art critics.

And, some of us may enjoy the art for the good and beauty it has to offer, while others may bemoan what the art make lack (like historical accuracy). To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, if this was in the context of an art exhibit, that would be one thing. However, it was in the context of instruction, education, and teaching, and helping individuals develop a testimony of the truth of the inspired historic coming forth of the Book of Mormon.

[Calm]

There is a difference between art and illustration, IMO. Depending on intent illustration may have to make sacrifices that art would not, including choosing to be more historically accurate as opposed to evoking a certain type of mental, emotional or spiritual experience.

[Mortal Man]

Here's the letter I wrote and sent:

I fear nack, that you have just made the SCMC's watch list.

[mapman]

Here's the letter I wrote and sent:

I hadn't noticed that they removed that article on changes to the Book of Mormon. That seems pretty odd to me.

[Calm]

Here's the letter I wrote and sent:

Well done.

[Zakuska]

There is a difference between art and illustration, IMO. Depending on intent illustration may have to make sacrifices that art would not, including choosing to be more historically accurate as opposed to evoking a certain type of mental, emotional or spiritual experience.

I agree... Picaso any one?

[mapman]

I fear nack, that you have just made the SCMC's watch list.

Don't be ridiculous. If people were viewed as being heretical because they acknowledge historical descriptions of the translation then the whole Church Historical Department would've been disfellowshiped by now.

[Zakuska]

I hadn't noticed that they removed that article on changes to the Book of Mormon. That seems pretty odd to me.

Odd no. I don't think its removed, Only archived. That happens quite a lot in web development. To make way for something new. Old links get removed but the content is still there just indexed a different way.

[wenglund]

Wade, if this was in the context of an art exhibit, that would be one thing. However, it was in the context of instruction, education, and teaching, and helping individuals develop a testimony of the truth of the inspired historic coming forth of the Book of Mormon.

I am well aware of the purpose of the magazine. I am also aware of the objective driving the instruction, education, and teaching. To me, it is to bring people to Christ and to encourage them to become like him. In my opinion, the paintings are well suited to that end, even given their presumed historical inaccuracy.

As I see it, one may miss the edifying and beautiful message of the artist by focusing too literally on the relatively unimportant presumed historical inaccuracy. Perhaps there is a lesson to be learned from this.

Now, I am not suggesting that historical accuracy isn't at all important when it comes to Church paintings. However, it is a question as to what point should we press the issue? After all, our primary songs, which are designed to instruct, are filled with all sorts of literal inaccuracy (Jesus doesn't really want us to literally become a sunbeams, popcorn doesn't really pop on apricot trees, streams don't literally say "give", etc.).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[phaedrus ut]

I like this one because it shows not only the U&T but the breastplate. The breastplate is the important part here. I suspect the breastplate contains an advanced battery, a CPU, and a reformed Egyptian translation program. Once the viewed text has been translated by the unit it transmits the translated text in Elizabethan English to the display inside the Urim and Thummim spectacles.

Phaedrus

[David T]

I fear nack, that you have just made the SCMC's watch list.

Bah, I probably already made it by suggesting the OT Isaiah Sunday School lesson was perhaps misguided in teaching that the dude hung like a 'nail in a sure place' was a prophecy of Jesus, due to the figure collapsing and falling with all of the hopes placed on him in the next verse.

Of course, my Stake President also teaches that Paul probably didn't write all the NT letters attributed to him, and publicly talks about the Reforms of Josiah altering our perspectives of OT history, and quickly notes that not all GAs always agree on doctrinal matters. His appointing me to the High Council is probably part of a larger plot to slowly bring the whole stake into apostasy

Edited September 22, 2011 by nackhadlow

[David T]

Now, I am not suggesting that historical accuracy isn't at all important when it comes to Church paintings. However, it is a question as to what point should we press the issue? After all, our primary songs, which are designed to instruct, are filled with all sorts of literal inaccuracy (Jesus doesn't really want us to literally become a sunbeams, popcorn doesn't really pop on apricot trees, streams don't literally say "give", etc.).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Silly wade, you know the Popcorn song actually even comes with the disclaimer, "It wasn't really so, but it seems to be..."

I'd like to see that under the Joseph with Plates, ("It wasn't really so, but I like to think!")

Edited September 22, 2011 by nackhadlow

[Daniel2]

Which is a perfect illustration (pun intended) of why trusting in inaccurate art causes a disconnect with historical sources.

Hey, Jeremy,

Just checked out the link to your art. Love your work--great stuff! Thanks for sharing.

EDIT: I especially LOVE "Poetry."

D

Edited September 22, 2011 by Daniel2

[wenglund]

Silly wade, you know the Popcorn song actually even comes with the disclaimer, "It wasn't really so, but it seems to be..."

I'd like to see that under the Joseph with Plates, ("It wasn't really so, but I like to think!")

Granted, there is a difference in degree. However, let's not miss the point.--which is that with the arts, there is at times an unavoidable trade-off between literal and symbolic, accuracy and beauty, etc., and one would do well to focus on what is important and reasonably allow some give and take. For example, measure the size of Joseph's body in each of the Ensign paintings and see if it accurately matches his real-life measurements (I believe he was about 6 feet tall). Chances are, they don't--though they may be proportional. Should we raise a stink about that historical inaccuracy? I can provide you with a number of similar examples, but hopefully this will suffice.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Daniel2]

Nor, in my view, ought it to be the goal. To suggest otherwise is to not really understand the key difference between art and science (like history).

However, regardless of their training or lack thereof, it seems that everyone is an art critics.

And, some of us may enjoy the art for the good and beauty it has to offer, while others may bemoan what the art make lack (like historical accuracy). To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Actually, I agree with you, Wade. Art is rarely intended to be an accurate portrayal of reality--nor should that be the goal.

As I look at what I wrote, I can see that my words may have implied a criticism of "LDS art" not being reflective of reality vs. any other religion's art likewise not being reflective of reality. I did not intend to criticize Mormon art over other forms of artistic expression. Faith-based art, especially, is often--and very appropriately--a reflection of faith, not reality, per se. Clearly, the goals of literal-representational art and religious art (as well as many other forms of art) have not been synonymous for... well... ever. No one doubts that the Sistine Chapel, for example, isn't meant as anything other than a representational reflection of faith--and not an accurate/historical illustration of what God or Biblical characters are/would have been "real"-ly like.

I suppose one could attempt to make the case that art intended to explain reality could strive to reflect it--but I think that's rarely artists' goal. And thank goodness. In my view, beautiful art often isn't "real."

D

Edited September 22, 2011 by Daniel2

[toon]

Depending on intent illustration may have to make sacrifices that art would not, , ,

My wife's an illustrator, and that's what I tell her.

[David T]

This just arrived in my inbox:

Dear Brother:

Thank you for your email regarding the October 2011 Ensign. A copy of your email will be shared with those who are responsible. Know that your comments and suggestions are always welcome.

Sincerely,

Curriculum Department

And the SCMC is unleashed!