October Ensign & Book Of Mormon Translation Illustrations

[Senator]

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.

I'm curious as to how these particular artistic renderings "bring people to Christ".

If, in your estimation these less historically accurate artworks are well suited to bring people to Christ, then would a more historically accurate rendering be viewed as less suited to that end?

[wenglund]

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

Very well said.

I have learned from my mother, who is an accomplished artist (still life, landscape, and portraits) that one of the hardest things to learn as an artist is to paint what you see, rather than what your mind knows to be real. One of the best illustrations of this is drawing or painting railroad tracks that head off in the distance. In our minds we know the reality is that the tracks run parallel and are evenly spaced apart down the line, but when we draw what we see, the lines converge off in the distance. The same is true for creating atmosphere and contours. We may know that a ball is all the same color of red, but when we paint what we see, the colors fade or darken at different points around the ball depending upon the positioning of the lighting and the colored objects around it.

This raises the question of what is accurate and real. Fun stuff.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

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

Thanks, Lehi.

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

EDIT: I especially LOVE "Poetry."

Thanks, Daniel2.

[mapman]

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.

Well its odd that it was archived then. They still have the rest of the articles in the study by topic section, so I don't understand why someone would feel like it shouldn't be on the current version of the website anymore. There's nothing controversial in it and I can't imagine that anyone wouldn't find it faith-promoting or whatever.

[Daniel2]

Btw... sorta off-topic, but it was recently pointed out to me that God, in Michaelangelo's "The Creation of Adam," resides within the shape of an identical human brain--a very cool symbol I'm embarrassed I never noticed before--apparently having been an attempt by the artist to comment on the divine source being tied to one's intellect.

Michaelangelo, Cadavers and the Human Brain

Michelangelo's The Creation of Adam (sometimes called The Creation of Man, is a fresco on the ceiling on the Sistine Chapel. Some experts say the painting clearly depicts an accurate image of the human brain. The way God is show in the image appears to line up with specific fissures within a human brain. The way his legs are positioned to the right seem to line up much like the way the spinal cord is situated at the bottom of the brain. The legs of one of the angels to God's left, match up with where the pituitary gland would be.2 During Michealangelo's time, it would have been illegal to dissect a cadaver. However, this was occasionally done by those seeking to gain a better understanding of how the human body worked.3 Michelangelo was said to have used cadavers for study purposes.4

Cool stuff, IMO.

D

[Zakuska]

Btw... sorta off-topic, but it was recently pointed out to me that God, in Michaelangelo's "The Creation of Adam," resides within the shape of an identical human brain--a very cool symbol I'm embarrassed I never noticed before--apparently having been an attempt by the artist to comment on the divine source being tied to one's intellect.

<snip>

Cool stuff, IMO.

D

I read that on a website a while ago, And then some say God doesn't have a body.

(Genesis 1: 26-27)

"God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him" (Genesis 1: 27).

The focal point of the episode of the Creation of man is the contact between the fingers of the Creator and those of Adam, through which the breath of life is transmitted.

God, supported by angels in flight and wrapped in a mantle, leans towards Adam, shown as a resting athlete, whose beauty seems to confirm the words of the Old Testament,

according to which man was created to the image and likeness of God

.

http://mv.vatican.va...StCentr_06.html

Edited September 22, 2011 by Zakuska

[wenglund]

I'm curious as to how these particular artistic renderings "bring people to Christ".

They visually, in ways similar to written and spoken words (a picture is worth a thousand words), witness to important aspects of the translation of another witness to Christ.

If, in your estimation these less historically accurate artworks are well suited to bring people to Christ, then would a more historically accurate rendering be viewed as less suited to that end?

I doubt it, though as previously intimated, to some extent historical accuracy is not entirely plausible, and some of the important meaning and beauty may be lost through fixating or becoming ****-retentive or pedantic about requiring seemingly insubstantial historical details.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Zakuska]

They visually, in ways similar to written and spoken words (a picture is worth a thousand words), witness to important aspects of the translation of another witness to Christ.

I doubt it, though as previously intimated, to some extent historical accuracy is not entirely plausible, and some of the important meaning and beauty may be lost through fixating or becoming ****-retentive or pedantic about requiring seemingly insubstantial historical details.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

If only they had cameras back in Joseph's day. This whole thread could be layed to rest.

[wenglund]

If only they had cameras back in Joseph's day. This whole thread could be layed to rest.

I am not so sure. It depends at what point in time the snapshot is taken. If a snapshot was taken at a time when Joseph wasn't using the seer stone or Urim and Thummim to translate, or was simply copying to paper some of the characters from the plate, someone might complain that the picture didn't accurately depicting what they understood was the mode of translation. If the picture depicted Joseph with his head in a hat, some might complain about the lack of historical accuracy because the seer stone wasn't visible. And, on and on.

Besides, in some ways, drawings and paintings are able to capture some intangible aspects of reality (like heavenly visions) that aren't accessible to a camera. I don't know that a camera could pick up whatever Joseph may have seen displayed on the seer stone, And, without that, it leaves the door open to complaints of historical inaccuracies.

Who knows? What is historically accurate is some of us just like to complain.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[orion88]

I know the "face in a hat" method has been acknowledged in the Ensign three times over the last 30 years, but maybe the official line is being refined and clarified in a more conservative direction?

I found two references: Ensign July 1993 ("A Treasured Testament") and

September 1977 ("By the Gift and Power of God")

Links:

http://lds.org/ensig...ery=%22a+hat%22

http://lds.org/ensig...ery=%22a+hat%22

Why wouldn't the LDS Church use a picture of the face in the hat to be more factual?

Thanks,

Tony

[David T]

I am not so sure. It depends at what point in time the snapshot is taken. If a snapshot was taken at a time when Joseph wasn't using the seer stone or Urim and Thummim to translate, or was simply copying to paper some of the characters from the plate, someone might complain that the picture didn't accurately depicting what they understood was the mode of translation. If the picture depicted Joseph with his head in a hat, some might complain about the lack of historical accuracy because the seer stone wasn't visible. And, on and on.

Besides, in some ways, drawings and paintings are able to capture some intangible aspects of reality (like heavenly visions) that aren't accessible to a camera. I don't know that a camera could pick up whatever Joseph may have seen displayed on the seer stone, And, without that, it leaves the door open to complaints of historical inaccuracies.

Who knows? What is historically accurate is some of us just like to complain.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I tend to agree with Brant Gardner in his book - there wasn't anything physical that appeared on the stone. It was just a cultural item Joseph used and understood as a means to which he could focus and 'see', or have his mental images projected on - what was really going on was an inspired process of translation from pure intelligence within Joseph's brain. The stone was Dumbo's flying feather, if you will. A tool of encouragement. Not a divine teleprompter.

[wenglund]

I tend to agree with Brant Gardner in his book - there wasn't anything physical that appeared on the stone. It was just a cultural item Joseph used and understood as a means to which he could focus and 'see', or have his mental images projected on - what was really going on was an inspired process of translation from pure intelligence within Joseph's brain. The stone was Dumbo's flying feather, if you will. A tool of encouragement. Not a divine teleprompter.

I agree (which is why a camera couldn't capture the image). The problem is, that is your and mine and Brant's perception of accurate history. Other people reasonably disagree, which produces the dilemma of whose perception of accurate history do we commission the artists to depict?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[David T]

I agree (which is why a camera couldn't capture the image). The problem is, that is your and mine and Brant's perception of accurate history. Other people reasonably disagree, which produces the dilemma of whose perception of accurate history do we commission the artists to depict?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think everyone agrees it involves Joseph with his head in a hat, and not the plates out on a table in front of a scribe. Right?

[wenglund]

Why wouldn't the LDS Church use a picture of the face in the hat to be more factual?

It is only presumably factual at certain times during the translation process. From what I understand, the mode of translation was different from time to time, with there being times when Joseph had his head in the hat and times when he didn't, and times when he used the seer stone and times when he didn't. So, a "factual" depiction is relative.

But, more in answer to your question, I believe the Church might not always use the hat paintings because it wisely chooses not to focus on the unimportant aspects of the translation of the Book of Mormon, and instead is determined to stay focused on the important aspects, and leave focusing on the unimportant aspect to the critics.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 22, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

I think everyone agrees it involves Joseph with his head in a hat, and not the plates out on a table in front of a scribe. Right?

Not exactly. See above.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Senator]

They visually, in ways similar to written and spoken words (a picture is worth a thousand words), witness to important aspects of the translation of another witness to Christ.

What would the "important aspects of the translation" be?

... and some of the important meaning and beauty may be lost...

Such as?

...... seemingly insubstantial historical details.

Angelically delivered ancient breastplates and U&Ts are insubstantial details.???

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

The Church might not always use the hat paintings because it wisely chooses not to focus on the unimportant aspects of the translation of the Book of Mormon, and instead is determined to stay focused on the important aspects, and leave focusing on the unimportant aspect to the critics.

The point is that this is not an unimportant point, and therefore should not be left to the critics. I've known investigators discouraged because longtime members couldn't answer the claims made in Southpark, for goodness' sake. We can't just dismiss them with a "if they truly had faith" wave of the hand justified by a faded "artistic license" - we need to be providing them with an environment in which faith can take root. I think there is a powerful story in Mormon history that we don't need to be embarrassed about or downplay, but it involves acknowledging the milieu in which Joseph received his revelations, and a closer examination of just how those revelations were received, rather than merely assimilating Fundamentalist Protestant prejudices against "magic".

A link I've recommended before is Joseph Smith: Reader or Translator? (starts about halfway down the page) It's a good start on speculating on what exactly was going on - an argument which I understand is similar to that presented in Gardner's new book, which I'm dying to get a chance to read.

Edited September 23, 2011 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[blackstrap]

I suppose that there were times when Joseph thumbed through the plates ,perhaps trying to get an idea how the figures on the plates connected to the words he dictated.I know I would ,but then again I'm no Joseph. So,paintings depicting such would be accurate.

I can see the chorus of mockery coming from our critics if a painting of Joseph with his face in a hat were ever to appear on the Ensign cover.That said,any article in the Ensign speaking of the translation should mention all the types of translating procedures that are attested to.

[Mortal Man]

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.

Careful mapman, or you'll be on their list too.

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.

Crikey nack! Have you got some kind of death wish?

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

I had no idea how far gone your stake was. Truly we live in troubling times.

Dear Brother:

Thank you for your email regarding the October 2011 Ensign. A copy of your email will be shared with those [sCMC operatives] who are responsible [for getting your mind right]. Know that your comments and suggestions are always welcome [since they reveal your location].

Sincerely,

Curriculum Department

[Phishing Division of the SCMC]

[wenglund]

What would the "important aspects of the translation" be?

Those typically depicted in material published by the Church. Obviously.

Such as?

See my prior post.

Angelically delivered ancient breastplates and U&Ts are insubstantial details.???

Relatively speaking, yes. Otherwise, they would likely have been typically included in the material published by the Church.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

The idea that we should judge the importance of a particular set of details based on whether or not they have been included in previously-published material is incredibly faulty.

Edited September 23, 2011 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[wenglund]

The point is that this is not an unimportant point, and therefore should not be left to the critics.

For whatever reason, it may be very important to you. It evidently isn't important to the Church, else it would have typically appeared in the Church publications.

If people are discouraged from investigating the Church because of some stupid cartoon, then they are obviously not listening to the right voice (the Spirit) needed for them to rightly convert anyway. Altering the Church paintings to reflect someone's view of accurate history will not change that.

And, the fact that Church artists and writers have not always included certain details of but one of several translation modes, hasn't been a function of embarrassment or downplaying, but rather a matter of prioritization and honing in on the truly powerful aspects of the milieu that best suite the Church's divine objective.

Millions and millions of people have been converted to the Church and grown in faith without much exposure to the hat paintings, and this because they understand that the inspired means for doing so is entailed in Moroni 10 and Alma 32, and not in certain details of an artist rendering.

But, that may just be how I view things. You are welcome to see things differently and to elevate the hat paintings to whatever level of importance you see fit.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

The idea that we should judge the importance of a particular set of details based on whether or not they have been included in previously-published material is incredibly faulty.

To the contrary. In my view, not realizing that behavior is purposeful and can well, and typically does, reflect the priorities and views of those exhibiting the behaviors, is woefully naive.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Pahoran]

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

Yes, pretty soon he'll start seeing black helicopters following him around.

Crikey nack! Have you got some kind of death wish?

Death wish?

Choose sanity, MM.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

The idea that we should judge the importance of a particular set of details based on whether or not they have been included in previously-published material is incredibly faulty.

I agree. There are other criteria for determining importance.

On the one hand, there are eternal, saving principles; on the other hand, there are artists' renderings of events for which no living witnesses survive, and no fully comprehensive eyewitness accounts exist.

Which of these might be more important?

Regards,

Pahoran