Robert F. Smith Posted January 1, 2014 Posted January 1, 2014 What's concerning is this article confirms the brethren were aware of the stone-in-the-hat method of translation, yet the church continued to portray it in film and illustrations as Joseph translating directly off the gold plates.What I think you miss here is the fact that ordinary people, some of them scholars, are assigned to write manuals and devise curricula. The "Church" does not write anything. People do. The same for artists who are asked to prepare illustrations, or whose preexisting illustrations are used by the curriculum people. It may be inaccurate, but it is not a plot by the Brethren to mislead. I often have the same complaint about medieval and Renaissance art attempting (and failing) to correctly depict biblical scenes. I don't accuse the Roman Catholic Church of creating those art works, no matter how out of touch with reality they may be. They are merely examples of the contemporary art that was available. 3
omni Posted January 1, 2014 Posted January 1, 2014 What I think you miss here is the fact that ordinary people, some of them scholars, are assigned to write manuals and devise curricula. The "Church" does not write anything. People do. The same for artists who are asked to prepare illustrations, or whose preexisting illustrations are used by the curriculum people. It may be inaccurate, but it is not a plot by the Brethren to mislead.I often have the same complaint about medieval and Renaissance art attempting (and failing) to correctly depict biblical scenes. I don't accuse the Roman Catholic Church of creating those art works, no matter how out of touch with reality they may be. They are merely examples of the contemporary art that was available.Robert, the brethren are well aware of how the translation process is being erroneously depicted in official church publications and film. It would be one thing to simply describe the translation process as occurring by power of God with no accompanying visual, it is quite another to completely misrepresent it as we have seen a number of times. This seems like a pretty simple fix, commission an artist to create an historically accurate depiction and stop allowing the usage of the erroneous images.
why me Posted January 1, 2014 Posted January 1, 2014 What's concerning is this article confirms the brethren were aware of the stone-in-the-hat method of translation, yet the church continued to portray it in film and illustrations as Joseph translating directly off the gold plates.And yet there is a witness to what oliver said that claims that he sat next to Joseph while he translated the book. Oliver Cowdery insisted that "I beheld with my eyes and handled with my hands the gold plates from which it was translated. I also beheld the Interpreters. That book is true…I wrote it myself as it fell from the lips of the Prophet."[17] Oliver is also quoted in one account as describing Joseph "as sitting at a table with the plates before him, translating them by means of the Urim and Thummim, while he (Oliver) sat beside him writing every word as Joseph spoke them to him. This was done by holding the "translators" over the hieroglyphics..."[18] http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_history/Accuracy_of_Church_art Thus the problem. We really have no idea the process by which the book was translated.
why me Posted January 1, 2014 Posted January 1, 2014 (edited) Robert, the brethren are well aware of how the translation process is being erroneously depicted in official church publications and film. It would be one thing to simply describe the translation process as occurring by power of God with no accompanying visual, it is quite another to completely misrepresent it as we have seen a number of times.Not exactly. The artists go by what oliver claimed: Oliver Cowdery insisted that "I beheld with my eyes and handled with my hands the gold plates from which it was translated. I also beheld the Interpreters. That book is true…I wrote it myself as it fell from the lips of the Prophet."[17] Oliver is also quoted in one account as describing Joseph "as sitting at a table with the plates before him, translating them by means of the Urim and Thummim, while he (Oliver) sat beside him writing every word as Joseph spoke them to him. This was done by holding the "translators" over the hieroglyphics..."[1 http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_history/Accuracy_of_Church_art What is the problem then? I believe that too many people listen to exmormons and critics. And do not research for answers. If I were an artist, I would chose that version quoted above. It makes good sense and avoids complications. But that would be my choice and I am sure that many artists feel the same. Edited January 1, 2014 by why me
Gervin Posted January 1, 2014 Posted January 1, 2014 What we do know is that the book of mormon exists. And that it was translated. Incorrect. All that is known is that it exists. It is not a proven fact that it was translated.
omni Posted January 1, 2014 Posted January 1, 2014 Not exactly. The artists go by what oliver claimed: Oliver Cowdery insisted that "I beheld with my eyes and handled with my hands the gold plates from which it was translated. I also beheld the Interpreters. That book is true…I wrote it myself as it fell from the lips of the Prophet."[17] Oliver is also quoted in one account as describing Joseph "as sitting at a table with the plates before him, translating them by means of the Urim and Thummim, while he (Oliver) sat beside him writing every word as Joseph spoke them to him. This was done by holding the "translators" over the hieroglyphics..."[1 http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_history/Accuracy_of_Church_art What is the problem then? I believe that too many people listen to exmormons and critics. And do not research for answers. If I were an artist, I would chose that version quoted above. It makes good sense and avoids complications. But that would be my choice and I am sure that many artists feel the same. The above quote includes the use of the Urim and Thummim, please point out the UT in these commonly used depictions of the translation. here, here, here here or here.
why me Posted January 1, 2014 Posted January 1, 2014 (edited) The above quote includes the use of the Urim and Thummim, please point out the UT in these commonly used depictions of the translation. here, here, here here or here. Check the first picture. What is Joseph holding in his hand close to his right eye? Likewise for the fourth picture. He is holding something close to his left eye. And the last picture we can't see one arm or hand. But we do see a curtain. Such are the artists interpretations. Edited January 1, 2014 by why me
why me Posted January 1, 2014 Posted January 1, 2014 (edited) The above quote includes the use of the Urim and Thummim, please point out the UT in these commonly used depictions of the translation. here, here, here here or here. But the lds artists are perfectly free to choose the account that I linked to, with oliver sitting by joseph with nothing covered, clearly seen according to oliver's own account. Many artists chose to obscure Joseph's hand by keeping it close to one of his eyes in a side portrait. Edited January 1, 2014 by why me
omni Posted January 1, 2014 Posted January 1, 2014 Check the first picture. What is Joseph holding in his hand close to his right eye? Likewise for the fourth picture. He is holding something close to his left eye. And the last picture we can't see one arm or hand. But we do see a curtain. Such are the artists interpretations.Looks like Joseph is just resting his head on his hand. No hats, seer stones, spectacles or bows in view. Do you think it's coincidence that all of the artists decided to interpret the translation this way?
Calm Posted January 1, 2014 Posted January 1, 2014 (edited) See this comment, which is both serious and humorous: http://plonialmonimormon.blogspot.com/2013/12/in-case-you-missed-it.html .I just got to say that cat looks like he's been forced into doing many such things in the past... Edited January 1, 2014 by calmoriah
Calm Posted January 1, 2014 Posted January 1, 2014 Check the first picture. What is Joseph holding in his hand close to his right eye? Likewise for the fourth picture. He is holding something close to his left eye. And the last picture we can't see one arm or hand. But we do see a curtain. Such are the artists interpretations.Just an observation...the later artists seem to have nbeen influenced by the earlier portrayals....not much original thinking in these illustrations IMO. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted January 2, 2014 Posted January 2, 2014 Incorrect. All that is known is that it exists. It is not a proven fact that it was translated.Yep. Royal Skousen has been saying pretty much the same thing.
Robert F. Smith Posted January 2, 2014 Posted January 2, 2014 Robert, the brethren are well aware of how the translation process is being erroneously depicted in official church publications and film. It would be one thing to simply describe the translation process as occurring by power of God with no accompanying visual, it is quite another to completely misrepresent it as we have seen a number of times. This seems like a pretty simple fix, commission an artist to create an historically accurate depiction and stop allowing the usage of the erroneous images.You are assuming a great deal here, omni, but I'm not sure that speaking on behalf of the Brethren is appropriate. They are very busy men who delegate, something very familiar in the LDS Church. I have no reason to believe that they are aware of any of the errors which you claim. Of course, if it were up to me, and I had control of the curriculum and art work, there would definitely be a new and different approach and you might very well be criticizing my version of things in that new curriculum -- right here on this board. In any case, I doubt that the Brethren ever bother to read comments on this board, or any like it. Unlike us, they have better things to do. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted January 2, 2014 Posted January 2, 2014 (edited) Check the first picture. What is Joseph holding in his hand close to his right eye? Likewise for the fourth picture. He is holding something close to his left eye. And the last picture we can't see one arm or hand. But we do see a curtain. Such are the artists interpretations.Looks like Joseph is just resting his head on his hand. No hats, seer stones, spectacles or bows in view. Do you think it's coincidence that all of the artists decided to interpret the translation this way?These artists are not trained, professional historians, and cannot reasonably be expected to do more than reflect a by-gosh-and-by-golly appraisal of what actually took place. Very few Mormons have any idea of the actual nature of the history. Even though the art work has not been as monolithic in its presentation as you suggest, and even though there have been articles in Church magazines describing the true nature of the translation, very few people assiduously focus on that information or stash it away as historians tend to do, and so likely do not recall the details -- although I have from time to time been surprised by ordinary members telling me about something they had read years before in Church magazines based on real scholarship. My solution would be to commission a Church produced film in which the actual process is depicted in detail, but I doubt that I will be given that responsibility. I would even do special effects of Joseph with his head in the hat showing what he actually saw and read to Oliver. I would have teenage Elizabeth Ann Whitmer in the room watching (as she testified) -- she was the future wife of Oliver. For the background and theme music for young Joseph, I favor using Jacques Offenbach's Barcarolle from his "Tales of Hoffmann," like this from the Vienna Philharmonic conducted by Georges Prêche: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-K8JFIIhxs Edited January 2, 2014 by Robert F. Smith 1
Gervin Posted January 2, 2014 Posted January 2, 2014 Yep. Royal Skousen has been saying pretty much the same thing.He's not the only one.
strappinglad Posted January 2, 2014 Posted January 2, 2014 I wonder if Joseph ever sat alone and just looked at the plates and tried to 'study them out in his mind" . A couple of those pictures could represent those moments. The only depiction that would satisfy some here would be showing Oliver with a pen copying while there was shown a curtain with a vague shadow behind it. The plates would be off to the side well covered up. A copy of Spaulding's book would be shown on a nearby shelf. One thing has now begun to concern me about Whitmer's head in the hat description. If I sit behind a curtain, put my head in a hat , draw the hat around my face , and begin the speak to a scribe, I suspect there would be quite a few " pardon me "s or " could you say that again" s. No? 2
omni Posted January 2, 2014 Posted January 2, 2014 You are assuming a great deal here, omni, but I'm not sure that speaking on behalf of the Brethren is appropriate. They are very busy men who delegate, something very familiar in the LDS Church. I have no reason to believe that they are aware of any of the errors which you claim. Is it assuming a great deal to believe the brethren read the Ensign each month and have seen the film Joseph Smith: The Prophet of the Restoration playing now at the Joseph Smith Memorial Building? My solution would be to commission a Church produced film in which the actual process is depicted in detail, but I doubt that I will be given that responsibility. I would even do special effects of Joseph with his head in the hat showing what he actually saw and read to Oliver. I would have teenage Elizabeth Ann Whitmer in the room watching (as she testified) -- she was the future wife of Oliver. For the background and theme music for young Joseph, I favor using Jacques Offenbach'sBarcarolle from his "Tales of Hoffmann," like this from the Vienna Philharmonic conducted by Georges Prêche: http://www.youtube.c...h?v=Z-K8JFIIhxs Now this I would pay money for. Unfortunately I have no strings I can pull to make you an historical advisor on any upcoming projects.
Robert F. Smith Posted January 2, 2014 Posted January 2, 2014 He's not the only one.If someone besides Royal has been publishing that view, Gervin, perhaps you could cite him or her for me. Thanks.
Robert F. Smith Posted January 2, 2014 Posted January 2, 2014 Is it assuming a great deal to believe the brethren read the Ensign each month and have seen the film Joseph Smith: The Prophet of the Restoration playing now at the Joseph Smith Memorial Building?.............................................................. While I am sure that the Brethren do indeed see such productions and do read the Ensign with great care (likely at the prepublication stage for some of them), they are not professional historians and cannot be expected to know what the historians know. Some of them may have read Richard Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling bio, but there is too much detail in there to be effectively retained. As with Hugh Nibley, they may occasionally invite Bushman or other senior scholar to come up and brief them on this or that historical issue. However, they are not gentlemen of leisure, and cannot be expected to have the time to reflect on every notion which may concern us and others. As with any board of directors, they set policy and delegate responsibility. I always hope that they do not surround themselves with yes men or sycophants. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted January 2, 2014 Posted January 2, 2014 I wonder if Joseph ever sat alone and just looked at the plates and tried to 'study them out in his mind" . A couple of those pictures could represent those moments.The only depiction that would satisfy some here would be showing Oliver with a pen copying while there was shown a curtain with a vague shadow behind it. The plates would be off to the side well covered up. A copy of Spaulding's book would be shown on a nearby shelf.One thing has now begun to concern me about Whitmer's head in the hat description. If I sit behind a curtain, put my head in a hat , draw the hat around my face , and begin the speak to a scribe, I suspect there would be quite a few " pardon me "s or " could you say that again" s. No?I agree with you in general. However, just for the record, there was never any reason to believe that a curtain was put up between Joseph and his scribe. Everything was fully visible to those in the room. The only blanket or curtain was before the door so as to keep prying eyes of outsiders from seeing anything. 1
Calm Posted January 2, 2014 Posted January 2, 2014 For the background and theme music for young Joseph, I favor using Jacques Offenbach's Barcarolle from his "Tales of Hoffmann," like this from the Vienna Philharmonic conducted by Georges Prêche: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-K8JFIIhxsSweet.
Calm Posted January 2, 2014 Posted January 2, 2014 (edited) I wonder if Joseph ever sat alone and just looked at the plates and tried to 'study them out in his mind" . A couple of those pictures could represent those moments.The only depiction that would satisfy some here would be showing Oliver with a pen copying while there was shown a curtain with a vague shadow behind it. The plates would be off to the side well covered up. A copy of Spaulding's book would be shown on a nearby shelf.One thing has now begun to concern me about Whitmer's head in the hat description. If I sit behind a curtain, put my head in a hat , draw the hat around my face , and begin the speak to a scribe, I suspect there would be quite a few " pardon me "s or " could you say that again" s. No?It was supposed to have a significant brim too, IIRC, so it is not as if he could just stick his eyes in the dark area and have his mouth uncovered....I wouldn't be surprised though if it was clear enough as long as he was facing the scribe and sitting close by him. I would be more concerned about breathing...hmm...where did I put that hat of mine with the soft brim....was it supposed to be a straw hat or fabric? Can't remember except that some said it was an old white one... I am really enjoying this music, Robert, thanks for the link. I think I will put more classical instrumental on while posting in the future. I can't write and listen to pop and rock at the same time even purely instrumental, but it appears not a problem with at least this one. Edited January 2, 2014 by calmoriah
why me Posted January 2, 2014 Posted January 2, 2014 Incorrect. All that is known is that it exists. It is not a proven fact that it was translated.This is the other problem. How is an artist suppose to portray something that we know very little about? The internet has created much information and much confusion because every tom, harry and jane has an opinion and an interpretation of the event. Much better to read from the people who claimed to be there and what they said about the process. But then if one does do this, one gets an opinion and an interpretation and posts it on the internet for others to read...helping in the confusion.
why me Posted January 2, 2014 Posted January 2, 2014 I wonder if Joseph ever sat alone and just looked at the plates and tried to 'study them out in his mind" . A couple of those pictures could represent those moments. I would assume he did. I am sure that he turned over the pages of the plates and looked at the writings very carefully. It would be human nature to do so. And I am sure that he put his finger over the writings as if he were reading them. I would have done so.
Storm Rider Posted January 2, 2014 Posted January 2, 2014 I am not convinced by any of the historical evidence that there was only a single method of translation used. Does anyone here think that the evidence suggests that there was only a single method used? If different methods were used, what is the purpose of having a single method portrayed in any artwork?
Recommended Posts