No Pics of Seer Stones in our Churches

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Great comments and I want to go over this in detail- perhaps take it to email after we pm each other, don't have time to reply fully for a day or two.

PM me if you want to do that, and I will send you my email and then we can go from there- but I WILL respond here as well - whichever works for you.

But I want you to think about something - "WHAT" is knowledge?   "Where" is it?   Is it in your head?  Is it in libraries and the internet?  Where does the knowledge of the human race reside? 

If the human race were exterminated tomorrow, would there be "knowledge"?  The moon crashes into earth- or a huge asteroid and the planet becomes trillions of tons of rocks floating in space- what happens to "knowledge"?

Does everything which exists at that time become "unknown" because knowledge no longer exists?  (lets leave out God for the moment- just a philosophical question without assuming spirituality)

The crux of all your questions are based in the question I have just raised- they PRESUME that knowledge exists independent of knowers. 

Your question about scientific "miracles"- the unknown becoming known - that which seems miraculous becomes known- presumes that there is knowledge independent of knowers.  (That which exists as an unknown becomes known.)

I am proposing that there is no knowledge independent of knowers.  Moon crashes into earth- the universe continues, yes, but who "knows" anything about the universe?  No one! (except God, spirits, etc - and we are not talking about that for the moment)

Proposition: Yes the universe is "out there" of course, but the only thing relevant to our lives about the universe is WHAT WE KNOW.  

Think of all the suns which have gone supernova perhaps a million years ago and perhaps all the earths - and we are still receiving the light from them- the "fact" that they are no longer there is unknown and unknowable.

The only thing relevant to our lives is what we know- it cannot be otherwise!  - To be continued, if you like!

And yes, the ideas were around- they started with Kant in the late 18th century.  More later if you like

Thanks for the reply, I have some followup questions and definitely want to continue the conversation.

I can't PM you for some reason, it says that you can't receive messages, perhaps your mailbox is full or something?  Can you send me a PM and I'll reply to it with my email address?  

[ALarson]

19 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Of course art is not doctrine but it's disingenuous to suggest that the ubiquity of certain, historically false images, doesn't create a false narrative and that the church is not responsible for the narrative it created. The church is not being victimized by the art it commissioned.

Claiming that people need to "get out more" or that they should know better than to believe the church is accurate in its narrative is victim blaming.

I have to believe that all art used in church publications and hung in visitor centers, etc., is approved by church leaders.  

I do think it's progress to see a more realistic picture/photo in the church history museum now.  But, when we see one in a manual or in a visitor center (or available for lessons in our church libraries that depict the "head in the hat" method), that's when we'll know real progress has been made.  (And yes, I know there has been slow progress already, which is great and I hope it continues.)

.

Edited March 24, 2016 by ALarson

[Keq82]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Of course art is not doctrine but it's disingenuous to suggest that the ubiquity of certain, historically false images, doesn't create a false narrative and that the church is not responsible for the narrative it created. The church is not being victimized by the art it commissioned.

Claiming that people need to "get out more" or that they should know better than to believe the church is accurate in its narrative is victim blaming.

Good point.  I pretty sure every pic gets approved by the church anyway, so they know exactly how they are portraying each event.  It's not like they had an artist paint a pic and then noticed that he/she accidently included golden plates for some reason.  

[mfbukowski]

"Approved"?  Oh no- much more than that!

In fact every piece of art is first sketched by the prophet himself in stick pictures, and then the artist just fills in the colors and fills out the forms.  The first presidency has been trained in good artistic composition and are all required themselves to have artistic training so that their sketches give a full basis for the correct revelation of true doctrine.

In fact if a painting shows Joseph in a green tie, you can be sure that in fact, when the picture was spiritually captured and revealed to the first presidency, Joseph indeed had on a green tie.  

Pictures of Jesus are actual representations of his beloved Face as revealed to the prophets. In fact they are scientifically accurate because (only a select few know this) The Church has hidden in the mountain vaults, a DNA sample of the savior himself which incidentally proves the accuracy of the biblical genealogies.  Secretly, a reconstruction of his appearance has been made from that sample, so all the pictures of him are scientifically accurate in every respect.

Illustrations in the Book of Mormon are spiritually captured images as well, somewhat like photographs and revealed directly to the prophets, and they sketch them out for the artists to complete.

The illusion that artists have "artistic license" and do their own designs is a complete fabrication of apostate Mormons seeking an excuse to explain the conflicts.

Indeed the conflicts come because the spiritually captured photographic revelations come from different times of the day.  When they show Joseph with the plates, that was at a time when he was not translating, but simply getting ready to translate, etc.  So they don't illustrate the exact moment- they are just events which happened about the same time as the translation was happening- they just fill out the context. But of course they are exact representations of what really happened at a given moment in history, captured in a spiritual "photograph" forever.

Edited March 25, 2016 by mfbukowski

[HappyJackWagon]

9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

"Approved"?  Oh no- much more than that!

In fact every piece of art is first sketched by the prophet himself in stick pictures, and then the artist just fills in the colors and fills out the forms.  

The illusion that artists have "artistic license" and do their own designs is a complete fabrication of apostate Mormons seeking an excuse to explain the conflicts.

You are usually more reasoned than this. The entire post is snarky and ludicrous. It's hard to believe an intelligent person would argue that the church and its leaders have NO responsibility for the product they put out. Part of that product is the visual art mediums it commissions and approves.

Your post is the absolute worst kind of apologetics.

[Calm]

19 hours ago, Keq82 said:

Good point.  I pretty sure every pic gets approved by the church anyway, so they know exactly how they are portraying each event....

[mfbukowski]

21 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for the reply, I have some followup questions and definitely want to continue the conversation.

I can't PM you for some reason, it says that you can't receive messages, perhaps your mailbox is full or something?  Can you send me a PM and I'll reply to it with my email address?  

I sent you a PM- I deleted some messages as well.

[Calm]

Glitch...

Keq...and anyone else commenting, I would suggest reading if you haven't already Anthony Sweat's appendix on artwork for historical events using his experience with portraying the translation to see the issue, the pdf is available here:

http://blog.fairmormon.org/2015/06/02/by-the-gift-and-power-of-art/

[Keq82]

10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You are usually more reasoned than this. The entire post is snarky and ludicrous. It's hard to believe an intelligent person would argue that the church and its leaders have NO responsibility for the product they put out. Part of that product is the visual art mediums it commissions and approves.

Your post is the absolute worst kind of apologetics.

I guess some think that "church-approved" artwork doesn't mean it's approved by the church...

"Church-approved artwork for meetinghouses is obtained through the facilities manager using the Church Facilities Artworkcatalog. The facilities manager may also obtain artwork that is appropriate for meetinghouses through Church Distribution Services."

https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/selected-church-policies/21.2?lang=eng&_r=1#212

Edited March 25, 2016 by Keq82

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You are usually more reasoned than this. The entire post is snarky and ludicrous. It's hard to believe an intelligent person would argue that the church and its leaders have NO responsibility for the product they put out. Part of that product is the visual art mediums it commissions and approves.

Your post is the absolute worst kind of apologetics.

This is especially snarky when comparing church art being approved to the insistence for approval of tweets over on the thread regarding President Monson's (and how his tweet must have been approved even though it's from one of his past speeches).  Of course, the art is approved!! 

[mfbukowski]

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You are usually more reasoned than this. The entire post is snarky and ludicrous. It's hard to believe an intelligent person would argue that the church and its leaders have NO responsibility for the product they put out. Part of that product is the visual art mediums it commissions and approves.

Your post is the absolute worst kind of apologetics.

Lol.  Thanks- it got you thinking.  The issue of course is where one draws the line for that "responsibility", and fundamentalists will always have a problem with anything not scientifically provable.

What more can you expect from a hack like me?

[mfbukowski]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

20 hours ago, Keq82 said:

Good point.  I pretty sure every pic gets approved by the church anyway, so they know exactly how they are portraying each event....

I suppose I should have included that sentence!

[Calm]

From the pdf:

"However, artists often have little to no intent of communicating his- torical factuality when they produce a work. Artists want to communicate an idea, and they want to use whatever medium or principle and element of art that it takes to communicate that idea to their viewers. In doing research on this topic, I interviewed a handful of well-known and talented Latter-day Saint artists and asked them various questions regarding the responsibility of an artist to paint historical reality. Almost unanimously, they said the artist carries no responsibility to do so. "

[Calm]

One needs to get past the mentality of artists first.

"

In an interview I conducted with Del Parson, he had a similar attitude of feeling over facts:

“When I’m painting the Savior I am going for emotion more than any- thing else. When they [the viewers] see the painting, they see the Savior. I did the best I could [to create the painting] with what I had. I got some material and wrapped it around a model and painted it. The last thing I was worried about was whether the robe was at the right level at the neck. The whole thing I was worried about was ‘Can they feel the Savior?’”"

[Calm]

"Richards, when speaking with me about painting the First Vision, said, “I’ve had people talk about what the ‘correct’ clothing is [of the First Vision] and so on and so forth. In reality, I don’t care. I want it to feel what we feel when we think about the First Vision. And a lot of times historical details detract from getting that feeling across. So, very low on my list of considerations is historical detail. Sorry, historians. Don’t hate me. . . . I’m usually trying to present the principle of a spiritual truth rather than a historical truth.”"

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

From the pdf:

"However, artists often have little to no intent of communicating his- torical factuality when they produce a work. Artists want to communicate an idea, and they want to use whatever medium or principle and element of art that it takes to communicate that idea to their viewers. In doing research on this topic, I interviewed a handful of well-known and talented Latter-day Saint artists and asked them various questions regarding the responsibility of an artist to paint historical reality. Almost unanimously, they said the artist carries no responsibility to do so. "

But, are these the same paintings and depictions that are approved for publication in manuals, used as pictures in meetinghouse libraries, hung in church buildings, visitor centers and so on?  Or were these just the artist's own personal depictions or art for their own publications? 

Just quoting "Latter-day Saint artists" tells us nothing really about the approval process for art that is published or displayed in church owned buildings.  

ETA:  I see that you've posted about Del Parsons painting the savior, etc.  I think this is quite different than actually depicting the translation process or other specific details or events from church history.  If it wasn't depicted correctly (according to how church leaders believe), do you really think it would be included or approved for any published materials, manuals, or hung up in visitor centers, etc?

I still believe art is approved before it is hung in church owned buildings or published in manuals, etc.  Even if the artist puts their own artistic interpretation on their art, it would be approved just as everything written in the manuals are approved and so on.

.

.

Edited March 25, 2016 by ALarson

[Calm]

"

Of particular importance to this article is her phrase “That can’t be true; that’s not what the illustrations of the translation look like.” This student (and many others) had formed her historical knowledge of the transla- tion through representations in religious art. Many of us do the same.13 Regarding the translation of the Book of Mormon, this becomes partic- ularly problematic because none of the currently used Church images of the translation of the Book of Mormon are consistent with the his- torical record.

Over the past year, my research assistant, Jordan Hadley, and I have documented and analyzed all of the paintings of the translation of the Book of Mormon that have ever been published in the Church’s Ensign magazine since its inception in 1971 through March of 2014. This pro- vided us with the last forty-three years of published representations of the translation of the Book of Mormon in one of the Church’s official magazines. In all, the Ensign has depicted the translation of the Book of Mormon over fifty-five times the past forty-three years, repeatedly using seventeen different images. The most oft-used image is Del Par- son’s Joseph Smith Translating the Book of Mormon (also printed in the

Gospel Art Book and Preach My Gospel), used a total of fourteen times since January of 1997.14 All of the Ensign images are inconsistent with aspects of documented Church history of the translation process of the Book of Mormon. For example, in each of the seventeen Ensign images, Joseph Smith is shown looking into open plates (not closed or wrapped or absent plates). In eleven of the images, Joseph Smith has his finger on the open plates, usually in a studious pose, as though he is translating indi- vidual characters through intellectual interpretive effort, and not through revelatory means through the Urim and Thummim. Only one painting15 in the past forty-three years depicts Joseph Smith using the Urim and 

Thummim, an image that was used only twice (once in November of 1988, and once in February of 1989). Most tellingly, none of the images ever printed in the history of the Ensign (or recent Church videos, such as Joseph Smith, Prophet of the Restoration) depicts the translation process of the Book of Mormon as having taken place by placing a seer stone or the Nephite interpreters in a hat. Is there any wonder, then, that there is confusion in the minds and hearts of believing persons when they learn through repeated scholarly sources (including this work, and recently the “Book of Mormon Translation” article on lds.org’s topic page16 and The Joseph Smith Papers17) that the Book of Mormon was apparently translated through seer stones placed in a hat to obscure light and that the plates were often concealed under a cloth or not in the room and not by opening the plates with his finger on them and studying it out?"...

"

In my interview with J. Kirk Richards, when I asked him how he would approach the translation of the Book of Mormon image, he said to me, “It would be hard for me to paint a painting with Joseph with his head in a hat. We would have no sense of the vision of what is happening inside.”19

Thus great and gifted artists like Walter Rane and J. Kirk Richards and others, who do know the history and have considered creating translation paintings with Joseph using the hat, have not created an image to reflect that history because it doesn’t translate well in the language of art. Their point of view as artists is perfectly valid: If the image doesn’t communicate the proper message, even if it is historically accurate, then the art doesn’t work and has failed to speak properly in its native tongue."

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

But, are these the same paintings and depictions that are approved for publication in manuals, used as pictures in meetinghouse libraries, hung in church buildings, visitor centers and so on?  Or were these just the artist's own personal depictions or art for their own publications? 

Just quoting "Latter-day Saint artists" tells us nothing really about the approval process for art that is published or displayed in church owned buildings.  Or is there more to this quote?  If so, I'd be interested in seeing it.

ETA:  I see that you've posted about Del Parsons painting the savior, etc.  I think this is quite different than actually depicting the translation process or other specific details or events from church history.  

I still believe art is approved before it is hung in church owned buildings or published in manuals, etc.  Even if the artist puts his own artistic interpretation on their art, it is approved just as everything written in the manuals are approved and so on.

.

please read the pdf...I am posting sections from it in hopes that people will be interested enough to read it.  He specifically addresses art of historical events.  

He covers this in part there in a section where the artist states the Church has commissioned paintings but the artist just wasn't satisfied so it fell through.

One more quote to entice readers:

"

As an artist, I can sympathize with Walter and Kirk. Many of my own sketches for this book project didn’t look right or feel right in terms of the marvelous work and wonder of the Book of Mormon. I joked that some of my sketches with Joseph in the hat should have been called “The Sick of Joseph” because he looks like he is vomiting into the hat. When multiple people unfamiliar with our history saw my sketches, they asked me if Joseph was ill. It didn’t communicate anything about inspiration, visions, revelations, miracles, translation, or the like—just stomach sickness. For past artists (or Ensign art directors) who may have known about the historical documents of the translation, it may simply be that choosing to depict Joseph with his finger in open plates with a pensive look was more visually appealing and communicative than the historical reality of what the translation may have looked like. It is easy for critics to assume a coordinate cover-up or historical rewrite when looking at the images,20 but the unjuicy reality may have more to do with a preference for speaking artistic language that is “truer” in its communication, even if the depicted events contain historical error."

Doing this on my ipad is limiting, some of the stuff I would prefer to quote won't copy...so please read the pdf itself.

One more

[ksfisher]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

From the pdf:

"However, artists often have little to no intent of communicating his- torical factuality when they produce a work. Artists want to communicate an idea, and they want to use whatever medium or principle and element of art that it takes to communicate that idea to their viewers. In doing research on this topic, I interviewed a handful of well-known and talented Latter-day Saint artists and asked them various questions regarding the responsibility of an artist to paint historical reality. Almost unanimously, they said the artist carries no responsibility to do so. "

I have mixed feelings about this.  As someone who has read a lot of history, I would love to see events portrayed in as much historical detail as possible (as if historical detail was something that could ever be right).

As someone who dabbles with paint every so often I know that many times I will use a particular color, not because it is realistic, but because it looks good.  In those cases they way something looks takes precedent over how something really is (as if we could know how things really are).

 

[HappyJackWagon]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

From the pdf:

"However, artists often have little to no intent of communicating his- torical factuality when they produce a work. Artists want to communicate an idea, and they want to use whatever medium or principle and element of art that it takes to communicate that idea to their viewers. In doing research on this topic, I interviewed a handful of well-known and talented Latter-day Saint artists and asked them various questions regarding the responsibility of an artist to paint historical reality. Almost unanimously, they said the artist carries no responsibility to do so. "

Calm, an artist depicting an event like the first vision or book of Mormon translation is far different than an artist painting a portrait of the savior.

If an artist decided to paint a picture of the first vision with Jesus, Heavenly Father, and Heavenly Mother all appearing to JS, do you think that would be approved for church use? It's a historical event. It doesn't have to be accurate, right? Or what if the translation picture showed Emma translating while Joseph worked as scribe. Would the church approve that image. If accurate depictions of history do not matter to the church, then they wouldn't mind, but we all know that isn't really the case.

There will be honest errors in depiction, there's no doubt. But these arguments that  A) the artist has autonomy to create whatever they like and B) the church isn't responsible for the way it depicts sacred events is just silly.

The church has created a narrative of the BoM translation utilizing gospel art and video which depicts it in a way that is clearly incorrect. It was likely an honest mistake that snowballed throughout the years until the false narrative became reality to many members, but that doesn't mean we should excuse the continued use of inaccurate art and video when we now know the correct narrative.

[mfbukowski]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

From the pdf:

"However, artists often have little to no intent of communicating his- torical factuality when they produce a work. Artists want to communicate an idea, and they want to use whatever medium or principle and element of art that it takes to communicate that idea to their viewers. In doing research on this topic, I interviewed a handful of well-known and talented Latter-day Saint artists and asked them various questions regarding the responsibility of an artist to paint historical reality. Almost unanimously, they said the artist carries no responsibility to do so. "

I used to be in the gallery business, and nearly finished a masters in art history as well as philosophy.  I got out of the business when I found out that it was impossible for me to deal with artists in business, BUT I DO understand artists.

Your post is totally accurate in my experience. 

[Calm]

Sweat was committed to getting the history right for this project*** and he still had to compromise because putting Joseph's face completely in the hat destroyed the abilty of the artwork to convey the desired message.

****In certain aspects as he admits to not thoroughly researching clothing, using a chair from his front room, etc.  His historical research focused on the method.  Every artist makes a choice on the message meant to be conveyed.

[Calm]

37 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I suppose I should have included that sentence!

I was going to make a comment based on thirdhand experience with the Ensign artwork...a couple of inlaws have been involved, but thought better of it and then couldn't get rid of quote.  Idon't know if I am having this much trouble because all my tech is out of date handmedowns at this point, but I am getting frustrated (I don't blame the mods, this is great for a completely free setvice that has been going for over a decade, just a fact of life, every upgrade has its own set of glitches).

[mfbukowski]

7 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I have mixed feelings about this.  As someone who has read a lot of history, I would love to see events portrayed in as much historical detail as possible (as if historical detail was something that could ever be right).

As someone who dabbles with paint every so often I know that many times I will use a particular color, not because it is realistic, but because it looks good.  In those cases they way something looks takes precedent over how something really is (as if we could know how things really are).

 

And then there is composition.  He should be sitting THERE- not at the table- or whatever.

Then there is capturing the emotion of the moment.  Faces in hats do not express much.

Fine artists take pride in NOT being "illustrators" unless that is the assignment.  An illustration is seen as an entirely different way of portraying the world, they are dry, unemotional and as factual as possible.

 

Quote

 

Types of Artists

Artists use art to communicate thoughts, feelings and ideas. The types of tools and materials used by artists depend on their job title and description. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), there are typically four occupational categories that artists fall into, including art directors, multimedia artists and animators, fine artists and craft artists.

Art Directors

Art directors give creative direction on a number of projects, including advertisements, CD jackets, billboards, websites and magazine layouts. They also manage other artists. Therefore, in addition to possessing artistic ability, art directors must also possess good management skills.

Multimedia Artists and Animators

Multimedia artists and animators create images for use in movies, TV shows and computer games. They use video, computers, film and other kinds of electronic media to produce these images. Multimedia artists often create animations and special effects.

Fine Artists

Fine artists include occupations such as painters, sculptors, sketch artists, cartoonists and illustrators. They create original works of art using many different tools. For example, sculptors use clay, wood, plaster, stone and glass to create artwork. Sketch artists use charcoal, pencil and pastels. In addition to using many different tools, fine artists also use many different techniques to create realistic drawings. Two such techniques include shadowing and perspective.

Craft Artists

Craft artists make handmade objects to be sold or showcased in galleries and museums. Such objects include jewelry, rugs, art glass and quilts. Craft artists may use recycled objects to create their handmade items. These recycled objects can include soda cans, costume jewelry, old t-shirts and license plates. Craft artists often employ the same techniques used by fine artists.

Types of Illustrators

According to the BLS, illustrators create images for use in publications, such as books and magazines. They also make images for commercial products such as calendars, wrapping paper and greeting cards. There are other types of illustrators, too, including medical, scientific and technical illustrators. The kind of work they do varies greatly.

Medical Illustrators

Medical illustrators use both traditional and digital methods of illustration to create images of the human body. They also create 3D models, animations and images of surgical procedures. Becoming a medical illustrator requires knowledge of biology.

Scientific Illustrators

Scientific illustrators create images of plant and animal life, planets and atomic structures. These images are used in training presentations as well as medical and scientific publications. Like medical illustrators, scientific illustrators also need to study biology.

Technical Illustrators

Technical illustrators are sometimes known as mechanical drafters. They use computer-aided design (CAD) software to prepare drawings and diagrams of mechanical devices and machinery. These drawings show details of assembly methods and indicate requirements such as fastening methods and dimensions.

 

http://study.com/articles/Artist_vs_Illustrator_Whats_the_Difference.html

[Calm]

Guys, please read the pdf.  It specifically deals with historical art.  The quotes were teasers to get people interested, not meant to answer arguments.