By Menachem Wecker
c. 2008 Religion News Service
(UNDATED) Like many religious institutions, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons) has commissioned countless works of art to educate believers and non-believers about its history and doctrines.
Now, like other churches, Mormons are engaged in a low-simmer dispute with artists over how the faith should be depicted, and the fight has raised an interesting question: Who gets to decide a faith’s official artistic record?
A group of Mormon artists, gathering online in a forum known as Images of the Restoration (www.imagesoftherestoration.org), says the church can neither tolerate dissent nor keep track of its own history.
The debate is so sensitive that many of the artists decline to use their real names — it would cause family tension, most say.
Take, for example, Harold Kilbourn’s “Joseph Smith Translating” (1970), which appears on a church-run Web site dedicated to Mormonism’s prophet. It depicts an intent-looking Smith in shirtsleeves, translating the Golden Plates that became the Book of Mormon.
Yet, according to Mormon tradition, Smith translated the plates by looking at a “seer’s stone” in his hat, not at the plates directly. An alternative depiction on the artists’ site shows Smith sitting on stairs, his face buried in a hat, as his scribe writes down the translation.
Church officials have little appetite — or patience — for the site.
Kim Farah, a spokeswoman at church headquarters in Salt Lake City, expressed “zero interest” in commenting on the “anti-Mormon” blog.
William R. Stringham, a Mormon bishop in the Virginia suburbs of Washington, said trying to understand Mormon doctrine through the “anti-Mormon activists who are parading as historians” would be like trying to understand Judaism through the writings of Adolf Hitler.
While the site has annoyed church leaders, it reflects an age-old tug of war between church hierarchs, who feel duty-bound to preserve their teaching in all forms, and artists, who feel called to interpret it.
“Theology evolves throughout history as humans evolve,” said Diane Apostolos-Cappadona, who teaches art history at Georgetown University.
“Art changes in the way it interprets Scripture. There are times in which the artist acts as a prophet, a rebel from society, or a critic of society.”
Scott Gordon, president of the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR), an independent Mormon apologetics group, said the issues portrayed on the blog are “favorites that are brought up and highlighted by antagonists of the LDS Church.”
Others, like David Keller, a professor of computer science at Utah Valley State College who volunteers with FAIR, see artists who are probably unfamiliar with Smith’s translation story, not any kind of church conspiracy to paint over history. He noted that Smith translated the Book of Mormon twice, and official depictions “mix and match elements from different translation periods.”
By depicting Smith sitting on the stairs, he said, the blog is taking its own “artistic liberties,” he said.
The founder of the blog, who like others declined to be identified by name because of potential “personal fallout,” knew he was treading in delicate waters when he started the site.
But the founder, who goes by the name IOTR, says he is as willing to receive a critique as he is to give it. Images can be changed if someone can prove they have a better historical understanding of the illustrated events, he said.
Another contributor, a former Mormon missionary and Brigham Young University graduate who goes by the name JV, also works unnamed because he said his wife would lose Mormon friends if he were exposed. He has already altered his own work after opening it up to comments.
One of his illustrations, “Almera Woodward Johnson Smith,” depicts Smith seated on a bed beside one of his (much younger) wives. It’s clear that she has little interest in Smith’s romantic advances. When the artist showed the image to friends, they were “totally creeped out …
regardless of their personal investment or belief in Mormonism.” So he opened Almera’s eyes and lent her “a slightly amused” expression.
“If she isn’t totally excited to be there, then she is making the best of it,” he said. “I think that is a fair interpretation.”
Which is not to say it’s good art. Matt Bowman, a Georgetown graduate student who comes from a Mormon family, described the site as “ideological art … the Mormon equivalent of Thomas Kinkade,” the self-proclaimed “Painter of Light” with a reputation for kitschy Christian art.
Bowman said JV’s work “lacks subtlety” and is “designed to promote an uncomplicated agenda.” Still, Bowman said the blog exposes “problems in early Mormon history that the institutional church has been eager to downplay or smooth over.”
For his part, JV isn’t bothered by the critiques, though he considers his images more authentic than what comes out of Salt Lake City. “I don’t consider the images … to be high art in the sense that a `Mormon art’ movement would be, so I don’t mind if it is viewed as kind of limited and shallow.”
If nothing else, the site is stimulating discussion, even among non-Mormons. One viewer was taken by a drawing entitled “Joseph Smith Hunting for Treasure.” Like the translating image, it shows Smith bent over, peering into a hat, and it’s up to the viewer to decide exactly what he’s looking for.
“I do feel something affectionate for and about him,” wrote the viewer, who said he has “no illusions” that Smith was a real prophet.
“He’s a poor kid from a dirt farming background, and he’s got some moxie. He might not have much, but he’s got his own native smarts and charisma. It’s truly an American story.”
Copyright 2008 Religion News Service. All rights reserved. No part of this transmission may be distributed or reproduced without written permission.
Beliefnet
Advertisement
posted February 13, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Just finished watching (for the 2nd time) the history of the Mormons on PBS the last 2 nights. I think Smith was just a man who really enjoyed being the “boss”. Perhaps a little mentally unstable…as was Brigham Young. The bit with the tablets and how God gave them to Smith etc.? Just as true as the 10 Commandments story and I would have thought a bit familiar to the folks when he mentioned how he had seen his “Special Angel.” Also, by telling the masses that he had been told that men should have more than one wife….what a great way for Smith to “legally” fool around. As to pictures to show the history of the LDS church…how accurate are the pictures done by Christian religions, or any other religions? How accurate are the pictures of Jesus? Mary? Joseph? No one knows what they looked like.
posted February 13, 2008 at 8:31 pm
I do not agree at all with the religion of the Mormons. Like the above comment said, it gave “Smith” permission to fool around.Any religion that allows more than one wife is rediculous.Marriage with one is stressfull enough without adding “wife #2, wife #3, etc. I was almost “drafted” by them but I came to my sense when they started to talk about princes and pricesses, secret ceremony that husbands and wives go through separately. Then they said I should leave my husband secretly and they would see that I met up with a man of their religion that would take care of my children and myself the way we should be taken care of.Regardless of whether I loved my husband or not.All they are is a cult and I mentioned that to one of their “missionaries” and she said yes they were.Another one of their “missionaries” cussed my one son out because he called them a fake and the “missionary” actually called my son out.So everyone does have their own opinion, but I have learned that they always show up when someone is in a vulnerable position like I was. Thank you for allowing me to send in this comment.
posted February 13, 2008 at 9:04 pm
As many who post here regularly know, my brother-in-law is a Mormon and one of his 2 children is also. My sister isn’t, nor is the other child. (they are Methodists, my former religion). Both children chose which way they wanted to go at an early age. My brother -in- law married out of the faith, which makes him not a total follower,but he is faithful to the church. They weren’t married in the temple, but in the Methodist church. Since my sister won’t convert, she can’t enter the secret parts of the temple. He is a wonderful husband and father. I have him as an example of a Mormon, but I know I could never be one. It truly has as many if not more fairy tales than the RCC, and other religions, IMO.
Neither he nor my Mormon niece have ever tried to convert any of the rest of the family. I think they know better…and also have respect for our beliefs.
posted February 13, 2008 at 9:07 pm
the above post was written mostly in response to Jean R. Levengood.
posted February 13, 2008 at 9:50 pm
If you believe the founding tales and if they say he did something by looking in his hat I don’t see how you get around depicting it with him looking into his hat, even if it makes the religion look clearly silly.
But it’s no sillier than, say, Christianity. The real way to judge a religion is by the effect on the believers (in the total absence of proof one of them is right) and I’m not in a position to make a comparison.
posted February 14, 2008 at 12:10 am
Cranach was the”Official Artist of the Reformation” in Wittenberg. As such, he often listened to the lectures and sermons of Luther and his buddy, Melanchthon. However, Cranach was more artist than theologian and probably drifted off into distraction during the great reformers’ presentations. During one lecture on Jesus’ betrayal by Judas, I imagine Cranach was drifitng off and misheard the reformer’s words. So when he painted his version of the Last Supper, using Wiottenberg burgers as aspostels aroudn the table. He painted a mistake. Instead of kissing Jesus, Judas was biting him. Apparently the German words are similar enough that Cranach did not quite hear the distinction. This painting still hangs in Luther’s Church in Witenberg.
Even the most well intentioned artists may miss some of the nuances of the symbols and meanings of profound theologies. OK, I must confess, I think some of the story of Mormon glides into the silly zone. But nonetheless, it is no surprise that some re-interpretatins in pen or paint have happened. I hope their intended audiences are familiar enough with the stories to recognize the problem and compensate for the new interpretations. Sadly, during the middle ages and reformation, even many of the clergy were illiterate, so some bold and strange-unto-wacky versions of key stories became “gospel”. We are are now both literate and enlightened (not easy to write or say with tongue in cheek) of course, see these misunderstandings for what they are.
posted February 14, 2008 at 11:17 am
I’ve recently come to believe that religion is a good example of the situation which arises when good accurate information is not available so people make up stories to satisfy their need for answers.
A good example of this is what happens during times of civil emergency when normal means of communicating factual information are rendered unavailable. Under those conditions citizens are especially vulnerable to rumors. One might say that there is a sort Gresham’s law of information, bad information can render good factual information impotent.
Now imagine the situation that has existed for most of the history of humanity prior to the scientific age; a long period of darkness punctuated by a few bright moments of insight which were interpreted as threatening the thin fabric of civilization and the hegemony of those who were in tenuous control. It is easy to see that a charismatic charlatan could conjure up stories just believable enough to entice the masses. Throw in a few human foibles such as the desire for control, the thirst for knowledge, fear of the unknown and the recipe is there for any reasonably coherent belief system to take root. Somehow the more bizarre the story, the more it deviates from common experience the easier it is to sell. The bigger the lie the easier it is to swallow.
If the belief system that results provides some additional social cohesion beyond that of clan and tribe there is an obvious additional survival benefit.
If holy writ were truly prophetic it would contain the answers to all the questions put forth by modern science, the nature of the atom, the true age of the universe,
We neglect at our peril the effect of cognitive dissonance in the perpetuation of anachronistic belief systems. Having invested so much human capitol in them it is very difficult for individuals or groups to admit having been deceived for so long.
posted February 14, 2008 at 12:56 pm
It is important to note that the artists are not active and involved LDS members who are proud of their work.
A tour guide of the site might remark …
…. and here we have Joseph Smith in a classic 1800s masher pose illustration, this time with a plural wife. The illustration does a good job of catching the nuance of a typical penny dreadful illustration and transposing Joseph Smith into it ….
and here is a rather facile illustration of Joseph Smith Sr’s vision of the tree of life. Often discussed in the early church in the context of “one eternal round” (God giving the same vision to the faithful in each dispensation) and in the 1970s as an example of how context and language shapes how we receive knowledge from God in the revival of Brigham Young’s many sermons on that topic, the illustrator says it is the sort of proof that Joseph Smith was context driven and that the LDS have difficulty explaining away and ignoring rather than being aware of and discussing ….
and of course let us not miss this one of Joseph Smith taking a break from sitting in a chair and translating as he moves over to the stairs to do a little free basing out of his hat ….
/Sigh
posted February 14, 2008 at 1:06 pm
William R. Stringham, a Mormon bishop in the Virginia suburbs of Washington, said trying to understand Mormon doctrine through the “anti-Mormon activists who are parading as historians” would be like trying to understand Judaism through the writings of Adolf Hitler.
Then where are the 6 million Mormons slaughtered by the “anti-mormon activists?”
Someone look up Godwin’s law. It states, in part, “…there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made (‘As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.’), the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically “lost” whatever debate was in progress. This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin’s law.”
Bad choice of words, Mr. Stringham.
posted February 14, 2008 at 2:43 pm
“If holy writ were truly prophetic it would contain the answers to all the questions put forth by modern science, the nature of the atom, the true age of the universe” saith, Jim House (any relation to Dr. Greg House – no, I didn’t think so)
Hear! hear! I think this is a good test for truely prophetic words. Are they simply particular to a moment of situation or do they actually reveal some of the mystery and wonder of creation?
posted February 14, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Stephen M., I think you’ve made a really important point. Thanks for that.
I am delighted my article is leading to such interesting discussions.
posted February 14, 2008 at 4:28 pm
“…according to Mormon tradition, Smith translated the plates by looking at a “seer’s stone” in his hat, not at the plates directly.”
Stage direction: Quizical expression on my face, blending to look of enormous shock, through outrage, and finally to nearly uncontrollable weeping (or is it laughter?).
Dialog: How is it possible, I ask (perhaps rhetorically), for any sane human in the 21st Century to view the statement quoted above as anything other than gross stupidity or fraud?
Okay, I’m a novelist, not a great playwrite. My question stands.
posted February 14, 2008 at 4:38 pm
http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1993.htm/ensign%20july%201993.htm/a%20treasured%20testament.htm
Start at the tenth paragraph.
“Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.” (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887, p. 12.)
posted February 15, 2008 at 10:47 am
This would be a better article if it provided the URL for the blog it references. Is the lack of URL an editorial concession to Mormon officials? BTW: It’s true there are plenty of silly/offensive scenes from the Bible (patriarchs, by the way, practiced plural marriage) that would create a stir if depicted as described. It’s too bad for people of all faiths if their faiths are absurd. Kudos to anyone who shines a light on the absurdities. Shame on the religionists for trying to hide the inconvenient truths about their silly beliefs.
posted February 15, 2008 at 10:51 am
Jay, please see the third graph of the article. I put the URL there.
posted February 15, 2008 at 11:42 am
Stephen M,
Your comment raises some questions for me.
1) Why do you say that the artists are not active and involved members of the LDS Church, and how do you know that they are not proud of their work?
2) I understand the “penny dreadful” comment on the Almera Johnson image, but am I correctly understanding your criticism regarding the “Joseph Smith, Sr.’s Dream” image to be that it is rather facile, and the description is not sensitive enough to other religious explanations for the dream? Why hasn’t the Church taught the
3) I’m not sure I get the “free basing out of his hat” comment. Is that a way of saying that depicting Joseph Smith on the stairs is unfair or unreasonably odd? Whether at a table, or “up stairs” or in a different room, he was holding a hat to his face to translate, and each of those locations is part of the historical record. What is sigh-worthy about the stairs?
posted February 15, 2008 at 11:42 am
Along the trail they were forced to follow, sir. What is the percentage of Mormons who died as a result of the expulsion when they were a population of only thousands? Which is worse? The absurdities of others or those who feel entitled to mock the “other” while ignoring the absurdity of their own lives?
posted February 15, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Sorry, the last question on my item 2) above was supposed to be the following:
Why (do you think) hasn’t the Church taught the “one eternal round” concept, or the “context and language” concept, to explain the JS Sr. dream during the past 30+ years? Why do LDS Church apologists refrain from using those concepts to explain the dream?
What difference do you see between the apparently valid “context and language” concept, and the apparently less valid view of Joseph Smith as “context driven” in producing the Book of Mormon?
posted February 15, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Menachem,
Overall, I enjoyed your article. I am flattered that you quoted from me.
Let me make a slight correction:
I can see where you got that from my description. However it would be more correct to say that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon in two different stages. He did not translate the same text twice.
Stage 1 occurred in 1828 up through July with Martin Harris as the primary scribe in Harmony, PA. The result of this stage was 116 manuscript pages that were lost and never recovered. Before that point Joseph Smith had copied hieroglyphics (or characters if you will) from the golden plates and then later produced the 116 pages with the aid of the Nephite interpreters that came with the plates. The interpreters were a pair of seer stones set in a fixture that held them in place in front of the eyes. Harris reported that Joseph eventually took the seer stones out of the fixture and switched to a translation method where he put the seer stone in a hat to exclude outside light sources.
Stage 2 occurred with Oliver Cowdery as the primary scribe in both Harmony (April and May 1829) and Fayette, NY (June 1829). These sessions produced most of the Book of Mormon as we have it. Many witnesses at this time report that another seer stone (different color) was used with a hat and the plates were not physically present in the room.
So church artists have mixed matched elements from both stages.
Stage 1 elements: plates physically present, some translation without a seer stone in the hat
Stage 2 elements: Oliver Cowdery as the scribe, no curtain
If the painting were depicting stage 1, the following items would have to be fixed from church published art:
1. Martin Harris the scribe instead of Oliver Cowdery
2. A curtain between Smith and the scribe
3. A portrayal of the Nephite Interpreters.
If the painting were to depict stage 2 the following items would have to be fixed:
1. Portray a seer stone in a hat translation method.
2. Plates not physically present.
The Images of the Restoration site actually does a good job fixing a portrayal of stage 2.
If I had a critique I would suggest portraying the first stage as well. It doesn’t make sense to me to have a single canonical portrayal when the translation method changed over time. The Church art is more like a moving average picture where IOTR is more of a snap shot. Both representations have difficulty fully capturing the reality.
posted February 15, 2008 at 5:52 pm
All this makes me wonder, way do people choose to be anti-anything? Is being Anti- a benefit to you, others, or society? Have you made a difference, or just scratch each others back? Or is it just the fanatics/extremest feeding on each other? You all find it amusing that the office standing of the LDS church is to ignore you. I believe they just have better things to do with their time then to address these little things that really don’t change anything. Or what I call odd or eccentric perspectives. A perspective designed to invoke and emotional response. If purely emotional, it will one alway from logic, knowledge and reason. I believe myself to be a neutral person, and am able to view things from many perspectives. The LDS Church doesn’t respond to you; I say “So What!” Does it many anything, probable not, but you all want to read something out of a nothing. Then a few members respond, so what, they are members of a group, not the group as a whole.
So you got some reaction from members of the LDS church; and guess what, all types and sorts of people in the world have fanatics/extremest. And that just gives you more fuel for your fire; that most people ignore because fanatical/extremest perspectives really don’t change anything. The annoying flies in life. You all have a bigger impact on governments then the organization, group, or people itself. For government/politics, it usually who makes the biggest or most noise that wins. So what if someone painted Joe Smith siting next to a reluctant young wife. Is it accurate? Or is it just a perspective based on what that person has read and imagined. All peoples perspectives are limited and incomplete! If you seek the truth in the extremes, you will never find it. If you fixate only on the negative of any one topic, people, race, religion, country, etc. then the negative is all you will ever see. Remember, the information you get in response to your anti- whatever is most like from the small fanatical/extremist portion of that group and not the norm. A bell curve can be applied to all aspects of life. And it’s easy to fixate on one extreme or the other of the bell curve. And finding other people and responses of the like.
My recommendation to you all, is if this is all that really important to you (your hobby, entertainment, favorite pastime, or something), you need to find balance to what you read and hear so that you have a balanced perspective. Try to find all perspective of all people involved in whatever get your fancy going. You will usually find that you can find a 100 times as many perspectives as you currently are holding to.
bILl bORUs
posted February 16, 2008 at 11:09 am
Very interesting comments written here.
Looking at the first few, it was obvious that some people either have never met an LDS missionary, or they were being recruited by some break off -faction- of the LDS Church.
Case in point. The LDS Church does not practice polygamy or plural marriage, and has not since appx. 1890.
Number two. Yes, the Patriarchs…. as well as others of the Old Testament are recorded as having more than one wife…
Number three. A remarkable statement made to me many years ago, by a non-LDS person… and I quote “the Mormons are they only church that actually believes the Bible.”
In other words, the “Mormons” believe that Gods Prophets and Patriarchs of the Old Testament followed Gods Law by having more than one wife.
I digress a little. I can imagine that me quoting someone stating that the LDS Church is the only religion that actually believes what the Bible says, could hurt someones ears, ego, or eyes. Well, that would mean (by statement) … the whole Bible, (that is, that the Mormons aka LDS Church, actually believe All of the Bible,) not just the part someone — “may” — choose to believe, so they can … start … a or any Religion, based on a “portion” of text given in the Bible.
Point four. …. The Seer Stones. Well, first of all. There obviously… is not one person on this forum, or should I say… very few people if any on earth, who actually know how the stones of the Old Testament actually worked. You know, the Urim and Thummim, or (aka)- Lights and Perfections.
They are mentioned very few times in the Old Testament, but, the fact is, usually only a Prophet of the Lord was the one viewing and interpreting the script in/on them.
The was one case in the Old Testament, where a king, who had not been very righteous, sought for an answer to his prayer, and didn’t get one. Then, he sought for an answer through the means of the Urim and Thummim, and didn’t get an answer. Then he sought for an answer and revelation through a with Endora. This goes to show what lenghts someone will go to, to get a “revelation” no matter what source it is they may get it from. However, the answer through Endora was not a “revelation” but false information and a false hope, mixed with truths, to convince the “seeker of truth” of a false reality .. aka (fiction).
I also realize that Mr Stringham is -not- a spokesman for the LDS Church, and I do think his comparision should have …. been better put.
In any event. Thank you for taking the time to read this post, if you do.
posted February 18, 2008 at 11:47 am
I can not find the names of any artists associated with this your article, their site and its purported works of art. Are their name secret or just merely sacred? Maybe I have somehow overlooked the information which is possible.
If an artists is trying to engage the public in a serious dialogue about a certain subject, their art should at least be engaging and thought provoking. This stuff is student grade illustration at best. Maybe they are just after a little notoriety which you have provided for them..
posted February 18, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Larry,
Do you think your oil painting of “Brother Brigham” is thought provoking or just LDS president worship.
from your website, “The subject of my oil painting is the great personal strength and power of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints President, Brigham Young. In my mind, he was the Lord’s perfect choice to lead His chosen people to establish Zion in the Great Basin. With the inspired tutelage of the Prophet Joseph Smith, the Gift of the Holy Ghost and the Keys to the Kingdom, Brother Brigham was able to balance the spiritual and temporal needs of the Mormon’s during the great immigration and after their arrival in Salt Lake. Through the power and inspiration of the Spirit and his unwavering personal testimony, he played a major role in the settling of the Western United States. He was described by some visitors has having the attributes of a great old wise cat. For me he is “The Lion of Deseret”.”
WOW, I’m not moved by the strength of a racist like BY.
posted February 18, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Larry,
It is clear that you do not think much of the art on Images of the Restoration. I think it is also clear, however, that the fact-based approach that Images of the Restoration takes to its subject matter is nearly the opposite of the hagiographic, myth-building approach that you take with your Mormon-themed art. (Larry’s website is here: http://larryogan.visualserver.com/index.cfm ) Perhaps that is influencing your opinion.
Given that you are a professional illustrator who can produce better-than-student-grade illustrations, I would love to host an illustration of yours that accurately reflects the historical record. You can contact me at admin@imagesoftherestoration[dot]org, or by visiting the “Contact” page at http://www.imagesoftherestoration.org.
Sincerely,
IOTR
posted February 18, 2008 at 10:29 pm
You are absolute correct that Brother Brigham was a nineteenth century man and had many of the racist attitudes prevalent with most of the “white” population of that era. He was a flawed human being just like the rest of us. The Prophet Joseph was flawed also and said, “I’m only a prophet when I’m being one.” Isn’t it amazing that through our flaws the Lord can see who we really are and inspire us to do good and bring about many wonderful things into the world.
I make no apologies for my painting “The Lion of Deseret”. I don’t know if it is thought provoking or not but it did provoke you. Also, I think you confuse respect for worship. My worship and devotion is reserved for my Savior Jesus Christ.
As an artists I can see many different levels of a subject, both good and bad. I’m perfectly aware of past and present abuses of power that exist in the LDS and all other churches. I know we have some darkness in Mormon history (Mountain Meadow comes to mind). As an artist I have chosen to go in a positive direction. I have already been to the negative side when I was younger and it no longer holds any interest for me. Maybe I’m getting soft but then again I’ve been down some hard paths so….