Mormon Reactions to Images of the Restoration

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Juggler Vain
_Emeritus
Posts: 273
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 4:51 pm

Post by _Juggler Vain »

John Larsen wrote:The images might be more accurate, but it seems like they were designed, in a few cases, to tweak or offend Mormons. What is your goal in creating these images? There has been a claim of more historical accuracy, but I know of no source that claims that Joseph had a stemmed wine glass. To me that puts out an image of fiddling away while Rome burned and partying while in prison. It seems that factual descriptions of the event show a great deal of fear and apprehension on the part of the inmates.

The goal of IOTR is set forth in the "About" page of the site HERE. It is designed to depict facts that are not commonly depicted in Mormon-produced art. Often those facts are not depicted because they would offend the sensibilities of modern Mormons. That, we assert, is not a good reason to avoid exposing people to those facts. in my opinion, a literalist faith like Mormonism ought to base its beliefs on facts, not myths. When myths masquerade as facts, people tend to hold false beliefs about them, and that is a bad thing.

With respect to the drinking vessel Joseph used for the wine, the source I relied on (included in the explanation of the image) states that they used a "glass". After spending some time researching what kinds of glasses were available in that area of the country at that time, it seemed apparent that a stemmed wine glass was a reasonable possibility. A description of 18th and early 19th century drinking glasses can be found HERE

If you are wondering about the bottle, HERE is a site that clarifies what 19th century wine bottles looked like.

As for the lack of fear and turmoil depicted in the image, John Taylor said that the purpose for drinking the wine was to help raise their spirits. It seems reasonable for people trying to cheer themselves up to talk and think about good things--maybe even smile. It should also be noted that none of them thought they were going to be attacked by a mob. In fact, there is evidence that Joseph Smith was expecting a Mormon rescue attempt.

-JV
_Juggler Vain
_Emeritus
Posts: 273
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 4:51 pm

Post by _Juggler Vain »

Pokatator wrote:I visited the site a few days ago and found it very interesting. I was especially intrigued with the 9 versions of the vision that Moksha posted. That is totally "poster" quality material. Are some of these in poster and purchasable form?

That is an interesting idea. Most of the original images are of a much higher resolution than the website displays, so posters are possible. I don't believe there are any plans to market the images, but if there is demand for them, maybe we should consider it. Thanks.

Doctor Steuss wrote:
One of his illustrations, "Almera Woodward Johnson Smith," depicts Smith seated on a bed
beside one of his (much younger) wives.


[She]… was thirty-one at the time of her marriage.


How old was Joseph?

The author seems to have misunderstood the age difference between Almera and Joseph, unless 6 years younger is "much younger" to him. Joseph Smith was 37 years old when he married Almera.

-JV
_John Larsen
_Emeritus
Posts: 1895
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:16 pm

Post by _John Larsen »

Some Schmo wrote:
John Larsen wrote: I go back to my first question, what is the intent? What is the author/artist trying to accomplish? Is it accurate portrayal or just to piss people off?


It seems to me you're missing a third, most obvious reason.

Art is about self expression, and I imagine an artist who grew up inculcated with the Mormon historical art and literature would have an innate interest in coming up with more accurate art once s/he was made aware of the truth, especially since it doesn't currently exist.


That's a good point.
_Juggler Vain
_Emeritus
Posts: 273
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 4:51 pm

Post by _Juggler Vain »

John Larsen wrote:
Some Schmo wrote:
John Larsen wrote: I go back to my first question, what is the intent? What is the author/artist trying to accomplish? Is it accurate portrayal or just to piss people off?


It seems to me you're missing a third, most obvious reason.

Art is about self expression, and I imagine an artist who grew up inculcated with the Mormon historical art and literature would have an innate interest in coming up with more accurate art once s/he was made aware of the truth, especially since it doesn't currently exist.


That's a good point.

My personal intent in having these images published is to provide a resource that I would have found useful when I decided to investigate the factual assumptions I had been making about my religion--facts that had formed the foundation for my personal spirituality. Testing those factual assumptions was not easy to do because it required an investment of time and money above and beyond normal participation in the LDS Church, which already was consuming a great deal of my time. It would have been nice to have a website like Images of the Restoration to help me visualize the information I was learning, and to point me toward additional resources.

Based on my personal experience, I believe there is a substantial number of Church members who may not have the necessary resources to invest in that "extra-curricular" learning process, but who really do want to learn, and to exercise a mature faith that is not so dependent on assumptions about the world that they made when they were children. I want my artwork to be useful for those people.

-JV
_Juggler Vain
_Emeritus
Posts: 273
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 4:51 pm

Post by _Juggler Vain »

F.A.I.R. responses to Images of the Restoration.

Press Release:

http://www.fairblog.org/2008/02/15/fair ... s-service/

FAIR wiki Page:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Church_art_and ... l_accuracy


FAIR wiki article grand finale wrote:Image
Artist's rendition of Joseph and Oliver translating the Book of Mormon.

What religious message(s) does the Del Parson translation picture convey?

1. The translation was carried out openly—Joseph had no opportunity to hide notes or books. This was confirmed by Elizabeth Ann Cowdery and Emma Smith.[16]
2. The plates had a physical reality, and Oliver Cowdery was convinced of this reality. Unlike some of the other Three Witnesses, who spoke only of seeing the angel and the plates, 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]
3. The translation was not a weird, esoteric exercise.

It is, I suspect, this last point that makes the critics cry "foul." The critics are not anxious to "reveal the truth" about the seer stone in the hat because this detail makes it harder for Joseph to cheat with notes while dictating.

The critics aren't even worried about historical accuracy—they're happy to downplay the impressive witness testimonies of the plates' reality. Nor is a seer stone in a hat intrinsically less plausible than a Urim and Thummim with breastplate.

No, what the critics want above all is to make the translation alienating. They want it to seem bizarre, even eerie. They hope that a historical truth in visual form will allow them to slip a bigger lie by us.

They want a portrait of the translation that will convey something to a modern audience that it never portrayed to the participants—that the Book of Mormon was uninspired and uninspiring.

Come to think of it, perhaps this attack isn't so strange after all.


-JV
Post Reply