Witnesses and the Power of Images at Sic et Non

[_sock puppet]

There really are different frequencies on which visual art can communicate (e.g., literal, metaphorical, emotional, etc.), and each of these frequencies can carry some message of "truth" (or Truth) for a viewer. If the emotional "truth" is there, I can see why somebody might not care how "true" the metaphorical or literal frequencies are.

I think Greg is pointing out that Joseph Smith tracing his finger across a shiny golden page, with a furrowed brow, bathed in the warm light of a glowing lamp, is an expression of "truth" on an emotional or even a metaphorical frequency for believing Mormons. A depiction of the translation that shows Joseph's face buried in a hat, despite having something closer to "truth" on a literal frequency, could (and, in my case, apparently, does) fail to express "truth" on an emotional frequency for believers.

I don't think it is proper or honest to label known inaccuracies 'truth' of any sort. If you get emotionally plus'd from thinking something that is not true, that is mere day dreaming, fantasy. Smith is merely spin doctoring when trying to label something that is inaccurate as truth, 'emotional' or otherwise.

The context really matters. To me, when the art is being used to establish facts about physical reality, the "literal" frequency becomes a threshold measure for the "truth" value of most other frequencies.

Those illustrations were prepared to convey information, not provoke independent thinking as art does. These illustrations' inaccuracies find no refuge under the cloak of 'artistic license'.

When the Church is using nearly photo-realistic art to teach seminary students an affirmative lie about physical reality (e.g., Joseph Smith, with his scribe Oliver Cowdery, translated the Book of Mormon directly from a 200 lb stack of golden plates in plain view on the little table between them), all of the "truth" frequencies are corrupted for those students.

It's OK, it's lying for the lord, right?

Only people who already know the real story can get metaphorical and emotional truth from the Church's inaccurate art, but the Church is squeamish about telling the real story.

Those that already know the real story get emotional truth from that which they know to be factually inaccurate? You lost me on that one. The Church is more than just squeamish about telling the real story, it has a long and storied tradition of active involvement in deceiving its members and others about its actual history. BKP cautioned, don't look into the history. Wise advice if you need to continue to believe the fantasy the Church has gone to great pains to create about its past.

To put it another way, the truth is that it is only offensive to those who trusted the Church. Then, if it bothers them enough to investigate, they are surprised to learn that their trust was misplaced, and they have to deal with that.

-JV

I think the truth is offensive not only to those that trusted the Church, but to many more civil, moral people never duped by the Church but who find JSJr's conduct to be abhorrent.

[_Juggler Vain]

Only people who already know the real story can get metaphorical and emotional truth from the Church's inaccurate art, but the Church is squeamish about telling the real story.

Those that already know the real story get emotional truth from that which they know to be factually inaccurate? You lost me on that one.

Sorry, I didn't include scare quotes on the word "truth" that time. Yes, they believe there is an emotional "truth" in the inaccurate images. Here is an illlustration of their POV:

Literal frequency: Golden Plates on a table -- False
Metaphorical frequency: The translation process was miraculous and mysterious -- True
Emotional frequency: The translation process is amazing and awe-inspiring -- True

If you were to substitute correct facts into the image, the people who already know those facts (and still believe) will continue to get the metaphorical and emotional messages. The people who were mislead about the facts will have to decide whether they still believe the story, in light of the new facts. If they don't, then the metaphorical and emotional messages just increase the magnitude of the literal lie.

I think the truth is offensive not only to those that trusted the Church, but to many more civil, moral people never duped by the Church but who find JSJr's conduct to be abhorrent.

That may be true, but I think most people who aren't personally invested in the issue don't care about what Joseph Smith lied about in the nineteenth century, except as an entertaining story. The Church's current teachings about it (Golden Plates on table) are already implausible, and the literal truth about it (face in hat) is laughable.

-JV

[_Runtu]

"And when I am far on the road to conviction, and eight men, be they grammatical or otherwise, come forward and tell me that they have seen the plates too; and not only seen those plates but 'hefted' them, I am convinced. I could not feel more satisfied and at rest if the entire Whitmer family had testified." --Mark Twain

[_stemelbow]

you mean DCP who many here have labeled as never admitting to being wrong, admitted to being wrong about something? My goodness. What a terrible show this turned out to be. I'm thinking there were grasses, rocks, dirt and leaves around too. The message here seems to be "stop painting pictures depicting mundane items when no one references them in the historical record, lest someone enjoys the picture so much they tend to think of that picture when they read or reference the story". The caution DCP offers is well received.

[_Kishkumen]

you mean DCP who many here have labeled as never admitting to being wrong, admitted to being wrong about something? My goodness. What a terrible show this turned out to be. I'm thinking there were grasses, rocks, dirt and leaves around too. The message here seems to be "stop painting pictures depicting mundane items when no one references them in the historical record, lest someone enjoys the picture so much they tend to think of that picture when they read or reference the story". The caution DCP offers is well received.

Whose message, stem?

I think JV's message is "don't be surprised when a combination of bad history and misleading art leads people to be disenchanted when they discover both were inaccurate and the LDS Church could have done something about it."

Come on, man, you're smart enough to catch that much, no?