Apologists and Church Art
Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 6:51 am
Recently, I received a link from a fellow forum member to this page of FAIR wiki:
http://en.fairmormon.org/Church_art_and ... te_parson1
It's an apologetic piece countering undocummented claims that the church art which appears in its publications hides the truth. Well, given the socialist realistic tendencies of Mormonism, something along those lines is guaranteed to be true. But lets explore the apologist's shadow boxing on the matter.
The example they give is a painting of Joseph and Oliver sitting at the table translating by light of a lamp. The writer claims critics charge the painting misrepresents the translation process. Well, it looks to me like the critics would be right to charge that. In response, the author claims there is no conspiricy, because he can cite a few Mormon articles where the "rock in the hat" process is detailed.
But that doesn't take away away from the instances of all the false accounts, it doesn't, um, make the false accounts any more true. Do the manuals which print pictures like the one shown on F-Wiki talk about the rock in a hat?
Then the author tries for solipsism by citing R. J. Mathews on how difficult putting together filmstrips was because something always gets left out. If one little thing is left out, toss the whole project in the air--- since it can't ever be perfect, there should be no accountability whatsoever. He delights in the possibility of the truth, though,
Yes! And in the two hundred and some odd years of recounting the tale of the plates and drawing pictures dipicting it, couldn't the ever honest church just request one of its eager-to-serve artists to paint it right? Paint a picture of Smith with his head burried in a hat, and light coming out of the cracks emmanating from the magic rock inside?
So when the author says,
he's hung himself because he's the one who relayed the call for artists to paint it how it really happened!
The middle portion of this article is your typical "The Bible is just as wrong as the Book of Mormon" apologetics. He cites instances of religious art that is not accurate. Well, many critics aren't going to be too phased by this since they have no problem declaring other religions scams too.
But this is what's so funny, the picture he selected is about as close to a photograph as a painting can get! It's laughable to compare the other examples of religious art he links, to his LDS example. The painting he chose leaves little room for artistic license. In fact, as it was so for socialist realism, it's a matter of point to constrain the interpretation.
http://en.fairmormon.org/Church_art_and ... te_parson1
It's an apologetic piece countering undocummented claims that the church art which appears in its publications hides the truth. Well, given the socialist realistic tendencies of Mormonism, something along those lines is guaranteed to be true. But lets explore the apologist's shadow boxing on the matter.
The example they give is a painting of Joseph and Oliver sitting at the table translating by light of a lamp. The writer claims critics charge the painting misrepresents the translation process. Well, it looks to me like the critics would be right to charge that. In response, the author claims there is no conspiricy, because he can cite a few Mormon articles where the "rock in the hat" process is detailed.
But that doesn't take away away from the instances of all the false accounts, it doesn't, um, make the false accounts any more true. Do the manuals which print pictures like the one shown on F-Wiki talk about the rock in a hat?
Then the author tries for solipsism by citing R. J. Mathews on how difficult putting together filmstrips was because something always gets left out. If one little thing is left out, toss the whole project in the air--- since it can't ever be perfect, there should be no accountability whatsoever. He delights in the possibility of the truth, though,
It would be a marvelous help if there were artists who could illustrate things that researchers and archaeologists had discovered
Yes! And in the two hundred and some odd years of recounting the tale of the plates and drawing pictures dipicting it, couldn't the ever honest church just request one of its eager-to-serve artists to paint it right? Paint a picture of Smith with his head burried in a hat, and light coming out of the cracks emmanating from the magic rock inside?
So when the author says,
No, what the critics want is to make the translation alienating. They want it to seem bizarre, even eerie
he's hung himself because he's the one who relayed the call for artists to paint it how it really happened!
The middle portion of this article is your typical "The Bible is just as wrong as the Book of Mormon" apologetics. He cites instances of religious art that is not accurate. Well, many critics aren't going to be too phased by this since they have no problem declaring other religions scams too.
Modern audiences—especially those looking to find fault—have, in a sense, been spoiled by photography. We are accustomed to having images describe how things "really" were. We would be outraged if someone doctored a photo to change its content. This largely unconscious tendency may lead us to expect too much of artists,
But this is what's so funny, the picture he selected is about as close to a photograph as a painting can get! It's laughable to compare the other examples of religious art he links, to his LDS example. The painting he chose leaves little room for artistic license. In fact, as it was so for socialist realism, it's a matter of point to constrain the interpretation.
