FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Difference between revisions of "Criticism of Mormonism/Books/An Insider's View of Mormon Origins/Chapter 1"
(→2-3) |
(→6) |
||
| Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
====6==== | ====6==== | ||
| − | {{ | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
|claim= | |claim= | ||
| − | + | It is claimed that Oliver attempted to translate using a divining rod. | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
|authorsources= | |authorsources= | ||
| − | + | {{s||DC|8|6-8}}; Book of Commandments 7:3. | |
}} | }} | ||
| + | {{:Source:Revelations in Context on history.lds.org:Oliver Cowdery's Gift:Cowdery was among those who believed in and used a divining rod}} | ||
| + | {{:Question: What if the "rod of nature" was indeed a physical object such as a divining rod?}} | ||
| + | {{:Source:Oaks:Recent Events Involving Church History and Forged Documents:Ensign:October 1987:tools as the Urim and Thummim, the Liahona, seerstones, and other articles have been used appropriately}} | ||
| + | {{:Source:Gospel Topics:Book of Mormon Translation:the Bible mentions other physical instruments used to access God’s power: the rod of Aaron, a brass serpent, holy anointing oils, the Ark of the Covenant, and even dirt from the ground mixed with saliva}} | ||
| + | |||
====6==== | ====6==== | ||
{{IndexClaim | {{IndexClaim | ||
Revision as of 12:37, 1 November 2014
- REDIRECTTemplate:Test3
Response to claims made in "Chapter 1: Joseph Smith as Translator/Revelator"
| A FAIR Analysis of: An Insider's View of Mormon Origins A work by author: Grant Palmer
|
Claims made in "Chapter 2: Authorship of the Book of Mormon" |
[W]hen I read the Book of Mormon or Pearl of Great Price, I harbor the suspicion that they represent a nineteenth-century encounter with God rather than an ancient epic.
—An Insider's View of Mormon Origins, p. 36.
1
Claim
- Joseph claimed to translate the Kinderhook plates.
Author's source(s) - No source provided
1
The author(s) make(s) the following claim:
Illustrations show Joseph Smith translating the plates directly.Author's sources: *Ensign, Dec. 1983, inside cover, 25; Jan. 1988, 4, 9; Nov. 1988, 35, 46; July 1993, 62; Jan. 1997, 38; Aug. 1997, 11; July 1999, 41.
FAIR's Response
Question: Why are people concerned about Church artwork?
As the critics point out, there are potential historical errors in some of these images
One of the strangest attacks on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is an assault on the Church's art. Now and again, one hears criticism about the representational images which the Church uses in lesson manuals and magazines to illustrate some of the foundational events of Church history.[1]
A common complaint is that Church materials usually show Joseph translating the Book of Mormon by looking at the golden plates, such as in the photo shown here.
Artist's rendition of Joseph and Oliver translating the Book of Mormon.[2]
Here critics charge a clear case of duplicity—Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith are shown translating the Book of Mormon.
But as the critics point out, there are potential historical errors in this image:
- Oliver Cowdery did not see the plates as Joseph worked with them.
- For much of the translation of the extant Book of Mormon text, Joseph did not have the plates in front of him—they were often hidden outside the home during the translation.
- Joseph used a seer stone to translate the plates; he usually did this by placing the stone in his hat to exclude light, and dictating to his scribe.
The reality is that the translation process, for the most part, is represented by this image:
Joseph Smith prepares to translate using the seer stone placed within his hat while Oliver Cowdery acts as scribe. Image Copyright (c) 2014 Anthony Sweat. This image appears in the Church publication From Darkness Unto Light: Joseph Smith's Translation and Publication of the Book of Mormon, by Michael Hubbard Mackay and Gerrit J. Dirkmaat. (11 May 2015)
Anthony Sweat explains more about the history of artistic depictions of the Book of Mormon translation in this presentation given at the 2020 FAIR Conference
Question: Does Church art always reflect reality?
All art, including Church art, simply reflects the views of the artist: It may not reflect reality
It is claimed by some that the Church knowingly "lies" or distorts the historical record in its artwork in order to whitewash the past, or for propaganda purposes. [3] For example, some Church sanctioned artwork shows Joseph and Oliver sitting at a table while translating with the plate in the open between them. Daniel C. Peterson provides some examples of how Church art often does not reflect reality, and how this is not evidence of deliberate lying or distortion on the part of the Church:
Look at this famous picture....Now that’s Samuel the Lamanite on a Nephite wall. Are any walls like that described in the Book of Mormon? No. You have these simple things, and they’re considered quite a technical innovation at the time of Moroni, where he digs a trench, piles the mud up, puts a palisade of logs along the top. That’s it. They’re pretty low tech. There’s nothing like this. This is Cuzco or something. But this is hundreds of years after the Book of Mormon and probably nowhere near the Book of Mormon area, and, you know, and you’ve heard me say it before, after Samuel jumps off this Nephite wall you never hear about him again. The obvious reason is....he’s dead. He couldn’t survive that jump. But again, do you draw your understanding of the Book of Mormon from that image? Or, do you draw it from what the book actually says?[4]
Question: Is the Church trying to hide something through its use of artwork?
The manner of the translation is described repeatedly in Church publications, despite the inaccurate artwork
The implication is that the Church's artistic department and/or artists are merely tools in a propaganda campaign meant to subtly and quietly obscure Church history. The suggestion is that the Church trying to "hide" how Joseph really translated the plates.
On the contrary, the manner of the translation is described repeatedly, for example, in the Church's official magazine for English-speaking adults, the Ensign. Richard Lloyd Anderson discussed the "stone in the hat" matter in 1977,[5] and Elder Russell M. Nelson quoted David Whitmer's account to new mission presidents in 1992.[6]
The details of the translation are not certain, and the witnesses do not all agree in every particular. However, Joseph's seer stone in the hat was also discussed by, among others: B.H. Roberts in his New Witnesses for God (1895)[7] and returns somewhat to the matter in Comprehensive History of the Church (1912).[8] Other Church sources to discuss this include The Improvement Era (1939),[9] BYU Studies (1984, 1990)[10] the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies (1993),[11] and the FARMS Review (1994).[12] LDS authors Joseph Fielding McConkie and Craig J. Ostler also mentioned the matter in 2000.[13]
Neal A. Maxwell: "To neglect substance while focusing on process is another form of unsubmissively looking beyond the mark"
Elder Neal A. Maxwell went so far as to use Joseph's hat as a parable; this is hardly the act of someone trying to "hide the truth":
Jacob censured the "stiffnecked" Jews for "looking beyond the mark" (Jacob 4꞉14). We are looking beyond the mark today, for example, if we are more interested in the physical dimensions of the cross than in what Jesus achieved thereon; or when we neglect Alma's words on faith because we are too fascinated by the light-shielding hat reportedly used by Joseph Smith during some of the translating of the Book of Mormon. To neglect substance while focusing on process is another form of unsubmissively looking beyond the mark.[14]
Those who criticize the Church based on its artwork should perhaps take Elder Maxwell's caution to heart.
Artists have been approached by the Church in the past to paint a more accurate scene, yet denied the request for artistic vision.
From Anthony Sweat’s essay “The Gift and Power of Art”:
When I asked Walter Rane about creating an image of the translation with Joseph looking into a hat, he surprised me by telling me that the Church had actually talked to him a few times in the past about producing an image like that but that the projects fell by the wayside as other matters became more pressing. Note how Walter refers to the language of art as to why he never created the image:At least twice I have been approached by the Church to do that scene [Joseph translating using the hat]. I get into it. When I do the draw- ings I think, “This is going to look really strange to people.” Culturally from our vantage point 200 years later it just looks odd. It probably won’t communicate what the Church wants to communicate. Instead of a person being inspired to translate ancient records it will just be, “What’s going on there?” It will divert people’s attention. In both of those cases I remember being interested and intrigued when the commission was changed (often they [the Church] will just throw out ideas that disappear, not deliberately) but I thought just maybe I should still do it [the image of Joseph translating using the hat]. But some things just don’t work visually. It’s true of a lot of stories in the scriptures. That’s why we see some of the same things being done over and over and not others; some just don’t work visually.[15]
Anthony Sweat explains more about the history of artistic depictions of the Book of Mormon translation in this presentation given at the 2020 FAIR Conference
Question: Why doesn't the art match details which have been repeatedly spelled out in Church publications?
The simplest answer is that artists simply don't always get such matters right
Why, then, does the art not match details which have been repeatedly spelled out in LDS publications?
The simplest answer may be that artists simply don't always get such matters right. The critics' caricature to the contrary, not every aspect of such things is "correlated." Robert J. Matthews of BYU was interviewed by the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, and described the difficulties in getting art "right":
JBMS: Do you think there are things that artists could do in portraying the Book of Mormon?
RJM: Possibly. To me it would be particularly helpful if they could illustrate what scholars have done. When I was on the Correlation Committee [of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints], there were groups producing scripture films. They would send to us for approval the text of the words that were to be spoken. We would read the text and decide whether we liked it or not. They would never send us the artwork for clearance. But when you see the artwork, that makes all the difference in the world. It was always too late then. I decided at that point that it is so difficult to create a motion picture, or any illustration, and not convey more than should be conveyed. If you paint a man or woman, they have to have clothes on. And the minute you paint that clothing, you have said something either right or wrong. It would be a marvelous help if there were artists who could illustrate things that researchers and archaeologists had discovered…
I think people get the main thrust. But sometimes there are things that shouldn't be in pictures because we don't know how to accurately depict them…I think that unwittingly we might make mistakes if we illustrate children's materials based only on the text of the Book of Mormon.[16]
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, whose gifts and talents may lie in areas unrelated to textual criticism and the fine details of Church history.
Even this does not tell the whole story. "Every artist," said Henry Ward Beecher, "dips his brush in his own soul, and paints his own nature into his pictures."[17] This is perhaps nowhere more true than in religious art, where the goal is not so much to convey facts or historical detail, as it is to convey a religious message and sentiment. A picture often is worth a thousand words, and artists often seek to have their audience identify personally with the subject. The goal of religious art is not to alienate the viewer, but to draw him or her in.
Question: How do non-Mormon artists treat the Nativity?
A look at how other religious artists portray the birth of Christ
The critics would benefit from even a cursory tour through religious art. Let us consider, for example, one of the most well-known stories in Christendom: the Nativity of Christ. How have religious artists portrayed this scene?
 |
A personal favorite of mine is Belgian painter Pierre Bruegel the Elder. In his Census of Bethlehem (1569, shown at left) he turns Bethlehem into a Renaissance Belgian village. The snow is the first tip-off that all is not historically accurate. But the skaters on the pond, the clothing, and the houses are also all wrong. However, it's unlikely that anyone would suggest Bruegel's tribute was an attempt to perpetuate a fraud. | |
| An Italian work from the thirteenth century gives us The Nativity with Six Dominican Monks (1275, shown at right). There were surely no monks at the Nativity, and the Dominican order was not formed until the early thirteenth century. But any serious claim that this work is merely an attempt to "back date" the order's creation, giving them more prestige would certainly be dismissed by historians, Biblical scholars, and the artistic community. |  |
|
 |
Renaissance Italian MadonnaEven details of no religious consequence are fair game for artists to get "wrong." Giovanni Bellini's portrait of Mary might seem innocuous enough, until one spots the European castle on the portrait's right, and the thriving Renaissance town on the left. |
|
Non-European culturesOther cultures follow the same pattern. Korean and Indian artists portray the birth in Bethlehem in their own culture and dress. Certainly, no one would suspect that the artists (as with Bruegel the Elder) hope we will be tricked into believing that Jesus' birth took place in a snow-drenched Korean countryside, while shepherds in Indian costume greeted a sari-wearing Mary with no need for a stable at all under the warm Indian sky? |
 |
|
 |
African exampleFor a final example, consider an African rendition of the Nativity, which shows the figures in traditional African forms. If we were to turn the same critical eye on this work that has been turned on LDS art, we might be outraged and troubled by what we see here. But when we set aside that hyper-literal eye, the artistic license becomes acceptable. Clearly, there's a double standard at work when it comes to LDS art. |
|
As the director of Catholic schools in Yaounde, Cameroon argues:
It is urgent and necessary for us to proclaim and to express the message, the life and the whole person of Jesus-Christ in an African artistic language…Many people of different cultures have done it before us and will do it in the future, without betraying the historical Christ, from whom all authentic Christianity arises. We must not restrict ourselves to the historical and cultural forms of a particular people or period.[18]
The goal of religious art is primarily to convey a message. It uses the historical reality of religious events as a means, not an end.
Religious art—in all traditions—is intended, above all, to draw the worshipper into a separate world, where mundane things and events become charged with eternal import. Some dictated words or a baby in a stable become more real, more vital when they are connected recognizably to one's own world, time, and place.
This cannot happen, however, if the image's novelty provides too much of a challenge to the viewer's culture or expectations. Thus, the presentation of a more accurate view of the translation using either the Nephite interpreters (sometimes referred to as "spectacles") or the stone and the hat, automatically raises feelings among people in 21st Century culture that the translation process was strange. This type of activity is viewed with much less approval in our modern culture.
Key sources |
|
Wiki links |
|
FAIR links |
|
Navigators |
Notes
- ↑ Note: Most of the images used in this paper are centuries old, and so are in the public domain. I have tried to indicate the creator each of these works of art. No challenge to copyright is intended by their inclusion here for scholarly purposes and illustration. Click each photo for title and author information.
- ↑ Del Parson, "Translating the Book of Mormon," © Intellectual Reserve, 1997. off-site
- ↑ Accusations of the Church lying because of inaccurate artwork are offered by the following critical sources: Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, Mormonism 101. Examining the Religion of the Latter-day Saints (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2000), Chapter 8. ( Index of claims ); MormonThink.com website (as of 8 May 2012). Page: http://mormonthink.com/moroniweb.htm; MormonThink.com website (as of 28 April 2012). Page: http://mormonthink.com/transbomweb.htm; Grant H. Palmer, An Insider's View of Mormon Origins (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002) 1. ( Index of claims )
- ↑ Daniel C. Peterson, "Some Reflections on That Letter to a CES Director," FairMormon Conference 2014
- ↑ Richard Lloyd Anderson, "By the Gift and Power of God," Ensign 7 (September 1977): 83.
- ↑ Russell M. Nelson, "A Treasured Testament," Ensign 23 (July 1993): 61.
- ↑ Brigham H. Roberts, "NAME," in New Witnesses for God, 3 Vols., (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1909[1895, 1903]), 1:131–136.
- ↑ Brigham H. Roberts, Comprehensive History of the Church (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1965), 1:130–131. GospeLink
- ↑ Francis W. Kirkham, "The Manner of Translating The BOOK of MORMON," Improvement Era (1939), ?.
- ↑ Dean C. Jessee, "New Documents and Mormon Beginnings," BYU Studies 24 no. 4 (Fall 1984): 397–428.; Royal Skousen, "Towards a Critical Edition of the Book of Mormon," BYU Studies 30 no. 1 (Winter 1990): 51–52.;
- ↑ Stephen D. Ricks, "Translation of the Book of Mormon: Interpreting the Evidence," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 2/2 (1993). [201–206] link
- ↑ Matthew Roper, "A Black Hole That's Not So Black (Review of Answering Mormon Scholars: A Response to Criticism of the Book, vol. 1 by Jerald and Sandra Tanner)," FARMS Review of Books 6/2 (1994): 156–203. off-site
- ↑ Joseph Fielding McConkie and Craig J. Ostler, Revelations of the Restoration (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 2000), commentary on D&C 9.
- ↑ Neal A. Maxwell, Not My Will, But Thine (Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1988), 26.
- ↑ Anthony Sweat, “The Gift and Power of Art," in From Darkness Unto Light: Joseph Smith's Translation and Publication of the Book of Mormon, eds. Michael Hubbard MacKay and Gerrit J. Dirkmaat (Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2015), 236–37.
- ↑ Anonymous, "A Conversation with Robert J. Matthews," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12/2 (2003). [88–92] link
- ↑ Henry Ward Beecher, Proverbs from Plymouth Pulpit, 1887.
- ↑ P. Pondy, "Why an African Christ?" jesusmafa.com. off-site
Question: Why are people concerned about Church artwork?
As the critics point out, there are potential historical errors in some of these images
One of the strangest attacks on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is an assault on the Church's art. Now and again, one hears criticism about the representational images which the Church uses in lesson manuals and magazines to illustrate some of the foundational events of Church history.[1]
A common complaint is that Church materials usually show Joseph translating the Book of Mormon by looking at the golden plates, such as in the photo shown here.
Artist's rendition of Joseph and Oliver translating the Book of Mormon.[2]
Here critics charge a clear case of duplicity—Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith are shown translating the Book of Mormon.
But as the critics point out, there are potential historical errors in this image:
- Oliver Cowdery did not see the plates as Joseph worked with them.
- For much of the translation of the extant Book of Mormon text, Joseph did not have the plates in front of him—they were often hidden outside the home during the translation.
- Joseph used a seer stone to translate the plates; he usually did this by placing the stone in his hat to exclude light, and dictating to his scribe.
The reality is that the translation process, for the most part, is represented by this image:
Joseph Smith prepares to translate using the seer stone placed within his hat while Oliver Cowdery acts as scribe. Image Copyright (c) 2014 Anthony Sweat. This image appears in the Church publication From Darkness Unto Light: Joseph Smith's Translation and Publication of the Book of Mormon, by Michael Hubbard Mackay and Gerrit J. Dirkmaat. (11 May 2015)
Anthony Sweat explains more about the history of artistic depictions of the Book of Mormon translation in this presentation given at the 2020 FAIR Conference
Question: Does Church art always reflect reality?
All art, including Church art, simply reflects the views of the artist: It may not reflect reality
It is claimed by some that the Church knowingly "lies" or distorts the historical record in its artwork in order to whitewash the past, or for propaganda purposes. [3] For example, some Church sanctioned artwork shows Joseph and Oliver sitting at a table while translating with the plate in the open between them. Daniel C. Peterson provides some examples of how Church art often does not reflect reality, and how this is not evidence of deliberate lying or distortion on the part of the Church:
Look at this famous picture....Now that’s Samuel the Lamanite on a Nephite wall. Are any walls like that described in the Book of Mormon? No. You have these simple things, and they’re considered quite a technical innovation at the time of Moroni, where he digs a trench, piles the mud up, puts a palisade of logs along the top. That’s it. They’re pretty low tech. There’s nothing like this. This is Cuzco or something. But this is hundreds of years after the Book of Mormon and probably nowhere near the Book of Mormon area, and, you know, and you’ve heard me say it before, after Samuel jumps off this Nephite wall you never hear about him again. The obvious reason is....he’s dead. He couldn’t survive that jump. But again, do you draw your understanding of the Book of Mormon from that image? Or, do you draw it from what the book actually says?[4]
Question: Is the Church trying to hide something through its use of artwork?
The manner of the translation is described repeatedly in Church publications, despite the inaccurate artwork
The implication is that the Church's artistic department and/or artists are merely tools in a propaganda campaign meant to subtly and quietly obscure Church history. The suggestion is that the Church trying to "hide" how Joseph really translated the plates.
On the contrary, the manner of the translation is described repeatedly, for example, in the Church's official magazine for English-speaking adults, the Ensign. Richard Lloyd Anderson discussed the "stone in the hat" matter in 1977,[5] and Elder Russell M. Nelson quoted David Whitmer's account to new mission presidents in 1992.[6]
The details of the translation are not certain, and the witnesses do not all agree in every particular. However, Joseph's seer stone in the hat was also discussed by, among others: B.H. Roberts in his New Witnesses for God (1895)[7] and returns somewhat to the matter in Comprehensive History of the Church (1912).[8] Other Church sources to discuss this include The Improvement Era (1939),[9] BYU Studies (1984, 1990)[10] the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies (1993),[11] and the FARMS Review (1994).[12] LDS authors Joseph Fielding McConkie and Craig J. Ostler also mentioned the matter in 2000.[13]
Neal A. Maxwell: "To neglect substance while focusing on process is another form of unsubmissively looking beyond the mark"
Elder Neal A. Maxwell went so far as to use Joseph's hat as a parable; this is hardly the act of someone trying to "hide the truth":
Jacob censured the "stiffnecked" Jews for "looking beyond the mark" (Jacob 4꞉14). We are looking beyond the mark today, for example, if we are more interested in the physical dimensions of the cross than in what Jesus achieved thereon; or when we neglect Alma's words on faith because we are too fascinated by the light-shielding hat reportedly used by Joseph Smith during some of the translating of the Book of Mormon. To neglect substance while focusing on process is another form of unsubmissively looking beyond the mark.[14]
Those who criticize the Church based on its artwork should perhaps take Elder Maxwell's caution to heart.
Artists have been approached by the Church in the past to paint a more accurate scene, yet denied the request for artistic vision.
From Anthony Sweat’s essay “The Gift and Power of Art”:
When I asked Walter Rane about creating an image of the translation with Joseph looking into a hat, he surprised me by telling me that the Church had actually talked to him a few times in the past about producing an image like that but that the projects fell by the wayside as other matters became more pressing. Note how Walter refers to the language of art as to why he never created the image:At least twice I have been approached by the Church to do that scene [Joseph translating using the hat]. I get into it. When I do the draw- ings I think, “This is going to look really strange to people.” Culturally from our vantage point 200 years later it just looks odd. It probably won’t communicate what the Church wants to communicate. Instead of a person being inspired to translate ancient records it will just be, “What’s going on there?” It will divert people’s attention. In both of those cases I remember being interested and intrigued when the commission was changed (often they [the Church] will just throw out ideas that disappear, not deliberately) but I thought just maybe I should still do it [the image of Joseph translating using the hat]. But some things just don’t work visually. It’s true of a lot of stories in the scriptures. That’s why we see some of the same things being done over and over and not others; some just don’t work visually.[15]
Anthony Sweat explains more about the history of artistic depictions of the Book of Mormon translation in this presentation given at the 2020 FAIR Conference
Question: Why doesn't the art match details which have been repeatedly spelled out in Church publications?
The simplest answer is that artists simply don't always get such matters right
Why, then, does the art not match details which have been repeatedly spelled out in LDS publications?
The simplest answer may be that artists simply don't always get such matters right. The critics' caricature to the contrary, not every aspect of such things is "correlated." Robert J. Matthews of BYU was interviewed by the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, and described the difficulties in getting art "right":
JBMS: Do you think there are things that artists could do in portraying the Book of Mormon?
RJM: Possibly. To me it would be particularly helpful if they could illustrate what scholars have done. When I was on the Correlation Committee [of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints], there were groups producing scripture films. They would send to us for approval the text of the words that were to be spoken. We would read the text and decide whether we liked it or not. They would never send us the artwork for clearance. But when you see the artwork, that makes all the difference in the world. It was always too late then. I decided at that point that it is so difficult to create a motion picture, or any illustration, and not convey more than should be conveyed. If you paint a man or woman, they have to have clothes on. And the minute you paint that clothing, you have said something either right or wrong. It would be a marvelous help if there were artists who could illustrate things that researchers and archaeologists had discovered…
I think people get the main thrust. But sometimes there are things that shouldn't be in pictures because we don't know how to accurately depict them…I think that unwittingly we might make mistakes if we illustrate children's materials based only on the text of the Book of Mormon.[16]
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, whose gifts and talents may lie in areas unrelated to textual criticism and the fine details of Church history.
Even this does not tell the whole story. "Every artist," said Henry Ward Beecher, "dips his brush in his own soul, and paints his own nature into his pictures."[17] This is perhaps nowhere more true than in religious art, where the goal is not so much to convey facts or historical detail, as it is to convey a religious message and sentiment. A picture often is worth a thousand words, and artists often seek to have their audience identify personally with the subject. The goal of religious art is not to alienate the viewer, but to draw him or her in.
Question: How do non-Mormon artists treat the Nativity?
A look at how other religious artists portray the birth of Christ
The critics would benefit from even a cursory tour through religious art. Let us consider, for example, one of the most well-known stories in Christendom: the Nativity of Christ. How have religious artists portrayed this scene?
|
A personal favorite of mine is Belgian painter Pierre Bruegel the Elder. In his Census of Bethlehem (1569, shown at left) he turns Bethlehem into a Renaissance Belgian village. The snow is the first tip-off that all is not historically accurate. But the skaters on the pond, the clothing, and the houses are also all wrong. However, it's unlikely that anyone would suggest Bruegel's tribute was an attempt to perpetuate a fraud. | |
| An Italian work from the thirteenth century gives us The Nativity with Six Dominican Monks (1275, shown at right). There were surely no monks at the Nativity, and the Dominican order was not formed until the early thirteenth century. But any serious claim that this work is merely an attempt to "back date" the order's creation, giving them more prestige would certainly be dismissed by historians, Biblical scholars, and the artistic community. | |
|
|
Renaissance Italian MadonnaEven details of no religious consequence are fair game for artists to get "wrong." Giovanni Bellini's portrait of Mary might seem innocuous enough, until one spots the European castle on the portrait's right, and the thriving Renaissance town on the left. |
|
Non-European culturesOther cultures follow the same pattern. Korean and Indian artists portray the birth in Bethlehem in their own culture and dress. Certainly, no one would suspect that the artists (as with Bruegel the Elder) hope we will be tricked into believing that Jesus' birth took place in a snow-drenched Korean countryside, while shepherds in Indian costume greeted a sari-wearing Mary with no need for a stable at all under the warm Indian sky? |
|
|
|
African exampleFor a final example, consider an African rendition of the Nativity, which shows the figures in traditional African forms. If we were to turn the same critical eye on this work that has been turned on LDS art, we might be outraged and troubled by what we see here. But when we set aside that hyper-literal eye, the artistic license becomes acceptable. Clearly, there's a double standard at work when it comes to LDS art. |
|
As the director of Catholic schools in Yaounde, Cameroon argues:
It is urgent and necessary for us to proclaim and to express the message, the life and the whole person of Jesus-Christ in an African artistic language…Many people of different cultures have done it before us and will do it in the future, without betraying the historical Christ, from whom all authentic Christianity arises. We must not restrict ourselves to the historical and cultural forms of a particular people or period.[18]
The goal of religious art is primarily to convey a message. It uses the historical reality of religious events as a means, not an end.
Religious art—in all traditions—is intended, above all, to draw the worshipper into a separate world, where mundane things and events become charged with eternal import. Some dictated words or a baby in a stable become more real, more vital when they are connected recognizably to one's own world, time, and place.
This cannot happen, however, if the image's novelty provides too much of a challenge to the viewer's culture or expectations. Thus, the presentation of a more accurate view of the translation using either the Nephite interpreters (sometimes referred to as "spectacles") or the stone and the hat, automatically raises feelings among people in 21st Century culture that the translation process was strange. This type of activity is viewed with much less approval in our modern culture.
Key sources |
|
Wiki links |
|
FAIR links |
|
Navigators |
Notes
- ↑ Note: Most of the images used in this paper are centuries old, and so are in the public domain. I have tried to indicate the creator each of these works of art. No challenge to copyright is intended by their inclusion here for scholarly purposes and illustration. Click each photo for title and author information.
- ↑ Del Parson, "Translating the Book of Mormon," © Intellectual Reserve, 1997. off-site
- ↑ Accusations of the Church lying because of inaccurate artwork are offered by the following critical sources: Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, Mormonism 101. Examining the Religion of the Latter-day Saints (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2000), Chapter 8. ( Index of claims ); MormonThink.com website (as of 8 May 2012). Page: http://mormonthink.com/moroniweb.htm; MormonThink.com website (as of 28 April 2012). Page: http://mormonthink.com/transbomweb.htm; Grant H. Palmer, An Insider's View of Mormon Origins (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002) 1. ( Index of claims )
- ↑ Daniel C. Peterson, "Some Reflections on That Letter to a CES Director," FairMormon Conference 2014
- ↑ Richard Lloyd Anderson, "By the Gift and Power of God," Ensign 7 (September 1977): 83.
- ↑ Russell M. Nelson, "A Treasured Testament," Ensign 23 (July 1993): 61.
- ↑ Brigham H. Roberts, "NAME," in New Witnesses for God, 3 Vols., (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1909[1895, 1903]), 1:131–136.
- ↑ Brigham H. Roberts, Comprehensive History of the Church (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1965), 1:130–131. GospeLink
- ↑ Francis W. Kirkham, "The Manner of Translating The BOOK of MORMON," Improvement Era (1939), ?.
- ↑ Dean C. Jessee, "New Documents and Mormon Beginnings," BYU Studies 24 no. 4 (Fall 1984): 397–428.; Royal Skousen, "Towards a Critical Edition of the Book of Mormon," BYU Studies 30 no. 1 (Winter 1990): 51–52.;
- ↑ Stephen D. Ricks, "Translation of the Book of Mormon: Interpreting the Evidence," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 2/2 (1993). [201–206] link
- ↑ Matthew Roper, "A Black Hole That's Not So Black (Review of Answering Mormon Scholars: A Response to Criticism of the Book, vol. 1 by Jerald and Sandra Tanner)," FARMS Review of Books 6/2 (1994): 156–203. off-site
- ↑ Joseph Fielding McConkie and Craig J. Ostler, Revelations of the Restoration (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 2000), commentary on D&C 9.
- ↑ Neal A. Maxwell, Not My Will, But Thine (Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1988), 26.
- ↑ Anthony Sweat, “The Gift and Power of Art," in From Darkness Unto Light: Joseph Smith's Translation and Publication of the Book of Mormon, eds. Michael Hubbard MacKay and Gerrit J. Dirkmaat (Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2015), 236–37.
- ↑ Anonymous, "A Conversation with Robert J. Matthews," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12/2 (2003). [88–92] link
- ↑ Henry Ward Beecher, Proverbs from Plymouth Pulpit, 1887.
- ↑ P. Pondy, "Why an African Christ?" jesusmafa.com. off-site
2
Claim
- Joseph Smith used a seer stone that he placed in his hat.
Author's source(s) - Van Wagoner and Walker, "Joseph Smith: 'The Gift of Seeing,'" Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 15 (Summer 1982): 50-53.
2-3
The author(s) make(s) the following claim:
The plates were often not nearby while Joseph translated them.Author's sources:
- Joseph Smith III, "Last Testimony of Sister Emma," Saints' Herald, 1 Oct. 1879, 290; Howe, "Affidavit of Isaac Hale", Mormonism Unvailed, 265;
- Martin Harris, interview by John A. Clark, 1828, in The Episcopal Recorder (Philadelphia), 5 Sept. 1840, 94; quoted in Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, 2:266;
- Joseph Smith Sr., interview by Fayette Lapham quoted in Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, 1:464.
FAIR's Response
Question: Why were the gold plates needed at all if they weren't used directly during the translation process?
Book of Mormon Central, KnoWhy #366: Why Were the Plates Present During the Translation of the Book of Mormon? (Video)
Joseph did not need the plates physically present to translate, since the translation was done by revelation
Much is made of the fact that Joseph used a seer stone, which he placed in a hat, to dictate the text of the Book of Mormon without viewing the plates directly. [1]
Joseph Smith translates using the seer stone placed within his hat while the plates are wrapped in a cloth on the table while his wife Emma acts as scribe. Image Copyright (c) 2014 Anthony Sweat. This image appears in the Church publication From Darkness Unto Light: Joseph Smith's Translation and Publication of the Book of Mormon, by Michael Hubbard Mackay and Gerrit J. Dirkmaat, Religious Studies Center, BYU, Deseret Book Company (May 11, 2015)
Some witness accounts suggest that Joseph was able to translate while the plates were covered, or when they were not even in the same room with him. [2] Therefore, if the plates themselves were not being used during the translation process, why was it necessary to have plates at all?
Joseph did not need the plates physically present to translate, since the translation was done by revelation. The existence of the plates was vital, however, to demonstrate that the story he was translating was literally true.
The existence of the physical plates attested to the reality of the Nephite record
If there had been no plates, and Joseph had simply received the entire Book of Mormon through revelation, there would have been no Anthon visit, nor would there have been any witnesses. The very fact that plates existed served a greater purpose, even if they were not directly viewed during all of the translation process.
The plates served a variety of purposes.
- They were viewed by witnesses as solid evidence that Joseph did indeed have an ancient record.
- Joseph's efforts to obtain them over a four year period taught him and matured him in preparation for performing the translation,
- Joseph's efforts to protect and preserve them helped build his character. If Joseph were perpetrating a fraud, it would have been much simpler to claim direct revelation from God and forgo the physical plates.
- Joseph copied characters off the plates to give to Martin Harris, which he subsequently showed to Charles Anthon. This was enough to convince Martin to assist with the production of the Book of Mormon.
The plates' existence as material artifacts eliminated the possibility that Joseph was simply honestly mistaken. Either Joseph was knowingly perpetuating a fraud, or he was a genuine prophet.
The existence of actual plates eliminates the idea that the Book of Mormon was "spiritually true," but fictional
Furthermore, the existence of actual plates eliminates the idea that the Book of Mormon was "spiritually true," but fictional. There is a great difference between an allegorical or moral fiction about Nephites, and real, literal Nephites who saw a literal Christ who was literally resurrected.
6
The author(s) make(s) the following claim:
It is claimed that Oliver attempted to translate using a divining rod.Author's sources: DC 8꞉6-8; Book of Commandments 7:3.
FAIR's Response
Revelations in Context on history.lds.org: "Cowdery was among those who believed in and used a divining rod"
Revelations in Context on history.lds.org:
Oliver Cowdery lived in a culture steeped in biblical ideas, language and practices. The revelation’s reference to Moses likely resonated with him. The Old Testament account of Moses and his brother Aaron recounted several instances of using rods to manifest God’s will (see Ex. 7:9-12; Num. 17:8). Many Christians in Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery's day similarly believed in divining rods as an instrument for revelation. Cowdery was among those who believed in and used a divining rod.[3]
Question: What if the "rod of nature" was indeed a physical object such as a divining rod?
God allowed Oliver to use the rod as a tool to receive spiritual guidance
If we presume that the Book of Commandments revelation of 1829 did refer to a physical rod, it is useful to consider just what Oliver was told:
Oliver Cowdery's first revelation commanded him to lay aside the world and build the restored kingdom: "Seek not for riches but for wisdom, and behold, the mysteries of God shall be unfolded unto you, and then shall you be made rich. Behold, he that hath eternal life is rich" (D&C 6:7). Whatever prior use Oliver made of his "gift of working with the rod," this revelation directed him to heavenly treasure. Indeed, this first commandment names but one special power: "Thy gift" is "sacred and cometh from above." It is defined as the ability to "inquire" and "know mysteries which are great and marvelous." Thus Oliver is commanded to "exercise thy gift, that thou mayest find out mysteries, that thou mayest bring many to the knowledge of the truth, yea, convince them of the error of their ways." Thus his gift of knowledge of salvation will lead to the "greatest of all gifts," the "gift of salvation" (D&C 6:10-13).
Oliver's initial revelation closes with the command to seek heavenly "treasures" by assisting "in bringing to light, with your gift, those parts of my scriptures which have been hidden because of iniquity" (D&C 6:27). The revelation on the gift of the rod probably followed within a week. It continued the theme of learning ancient truth through translating: "Remember, this is your gift" (D&C 8:5). And it could be exercised by believing "you shall receive a knowledge concerning the engravings of old records" (D&C 8:1). Then a second promise was made:
Now this is not all, for you have another gift, which is the gift of working with the rod. Behold, it has told you things. Behold, there is no other power save God that can cause this rod of nature to work in your hands, for it is the work of God. And therefore whatsoever you shall ask me to tell you by that means, will I grant unto you, that you shall know.But there were strict limits to this promise: "Trifle not with these things. Do not ask for that which you ought not. Ask that you may know the mysteries of God, and that you may translate all those ancient records."
So the "rod of nature" in Cowdery's "hands" would be a means of gaining revelation on doctrine. [4]
Thus, the alteration which describes the "rod" as "the gift of Aaron" clarifies the Lord's intent, and explains how Oliver and Joseph understood the matter. Aaron's rod was an instrument of power, but only insofar as God revealed and commanded its use. Such a perspective is a far cry from the "occult" links which the critics attempt to create:
D&C 8 approves a rod only for sacred information. It also suggests the rod that displayed God's power in the Egyptian plagues, in striking the rock for life-giving water or in calling down strength on Israel's warriors. That rod was a straight shaft, the shepherd's staff possessed by Moses at his call (Ex. 4:2-4). Used by both Moses and Aaron, it was foremost the "rod of God," also Moses' rod, but formally called the "rod of Aaron." It functioned as a visible sign of authority, just as Judah's "scepter" was a sign of divine kingship in Jacob's blessing or Elijah's staff held by the servant who went in his name. Thus the rod of Aaron was a staff of delegated agency, and the 1835 revision to "The gift of Aaron" suggests Oliver's spiritual power to assist Joseph Smith as Aaron assisted Moses. [5]
Dallin H. Oaks (1987): "It should be recognized that such tools as the Urim and Thummim, the Liahona, seerstones, and other articles have been used appropriately in biblical, Book of Mormon, and modern times"
Dallin H. Oaks:
It should be recognized that such tools as the Urim and Thummim, the Liahona, seerstones, and other articles have been used appropriately in biblical, Book of Mormon, and modern times by those who have the gift and authority to obtain revelation from God in connection with their use. At the same time, scriptural accounts and personal experience show that unauthorized though perhaps well-meaning persons have made inappropriate use of tangible objects while seeking or claiming to receive spiritual guidance. Those who define folk magic to include any use of tangible objects to aid in obtaining spiritual guidance confound the real with the counterfeit. They mislead themselves and their readers. [6]
Gospel Topics: "the Bible mentions other physical instruments used to access God’s power: the rod of Aaron, a brass serpent, holy anointing oils, the Ark of the Covenant, and even dirt from the ground mixed with saliva"
Gospel Topics on LDS.org:
Some people have balked at this claim of physical instruments used in the divine translation process, but such aids to facilitate the communication of God’s power and inspiration are consistent with accounts in scripture. In addition to the Urim and Thummim, the Bible mentions other physical instruments used to access God’s power: the rod of Aaron, a brass serpent, holy anointing oils, the Ark of the Covenant, and even dirt from the ground mixed with saliva to heal the eyes of a blind man.[7]
6
Claim
- Oliver would ask questions of his divining rod in faith and it would move.
Author's source(s) - "Barnes Frisbie account" quoted in Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, 1:603-05, 619-20.
7
Claim
- Alterations in a different handwriting on the 116 pages would have been readily apparent.
Author's source(s) - No source provided.
8
Claim
- Joseph was brought to court three times for stone gazing.
Author's source(s) - Marquardt and Walters, Inventing Mormonism: Tradition and the Historical Record, 70-75, 174-78.
9
Claim
- Peter Ingersoll reported that he heard Joseph acknowledge to Isaac Hale that he was never able to see anything in his seer stone.
Author's source(s) - "Affidavit of Peter Ingersoll", Eber D. Howe, Mormonism Unvailed (Painesville, OH, 1834), [ATTENTION!]. (Affidavits examined)
9
Claim
- After he lost the manuscript, Joseph is claimed to have become more vague regarding the method of translation.
Author's source(s) - No source provided.
9
Claim
- Joseph is claimed to have altered the Book of Mormon to modify the description of God and Jesus to be separate beings.
Author's source(s) Response
10
Claim
- It is claimed that scholars have determined that Joseph consulted an open Bible during translation.
Author's source(s) - No source provided.
10
Claim
- The book claims that Joseph copied errors from the King James Bible.
Author's source(s) - No source provided.
11
Claim
- None of Joseph's changes to the Bible have been supported by manuscript finds.
Author's source(s) - No source provided.
11
Claim
- Some of Joseph's changes to the Bible are claimed to contradict LDS beliefs
Author's source(s) - No source provided.
FAIR WIKI EDITORS: Check sources
12
Claim
- Joseph is said to have evolved his concept of the Father and Son.
Author's source(s) - No source provided.
12
Claim
- The hieroglyphics next to facsimile 1 state that Hor is the deceased man lying on the altar.
Author's source(s) 12
Claim
- Joseph is claimed to have used this papyrus as his source for Abraham 1 through 2:18.
Author's source(s) 13
Claim
- Near facsimile 3, Hor's name appears at the top and bottom.
Author's source(s) 17
Claim
- Joseph is claimed to have expanded Abraham's curse to include denial of priesthood ordination to blacks.
Author's source(s) 17
Claim
- Joseph is claimed to have gotten the story for the Book of Abraham from Josephus.
Author's source(s) 19
Claim
- Joseph's interpretations have been shown by Egyptologists as a mis-reading of the papyri.
Author's source(s) 19
Claim
- The book claims that a primary source for much of Abraham is Genesis.
Author's source(s) 21
Claim
- From 1820 to 1834 Joseph is claimed to have believed in one God.
Author's source(s) 21
Claim
- The astronomical concepts in Abraham were common in Joseph Smith's environment
Author's source(s) 22-24
Claim
- Joseph's theology was said to have been influenced by Thomas Dick's Philosophy of a Future State.
Author's source(s) 29
Claim
- It is claimed that it is easy to identify the Book of Joseph from the papyrus fragments.
Author's source(s) 31
Claim
- Kinderhook plates.
Author's source(s) 34-35
Claim
- Joseph is claimed to have translated a Greek psalter.
Author's source(s) 36
Claim
- Joseph is claimed to have mistranslated a number of documents.
Author's source(s) Further reading
| Template code | Inserts this reference | Click to edit |
|---|---|---|
| {{To learn more box:responses to: 8: The Mormon Proposition}} | To learn more box:responses to: 8: The Mormon Proposition | edit |
| {{To learn more box:''Under the Banner of Heaven''}} | To learn more about responses to: Under the Banner of Heaven | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Robert Price}} | To learn more about responses to: Robert Price | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Ankerberg and Weldon}} | To learn more about responses to: Ankerberg and Weldon | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Ashamed of Joseph}} | To learn more about responses to: Ashamed of Joseph | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Beckwith and Moser}} | To learn more about responses to: Beckwith and Moser | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Beckwith and Parrish}} | To learn more about responses to: Beckwith and Parrish | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Benjamin Park}} | To learn more about responses to: Benjamin Park | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Bible versus Joseph Smith}} | To learn more about responses to: Bible versus Joseph Smith | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Bible versus Book of Mormon}} | To learn more about responses to: Bible versus Book of Mormon | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: ''Big Love''}} | To learn more about responses to: Big Love | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Brett Metcalfe}} | To learn more about responses to: Brett Metcalfe | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Bill Maher}} | To learn more about responses to: Bill Maher | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Bruce H. Porter}} | To learn more about responses to: Bruce H. Porter | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Carol Wang Shutter}} | To learn more about responses to: Carol Wang Shutter | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: CES Letter}} | To learn more about responses to: CES Letter | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Charles Larson}} | To learn more about responses to: Charles Larson | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Christopher Nemelka}} | To learn more about responses to: Christopher Nemelka | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Colby Townshed}} | To learn more about responses to: Colby Townshed | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Contender Ministries}} | To learn more about responses to: Contender Ministries | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Crane and Crane}} | To learn more about responses to: Crane and Crane | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: D. Michael Quinn}} | To learn more about responses to: D. Michael Quinn | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Dan Vogel}} | To learn more about responses to: Dan Vogel | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: David John Buerger}} | To learn more about responses to: David John Buerger | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: David Persuitte}} | To learn more about responses to: David Persuitte | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Denver Snuffer}} | To learn more about responses to: Denver Snuffer | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Dick Bauer}} | To learn more about responses to: Dick Bauer | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Duwayne R Anderson}} | To learn more about responses to: Duwayne R Anderson | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Earl Wunderli}} | To learn more about responses to: Earl Wunderli | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Ed Decker}} | To learn more about responses to: Ed Decker | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Erikson and Giesler}} | To learn more about responses to: Erikson and Giesler | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Ernest Taves}} | To learn more about responses to: Ernest Taves | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Fawn Brodie}} | To learn more about responses to: Fawn Brodie | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: George D Smith}} | To learn more about responses to: George D Smith | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Grant Palmer}} | To learn more about responses to: Grant Palmer | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Hank Hanegraaff}} | To learn more about responses to: Hank Hanegraaff | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Hurlbut-Howe}} | To learn more about responses to: Hurlbut-Howe | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: James Brooke}} | To learn more about responses to: James Brooke | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: James Spencer}} | To learn more about responses to: James Spencer | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: James White}} | To learn more about responses to: James White | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Jerald and Sandra Tanner}} | To learn more about responses to: Jerald and Sandra Tanner | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Jesus Christ-Joseph Smith or Search for the Truth DVD}} | To learn more about responses to: Jesus Christ-Joseph Smith or Search for the Truth DVD | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: John Dehlin}} | To learn more about responses to: John Dehlin | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Jonathan Neville}} | To learn more about responses to: Jonathan Neville | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Kurt Van Gorden}} | To learn more about responses to: Kurt Van Gorden | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Laura King Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery}} | To learn more about responses to: Laura King Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Loftes Tryk aka Lofte Payne}} | To learn more about responses to: Loftes Tryk aka Lofte Payne | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Luke WIlson}} | To learn more about responses to: Luke WIlson | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Marquardt and Walters}} | To learn more about responses to: Marquardt and Walters | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Martha Beck}} | To learn more about responses to: Martha Beck | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Mcgregor Ministries}} | To learn more about responses to: Mcgregor Ministries | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: McKeever and Johnson}} | To learn more about responses to: McKeever and Johnson | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: New Approaches}} | To learn more about responses to: New Approaches to the Book of Mormon | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Richard Abanes}} | To learn more about responses to: Richard Abanes | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Richard Van Wagoner}} | To learn more about responses to: Richard Van Wagoner | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Richard and Joan Ostling}} | To learn more about responses to: Richard and Joan Ostling | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Rick Grunger}} | To learn more about responses to: Rick Grunger | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Robert Ritner}} | To learn more about responses to: Robert Ritner | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Rod Meldrum}} | To learn more about responses to: Rod Meldrum | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Roger I Anderson}} | To learn more about responses to: Roger I Anderson | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Ronald V. Huggins}} | To learn more about responses to: Ronald V. Huggins | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Sally Denton}} | To learn more about responses to: Sally Denton | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Simon Southerton}} | To learn more about responses to: Simon Southerton | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Thomas Murphy}} | To learn more about responses to: Thomas Murphy | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Todd Compton}} | To learn more about responses to: Todd Compton | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Vernal Holley}} | To learn more about responses to: Vernal Holley | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Walter Martin}} | To learn more about responses to: Walter Martin | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Wesley Walters}} | To learn more about responses to: Wesley Walters | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Will Bagley}} | To learn more about responses to: Will Bagley | edit |
- ↑ John Dehlin, "Questions and Answers," Mormon Stories Podcast (25 June 2014).
- ↑ Interview of Emma Smith by her son Joseph Smith III, "Interview with Joseph Smith III, 1879," in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 1:539.
- ↑ Jeffrey G. Cannon, "Oliver Cowdery's Gift," Revelations in Context on history.lds.org
- ↑ "Mature Joseph Smith," 235.
- ↑ "Mature Joseph Smith," 235.
- ↑ Dallin H. Oaks, "Recent Events Involving Church History and Forged Documents," Ensign (October 1987): 63.
- ↑ "Book of Mormon Translation," Gospel Topics on LDS.org (2013).