|
|
(Há 34 revisões intermédias de 4 utilizadores que não estão a ser apresentadas) |
Linha 1: |
Linha 1: |
− | {{artigos FairMormon direitos autorais}} | + | {{FairMormon}} |
− | {{título do recurso|Por que são representações artísticas da tradução do Livro de Mórmon incorreta?}}
| |
− | {{translate}}
| |
| <onlyinclude> | | <onlyinclude> |
− | {{epígrafe|Art is the imposing of a pattern on experience, and our aesthetic enjoyment is recognition of the pattern.<br><br>Alfred North Whitehead, ''Dialogues'' (1954) | + | {{H2 |
| + | |L=Mormonismo e História/Representações Artísticas da Tradução do Livro de Mórmon |
| + | |H=Representações artísticas da tradução do Livro de Mórmon |
| + | |S= |
| + | |L1=Pergunta: São representações artísticas da igreja sempre realista? |
| + | |L2=Pergunta: Por que as pessoas estão preocupadas com artwork Igreja? |
| + | |L3=Pergunta: A Igreja está tentando esconder algo? |
| + | |L4=Pergunta: Porque a arte não corresponde? |
| + | |L5=Pergunta: Como fazer artistas não-mórmons tratar a natividade? |
| + | |L6=Pergunta: Que mensagem a pintura da tradução transmite? |
| + | }} |
| + | {{epígrafe|A arte é a imposição de um padrão sobre a experiência, e nosso deleite estético é o reconhecimento do padrão.<br><br>Alfred North Whitehead, ''Dialogues'' (1954) |
| }} | | }} |
| {{parabreak}} | | {{parabreak}} |
− | == ==
| + | {{:Pergunta: São representações artísticas da igreja sempre realista?}} |
− | {{etiqueta pergunta}}
| + | {{:Pergunta: Por que as pessoas estão preocupadas com artwork Igreja?}} |
− | | + | {{:Pergunta: A Igreja está tentando esconder algo?}} |
− | It is claimed that the Church knowingly "lies" or distorts the historical record in its artwork in order to whitewash the past, or for propaganda purposes. <ref>Accusations of the Church lying because of inaccurate artwork are offered by the following critical sources: {{CriticalWork:McKeeverJohnson:Mormonism 101|pages=Chapter 8}}; {{CriticalWork:MormonThink|url=http://mormonthink.com/moroniweb.htm|date=8 May 2012}}; {{CriticalWork:MormonThink|url=http://mormonthink.com/transbomweb.htm|date=28 April 2012}}; {{CriticalWork:Palmer:Insider|pages=1}}</ref>
| + | {{:Pergunta: Porque a arte não corresponde?}} |
− | *For example, some Church sanctioned artwork shows Joseph and Oliver sitting at a table while translating with the plate in the open between them.
| + | {{:Pergunta: Como fazer artistas não-mórmons tratar a natividade?}} |
− | | + | {{:Pergunta: Que mensagem a pintura da tradução transmite?}} |
− | == ==
| |
− | {{etiqueta conclusão}}
| |
− | | |
− | ===An example===
| |
− | [[File:Samuel the Lamanite Prophecies from the City Wall by Arnold Friberg.jpg|right|400px|thumb|Samuel the Lamanite Prophecies from the City Wall by Arnold Friberg]]
| |
− | Daniel C. Peterson provides some examples of how Church art often does not reflect reality,
| |
− | <blockquote>
| |
− | 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?<ref>Daniel C. Peterson, "Some Reflections on That Letter to a CES Director," 2014 FairMormon Conference.</ref>
| |
− | </blockquote>
| |
− | | |
− | ===What's Art Got To Do With It?===
| |
− | | |
− | {{SeeAlso|Moroni's_visit/Siblings_remained_asleep#Church_artwork_portrays_Joseph_as_being_alone|l1=Does Church art hide the presence of Joseph's siblings at Moroni's visit?}} | |
− | | |
− | 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.<ref>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.</ref>
| |
− | | |
− | [[Image:Parson BoM Translation.png|frame|right|Artist's rendition of Joseph and Oliver translating the Book of Mormon.<ref>Del Parson, "Translating the Book of Mormon," © Intellectual Reserve, 1997. {{link|url=http://www.lds.org/hf/art/print/picture/0,16989,4218-1-4-128,00.html}}</ref>]]
| |
− | | |
− | 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. | |
− | | |
− | 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.
| |
− | | |
− | ===Is the Church Trying to Hide Something?===
| |
− | | |
− | 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,<ref>{{Ensign1|author=Richard Lloyd Anderson|article=By the Gift and Power of God|date=September 1977|start=83}} {{link|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/1977/09/by-the-gift-and-power-of-god?lang=eng}}</ref> and Elder Russell M. Nelson quoted David Whitmer's account to new mission presidents in 1992.<ref>{{Ensign1|author=Russell M. Nelson|article=A Treasured Testament|date=July 1993|start=61}} {{link|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/1993/07/a-treasured-testament?lang=eng}}</ref>
| |
− | | |
− | 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)<ref>{{NewWitnessesForGod | article=NAME|vol=1|start=131 | end=136}}</ref> and returns somewhat to the matter in ''Comprehensive History of the Church'' (1912).<ref>{{CHC | vol=1|start=130|end=131 }}</ref> Other Church sources to discuss this include ''The Improvement Era'' (1939),<ref>{{IE1|author=Francis W. Kirkham|article=The Manner of Translating The BOOK of MORMON|date=1939|start=?}}</ref> ''BYU Studies'' (1984, 1990)<ref>{{BYUS|author=Dean C. Jessee|article=New Documents and Mormon Beginnings|vol=24|num=4|date=Fall 1984|start=397|end=428}}; {{BYUS|author=Royal Skousen|article=Towards a Critical Edition of the Book of Mormon|vol=30|num=1|date=Winter 1990|start=51|end=52}}</ref> the ''Journal of Book of Mormon Studies'' (1993),<ref>{{JBMS-2-2-14}}</ref> and the ''FARMS Review'' (1994).<ref>{{FR-6-2-13}}</ref> LDS authors Joseph Fielding McConkie and Craig J. Ostler also mentioned the matter in 2000.<ref>Joseph Fielding McConkie and Craig J. Ostler, ''Revelations of the Restoration'' (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 2000), commentary on D&C 9.</ref>
| |
− | | |
− | 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" ({{s||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.<ref>Neal A. Maxwell, ''Not My Will, But Thine'' (Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1988), 26.</ref> | |
− | | |
− | Those who criticize the Church based on its artwork should perhaps take Elder Maxwell's caution to heart.
| |
− | | |
− | ===Why doesn't the art match?===
| |
− | | |
− | 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.<ref>{{JBMS-12-2-11}}</ref>
| |
− | | |
− | 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."<ref>Henry Ward Beecher, ''Proverbs from Plymouth Pulpit'', 1887.</ref> 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.
| |
− | | |
− | ===Non-LDS art and the Nativity===
| |
− | | |
− | 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?
| |
− | | |
− | <table>
| |
− | <tr>
| |
− | <td>[[Image:BRUEGEL Le dénombrement de Bethléem.png]]</td>
| |
− | <td width=10> </td>
| |
− | <td>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.</td>
| |
− | </tr>
| |
− | | |
− | <tr><td colspan="3"><hr></td></tr>
| |
− | | |
− | <tr>
| |
− | <td>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.</td>
| |
− | <td width=10> </td>
| |
− | <td>[[Image:Nativity with 6 Dominicans.png]]</td>
| |
− | </tr>
| |
− | | |
− | <tr><td colspan="3"><hr></td></tr>
| |
− | | |
− | <tr>
| |
− | <td>[[Image:Bellini Madonna 1.png]]</td>
| |
− | <td width=10> </td>
| |
− | <td>
| |
− | ===Renaissance Italian Madonna===
| |
− | Even 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.</td>
| |
− | </tr>
| |
− | | |
− | <tr><td colspan="3"><hr></td></tr>
| |
− | | |
− | <tr>
| |
− | <td>
| |
− | ===Non-European cultures===
| |
− | Other 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?</td>
| |
− | <td width=10> </td>
| |
− | <td align="center">[[Image:Korean Nativity 1.png|Korean Nativity 1.png]]
| |
− | [[Image:Indian Nativity 1.png|Indian Nativity 1.png]]</td>
| |
− | </tr>
| |
− | | |
− | <tr><td colspan="3"><hr></td></tr>
| |
− | | |
− | <tr>
| |
− | <td>[[Image:Jesus mafa 1.png]]</td>
| |
− | <td width=10> </td>
| |
− | <td>
| |
− | ===African example===
| |
− | For 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.</td>
| |
− | </tr>
| |
− | | |
− | <tr><td colspan="3"><hr></td></tr>
| |
− | | |
− | </table>
| |
− | | |
− | | |
− | 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.''<ref>P. Pondy, "Why an African Christ?" jesusmafa.com. {{link|url=http://www.jesusmafa.com/anglais/accueil.htm}}</ref>
| |
− | | |
− | 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.
| |
− | | |
− | ===What message does the translation painting convey?===
| |
− | | |
− | What religious message(s) does the Del Parson translation picture convey?
| |
− | [[Image:Parson BoM Translation.png|frame|right|Artist's rendition of Joseph and Oliver translating the Book of Mormon.]]
| |
− | | |
− | # 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.<ref>Cowdery: “Joseph never had a curtain drawn between him and his scribe” [John W. Welch and Tim Rathbone, “The Translation of the Book of Mormon: Basic Historical Information,” F.A.R.M.S. report WRR–86, 25.] Emma: Joseph translated "hour after hour with nothing between us." [Joseph Smith III, “Last Testimony of Sister Emma,” ''Saints’ Advocate'' 2 (October 1879).]</ref>
| |
− | # 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."<ref>Reuben Miller Journal (21 Oct. 1848), LDS Church Historian's Office; {{BYUS1|author=Richard L. Anderson|article=Reuben Miller, Recorder of Oliver Cowdery’s Reaffirmations|vol=8|num=3|date=Spring 1968|start=278}}</ref> Oliver is also quoted in one account as describing Joseph "as sitting at a table with the plates before him, translating them by means of the Urim and Thummim, while he (Oliver) sat beside him writing every word as Joseph spoke them to him. This was done by holding the "translators" over the hieroglyphics..."<ref>Oliver Cowdery; as cited by Personal statement of Samuel W. Richards, 25 May 1907, in Harold B. Lee Library, BYU, Special Collections, cited in Anderson, "By the Gift and Power of God," 85.</ref> This alternative technique was confirmed by John Whitmer, who said of Oliver that "[w]hen the work of translation was going on he sat at one table with his writing material and Joseph at another with the breast-plate and Urim and Thummim. The later were attached to the breast-plate and were two crystals or glasses, into which he looked and saw the words of the book."<ref>John Whitmer, in S. Walker, "Synopsis of a Discourse Delivered at Lamoni, Iowa," 26 ''Saints' Herald'' 370 (15 December 1879).</ref>
| |
− | #The translation was not a weird, esoteric exercise.
| |
− | | |
− | The hat detail causes problems for the critical theory that Joseph cheated with notes while dictating. With a curtain in place, it is much easier to postulate that Joseph used notes or a Bible in the translation process. With the stone and the hat, however, witnesses were able to view the entire process, thus highlighting the total lack of notes or Bible in the translation process. Note also that in Parson's painting, with it's open setting, the cheat-notes theory can't get any traction.
| |
− | | |
− | One needs to consider the impressive witness testimonies of the plates' reality, and the fact that the use of a seer stone in a hat is not intrinsically ''less'' plausible than the use of two seer stones mounted in a set of "spectacles" attached to a breastplate. In fact, there are even accounts which effectively mix the two methods, with Joseph purportedly removing one of the stones from the "spectacles" and placing it in a hat.
| |
− | | |
− | Efforts to diminish the miracle of the translation effort by emphasizing the substitution of one seer stone for another seems to convey something to a modern audience that it never portrayed to the participants—that the Book of Mormon was uninspired and uninspiring.
| |
− | | |
− | == ==
| |
− | {{etiqueta notas}}
| |
− | | |
− | <references/>
| |
| | | |
| </onlyinclude> | | </onlyinclude> |
− | ==Related articles==
| + | {{notas}} |
− | {{LearnMore}} | |
− | * David Keller, "FAIR in Religious News Service," ''fairblog.org'' (15 Feb 2008). {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairblog.org/2008/02/15/fair-in-religious-news-service}}
| |
| | | |
| | | |
− | {{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}
| |
| | | |
| [[en:Mormonism and history/Accuracy of Church art]] | | [[en:Mormonism and history/Accuracy of Church art]] |
| [[es:El Mormonismo y la historia/Representaciones artísticas de la traducción del Libro de Mormón]] | | [[es:El Mormonismo y la historia/Representaciones artísticas de la traducción del Libro de Mormón]] |
− | [[fr:Church history/Accuracy of Church art]]
| |
Alega-se por alguns que a Igreja conscientemente "mentiras" ou distorce o registro histórico em sua arte, a fim de branquear o passado, ou para fins de propaganda. [1] Por exemplo, algumas obras de arte Igreja sancionada mostra Joseph e Oliver sentado a uma mesa, enquanto a tradução com a placa no aberto entre eles. Daniel C. Peterson nos dá certos exemplos de como a arte de A Igreja não reflete a realidade:
Um dos mais estranhos ataques contra a Igreja de Jesus Cristo dos Santos dos Últimos Dias é a ofensa contra a sua Arte. De vez em quando ouve-se críticas sobre as imagens representativas que A Igreja usa nos manuais e revistas para ilustrar alguns dos eventos fundamentais da História da Igreja.[3]
Uma denúncia comum é que o material da igreja geralmente mostra Joseph traduzindo o Livro de Mórmon apenas olhando as placas de ouro, como se vê nesta imagem ao lado.
Aqui as críticas acusam um claro caso de duplicidade - Oliver Cowdery e Joseph Smtih vêem as placas durante a tradução.
A realidade é que o processo de tradução, na sua maior parte, é representado por esta imagem:
A implicação é que o departamento artístico ou os artistas de A Igreja são meras ferramentas numa campanha de propaganda, tentando obscurecer de forma sutil ou "esconder" a realidade sobre como Joseph traduziu as placas.
Pelo contrário, o método da tradução é descrito diversas vezes, por exemplo,na revista oficial de A Igreja para adultos falantes de inglês, a Ensign. Richard Loyd Anderson examinou a matéria: "pedra no chapéu" em 1977,[5] e o Elder Russel M. Nelson citou o registro de David Whitmer para novos Presidentes de Missão em 1992.[6]
Os detalhes da tradução não são certos, e as testemunhas não entraram em consenso em todos os detalhes. No entanto, a pedra no chapéu de Joseph Smith também foi discutido por, entre outros: B. H. Roberts em seu Novas Testemunhas para Deus (1895)[7] e tornou a discutir sobre isso em Comprehensive History of the Church (1912).[8] utros recursos de A Igreja com mais informações incluem The Improvement Era (1939),[9] BYU Studies (1984, 1990)[10] o Journal of Book of Mormon Studies (1993),[11] e o FARMS Review (1994).[12] LDS authors Joseph Fielding McConkie and Craig J. Ostler also mentioned the matter in 2000.[13]
Elder Neal A. Maxwell chegou a usar o chapéu de Joseph como uma parábola; este não é o ato de alguém estar tentando "esconder a verdade":
Àqueles que criticam A Igreja, baseando-se em suas obras de arte, talvez devessem tomar para si a advertência do Elder Maxwell.
Porque, então, a arte não se harmoniza com os detalhes fornecidos pelas publicações SUD?
A resposta mais simples para esta pergunta talvez seja que os artistas simplesmente não conhecem todos os detalhes. Os críticos caricaturizam para o contrário. Nem todos os aspectos estão correlacionados. Robert J Mathews da BYU foi entrevistado pelo Journal of Book of Mormon Studies e descreveu a dificuldade em fazer a arte "direito":
O público moderno, sobretudo aqueles que procuram encontrar falhas têm, de certa forma, sido estragados pela fotografia. Estamos acostumados a ter imagens que descrevem como as coisas "realmente" eram. Ficaríamos indignados se alguém adulterou uma foto para alterar o seu conteúdo. Esta tendência largamente inconsciente pode nos levar a esperar muito de artistas, cujos dons e talentos podem estar em áreas não relacionadas à crítica textual e aos detalhes da história d'A Igreja.
Mesmo isso não conta toda a história. "Todo artista", disse Henry Ward Beecher, "mergulha seu pincel em sua própria alma, e pinta sua própria natureza em seus quadros." Isto talvez seja, sobretudo, verdade na arte religiosa, onde o objetivo não é tanto transmitir fatos ou detalhes históricos, mas transmitir uma mensagem religiosa e sentimento. A imagem, muitas vezes vale mais que mil palavras, e os artistas muitas vezes buscam ter seu público identificado pessoalmente com o assunto. O objetivo da arte religiosa é para não afastar o espectador, mas sim atraí-lo em seu quadro..
Os críticos se beneficiariam até mesmo de passeio superficial através da arte religiosa. Vamos considerar, por exemplo, uma das histórias mais conhecidas da cristandade: a Natividade de Cristo. Como os artistas religiosos retrataram esta cena?
O objetivo da arte religiosa é principalmente o de transmitir uma mensagem. Ele usa a realidade histórica de eventos religiosos, como um meio, não um fim.
A Arte - em todas as tradições religiosas destina-se sobretudo, a desenhar o adorador em um mundo à parte, onde as coisas e eventos mundanos mostram-se de importância eterna. Algumas palavras ditadas ou um bebê em um estábulo se tornam mais reais, mais vivos quando eles estão reconhecidamente conectados a qualquer um, em seu próprio mundo, tempo e lugar.
Isso não pode acontecer, no entanto, se a novidade da imagem fornece também um grande desafio para a cultura ou as expectativas do espectador. Assim, a apresentação de uma visão mais precisa da tradução usando os intérpretes nefitas (por vezes referido como "óculos") ou a pedra e o chapéu, aumenta automaticamente sentimentos, entre as pessoas na cultura do século 21, de que o processo de tradução era estranho. Esse tipo de atividade é vista com muito menos aprovação em nossa cultura moderna.
O detalhe do chapéu causa problemas para a teoria crítica que Joseph enganava com notas, enquanto ditava. Com uma cortina no lugar, é muito mais fácil postular que Joseph usado notas ou uma Bíblia no processo de tradução. Com a pedra e o chapéu, no entanto, as testemunhas foram capazes de visualizar todo o processo, destacando, assim, a total ausência de notas ou de uma Bíblia no processo de tradução. Note também que na pintura de Parson, com a sua configuração aberta, a teoria das notas-fraude não pode obter qualquer tração.
É preciso considerar os impressionantes depoimentos de testemunhas, acerca da realidade das placas, e ao fato de que o uso de uma pedra vidente em um chapéu não é intrinsecamente menos plausível do que o uso de duas pedras videntes montados em um conjunto de "espetáculos" ligadas à um peitoral. De fato, há relatos até que misturam de forma eficaz os dois métodos, com Joseph supostamente removendo uma das pedras dos "espetáculos" e colocando-a em um chapéu.
Os esforços para diminuir o milagre do esforço de tradução, enfatizando a substituição de uma pedra vidente por outra parecem transmitir algo para um público moderno que nunca foi retratado aos participantes - que o Livro de Mórmon foi sem inspiração e não é inspirador.