VS
My friend posted the above painting on Facebook last night. I asked him where the painting was hung and he told me temple square by the Christus statue. I know I have posted about this issue before, but don’t you think we need to stop depicting the Book of Mormon translation like the one in this painting? It is just sad when South Park depicts the translation process much more accurately. I mean c’mon – a freaking cartoon on Comedy Central is more accurate than all the translation paintings/videos put out by the Church ever? Let’s step it up!
Recently a Meridian magazine published an article on the troubling history and doubts that occur when people come across these facts. The article is called: “Facing Down the Doubters of Our Mormon Heritage”. This article is garbage and here is why:
No sympathy for the person that comes across troubling facts about our history.
The images depicted above is an example of what has been taught in Church compared to what actually happened. This can cause some people to be hurt and confused. That pain is real and we should never tell someone, that it is their fault, especially when the painting is STILL hanging in Salt Lake at the most visited Mormon site on the planet. Can we take it down already? Please?
Historical inaccuracies – I will give you two examples, even though there are more.
First error-
The article states: “We should be clear that never once was there an official declaration by the prophet speaking on behalf of the Lord that said only white men could hold the priesthood. ” FALSE! Try this statement on for size from the First Presidency: “[The priesthood ban] is not a matter of the declaration of a policy BUT OF DIRECT COMMANDMENT FROM THE LORD, on which is founded the DOCTRINE of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that THEY ARE NOT ENTITLED TO THE PRIESTHOOD AT THE PRESENT TIME.” (Mormonism’s Negro Doctrine: An Historical Overview Dialogue Vol. 8 No. 1 Spring 1973, emphasis in caps, mine) I don’t know about you, but that seems to be a strong statement.
Second error-
The article states that Elijah Abel was endowed. He was the first black priesthood holder, given the priesthood by Joseph Smith. Elijah Abel was NOT “temple-endowed” as stated in the article. Elijah requested to be endowed but was denied by Brigham Young in 1853 (Quorum of the Twelve, Meeting Minutes, August 26, 1908, typescript, George A. Smith Family Papers, Box 78, fd. 7.) then again by the First Presidency in 1879.
The domain name needs to change.
The Meridian magazine’s domain name is ldsmag.com. This gives the impression that this is Church material. It is not. It is run by just members of the Church. I have emailed them several times to ask them if they do have any connection to the Church but I have yet to receive an answer. Meridian you need a new domain name, how about meridianmagazine.com?
Conclusion
So this terrible unsympathetic article defends the Church’s inaccurate portrayal of our history and then goes and whitewashes our history even more. Victim blaming and whitewashing at its finest. “Facing Down the Doubters of Our Mormon Heritage”. Facing down, really? How about loving the doubters. How about mourning with those that mourn? Where have I heard that before? That seems a little more christian to me.
There is a similar painting hanging in our current building. Every time I walk past it I really can’t help but roll my eyes.
Those should all be erased. What does it say about Mormons as a whole if there are lies on canvas lining the walls of our church?
Sounds like a good meeting with the Stake President to have it removed is in your future! 😉
I’m glad you wrote this. I tried to leave a comment with a similar sentiment, but their comment system is either broken or not very user friendly. I really can’t think of a nice thing to say about the piece. She literally mischaracterized everything she talked about, from the NY Times article, to the Mattson’s views of the Church (implied), to Mountain Meadows, Blacks and the priesthood, polygamy, and the character of people who have doubts because of Church history. It saddens me that she wrote it, that she presumably believes what she wrote, and that many in the mainstream of the Church will likely nod in agreement to her piece.
It is a hot mess!
*correction. The painting is hung in the lowest level of the visitor’s center where Thorvaldsen’s Christus is displayed. Bang!
Great post.
Gracias!
I find this very confusing. Why didn’t the first presidency in 1973 realize that Joseph Smith gave the blacks the priesthood in the early days of the church–
the statements says, “from the days of its organization”? Seriously?
How can that be, when Joseph Smith organized the church AND gave the blacks the priesthood. Brigham Young took it away–
I see that Harold B. Lee wanted the blacks to have the priesthood but was willing to ‘wait’; David O. McKay saw no reason they shouldn’t have had it–
I had always understood that it was Joseph Fielding Smith who held it back–
but he died in July of 1972–
so Harold B. Lee must have continued the policy–
how sad.
I left a comment on the Meridian article pointing out the authors erroneous comments on the Priesthood Ban, but they did not publish it. Nothing mean in it at all. Guess they don’t post comments that prove the author is out to lunch…
Funny, I left a comment too noting the inaccuracies of the article and mine was magically not published also.
Is there a way we can pass this along to the author? I would hope she would want to know that she is leading innocent people astray.
I guess we can post this link on there as a rebuttal
There are so many things wrong with the article from Meridian Magazine and church history in general. I completely agree Paul that this kind of writing shows that there is absolutely NO empathy for those who find the inconsistencies troubling.
The attempts by M. Jensen and Rick Turley to assuage the doubts of faithful members who just want the truth, was an epic fail. If one is in a state of doubt about the church’s origins, it is pretty stupid to use that church’s scriptures to try to prove their points.
“Either Joseph Smith was a prophet or he wasn’t!” Well it’s pretty obvious to me after searching for over 6 years in FARMS and FAIR, the Mormon Scriptures, the Bible, various books by historians within and without Mormonism, watching scientific programs about the origins of man (out of Africa) and the DNA associated with the aboriginal peoples’ in America that it is not a true story. It has become merely a cultural way of living; a very unhealthy way at that.
Thank you for writing this blog, you did a great job and I sense that your ire has been aroused. GOOD!
From what I remember, meridian magazine used to have the address meridian magazine.com, but it changed to ldsmag.com a short time ago.
Amazingly awful!!
Jean, you nailed it!
Paul Barker,
Ha!
Hey Paul,
Thank you so much for your post. I have been having many doubts and have no body to turn to. Most of the Mormons I know are of the same opinion of Meridian Magazine. Victim blaming and putting your fingers in your ears doesn’t seem Christ like to me. The only people I have to turn to are Ex-mormon and New Order Mormon. If Mormons want to be brought to the table they need to start by showing some Christ like love. I’m pretty much terrified that my friends & family will turn against me and my family if I come out and Meridian Magazine confirms how many members feel. The attitude of “your with us or against us” is destroying families and testimonies. If a high member of the church can have doubts, so can the average members. Thank you again Paul, if more members were like you I would feel a lot safer having a dialogue with a member. I don’t see how turning your back on your friends and family that leave the church or have doubts is a reliable method of bringing them back.
You may find a community of like-minded folks over at LDS Freedom Forum. There is currently a very lively thread titled something like “Leaders will have to be more honest with the members.”
Here is the link.
http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=29507
David – it can be tough!!! I find it a lot easier when I have facts. With this post I wanted to demonstrate very clearly of what we are doing wrong. Anytime South Park is a better teacher of our history than our Church, then we have some issues!
Apparently this painting hangs in the SLC Conference Center:
http://i.imgur.com/vruGdkV.jpg
Jeez that one is even worse! I need to make this a part of the post.
I am unclear as to why this is such a concern. For me the crux of the matter is that the Book of Mormon is the word of God translated by the power of God. The physical steps Joseph Smith took in that process, while historically interesting, are spiritually irrelevant. The painting is one artist’s rendition. It’s like the Friberg paintings in which everyone is handsome and buff. I am relatively certain that they were more average looking than that, yet the paintings can still lead me to the spiritual importance behind the moment depicted through the artists eyes.
Amber – that usually isn’t the issue. The members take issue when they have been taught one way, or just one way is portrayed by the Church when in reality it happened another way. Yes these are artist renditions, but how many are commissioned by the Church? How many of these renditions distributed by the Church? How many paintings do you see of Joseph looking into a hat? I have never seen that ever in a Church publication or hanging in Temple Square. I’m not saying we need a plethora of paintings of Joseph looking into a hat. I’m just saying we have to stop portraying the translation in this manner. The issue members take… and I’m speaking in general terms, is that there is a mistrust with the Church that requires its members to be totally honest and forthcoming.
A painting of him looking into a hat would clarify nothing. The hat has nothing to do with the translation process it was merely used to block the light so he could see the seer stone better. The Church clearly teaches seers stones were used in the translation process. There is no lie being perpetrated. Also, the seer stone set in the hat was not the only method used in translation. In fact, we do not have documentation of every moment of the process. Historical references are notoriously unreliable for giving the whole story of any event. So, I feel, this focus on the hat as a ‘betrayal’ is overblown. Again, the crux of the matter is that the Book of Mormon is the word of God translated by the power of God, and that has always been clearly taught.
Amber. Yes, the Church does teach that seer stones were used in the translation process. Go ask 100 Mormons how those stones were used. The great majority would say something similar to stones being mounted in a frame, like eyeglasses. Why do you suppose this would be the case?
I knew a teenage girl on my mission who got into an argument with a friend who told her she was a member of the LDS church but the girl told her ‘No I’m not! I am a Mormon!’. She was an active member so I do not know how she missed the official name of the church, especially since it is written on the building, but she did. Taking a pool of what people do and do not know will show you how much they pay attention\how much they bother to study not what information is actually out there. As to the ‘eyeglasses’ idea that is one possible interpretation of the description of the Urim and Thummim. I would ask, does anyone know 100% for the entirety of the translation process how the stones were used? No, because there is no ‘blow by blow’ account. However, the important part is always taught, it was done by the power of God.
“The hat has nothing to do with the translation process it was merely used to block the light so he could see the seer stone better.”
We may see the day when this method is depicted in our art and lesson manuals, but you must admit that that this method of ‘translation’ causes a fair amount of cognitive dissonance.
It certainly does, which is surprising to me. I sometimes wonder if the problem is not the actuality of the history but our attachment to preconceived notions. We find ourselves thrown when the reality does not match what we think it should be. Which is why I harp a bit on what I called the crux of the matter. If you can square yourself with the Book of Mormon being the word of God translated by the power of God, then the manner in which the translation was carried out, while interesting, is irrelevant.
If we were taught the correct way in the beginning, than I don’t see people having issues with this. Both ways are strange and weird and that’s ok!
I am sure that you have taught church classes. You know how little time there is to cover the important parts. Wasting time covering the ‘interesting but irrelevant’ details does a disservice to those you teach. There is just no way to cover the ‘meat’ and all of the rest. But you can study it out in your time at your rate, if you choose to do so. I think it is important that people understand their own responsibility in learning. So when one comes across a new ‘weird’ part of the history they see it as a starting point for learning rather than an ending point for their faith.
There are some lessons that are taught that are in direct relation… in these occasions we have to tell it correctly – here are some examples:
https://www.lds.org/manual/primary-5-doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history/lesson-7-joseph-smith-translates-the-gold-plates?lang=eng
and
https://www.lds.org/manual/primary-3/lesson-15-the-coming-forth-of-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng
We can do better with this material!
I’m currently on my second stint of teaching Gospel Doctrine. In all, I’ve done this for about 7yrs. Last year during the lesson about seers, I explained the process Jos Smith used to translate the BOM. I think the majority of the class had never heard this before, and many had a lot of questions about this.
Of course I could tell the ones who already knew the story because they were the ones sitting there with massive grins on their faces that I would teach this.
So you chose to leave the manual and give your own interpretation\understanding of the process of translation? The manuals are created specifically to include the important stuff and leave the historical speculation aside. Unless one has used a seer stone any explanation of the translation process offered is severely lacking. I have an interest in the history as well, and love discussing it with family and friends. But I also understand that what history we have is extremely limited (not just church history, but all historical information) and to assume we understand it in full and take up precious spiritual teaching time to put forth our opinion as truth is very presumptuous. The Book of Mormon itself is an excellent example of dealing with history verses spirituality. Mormon makes it very clear that he is not giving a complete history, but is instead picking the most spiritually relevant points. That does not make his record a lie; it just makes it more relevant to our lives.
Paul thanks for continuing the discussion with your readers. Some members simply don’t care about what is honest.
I was always taught “do what is right let the consequence follow” I have a hard time when my church has a lesser commitment to honesty then me.
I have received at least a dozen lesson/talks/or side notes referencing tithing this year. Yet I have never been taught a clear detailed account of the translation process of the BOM in church or many of the other historical Inconveniences.. I personally thnk you could switch all the tithing lesson and apostasy fear based lesson (Thomas Marsh) with honest historical lesson. these lessons seem to me to be more important and the real history is much more interesting. The church looks a lot more like the Zoramites then the Nephites.
Thanks Janet, I have visited ldsfreedomform before, and will continue to visit there. It’s nice to know there are many Mormons working toward making the church more Christ like.
I too enjoy history very much. I love discussing it with family and friends. But I also realize the severe limitations in studying history. I realize this is perhaps an odd example source but it explains the problem of historical limitation very well, so bear with me. There is an episode of Designing Women (sitcom from the 80s) in which a wealthy client, whom they liked very much, dies. In her will she left everything to the care of her cat for the remainder of its life. The state was contesting the will claiming she was crazy. The ladies went to her home to find proof that she was not crazy. When they got there they found the large painting over the mantle was hung upside down, there were license plates tacked up all over the walls, and of course there was the cat. They were just beginning to think perhaps she was a little off when the longtime caretaker of the estate came in. Upon asking about what they saw he explained that in fact the deceased was mentally fine. She had been physically ill in the last few years of her life and spent a lot of time lying on the sofa perpendicular to the fireplace so she had asked the caretaker to put the painting of her husband upside down so it would be right side up when she looked at it from her supine position. The license plates were actually a very valuable collection of antique plates that she had meticulously collected. And, it turned out the cat had actually made the fortune left for its care, it had been the star of a cat food commercial. History is much like this story, we see the upside down painting, the license plates all over and the cat, and that is all we have to go off of. And it is very easy to make assumptions based on those details, and yet if we do we may (and, I believe, often are) missing the real story. So the point of this long diatribe is that, while history may be more interesting it is foolish to waste precious spiritual class time on it, it is best to teach what is spiritually relevant, and leave the history speculation to our personal time. The Book of Mormon itself is an excellent example of dealing with history verses spirituality. Mormon makes it very clear that he is not giving a complete history, but is instead picking the most spiritually relevant points. That does not make his record a lie; it just makes it more relevant to our lives.
Also, perhaps there is someone in your ward struggling with tithing and the Lord is taking the time to clarify it for them.
I like that! Thank you. But like I said before we can do better when we teach it. There are some lessons that are taught that are in direct relation… in these occasions we have to tell it correctly – here are some examples:
https://www.lds.org/manual/primary-5-doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history/lesson-7-joseph-smith-translates-the-gold-plates?lang=eng
and
https://www.lds.org/manual/primary-3/lesson-15-the-coming-forth-of-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng
We can do better with this material!