62 Comments | leave a comment | RSS 2.0 for this post | trackback |
| Saturday, May 25, 2013 |
|
- A Bird's Eye View
- A Motley Vision
- Adventures in Mormonism
- Blognitive Dissonance
- Book of Mormon Blog
- By Common Consent
- Ethesis
- Face of the Other
- Faith Promoting Rumor
- Feminist Mormon Housewives
- Flooding the Earth With the Book of Mormon
- Golden Road to Samarqand
- Head Life
- Just Sayin'
- Juvenile Instructor
- Messanger & Advocate
- Millennial Star
- Mormon Matters
- Mormon Mommy Wars
- New Cool Thang
- Nine Moons
- Old Testament Blog
- Our Mother's Keeper
- Proud Daughter of Eve
- Segullah
- Sunstone Blog
- Times & Seasons
- Wheat and Tares
- Zelophehad's Daughters
| Revisionist LDS Visual Aids? |
|
Apr. 14th, 2008 at 10:13 am
|
|
A few weeks ago Proud Daughter of Eve asked for suggestions for leading a discussion of lesson #6 of the Joseph Smith manual. I was given the opportunity to teach the same lesson last Sunday. I took the advice that I gave PDoE and asked first off about the depiction of the Aaronic Priesthood restoration that appears with this lesson in the manual. Now I don’t know about you but this isn’t the picture that I was shown in Primary. I went to the ward library and tried to find the old picture but had no luck. Google image search was only slightly helpful. It didn’t get me to the picture I remember, but I did find a statute depicting the event near the Church Office Building in Salt Lake City. I also found another statue:
This one is located near the site where the priesthood restoration occurred. Perhaps statues are harder to change than paper… In any case, why is there confusion over whether the ordination was simultaneous or not? Here’s Joseph Smith Jr.’s record of the event in the Joseph Smith History section of the Pearl of Great Price:
This seems to indicate that there was a simultaneous ordination. Oliver’s recollection of the blessing is very similar:
So how is it that this new depiction of the event, which seems to contradict scripture, has become the standard visual aid used when teaching about the priesthood restoration? Are we uncomfortable with the idea that the method John the Baptist seems to have used is now foreign to LDS sensibilities? Am I just reading these passages incorrectly? Does a small change such as this in how something is depicted matter?  Loading ... |
You need another category: Who cares? I don’t mean to be flippant, and I understand that to some it may be important. Is this a case of the Church willfully portraying the confirmation of the Aaronic Priesthood to conform with modern practices, thereby refuting the statue, or just an artist commisioned to do a painting and did so according to his or her idea of the event. |
No, it does not matter. It’s not a fricking photograph. And that’s not even the most bizarre part of the story:
Why the redundant ordinations? |
eh, I think sometimes we get a little too pharisaical about certain aspects of the Gospel and the church. Count me under the invisible option of “doesn’t matter.” |
I’m happy to add an “it doesn’t matter” option for the unthinking masses. |
My son was baptized Saturday. As we sat waiting for the others to return from changing into dry clothes, he looked up at the picture of John the Baptist and Jesus and said “Look! They held hands the same way we did!” This painting is even more innocuous than the new Aaronic Priesthood ordination painting, but it illustrates a problem that we often impose our present day world view on historical events. I think paintings are the worst offenders of rewriting history. With respect to the Aaronic Priesthood painting, I have to wonder if the artist even read the account. |
For those of you that claim it doesn’t matter, I claim that you’re dead wrong. We are needlessly throwing away information here. Worse yet, we’re replacing it with incorrect information. Is there a rationale for this? I don’t see one other than catering to ignorance. Personally I don’t know why it was that the Aaronic Priesthood was restored in the way that it was, with the dual conferral, then the baptisms, and then individual ordinations. But the fact that it is a little strange to me has caused me to think about it more than once in my life. If nothing else it teaches me that there is a lot that I don’t understand. Purposely misrepresenting the scene makes an already confusing event in Church history all the harder to understand. I fail to see how my concern over this is “pharisaical”. Perhaps, Dan, you’d be willing to clarify and justify your leap to judgment? I also don’t understand the, “It’s just a painting!” argument. This thing has gone through correlation. It is not only in the manual, but it was in the missionary flip-chart and in all ward libraries. There was a previous depiction of the event, which the artist (and correlation) had to be aware of which seems to have disappeared. Visual depictions influence how we understand the event when we read about it. The ease with which some of us seem to be willing to blow off historical accuracy is very surprising to me. |
I’m all in favor of artistic license. But I worry about the potential for such details to be overinterpreted and then used as a rationale for justifying (or condemning) one practice or another. For what it’s worth, a similar issue arose for me yesterday in Priesthood meeting. The lesson was based on Robert C. Oaks’ talk from the recent Ensign, “Your Divine Heritage.†At one point, Elder Oaks says the following: “This is why we go back to the temple: to renew our covenants that we have made in those sacred halls and to remind ourselves of these covenants and obligations.†Maybe I’m reading too much into this sentence, in the same way that someone could naively read too much into one or another artistic representation of Joseph and Oliver’s ordination to the priesthood. I realize that attending the temple helps us to remember our covenants. But it strikes me that this it is incorrect to say that we “renew†our temple covenants. Isn’t it the case that we do NOT renew our temple covenants when we perform ordinances for the dead, although it is certainly useful in helping us recall the covenants we have already made for ourselves? Am I missing something here? Sorry if this is a threadjack. But I think that sometimes the devil is in the details, as it were, whether it be a church-sanctioned artistic representation of a sacred event, or a single misleading word in a church publication. |
I wouldn’t expect historical accuracy to be much more than a fleeting thought in the mind of an artist. I doubt it was even discussed by correlation when they updated the picture, they probably just thought the older one was a bit too retro or Jehovah Witness looking (I think I vaguely remember the old painting you’re referring to). Also, this picture is in my 1992 edition of Gospel Principles, which seems to indicate it was selected before the advent of the internet and historical accuracy was probably less of a concern to the Brethren in their “useful history” phase. Just how the internet has changed the debate over “innoculation,” perhaps in the future we will see more of an effort to bring the church’s art into conformity with history. |
#2 and others who raised that question: “Why the redundant ordinations?” Actually, they are not exactly redundant or both ordinations and conferrals. John The Baptist “conferred” they priesthood on them and then I believe after baptism they were instructed to “ordain” each other to that priesthood. Today when we ordain someone to a priesthood office, it happens in to steps. First the individual has the particular priesthood (Aaronic or Melchizedek) conferred upon them after which they are ordained to an office within that priesthood. I hope that clears this up a bit… |
#9 – Makes sense! The only other explanation I’ve heard sounded rather lame to me; something to do with ordinations by angels being against the normal order of the priesthood, so Joseph and Oliver had to ordain each other to make it kosher. But you’re right, John the Baptist only confers, and Joseph and Oliver ordain. |
It’s worth noting that in the statue of the ordination, the Baptist seems to be floating. In the photograph of the ordination that you provide, the feet of the Baptist are planted firmly on the ground. A guy in our ward used to live in the same NYC ward with some folks who did art for the church. This guys said that the artists used other members of the ward as models. Consequently, it was not unlikely that you might use a picture of Jesus and Mary to teach primary wherein Mary bore a striking resemblance to sister so-and-so. (This partly explains why these pictures invariably depict such clean and nicely-groomed individuals; it’s almost as if those depicted showered regularly.) On a similar note, at the John Whitmar Historical Association conference last year, Lach Mackay told me of one day when he walked into the lower court at the Kirtland Temple. The Community of Christ had given permission to an artist to paint Jesus’s appearance to Joseph and Oliver. So “standing upon the breastwork of the pulpit” was a man modeling God with a white beard and white robe. Apparently, entering the lower court and seeing the model there was a bit startling. At any rate, the mechanics of creating these pictures of glorified themes are often humorously mundane. |
I can see both the “who cares” attitude and the “it matters”. I think that it does matter if we want to be historically accurate – of course that does not often matter from either the perspective of artists nor the Church for that matter. So I guess who cares… |
DKL, If you click the link to the other statue you’ll see that he’s floating in that one as well. I disagree with your interpretation of the picture. His feet are certainly not “planted firmly on the ground” but are in fact not visible at all. It might be that his feet are floating and his robes are just so long that we can’t see his feet. Given that there isn’t any scriptural clarity on this matter however, I’m happy to leave that detail to artistic interpretation. Devyn S, Does it matter to you that it doesn’t seem to matter to the Church? Mephibosheth, I can’t imagine that this question didn’t come up in the creation and approval of this work. If you think it didn’t then you’ve never worked with the Church. |
PaulW, I’ve heard that explanation before, and it doesn’t really work. The distinction between conferral and ordination is anachronistic. At that time there was no notion of priesthood office at all (indeed, at the time there was no distinction between Aaronic priesthood and Melchisedec priesthood, that language being added later). I’m aware that everyone wants there to be a tidy, doctrinally-based explanation for the double ordination, but the only real explanation was that they needed practice ordaining. |
While I’m at it (I’m being silly here in case you’re humor impaired) why is John so short in the picture? If Joseph or Oliver stood up they’d be a good foot taller than him. If you were short in this life due to childhood malnutrition will you be short in the resurrection? |
DKL, I always imagined that that baptism was seen as a ritualistic washing in preparation for ordination. It would be interesting to know how many times Joseph was ordained to various things and how many times he was baptized. |
Ah, it’s easy. In the picture, Joseph is feeling ill, so he was getting a priesthood blessing (in the actual picture, he’s being anointed before the blessing). |
Perhaps an email sent Parson’s direction might answer the question. The JS manual indicates a 1984 copyright for the painting. I looked around the web for other artistic depictions of the event. Lithograph (after C.C.A. Christensen) (hands on both heads) Alberta Temple mural (A.B. Wright) (ditto) John the Baptist Ordains Joseph and Oliver (Lovell) (p. 62) (ditto) |
The interesting thing about the Lovell painting is the fact that he was not a Mormon. Another painting (printed in the D&C Institute manual) misses the crucial moment. |
It’s all proof that it’s just an elaborate story, right? I mean, if third-party artists who weren’t there can’t even the details right, the whole thing must be a hoax, right? |
Justin, I was going to mention that one (found a good color version on a Portuguese LDS site) as an example of an artist deciding to sidestep the issue, but I thought it might make my post seem silly. Now that I’ve seen the reaction to the post I wish I had included it. |
Comment 18 (“The interesting thing about the Lovell painting is the fact that he was not a Mormon”) is referring to an earlier comment of mine that appears to be caught in the spam filter. I noticed the Doctrine and Covenants Stories manual for children follows the Parson model (one person at a time). |
I’d be interested to learn the artist and date for the painting that avoids the issue. I assume it post-dates the Parson painting. |
Justin, Thanks for the links. The URL for the color version of the painting that avoids the issue indicates that it is by Parson as well. Perhaps he is confused on the issue. The BYU Studies article is interesting. I’ll have to take some time and read it. I had always assumed that all the steroid prophet paintings were Arnold Friburg works, but it seems that Tom Lovell painted a few that I had thought were Friburg’s work. |
Gasp! The church is not paying attention to the details of its own ordinances? I hear next week they’re going to unveil a new painting of Joseph and Oliver baptizing each other with a fire hose. Details don’t matter, after all! (Hmm….given the recent changes to the washings & anointings is anyone surprised that modifications to detail can be made willy-nilly nowadays????) |
arJ, And you have worked for the church??? So according to you, the church says to an artist: “Make us a painting that shows a two-handed ordination” and then to another “Make us a painting that avoids the issue.” So who is on this Strengthening The Artists of the Church Committee? The article Justin linked to with the Lovell picture seems to confirm that the artist is commissioned, the artist paints, and then the church accepts or rejects it. They could have chosen it for any number of reasons. There’s something to be said for historical accuracy but it’s not something the average member cares about. There’s never been a painting of the Urim and Thummim or breastplate, which I would say most Saints (erroneously) assume Joseph used to translate, but do they get uncomfortable when they see a painting of Joseph translating without them? I don’t think so. I never thought about the one-handed ordination myself until you pointed it out. I said, “Gee whiz, he’s right”, voted in the poll, and that was the end of it. |
#14 – DKL, Dang it! Foiled by history again! |
26. Actually, I think most members would be upset if they saw a painting depicting a historically acturate depiction of the translation. As I said in my previous comment, paintings are often the worst offenders of rewriting history. |
#28 – KyleM, But they would be uncomfortable for entirely different reasons. They couldn’t be upset by the historical inaccuracy of an historically accurate painting. |
Mephibosheth (#26), And you have worked for the church??? I have done contract work for the Church on several occasions. |
ARJ, #6, Forgive me. The term “pharisaical” has a negative connotation to it I did not intend to exact here. What I mean by pharisaical is the meaning it holds, to attempt to be exact, literal, no possible exceptions. I’ve found, with the gospel, that outside of a few important things, much is left to the prerogative of the priesthood holder. I don’t find it important whether John the Baptist ordained both Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery at the same time or one after the other, or whether he should have had both hands on the head. Actually, having just witnessed an ordination to the Aaronic Priesthood just this Sunday, I saw a bunch of priesthood holders placing only one hand on the head of the young boy, with the other hand on the shoulder of the person to the left. Did they need to place their hands on the shoulder to the person to the left? Not really. They could have had their hands in their pockets, frankly. So yeah, count me with those who don’t find it that important to know whether John the Baptist used both hands on one or both hands on both. |
Dan, The funny thing here is that I think that the newer representation is pharisaical in that it forces John to conform to our modern traditions that have no basis in scripture but people freak out if they are not followed. John’s method and language would both be seen as improper if used today though I’m guessing that if he did it then it must be kosher. I actually made the point during the lesson that this event teaches us that we are perhaps needlessly strict in adhering to certain methods of doing things. So I would say that in a sense we’re in agreement about strictness. I’m just arguing that by not cleansing our history of its oddities we are more able to avoid unnecessary strictness today. Also I don’t think that it is important what method John used. What is important is accurately preserving our perception of that method. |
I do think we (modern Mormons) rather endlessly revision both Church history and BoM so that those people/situations suit our modern church. I do not recall having seen a visual representation of Alma baptizing himself, and certainly if one of our Priests tried to go out and do that, we would frown on it. Sometimes I like to imagine what King Benjamin or Hyrum Smith would think if they wandered into my wards’ Sunday School. One of my friends was reminiscing about her dad, who had never joined the church although his wife and children were all members, and she suggested that he was too much of a non-conformist. He would have fit right in with members of the EARLY church, but not now. We even want our art to conform to our way of doing things. |
(Am I the only one on this track?) I think ALL these detailed discussions of minutia are distractions from ‘the Real gospel’ which is Love for God & neighbor…. That’s the Principle reason I left Mormonism: too steeped in details…. |
Guy Noir, Private Eye: I think ALL these detailed discussions of minutia are distractions from ‘the Real gospel’ which is Love for God & neighbor Yeah. So’s television. Your hypothesis here that some people’s hobbies distract them from “the Real Gospel” is, itself, a distraction from “the Real Gospel.” Guy Noir, Private Eye: That’s the Principle reason I left Mormonism: too steeped in details… If you came across as intelligent and well reasoned, people might care why you left. As it is, I don’t think that many people are interested in the self-diagnoses of irrational individuals of subhuman intellect. |
Even though I have some doubt’s about DKL’s choice in movies (you really liked Spiderman 3??), I have to say that he has this one nailed: “I don’t think that many people are interested in the self-diagnoses of irrational individuals of subhuman intellect.” |
that’s a SURE WAY to ‘enhance’ your reputation: to denigrate, disrespect others…. ‘to belittle…is to Be Little’. you have amply demonstrated another aspect I wasn’t going to mention: arrogance. You people on this board REEK of it; it is a sure companion to the way that you condescendingly address others. shame, shame shame. |
Guy, You have to forgive DKL. He’s a conservative. He doesn’t know how to be nice to those who don’t agree with him. Not that I agree with you. |
Dan, give it up. Guy’s been trolling this blog for weeks now, insulting all things Mormon based on the fact that at long last, he has started to find his own simplistic view of Mormonism untenable. The irony of your comment is that it insults me based on nothing more than the fact that I disagree with you. Guy, Since I actually am superior to you (morally, intellectually, and spiritually), my behavior toward you is not arrogance; it’s realism. And it’s arrogant of you to suppose otherwise. |
Guy, I actually printed out all the versions of the First Vision a few months ago and had the whole EQ read them and discuss them for a lesson. Too bad that you weren’t there. In any case there isn’t anything very disturbing there no matter how you try to spin it. |
DKL, If it were a simple matter of disagreeance, I wouldn’t have much of a problem. But on quite a number of occasions you’ve presented yourself as arrogant and condescending, not to mention lazily falling to name-calling (“inveterate anti-American” as one example). In any case, I regret making the comment, as it did nothing but open up old threads we don’t need to really rehash. |
Dan, you can’t credibly try people’s patience by holding to beliefs long after the basis that you offer for them has been dashed to pieces, and then accuse these people of being lazy when their patience wears out. |
DKL, Oh yeah, my mistake, I’m suppose to cave to your viewpoint every time. Sorry, I forget these things. “And now, if I do err, even did they err of old; not that I would excuse myself because of other men, but because of the weakness which is in me, according to the flesh, I would excuse myself.” –Nephi |
arJ: in my many years (40+) LDS, i never heard of such candor (was your lesson “correlated”???); I salute you for candor. 116 lost pages? who would have been able to tell the fake from the genuine? How? Kinda like going along with the Tower of Babel thingee…: Any chance they’ll succeed? OF COURSE NOT! |
Guy, Why didn’t you teach such a lesson? I’m sure that you had ample opportunity in 40 years. It isn’t like it is especially scandalous. My father-in-law has taught it to 14-year olds. |
Guy, I know DKL and I think he’s definitely morally, intellectually, and spiritually superior to you. I’m pretty sure that I am at least intellectually and spiritually superior to you, if not also physically superior (it’s my abs– they’re amazing). That said, I’m glad you’ve stuck around. I think you’ve got a surprisingly resilient sense of humor and I think your criticisms of the Church have been fairly mild. |
arJ: You bring up ‘an interesting’ aspect to all this: |
47: Man, church is getting more and more open to this stuff all the time. No way you would be stoned for bringing up JSJ’s polygamy now as long as it’s relevant to the discussion. Believe it or not, I’ve been where you are. Let go of the anger. You may never come back to church, but you’ll be alot happier. |
Guy, Your negative examples are all hypotheticals. I’ve given two examples of lessons that I’ve actually taught in the last few months and nobody stoned me. In fact, they keep asking me to teach EQ lessons! It isn’t even my calling. Certainly in 40+ years you had to have had the opportunity to teach similar lessons at least once. At worst they would have released you, but I think you would have been surprised by the outcome. “Sensitive” topics can be discussed openly with the right attitude. Of course if I had said, “Look, two different paintings, the Church is a fraud!” that wouldn’t have gone over well. |
ARJ, You bring up an interesting point. I preffaced a couple of my comments in Elders quorum with “I know this may make me a bit of a heretic, but…” a year ago when I first moved into my current ward. Three weeks later, I was called as an instructor. Funny how that works. I am the most (at least vocal) unorthodox Mormon in the quorum, but was asked to lead discussions because the WANT to think. |
I don’t doubt that there might be slight changes around the margins of things… It’s that this all still represents (to me, anyway) a distraction away for Love for God & neighbor. I seldom heard of simple precepts such as the Golden Rule, parable of Good Samaritan, etc. |
Guy, You’re never happy are you? It’s either too much milk (what you were complaining about above) or distracting meat (what seems to upset you now). You seem to be moving the target each time you have difficulty responding to the points others make. I’m sorry that you’ve had experiences that have led you to feel that all LDS lessons are terrible. I’m even more sorry that once you began to feel that way you didn’t take active steps to make the lessons you participated in better. |
We had a Guy in our ward a couple of years ago. Nothing was ever good enough. He was called to teach a youth Sunday School class … and then he asked to be released because he couldn’t handle the pressure, and he didn’t like it when 15-year-olds out-reasoned him. |
Dan: Oh yeah, my mistake, I’m suppose to cave to your viewpoint every time. Sorry, I forget these things. It’s not that. It’s more a question of intellectual substance and follow through. I’m fine with the fact that your arguments start out weak, because part of the purpose of joining an argument is to test and strengthen arguments. The problem is that when your arguments get effectively rebutted, you do two things: (a) you fail to answer the rebuttals, and (b) you pretend that your argument still carries the same weight as those who have rebutted your points. You can’t have it both ways, and I wonder how smart you are based on your mistaken supposal that you can. An illustrative argument that comes to mind is the one that you had with Arnold Layne about torture. You put forth your reasons for believing that the US was practicing torture. Arnold Layne rebutted your arguments in a way that arguably refuted them. Rather than answer Arnold Layne’s rebuttal or reformulate your argument, you simply continue to assert your position as though it still deserves the same consideration as the arguments that you haven’t answered. And when Arnold Layne concludes based on this that you’re a Moron, you say, “Well you’re just calling names now,” when he’s actually done far more argumentatively than you have. So there’s this major problem with the fact that you don’t recognize that people are entitled to hold you in contempt for failing to answer their arguments and still pretending that you’re position should be treated with respect. |
arJ: In my humble estimation, the real ‘meat’ of Christ’s gospel is the lengths we are sometimes challenged to go to in order to live the Basics, which I count as Love for God & neighbor; especially when dealing with an obnoxious neighbor; a bully boss or teacher for your children; the soccer coach who thinks Only about tallying wins… (How about the scout troop that’s an Eagle factory, focused on numbers but not the participants?) Remember the law of carnal commandments? simple stuff, in my estimation (although some didn’t like/didn’t conform) Do ‘modesty’, the word of wisdom, earrings-tattoos, white shirts, coca cola come close to the commandments to Love? |
Guy, Again you fail to engage with the points being made, but I’ll respond to you regardless. You can change the definition of meat all you want. I’ve already been where you’re going. I’ve taught more than one lesson on the concept that the lists of commandments we obsess over are crap. The word of wisdom’s own text demeans it if you read it carefully. I’ve been saying for years that most of the commandments we worry so much about are training wheels and the real commandment is to become like Christ through serving others and developing true charity. If you have real Christ-like love as your motivation you are not only not going to be breaking trivial commandments but you’re going to be actively doing good in the world. After one lesson the Bishop came up to me afterwards. I was somewhat concerned that he was going to contradict what I had said about commandments and LDS culture (note that it isn’t LDS doctrine I was attacking.) He did just the opposite. If you want to see a conference talk with a similar theme (though without the word “crap” go look up Elder Oak’s “On Becoming” from a few years ago. If you need more evidence of speaking about love, I was able to speak on Easter Sunday this year. I concluded my comments by reading all of I Cor 13, which I think nobody can get enough of. So yes Guy, there are people teaching lessons on exactly the stuff you’re harping about. Lessons that cause people to engage with multiple accounts of the first vision. Lessons that ask people why our correlated materials are ahistorical. Lessons that call our obsession with little commandments crap and encourage us to see the big picture and develop love. The question (which you keep refusing to address directly) is why is it that in a volunteer based church you weren’t the one teaching these lessons for the past 40 years? Did you want someone else to spoon-feed this to you? You failed yourself and your fellow saints if you saw this as a need and you ran away rather than take active steps to stand up for what you thought was important. Was it fear of rejection that silenced you? Was it confusing LDS culture with the Christ’s gospel? What was it that shut your mouth? You certainly don’t have a problem opening it here! |
arJ: all valid points & questions. In my years, the basics didn’t come thru because of the distractions. |
taF9nEwNm7FTt |
[...] on a random John’s post Revisionist LDS Visual Aids? at Mormon [...] |
[...] a random John (speaking of depictions of John the Baptist restoring the Aaronic Priesthood): The funny thing here is that I think that the newer representation is pharisaical in that it forces John to conform to our modern traditions that have no basis in scripture but people freak out if they are not followed. John’s method and language would both be seen as improper if used today though I’m guessing that if he did it then it must be kosher. [...] |
As we all see, there are many sacred statues that can be seen especially when you are in the church premises. It is true that this is more important than any paper that was made to inspire people. |
It does not matter- we cannot change what has been done and what was written. That is still okay. |
