One of the strangest attacks on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is an assault—of all things—on the Church's art. Critics charge that the Church knowingly "lies" or distorts the historical record in its artwork in order to whitewash the past, or for propaganda purposes.

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.

Artist's rendition of Joseph and Oliver translating the Book of Mormon.

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 are quick to point out, there are potential historical errors in this image:

1. Oliver Cowdery did not see the plates as Joseph worked with them.
2. 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.
3. 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.

So, are the Church's artistic department or artists merely tools in a slick propaganda campaign? Is the Church trying to "hide" how Joseph really translated the plates?

If the Church is trying to hide these facts, it does a poor job of it. 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, and Elder Russell M. Nelson quoted David Whitmer's account to new mission presidents in 1992. Other Church sources to discuss this include the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies (1993), and the FARMS Review (1994).LDS authors Joseph Fielding McConkie and Craig J. Ostler also mentioned the matter in 2000.

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":

Critics who attack the Church based on its artwork should perhaps take Elder Maxwell's caution to heart.

Why, then, does the art not match details which have been repeatedly spelled out in LDS publications?

The simplest answer may be that artists just 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":

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.

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." 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.

To illustrate this point, an examination of non-LDS artists' depictions of the Nativity can be found by clicking here.

Conclusion

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. And the critics know this. They are counting on it.

If you have any topic or question you would like to see addressed pleased contact Carolyn Wright at http://www.fairlds.org/contact.php Just check the box for the Meridian Article Editor.