Defending the Faith: Does art always accurately reflect history?

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • glacierlake3 Provo, UT
    Aug. 14, 2017 10:44 a.m.

    individuals and groups have taken poetic and artistic licence in every culture and it has not changed today over religious matters. Enough prayer and work with Christ will bring about exact surrealistic structure for Jesus Christ is in all truth and as a whole we who read such tend to exaggerate characters in such books as to the position they hold in our lives.

  • texascamp Grand Junction, CO
    Aug. 13, 2017 11:05 p.m.

    I was a religious cynic when I was an Art History student and developed a love of religious art and held as a goal to paint biblical characters in non-conventional, out of character locations. Why? because there are many tricks, in any art, music, film, etc. to focus the subject and take the viewer on a ride. Art is filled with deception, mind tricks and button pushing conventions and anti-conventions. Art (even photography), like fiction literature, heck, like first person accounts, is false, fake, fabricated, what have you. We can never know the full truth of anything by way of another person's description no matter the media. Is it lying? Meh!

    One of the first pieces of deceptive art a student sees is Mantegna's Lamentation of Christ. Christ is dead and laid out on a stone. The viewer may not notice that the artist shrinks his feet and legs so as not to overpower the scene with feet. They are freakishly small no man could stand on them. Lies!

    There are so many inaccuracies and anachronisms in religious/historical art that has driven the narrative of Christianity for 2 thousand years. But to castigate the Catholic, or Mormon church because of artist liberties? Really?

  • clearthink Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 12, 2017 3:34 p.m.

    The problem in the Church is all the Book of Mormon art depicts a Mesoamerican setting. As the article points out, Christian art depicts the Bible in a variety of settings, but LDS art fails to do the same. That has led people to assume the Mesoamerican setting is officially approved.

    In fact, if you visit the North Visitors Center on Temple Square, the exhibits explicitly depict the "two-Cumorahs" theory, with Mormon working on his abridgment surrounded by Mayan glyphs and Moroni off in the distance burying the plates in New York. This contradicts what Church leaders since Joseph Smith have consistently taught about Cumorah in New York.

  • Nachtmerrie_in_Brugge Mesa, AZ
    Aug. 11, 2017 11:40 p.m.

    There is no right or wrong in art. It's art!

  • James B. Young SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Aug. 11, 2017 2:31 p.m.

    Artists often take liberties with historical facts, and historians, unfortunately, at times, do so also.

  • Jay Claihn Cumberland , MD
    Aug. 11, 2017 2:30 p.m.

    When Brueghel and others presented Biblical stories in contemporary settings or with commonly-accepted symbols of Christian concepts (like keys, for instance), they did so knowing that they were employing artifice. They did so knowing that they were not capturing an historically accurate representation of the scene. And their audience would've known this, too. No one would see a picture of Jesus giving keys to Peter and therefore assume Christ gave real keys to Peter. The audience would've rightly known that this was symbolic. European artists of this period were utilizing the symbolic/allegorical approaches of both Greco-Roman and Medieval artists. Artists were not meant to create historically accurate images devoid of symbol and allegory. That came later in the history of art. And artists took a beating for doing so at first, because it wasn't consider very artistic to do so.

    Mormon artists who created these images for manuals and lesson plans were not working in this way. It sounds like you are saying that a representation of actual golden plates is an obvious symbol for a rock in a hat in the same way that keys symbolically represent authority!

  • skeptic Phoenix, AZ
    Aug. 11, 2017 2:19 p.m.

    @beowulf,
    Too many posters are trying to portray artist as innocent detached conveyors of their works. That is seldom the case, as a picture is worth a thousand words and the purpose of the art is to send a message and influence, true, or false information and with purpose. Art is, and always has been a powerful tool of propaganda. Any educated person will realize that the art depicted in the Book Of Mormon or other esoteric works are rendered with purpose of convincing and to promote an image and believe. To be awake to reality is not cynical, to be ignorant of reality is sad because it is not real (fake).

  • CMTM , 00
    Aug. 11, 2017 2:03 p.m.

    RE: Tyler D The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy 1978 signed by approximately 300 evangelical scholars at a conference sponsored by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. The statement was designed to defend the position of Biblical inerrancy against trends toward liberal (& LDS) conceptions of Scripture . The signers a variety of evangelical denominations.

    No ancient literature has survived in its original form; everything we have is derived from copies of the originals. The NT is no exception. However, in comparison with any other ancient literature, the NT is without a peer—both in terms of the chronological proximity and the surviving number. Several ancient authorities are preserved in only a handful of ms. Not so with the NT. There are approximately 5,500 Greek witnesses, ranging in date from the second century AD into the middle ages.
    Besides the Greek evidence, there are nearly 30,000 versional copies (e.g., Latin, Coptic, and Syriac).and over 1,000,000 quotations from the NT church Fathers. NT textual criticism has always had an embarrassment of riches unparalleled in any other field.”

    I have several Greek apparatus’s that I study.

  • Tyler D Prescott, AZ
    Aug. 11, 2017 1:13 p.m.

    @CMTM

    Everything you’re saying is, in the end, an orthodox belief (e.g., other early Christian sects had different beliefs) and not a fact.

    That’s why it’s called “faith.”

    There are plenty of reasons to doubt the veracity of the Bible (I’ve only scratched the surface) both in terms of accurately conveying events and what was said by whom, and in framing a proper understanding of what Jesus was actually teaching (far more likely he was either an apocalyptic preacher or a misunderstood mystic or both).

    @KevinSim IMO gets it right – your project on this forum is irrelevant. Rather, how does the Bible speak to your heart?

    For me, it doesn’t (except when it teaches objectively good ethics). It’s filled with contradictions, barbarism, tribalism, and moral relativism. For these and many other reasons I believe mythic religion is an inherently divisive and destructive enterprise.

    But if it makes you a better person, great!

    Perhaps you should stick with that rather than trying to prove that it’s all “true” because the Bible says so (which is a logical fallacy called circular reasoning or “begging the question”).

  • strom thurmond taylorsville, UT
    Aug. 11, 2017 12:23 p.m.

    NoNames...

    "I'm sorry there are those whose parents or lay church instructors did not know LDS Church history or doctrine well enough to teach it accurately. "

    Church prophets, and paid CES instructors are not laity in any sense of the term.

    Also, those images are printed in editions of the book of Mormon.

    Beart

    "Did he look into a hat, as has been recorded? Probably."

    He most certainly did. This is not disputable.

    " Did he use the translators? Probably, but maybe not all the time, as he himself also said he reached a point at which he didn't need them."

    What would this look like in a painting? I'm genuinely curious.

    Of note, the plates were essentially never in the vicinity. One wonders why lengths had to be gone to to create and preserve them.

    Baowolf,

    "When Joseph is portrayed as poring over the text, is this false? "

    Yes, according to Bushman, and all involved in the process, it is completely false.

  • strom thurmond taylorsville, UT
    Aug. 11, 2017 12:14 p.m.

    Once again Dr Peterson draws false equivalence.

    Painting events from 1000-1800 years, or more, is not the same as what we see in "restoration" art.

    We see a continuous organization, with leaders seemingly hiding the oddity of their origins (for example Joseph using a rock in a hat to "translate" plates that were not in the vicinity).

    Frieberg was nearly a contemporary of Joseph Smith's contemporaries.

    The church prints these images in their holy scripture, and the depiction is wholly erroneous.

    For example, not one person described the events of the BoM "translation" as being even remotely similar to what we see in the endorsed artwork.

    People are put off, and rightfully so, when they pick up Bushman's book and find the image they informed their faith with, to be divorced from historical facts.

  • Beart SAINT LOUIS, MO
    Aug. 11, 2017 12:00 p.m.

    Excellent article. Neither the church nor the artist is lying, and it is foolish for anyone to say so. Art is usually a lofty interpretation of an important event, meant to commemorate and not to represent historical accuracy. Even trained historians often misrepresent by emphasizing a specific point of view about an historical event, which could more likely considered lying than anything an artist could produce. Did Joseph work directly fro the plates? Probably. Did he look into a hat, as has been recorded? Probably. Did he use the translators? Probably, but maybe not all the time, as he himself also said he reached a point at which he didn't need them. The point is that translation is commemorated in works of art, that represent the faith and understanding of the artist. Let art speak for itself and enjoy the finished product. We should let our faith focus on the truthfulness of the event itself and not on artistic representations.

  • Beart SAINT LOUIS, MO
    Aug. 11, 2017 12:02 p.m.

    Excellent article. Neither the church nor the artist is lying, and it is foolish for anyone to say so. Art is usually a lofty interpretation of an important event, meant to commemorate and not to represent historical accuracy. Even trained historians often misrepresent by emphasizing a specific point of view about an historical event, which could more likely considered lying than anything an artist could produce. Did Joseph work directly fro the plates? Probably. Did he look into a hat, as has been recorded? Probably. Did he use the translators? Probably, but maybe not all the time, as he himself also said he reached a point at which he didn't need them. The point is that translation is commemorated in works of art, that represent the faith and understanding of the artist. Let art speak for itself and enjoy the finished product. We should let our faith focus on the truthfulness of the event itself and not on artistic representations.

  • CMTM , 00
    Aug. 11, 2017 11:18 a.m.

    RE: Craig Clark. The description “Son of Man” was a Messianic title.
    Jesus is the One who was given dominion and glory and a kingdom. When Jesus used this phrase, He was assigning the Son of Man prophecy to Himself.
    The Jews would have been intimately familiar with the phrase and to whom it referred. Jesus was proclaiming Himself as the Messiah. E.g.., You have heard his ’blasphemy”= (They get it)’ Mark 14

    A second meaning of the phrase “Son of Man” is that Jesus was truly a human being. A son of a man is a man. Jesus was fully God (John 1:1), but He was also a human being (John 1:14)

    RE: Tyler D. The good news=(Gospel, G. euaggelion) “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has drawn near; repent and believe the good news(Mark 1:15).

    “The differences between the Gospels,’ show the independent nature of the writings.’ The independent nature of the four Gospel accounts, agreeing in their information but differing in perspective, amount of detail, and which events were recorded, indicate that the record that we have of Christ's life and ministry as presented in the Gospels is factual and reliable.” The N. T. documents are they reliable. F. F. Bruce.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    Aug. 11, 2017 10:43 a.m.

    CMTM,
    “ RE: Tyler D - The Son of Man” are in 3rd person, suggesting Jesus may not have been referring to himself. Wrong, Jesus identifies Himself as the Son of Man (a Messianic title)in Daniel 7:13-14,"
    ____________________
    " Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God: (Luke 12 8) "

    In this passage, Jesus appears to be using the term Son of Man to refer to someone other than himself. It’s worth noting that Jesus invariably refers to the Son of Man in the third person rather than simply saying I, me, or myself.

    In ancient Hebrew writings, the term “one like a son of man” is used. We find it in both the Old and New Testments. Son of man is, of course, an English transliteration of the Hebrew bar nasha, a word of imprecise and ambiguous meaning. In its most basic usage, it can simply mean a man or a human being.

  • Terry29 Gadsden, AL
    Aug. 11, 2017 10:04 a.m.

    Aside from artistic license, correcting LDS art inaccuracies has been done by LDS historians.

  • Mr Dana SAN CLEMENTE, CA
    Aug. 11, 2017 10:02 a.m.

    The works of art depicted in our missionary flipcharts in which we showed investigators was no to reflect on art or artists interpretations, we were showing them artistic facts. It is more than obvious the leadership decided it "looked better" to depict events without the hat, seer stone or Other means to avoid questions. However, it doesn't really matter how or what Joseph used, nor does it matter if we "polished" the story or didn't share specific facts. I wasn't converted by pictures or stories. In fact, I felt the whole story of Joseph Smith was false, until one night in 1974 the spirit bore and undeniable witness to the truth. Joseph Smith was telling the truth, Jesus is the Christ and God lives. I felt eternity that night. The Church is true but is flawed. The Keys or authority lies with the sometimes fallible apostles and prophets. We don't believe the doctrine of infallibility but many members mistakenly do. But I believe and know this is the true church, with all its "misteps", and policies & procedures that are not doctrine but sincere efforts to follow the teachings of the Savior. He does not guide us in all things and leaves us to do our best in many things.

  • KevinSim Springville, UT
    Aug. 11, 2017 9:52 a.m.

    CMTM posted:

    =A side by side comparison between the two main text families (the Majority Text
    =and the modern critical text) shows agreement a full 98% of the time.Of the
    =remaining differences, virtually all yield to vigorous textual criticism.
    =
    =This means that our New Testament is 99.5% textually pure. In the entire text
    =of 20,000 lines, only 40 lines are in doubt about 400 words), and none affects
    =any significant doctrine or to the beginning of the second millennium A.D.

    The amount of agreement between the texts, or the textual purity, are irrelevant. The only thing that's relevant is the role that God has told you He wants the Bible to play in your life. CMTM, has God told you what the role is He wants the Bible to play in your life?

  • Engraver San Clemente, CA
    Aug. 11, 2017 9:50 a.m.

    Ditto for replicas of the Golden Plates of Cumorah; the witnessed descriptions lacked the precision for the reconstruction of a completely accurate model or replica; besides the cost of the gold for a single plate would be over $1,000 in today's market in addition to the cost of fabricating 100 plus plates and the engraving labor. Daniel's insights are always "right on", thanks to him and the Deseret News for bringing them to light.

  • Tyler D Prescott, AZ
    Aug. 11, 2017 9:43 a.m.

    @CMTM

    I don’t think we have any idea what Jesus said to the Jewish authorities on the night of his conviction – does anyone actually think they sat down with the author of Mark (decades after they killed his beloved teacher) and told him exactly what was said? I seriously doubt it…

    If we focus on the sayings of Jesus that don’t appear to be invented by subsequent followers, the verdict is much more ambiguous – in Mark, Jesus only ever uses the term “Son of Man” (and never refers to himself as God) and always in the 3rd person.

    If he was simply one of many Jewish apocalyptic preachers, talking about a future “cosmic judge” (not necessarily himself) would be consistent with his 3rd person utterances.

    PS – I have no doubt that his followers thought Jesus was the Son of Man but what they wrote (e.g., about conservations they could not have been privy to) is very different than what Jesus actually said.

  • Beowulf Portland, OR
    Aug. 11, 2017 9:12 a.m.

    Skeptic writes: It seems the message here is that just like there is fake news today there was fake art in yesteryear's. It seems man just can not escape his penchant for being two faced. Who are we to believe.

    Me: What a remarkably cynical view of the world. Dan's point is that artists choose subjects that they are familiar with to portray their art. Nobody is "lying" or creating "fake news". They are being totally sincere. I once saw a fresco of Jesus and the Apostles taken from a monastery circa 8th CE along the Silk Road (now part of China). Guess what? The faces were all Asians. It is an idiotic assumption to say that the artist was lying.

    LDS artists are the same. When Nephi is portrayed as muscular, the artist explained that this was to show his spiritual muscularity. Is it therefore false? When Joseph is portrayed as poring over the text, is this false? No. It shows his sincerity at his task in a way that the viewer (us) can understand. The stone-in-the-hat, while true, is too foreign for us sophisticated moderns, so we substitute. So?

    There is no lie here. Or fake news. Or whatever else people use to denigrate other people's expression of thought.

  • Michael_M Scottsbluff, NE
    Aug. 11, 2017 8:35 a.m.

    Karen R. said "I don't believe church leaders are claiming ignorance of the stone in the hat."

    You are correct. Anti-Mormons have been pointing it out since at least 1834 and the Church has known about it all along. In my lifetime it was called a lie fabricated by enemies of the church to bring ridicule. We were taught through official curriculum that the Urim and Thummin was the instrument of the translation. Historical references to the stone in the hat were not considered credible by top LDS leaders. The difference now is that it is no longer disputed.

  • CMTM , 00
    Aug. 11, 2017 8:08 a.m.

    RE: Tyler D - The Son of Man” are in 3rd person, suggesting Jesus may not have been referring to himself. Wrong,
    Jesus identifies Himself as the Son of Man (a Messianic title)in Daniel 7:13-14,
    ‘Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?’ And Jesus said, ‘I(Ego) am(Eimi*), and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.’

    Jesus answers the question, he not only uses the Greek verb* but He also uses the pronoun, He wants the hearer to clearly understand the answer) the high priest tore his garments and said, ‘What further witnesses do we need? You have heard his ’blasphemy”= (They get it)’ Mark 14:61-64.
    16 places in Mark that point persuasively to Jesus’ deity when taken together, By James White E.g…,
    1.The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (1:1).
    2. John the Baptist applies Isaiah 40:3 (which is about Yahweh) to Jesus.“. . . the voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight’” (1:3).
    3. …the Spirit descending on him like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, ‘You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased’” (1:9-11)…..

  • Grumpy Granpa Spanish Fork, UT
    Aug. 11, 2017 6:45 a.m.

    A problem with LDS art as I see it, is that it is often commissioned. Like most commissioned art the purchaser often has input or endorsement of the creation.

    As others have pointed out, the artworks that are admittedly "wrong" from a historical perspective are used in "LDS curriculum, as well as,… in LDS Temples and Visitor's Center[s] etc. " In these venues, there is, "oversight by committees of General Authorities," including Apostles and the First Presidency who review the works created and the materials they are presented in. There typically, are not disclaimers, they are meant to tell a particular story or convey a certain message.

    If the case is to present a more open or honest history, or even defend the faith, why are not the ancient Christian catacomb arts presented with Christ using a Magic Wand, or renditions of Orpheus as the Good Shepard labeled as such? Because they don't help the Mormon or Christian narrative.

    It is undeniable that art, correctly portrayed or not, is used to present a certain apologetic, theme, or view. Why deny it?

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Aug. 11, 2017 6:02 a.m.

    @ Craig Clark

    "Art tells us more about the artist than it does about his chosen subject matter."

    I would say two things in response to this:

    One, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the art consistently used to depict an allegedly historical and foundational event tells us something about the beliefs of those presenting it. When this might be an exception: Where the truth wasn't known. I don't believe church leaders are claiming ignorance of the stone in the hat.

    Two, absent that ignorance, it's a little shabby (IMO) to then turn around and blame those who took the messages to heart. It reminds me of the responses I sometimes get to the BoM passages about skin color. "It wasn't meant to be taken literally!" some will argue. Except that it was, through generations of LDS leadership.

  • Michael_M Scottsbluff, NE
    Aug. 11, 2017 5:29 a.m.

    @NoNamesAccepted
    Please don't try to lay blame on parents or "lay church instructors". Lack of knowledge of LDS Church history or doctrine was not the reason or cause for why they said the stone in the hat was an anti-Mormon lie.

  • loweye salt lake, UT
    Aug. 10, 2017 8:37 p.m.

    We shouldn't expect these artists to show exactly what happened. They were not working from life or even photos. They were painting things as they pictured them from what they knew.

    I'm sure that no two people would paint the same scene the same way. We see things from our own perspectives. How would any of us depict things that happened in the Garden of Eden? Did anyone here witness it? And even eyewitness accounts aren't 100% reliable.

    I was taught in high school that we take from the written page what we take to it. I believe that applies to art as well.

  • Michael_M Scottsbluff, NE
    Aug. 10, 2017 5:34 p.m.

    @NoNamesAccepted
    The matter of the rock in the hat did not involve just "lay church instructors". It wasn't in LDS curriculum, only in anti-Mormon materials which we were forbidden to read. Articles in the Improvement Era of the 1950s disputing the rock and hat had a tremendous influence on faithful members. In the 1960s "Modern Microfilm" (Gerald and Sandra Tanner) published many truths. My own father showed me that source. When I asked questions of LDS members and leaders, every single one told me that the rock in the hat was an anti-Mormon lie published by anti-Mormons who were under the influence of Satan. All were telling me what they had been taught and was backed up with LDS published articles in the predecessor to the Ensign.

    It does matter that what Joseph Smith did as a young man with a rock in a hat was against the laws of New York and caused his arrest. It matters because the same method and at times even the same rock was allegedly used in the translation of the Book of Mormon and that fact was concealed and denied even by an LDS apostle (and later prophet) in my lifetime. Like I said on my earlier comment, the problem isn't with artists or art.

  • NoNamesAccepted St. George, UT
    Aug. 10, 2017 4:28 p.m.

    I'm sorry there are those whose parents or lay church instructors did not know LDS Church history or doctrine well enough to teach it accurately. I was blessed to have parents and local leaders who knew church history, understood church doctrine, and were quite comfortable teaching it to me and my fellows. I've never had any major upsets in learning church history from any source since.

    We've learned more details in some cases. I've learned that there are multiple sides to most encounters. But at the core, I was taught accurate church history....and accurate secular history.

    I think the recently published 11 essays that discuss some of the challenging aspects of LDS Church history or doctrine are great. Ditto the collecting and publication of the Joseph Smith papers.

    Churches, like individuals and other organizations, grow and mature over time. It doesn't mean the 30 year old man is bad because at 15 he did things differently. So too, a church isn't false because it was less open about certain things in 1960 than it is in 2015.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    Aug. 10, 2017 4:24 p.m.

    Art shapes perceptions even when it gets it wrong. We have no idea of what Jesus looked like but virtually everyone imagining him sees a familiar iconic face in his mind’s eye. For all we know, Jesus might have been short, portly, and bald-headed. But that’s not the image we know.

    No physical description of him is in the gospels. The closest a canonical verse comes is in Revelation 1 describing him as “one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire.”

    But that was in a vision and not taken literally. Early Christian art avoided portraying him in images which was prohibited by Mosaic law. Early medieval artists ventured to put paint to stone on walls of tombs, then frescoes in churches, then later on canvas. Artists copied other artists influencing still other artists and an archetypal image began to emerge, one that we’re all familiar with today.

  • NoNamesAccepted St. George, UT
    Aug. 10, 2017 4:23 p.m.

    Art, in various forms, speaks to the human soul in ways that literal prose or actual photographs cannot. I do not know that Oskar Schindler ever actually witnessed a little girl in a red coat. But those scenes from Schindler's list convey a truth far larger about the Holocaust than any individual encounter that Oskar did or didn't have.

    As an active LDS, I believe the closing scenes in C.S. Lewis' "The Screwtape Letters" are full of doctrinal inaccuracies regarding the physical nature of God. But those scenes convey to me a sense of truth regarding my relationship with the Almighty more powerfully and accurately than any doctrinal dissertation I've ever read.

    Similarly, I know angels don't have wings but the typical Christian depiction of winged angels conveys powerful truths about their ability and character.

    Music and poetry often touch us in ways that the spoken word cannot. With good reason is the phrase "literary license" not typically negative.

    Black and white movies are less accurate than full color and yet sometimes convey mood and emotion more honestly.

    With art, literal accuracy often gives way, properly, to accurately conveying feelings.

  • Tyler D Prescott, AZ
    Aug. 10, 2017 3:56 p.m.

    @CMTM – “A side by side comparison… shows agreement a full 98% of the time.”

    Non-evangelical bible scholars find not only less agreement but increasingly incredible claims as we move from Mark through John (precisely the results we get from the Telephone Game).

    In Mark, Jesus is a mysterious teacher (Rabbi) who no one can figure out and who never refers to himself as God. Even his references to “The Son of Man” are in 3rd person, suggesting Jesus may not have been referring to himself.

    Compare this earliest account to John (written decades after Mark). In John, Jesus proclaims himself God all over the place, and his glory so great and obvious that only “the blind” would fail to recognize him as such.

    Other than the chronological facts of his life, it’s like you’re reading about two totally different people.


    If John is accurate this would indeed be the greatest story ever told and thus we should expect to have countless more accounts of his magisterial and miraculous life from non-Christian sources (e.g., Romans).

    Curious that we don’t have any…

  • CMTM , 00
    Aug. 10, 2017 2:54 p.m.

    RE: Tyler D . Simon Greenleaf, a well-known and accepted authority on what constitutes reliable evidence in a court of law, examined the four Gospels from a legal perspective. He noted that the type of eyewitness accounts given in the four Gospels—accounts which agree, but with each writer choosing to omit or add details different from the others—is typical of reliable, independent sources that would be accepted in a court of law as strong evidence.

    Daniel Wallace on the N.T. notes that although there are about 300,000 individual variations of the text of the New Testament, this number is very misleading.
    Most of the differences are completely inconsequential--spelling errors, inverted phrases and the like. A side by side comparison between the two main text families (the Majority Text and the modern critical text) shows agreement a full 98% of the time.Of the remaining differences, virtually all yield to vigorous textual criticism.

    This means that our New Testament is 99.5% textually pure. In the entire text of 20,000 lines, only 40 lines are in doubt about 400 words), and none affects any significant doctrine or to the beginning of the second millennium A.D.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    Aug. 10, 2017 2:11 p.m.

    Art tells us more about the artist than it does about his chosen subject matter.

  • Michael_M Scottsbluff, NE
    Aug. 10, 2017 2:02 p.m.

    The problem isn't the art or the artists. In my youth I was taught that the stone in the hat was an anti-Mormon lie. The fact it is Joseph Smith did it, using the same stone that he had earlier used to fraud people with claims of buried treasure. He was even arrested for that prior antic. So instead of an article about art reflecting history it would be more appropriate to address how important it is to tell the truth when presenting history.

  • skeptic Phoenix, AZ
    Aug. 10, 2017 1:36 p.m.

    It seems the message here is that just like there is fake news today there was fake art in yesteryear's. It seems man just can not escape his penchant for being two faced. Who are we to believe.

  • KevinRex West Richland, WA
    Aug. 10, 2017 1:19 p.m.

    And, in LDS curriculum, as well as, and especially so, in LDS Temples and Visitor's Center, there is very heavy oversight by committees of General Authorities, including apostles and often first presidency review, so that the art work is especially more attuned towards accurately and truthfully reflecting what actually occurred and/or what God wants us to see and feel. Or maybe not?

  • Tyler D Prescott, AZ
    Aug. 10, 2017 1:15 p.m.

    Artists “taking liberties” is like the Telephone Game (Google “Chinese Whispers”) on steroids – both of which make one wonder just how much the facts “evolved” in the decades between the death of Jesus and the earliest Gospel (Mark) let alone in the centuries since.

    A brilliant article for articulating precisely how easy it is to turn facts into fantasies.

    Well done!