I guess what I’m getting at is that creativity — or attachment to one’s own creativity — is often a close cousin to pride.

Again, Iris Murdoch’s novels come to mind. “We aren’t conventional people,” her well-meaning intellectual protagonists keep reminding themselves, and when some moral dilemma confronts them, they try to come up with some creative, “enlightened” solution in keeping with their own special genius, rather than going with the obvious course of action (somehow déclassé in its simplicity) that any child could see is right.

Of course I’m not trying to say that creativity is a bad thing, or (as Blake famously said with reference to Milton) that all true poets are of the devil’s party, but neither do I think it can be considered an absolute virtue.

(I agree, by the way, that everyone accepts received ideas. But I think one is likely to adhere to them more closely — or at least more consciously — if they are thought to be of supernatural origin.)

As for tension between creativity and religion—I guess I’m questioning whether the two are necessarily distinct. It depends on how you define either one, and I’ve tried to define creativity within the umbrella of religion. Obviously creativity per se is neither good nor bad, and can be used for either, but the point is that it’s crucial, in my mind, for good. There will always be tension between the individual and the institution, but that isn’t necessarily bad, because as with the Tannaitic rabbis tension can lead to great creativity. The choice you suggest between leading an interesting life and a moral life is also dubious to me, and also depends on how you define either term. Is Murdoch maybe arguing against narcissism rather than individuality, which to me are not the same thing? The best sort of individuality isn’t self-centered, but self- and other-centered at the same time: love your neighbor as yourself implies equal importance, not one above the other.

In some ways, but not in every way. As the great Tannaitic rabbis, perhaps more than anyone else, have demonstrated, it’s quite possible to soar to breathtaking heights of creativity within the context of interpreting a received tradition. As you wrote, an idea need not be unique or original in order to be “creative” in a psychological sense. I’m reminded of Bruce R. McConkie’s famous speech in which he insists that when he quotes scripture he is using his own words. “True it is that they were first proclaimed by others,” he says, “but they are now mine”

Still, I think there will always be a certain tension between creativity and religion. When the second commandment, outranking “Thou shalt not kill,” is about not making graven images, that should be a hint.

Nor is creativity always conducive to morality. The fact is, virtue can be boring (think of Tolkien’s Saruman opting to be “many-coloured” rather than plain white), which is why the most enduring literary characters (Falstaff, Hamlet, King David) are morally dubious figures almost to a man. The more creative one’s temperament, the greater may be the temptation to lead an “interesting” life rather than a strictly moral one. This is one of the main themes of Iris Murdoch’s novels — that often we just get too interested in our own unique personalities and the drama of our lives, and it interferes with our ability to do the right thing.

I’m reminded of Joseph Smith’s “you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me” — which could be applied to the process of living morally just as aptly as to that of receiving revelation.

Rolf, narcissism can happen in just about any endeavor, I suppose, not merely the Arts. And I wouldn’t want that to be the main emphasis in discussions of the Arts: it would be like discussions of knowledge always end up focusing on not being proud, etc., so that the virtues of knowledge are shoved to the background.

Norm, I agree that one-dimensionality isn’t desirable, but I don’t see how imagination can be boxed off from other virtues; part of my point was how omnipresent it might be.

DavidH, I liked that talk too, but note the setting for it…Relief Society. Any such talks in Priesthood for instance?

Hunter, I used to think this as well, and thought it merely an effort to bolster the status of Artists, but the older I get the more I see the need for imagination in everyday living, and again my point is to show its unmissable role in spirituality, rather than it being regarded as a nice ornament.

I’m still trying to get my head around the idea of creativity as a sort of empathy. But I loved this great post. Thanks.