On the other hand, illustrations should be accurate. Not Joseph Smith translating from plates, etc. Christ should be portrayed as Mediterranean and not a Scandinavian. And I suspect that Adam and Eve (if they existed) were not blond Scandinavians. The “white and delightsome” model is racist.

Right, but remember the discussion was over whether their beliefs are a caricature of the church. That is whether their core beliefs should be core beliefs.

I certainly agree with what you say and think that is why these people feel betrayed. But that can be true and Williams point also be right.

Sure, people can be shocked about anything manipulated they once perceived as ‘true,’ but they will feel betrayed in relation to their core beliefs being challenged (their foundation(al narrative), let’s say) and amount of trust they place(d) in the author/sponsor/perpetrator of the thing manipulated. Obviously, some people have more initial trust in those authors/sponsors/perpetrators (perhaps because they are asked to do so) than others and thus feel more betrayed.

This is not a criticism, nor is it a bad thing. It is. And lots of people respond to it, many in a good way, and some not.

I admit, I’m on the outs with this stuff. I would once like to walk into a Deseret Book and see, to my surprise, not a Germanic white Jesus, but, god forbid, an actual Mediterranean Jewish Jesus. I gave up on the Mormon art world during the whole Rodin controversy at BYU. I must also admit, one of the slight antagonisms I have with LDS publications is the art–Bloch, Olsen, repeat. Having said that, there is some really great work being produced on the edges.

Fortunately, we all get to put the art we like into our homes as we like it.

I have several Lynde Mott’s, including a 3′ by 5′ original of Mary and the Midwives (http://cosmosandlogos.com/?p=514) hanging in my living room. It is spectacular in the original. And the best thing about it are the comments I get from people who walk in and see it. They range from “Why do you have a pregnant lady on your wall?” to “That is the most beautiful thing I have ever seen.” These comments come at about half and half.

I also have a Buddha statue in the same living room, with a couple of Ansel Adams, and there are many people who simply do not know what to say (I can see their thoughts rolling in their eyes about the Buddha but stopping at their mouth). It is so fun that I am considering installing a large Avilokiteshvara statue riding a horse, just to push some people over the edge.

I’ll admit that *personally* I’d prefer art or at least art trying to be representational be informed by the latest scholarship. However knowing the reality of groups, I know that’ll never happen. At best I can wish groups do better. My gripe is just that this isn’t a problem uniquely Mormon. It’s true of almost anything. Tell the average person that all those photographs and paintings of nebula are enhanced and nothing like you’d see with the naked eye. People are shocked. Strangely though they don’t feel betrayed.

I would say my absolute favorite Church art piece is Meridene Grant’s A Name and a Blessing, https://history.lds.org/media/grant-m?lang=eng#1 . The description goes: “My painting depicts a Chinese family in traditional dress gathered in a beautiful and peaceful garden for the blessing of an infant. The scene also evokes a feeling of reverence for the blessing given by three Chinese Melchizedek Priesthood holders.” It’s a watercolor in traditional style of, in one sense, the lost Chinese church we hope once existed, and in another the adoption of the restored gospel by Chinese culture. I would be elated to hear that at least one Taiwanese meetinghouse displayed a copy. The artist was I believe very old and no longer seems to be active. I hope to see more artists adopt the Gospel and our unique stories into their cultures (Joseph Smith as an Arab?), and to see the recent trend in adopting local architectural styles for temples make its way to meetinghouses as well. Imagine visiting the Indian Saints in a meetinghouse designed from the ground up to fit the local style and also the needs of a congregation.

Art will never be entirely “realistic”; not even photographic art in the current computer age. We could do better than pushing realism by being clear about using multiple different, symbolic representations, “realistic” or not, rather than letting folks blithely assume that a purported “realistic” artistic style is conveying an untouched, un-photoshopped photographic representation of physical history. By the time children are able to understand that Santa Claus is a symbol, most of them can also accept it. I suspect adults could do the same with pictures of JS translating from gold plates, for example, if only they were taught about pictorial symbolism and the variety of possible meanings of the word “translate.”

Having now completely hi-jacked this thread on a tangential issue, I’d better get off the soap-box before it breaks.

Saying in effect that “jumping ship would not be warranted if people could just understand the nuance of topic X” is fine, so long as the actual topic is explored. To argue that allowing for nuance makes it easier to remain faithful to the Church’s truth claims without actually presenting a nuanced approach to a specific topic just doesn’t seem constructive to me at all.

Perhaps its time for me to only chime in on discussions that aren’t limited to mere conceptualization. I suppose that’s why some of the best discussions I’ve had on Church history are the ones that center on the research contents, and not merely the concepts, of the topic at hand.

I’d love Book of Mormon & Biblical art to actually look like what Palestinians likely looked like. I wish the swords of the Nephites were macuahuitls rather than gladiuses. Although still wrong the SLC visitor’s center admittedly now has paintings with both – unfortunately keeping the gladius in the Nephite hands. Wrong but a definite step up.

Yes. That doesn’t make it right of course. People have misunderstandings of the gospel and Church all the time. Heck, I probably have several that I’m not aware of.

The problem is that it doesn’t take much thinking/knowledge to realize that history isn’t clearly known. By anyone. The story of Washington and the cherry tree didn’t happen. Lincoln was a racist. So forth. However lots of people believe the cherry tree story and assume Lincoln was akin to modern civil rights activists. Folk traditions, even with the level of converts we have, inform people’s ideas far more than actual data. This is true of basically everything.

That people don’t want to acknowledge they might be ignorant and take everything at face value is fine. But at a certain point it’s the individual’s responsibility. I just don’t see the religious aspect of this as particularly unique. You find exactly the same phenomena in most religions and honestly in nearly any topic. It’s completely understandable. But the issue at hand is more one of responsibility.

Michael (29) In general black and white thinking doesn’t admit nuance or degree. Taken to extremes this means drinking alcohol is as bad as murder. (Of course few take it that far) Some things are black and white of course. While the degree something is bad may vary (say embezzling money or murder) both are wrong. Where black and white thinking tends to fall down is with complexity. In ethical matters you often have competing values that are in tension and the answers aren’t clear. In terms of knowledge we have to admit our ignorance and recognize things aren’t sure.

So I didn’t mean much profound by it. Just that complexity makes black and white thinking often difficult and that many phenomena come in terms of degree.

A perhaps better way of putting it is that people crave to oversimplify matters and make things easier than they actually are. Of course the opposite happens sometimes too. People make things unnecessarily complex and assume things are harder than they are.

OK, this particular soapbox has become tiresome — probably for you, too! :)