Also my point about historical accuracy is about things that I think are important. To me when all the characters in all illustration are white that’s an important issue. But my primary focus was on significant inaccuracies like the translation pictures.

I have written a few hyperbolic statements to emphasize some points, but I don’t believe I am misconstruing what Clark is saying. Clark has made some great points, but his conclusion is that all church art used in teaching (which is practically every church experience, including the temple) adhere to a protocol of historical correctness. I believe that such a conclusion is wrong. It places an unwieldy burden on artistic expression and the use of art in teaching.

Why exclude the Christus statue from discussion? The Christus statue is obviously a white European depiction. Unsurprisingly, Jesus’ physical characteristics reflects the cultural norms and ideals of the artist. The Christus statue fits that traditional depiction of Jesus that Clark wants ended or curtailed by a committee of artistic correlation. Christ is wearing a toga-like robe typical of classical sculpture. Jesus never looked like that. But that is not the point. We both agree that it is a spiritually powerful piece that should remain on Temple Square and be used as a teaching tool by the Church.

And I am well aware that variations in artistic interpretations of scripture and history do (and should) happen. I have already noted that I appreciate most of them. Free artistic expression is one way we grow as a people. I don’t want Clark or even an apostle establishing a creed of what is appropriate for future art works. Let faithful and thoughtful LDS artists interpret the scripture and history and convey their testimonies in their respective media.

I really believe that all Latter-day Saints need to grow up and appreciate the art of our past and present. Art (even scientific illustration) is never completely true to reality. That is like claiming a hymn needs to be completely historically accurate. If we uncovered a document that revealed it was probably cloudy on the day of the First Vision, would we refrain from singing “How Lovely was the Morning?” There are aesthetically and spiritually powerful pieces in various genres and styles both within and and outside of the LDS movement. They should be considered by members in lessons and openly discussed. I do not oppose differing or new interpretations, I oppose discarding and discrediting the old in some move to be politically correct. I oppose believing that Clark’s (or anyone’s) current or future historical interpretation is a complete reflection of reality. In the end, that is not fully possible in history, and it is often not even the main objective in the arts.

I believe that a church-sponsored artwork depicting Jesus as a tanned Semite would do very little to alleviate the alienation minorities sometimes feel. But freedom of artistic expression can help. I don’t want to see the correlated view in an art piece. I want to see, hear and feel the testimony of minority artists in their works. Their voices. Their thoughts. So we can all look past the cultural and racial differences and see fellow brother and sisters we are united with in Christ.

Old Man, you are also misconstruing Clark’s statements. Not all art needs to strive for historical accuracy. For example, I seriously doubt Christ ever stood around with His arms stretched out like the Christus statue, but I’m pretty sure Clark isn’t petitoning to have the Christus statue removed from Temple Square. Nor do you need to toss away art that depicts Semitic people as white Europeans. However, when you have an instruction manual teaching about an event and the lesson asserts the event to be historical, the accompanying art should attempt to be representative of the event, especially where we have details about that event (see e.g., seer stones in hats). I’m more emphatic about this when it comes to Church history than other issues, mainly because we have less certainty about what things looked like. Similarly, if the Church wants to commission a piece of art depicting the Savior, can you admit that having a Semitic Jesus rather than a northern European Jesus might have a very positive impact on many members of the Church?

I guess we could sponsor more digital illustration in the Church. We could change skin color, apparel, body type, objects, etc. with some clicks of a mouse. Decisions could be based on the latest historical research. If an item or something in a work was controversial or suspect, it could be earmarked noting the issue.

What if the artists draw Joseph looking into a black felt hat to make you happy, and then the historians say Joseph probably never owned a black felt hat?

I’ve seen plenty of nativity sets at LDS church settings that were other-than-white. They were all welcome, including the white ones. They were all for devotional purposes, not for historical re-creation purposes. I even saw a nativity set made of bears once.

There have been some great paintings in the Ensign going back quite a few years. But most of them don’t pop up during searches and may not even be on lds.org. How much of that is due to having limited rights and how much is just due to art & illustrations not being a focus (yet) at lds.org I can’t say.

While lds.org’s media library is still a little wanting in many ways, fortunately Google Image search works well and I think many people actually use that first. (I know I do)

I’m not sure the church attempted to remove all folk traditions in the 20th century. There have been a few articles touching on issues like that such as non-heirarchal use of seer stones. Some of the initial papers haven’t necessarily been well thought of though and there hasn’t been as much focus on those issues outside of Quinn that one might expect. One theory on the topic of seer stones that was in the old book Women and Authority in the 90’s was that as the apostles felt the need to centralize authority such folk traditions were found threatening. I’m not sure how well that thesis has stood up though. (That’s primarily due to just not having the time to research since I got married)

Certainly in some areas folk traditions persisted, although often constrained by social norms. The folklore collection at BYU used to have a lot of collections of these – at least they did when I was there and had friends working on it. The Hoffman forgeries and then Quinn’s book brought a bit of focus on it. I think a lot of these things remained more persistent than most assume though.

For example, there’s no reference to seer stones in the Our Heritage book issued to all members 12 and up nor is there any reference to plural marriage or polygamy in the Kirtland, Missouri, or Nauvoo chapters. That book was touted as a big deal (at least where I lived outside the Mormon corridor) when it was first released in 1996.

We’re getting far afield from art, but I just checked LDS.org to see if there were any new paintings of Joseph and saw one (at least new to me) by John Luke entitled, “Remembering Nauvoo and Impressions of a Prophet.” Joseph appears in the painting to be reading the gold plates. No seer stone or Urim and Thummim (not sure how they would be represented) are visible.

https://www.lds.org/media-library/images/joseph-translating-gold-plates-329346?lang=eng

The first is a story primarily about the state of things 39 years after the priesthood ban ended. This section in particular I thought was important.

One of the issues for many African-American Mormons is their invisibility in their faith community.

There are black general authorities, but no black apostles, no blacks in the general presidency of the women’s Relief Society, few in the famed Mormon Tabernacle Choir or as faculty at BYU. LDS art often features a Scandinavian-looking Jesus and the biblical Adam and Eve are most often depicted as white.

Nor are their contributions to Mormon history recognized by many fellow believers.

That’s why it was gratifying for black Mormon genealogist Alice Faulkner Burch last month when a Mormon pioneer slave was honored.

Now callings are up to God. But the rest we can have a huge effect upon. People are feeling marginalized for a reason.

The next story was suggestions made by black members. Not all the suggestions are doable (As much as I like Genesis I don’t think making it a formal auxiliary necessarily should happen) However most of them are fantastic and I hope get implemented. Not just for blacks, but for many other groups like polynesians or other groups. The first two suggestions seemed very relevant to my original post.

• Cast a black Adam and Eve (or an interracial couple) in the film shown to faithful members in LDS temples.

• Use more African-American faces in church art and manuals and display more artwork depicting Christ as he would appear: as a Middle Eastern Jewish man.

I think this is an important point although we’re going on a bit of a tangent now. I think many that come (as do I primarily) from a secular university type culture (which honestly includes BYU) look askew at such views. For people who didn’t already know the history then the influence of folk traditions both in early Mormonism but also during the influx of British saints to the early Utah period is jarring and uncomfortable. Much of this is honestly just due to a lack of familiarity. That’s why I don’t like to use the term magic as it has a pretty pejorative sense to it. We label “folk magic” David Whitmer’s views of spiritual beings but not say when we hear missionary folk tales of missionaries encountering running men in Navajo regions of Arizona in the late 20th century. Traditional Catholic views of communion seem no less magical than Pentecostal views of spiritual gifts nor early Mormon conceptions of priesthood honestly.

To your other point, again I think the three witnesses saw in vision rather than an appearance. I just think the “directed” part is vastly overstated. Also some, like Vogel, tried to push the eight witnesses into that category but I think Anderson does a great job arguing against that.

But I completely think you’re right. I think seer stones were in a surprising number of church texts prior to the recent photos and essays. It’s just that, as you note, people interpreted it based upon art – especially that Del Parsons painting – rather than what was written or said. I knew about seer stones as a kid in the 80’s but I probably read more than the typical teen. Likewise when the salamander letter came out (later shown to be a Hoffman forgery) it was widely distributed in our stake by authorities.

While I eventually learned about seer stones (long after entering adulthood), seeing pictures of one of Joseph’s seer stones was still a bit of a shock. I have no idea whether the release of those photos contributed to some other members to have a faith crisis, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it did.

Ditto for paintings of Joseph’s visions, including the First Vision. The paintings give the impression of physical visitations which, the more I read of Church history, seem to have been the exception rather than the rule (I welcome correction on this point if I’m wrong). Thus, when I read modern scholarship on the showing of the plates to the Three Witnesses that sound more like guided viewing directed by Joseph (not sure what the proper term is) than a heavenly visitation, I can’t help feeling disenchanted.

I don’t hang this all on the art, and I don’t blame the artists. Either they were commissioned to paint something specific, or they may have not had access to the most accurate historical records, or they may not have been going to historical accuracy at all. It’s the Church that chose the art that it did and the manner in which the art was presented. Can’t we do better?