LDS Freedom Forum

Posted: **March 13th, 2012, 8:35 am**

I read the entire linked article. Essentially, what has happened in the past is rather than an artist be in tune with the Holy Ghost and capture the spirit of a message, the artist comes up with something that, while it maybe a masterpiece, is not appropriate for the message or conducive to being uplifted by the spirit of the message.

A very basic example is singing a sacrament hymn before partaking the sacrament. We don't sing God Be With You Til We Meet Again either for an opening hymn. This is basically what the article is saying, but more to the fact that artists tend to draw attention to themselves (their talent) rather than letting all the attention be focused on the art and the message. The point is to draw men to Christ, glorify God, etc. not the artist, himself.

Posted: **March 13th, 2012, 10:00 pm**

AGalagaChiasmus wrote: I had to read this quote several times to make sure I was reading it right. Boy, talk about saying something without saying something. This reads "The reason we don't have more gospel art is LDS artists don't do it. Their bad." Well, yah. That's how you not get something is somebody doesn't do it.

I drew several gospel oriented pictures in my journal on my mission, but have never made them public. I think it's an intensely personal decision to publicly portray gospel events and try to monetize it. The fact that I choose not to publish my Gospel art should not, therefore, call down Apostolic scrutiny. Maybe my mind will change at some point, or maybe I'm misunderstanding, but that's IMHO.

Yeah, he takes the whole article to fully develop his thought. What I quoted is basically an intro. He doesn't say whether or not a person with artistic talent HAS to make religious art public, only that most that have done so have fallen short. I recommend reading all of it.

Posted: **March 14th, 2012, 12:45 am**

Art is very subjective. I know what I like, and what I like is not necessarily what you like and vice versa. I loathe a lot of LDS art at least the commercial stuff. For example there is a drawing quite popular in my neck of the woods of the Portland Temple with the tall trees around it. Hidden in the tall trees is Jesus. I call it "Attack of the 200 foot Jesus." I'm not saying the illustration is bad or that the artist is bad. He is not, he is pretty good. I just don't like it. See it here... http://chadhawkins.com/portland-oregon-temple-3/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hugh Nibley wrote about the kitsch of LDS art.

A measure of the avoidance of real work in our day is the universal surrender to kitsch. What is kitsch? It is a more established international term for what we also call corn and camp. Kitsch is the lowest common denominator in art and style, what is supposed to have the widest popular appeal and therefore the widest market. The ultimate in kitsch is the "commercial." Applied to the gospel, kitsch puts everything on the telestial level, easy of access to all, no effort required. But kitsch runs counter to everything the gospel stands for, for it seeks to escape the impact of reality by limiting our vision to safe and familiar objects. Every close view of eternity has a terrifying effect on mortals, who must always be reassured by visiting angels whose presence makes them "sore afraid." To the extent to which the gospel influences a creative artist, something of this culture-shock carries over. This means, paradoxically, that there is something to be said for kitsch where the gospel is concerned.

In the study of early Christian and Jewish art, it is notable that the nearer one gets to the pure primitive community of Saints, the clumsier and less beguiling their art becomes. At the same time, however, it becomes ever more symbolic. It is as if they knew perfectly well that the fourth dimension that gives the gospel its power and its glory simply cannot be captured in any two- or three-dimensional medium. Any attempt to depict celestial glory in any of the limited media at the artist's disposal is doomed to be a dismal failure. Religious art and music reached their height in the Baroque, and even then all is painfully artificial, contrived, forced, theatrical, operatic—Theatrum Dei was Bernini's expression to describe his own work. For the real gospel that will never do. It is better not to try to depict the glories of the eternities than to fall flat on one's face and make them ridiculous.

Nibley also had strong opinions on some of the Church's art...

Look how the Church has gone over for kitsch. All the art, music, and everything we have show a violent antipathy for anything which isn't kitsch—commonplace, low, vulgar, and easy to imitate. Our favorite artist is a Seventh-Day Adventist painter, Harry Anderson. He paints these Coca-Cola ads that are very folksy, very down to earth. [They have] no artistic value whatsoever. And so it goes.

President Packer is quite an artist himself, but I think he understands as mentioned above that spiritual art is hit and miss...

Posted: **March 14th, 2012, 1:09 am**

Also "The Description of Publius Lentullus" and "The letter from Pontius Pilate to Tiberius Caesar" and "The Archko Volume" are all written years after Christ and are pseudopigrapha. The Publius Lentullus dates from 1420s, the letter from Pilate dates to the 4th century and is included in the apocryphal Acts of Peter and Paul. The Archko Volume as linked above is found in it's most primitive form from 1837. Fun to read, but hardly reliable as eyewitnesses of Christ.

Posted: **March 14th, 2012, 10:58 am**

Hugh Nibley wrote:
In the study of early Christian and Jewish art, it is notable that the nearer one gets to the pure primitive community of Saints, the clumsier and less beguiling their art becomes. At the same time, however, it becomes ever more symbolic. It is as if they knew perfectly well that the fourth dimension that gives the gospel its power and its glory simply cannot be captured in any two- or three-dimensional medium. Any attempt to depict celestial glory in any of the limited media at the artist's disposal is doomed to be a dismal failure.

Maybe this is why the Lord didn't want us making "pictures" of him to begin with...

4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven cimage, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

Posted: **March 14th, 2012, 11:16 am**

reese wrote:
Hugh Nibley wrote:
In the study of early Christian and Jewish art, it is notable that the nearer one gets to the pure primitive community of Saints, the clumsier and less beguiling their art becomes. At the same time, however, it becomes ever more symbolic. It is as if they knew perfectly well that the fourth dimension that gives the gospel its power and its glory simply cannot be captured in any two- or three-dimensional medium. Any attempt to depict celestial glory in any of the limited media at the artist's disposal is doomed to be a dismal failure.
Maybe this is why the Lord didn't want us making "pictures" of him to begin with...

4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven cimage, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

Why did you leave out the following verses which gives context to verse 4?
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

The Lord didn't want us making "pictures" of him (or anything for that matter as per the verse you quoted) to worship. He doesn't want us worshiping a picture (graven image).

Posted: **March 14th, 2012, 11:28 am**

Hugh Nibley wrote:
In the study of early Christian and Jewish art, it is notable that the nearer one gets to the pure primitive community of Saints, the clumsier and less beguiling their art becomes. At the same time, however, it becomes ever more symbolic. It is as if they knew perfectly well that the fourth dimension that gives the gospel its power and its glory simply cannot be captured in any two- or three-dimensional medium. Any attempt to depict celestial glory in any of the limited media at the artist's disposal is doomed to be a dismal failure.

Thanks for this quote. While there are some lovely paintings out there, I tend to agree with Nibley's assessment of this subject.

Posted: **March 14th, 2012, 3:00 pm**

shadow wrote:
reese wrote:
Hugh Nibley wrote:
In the study of early Christian and Jewish art, it is notable that the nearer one gets to the pure primitive community of Saints, the clumsier and less beguiling their art becomes. At the same time, however, it becomes ever more symbolic. It is as if they knew perfectly well that the fourth dimension that gives the gospel its power and its glory simply cannot be captured in any two- or three-dimensional medium. Any attempt to depict celestial glory in any of the limited media at the artist's disposal is doomed to be a dismal failure.
Maybe this is why the Lord didn't want us making "pictures" of him to begin with...

4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven cimage, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

Why did you leave out the following verses which gives context to verse 4?
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

The Lord didn't want us making "pictures" of him (or anything for that matter as per the verse you quoted) to worship. He doesn't want us worshiping a picture (graven image).

Right shadow. He does say, nevertheless, that he does not want us making any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, etc....The thou shalt not bow down and serve them is only one half of the command.

Posted: **March 14th, 2012, 3:33 pm**

reese wrote: Right shadow. He does say, nevertheless, that he does not want us making any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, etc....The thou shalt not bow down and serve them is only one half of the command.

If we misinterpret verse 4 we would be breaking the commandment by having any sort of pictures/paintings hanging on the walls of our homes. Just having a family picture hanging on the wall would be breaking the commandment. Having a driver license would be breaking the commandment.

One of my favorite pictures is that of my grandparents, my mother's parents. I've been "taken away" by looking at it at times. For some reason it just begs me to look at eternity!

I also like my avatar but I don't worship it. I came close a time or two, almost bought one but then reality stepped in

) #:-s
My new office is decorated with posters and models of cars from the 50's. Cars have always been an interest of mine but they don't interfere with the more important things of life.
In my old office I had large satellite posters of the earth. My favorite one is that of the east coast after dark with the cities lit up with their lights but the west coast is still day. Remembering God's creations is a good thing IMO.
Having those (or ANY picture) would be breaking the commandment without the correct context of worshiping them.

Posted: **March 14th, 2012, 7:29 pm**

shadow wrote:
reese wrote: Right shadow. He does say, nevertheless, that he does not want us making any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, etc....The thou shalt not bow down and serve them is only one half of the command.
If we misinterpret verse 4 we would be breaking the commandment by having any sort of pictures/paintings hanging on the walls of our homes. Just having a family picture hanging on the wall would be breaking the commandment. Having a driver license would be breaking the commandment.

One of my favorite pictures is that of my grandparents, my mother's parents. I've been "taken away" by looking at it at times. For some reason it just begs me to look at eternity!

I also like my avatar but I don't worship it. I came close a time or two, almost bought one but then reality stepped in ) #:-s
My new office is decorated with posters and models of cars from the 50's. Cars have always been an interest of mine but they don't interfere with the more important things of life.
In my old office I had large satellite posters of the earth. My favorite one is that of the east coast after dark with the cities lit up with their lights but the west coast is still day. Remembering God's creations is a good thing IMO.
Having those (or ANY picture) would be breaking the commandment without the correct context of worshiping them.

Okay, you win this one....kindof

I still don't think it is a good thing to make any likeness of our God because it sets people up to have a "false image" of him in their minds. I believe that "picture" we have of how he looks should be inspired by personal revelation. I do tend to take the scripture at face value. The Lord usually would clarify by saying it is not good to make graven images, if you are worshiping them, however to make them and not worship them is good.... kindof like - but to be learned is good if you harken to the spirit.

Posted: **March 19th, 2012, 9:05 pm**

What an entertaining thread! Maybe by the Millenium the LDSFF will come to a consensus on how many angels dance on the head of a pin!

There are as many 'looks' to Jesus as the number of artists that have rendered him. That means most of them are wrong. Maybe even all of them.

If you want to know what Jesus looks like, ASK. I mean it - ask. Tell Him you're willing to pay whatever price is necessary to get that. And yes, that means getting to experience the other side and the person who runs that in the process as well. If you know one, you'll know the other. It just works that way.

Ask.

Posted: **March 29th, 2012, 12:16 pm**

The style for Jewish men during the Saviors ministry was short hair and well kept beards.

No artist in our world could ever do justice to how the Savior appears today. His appearance is accompanied a overwhelming/crushing amount of love that could never be shown in an painting.

Today the best image of the Savior is seen in the countenance of disciples that keep his commandments.

Posted: **March 29th, 2012, 12:18 pm**

Gad wrote:Today the best image of the Savior is seen in the countenance of disciples that keep his commandments.

Beautifully and perfectly said...

Posted: **March 29th, 2012, 4:12 pm**

My only question through all of this is why wouldn't Christ and Lucifer look the same? Who says, and by what means could they not appear similar? Maybe that is all the reason it is more important to know the Character of Christ rather than the Image of Christ. Maybe because the false one looks similar but with very different characteristics?

Truly why must they be so different in appearance?

Posted: **March 29th, 2012, 4:24 pm**

According to forensic anthropologists, a typical man during the time & place of Jesus would look something like this:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science ... cs/1282186" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Posted: **April 7th, 2012, 11:56 pm**

I was reading the 1956 April Conference report, of Spencer W. Kimball's talk. It was the last talk of the conference before President McKay's closing remarks. He used 3 different physical descriptions of Jesus, one he said was an artistic concept and didn't have an author attributed. The second was one President McKay read to them, and was the description by Publius Lentulus. Look it up on Wikipedia or google. It is considered apochryphal and not really authentic. The third was from writings and research of Charles Edward Jefferson. While Elder Kimball doesn't claim they are actual descriptions, he uses them to illustrate the picture that men have of Christ. He then goes on to describe his image and thoughts. It is quite a powerful talk.

The description by Publius Lentulus is probably the one you are referring to. I believe each of these were referred to in a response earlier.

Posted: **April 18th, 2012, 7:53 pm**

Captain wrote:I was reading the 1956 April Conference report, of Spencer W. Kimball's talk. It was the last talk of the conference before President McKay's closing remarks. He used 3 different physical descriptions of Jesus, one he said was an artistic concept and didn't have an author attributed. The second was one President McKay read to them, and was the description by Publius Lentulus. Look it up on Wikipedia or google. It is considered apochryphal and not really authentic. The third was from writings and research of Charles Edward Jefferson. While Elder Kimball doesn't claim they are actual descriptions, he uses them to illustrate the picture that men have of Christ. He then goes on to describe his image and thoughts. It is quite a powerful talk.

The description by Publius Lentulus is probably the one you are referring to. I believe each of these were referred to in a response earlier.

Here is a link to the talk for those who are curious.

http://scriptures.byu.edu/gettalk.php?ID=843

Posted: **April 19th, 2012, 12:35 pm**

Gad wrote:
Captain wrote:I was reading the 1956 April Conference report, of Spencer W. Kimball's talk. It was the last talk of the conference before President McKay's closing remarks. He used 3 different physical descriptions of Jesus, one he said was an artistic concept and didn't have an author attributed. The second was one President McKay read to them, and was the description by Publius Lentulus. Look it up on Wikipedia or google. It is considered apochryphal and not really authentic. The third was from writings and research of Charles Edward Jefferson. While Elder Kimball doesn't claim they are actual descriptions, he uses them to illustrate the picture that men have of Christ. He then goes on to describe his image and thoughts. It is quite a powerful talk.

The description by Publius Lentulus is probably the one you are referring to. I believe each of these were referred to in a response earlier.
Here is a link to the talk for those who are curious.

http://scriptures.byu.edu/gettalk.php?ID=843

That was a great talk Gad, thanks for sharing that.

Posted: **April 19th, 2012, 12:48 pm**

How, it may be asked, was this known to be a bad angel? By the color of his hair; that is one of the signs that he can be known by TPJS 214-215

Posted: **April 19th, 2012, 11:34 pm**

Mahonri wrote:
How, it may be asked, was this known to be a bad angel? By the color of his hair; that is one of the signs that he can be known by TPJS 214-215

So, sandy-colored hair is a sign of Satan?

So much for all of those of northern European ancestry - since it's us that predominately has the lighter hair...

Posted: **April 20th, 2012, 4:06 am**

JulesGP wrote:
HeirofNumenor wrote:
Mahonri wrote:"How, it may be asked, was this known to be a bad angel? By the color of his hair; that is one of the signs that he can be known by TPJS 214-215"

So, sandy-colored hair is a sign of Satan?

So much for all of those of northern European ancestry - since it's us that predominately has the lighter hair...
If I remember correctly, you and Mahonri both have dark hair!

Mine is actually a light brown, with natural golden highlights (or are they grey/white? - I never can tell with the lighting over bathroom mirrors). :p

Posted: **April 20th, 2012, 8:15 am**

This is what John said said He looked like--Rev 1:

13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.

14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of bfire;

15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.

16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.

Posted: **April 20th, 2012, 2:47 pm**

Actually, in the TPJS reference that Mahonri gave, the false angel was the one with sandy-colored hair....

Posted: **April 20th, 2012, 3:09 pm**

HeirofNumenor wrote:Actually, in the TPJS reference that Mahonri gave, the false angel was the one with sandy-colored hair....

Was that black sand, white sand, or pink sand? Sandy seems an objective color.

Posted: **April 20th, 2012, 5:34 pm**

Eddie Lyle wrote:
HeirofNumenor wrote:Actually, in the TPJS reference that Mahonri gave, the false angel was the one with sandy-colored hair....
Was that black sand, white sand, or pink sand? Sandy seems an objective color.

Ask Joseph if you ever get to meet him.... O:-)

Also, another key he included was that the "angel" contradicted a previous revelation from the prophet. The false angel in question told a woman that if her husband goes on a proselytizing mission, he must not go more than 100 miles form his home or he will never return -- the man was previously called to serve a mission to "go to the ends of the Earth", traveled over 1,000 miles, and returned in health.

Note that the woman had a vision, wherein she was told to go to a certain spot in the woods where she was told an angel would appear to her.

Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 214-215, w/ section on False Spirits beginning p. 213.

LDS Freedom Forum

Physical appearance of Jesus Christ

Re: Physical appearance of Jesus Christ

Re: Physical appearance of Jesus Christ

Re: Physical appearance of Jesus Christ

Re: Physical appearance of Jesus Christ

Re: Physical appearance of Jesus Christ

Re: Physical appearance of Jesus Christ

Re: Physical appearance of Jesus Christ

Re: Physical appearance of Jesus Christ

Re: Physical appearance of Jesus Christ

Re: Physical appearance of Jesus Christ

Re: Physical appearance of Jesus Christ

Re: Physical appearance of Jesus Christ

Re: Physical appearance of Jesus Christ

Re: Physical appearance of Jesus Christ

Re: Physical appearance of Jesus Christ

Re: Physical appearance of Jesus Christ

Re: Physical appearance of Jesus Christ

Re: Physical appearance of Jesus Christ

Re: Physical appearance of Jesus Christ

Re: Physical appearance of Jesus Christ

Re: Physical appearance of Jesus Christ

Re: Physical appearance of Jesus Christ

Re: Physical appearance of Jesus Christ

Re: Physical appearance of Jesus Christ

Re: Physical appearance of Jesus Christ