Ensign Censorship

[Cushan Rishathaim]

I'm curious to read other people's reactions to this act of censorship:

http://www.dovesands...mmodest-angels/

Do you find the matter troubling?

My concern with this act is twofold:

1. Acts such as this add to the perception that through its publications, the Church is presenting a rewritten/ sanitized version of its history. Whether real or imagined, this view has led many members to feel that the Church has deceived them.

2. I believe this act reflects a mindset that I've witnessed in many Church members regarding modesty for women. Sadly, in recent years, an over zealousness for female modesty has been the cause of several examples of well-meaning Church members dealing out emotional abuse to young women/girls deemed immodest in their apparel. I believe we really, really need to stop beating people up over this issue.

Edited May 17, 2012 by Cushan Rishathaim

[DBMormon]

My only concern is what is the the legal ramifications of altering someone's artwork without permission. Probably nothing sense we see the Mona Lisa and the backwoods husband and wife with the pitchfork altered all the time. It actually doesn't bother me though if your going to go through that much trouble just pick another painting.

[CASteinman]

I'm curious to read other people's reactions to this act of censorship:

http://www.dovesands...mmodest-angels/

Do you find the matter troubling?

My concern with this act is twofold:

1. Acts such as this add to the perception that through its publications, the Church is presenting a rewritten/ sanitized version of its history. Whether real or imagined, this view has led many members to feel that the Church has deceived them.

2. I believe this act reflects a mindset that I've witnessed in many Church members regarding modesty for women. Sadly, in recent years, an over zealousness for female modesty has been the cause of several examples of well-meaning Church members dealing out emotional abuse to young women/girls deemed immodest in their apparel. I believe we really, really need to stop beating people up over this issue.

I would have never thought to do this, myself, but I have no problem with it. The Church stands for certain values and it is perfectly fine for them to adhere to those values in its publications. If people want to be offended and leave the Church over this, they probably should.

[Kenngo1969]

My only concern is what is the the legal ramifications of altering someone's artwork without permission. Probably nothing sense we see the Mona Lisa and the backwoods husband and wife with the pitchfork altered all the time. It actually doesn't bother me though if your going to go through that much trouble just pick another painting.

As far as the legal ramifications, once a work enters the public domain, the creator of the work loses the control s/he had under copyright.

P.S.: I should, of course, clarify: Under the old copyright statute, the term of copyright was for 28 years. Thus, it was not uncommon for works to enter the public domain while their creators were still very much alive. Today, of course, such a situation is much less common , since the current term of copyright is life of the creator plus 75 years.

Edited May 17, 2012 by Kenngo1969

[CASteinman]

My only concern is what is the the legal ramifications of altering someone's artwork without permission. Probably nothing sense we see the Mona Lisa and the backwoods husband and wife with the pitchfork altered all the time. It actually doesn't bother me though if your going to go through that much trouble just pick another painting.

I don't think copyright law recognizes the rights of individuals who have been dead 120 years. This is public domain.

This is not the first time the Church has done this. The famous painting by Anderson, showing the triumphal return of Christ in the clouds with angels blowing horns behind Him is a time when they actually had control of the painting from the start. Anderson presented his finished work and all of the angels had wings. The Church (having commissioned the work) told him "You know better than that -- get rid of the wings". So he turned the wings into robes blowing out behind the Angels.

And I am fine with that. I am glad they did that.

[zerinus]

I'm curious to read other people's reactions to this act of censorship:

http://www.dovesands...mmodest-angels/

Do you find the matter troubling?

My concern with this act is twofold:

1. Acts such as this add to the perception that through its publications, the Church is presenting a rewritten/ sanitized version of its history. Whether real or imagined, this view has led many members to feel that the Church has deceived them.

2. I believe this act reflects a mindset that I've witnessed in many Church members regarding modesty for women. Sadly, in recent years, an over zealousness for female modesty has been the cause of several examples of well-meaning Church members dealing out emotional abuse to young women/girls deemed immodest in their apparel. I believe we really, really need to stop beating people up over this issue.

Two points here: Making copies, replicas, and adaptations of old master paintings is an old and perfectly legitimate and honourable practice. The most famous Old Masters have been copied by lesser artists with adaptation thousands of times down in history. There is nothing unusual about that. Secondly, that painting may not have been made by an lds artist at all. I have an adaptation of a famous Turner painting made an unknown artist hanging in my living room.

Edited May 17, 2012 by zerinus

[Kenngo1969]

I don't think copyright law recognizes the rights of individuals who have been dead 120 years. This is public domain.

Right you are.

[Lightbearer]

Perhaps I missed something, the images I saw was the removal of "wings" from the two angels at the tomb? How is that "modesty"? As for removing the wings, I have no problem at all with this since angels of God do not have wings (at least according to the Prophet Joseph Smith) and why should the Church perpetuate a false stereotype? I understand that the representation of angels having wings comes from some mentioning in the scriptures metaphorically which represents power to do a work, not a literal set of flapping wings!

"Q. What are we to understand by the eyes and wings, which the beasts had?

A. Their eyes are a representation of light and knowledge, that is, they are full of knowledge; and their wings are a representation of power, to move, to act, etc." (Doctrine and Covenants | Section 77:4)

As for the prophet's remarks on angels with wings see this:

"Being born again, comes by the Spirit of God through ordinances. An angel of God never has wings. Some will say that they have seen a spirit; that he offered them his hand, but they did not touch it. This is a lie. First, it is contrary to the plan of God; a spirit cannot come but in glory; an angel has flesh and bones; we see not their glory. The devil may appear as an angel of light. Ask God to reveal it; if it be of the devil, he will flee from you; if of God, He will manifest Himself, or make it manifest. We may come to Jesus and ask Him; He will know all about it; if He comes to a little child, he will adapt himself to the language and capacity of a little child."

(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith Section Four 1839-42, p.162)

As for modesty among the youth and adults of the Church, I think it should be emphasized more, too many of them look like harlots instead of latter-day saint women. (see Isaiah 3)

[Bernard Gui]

From the website in the OP:

"In the Ensign version, the angels’ bare shoulders have been covered.  That’s because Mormons believe that bare shoulders are indecent.  This standard has even recently been extended to include 4 year old girls."

Same ol same ol.

Yawn.

Bernard

[kolipoki09]

Do you find the matter troubling?

I think censorship like this is completely unnecessary, especially after the original was featured at BYU during a highly publicized exhibit last year. Art is deliberately nuanced and should be preserved in its original form when possible. It wasn't "scandalous" to begin with. I get the "doctrinal" reasons for not believing angels have wings, which is why it might be advantageous for editors to simply choose another painting rather than "Mormonizing" it. And no, I'm not leaving the Church over this. I just think it's stupid editing. And that's my opinion.

[Pahoran]

I'm curious to read other people's reactions to this act of censorship:

http://www.dovesands...mmodest-angels/

Do you find the matter troubling?

Yes, I find this to be probably the most troubling thing the Church has ever done. Anywhere.

But the entertainment value of the tempest in a teacup that is brewing over this should help to make up for it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I don't find it "troubling," I just find it eye-rollingly annoying.

"I believe this act reflects a mindset that I've witnessed in many Church members regarding modesty for women. Sadly, in recent years, an over zealousness for female modesty has been the cause of several examples of well-meaning Church members dealing out emotional abuse to young women/girls deemed immodest in their apparel. I believe we really, really need to stop beating people up over this issue."

Absolutely. What's happening is that we are paying more attention to the outside than the inside, and thinking we can judge someone's inner worthiness by outward markings. It's a rather "worldly" viewpoint, actually, to focus so much attention on transient fashion, judging others as "harlots" because they're wearing something different than us. The three inches of cloth which cover the skin of an angel's shoulder is made into an issue of vital importance? It's just silly. I grew up in sunny Hawaii, and believe me, there is utterly zero correlation between sleeve length and righteousness.

It just doesn't seem scriptural to me, for one thing. (C'mon, if we're altering works of art because they're unscriptural, why aren't we taking down our Arnold Friberg paintings completely?) Frankly, when I contrast, say, some "modest" G-rated movies which avoid nudity (and yet treat the nude body as a despicable amusement to be laughed at) with some R-rated movies which revere the body as being the beautiful and sacred Temple the Lord has given to us, I much prefer the second. (There is no R-Rated movie commandment, only counsel against it for younger children.)

All the references to nakedness in Leviticus 18 are speaking of the unrighteousness of people who, without consent, deliberately "uncover the nakedness" of those who are clothed in order to have relations with them. It is a prohibition against the exploitative, adulterous, or incestuous sins which had defiled the nations which God was casting out. "For theirs is thine own nakedness" is not a condemnation of, say, breastfeeding, or helping change diapers, or swimming, just because people are unclothed during those moments. It's our modern age which has so sexualized the body that we actually find it vitally important to be clothed in some way even while completely immersing ourselves in water. It makes no sense.

In 1 Samuel, it is Saul's hypocrisy which is bad, not his nakedness, when, with the other prophets, "he stripped off his clothes also, and prophesied before Samuel in like manner, and lay down naked all that day and all that night."

Ezekiel, using substantial figurative language, used "nakedness" to describe how obvious the sins of Jerusalem and Samaria looked to the Lord, likening them to the daughters Aholibah and Aholah, who committed sins in Egypt. The lesson I think we should take from this is not that the mere "nudity" was the problem, since God sees the inner heart, not the outer appearance; the sin of the cities was in metaphorical prostitution, their conversion of their hieros gamos to the Lord into something which could be had for money, dispensing with His teachings altogether.

In Ezekiel 16, the metaphor of the entire chapter is that despite the fine clothing which the Lord has given to Jerusalem, she has forsaken him. Yet it is not the body which is bad: "As the shoot of the field I have made thee, and thou art multiplied, and art great, and comest in with an excellent adornment, breasts have been formed, and thy hair hath grown." The body is beautiful; the Lord uses it to house our spirits, protecting we who were unprotected as children, naked and bare.

The same with the reference in Hosea, in which the "Mother" will be stripped naked and left exposed in the wilderness; in the story, it is not the unprotected nudity which is the problem, it is the insincerity with which she celebrates the Ba'al statues, the mere outside markers of faith, rather than the living voice of revelation. In Habakkuk, we are told not to get someone drunk in order to selfishly uncover them to gratify our own lust; in the Lamentations, the nakedness was not bad as such, but because it was given in a drunken, adulterous fit. Etc., etc.. The point being, it is not the body itself which is bad, only the uses we sometimes put to it.

On the other hand, the great Prophet Isaiah, the old gymnosophist himself, spent years naked, after Jehovah spoke "by the hand of Isaiah son of Amoz, saying, 'Go, and thou hast loosed the sackcloth from off thy loins, and thy sandal thou dost draw from off thy foot,' and he doth so, going naked and barefoot."

In Job 1:20, "Job riseth, and rendeth his robe, and shaveth his head, and falleth to the earth, and doth obeisance, and he saith, 'Naked came I forth from the womb of my mother, and naked I turn back thither: Jehovah hath given and Jehovah hath taken: let the name of Jehovah be blessed.' In all this Job hath not sinned, nor given folly to God." A similar formulation was used in Ecclesiastes. And though Simon Peter quickly grabbed his garment when he swam to greet the Lord, he was not then rebuked for fishing naked.

In the Joseph Smith History, it's obvious that the Angel Moroni was not overly-concerned with hyper-zealous modesty: "He had on a loose robe of most exquisite whiteness. It was a whiteness beyond anything earthly I had ever seen; nor do I believe that any earthly thing could be made to appear so exceedingly white and brilliant. His hands were naked, and his arms also, a little above the wrist; so, also, were his feet naked, as were his legs, a little above the ankles. His head and neck were also bare. I could discover that he had no other clothing on but this robe, as it was open, so that I could see into his bosom."

(Now imagine if I walked in to teach my Sunday School class wearing nothing but a robe with my "bosom" exposed. Pandemonium!)

The vast, vast, overwhelming majority of scriptural references to nakedness, hundreds and hundreds of them, have to do either with God seeing even those things which we, in our pride, keep hidden, or else with our duty to clothe those who are left unprotected from the harsh elements because of the pride of the rich who spend their money on the expensive but useless vain clothing which the Lord can see through anyway.

The Joseph Smith Translation of James 2:16 says "For if a brother or sister be naked and destitute, and one of you say, 'Depart in peace, be warmed and filled'; notwithstanding he give not those things which are needful to the body, what profit is your faith unto such?"

It's about faith supporting good works. It's not about hyper-zealous modesty, or being disgusted or frightened or embarrassed at the sight of the human body. (Don't even get me started on the folks who are so eager to give up their Free Agency by blaming their own unrighteous thoughts on the immodest women or men who "provoked" them.) Indeed, 2 Corinthians emphasized the beauty of the body, saying "We know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: if so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life."

Joseph Smith said that “the great principle of happiness consists in having a body", and "that which is without body or parts is nothing.” In fact, “there is no other God in Heaven but that God who has flesh and bones.” Indeed, “before the foundation of the Earth, in the Grand Council, the Spirits of all men were subject to oppression, and the express purpose of God in Giving [them] a Tabernacle was to arm [them] against the power of Darkness." [...] "God saw that those intelligences had not power to defend themselves against those that had a Tabernacle” and so he called them into a Council and agreed “to form them Tabernacles so that he might [en]Gender the Spirit and the Tabernacle together, so as to create sympathy for their fellow man.”

Our garments symbolize the sacredness of our bodies, which are the clothing of our naked spirits; we hope for a more glorious garment in the next life, an exalted body made of flesh and bones like those of our Heavenly Parents. It is the lie of the worldly to think that merely wearing fine clothing of exactly the right cut is enough to make one holy.

Indeed, it wasn't until Adam and Eve transgressed that they even paid attention to the fact that they were naked in the Garden. Before they sinned, they had been unashamed of the fact that they had both been created, male and female, in the image of their Heavenly Parents.

Edited May 17, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Cushan Rishathaim]

I would have never thought to do this, myself, but I have no problem with it. The Church stands for certain values and it is perfectly fine for them to adhere to those values in its publications.

Of course. But the question is should the Church distort history by altering the world's masterpieces (thus perpetuate the perception that it isn't completely honest in its representations) in order to meet that standard or should the Church simply opt for publishing something less offensive to the Church's values?

If people want to be offended and leave the Church over this, they probably should.

I can't imagine that this act of censorship alone would cause anyone to leave the Church.

[CASteinman]

It just doesn't seem scriptural to me, for one thing.

Dead prophets are not in charge of the rules for our day.

For what I presume is an open minded person who does not want members of the Church criticizing the "inner person", you sure are spending a lot of time criticizing the people who put this in the Ensign. Someone sincere and faithful in service the Lord's Church did this. Even if you don't agree with what they did, it does not deserve a trip to the whipping post.

[CASteinman]

Of course. But the question is should the Church distort history by altering the world's masterpieces (thus perpetuate the perception that it isn't completely honest in its representations) in order to meet that standard or should the Church simply opt for publishing something less offensive to the Church's values?

I think it should.

I can't imagine that this act of censorship alone would cause anyone to leave the Church.

It does not require imagination. It happens in real life! If I had lots of time, I would try to find a link to the blog or post somewhere, where a woman, very bitter, discusses how she left the LDS Church because, as the teacher of Sunbeams, she was expected to use the CTR A manual for a year until the new one came out -- and it was all "hard doctrine" none of the "Rain makes the flowers grow" kind of lessons.

People are all different.

[volgadon]

should the Church distort history by altering the world's masterpieces

This was idiotic editing, no doubt, but I have to confess to a strong dislike of Bloch. Ok, I hate his paintings with a passion.

[Cushan Rishathaim]

I think censorship like this is completely unnecessary, especially after the original was featured at BYU during a highly publicized exhibit last year. Art is deliberately nuanced and should be preserved in its original form when possible. It wasn't "scandalous" to begin with. I get the "doctrinal" reasons for not believing angels have wings, which is why it might be advantageous for editors to simply choose another painting rather than "Mormonizing" it. And no, I'm not leaving the Church over this. I just think it's stupid editing. And that's my opinion.

I agree. It raises the issue of why a male angel (Moroni) can wear open robes so that one could see into his bosom, and yet a female angel is censored for showing a tiny bit of shoulder. One could argue that this act of censorship actually hyper-sexualizes angels and defaces a classical artwork.

Is it wrong that the editors of the Ensign can't take the time to accurately depict the translation process by airbrushing in a seer stone to images of JS translating the BoM but that they actually take the time to remove wings and add capsleeves to angels?

I think that this was a mistake.

Edited May 17, 2012 by Cushan Rishathaim

[Cushan Rishathaim]

This was idiotic editing, no doubt, but I have to confess to a strong dislike of Bloch. Ok, I hate his paintings with a passion.

I like you. Thanks for the laugh.

[CASteinman]

I frankly like the altered version better.

Oh well! Everyone is different.

[Flyonthewall]

Censorship? That word seems a bit strong in this case.

Removal of the wings? not a problem as that depicts what we beleive.

Putting on an under-garment on the angels? Don't see the reason for it but don't think anything negative about it. It would not have bothered me to use the painting without altering it...either way it is fine.

Distorting history...? sorry...don't see it.

[Darren10]

I just returned from viewing the actual Ensign article in question. Click on Cushan Rishathaims link and you'll read that the censored art is found on page 54 of the December 2011 issue of the Ensign (Direct link HERE). The article is called The Condescension of Christ by David L. Frischknecht. Click on the "Download' to the right of that to get the PDF pictures of the article. As soon as I did that I almost lost complete interest in Rishathaim's concern of cenrsorship and of treating young women harshly (a silly concern by him in my opinion). View the first picture which blends the said altered painting with that of Jesus' crucifiction. Now that was *art*. Superbly done.

I now thank Cushan for bringing the article to my attention.

[Storm Rider]

A lot of hand-wringing and I am sure it comes only from the goodness of your gentle heart. First, sanitizing LDS history and adapting artwork to meet a specific objective has nothing to do with each other. You personally might seek to make a connection, but for many others no connection is made. Second, modesty. I personally don't like it when anyone changes a work of art. If the picture does not work, then find a another piece of art that does. I am also not the editor for the Ensign. I would ask them not to make such adjustments if they asked, but they haven'e asked and I doubt anyone who saw the picture would realize the artwork had been changed. Modesty is an issue for males and females; particularly those who follow Christ. I am not as concerned about these issues as you are or as others are. To each his own; no one forces us to do anything.

Lastly, legal ramifications? Really, this is a concern on a piece of artwork over 100 years old? Put your gentle heart at ease; there are none and now you can sleep peacefully that the Church will not be sued by the artist from the grave.

This is more like striving to make a mountain out of the proverbial mole hill. It is evidence that if someone seeks to be offended they will be offended.

[Darren10]

I do think that a footnote acknolwedging / explaining the alterations would have been warranted and even ethical.

[blackstrap]

Not only that ,but close inspection reveals that the angel on the left has a changed hairdoo and less dark eyebrows. The angel on the right has had her hair brushed .The slab that the Savior is standing on is different on the front end.The rock face above the tomb is shaded differently. Oh the horror.

On the other hand,it would have been much easier to have cropped the sides of the picture without any photoshopping at all and maintained artistic integity(more or less) as it pertains to the story told.

[Cushan Rishathaim]

Censorship? That word seems a bit strong in this case.

Removal of the wings? not a problem as that depicts what we beleive.

Putting on an under-garment on the angels? Don't see the reason for it but don't think anything negative about it. It would not have bothered me to use the painting without altering it...either way it is fine.

Distorting history...? sorry...don't see it.

Well, it is a distortion of history on two levels. Bloch did not espouse LDS theology and painted his angels with wings. Censoring that image therefore presents a distorted view of the original historical painting and Bloch's theology.

The problem with these types of actions is that they provide further fuel to the fire for those who maintain that the Church perpetuates a culture of manipulation and deception in the name of achieving an allegedly good end, i.e. wingless angels and females not showing a bit of shoulder.

It could be argued that this type of censorship which seeks to alter a work of art to match Mormonism's teachings and contemporary views of female modesty smacks of egotistical self-righteousness.

This is not a big deal in my life, but just an interesting issue. In the future, I think we should be more sensitive to these matters and simply choose another painting if the image bothers correlation.

Edited May 17, 2012 by Cushan Rishathaim