Ensign Censorship

[CASteinman]

I was wondering when that changed and why it was allowed and then not allowed?

I would say the 60's, 70's 80's and 90's happened with increasing lax morality and lower standards that were affecting youth profoundly in the US and around the world, with a consequent effect on the family -- something that the Church is sure is bad in multiple ways.

[why me]

What makes you so sure the Ensign altered the painting?

This is a good point. The Ensign may have used a altered picture of the painting. They may not have altered anything at all.

[CASteinman]

I wonder... Would anybody that sees no issue with adjusting the artwork think differently if it was in written form and used in Ensign?

For instance, if a poem was written:

When I whispered to the Father,

I asked for Him to bring;

A touch of love and goodness,

Sent forth on angel's wings.

Is it acceptable to change it to:

When I whispered to the Father,

I asked for Him to bring bolder;

A touch of love and goodness,

Sent forth on angel's shoulder.

Aside from entering debate on the poetic value of the stanza (Coleridge, it is not) would anybody who takes no issue with The Ensign updating visual art have an issue with updating written art?

Well.. yeah. It doesn't match rhyme and meter.

This is more like not just removing the wings but also cutting out sections of the painting and leaving holes.

I also think a painting seems more likely to be taken literally by some people -- and so is a reasonable place to be careful that folk don't get the wrong impression or doctrine, while the word "wing", even literally (though informally), can refer to an arm. Jesus, for example was risen with healing in his wings and it used to be that a coach or a scout would test the pitchers "wing".

Also, the LDS Church has changed the words to hymns to better match its doctrine and it is not alone in this practice. It does not seem to raise anyone's ire when other Churches do it. But of Course the Mormon Church and its leadership should never be given any sort of reasonable slack at all because of course if it is true, then it must be perfect and if it is not perfect it deserves to be beaten to death.

I do not understand this pedantic niggling over the painting. It seems that this case and all the pseudo-moral issues attached to it should be sent over the to the "Emotional Constipation Desk" at the "Society For Esoteric Concerns" for proper handing and disposal.

Edited May 18, 2012 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

This is a good point. The Ensign may have used a altered picture of the painting. They may not have altered anything at all.

I do not know that happened, but I think it is exactly what happened.

[Libs]

I would say the 60's, 70's 80's and 90's happened with increasing lax morality and lower standards that were affecting youth profoundly in the US and around the world, with a consequent effect on the family -- something that the Church is sure is bad in multiple ways.

Thanks, but did the change have anything at all to do with strapless gowns? I doubt it.

[CASteinman]

Thanks, but did the change have anything at all to do with strapless gowns? I doubt it.

Might as well just get naked and dance then. Cause it would have nothing to do with the consequences.....

[Calm]

I donno, perhaps, it's not censorship, exactly, but I am just wondering, why use the painting, at all, if it is not considered an accurate representation of the Church's beliefs about the event?

Putting sleeves on everything reminded me of something an older LDS woman told me about their BYU proms. She is about my age and graduated in the late 50's, I think...and she told us, in RS, that they wore sleeveless/strapless gowns to prom, back then. She has pictures. I was wondering when that changed and why it was allowed and then not allowed?

It is probably easier for people to start wearing appropriate clothing after their endowment if they don't have to change their wardrobe at all. And such a standard is very easy to identify as opposed to discussing just how much bare skin is too much especially since it is not just about how much is covered but how it is covered that creates a modest appearance.

My mother's prom dress was strapless but there is nothing immodest about it, drop it another inch in front and give it a low back and it would be a whole other story. Much clearer and easier to understand a standard that is stricter than one that pushes the limits especially when dealing with kids who tend to push limits anyway.

[sethpayne]

So what?

This is a silly complaint.

What if I took one of your posts, altered it significantly, and then attributed my edited version to you?

Over the years I have played in many orchestras where we performed *arrangements* of works by great composers including Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, etc.... It was always made clear -- both on the sheet music and in the concert program -- that an arrangement of the original was being performed so it was clear to all that an original work had been modified. Even Mozart, when he added instruments (I believe mostly winds and percussion) to Handel's Messiah, made it clear he was altering an existing work. He didn't augment the Messiah and then put it out there as if it were the original.

To Bloch, perhaps the wings are meant to convey a specific meaning. Perhaps the angelic clothing was meant to demonstrate innocence before the Christ. Who knows? My point is, you can't alter an artist's work and then put it out there as the original.

Do I believe there is any malice at play in this situation? Not at all. Just an oversight, but one which should be corrected.

Seth

[The Nehor]

Now I'm curious if anyone even bothered to check the reference and notations in the printed Ensign.

[volgadon]

Now I'm curious if anyone even bothered to check the reference and notations in the printed Ensign.

See post #75.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

More likely it was all the horrible foul-ups that come with good old fashioned heretic punishing:

[media=]

Too funny.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

What if I took one of your posts, altered it significantly, and then attributed my edited version to you?

Over the years I have played in many orchestras where we performed *arrangements* of works by great composers including Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, etc.... It was always made clear -- both on the sheet music and in the concert program -- that an arrangement of the original was being performed so it was clear to all that an original work had been modified. Even Mozart, when he added instruments (I believe mostly winds and percussion) to Handel's Messiah, made it clear he was altering an existing work. He didn't augment the Messiah and then put it out there as if it were the original.

To Bloch, perhaps the wings are meant to convey a specific meaning. Perhaps the angelic clothing was meant to demonstrate innocence before the Christ. Who knows? My point is, you can't alter an artist's work and then put it out there as the original.

Do I believe there is any malice at play in this situation? Not at all. Just an oversight, but one which should be corrected.

Seth

Our painting of the second coming featured in many Temples and Churches was altered with permission from a 7th Day Adventist painting. I believe the original one Christ had wings.

[Hamba Tuhan]

By the way, could someone please explain to me how covering the shoulders of male angels is related to the 'over zealousness for female modesty' claimed in the OP?

Edited May 18, 2012 by Hamba Tuhan

[CASteinman]

What if I took one of your posts, altered it significantly, and then attributed my edited version to you?

• You would be in volation of the terms of this board
  
• If I were dead 120 years, I wouldn't care at all.
  

To Bloch, perhaps the wings are meant to convey a specific meaning. Perhaps the angelic clothing was meant to demonstrate innocence before the Christ. Who knows?

I don't care in the least. The original of Bloch's work is available for anyone who cares. There is no damage here.

My point is, you can't alter an artist's work and then put it out there as the original.

Well, that would be a subject for a different place as that did not happen here. However the truth is that of course you can do that.

Do I believe there is any malice at play in this situation? Not at all. Just an oversight, but one which should be corrected.

OK... so you have an opinion on the matter. If this is a big deal to you, I can't imagine how much sleep you must lose over time:

1. Have you stressed over the sampling of music in songs -- a common practice these days?
   
2. Did you register your grief that Gertrude Stein tore up the Beauty of "A Rose by any other name would smell as sweet" -- and made it the brassy, industrial "A Rose is a Rose is a Rose"?
   
3. When Van Gogh went out his way to copy other painters (say .. "Prisoners' Round" by Dore or maybe the Pieta -- which he did twice) -- but then changed those copies to suit his taste -- that he was bad and should be castigated for revisionist history?
   
4. Where are your howls over stuff like this: http://www.freakingn...E-UP--97886.jpg
   

Copying and altering artwork is a very ancient tradition and as long as it is not forgery it is not, in and of itself particularly bad or immoral. But.... it can make a good pretext for criticizing someone -- illegitmately.

Edited May 18, 2012 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

By the way, could someone please explain to me how covering the shoulders of male angels is related to the 'over zealousness for female modesty' claimed in the OP?

LOL.. is it males? I cannot tell. Looked female to me -- which is also wrong!

[CASteinman]

If I were the editor of the Ensign and was not forced to deal with this, I would nevertheless issue a statement in the next issue saying something like this:

Some observant individuals have noticed that Bloch's painting of the Resurrection was altered slightly from the original to remove the wings on angels and to add a bit more to the cloting of the angels.

For those who are concerned that this was somehow malicious, please know that this was done with good, positive intentions. We do not consider it to be in any way harmful or immoral.

We remind our readers that this is an official organ of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and without any special notice, and within the parameters of the law, we will always edit the content of the magazine to reflect the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We understand that our position may offend some individuals. We mean no disrespect but we are not able to alter this position.

Of course, I don't think that will happen. There is no percentage in it. I think that they will entirely ignore this. Which may be an example to us all.

[cinepro]

LOL.. is it males? I cannot tell. Looked female to me -- which is also wrong!

Oh, those are definitely female shoulders in the original.

Edited May 18, 2012 by cinepro

[Robert F. Smith]

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

Probably.

Reminds me that many years ago I privately called into question the editorial judgment of the Newells (then coeditors of Dialogue) for allowing the subject of a major interview to edit his own interview -- something no professional journalist would do -- without bothering to provide a footnote to the readers. A good many people just don't know any better . . .

[Robert F. Smith]

On looking more closely at the two paintings I noticed the adding of the "sleeves" which is so subtle it was not that noticealbe... neither is it annoying or objectionalbe. I think it is brought up because those who would trumpet it love any reason to bash the church or it's standards. I note for those who have been to the Temple that those extra sleeves may have some point! When a woman wears a strapless dress to sacrament meeting I believe it very inappropriate, many are desensitized to the inappropriatenss, because they want to emulate the fashions of the world. And yes it does have meaning and does reflect the spiritual maturity of those who are immodest in dress and in manner. It is understandable in investigators or new members, but it is inexusable in those who have been in the Church a long time and ought to know the standards of dress expected by the Lord.

I have known a few Church members who do not observe these niceties. One guy in his early 20s used to come to Sacrament mtg barefooted and with very long hair, looking like a Hippie (even though the Hippie era had not yet begun). He was an extraordinarily brilliant artist and we treated him with respect and kindness.

More recently, in California, we had a member come to Church in shoes, pants, and a T-shirt. Again, he was treated with great kindness and respect. No one judged him. Or, if they did, they said nothing. Everyone needs to come and hear the Gospel preached and to renew their covenants with the Lord. Some of us may wear suits to impress others, but the Lord looks at the heart.

[Robert F. Smith]

How many of you are upset that Gertrude Stein tore up the Beauty of "A Rose by any other name would smell as sweet" -- and made it the brassy, industrial "A Rose is a Rose is a Rose"?

Yes, and Stein spoke derisively of the city she came from, saying that "there is no there there." I come from that city too, yet I laugh about it, because it's true.

[Robert F. Smith]

That's not an example of "treating girls harshly". I do not think Jesus pays much attention to swimsuit issues lest the swimsuit itself is immodest. There is nothing immodest about wearing a modest swimsuit and having the natural curves predominate the user's body. There is, however, the reality of asking oneself, "if I wear this will it provoke immodest thoughts and desires towards others," no matter how modest the swimsuit is. If the answer is "yes' than it would be prudent and wise for that particular person to avoid wearing said swimsuit. There is nothing wrong in teaching young girls 9and boys too) to live up to these standards.

I still think your "concern" over treating young girls harshly is silly and I do not find anything you mentioned by which Christ would be 'deeply concerned' as to how a young woman was treated.

I recall a story (perhaps mere folklore) in which President David O. McKay was watching a July 24 parade in SLC along with several of the Brethren. A marching band with a drum majorette in the lead came by. She was wearing little more than a one-piece bathing suit and twirling her baton. One of the Brethren expressed concern to Pres. McKay about her immodesty. Pres. McKay replied that he didn't see anything that was not beautiful.

[Robert F. Smith]

I donno, perhaps, it's not censorship, exactly, but I am just wondering, why use the painting, at all, if it is not considered an accurate representation of the Church's beliefs about the event?

Putting sleeves on everything reminded me of something an older LDS woman told me about their BYU proms. She is about my age and graduated in the late 50's, I think...and she told us, in RS, that they wore sleeveless/strapless gowns to prom, back then. She has pictures. I was wondering when that changed and why it was allowed and then not allowed?

At BYU the dress & grooming code prohibiting beards didn't go into effect until the late 1960s, and even then a Jewish rabbi getting his doctorate at BYU was allowed to wear his beard and to drink wine for Qiddush.

Fashion and mores change over time. I recall that back in the 1940s when I was a little tyke, women saw nothing immodest at all in openly breastfeeding in public. How times have changed!!

[CASteinman]

Oh, those are definitely female shoulders in the original.

Should have been changed to males -- unless all they were doing there was "adoring".

[CASteinman]

Yes, and Stein spoke derisively of the city she came from, saying that "there is no there there." I come from that city too, yet I laugh about it, because it's true.

It seemed that she sometimes scrimped on her budget for words --- not on the frequency of their use, but only on the diversity of words in a sentence. Maybe she bought them at Sam's Club, where she could get them on sale as long as she bought them in large numbers.

Edited May 18, 2012 by CASteinman

[ERayR]

What if I took one of your posts, altered it significantly, and then attributed my edited version to you?

Over the years I have played in many orchestras where we performed *arrangements* of works by great composers including Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, etc.... It was always made clear -- both on the sheet music and in the concert program -- that an arrangement of the original was being performed so it was clear to all that an original work had been modified. Even Mozart, when he added instruments (I believe mostly winds and percussion) to Handel's Messiah, made it clear he was altering an existing work. He didn't augment the Messiah and then put it out there as if it were the original.

To Bloch, perhaps the wings are meant to convey a specific meaning. Perhaps the angelic clothing was meant to demonstrate innocence before the Christ. Who knows? My point is, you can't alter an artist's work and then put it out there as the original.

Do I believe there is any malice at play in this situation? Not at all. Just an oversight, but one which should be corrected.

Seth

Can anyone show that it was done without getting the proper releases and permissions? It has been my experience the church is very careful about licensing and permission issues.