Ensign Censorship

[CASteinman]

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.

I heard the same story except it was President Kimball and it was multiple girls. And he also said something different.

So, I used to believe that story, but just this very second, I am inclined to wonder if it is unsupported apocrypha!

[wenglund]

Really, this is a very silly debate.

I can't think of a more apt description of the OP.

I love just how animated you nitpickers get when your own nits get picked.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CASteinman]

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.

I don't think that is really the issue. I think the real issue here is that Art is Sacred and must never be altered, but the malevolent LDS powers that be are anally retentive and evilly dishonest -- so they are inclined to do such things and must be spanked by their betters who exist out in the general world.

[AddamS]

Does anyone find it odd that many of the same people who see no issue with presenting a doctored piece of art with no explanation that the image has been altered are also the first people to cry to heavens when Joseph Smith Jr. is misquoted or his words are taken out of context?

Edited May 18, 2012 by AddamS

[wenglund]

Does anyone find it odd that many of the same people who see no issue with presenting a doctored piece of art with no explanation that the image has been altered are also the first people to cry to heavens when Joseph Smith Jr. is misquoted or his words are taken out of context?

I don't find it odd because I understand the imprtant difference between art and quotes as well as the different context in which they each tend to be presented.

However, if you are looking for something odd, what about some of people complaining about the so-called doctored pieces of art using artwork, themselves, in their avatars, which don't accuratly depict the posters in real life, and may be shunken and/or cropped, and this along with using fake names, and yet they scream to high heaven about the Church altering and hidding things. Seems that nit-picking and hypocrisy go hand-in-hand.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 18, 2012 by wenglund

[AddamS]

Even more interesting, some people complaining about the so-called doctored pieces of art, use artwork in their avatars that don't accuratly depict the posters in real life, and this along with fake names, and yet they scream to high heaven about the Church hidding things. Seems nit-picking and hypocrisy go hand-in-hand.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wow, somebody is upset! Having a bad day? Relax, you've got the weekend ahead of you.

I'm not in the camp of people that think altering the image is somehow akin to selling people Soilent Green like some of the posters here seem to be implying. I don't think the church is being purposefully deceitful, rude, or acting illegally. I just think there was a lapse of judgement here. When an organization is as large as The LDS church is, there is bound to be a few questionable judgement calls here and there. I really don't think it's a big a deal.

I do; however, find it amusing that the way some people are gnashing out at anyone who criticizes the decision. It's nearly as funny as those that are holding this up as being something the church should disband over.

Lastly: "so-called doctored pieces of art"... Really? The image hasn't been doctored? Is this even a point of debate?

Edited May 18, 2012 by AddamS

[CASteinman]

Does anyone find it odd that many of the same people who see no issue with presenting a doctored piece of art with no explanation that the image has been altered are also the first people to cry to heavens when Joseph Smith Jr. is misquoted or his words are taken out of context?

I am sure some people do. There are many people who cannot think straight in the world. Polls can be taken and will find people who want to ban dihydrogen monoxide from the environment. Even polls that are straight up and very clear will routinely find 2% to 13% of people who will vote in ways that are downright bizarre -- like agreeing that the earth does not revolve around the sun and so on.

So, no doubt there are people who will find it odd that other people object to the Words of a Prophet being used falsely.

[wenglund]

Wow, somebody is upset! Having a bad day? Relax, you've got the weekend ahead of you.

Clearly you couldn't be referring to me since I was smiling and laughing all while composing that post. So, were you being self-referential?

I'm not in the camp of people that think altering the image is somehow akin to selling people Soilent Green like some of the posters here seem to be implying. I don't think the church is being purposefully deceitful, rude, or acting illegally. I just think there was a lapse of judgement here.

I agree. Picking this nit here lacks good judgement.

When an organization is as large as The LDS church is, there is bound to be a few questionable judgement calls here and there. I really don't think it's a big a deal.

Again, I agree. That is why I find it odd that some people have chosen to make it a big deal here.

I do; however, find it amusing that the way some people are gnashing out at anyone who criticizes the decision. It's nearly as funny as those that are holding this up as being something the church should disband over.

I don't know who you see as "gnashing out" (perhaps you are waxing a bit hyperbolic?). For my part, I am simply expressing my amusement with the ironic nature of the criticism.

Lastly: "so-called doctored pieces of art"... Really? The image hasn't been doctored? Is this even a point of debate?

Are you trying to say you didn't call it a "doctored" piece of art? Truly? Are you not aware that your statement is documented. You did so call it "doctored". There is no debating this.

Besides, I said "so-called" because I view the term "doctored" as overly sensationaistic in this case.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[sethpayne]

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.

I don't think the issue of permissions is in question as the work is in the public domain. The Church has every legal right to change and redistribute the picture as they please if I understand copyright law correctly. The point I was making is that when one alters a work in the public domain the general practice has been to make it explicit that this *new* work is a derivative of the original.

[AddamS]

Are you trying to say you didn't call it a "doctored" piece of art? Truly? Are you not aware that your statement is documented. You did so call it "doctored". There is no debating this.

Funny... sincerely.

Besides, I said "so-called" because I view the term "doctored" as overly sensationaistic in this case.

I guess I don't see a negative connotation to the word "doctored" that some do. Maybe we can settle on "altered"?

I think we agree on this more than we disagree. Who would have known?

[AddamS]

I am sure some people do. There are many people who cannot think straight in the world. Polls can be taken and will find people who want to ban dihydrogen monoxide from the environment. Even polls that are straight up and very clear will routinely find 2% to 13% of people who will vote in ways that are downright bizarre -- like agreeing that the earth does not revolve around the sun and so on.

I'm sure there are those that think responses like this encourage sincere dialogue out there too.

So, no doubt there are people who will find it odd that other people object to the Words of a Prophet being used falsely.

Well, if it makes it easier for you to wrap you head around the thought, I'd be glad to qualify the statement by specifically including only words JSJ said "as a man" and not "as a prophet".

Edited May 18, 2012 by AddamS

[CASteinman]

I just think there was a lapse of judgement here.

• Exactly what was the lapse here?
  
• Who made it?
  
• Why is your opinion worthy of consideration above that of the person(s) who did it?
  
• Why do you consider a piece of art to be on the same level with the Revelations of God?
  
• Why do you consider these revisions to the painting to be on the same level as lies with an intent to deceive people about a Prophet of God?
  

[CASteinman]

I don't think the issue of permissions is in question as the work is in the public domain. The Church has every legal right to change and redistribute the picture as they please if I understand copyright law correctly. The point I was making is that when one alters a work in the public domain the general practice has been to make it explicit that this *new* work is a derivative of the original.

Really? The practice has been to make it explicit? Whose practice? Under what circumstances? Cite please.

[CASteinman]

I'm sure there are those that think responses like this encourage sincere dialogue out there too.

Maybe. They would be wrong. As would people who think it is odd that there are some folk who object to the Revelations of God being distorted to serve satan.

Edited May 18, 2012 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

Well, if it makes it easier for you to wrap you head around the thought, I'd be glad to qualify the statement by specifically including only words JSJ said "as a man" and not "as a prophet".

Well then you would need to be more specific.

When they distort these words -- is their intent to undermine the work of the Prophet -- to make him seem bad or weak and to make the Work that the Lord gave him to perform to be bad, evil and/or false?

If so, then do you really wonder what sort of people would object to that? Would you be with them or would you be one of those thinking that it was very odd to object to that?

[wenglund]

I guess I don't see a negative connotation to the word "doctored" that some do.

I don't know that I see it as all that negative either.

Maybe we can settle on "altered"?

I am fine either way. It isn't worth nit-picking. I said "so-called" because "doctored" was not a word I would have used, though I have no problem with others using it.

I think we agree on this more than we disagree. Who would have known?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[sethpayne]

Really? The practice has been to make it explicit? Whose practice? Under what circumstances? Cite please.

My apologies if I was unclear. I certainly didn't meant to imply that there is some *legal* requirement to make alterations explicit. I was referring to an "unwritten order of things", as it were, when it comes to how artists interact with each others works.

From my earlier example:

http://www.classical.net/music/comp.lst/works/handel/messiah/mozart.php

Note how it is made very clear that this version of the Messiah is the version arranged by Mozart.

Another example is this piano arrangement of Beethoven's 9th Symphony:

http://www.scoreexchange.com/scores/74997.html

It is very clear that Noel Thompson arranged this version of Beethoven's masterpiece.

As has been pointed out several times in this thread, it is not at all to create derivative works of original art. In many cases, the derivative are better than the original, IMO. Especially in the case of the Handel/Mozart Messiah. Again, the general practice is to make it explicit that an original work has been altered and made into a derivative work.

I will say again, I don't think this is a big deal. Personally I think the alteration is amusing but certainly not in any way nefarious.

[Calm]

I have seen a general trend for the Ensign to be more thorough in citing attributions so it does surprise me a bit that they didn't include it here. I don't think it's a big deal, just a nice preventative for conversations like these as well as being educational.

Having said that, even with an explanation provided there would be those who think the altering in inappropriate as demonstrated by some in this thread.

If that is how they feel, so be it, but there is nothing legally or morally wrong in using art in this fashion as determined by society in general, so I don't think it's an issue. I would have preferred it in its original state as it was seen by those in the story, but I also understand that it is likely the Ensign gets complaints from certain of its readers about such things and they may simply want to spare these people's feelings.

Edited May 18, 2012 by calmoriah

[sethpayne]

I have seen a general trend for the Ensign to be more thorough in citing attributions so it does surprise me a bit that they didn't include it here. I don't think it's a big deal, just a nice preventative for conversations like these.

Having said that, even with an explanation provided there would be those who think the altering in inappropriate as demonstrated by some in this thread.

If that is how they feel, so be it, but there is nothing legally or morally wrong in using art in this fashion as determined by society in general, so I don't think it's an issue. I would have preferred it in its original state as it was seen by those in the story, but I also understand that it is likely the Ensign gets complaints from certain of its readers about such things and they may simply want to spare these people's feelings.

+1

[CASteinman]

I said "so-called" because "doctored" was not a word I would have used, though I have no problem with others using it.

In this non-medical context, and not referring to a repair, the word "Doctored" means "falsified" as in "made fraudulent". It is a pejorative, value-laden word. So, a choice to use it or not use it is, potentially, a revelation regarding the biases of the person employing the word. Perhaps that is why you would not have used it: You prefer to keep your biases secret? I know its hard for me to guess...

[AddamS]

Well then you would need to be more specific.

When they distort these words -- is their intent to undermine the work of the Prophet -- to make him seem bad or weak and to make the Work that the Lord gave him to perform to be bad, evil and/or false?

If so, then do you really wonder what sort of people would object to that? Would you be with them or would you be one of those thinking that it was very odd to object to that?

I would object to both. In fact, I do my best to correct misconceptions about The LDS Church and clarify false attacks against it on a regular basis. This has been becoming increasingly tiresome in this election cycle.

Any time someone is purposefully presenting something other than the genuine article when the item has been purposefully altered by the presenter I believe it is wrong.

[AddamS]

Deleted - Formatting got the best of me

Edited May 18, 2012 by AddamS

[CASteinman]

I was referring to an "unwritten order of things", as it were

I don't believe it is some sort of universal code of honor. THAT is what I was referring to. I would like to know who says it is. Don't get me wrong -- if that is your personal ethic then so be it. I have no complaints. But who says that it is right to apply this unwritten order to the author or editor of this article?

when it comes to how artists interact with each others works.

Well, you do know, this is not an artist interacting with another artist's work.

Personally I think the alteration is amusing but certainly not in any way nefarious.

Well, I admit that once I saw it, I was amused as well. I never would have been as considerate as to have thought of doing this. But I am both more amused and also somewhat perturbed that people take this up as a cause. To me, this is not altogether unlike the people who are upset that a white 2nd grader dressed up to look like Martin Luther King.

[AddamS]

In this non-medical context, and not referring to a repair, the word "Doctored" means "falsified" as in "made fraudulent". It is a pejorative, value-laden word. So, a choice to use it or not use it is, potentially, a revelation regarding the biases of the person employing the word. Perhaps that is why you would not have used it: You prefer to keep your biases secret? I know its hard for me to guess...

You must be a riot at parties.

But I do have to give you credit for living up to your signature.

Edited May 18, 2012 by AddamS

[sethpayne]

I don't believe it is some sort of universal code of honor. THAT is what I was referring to. I would like to know who says it is. Don't get me wrong -- if that is your personal ethic then so be it. I have no complaints. But who says that it is right to apply this unwritten order to the author or editor of this article?

Not sure I would call it a universal code ... but it certainly is the general practice. My personal ethics have nothing to with it. I'm not talented enough to create any art of any interest or value -- whether it be my own or a derivative work.

Well, you do know, this is not an artist interacting with another artist's work.

I think we may have misunderstood each other again. Bloch, an artist, created an original painting. Another artist took the original and modified it. This is what I mean by interaction. Mozart interacted with Handel when he arranged the Messiah etc......