Robert F. Smith Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 1 hour ago, Danzo said: I am waiting for a Mexican version of Joseph Smith. Needs to have a Mustache. That would make our family much happier. We would then feel the church loves us. Reminds me a photo I have seen of David O. McKay as a young apostle wearing a mustache -- back in the 1920s. Very handsome guy. One also sees mustaches now on young men on the campus at BYU, apparently now permissible.
Calm Posted June 1, 2017 Author Posted June 1, 2017 Mustaches have been permissible for a long time. My husband had one in the 70s. Had to be trimmed neatly though, which if I recall meant not hanging over the top lip much.
Robert F. Smith Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said: Well, there is a sub rosa feeling in the Church that under some circumstances such artwork should not exist. One cannot have depictions of Jesus in meetinghouse chapels, but there are exceptions for historical buildings. Certainly in the LA temple in the baptistry there's a huge mural of Jesus and John the Baptist. Back in the 1960s, we had a huge mural of Jesus by Arnold Friberg at the very front of our chapel (Bay ward of San Francisco Stake), visible to the whole congregation. However, the bldg was later sold to a Black Baptist Church, when the ward moved elsewhere.
thesometimesaint Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 10 minutes ago, Calm said: Mustaches have been permissible for a long time. My husband had one in the 70s. Had to be trimmed neatly though, which if I recall meant not hanging over the top lip much. Yes. I had a mustache too while a BYU in the 70's. A Charley Chaplin mustache was fine, but a George Albert Smith beard wasn't.
Robert F. Smith Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 4 hours ago, rodheadlee said: That just confirms that there are more people that are bad then there are good. The only way to get rid of racism is to stop categorizing people by their race. One thing to consider is that most Mormons live outside the USA, and it may well be that most Mormons have some variety of brown skin. Spanish and Portuguese are now the most common languages of the Mormon faith, and we all need to get used to the idea that the north European visage we are most accustomed to seeing is not truly normal any longer. Even right here in Provo, it is common for me to regularly associate with close friends from India, the Philippines, and Peru, all of whom seem well-adjusted and normal. This has practical implications, but does not mean that most people are bad. 1
The Nehor Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 22 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: Yes. I had a mustache too while a BYU in the 70's. A Charley Chaplin mustache was fine, but a George Albert Smith beard wasn't. Imitating apostles and prophets is not allowed. Imitating Hitler is perfectly acceptable. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 2 hours ago, Bob Crockett said: Which gives rise my fundamental objection to depicting Christ at all in imagery. Maybe ok to depict Biblical scenes but it doesn't seem right just to depict Him as it is neither Him nor really a depiction of HIm. But I'm in a minority. And yet Jesus gets depicted in art and film all the time. The question is always, how can that be done authentically -- since there is such a wide variety of views on the matter: Garner Ted Armstrong of the then Worldwide Church of God insisted that Jesus was a businessman, must have a Roman haircut, be clean shaven, and wear a toga. In one recent film, "Risen," Jesus is very well played by a Maori actor. And one can see him in full bearded portrayal, openly displaying the marks in wrists and side, 3
clarkgoble Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 Popular Science did an interesting article on what Jesus likely looked like.
juliann Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 13 hours ago, Calm said: There is more but don't want to violate Fair Use....the rest of the article demonstrates the extreme variety of racism. The above troubles me, but the rest of it makes me ill. I can't remember if this is the blogger we discussed awhile back and who had a supporter show up or if this is a new one. Hopefully the same, but unfortunately I have little doubt there are others like the two of them around. We all have our issues no matter how enlightened we think we are. But when someone is publicly advocating and openly teaching racism, I hope there is a trip to a ward or stake council. This should be seen as the worst anti-Mormonism there is. 4
Jeanne Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 2 hours ago, Calm said: Mustaches have been permissible for a long time. My husband had one in the 70s. Had to be trimmed neatly though, which if I recall meant not hanging over the top lip much. Just curious..(I love mustaches..my husband also had one)..but why would it matter how it was grown..length/lip.
Darren10 Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 #DearZionXLon: Feel free to create LDS art which honors Black LDS. My wife and daughter love art and would very much be interested in what you come up with. #DearTinesha: Congratulations on your achievements! Who are telling you that you got into BYU because you're WoC? And who's Billy? #TheHoodMormon: What of your history are you expected to ignore? 1
Darren10 Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 Didn't "Wife with a Purpose" recently get her LDS account suspended? I do not know a single LDs female (or male) who think anything like her.
cinepro Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 5 hours ago, Bob Crockett said: Which gives rise my fundamental objection to depicting Christ at all in imagery. Maybe ok to depict Biblical scenes but it doesn't seem right just to depict Him as it is neither Him nor really a depiction of HIm. But I'm in a minority. I'm not a New Testament scholar, but I'm pretty sure this didn't happen in the Bible... https://deseretbook.com/p/christ-young-women-del-parson-3072?variant_id=109987-print FWIW, this image has been used as the cover for our sacrament meeting program twice in the past 10 years. I saved both copies in my Church bag, and every once in a while I take one out during sacrament meeting and just look at it to infuriate my wife
Calm Posted June 1, 2017 Author Posted June 1, 2017 (edited) 29 minutes ago, Jeanne said: Just curious..(I love mustaches..my husband also had one)..but why would it matter how it was grown..length/lip. Same reason they didn't approve of hair on men covering the ear or touching the collar or whatever the specifics were for men (I can't remember not having paid attention to them). From what I remember my fellow students said, no one really said anything unless it got shaggy. (And that was rare since most weren't, probably more because they preferred that look to being required by the Honor Code). I think they were likely established to avoid any 'hippie' look, but haven't been interested enough to research in detail, just what I hear here and there. Edited June 1, 2017 by Calm
Calm Posted June 1, 2017 Author Posted June 1, 2017 12 minutes ago, cinepro said: I'm not a New Testament scholar, but I'm pretty sure this didn't happen in the Bible... https://deseretbook.com/p/christ-young-women-del-parson-3072?variant_id=109987-print FWIW, this image has been used as the cover for our sacrament meeting program twice in the past 10 years. I saved both copies in my Church bag, and every once in a while I take one out during sacrament meeting and just look at it to infuriate my wife I always figured this was supposed to be if reflecting an actual event in the Preexistence rather than biblical times given the robes are all stunningly white...but more likely it was meant purely as an imagined scene of how young women should look to Christ for knowledge, understanding, and comfort.
Calm Posted June 1, 2017 Author Posted June 1, 2017 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Darren10 said: Didn't "Wife with a Purpose" recently get her LDS account suspended? I do not know a single LDs female (or male) who think anything like her. Yes. She was the one we were discussing in a previous thread. I suspect that if there were others in your ward or stake, they would not be talking about it in church itself. Hopefully there are very, very few. Edited June 1, 2017 by Calm 1
Jeanne Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 4 minutes ago, Calm said: Same reason they didn't approve of hair on men covering the ear or touching the collar or whatever the specifics were for men (I can't remember not having paid attention to them). From what I remember my fellow students said, no one really said anything unless it got shaggy. (And that was rare since most weren't, probably more because they preferred that look to being required by the Honor Code). I think they were likely established to avoid any 'hippie' look, but haven't been interested enough to research in detail, just what I hear here and there. Yeah..it is the sixty's thing.I think. My husband's beard and mustache had to be trimmed to fit gas masks and other safety reasons for work.
Calm Posted June 1, 2017 Author Posted June 1, 2017 If you look at the Gospel in Action section of the Gospel Art, there is a lot of diversity in the pictures. It has added/altered at least a dozen pictures since I was a librarian four or five years ago, though I am disappointed the primary age children pictures look to be all white (child confirmation, primary class, the Sacrament, boy getting the priesthood, healing blessing, etc). https://www.lds.org/media-library/images/category/gospel-in-action-all-gospel-art?lang=eng The Gospel Art Kit has a few more, so if one goes looking, there is significant variety, but I wish they showed more mixed community pictures rather than one group or the other. https://www.lds.org/media-library/images/category/gospel-in-action-gospel-art-kit?lang=eng
clarkgoble Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 36 minutes ago, cinepro said: I'm not a New Testament scholar, but I'm pretty sure this didn't happen in the Bible... https://deseretbook.com/p/christ-young-women-del-parson-3072?variant_id=109987-print FWIW, this image has been used as the cover for our sacrament meeting program twice in the past 10 years. I saved both copies in my Church bag, and every once in a while I take one out during sacrament meeting and just look at it to infuriate my wife Yeah Del Parsons is one of the more guilty parties. He's also behind most of the paintings of Joseph Smith reading the plates to translate. That said I have his book of paintings of Jesus we use for our toddlers during Sacrament. But yeah, talk about a one man doctrinal destructor.
probablyHagoth7 Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 (edited) 6 hours ago, clarkgoble said: ...yet most Church art makes the Nephites look like a cross between vikings and Roman centurians.... Being that I believe Vikings descend from Nephites [as do many non-Europeans], and that Nephites served as centurions [and as warriors nowhere near the Atlantic], my concern is of a slightly different flavor. I *do* wish to encourage a variety of art that more of mankind can relate to. 6 hours ago, clarkgoble said: We're also an international church. While the Church has always been pretty inclusive with photographs with the rest of the art they haven't been. Commission me a painting of Jesus looking like a person living in Palestine of late antiquity surrounding by children of all races. Commission me some paintings of the second coming with multiple races. Commission some paintings with Adam and Eve appearing as different races. Earlier this year, I strolled through the BYU Art Museum a couple of times. They have a collection of scripture-themed art on the main floor from a broad array of cultures, depicting precisely what you've requested. Ditto downstairs with secular art. If either collection is still there... 6 hours ago, clarkgoble said: The problem is an undue focus on the Dutch Masters for most Mormon art. They made Jesus (and Jews) look northern European. That's not accurate and almost certainly they'd look more like Palestinians today. Some say Jesus was brown, black, or some other color. Which is part of the problem with graven images....*and* with creating God in one's own image. Because whatever cultural flavor one draws from the palette to appeal to *one* worldview, it may offend a neighbor. Perhaps it's past time we actually stopped creating such images... Edited June 1, 2017 by probablyHagoth7
The Nehor Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 (edited) 19 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said: Some say Jesus was brown, black, or some other color. Which is part of the problem with graven images....*and* with creating God in one's own image. Because whatever cultural flavor one draws from the palette to appeal to *one* worldview, it may offend a neighbor. Perhaps it's past time we actually stopped creating such images... We could threaten to kill anyone who represents God in art but I hear that schtick has already been claimed by another group. Edited June 1, 2017 by The Nehor
The Nehor Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 I have only experienced a few cases on overt racism in the church. My favorite was in an MTC district class I was in where an older gentleman talked about how blessed our district was for being born in this dispensation and pointed out all the advantages we were given proving our premortal valor like being born American and being born white. We stared awkwardly at each other and then pointed out to the old racist that four of our number were Canadian. He blustered and tried to explain that Canadians are Americans too. An older friend of mine who was on his mission when OD-2 came out was companions with a 'good ole southern boy' and after they went home from conference he laid on his bed and wept while hitting the wall saying: "I can't believe they gave the n*****s the Priesthood." That and some really old stories from the 50s and 60s. Most racism in the Church is of the ignorant kind and not the active kind. The assumption of stereotypes, the unquestioned tribalism, sometimes a kind of racial condescension some people imagine is actually kindness. I think what survives has more to do with church members being human and tribal like everyone else. Most of the people who used the Priesthood Ban as justification are dead and hopefully have either learned from their errors or are being purified of them in the fires of hell. 2
probablyHagoth7 Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 18 minutes ago, The Nehor said: We could threaten to kill anyone who represents God in art but I hear that schtick has already been claimed by another group. Fear is the opposite motivation I had in mind...as you likely know.
The Nehor Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 4 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said: Fear is the opposite motivation I had in mind...as you likely know. Just poking fun at our Islamic siblings and trying for an overblown slippery slope fallacy. Church art is weird though. You see the pictures of heaven and premortality and they make it seem so BORING. A bunch of people in robes milling about smiling for all eternity............BLECH! 1
CV75 Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 16 hours ago, Calm said: Interesting article...am doing FM Front Page right now, so no time to comment (add-on: yeah, right...couldn't help myself). Didn't want to forget about it though, so posting now. I think the Gospel supplies us with the spiritual tools to “hash” or “#” (pound) these things out, whether in council or in hash-tags, whether personally or between two or more people. When it comes to “isms” I think the pure or fundamental principles “Mormonism” (or in my mind better put but for some reason a term not used, “Christism”) would help individuals and groups define the problem and the solution. I think "appreciating diversity" is one way to address problems with racism.
Recommended Posts