New Symbol to Identify the Church

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Will this new symbol replace Moroni on ties, socks, desk lamps, etc.?

https://ldsbookstore.com/store/Search.aspx?searchTerms=Moroni&submit=true

I really hope not.  That starts feeling like vain repetitions of his name.  Let's not turn the Christ into a meme or bumper sticker.

Edited April 6, 2020 by Calm

[Bob Crockett]

27 minutes ago, Calm said:

I really hope not.  That starts feeling like vain repetitions of his name.  Let's not turn the Christ into a meme or bumper sticker.

I really think that is why a false image of Him was not selected long ago. Surely this kind of thought went through folks' heads. 

I know any kind of imagery is barred in LDS chapels and the terrestrial and celestial rooms. There are exceptions for rare art, such as stained glass representation of the First Vision. My Draper Ward has art depicting Moroni's visit. These exceptions require First Presidency dispensation. 

But now?   Funny how this little thing would get my objections.  I would have never predicted it. 

I guess it is because the Christus has always bothered me.  Some apostle first saw it at Forest Lawn in LA and admired it.  The sculptor did many of them for money. He was not a particularly good Christian.  I don't consider it very good art, but based on the art in the LA Temple I don't consider art selection by the Brethren to be all that compelling. 

Edited April 6, 2020 by Bob Crockett

[Jeanne]

15 hours ago, JAHS said:

Yes?  No?

 

 

That picture is beautifully done.

[smac97]

23 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I really think that is why a false image of Him was not selected long ago. 

I don't understand.  How is the the sculpture a "false" image?  What would be a "true" image of the Savior, in your view?

23 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I know any kind of imagery is barred in LDS chapels and the terrestrial and celestial rooms.

But there are plenty of images elsewhere in the temples and church buildings.  Are these "false" images, too?

23 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

There are exceptions for rare art, such as stained glass representation of the First Vision. My Draper Ward has art depicting Moroni's visit. These exceptions require First Presidency dispensation. 

But now?   Funny how this little thing would get my objections.  I would have never predicted it. 

You said: "I'm opposed to depictions of Jesus that have no connection to the Biblical story.  That isn't Jesus. That's a Norwegian view of Jesus, which is steeped in paganism.  Wodin?"

Thorvaldsen's depiction includes the prints of the nails and the spear wound.  Aren't these "connection{s} to the Biblical story?"

23 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I guess it is because the Christus has always bothered me. 

What are your thoughts about depictions by Harry Anderson?  Do you object to those as well?

What about the bas relief image of Christ by Torleif Knaphus?

What about depictions of Christ by Avard Fairbanks?

 

23 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Some apostle first saw it at Forest Lawn in LA and admired it. 

De gustibus non est disputandum.

23 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

The sculptor did many of them for money.

Was Harry Anderson ever paid for his religious-themed artwork?  Was Knaphus?  Fairbanks?

23 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

He was not a particularly good Christian. 

So the merits of artistry is conditioned on the moral merits of the artist?

23 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I don't consider it very good art, but based on the art in the LA Temple I don't consider art selection by the Brethren to be all that compelling. 

I'm okay with such differences of opinion.  I don't understand the overall objection, though.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Bob Crockett]

Artwork used to depict the message of the New Testament in beautiful and meaningful -- Jesus and the rich man; the calling of Peter.  The Marriage at Canaan.

Artwork used to depict deity alone runs directly afoul of the Ten Commandments.  Christ in the red robe.  Thorvaldsen's.  Fairbanks'.

I can see where this is going.  Bumper stickers, stickers for scriptures.  The image becomes deity.

By the way, Harry Anderson objected to his work for the Church and eventually refused to produce his last commission(s).  He was a Seventh Day Adventist.  I am counsel for the SDAs and have heard this story.

Edited April 6, 2020 by Bob Crockett

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

On 4/5/2020 at 1:17 PM, Bob Crockett said:

We are all just prisoners here of our own device.  

 

Line from a great song, but not doctrine or scripture. 

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

On 4/5/2020 at 11:46 AM, Bob Crockett said:

Thou shalt not make into thee any graven image. 

Why shouldn't the name of Jesus resound in all ears rather than a completely false and untruthful depiction?

I realize I'm just repeating the words of iconoclast Protestants 500 years ago when they stripped all images out of churches they appropriated.  My point is not new. 

This is just crazy. It is Wodin.  

A few things...

What makes you assume that “the name of Jesus” does not resound in the ears of members?

Why do you assume this depiction of Jesus Christ is a deception?  
 

Also, to suppose it is a deception, would suggest you know what Jesus Christ looks like. If you do, could you draw us a picture of what he looks like, so that we all might know. This way you can spare us all from worshiping false idols. Also you can save us from this “just crazy“ deception. 
 

Of the things you are quoting as sinful and violation of God’s laws, you forgot the one of “Judge not least ye be judged”. Because sadly, your post is just that, judgmental, and critical of Church leadership, and the membership on whole.   

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

really think that is why a false image of Him....

Are you opposed to using the name "Jesus Christ" given that wasn't what he was called by family and friends?

Edited April 6, 2020 by Calm

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

Are you opposed to using the name "Jesus Christ" given that wasn't what he was called by family and friends?

True. 

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

A few things...

What makes you assume that “the name of Jesus” does not resound in the ears of members?

Why do you assume this depiction of Jesus Christ is a deception?  
 

Also, to suppose it is a deception, would suggest you know what Jesus Christ looks like. If you do, could you draw us a picture of what he looks like, so that we all might know. This way you can spare us all from worshiping false idols. Also you can save us from this “just crazy“ deception. 
 

Of the things you are quoting as sinful and violation of God’s laws, you forgot the one of “Judge not least ye be judged”. Because sadly, your post is just that, judgmental, and critical of Church leadership, and the membership on whole.   

According to some he looked like this:

 

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

Artwork used to depict the message of the New Testament in beautiful and meaningful -- Jesus and the rich man; the calling of Peter.  The Marriage at Canaan.

Artwork used to depict deity alone runs directly afoul of the Ten Commandments.  Christ in the red robe.  Thorvaldsen's.  Fairbanks'.

I can see where this is going.  Bumper stickers, stickers for scriptures.  The image becomes deity.

By the way, Harry Anderson objected to his work for the Church and eventually refused to produce his last commission(s).  He was a Seventh Day Adventist.  I am counsel for the SDAs and have heard this story.

I understand where you are coming from, but I find the new symbol less problematic than the old one. The commandment is to make no image of anything in heaven so as to worship it. I don't feel that applies to images of people on earth. I also believe Christ no longer looks like what He did on earth. Making a picture or image of Him as we believe He may have appeared doesn't bother me too much - not as much as the Moroni statues on the temples. No one that I have seen bows down before "the Christus" or prays before it - at least not the one in our visitor center - although I am sure there may have been some. This is why we don't have crosses in our Churches - nor other images. I just don't see paintings of Christ with apostles or others as a violation of the commandment. It is not the same thing as the graven images the Israelites used to have because they worshiped before them.

BTW what was Harry Anderson's objection?

[Calm]

38 minutes ago, JAHS said:

According to some he looked like this:

 

The six earliest known pictures of Jesus:

https://aleteia.org/2018/10/10/the-six-oldest-images-of-jesus/

Edited April 6, 2020 by Calm

[Bob Crockett]

2 hours ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

A few things...

What makes you assume that “the name of Jesus” does not resound in the ears of members?

Why do you assume this depiction of Jesus Christ is a deception?  
 

Also, to suppose it is a deception, would suggest you know what Jesus Christ looks like. If you do, could you draw us a picture of what he looks like, so that we all might know. This way you can spare us all from worshiping false idols. Also you can save us from this “just crazy“ deception. 
 

Of the things you are quoting as sinful and violation of God’s laws, you forgot the one of “Judge not least ye be judged”. Because sadly, your post is just that, judgmental, and critical of Church leadership, and the membership on whole.   

Fine. You condemn me.  Have at it.  It is absurd to say I can't comment upon the matter because I don't know what Jesus looks like.  OK. so this Norwegian fellow got it right?  Absurd.

Edited April 6, 2020 by Bob Crockett

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

Artwork used to depict the message of the New Testament in beautiful and meaningful -- Jesus and the rich man; the calling of Peter.  The Marriage at Canaan.

Artwork used to depict deity alone runs directly afoul of the Ten Commandments.  Christ in the red robe.  Thorvaldsen's.  Fairbanks'.

I can see where this is going.  Bumper stickers, stickers for scriptures.  The image becomes deity.

By the way, Harry Anderson objected to his work for the Church and eventually refused to produce his last commission(s).  He was a Seventh Day Adventist.  I am counsel for the SDAs and have heard this story.

I am highly skeptical of your last assertion. Harry Anderson was commissioned by the Church leaders, who were fully aware of his Seventh Day Adventist affiliation. 
 

A couple of years ago the Church History Museum in Salt Lake City held a posthumous exhibition of Anderson’s work  that the Church commissioned. His surviving family members were present at the opening. I conversed with some of them face to face. None recounted any ill will on the part of Anderson toward the Church with regard to his commissioned works. 

[JAHS]

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

The six earliest known pictures of Jesus:

https://aleteia.org/2018/10/10/the-six-oldest-images-of-jesus/

#7 Shroud of Turin ?

[Scott Lloyd]

14 hours ago, JAHS said:

According to some he looked like this:

 

My understanding is that this computer-generated image purports to be what a typical male in Palestine might have looked like at the time. I don’t know that anyone claims this is what Jesus looked like. Have you any documentation that some think that and have substantial basis for thinking that?

Edited April 7, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Bob Crockett]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I am highly skeptical of your last assertion. Harry Anderson was commissioned by the Church leaders, who were fully aware of his Seventh Day Adventist affiliation. 
 

A couple of years ago the Church History Museum in Salt Lake City held a posthumous exhibition of Anderson’s work  that the Church commissioned. His surviving family members were present at the opening. I conversed with some of them face to face. None recounted any ill will on the part of Anderson toward the Church with regard to his commissioned works. 

Tom Lovell took over his commission.  This from a BYU Studies article. file:///C:/Users/rcroc/Downloads/44.2BarrettBlack-db2cfcac-4103-4680-bd03-29117961ff6f.pdf

 

However, when Church leaders desired paintings of the Restoration and the Book of Mormon, Anderson refused the Latter-day Saint commission. “He was a very committed, true, and honorable Seventh Day Adventist,” said Jay Todd, former managing editor of the Ensign. “He had his own sense of commitment and declined to paint Book of Mormon and Restoration scenes. As long as the Church commissioned biblical work, something that he deeply believed in, he accepted the commissions and was willing to acquiesce to Church leaders on visual interpretation.”79 For example, when Anderson was counseled to paint angels with no wings, he complied but never missed an occasion to attempt to convert Church leaders to the correctness of his personal biblical interpretation. Artist Bill Whittaker remembers being amused at the doctrinal bantering Anderson enjoyed with Gordon B. Hinckley.80 Artist Walter Rane explains, “Anderson was not just doing work as a job. He had to believe in it.”81 When Anderson turned down Latter-day Saint Restoration commissions, Church leaders asked him for names of artists who could paint the desired scenes. Anderson suggested only one man: his neighbor Tom Lovell.

Edited April 6, 2020 by Bob Crockett

[california boy]

I like the idea of using an image of Christ as a visual symbol in connection with the name of the Church, but from a designers point of view, this symbol has some issues.  The biggest issue is the proportions between the image of Christ and the name of the Church are so extreme, when you reduce the symbol, you can't read the name of the Church.  When the symbol is used small, you can't even recognize it as Christ.  This makes the symbol very limiting in what it can be used for.  The designer might have tried just part of the image, like the face of Christ so it would be more in scale with the Church name.

The other issue from a design point of view is the image of Christ is quite detailed.  That might also limit its usage.  For example, how will that print of cardboard boxes say for shipping humanitarian aid where the printing process doesn't allow for detailed precision.  

There is a lot to consider when developing this type of symbol especially for a world wide organization.  While it looks good when it is a large image, I am not sure if all the proper questions were asked about how it could be used.  It is one of the reasons the "Moroni" image works so well.  Even just the silhouette version works, because of it's unique shape is easy to interrupt what the image was. (for example how it is used on this web site in the upper left hand corner)

It is not really clear how the Church intends to use this new symbol, so I guess we will have to see how this rolls out.  

The image reduced.

 

Edited April 6, 2020 by california boy

[JAHS]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

My understanding that this computer-generated image purports to be what a typical male in Palestine might have looked like at the time. I don’t know that anyone claims this what Jesus looked like. Documentation that some think that and substantial basis for thinking that?

Yes and that's why many think it is most likely what Jesus looked like.
Science Says This Is What Jesus Really Looked Like

[Scott Lloyd]

13 hours ago, JAHS said:

Yes and that's why many think it is most likely what Jesus looked like.
Science Says This Is What Jesus Really Looked Like

This is fuzzy- headed thinking. 
 

My childhood friends and I were born in the same community the same year, one of them less than a week after I was born. At least three of us were born in the same maternity hospital and are second cousins. Except for the fact that we are all Caucasian (and, had circumstances been different, even that might not have been the case) none of us looks anything like any of the others. 
 

Suppose that centuries from now, someone were to find a photo of one of my friends and, based on proximity of time and locale, conclude that I looked like that. The very notion is ludicrous. 

Edited April 7, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Tom Lovell took over his commission.  This from a BYU Studies article. file:///C:/Users/rcroc/Downloads/44.2BarrettBlack-db2cfcac-4103-4680-bd03-29117961ff6f.pdf

 

However, when Church leaders desired paintings of the Restoration and the Book of Mormon, Anderson refused the Latter-day Saint commission. “He was a very committed, true, and honorable Seventh Day Adventist,” said Jay Todd, former managing editor of the Ensign. “He had his own sense of commitment and declined to paint Book of Mormon and Restoration scenes. As long as the Church commissioned biblical work, something that he deeply believed in, he accepted the commissions and was willing to acquiesce to Church leaders on visual interpretation.”79 For example, when Anderson was counseled to paint angels with no wings, he complied but never missed an occasion to attempt to convert Church leaders to the correctness of his personal biblical interpretation. Artist Bill Whittaker remembers being amused at the doctrinal bantering Anderson enjoyed with Gordon B. Hinckley.80 Artist Walter Rane explains, “Anderson was not just doing work as a job. He had to believe in it.”81 When Anderson turned down Latter-day Saint Restoration commissions, Church leaders asked him for names of artists who could paint the desired scenes. Anderson suggested only one man: his neighbor Tom Lovell.

Therefore, what?

Are we supposed to be surprised that he would not want to create art depicting subjects for which he held no doctrinal affinity? I don’t think I’d want to do that either; not sure about you. 
 

But this doesn’t reflect any bad blood between Anderson and the Church leaders over the work he did create for them. If anything it shows the opposite, a warm and candid relationship. 

[Bob Crockett]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Therefore, what?

Are we supposed to be surprised that he would not want to create art depicting subjects for which he held no doctrinal affinity? I don’t think I’d want to do that either; not sure about you. 
 

But this doesn’t reflect any bad blood between Anderson and the Church leaders over the work he did create for them. If anything it shows the opposite, a warm and candid relationship. 

I offer no "therefore."  It is what it is.  I guess you can assume, rightly so, that I am willing to commit all sorts of immoral acts if the circumstances justify it.  This place is a cesspool.

Edited April 6, 2020 by Bob Crockett

[CV75]

9 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I offer no "therefore."  It is what it is.  I guess you can assume, rightly so, that I am willing to commit all sorts of immoral acts if the circumstances justify it.  This place is a cesspool.

I take the image of Jesus in the new logo to be a symbol of testimony (the Living Christ, Our Redeemer, Etc.), not an idol to be worshiped ("the work of men’s hands, wood and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell.")

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

59 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Fine. You condemn me.  Have at it.  It is absurd to say I can't comment upon the matter because I don't know what Jesus looks like.  OK. so this Norwegian fellow got it right?  Absurd.

It was not your opinion I was addressing, but the harsh judgement that you were making. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but accusing others, and the Church of idol worship, and not having Jesus Christ in their hearts and minds, is harsh to say the least. I am not trying to condemn you, just trying for us to, “come reason together”, as scripture asks of us all. I have no authority to judge you, nor do I pretend to be worthy to do so. 

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

According to some he looked like this:

 

I just worship him, and care nothing for what he may, or may not look like. Regardless of what he looks like, we I see him, I will fall down at his feet, and wet his feet with my tears.