New Symbol to Identify the Church

[JAHS]

 

59 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Yes, good point.  It seems there was an emphasis on Moroni spires in the last 20-30 years, perhaps this recent change now shows a a shifting and future deemphasis.  I wonder if they may remove Moroni statues from some temples?  

Under construction temples Washington County, Urdaneta-Philippines, Pocatello Idaho, Winnipeg will have an Angel Moroni. There are others so I don't think they are shying away from the Angel Moroni, unless they decide to omit them when construction concludes.

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

Chapter 25 "FASTING" of the Gospel Principles manual as found on the church website - https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-25-fasting?lang=eng

Deleted the rest. It served no purpose.
 

Okay I read the chapter and I don't see anything in there that could be offensive to anybody. Not sure what is bothering you.

Perhaps you need to realize that that entire book is extremely Elementary and is in fact written for non-members who are " investigating "the church.

If it's in there they obviously want someone who is a non-member to be following that, because It prepares them to become a member.

And no fasting is not an ordinance so it is not like taking the sacrament at all.

It is simply an exercise like reading the book of Mormon or praying that brings us closer to the savior.  There are no promises- covenants- to God being made during a fast nor is there any type of symbolic ritual.  It is not a "contract" between God and man, as the sacrament is.

Again I would recommend is that to you participate in the fast on Friday. I think you will find it to be a wonderful experience.

Edited April 8, 2020 by mfbukowski

[hope_for_things]

13 hours ago, mgy401 said:

It seems like with some degree of regularity we hear about the newer fiberglass Moronis having to get replaced due to lightning damage (Oquirrh Mountain, Bountiful, Nauvoo, Indianapolis, Idaho Falls, and Washington DC have all had reports of damage to their angels in recent years).  Maybe the Church is starting to conclude that it just isn’t worth the maintenance hassle?

Thats a good point as well.   Hassle, as well as a shifting emphasis away from Moroni as a symbol of the faith, could signal a perfect storm for our old friend Moroni.  

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Thats a good point as well.   Hassle, as well as a shifting emphasis away from Moroni as a symbol of the faith, could signal a perfect storm for our old friend Moroni.  

It will cost tons more to change all the logos rather than an occasional Moroni, so I highly doubt that figured Much into the decision.

[hope_for_things]

13 hours ago, JAHS said:

 

Under construction temples Washington County, Urdaneta-Philippines, Pocatello Idaho, Winnipeg will have an Angel Moroni. There are others so I don't think they are shying away from the Angel Moroni, unless they decide to omit them when construction concludes.

https://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/construction/

Ok, of the 14 temples in the "Under Construction category" I see 5 of 14 that don't have Moroni in the renderings.  

Of the 4 temples in the "Scheduled for ground breaking" 2 of the 4 don't have Moroni.  

Of the 7 temples, with renderings available, in the "site officially announced" 5 of the 7 don't have Moroni.

This is definitely looking like a trend moving away from Moroni statues.  What do you think?  

[Calm]

Just now, hope_for_things said:

https://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/construction/

Ok, of the 14 temples in the "Under Construction category" I see 5 of 14 that don't have Moroni in the renderings.  

Of the 4 temples in the "Scheduled for ground breaking" 2 of the 4 don't have Moroni.  

Of the 7 temples, with renderings available, in the "site officially announced" 5 of the 7 don't have Moroni.

This is definitely looking like a trend moving away from Moroni statues.  What do you think?  

I think it would be wise to check local construction requirements before assuming it is the Church making that decision rather than it being imposed upon them.

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

It will cost tons more to change all the logos rather than an occasional Moroni, so I highly doubt that figured Much into the decision.

Do you think they are going to spend money to change all of the materials currently in print?  I just thought they would gradually change things as they do new runs of materials, no need to discard currently printed items to reproduce materials already out there.  Or did you hear otherwise, I'm curious.  

As for Moroni on temples, look at my last post, it definitely shows a move away from Moroni happening with the more recent temple designs, so perhaps this overall change away from Moroni has been in the works for a little while, just not officially announced.  

[hope_for_things]

Just now, Calm said:

I think it would be wise to check local construction requirements before assuming it is the Church making that decision rather than it being imposed upon them.

I guess its a possibility that this is a factor, but look at some of those temples missing Moroni, Tooele, Moses Lake Washington, those don't strike me as the types of places with heavy regulatory construction requirements.  

[Calm]

Just now, hope_for_things said:

Do you think they are going to spend money to change all of the materials currently in print?  I just thought they would gradually change things as they do new runs of materials, no need to discard currently printed items to reproduce materials already out there.  Or did you hear otherwise, I'm curious.  

As for Moroni on temples, look at my last post, it definitely shows a move away from Moroni happening with the more recent temple designs, so perhaps this overall change away from Moroni has been in the works for a little while, just not officially announced.  

There is still the cost of updating that wouldn't need to be done. 

As to the Moroni on temples, I would not be surprised if local governments are more restrictive these days in how buildings/churches blend with their surroundings as well as height.  Adding a statue when height is limited might result in a spire that looks squatting in comparison to the rest of the building.  We seem to be having more delays with building, less statues may be a result of trying to simplify the approval process.

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I guess its a possibility that this is a factor, but look at some of those temples missing Moroni, Tooele, Moses Lake Washington, those don't strike me as the types of places with heavy regulatory construction requirements.  

Tooele would look awkward imo with one, same with Moses Lake, so it could simply be an architectural choice.  But then I don't usually like the statues anyway as throwing off the whole spire effect.

Edited April 8, 2020 by Calm

[JAHS]

9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

https://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/construction/

Ok, of the 14 temples in the "Under Construction category" I see 5 of 14 that don't have Moroni in the renderings.  

Of the 4 temples in the "Scheduled for ground breaking" 2 of the 4 don't have Moroni.  

Of the 7 temples, with renderings available, in the "site officially announced" 5 of the 7 don't have Moroni.

This is definitely looking like a trend moving away from Moroni statues.  What do you think?  

If it is, it's going to be a very slow trend over many decades. I don't think there is enough evidence yet to make this conclusion.

[hope_for_things]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

There is still the cost of updating that wouldn't need to be done. 

As to the Moroni on temples, I would not be surprised if local governments are more restrictive these days in how buildings/churches blend with their surroundings as well as height.  Adding a statue when height is limited might result in a spire that looks squatting in comparison to the rest of the building.  We seem to be having more delays with building, less statues may be a result of trying to simplify the approval process.

So are you just throwing these construction and regulatory ideas out as speculation about other possible factors?  Sure, they possibly could be influential factors, but do you have any evidence to support the speculation, or are these just musings at this point?   don't really have any evidence to support the speculation.  All we really can see is a clear trend away from Moroni on the future temples as a percentage of temples compared to the existing base of temples.  Why the move away from Moroni is anybody's guess, unless someone has inside information they can share. 

Poor Moroni....

 

[hope_for_things]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

Tooele would look awkward imo with one, same with Moses Lake, so it could simply be an architectural choice.  But then I don't usually like the statues anyway as throwing off the whole spire effect.

Are you saying the design of that particular building would look awkward with Moroni on top, or are you saying Tooele as a city would be awkward with a Moroni statue in its vicinity?  If the former, the people designing temples could have been instructed to design more buildings without Moroni statues on top.  I imagine they design the entire building with its top spire in mind, rather than conceiving of a building design and then determining whether Moroni would architecturally fit or not.  

[Calm]

 

5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Poor Moroni....

 

Do you think he actually cares?  Or that somehow it demonstrates a drop in respect for the man and prophet he was and is?

[hope_for_things]

16 minutes ago, JAHS said:

If it is, it's going to be a very slow trend over many decades. I don't think there is enough evidence yet to make this conclusion.

The trend is away from Moroni with this sample of the currently under construction and announced temples, and that is just a fact of the evidence.  Will things change again in the future, is that what you're saying?  Possibly, who knows.  I can't comment on what the future will hold, I'm not a prophet.  I'm just making observations about the current trend which is clearly away from Moroni, for whatever reasons.  I speculate that it has something to do with a change of emphasis in the church in recent years, away from more esoteric and peculiar kinds of Mormon traditions.  

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Are you saying the design of that particular building would look awkward with Moroni on to

This. 

As far as speculation, it seems your entire discussion is based on thin speculation, so I didn't see an issue with throwing more out there.

Quote

which is clearly away from Moroni,

Yeah...not seeing it as so "clear" no matter how often you claim this.

Edited April 8, 2020 by Calm

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

 

Do you think he actually cares?  Or that somehow it demonstrates a drop in respect for the man and prophet he was and is?

I kind of like the Moroni statues and Moroni as a symbol as it was what I was raised on.  So for me personally, I will miss this.  I also like some of the unique quirkiness of Mormonism.  Even though I'm no longer a literal believer, I think there is something lost as the church moves more into the mainstream and away from some of the uniquely Mormon traditions.  I have mixed feelings on this to be honest.  

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

This. 

As far as speculation, it seems your entire discussion is based on thin speculation, so I didn't see an issue with throwing more out there.

Yeah...not seeing it as so "clear" no matter how often you claim this.

Its fine, I like speculating.  You just often have a lot of wisdom and experience, so I wondered if you had other knowledge on the subject.  

The numbers are clear, unless you can show something otherwise.  Its a small sample size, but the % of Moroni on the recent temples under construction and announced is way less than in the past.  That is the clear part.   Whether this trend continues into the future, or reverses course back to where it has been in the past is anyone's guess.  But the current trend is what it is.   

[Tacenda]

Just now, hope_for_things said:

I kind of like the Moroni statues and Moroni as a symbol as it was what I was raised on.  So for me personally, I will miss this.  I also like some of the unique quirkiness of Mormonism.  Even though I'm no longer a literal believer, I think there is something lost as the church moves more into the mainstream and away from some of the uniquely Mormon traditions.  I have mixed feelings on this to be honest.  

I know it's sort of like they are changing the branding somewhat, but I believe the same traditions solidified since last conference because of the proclamation stating what it did, so definitely not quite mainstream yet. 

[hope_for_things]

Just now, Tacenda said:

I know it's sort of like they are changing the branding somewhat, but I believe the same traditions solidified since last conference because of the proclamation stating what it did, so definitely not quite mainstream yet. 

I agree there is a definite branding change, this coincides with the emphasis on the formal name of the church and moving away from the title of Mormon.  Not sure I understand what you're saying about the proclamation and things not being quite mainstream yet, can you elaborate?  

[HappyJackWagon]

Jesus obviously looks like this, right?

Which prophet was it who identified this as the most true image of Jesus? I can't recall.

[Bob Crockett]

On 4/6/2020 at 10:56 AM, smac97 said:

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

One does not have to prove the falsity of something by proving the truth.  It is disingenuous for you and others on this forum, very disingenuous, to suggest that I can't make my case unless I know the truth of Jesus's image.  Suffice it to say, the Christus is false.

Quote

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

According to guidelines established for LDS meetinghouses, artwork depicting stories from the scriptures is appropriate.  There, the image of Jesus is secondary to the message conveyed by the artwork.  

Quote

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

Another grossly disingenuous argument.  The Christus is an image of deity, meant to portray deity, and any possible story behind the image is remotely secondary. 

Quote

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

Depends.  Is the image meant to portray a story from the New Testament or is it an image of deity that we should fall down and worship?

Quote

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

Yes.  And they stand condemned for some of their work.  The very type of image makers Paul condemned.

Quote

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

Yes; it is part of the story behind the image makers Paul condemned. 

Quote

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

Yes you do understand my position.  Iconoclasm is an argument as old as the Reformation.  As old as Judaism. With all your reading and understanding of history, you obviously get my point.   There's a reason this hasn't been done before.   What's next?  Keychains?  Stickers for Primary children?  Images in chapels?   Images outside, on meetinghouses?   Bumper stickers?  Moroni going down from temples; Christus going up?  Christus cards for use in seminary?  Christus images in the stake president's office?  The Priesthood shouldn't be named the "Priesthood of Jesus Christ" but by goodness we can have bumper stickers.

Edited April 8, 2020 by Bob Crockett

[hope_for_things]

16 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Jesus obviously looks like this, right?

Which prophet was it who identified this as the most true image of Jesus? I can't recall.

I remember my parents telling me a story about this as a kid, something about the painter having to resubmit the image of his face multiple times until after receiving feedback from church leaders he/she was told the painting was good?  I may be mixing up my stories though.  

I found this on Holy Fetch. 

http://holyfetch.com/painting-shows-true-appearance-of-jesus/

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Quote

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

One does not have to prove the falsity of something by proving the truth.  It is disingenuous for you and others on this forum, very disingenuous, to suggest that I can't make my case unless I know the truth of Jesus's image.  Suffice it to say, the Christus is false.

Bob, I'm not trying to be antagonistic.  I just don't understand your position.  Merely asserting that "the Christus is false" is not sufficient.  I'd like to understand your opposition to it, because I respect your opinion.

14 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Quote

Quote

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?

According to guidelines established for LDS meetinghouses, artwork depicting stories from the scriptures is appropriate.  There, the image of Jesus is secondary to the message conveyed by the artwork.

I'm not sure I understand.  One of the most frequently used depictions of Jesus in the Church is this one by artist Del Parson:

Do you object to this image?

14 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Quote

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?"

Another grossly disingenuous argument.  The Christus is an image of deity, meant to portray deity, and any possible story behind the image is remotely secondary. 

So is the above image by Del Parson.  

I am not being disingenuous.  I am simply trying to understand your position.

14 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Quote

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

Depends.  Is the image meant to portray a story from the New Testament or is it an image of deity that we should fall down and worship?

I don't think any images of Christ are "meant" for us to "fall down and worship."  That holds for the artwork of Thorvaldsen, Anderson, Fairbanks, Knaphus, Parson and so on.

You seem to be trying to present a quantitative, rather than qualitative, distinction between Thorvaldsen's Christus and other images of Christ used by and in the Church.  The proposed distinction appears to be that "depictions of Jesus that have no connection to the Biblical story," and/or images that are meant for us to "fall down and worship" are extremely inappropriate.  

I don't understand this distinction.  There are plenty of images of Jesus used in the Church that are not specifically connected "the Biblical story" (Parson's portrait being the most obvious), and there is no indication that any of them are meant for us to "fall down and worship."  So the reasoning for your opposition to Thorvaldsen's Christus is not immediately apparent to me.

14 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Quote

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

Yes.  And they stand condemned for some of their work.  The very type of image makers Paul condemned.

"They stand condemned?"  By whom?

14 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Quote

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

Yes you do understand my position. 

Well, no, I don't think I do.

14 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Iconoclasm is an argument as old as the Reformation.  As old as Judaism. With all your reading and understanding of history, you obviously get my point.   

Again no, I don't get your point.  "Iconoclasm" presupposes some things about iconography that is absent from my experience in the Church.  For example, I have visited the North Visitors' Center on Temple Square many, many times.  I have sat in front of the Christus statue there many times, but I have never worshiped or venerated it, nor have I ever been instructed / asked / encouraged to do so by any leader or member of the Church.  I have never touched it.  I have never believed it to be imbued with some inherent spiritual power or quality.  

In my home, we have a copy of Carl Bloch's Christ Healing the Sick at the Pool of Bethesda:

Again, I have never worshiped or venerated this image, nor have I ever been instructed / asked / encouraged to do so by any leader or member of the Church.

I have appreciated artwork about the Savior by Bloch, Anderson, Thorvaldsen, etc.  But for reasons that I do not grasp, you seem to object only to a statue by Thorvaldsen.  

Would you similarly object if the Church had used a non-statue depiction of the Savior by another artist?

14 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

There's a reason this hasn't been done before.   What's next?  Keychains? 

I doubt it.

14 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Stickers for Primary children? 

Like these?

The Church regularly uses artistic depictions of Jesus Christ, none of which is intended to be worshipped or venerated.

14 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Images in chapels?   Images outside, on meetinghouses?   Bumper stickers?  Moroni going down from temples; Christus going up?  Christus cards for use in seminary?  Christus images in the stake president's office? 

I doubt it.

14 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

The Priesthood shouldn't be named the "Priesthood of Jesus Christ" but by goodness we can have bumper stickers.

I don't think we will.

Is your concern that the inclusion of an image of Christ in the Church's logo amounts to a violation of the prohibition against graven images?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I agree there is a definite branding change, this coincides with the emphasis on the formal name of the church and moving away from the title of Mormon.  Not sure I understand what you're saying about the proclamation and things not being quite mainstream yet, can you elaborate?  

Well, I re-listened to Pres. Nelson in the Sacred Grove to hone in on them. First, that the church needed to be restored since the keys were lost. Second, that JS was visited by the Saviour and God Almighty. Third that Joseph found the Gold plates and added to the Bible another testament of Jesus Christ. These alone are not mainstream.