sweetpotatoh Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 On 5/12/2020 at 7:08 AM, Bob Crockett said: I like instead big cardboard boxes for a shoe collection program and big posters on tripods announcing the ward barb b que. LOL
mfbukowski Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 16 hours ago, MiserereNobis said: I guess I'm on the other side here. The few times I've gone to LDS services, the constant greeting by everyone was overwhelming (and the hand shakes! you guys are a vector for infectious disease ). I'm probably in the minority here, but when I go to a religious service, I like quiet and space, so I can pray, meditate, etc. My experience with Catholicism was exactly what I needed. I first started looking into Catholicism on my own, not talking to anyone. I was reading books and then I started to go to Mass. It was perfect for me at the time that I didn't have to explain to anyone what I was doing or where I was at in my spiritual journey. My conversion happened over the course of about 18 months without ever really talking to anyone about it. This includes even staying at 2 monasteries for 5 or 6 days. Not even the monks asked me what was going on, why I wasn't receiving communion, etc. They just let me be. I think if I hadn't been left alone by everyone, it wouldn't have been the journey that I personally needed. God, and particularly the Virgin Mary, were looking out for me in that way. (side note: when I went to my first Catholic monastery, there was no one immediately visible. I wandered around the grounds for a bit, but still didn't see anyone. I went inside a building and peeked into an office. There was a monk with his feet up on a desk drinking a beer. I was like, alright, I think I can handle this place, ha. The monastery's beer is actually famous around here. The current Abbot's picture is on the bottle of their main beer. Other monks are pictured on other bottles. I know you guys don't drink, but you could go peek at the website, which has a great picture of the main chapel on it: https://www.abbeybrewing.biz/monks-ale/) At the end of this 18 month time period, I started going to 7:00 AM daily Mass before work. After about a month the priest finally asked to talk to me after Mass. He said he noticed I wasn't receiving communion and asked if there was something he could help me with (he was definitely thinking confession). He was floored when I told him I wasn't Catholic. He asked if I wanted to talk to him about it. The Holy Spirit zapped me right then. I could feel the arms of the Blessed Virgin around me. It was time, and I said yes. 6 weeks later I was baptized and confirmed. Wow, I didn't mean for this to turn into my conversion story. I meant to just offer a different view -- that sometimes people want to be left alone when they go to church. Thanks for the story!
mfbukowski Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: I know you guys don't drink, but you could go peek at the website, which has a great picture of the main chapel on it: https://www.abbeybrewing.biz/monks-ale/) You did that just to tempt me, didn't you? 😜😉 1
Tacenda Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 (edited) 18 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Now Bob, stop it. You know how prone Tacenda is to take you literally. Well I can say stuff that you take literally, like every single thing out of the mouth of an/a apostle/prophet (everything they've said about gays, in particular). But that's a compliment in your mind, I'm thinking. And btw, I'm old enough to remember the church like was described by Bob. I believe those posters still exist, and I've seen a box of either left scriptures or coats/clothing left, not shoes per se. But whatever, why am I even talking about this, haha. Edited May 13, 2020 by Tacenda
alter idem Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 8 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said: This document lists the budgets for artwork in US$ based on the square footage of the building. It also includes the following statement about where depictions may be placed: Yes, this is what the directive is. No artwork in the chapel unless it's gotten special dispensation to remain, likely because it was there a long time. Stained glass windows are an example as they were done before the present no artwork directive. This isn't a matter of taste, it's purposeful. 1
Tacenda Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 (edited) I think the portrait of Jesus holding the black child (looks recent) shouldn't be included because He mostly likely did not have blue eyes. Edited May 13, 2020 by Tacenda
alter idem Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Sounds like you attended Church in the ward where I grew up. We had a large painting directly behind the rostrum of Christ before Pilate. Every week until my adolescence, I viewed that painting. In fact, when I was in my teens, that old building was sold off, and the building that was constructed as its replacement now has that painting hanging in the chapel, an exception to the no-artwork-in-chapels rule. Interesting, surprisingly I don't think it is. My building wasn't sold. The church tore it down and built a new chapel in its place. The painting was on the wall to the right of the pulpit, above the pews. You're lucky they rehung it, they didn’t rehang ours in the chapel, which was disappointing to the old guard members who had lived there forever and had wanted the church to restore the building rather than replace it. There was no question that hanging artwork in the chapel was not supposed to be done.
Bob Crockett Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 (edited) My chapel in Draper has a Moroni visit piece of art. It is built in as the molding goes around it. I did some research on the piece and found the artist generated a dozen copies of the same piece. It isn't all that interesting. I wonder why it is there. See art here: https://fineartamerica.com/featured/the-restoration-lewis-a-ramsey.html Edited May 13, 2020 by Bob Crockett
alter idem Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 14 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said: I've always interpreted this as a Protestant-influenced desire to avoid anything that could be construed as the veneration of images. I suspect that is less of a worry in the 21st century than it used to be, but I could be wrong. It is this aniconic desire that has historically turned Islamic art to arabesques, geometric patterns, and elaborate calligraphy. Interesting you would say protestant, because I was thinking of the times I've gone to protestant churches and noticed the big banners of doves, praying hands etc, with things like 'peace' written on them, hung around the chapel. It's been a few years, maybe they don't have them anymore. Catholic churches have lots of artwork, statuary, even cool relics. I think our leaders, maybe during the big 60s push to build chapels, wanted to create a simple, spare style in our churches to distinguish them from the other churches of that time. There's no question the no artwork directive was purposeful but I'm not sure the leaders have ever given a reason for it. Just told us to follow it. It's like, it's just the way it is. I know it's a well known directive now for no artwork because of the experience with my old building and how the painting was handled. 1
Bernard Gui Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 On 5/11/2020 at 6:16 PM, Robert F. Smith said: I suppose large crucifixes are out. But here is one with the nails through his wrists: First time I have seen this in art. Who is the artist?
Bernard Gui Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 Our building has multiple paintings of scenes from the scriptures on walls in corridors, rooms, and entrances. The missionaries use them to teach investigators during chapel visits. Isn't this Church-wide? 1
Robert F. Smith Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 10 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: First time I have seen this in art. Who is the artist? "The Crucified Christ" 1610-11 by Rubens 1
Bob Crockett Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 So my ward sometimes has three big tripods with posters on them, positioned right in the front of the exit to the chapel, to one side a little, so that people will see them coming out of a meeting. Big big poster boards. Maybe a stake triathlon, a blood drive, a youth fireside, a RS dinner. You're funneled through the gauntlet of tripods. There's always a cardboard collection box in the foyer. Shoes for Africa; shoes for pregnant mothers, backpacks for children etc and etc. One day the artwork was covered up by a big banner on the wall announcing a Red Cross blood drive with a raffle for Clippers tix. When I visited a stake center in Santaquin, there was a sign in the foyer that said: "Brethren, remove your hats." I looked around and saw cowboy hats in the chapel. Even in my own California building men sometimes wear baseball caps or berets in the chapel. Complicating the matter of course are the ratty couches and chairs. People lounge there rather than attend their meetings. I love it. Who wouldn't? Part of Mormon Americana. It is who we are. 4
Scott Lloyd Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 3 hours ago, alter idem said: Interesting, surprisingly I don't think it is. My building wasn't sold. The church tore it down and built a new chapel in its place. The painting was on the wall to the right of the pulpit, above the pews. You're lucky they rehung it, they didn’t rehang ours in the chapel, which was disappointing to the old guard members who had lived there forever and had wanted the church to restore the building rather than replace it. There was no question that hanging artwork in the chapel was not supposed to be done. I think I’ve heard before that ours was not the only building that had that painting in the chapel during those earlier times. The building where it now hangs is in our stake, so I have occasion to go there once in a while. I enjoy seeing the painting. It is a throwback to my childhood. 1
HappyJackWagon Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I think I’ve heard before that ours was not the only building that had that painting in the chapel during those earlier times. The building where it now hangs is in our stake, so I have occasion to go there once in a while. I enjoy seeing the painting. It is a throwback to my childhood. The chapel in our Stake Center used to have beautiful stained glass. I love stained glass and would love to see more of it. I think the reminder that the foyer should focus on the savior is a good thing. But it seems unnecessary to remove absolutely everything else. Christ can be the focus without being the ONLY image in a foyer. I would prefer a little more variety beyond 20-30 approved pictures. That level of correlation feels a bit like a franchise restaurant approach to making everything the same for the sake of customer experience.
Scott Lloyd Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: The chapel in our Stake Center used to have beautiful stained glass. I love stained glass and would love to see more of it. I think the reminder that the foyer should focus on the savior is a good thing. But it seems unnecessary to remove absolutely everything else. Christ can be the focus without being the ONLY image in a foyer. I would prefer a little more variety beyond 20-30 approved pictures. That level of correlation feels a bit like a franchise restaurant approach to making everything the same for the sake of customer experience. I didn’t get the perception it will be mandatory to “remove absolutely everything else.” Perhaps I missed that. That said, I don’t think it unreasonable to arrange conditions in a house of worship in hopes there will be a certain ambience and that attendees will have a certain experience, disparaging comparisons to franchise restaurants notwithstanding.
HappyJackWagon Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I didn’t get the perception it will be mandatory to “remove absolutely everything else.” Perhaps I missed that. That said, I don’t think it unreasonable to arrange conditions in a house of worship in hopes there will be a certain ambience and that attendees will have a certain experience, disparaging comparisons to franchise restaurants notwithstanding. Why is that disparaging? It's an attempt to create a universal experience for people coming into a church. The leaders seem to want a very consistent aesthetic, even down to the 20something approved pictures. Otherwise, leaders could have simply said, "keep the foyer focused on the Savior." The end. Let local leadership determine what that means and what that looks like. That's not the direction that was taken. It's a very common corporate approach. Banks, franchise restaurants or gyms or retail space, government buildings, any large organization with many facilities. It's just a fact that large organizations want to influence/control the way they are viewed. It makes perfect sense. Not sure why that's offensive to you. Is it because you feel the church is above such tactics or shouldn't be lumped together with other large groups that do the same thing?
bluebell Posted May 13, 2020 Author Posted May 13, 2020 52 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I would prefer a little more variety beyond 20-30 approved pictures. That level of correlation feels a bit like a franchise restaurant approach to making everything the same for the sake of customer experience. More variety would be nice. I don't think the approved pictures are correlation (or at least, that correlation isn't the only reason) as much as they are a sign that our leadership wants to make sure exuberant members don't put up art work that isn't supported by our doctrine or isn't recognizable on who it's supposed to be to the average person off the street. For example, my wonderful friend put up some pieces that she would love to see used in our buildings instead of the approved pieces, a couple of them so abstract (beautiful, but definitely out there) that most people would not know, looking at them, that they were supposed to be a representation of the Savior. That doesn't mean that there isn't room for more options that are more varied and fit more local cultures (hopefully we'll get those options eventually), but I think it does mean that the church can't just give free reign to local leaders and hope for the best. 1
mfbukowski Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 Voyers focused on Christ? Well I suppose we all have our own sins and all should be focused on Christ but why do we need a thread about that particularly? 🤪
Bernard Gui Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said: So my ward sometimes has three big tripods with posters on them, positioned right in the front of the exit to the chapel, to one side a little, so that people will see them coming out of a meeting. Big big poster boards. Maybe a stake triathlon, a blood drive, a youth fireside, a RS dinner. You're funneled through the gauntlet of tripods. There's always a cardboard collection box in the foyer. Shoes for Africa; shoes for pregnant mothers, backpacks for children etc and etc. One day the artwork was covered up by a big banner on the wall announcing a Red Cross blood drive with a raffle for Clippers tix. When I visited a stake center in Santaquin, there was a sign in the foyer that said: "Brethren, remove your hats." I looked around and saw cowboy hats in the chapel. Even in my own California building men sometimes wear baseball caps or berets in the chapel. Complicating the matter of course are the ratty couches and chairs. People lounge there rather than attend their meetings. I love it. Who wouldn't? Part of Mormon Americana. It is who we are. I can't remember seeing a brother wearing a hat in the chapel. There's always that fellow who mutters "Hats!" when there is a prayer on a campout. Probably the same guy who is the first to shout "Bravo" in a classical concert. On the other hand, in my maternal grandfather's 1944 MP Handbook of Instructions is the notice that ushers are not to ask ladies to remove their hats in meetings even if they block the view of people behind them. I can imagine a 10 gallon Stetson might block a view or two. Edited May 13, 2020 by Bernard Gui
Scott Lloyd Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 (edited) 40 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Why is that disparaging? It's an attempt to create a universal experience for people coming into a church. The leaders seem to want a very consistent aesthetic, even down to the 20something approved pictures. Otherwise, leaders could have simply said, "keep the foyer focused on the Savior." The end. Let local leadership determine what that means and what that looks like. That's not the direction that was taken. It's a very common corporate approach. Banks, franchise restaurants or gyms or retail space, government buildings, any large organization with many facilities. It's just a fact that large organizations want to influence/control the way they are viewed. It makes perfect sense. Not sure why that's offensive to you. Is it because you feel the church is above such tactics or shouldn't be lumped together with other large groups that do the same thing? Many people, for whatever reason, are contemptuous of corporate America. Your comment, juxtaposing the sacred with the profane, just came across to me as disparaging. If you didn’t mean it that way, then I’m good. Edited May 13, 2020 by Scott Lloyd
Tacenda Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 (edited) 4 hours ago, alter idem said: Interesting you would say protestant, because I was thinking of the times I've gone to protestant churches and noticed the big banners of doves, praying hands etc, with things like 'peace' written on them, hung around the chapel. It's been a few years, maybe they don't have them anymore. Catholic churches have lots of artwork, statuary, even cool relics. I think our leaders, maybe during the big 60s push to build chapels, wanted to create a simple, spare style in our churches to distinguish them from the other churches of that time. There's no question the no artwork directive was purposeful but I'm not sure the leaders have ever given a reason for it. Just told us to follow it. It's like, it's just the way it is. I know it's a well known directive now for no artwork because of the experience with my old building and how the painting was handled. Sad, IMO. As a child, during the Sacrament I would count ceiling tiles or wall tiles, can't remember or something close to that to focus. It boggles my mind that we can't have something. I'll bet there isn't another church like that besides the Scientologists, or non Christian that doesn't have something Jesus related in their chapels. Edited May 13, 2020 by Tacenda
Calm Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 5 hours ago, Tacenda said: I think the portrait of Jesus holding the black child (looks recent) shouldn't be included because He mostly likely did not have blue eyes. So you want to exclude a picture that shows diversity in followers of Christ because of blue eyes of Christ...when we don't know if he had long or short hair, light or dark skin, beard or not? I thought it was fantastic we actually had a picture where an obvious minority was not only present, but was one of the leads, so to speak. That seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face. 3
Calm Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 4 hours ago, alter idem said: Interesting you would say protestant, because I was thinking of the times I've gone to protestant churches and noticed the big banners of doves, praying hands etc, with things like 'peace' written on them, hung around the chapel. It's been a few years, maybe they don't have them anymore. Catholic churches have lots of artwork, statuary, even cool relics. I think our leaders, maybe during the big 60s push to build chapels, wanted to create a simple, spare style in our churches to distinguish them from the other churches of that time. There's no question the no artwork directive was purposeful but I'm not sure the leaders have ever given a reason for it. Just told us to follow it. It's like, it's just the way it is. I know it's a well known directive now for no artwork because of the experience with my old building and how the painting was handled. There are different strands of Protestant, such as high and low church. Probably those similar to Puritans, if not Puritan roots themselves would be the type of influence he is talking about, I believe. (No time to look up to be sure, but pretty sure they were one of the prominent simple structure, no ornateness versions. 1
Tacenda Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 50 minutes ago, Calm said: So you want to exclude a picture that shows diversity in followers of Christ because of blue eyes of Christ...when we don't know if he had long or short hair, light or dark skin, beard or not? I thought it was fantastic we actually had a picture where an obvious minority was not only present, but was one of the leads, so to speak. That seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face. I love the diversity, you mean there aren't more depictions?
Recommended Posts