Moroni Disappearing from New Temple

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Church Newsroom YouTube channel and Come unto Christ YouTube channel and General Conference YouTube channel

   

I was thinking changing colors to make it easier to identify the department of the Church would be the most useful.  I also was thinking maybe countries might choose a ‘National’ colour, but given the need for easier recognition worldwide, that seemed unlikely to me as colour is one thing that makes a logo recognizable. 

Edited November 28, 2021 by Calm

[JustAnAustralian]

21 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Church Newsroom YouTube channel and Come unto Christ YouTube channel and General Conference YouTube channel

It's also grey on the bottom of the church homepage.

Ultimately though, colour isn't part of it. From 38.8.10 in the handbook

Edited November 28, 2021 by JustAnAustralian

[Tacenda]

52 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Church Newsroom YouTube channel and Come unto Christ YouTube channel and General Conference YouTube channel

   

I see, this must be their Facebook logo. https://www.facebook.com/ChurchofJesusChrist/

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I mean the color change.

Ah, OK. Got it. 

[Scott Lloyd]

On 11/28/2021 at 3:24 PM, Calm said:

I was thinking changing colors to make it easier to identify the department of the Church would be the most useful.  I also was thinking maybe countries might choose a ‘National’ colour, but given the need for easier recognition worldwide, that seemed unlikely to me as colour is one thing that makes a logo recognizable. 

I guess it never really occurred to me that the background color should be regarded as part of the logo. I’ve assumed the line drawing itself is the logo, separate and apart from whatever background it is set against. 
 

Not having a standard background color lends itself to flexibility in design, it seems to me. 

Edited November 30, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Maureen]

I'm assuming they picked red, because red is a prominent Christmas colour.

M.

[california boy]

17 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I guess it never really occurred to me that the background color should be regarded as part of the logo. I’ve assumed the line drawing itself is the logo, separate and apart whatever background is under it. 
 

Not having a standard background color lends itself to flexibility in design, it seems to me. 

Looks like they have also simplified the logo quite a bit from the first version.

Usually companies are extremely exact about the pms color of their logo and do not allow any deviation from that graphic standard.  When I have done logos for major companies, there is always a corporate identity manual with it that very clearly spells out how the logo will be applied in all kinds of applications including vehicle identification, signage, what color backgrounds it can be put on, etc.  The manuals tend to be very exact and leave very little leeway on how the logo is presented.  This is all done to reinforce one central logo design to be used across all platforms.

I have done logo applications where there was a parent company with companies under that umbrella.  Sometimes those companies under the umbrella had more recognition than the parent company.  In those instances, a graphic symbol  was used that stayed as part of the logo but for each of the companies under the umbrella, it changed colors.

What the Church is doing is a very unusual approach.  I am not at all surprised by the simplification of the logo.  The first one really had too weak of lines to be easily used in all applications that a logo is required to be used on.  The biggest problem is when the logo needs to be used in a very small format.  I think I even said something about that at the time we talked about it.  It still has some graphic problems with it, and I honestly would not be surprised if it was again modified within the next couple of years. 

 

[strappinglad]

I will likely be struck by lightning , but I must say that the robe being represented is odd. It seems difficult to be functional in and really insecure in its placement. I suppose it is OK if one just stands in one place, but if a wind comes up... 

Is this an actual type or an artistic license ? 

Edited November 30, 2021 by strappinglad

[JustAnAustralian]

3 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

Is this an actual type or an artistic license ? 

It's based on the Thorvaldsen Christus

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, strappinglad said:

I will likely be struck by lightning , but I must say that the robe being represented is odd. It seems difficult to be functional in and really insecure in its placement. I suppose it is OK if one just stands in one place, but if a wind comes up... 

Is this an actual type or an artistic license ? 

 

2 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

It's based on the Thorvaldsen Christus

Did you really not know the derivation of the image, strappinglad?

[strappinglad]

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Did you really not know the derivation of the image, strappinglad?

Yes , of course, but my question still stands. Was the image made from a type worn in Christ's time or not? It does seem like it would be hard to move in  with confidence .

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

Yes , of course, but my question still stands. Was the image made from a type worn in Christ's time or not? It does seem like it would be hard to move in  with confidence .

The image is originally an artist’s conception made in 1833 by a Danish sculptor for a Lutheran church in Copenhagen. The statue was copied repeatedly, beginning in 1964, by the Church of Jesus Christ for use in its own visitor centers and other exhibitions, and the image has been widely reproduced and perpetuated since then as a visual means of emphasizing the centrality of the Savior in Church teachings. 
 

I don’t think it prudent or necessary to make more of it than that. 

[InCognitus]

25 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

Yes , of course, but my question still stands. Was the image made from a type worn in Christ's time or not? It does seem like it would be hard to move in  with confidence .

The placement of the robe on only one shoulder is intended to display the wound in his side.  That's likely not the way the robe would normally be worn, but it may be artistic license, or perhaps the way it was worn for his appearance to the disciples after the resurrection.   The robe itself appears to match what is commonly seen in early Christian art:

 

 

 

[JAHS]

5 hours ago, InCognitus said:

The placement of the robe on only one shoulder is intended to display the wound in his side.  That's likely not the way the robe would normally be worn, but it may be artistic license, or perhaps the way it was worn for his appearance to the disciples after the resurrection.   The robe itself appears to match what is commonly seen in early Christian art:

 

 

 

Piero della Francesca, “Resurrection,” c.1463

Edited November 30, 2021 by JAHS

[Hamba Tuhan]

We used to have a poster on this board who lived in Israel and had some connection to Russia. His username was Volgadon. He often wrote about how artistic depictions of clothing from Jesus's day were all wrong, as evidenced by contemporary art and archaeology. Basically, the mortal Jesus would have worn a sleeved tunic, probably reaching mid-calf, tied around his waist with a sash. The hem of this tunic could be pulled up between the legs and tucked into the sash to allow for activities like running; this was to 'gird up one's loins'. A square mantle or robe was worn over the tunic in a variety of ways.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

We used to have a poster on this board who lived in Israel and had some connection to Russia. His username was Volgadon. He often wrote about how artistic depictions of clothing from Jesus's day were all wrong, as evidenced by contemporary art and archaeology. Basically, the mortal Jesus would have worn a sleeved tunic, probably reaching mid-calf, tied around his waist with a sash. The hem of this tunic could be pulled up between the legs and tucked into the sash to allow for activities like running; this was to 'gird up one's loins'. A square mantle or robe was worn over the tunic in a variety of ways.

Since the sculpture is intended to depict the resurrected Christ, I wonder about the relevance of discussions over what Jesus would have worn as a mortal, whether the attire depicted would have been practical, etc. 
 

InCognitus made a good point about the need to show the wound in His side. I doubt a tunic could have served this purpose. 
 

Who among us knows what resurrected beings, especially deified and glorified ones, are wont to wear? 

Edited December 1, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Hamba Tuhan]

45 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Who among us knows what resurrected beings, especially deified and glorified ones, are won’t [sic] to wear? 

Good point. I plan to wear jeans and a T-shirt, no shoes.

[OGHoosier]

One of my companions and I were bored once and went through a bunch of the Church's art books. We determined that the considerable majority of resurrected beings in Church art are depicted wearing capes. This has given me considerable hope with regard to our sartorial soteriology. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

One of my companions and I were bored once and went through a bunch of the Church's art books. We determined that the considerable majority of resurrected beings in Church art are depicted wearing capes. This has given me considerable hope with regard to our sartorial soteriology. 

All of which just reinforces the sheer absurdity of trying to make an issue of 'inaccurate' art. Visual depictions are inherently symbolic, just like letters, numerals, five-pointed stars, and 'heart' shapes. The goal is to communicate an idea. If an image of a robed guy with long hair and a beard communicates 'Jesus', then it has fulfilled its purpose no matter what the Lord wore or now wears. If a red heart shape communicates 'love', then it's ridiculous to argue that one doesn't love using a blood pump, that hearts don't actually look like that, etc.

Edited December 1, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

All of which just reinforces the sheer absurdity of trying to make an issue of 'inaccurate' art. Visual depictions are inherently symbolic, just like letters, numerals, five-pointed stars, and 'heart' shapes. The goal is to communicate an idea. If an image of a robed guy with long hair and a beard communicates 'Jesus', then it has fulfilled its purpose. If a red heart shape communicates 'love', then it's ridiculous to argue that one doesn't love using a blood pump, that hearts don't actually look like that, etc.

I agree. Which is the point I was trying to make when I pointed out that no one knows what resurrected and glorified beings wear, so there’s not much point in obsessing over an artist’s conception. 

[JAHS]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I agree. Which is the point I was trying to make when I pointed out that no one knows what resurrected and glorified beings wear, so there’s not much point in obsessing over an artist’s conception. 

Joseph Smith gave a pretty good description of Moroni

"He had on a loose robe of most exquisite whiteness. It was a whiteness beyond anything earthly I had ever seen; nor do I believe that any earthly thing could be made to appear so exceedingly white and brilliant. His hands were naked, and his arms also, a little above the wrist; so, also, were his feet naked, as were his legs, a little above the ankles. His head and neck were also bare. I could discover that he had no other clothing on but this robe, as it was open, so that I could see into his bosom.

 Not only was his robe exceedingly white, but his whole person was glorious beyond description, and his countenance truly like lightning. The room was exceedingly light, but not so very bright as immediately around his person. When I first looked upon him, I was afraid; but the fear soon left me."

Although Moroni was a resurrected being he wasn't a glorified God yet like Jesus.  But I don't see why he would be clothed any differently as such.

[Scott Lloyd]

46 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Joseph Smith gave a pretty good description of Moroni

"He had on a loose robe of most exquisite whiteness. It was a whiteness beyond anything earthly I had ever seen; nor do I believe that any earthly thing could be made to appear so exceedingly white and brilliant. His hands were naked, and his arms also, a little above the wrist; so, also, were his feet naked, as were his legs, a little above the ankles. His head and neck were also bare. I could discover that he had no other clothing on but this robe, as it was open, so that I could see into his bosom.

 Not only was his robe exceedingly white, but his whole person was glorious beyond description, and his countenance truly like lightning. The room was exceedingly light, but not so very bright as immediately around his person. When I first looked upon him, I was afraid; but the fear soon left me."

Although Moroni was a resurrected being he wasn't a glorified God yet like Jesus.  But I don't see why he would be clothed any differently as such.

On the other hand, I don’t see any reason to assume all resurrected beings dress identically or, for that matter, wear the same thing all of the time. When the two disciples encountered the resurrected Lord on the road to Emmaus, not only did they fail to recognize Him, He was apparently so nondescript that they didn’t notice anything remarkable about His appearance. And when someone, evidently Moroni, appeared to Mary Whitmer and showed her the gold plates, presumably there wasn’t anything supernatural about his appearance. 

Edited December 1, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

But I don't see why he would be clothed any differently as such.

Personal taste…

[JAHS]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

On the other hand, I don’t see any reason to assume all resurrected beings dress identically or, for that matter, wear the same thing all of the time. When the two disciples encountered the resurrected Lord on the road to Emmaus, not only did they fail to recognize Him, He was apparently so nondescript that they didn’t notice anything remarkable about His appearance. And when someone, evidently Moroni, appeared to Mary Whitmer and showed her the gold plates, presumably there wasn’t anything supernatural about his appearance. 

Dumb question probably but who makes the clothes they do wear and where do they get the material to make them? Maybe they can make themselves appear as if they do have clothes on.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, JAHS said:

Dumb question probably but who makes the clothes they do wear and where do they get the material to make them? Maybe they can make themselves appear as if they do have clothes on.

No idea, but for beings who are into fashioning galaxies and universes, it seems to me that making clothing would be a little thing.