I’m not a fan of censorship. Don’t even get me started on book banning. So when I saw these two pictures side by side, my censorship flag went up! The image on the left is “The Resurrection” (1873) by Carl Heinrich Bloch. What a beautiful painting. I love it.
On the right is the image as it appeared on page 54 of the Ensign (the Mormon church’s monthly publication for adult readers) in December 2011. Still a beautiful painting, but it seems fair to assume that it’s not what the artist intended.
Some friends and I identified a few differences:
- In the Ensign version, the angels’ wings have been clipped (=removed). That’s because Mormons don’t believe in angels with wings.
- In the Ensign version, the angels’ bare shoulders have been covered. That’s because Mormons believe that bare shoulders are indecent. This standard has even recently been extended to include 4 year old girls.
- In the original version, the angels’ bodies are naked below their arms. In the Ensign version, the naked skin underneath the arms is discreetly covered up.
This is nutty. I feel like someone has hijacked my religious train car and steered it right off the rails. We’re so concerned with modesty that we have now taken to modifying a beautiful piece of artwork (originally painted in 1873) before publishing it in our official church magazine so that it reflects our hyper-viligance with regard to modesty?
What do we hope to accomplish by doing things like this in official church publications?
And, perhaps most importantly, why did Jesus get to remain immodest? I mean, come on-a little consistency goes a long way, doesn’t it?
Wow, this really bothers me! Why would they change an artist’s work?? Don’t they trust our ability to choose for ourselves whether we want to be fiends and leave our shoulders uncovered “because the angels do it”, or not? *eye roll* Also, I’m really bothered by the removal of the wings. They represent the angels being heavenly messengers, much like the Holy Ghost “as a dove.” The piece is very beautiful. The changes are annoying. *sigh*
This reflects a much wide kind of dangerous colective neurosis, a focus on the wrong, a neglecting of true spirituality and compassion.
A few days ago a young single adult told me they made them kneel down in the door of a stake dance party in order to “check” if the length of the skirt was appropiate (that is, the skirt had to touch the floor when the girl kneeled down). This was supervised by the wife of a Seventy, and they were former EFY directors here in Europe.
Now our stake has oficially banned pants on dances, only skirts allowed for girls. All dances, all the time. Youth and single adults included.
Seriously folks, this is way too nutty for me. I will not let this freak to permeate my kids anymore.
These dance dress guidelines have been the church-wide norm for decades. They help teach civility, modesty, and respect for goodness and virtue. Such “nutty” guidelines will not harm your kids, but your demonstrated lack of respect for church dance rules may hurt your kids more than you’ll ever know.
Excuse me, forcing girls to wear skirts to a dance is about modesty? Skirts flip up while dancing, but pants keep the legs and buttocks covered. How come every time someone introduces an arbitrary clothing guideline, we must assume it helps us to be modest without thinking logically about it?
David, it does not teach civility and modesty, it teaches to comply with other’s expectations. True virtue has nothing to do with modesty but with good living, and it can only be tought by compassion and love. Enforced virtue is not an existing thing.
Those dance dress guidelines instituted for decades might be good for the US at the time of the cold war, but let us all decide what dress code is valid and expresses true values instead of planning a uniform and pretending that everyone wearing it is truly virtuous.
I teach my kids integrity, wich is contrary to acting to be seen by others. I teach my kids the words of the Savior who said that those who dress to apear righteous (enlarged tephillim) were hypocrites. I teach them to NOT be an example, but be whole, true. I teach them to think critically and never, ever, follow without questioning, just like Joseph Smith proposed.
I teach my kids to respect what is worth to be respected at their own criteria and not anybody’s else despite the “warns”.
So, by blatantly editing a work of art, completely disregarding the artist, you feel it’s ok to mutilate artwork to fit your guidelines? How about doing another painting instead of desecrating another?
Where’s your integrity on that?
“These dance dress guidelines have been the church-wide norm for decades”
So has polygamy. That doesn’t make it right.
“They help teach civility, modesty, and respect for goodness and virtue.”
They teach that women are sexual objects rather than people.
One week when I was an EFY counselor I had this group of girls that was a little more wild (aka: not molly-mo) but they had all come to EFY to try and feel the spirit and grow. They had been having a great week. They knew the EFY dress code and strove to follow it, and had occasionally been asked to change. (I thought they looked fine, but apparently I was not being strict enough). So it comes to the last dance, we’ve all had this spiritual week, we’re happy and having fun. Well, another counselor came to get me and I went over to find two of my girls kneeling on the ground in the middle of the dance while the BC (the counselor over counselors) checked their dresses.To this day I regret not making a firm and decided stand against that BC and telling her that her actions were completely inappropriate.
.
I took those two girls back to the dorms where they sat and sobbed for a good 30 minutes. They were humiliated, devestated and heartbroken. All the good from the week was basically wiped out in that 30 seconds. I hadn’t thought there was anything wrong with their dresses and I was heartbroken because I blamed myself for not making them change before the dance. I sat with them and told them how beauitful they were and that God loved them no matter what they wore. I don’t know if anything I said got through.
,
This experience really affected me. It made me really question how important the letter of the law is when it destroys the spirit of the law. I don’t want anyone to ever feel that they are of less worth because of what they wear. In the grand scheme of things that hardly seems important.
Ouch, Natsy. This is really sad. My 15 year old is going to EFY in July. We were just discussing–today!–the possibility of something like this happening. It’s hard to read about those girls’ experience.
Really great catch, Heather! Would you consider taking this a few steps further into an investigative report? Contact the Ensign to see if there’s someone who will comment on this and perhaps other cases?
The clipped wings, I think, are the most interesting censor as it’s not only aesthetic but theological censorship. And adding to your point about the inequality of it … So angel wings are inappropriate use of tradiditional symbolic art but Jesus’s halo passes?
Well, I guess the angelic modesty changes would also be more than prudery … Theological as angel would be expected to wear the garment, right? Though inconsistent with Joseph Smith’s description of an angel whose garment only barely covers much nakedness.
Um, theologically, no. I don’t know about you, but I was told that I was expected to wear the garment “throughout my life” not as an angel or resurrected being.
xll, was that your mortal life, your spiritual life, or difficult to tell the difference? :D
Wow. This brought me back. Every year we had an angel at the top of our Christmas Tree. But, every year, if we purchased a new angel, as the old ones would wear out, my mom would break off the wings before attaching it. I never understood why we had to do that as a kid. I think she once told me that my grandpa commented on our angel the first time they had it up, and told them that the wings had to go, so she continued to clip the wings throughout our lives. I am happy to say that now they have the angel with wings. Being such an art lover, having taught Impressionism and visited every art exhibit that comes along, I am so sad to see that the Ensign has blasphemed anyone’s interpretation of art. This is so wrong.
And Matt– you’ll note that it’s ok for Jesus to be uncovered. Because he’s male, I assume?
Paula, I think the sexist aspect is real but not the full explanation. For example, it might be theologically more important to see the spear mark in his side than to be modest.
Paula it is because according to the Gospels, he left his shroud. Ummm… Duuh
If you have to photoshop that much, maybe it’s time to choose another image.
Also, what is the policy on photoshopping the Son of God?
I’m offended because those cap sleeves are just so unflattering.
Hehe! loved this
It would be one thing, I suppose, if the church was such a stickler for “detail” in all their paintings. Yet when the church uses visual images to depict the translation of the Book of Mormon, we don’t see Joseph with his head in his hat. Instead, those sorts of glaring factual inaccuracies seemingly pass without a moment’s hesitation, and yet the church feels compelled to cut off the wings of angels in 150-year-old paintings lest we get confused. And seriously, who sits around worrying about the need to cover up angels’ shoulders. It all strikes me as more than a little creepy.
But the important point is that Joseph isn’t shown with wings.
You know, it was probably some over-zealous editor at the Ensign and probably doesn’t represent everyone’s thoughts at the magazine. And frankly it was hard for me to tell the differences, until they were pointed out, (yes, I’m blind and stupid sometimes….), so I can see how someone may not have caught the edits, especially if they weren’t looking at the original painting. These types of people operate by fear alone. Fear of doing something wrong. They see wrong-doing everywhere. Jesus taught the spirit of the law. And I think that when we/people don’t know the answer or what to do in a situation, we sometimes can over do it, instead of just being still, and listening for a prompting by the spirit. (And don’t get me started on that dresses at dances thing! ) :-)
Diana, over zealous or not editosr DO represent the magazine. I find it a joke that you actually try to defend his stance and find it absurd that you say you didnt even notice the differences in each picture, you may be blind and stupid but dont assume everyone else is
Three words: [i]beyond the mark.[/i]
I wrote a letter to the editor of the Ensign about a month ago about this article. I have not received a reply, and don’t really expect to, but I felt I had to say something. I would urge others to do the same. Before you do, however, be sure to read the article itself. It is quite beautiful, the story of a family who saw the original of this painting in Denmark superimposed over another of Carl Bloch’s paintings. The fact that the article itself puts the painting into historical context makes the altering of the image all the more troublesome and so unnecessary. It is offensive on so many levels–ethical, artistic, historical and religious. I don’t know if the covering of the angels’ shoulders and sides is also a reflection of LDS female modesty standards. Without further research (and because I just don’t know that much about art of this period), I don’t have any way of knowing if Bloch meant for the angels to be male or female. It is my experience that most angels in art are male. In any case, the fact that the angels were covered and Christ was not seems a double standard of sorts.
My own father was a color lithographer who printed many art reproductions. I have vivid memories of going with him to the press room to inspect the first prints off the press (with a magnifying glass). It was a matter of integrity that reproductions be as true to the original as possible. The Carl Bloch paintings reproduced in this Ensign article are in the public domain, so technically, no copyright is being violated, but it saddens me to see the LDS Church do something like this.
The other reason I find this so very weird is because not only in the Christian world but, at BYU there was the Carl Bloch Art Exhibit. Yes… This is why I can not fathom how they would ever desecrate something that was not offensive before they censored it. I am highly offended they would desecrate the Carl Bloch original.
I’m so sorry that you are so easily “offended” by such a “desecration.” I wonder what you think about the modern art piece of an upside down crucifix in a jar of urine?
Just when I thought Mormonism couldn’t get more absurd…
But the censhorship of the angels did not go theologically far enough!
According to the Prophet Joseph Smith (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 1938, p 214, History of the Church 4:581) one of the signs of a FALSE angel is the hair color: a sandy-haired angel is a false angel, and these angels still have sandy-colored hair!
Wow! Kind of makes me think about new ways of nuancing that question I’m asked every two years: “Are you honest in your dealings with your fellow man?”
OK, this is really nauseating. In the July 1977 Ensign, Spencer W. Kimball said:
“But then we ask, “Can there never be another Michelangelo?” Ah! Yes! His David in Florence and his Moses in Rome inspire us to the point of adulation. Did all such talent run out in that early century? Could not we find a living talent like this, but with a soul that was free from immorality and sensuality and intolerance?”
Yes, he referenced Michelangelo’s David, The same David who’s penis is there for all to see. SWK was fine with that, but the Ensign is worried about shoulders? Something is fishy…
Haahaaha, to make such a big deal over this is absurd. I think if they feel the need to censor, they should just find another piece of artwork altogether that suits their beliefs. But for everyone to go on and on over this just goes to show that people will look for anything they can to find fault. Get over it, people. And if you think the modesty thing being extended to 4 yr olds is crazy, try dressing your daughter in tanks and short shorts up until she is 12 then tell her she no longer can (if you believe in the modesty aspect of the church). She’ll fight you tooth and nail. Move on, guys. The world has so many other problems…
On the bright side, the shoulder coverage is sheer … so we can still kinda see naked shoulders!!!! ;)
Where’s the like button? I love this comment.
The link to the Ensign above is broken.
But http://www.lds.org/ensign/2011/12?lang=eng# works…and use firs download button. Goto Page 54
You’re right, Raina. One incident like this is probably not worth making a big deal about. But the underlying culture of manipulation and deception in the name of achieving allegedly good ends? That’s worth raising a stink about. The really destructive egotistical self-righteousness of a Mormon outlook that thinks it’s just fine to alter a work of art to match Mormonism’s teachings because, after all, Mormonism is right about everything? That’s worth making a fuss about. The belief that members of the Mormon church are so weak and susceptible and shallow that seeing the bare shoulders of an angel or having an angel represented with wings (as they were for more than a millennia before Joseph Smith told us they didn’t have wings) could be so potentially damaging that it must be avoided by violating the integrity of a work of art the church does not own? That’s worth discussing.
The whole thing is just disgusting. Not just for the thing itself, but for all the underlying implications about Mormonism and its culture.
This is sad and offensive and just plain ridiculous. My heart just sunk a little.
I see so much hypocracy all around me now that I live in Utah. I find this censorship extreme and maddening and yet have you been to the local pool in the summer? I mean, really, if exposed shoulders were a sign of immodesty and LDS faithful are not supposed to show them…then why oh why are all the LDS women at the pool wearing the same suits as the majority of non-LDS women with shoulders exposed? If it is immodest, then it would be banned at all times and in all places…and they should follow you would presume. But alas too many of their flock maybe do think for themselves afterall…or are too embarrassed to go to the pool in a moo-moo.
Perhaps that is the reason the Ensign censors felt the need to censor. Seriously, think about what you’re saying for a second. I don’t agree with the censorship, but your argument is completely fallacious.
Adelheid, whose argument? It’s hard to follow with the nested comments.
Very true, Heather. I meant Jaine’s comments about swimming suits in Utah.
Regarding LDS women in bathing suits. The guidelines are practical for the circumstances: church dances, wear conservative skirts and dresses; for swimming, wear conservative swimwear. At the resurrection of the Savior, wear conservative, non-revealing clothing and leave the poetic wings at home.
Some churches don’t allow dancing at all, and others believe in angels with wings. The LDS Church is more practical than any church I’ve ever known. Name one more practical, yet promoting spirituality.
Looks like the image was also used in March 1989″
http://www.lds.org/liahona/1989/03/the-symbol-of-christ?lang=eng
When I was a girl, we had a recording of the MoTab singing “The Impossible Dream” from Man of La Mancha. There is a line in that song — “to be willing to march into hell for a heavenly cause” — that the MoTab changed — “to be willing to march anywhere for a heavenly cause!” Not only is that change baffling (why would the word ‘hell’ be offensive in that context?) it is aesthetically tone deaf! It takes this beautiful, terrible contrast between hell and heaven and turns it into something bland and stupid.
Raina is, to an extent, right. This isn’t a giant deal and in one way it doesn’t really matter. But if you believe, as I do, that Art matters, in and of itself, if you want your children to grow up with an ear and an eye for Truth and Beauty, if you have an eye and ear for Truth and Beauty, then these “little” incidences of moral whitewashing (which I would argue add up to something more than little) do REALLY matter. They matter a lot!
Raina – Are you an artist? Can you imagine something you created being defiled to fit someone else’s agenda?
This IS a big deal. Is desecration of art. It’s manipulative and disgusting. If they need chaste angels so badly, just hire some Mormon artist to do it. Don’t ruin someone else’s art.
And, more to the point, it shows the how the church does not respect anyone else’s art, contribution, or point of view. Everything has to be manipulated to fit their narrow world-view. It’s appalling.
Hurray. Well said, perfect. Only can add there is not a single piece of significant “Mormon” art by anyone. Why they must use others, especially public domain ones so they don’t have to pay for them. Besides on no level whatever is the change superior to the original. Most noticeable is the clumsy proportion of the wingless angels to the central subject of Christ. Also the lack of light necessary for balance as well. On this level alone it is despicable.
How can you say “there is not a single piece of significant ‘Mormon’ art by anyone”? Obviously you have not seen much “Mormon” art.
Absolutely my first thought. Why not have some of the many LDS artist employed or otherwise, create something that fits the requirements of only representing the exactness of what is believed? This makes me sad on many levels. This simply teaches the wrong thing. Its like putting the emphasis on the wrong syllaaaable.
Swearing Elder is right. There are plenty of Mormon artists vying to have their art included in church publications. Some of them even have talent.
As for being offended by nudity, don’t even get me started on that bare-chested man in the middle.
I view posts like this one as nit-picky as the committee fretting over the artwork.
“Censorship”? “Dangerous colective neurosis”?
How about “co-dependent”
Even Joseph Smith said the angel Moroni was naked beneath his robe so that he could see into his bosom.
It’s about Jesus. The artist was trying to honor Jesus and bring people to Him. The Ensign tries to do the same thing. The changes were made for that same reason. The only ones who aren’t focused on that are the critics who look for reasons to be offended when they see other people sincerely trying to honor their Savior in the best way they know how.
If they didn’t change it, critics would say, “The LDS Church says angels don’t have wings, then they go and depict angels with wings!” “They tell girls to cover their shoulders, then they show girls with uncovered shoulders!”
Ryan, your comment is right on the mark! People who are looking for reasons to be “offended” by the LDS Church will interpret anything it does as “offensive,” “despicable,” “disgusting,” etc., as noted in many of the above comments. These people appear so negative and unhappy.
Not to mention that the women angels have to be modest and wear “garments”, but Jesus doesn’t? As long as those ladies are covering up that’s all that matters! (sorry if this already got said and I missed it!)
Ryan. Did you read the story the goes along with the picture? It is about a family that sees the actually painting and the impression that it left upon them. Why does the artwork have to be modified, sanitized, and correlated so the picture is now different than what the family actually saw?
How does it honor Jesus more by making the changes? Also is it Ok then to start changing the quotes of Brigham Young like they have done by replacing “Wives” to “Wife”, etc. What if they were to change personally stories of other Christians so they seem more “Mormon” and republish them in the Ensign?
For the record I am not offended at all that the Ensign did this. I think it is in poor taste to talk about a painting and how it had an effect on somebody and then purposely modify what they saw without any kind of explanation or obvious modification such as a parody. I find it humorous myself they feel they need to modify pictures and stories to better fit Mormon culture.
If a story, quote, art piece, etc. does not fit Mormon Doctrine, it is simple… Don’t use it and find something else.Of course if they did that then there would be nothing for us angry critics to talk about.
Raina–well, frankly, it’s also dumb, imo, to teach 12 year-olds that their shoulders are sinful, too. We didn’t have this modesty fixation when I was growing up in the church, and everyone still understood that when they went through the temple, they’d have to give up the tank tops and shorts. There’s just no reason to make 4 year-olds dress like they have been through the temple, and there’s no reason to alter someone’s artwork to show angels complying with fairly recent modesty standards.
Notice that they did not give Jesus a missionary haircut or paint his robes a little higher. For some reason, it’s only women who have to constantly be reminded of their solemn duty to cover themselves up.
“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.” Since when have angels needed to cover up?
With all this hubbub, I figured I should make a personal appearance and comment on this post. For the record, I forgive the goobers who did this to my painting. But c’mon guys, it’s just a picture…there are many more important things you should hang your testimony on. Oh and by the way, thanks to those who did my temple work; spirit paradise is lovely this time of year.
oh and yes, I just checked. Brother Bloch has had ALL his work done…
Look, I don’t know what the big fuss is about. The one on the right has always been Bloch’s original painting, all worthy males have always held the priesthood, marriage has always been between one man and one woman, and we have always been at war against Eurasia.
Swearing Elder, I am an artist, and nothing is more obnoxious than wannabe art lovers who go on and on about the sanctity of art like it’s its own religion or something. No artwork has been desecrated. Everyone shut up about that, the original remains untouched. While I agree the manipulation of the image was needless, why are you hypocrites not ranting against all the unhealthy image manipulation of women in the media? You’d think a manipulation which promotes healthy modesty would be the least of rational people’s concerns, but then again there ain’t a whole lot of rational discussion going on in this thread, is there?
I’m with Todd.
Two more words – gnats, camels.
Is this really such a big deal that it earned a whole blog post to itself? I think this is a pretty small issue on the scale of importance. If you don’t like what the Ensign publishes, don’t read it. Problem solved.
Todd, if this were a discussion about manipulation in the media, I guess that’s the conversation we’d be having. As it happens, we’re discussing the Church’s right to censor a non-Mormon artist’s painting and to change it to retroactively include standards that the Church added pretty recently. Since you’re allowed to say, “hey, I’m an artist, so everyone shut up about manipulating an artist’s work,” I guess I’m allowed to say, “I’m a woman, and I think the modesty standards are excessive and in some cases harmful, so everybody shut up if they don’t actually apply to you.”
On a more serious note, yes, young women are bombarded with images that provide unrealistic ideas of what they should look like and go against the standards taught by the Church. However, I would assert that the way to combat that is not to pretend shoulders are the sticking point, and not to make young women feel as if they have displeased God by wearing something that is, in reality, not sexually suggestive at all. There is nothing wrong with the way those angels were originally dressed, just as there was nothing wrong with Ann Romney wearing a sleeveless shift dress back when she was dating Mitt in their BYU days. There’s a generation of girls who now think that wearing something that is perfectly modest according to reasonable standards is disobedient and sinful. There are many people in the Church (I’ve met them) that freak out when they see a sundress on a BABY. That is not a healthy modesty standard.
Zara, please remember the angels in the painting were not at a BYU date, nor were they babies in sun dresses. They were attending the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I think if you were there you would dress quite conservatively, especially if you were going to set an example for thousands of viewers for untold centuries.
the church should get a taste of their own medicine and be sued for copyright violation ;) this reminds me of how mormon members don’t ask permission to baptized famous dead people =)
i wonder if it was edited like this in the 1989 liahona:
http://www.lds.org/liahona/1989/03/the-symbol-of-christ
?
There are many people in the Church (I’ve met them) that freak out when they see a sundress on a BABY.
Yeah, those people are annoying.
So are people who get twisted up over artwork. (You know, people getting worked up about people getting worked up about something.)
I’m pretty sure it doesn’t help when we just sit around and despise each other.
Personally, I wouldn’t have changed the artwork. I don’t care about the color of someone’s shirt. I don’t care about what time church starts, or which ward gets the afternoon block. Hell, I don’t even care how we report home teaching.
Maybe I just know better. Or, I could be grossly short-sighted. But, either way, I really don’t care.
Walter, who’s despising anyone?
Red Herring. Read the comments. Unless I’m mistaken, and we’re all motivated out of charity for each other.
Zara, thanks for demonstrating perfectly my point of obnoxious hypersensitivity towards church standards. If you thought it out just a tiny bit more, you’d also recognize that the Church also has a right to say “we are a church and these are our standards.” If they don’t apply to you, then shut up about it.
Sure the church has that right, but do they have the right to retroactively apply their standards to artworks they didn’t produce? There are plenty of living, LDS artists willing to apply their talents to editorial work.
The Mormon church spends an enormous amount of mental energy rewriting the past so it lines up with their cosmology, but wouldn’t it be easier to just make a new work that tells the message they want to say (ie: JST vs. BOM)?
Once again Ensign Magazine Graphic Design Intern, don’t spend all day Photoshopping a image so it works, just get a different image.
“The Mormon church spends an enormous amount of mental energy rewriting the past so it lines up with their cosmology”
unless the ensign article specifically informs the members that they have modified this artwork, then this is a *perfect* example of proof that the church changes the facts, creating their own version of the “truth”, that they then present to their members, without telling them they’ve made changes. thanks Colin Santos for your comment that made me realize this =)
I was once that dad sitting in Sacrament Meeting with his toddler on his lap as my then-wife constantly reached over to yank her little dress over her knees. This sort of obsession is more childish than my squirming toddler ever was. That’s what this modified painting shows in my opinion…an infantile obsession. The article itself admits that the original was inspiring and moving just as it was. The impulse and need to modify it on the other hand smacks far from holiness and switches focus to the very things they claim they are trying to protect. I’ve never met anyone more obsessed with and focused on the human body than a Mormon.
Well said.
dadsprimalscream has hit the nail squarely on the head!
And infantile obsession is a perfect way to state it.
Jesus is still immodest, lol.
The sleeves quite frankly don’t bother me half as much as the wings being removed. The original painting looks like two angels praising the return of the Savior, and the edited painting looks like just two random people in white clothes kneeling before Jesus. I thought that in Mormonism symbolism was still used. Wings are symbolic, so why remove them? Even if angels don’t literally have wings the Bible shows them symbolically having them. By removing that symbolic image, a lot of the emotion and depth is removed from the painting, and it loses much of its impact.
Here, here!
Daniel – that’s my reaction too.
The artist’s painting should never have been edited in the first place. Now, although the original remains unaltered, it doesn’t change the fact that the Mormon church, which preaches truth and honesty have manipulated this image to suit their own standards. It’s absurd in the extreme and points more to the church manipulating the truth than merely editing an image. This is incredibly typical and sad of the Mormon church.
The tone and nature of this discussion is disheartening. Anyone who attended the Bloch exhibition at BYU a year ago might recall the scale and majesty of the work, and the reverence of the moment, as we silently soaked in the work of an exceptional master, displaying beyond words an adoration of the Master of us all. We were elevated and our appreciation of the Saviour was intensified. There was a sense of awe; we had feelings of gratitude toward the many churches in Denmark who had permitted their sacred works of art to be removed for the first time from the walls of their houses of worship. Mostly there were feelings of profound love and a sense of the Saviour’s love for each one of us.
That was then, this is now, a subdued atmosphere with low lighting, the real world with rancorous squabble. There are important issues here, and perhaps there is no other way to have that discussion, but in a perfect world, we’d all sit in front of Bloch’s work and simply admire it’s perfection, impervious to angel’s wings or bared arms. I would rather that a masterpiece had not been profaned to fit a a contrary theological belief, let alone a cultural concept, on the magazine of a Church that has sought to embrace this artist so wholly. And I would certainly have never wanted to see my Saviour made a debating point on acceptable exposure of male flesh in the dialogue that followed.
Visiting Utah recently, in a discussion with friends of my son and his wife, we acknowledged the world’s perception that certain aspects of the Church were “weird” and we further agreed that a retreat from fundamental “weird” doctrines would weaken us, that it was in fact a source of power. I thought afterward that we are happier, though, to keep our more weird history away from public scrutiny. I would say also there is to me a huge difference between “weird” and “silly.” There is no nobility in silly, and we delude ourselves in thinking it endows us with righteousness to object to bare arms on children and young women, or rip away the wings of angels painted by a man of faith a century and a half earlier.
I came here after a daughter sent me the link. I’m not familiar with your terms of engagement, or even your purpose, but a quick review of About, suggests a diverse community and perhaps I’ve fallen into the middle of a family debate. Excuse my intrusion, and I respond only because there is such an apparent disparity between the work of the artist and the world that we inhabit.
Just a refresher:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvWrK66hoIU
http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/60130/Carl-Bloch-exhibit-at-BYU-The-Masters-Hand.html
reminds of the time back in my BYU days (1980’s) when the school published a student directory for the year. It had on the cover a commissioned painting of the respected President Widstoe. No one even notices that he doesn’t have a beard until some BYU administrator in a Daily Universe article mentions how the original painting had a beard because Widstoe had a beard when he was president of BYU and that they had the artist paint over it before they put it on the cover.
It wasn’t even like the thought police at BYU were doing it in secret, they were proudly publicizing their quick PR save–phew, they almost got a beard on a BYU publication. He expresses that they made the change because they were afraid at what people might say about the beard policy. Fear-based policy-making at it’s best. What’s sad and maybe even dangerous is that there are low level or middle management (think BYU-Idaho testing center employees) types making these decisions and feeling pleased or like that’s what they think “higherups” would want. I’m pretty sure the “higherups” have a lot bigger things to think about, but the danger is these low level petty decisions add up to a cultural shift and that affects ALL of us.
I sincerely don’t understand all this talk about “dangerous”.
The most dangerous aspect of being an active Latter-day saint is participating in an Elder’s-Quorum-organized move.
lol. My back!
Regardless of the changes, I just want to say how much I love Bloch’s paintings of Jesus — and I’m not normally bowled over by public, cultural expressions of reverence or admiration of Jesus. But Bloch’s Jesus paintings are magnificent manifestations of the neoclassic revival style that briefly flowered following the end of the Dutch Golden Age. It’s not David, but still: the perfectly formed shapes, the overt use of bold and unwavering lines, the exquisitely posed figures; all this conveys a magnificence that’s just balanced enough to avoid going over the top (well, maybe Bloch’s “Sermon on the Mount” goes a bit over the top, but only a bit). Modified or otherwise, we should be glad that the Church has chosen to use them so regularly and so prominently. Given how poor most Jesus art is, we shouldn’t take this for granted. (Even a lot of renaissance Jesus-art tends toward the bizarre, with heavily iconic images or docetic themes that emphasized His Godliness until His human form became a mere vessel).
Interesting point, DKL. I also love it. And I agree that so much of what you hilariously referred to as “Jesus art” is terrible.
Yeah, you like that? I used “flower” as a verb. I’m not usually that metrosexual.
Ouch ouch ouch, just saw this. Reminds me of the controversy some years back when BYU refused to show Rodin’s “The Kiss” (too erotic), nor the naked statues of Balzac and St. John. Anyone remember that? The link to last year’s “modesty” article from The Friend just made me sad and tired. My daughter and I were playing at a park outside Salt Lake City one day and I heard a tiny girl, maybe four at the most, being chastised by her older brother (maybe all of 7) for not being “modest.” I don’t remember the issue now, but I think she was hot and wanted to take her shirt off or something.
Ironically, Arnold Friberg’s painting The Resurrected Christ, commissioned by the Primary, made only a single appearance in a Church magazine, never to be shown again, worlds without end. Why, you ask? Similar to this painting, the artist showed a nipple (his tunic was open on one side so as to highlight the wound from the spear). One or more GAs freaked over the Lord’s nipple being shown, and this commissioned work of art would never see the light of day in a church publication again. (This is discussed in the BYU Studies roundtable on artistic images of Christ–an excellent article.)
Kevin –
I believe discussion/debate is good, because it helps us get to principles. But productive discussion is difficult (especially online) when unnecessary emotionally-charged language is used.
Saying one or more GAs “freaked out” really doesn’t add anything of substance, other than perhaps shedding light on how you might imagine how their concern was raised. (Perhaps someone passed along this thread commenting that a bunch of people were “freaking out” over the church modifying some art work.) Using such language just because someone expresses concerns that don’t align with ours seems, at best, an intellectual short-cut, at worst, an ad hominem attack.
For all the talk of symbolism in the church, this seems a little thick-headed. Does this mean we’ll be editing images of the Ark of the Covenant to make them more anatomically correct? Gotta clip those wings!
I think the Ensign editors forget that wings are an ancient Hebrew symbol (they’re kosher), not an apostate medieval symbol borrowed from those no good pagans.
You all are a bunch of Cretans who don’t know the first thing about how to properly approach art.
Rather than think of it as a modification of Boch’s famous painting, it should be considered a work of art that is altogether new. It’s something akin to a readymade, a proud Mormon expression of the Dadaism on par with Duchamp’s classic L.H.O.O.Q.
The editors of The Ensign are secret artistic geniuses, and that is how I know that the church is true.
do angels even have gender?
On angel gender: http://bycommonconsent.com/2009/12/18/archival-dross-sister-angels/
Grondahl on angel wings: https://dovesandserpents.org/2012/05/grondahl-20/
So, the LDS lack artists capable of creating high quality work that depicts their theology, and are reduced to butchering other religions artists. Why doesn’t the LDS church inspire great artists? And why do they feel it is okay to lie to their members with artwork, and it is a lie to present a doctored image and attribute it to the original artist.
Have you ever been to the church museum of art? There are many beautiful works of art celebrating Christ, of all genres (paintings, statues, etc). And that is only a small selection of all LDS artists.
However, I do agree that attributing the edited work to Bloch (if that is what actually happened… I have not looked at this specific ensign) probably could have been handled better. But hey, aren’t we all human? Don’t we all make mistakes from time to time?
For those of you remember a few years ago there was a Rodin exhibition at BYU and they wouldn’t display his masterpiece from the Louvre, Lovers, because of nudity, but wait it gets worse. They also wouldn’t show John the Baptist because the rags and skins and immodesty (in other words the biblical description)of the sculpture. It is bad enough that their temples are decorated right out of the Church distribution center. During the open house at the Bountiful Temple I counted no less than 6 exact same “Woman at the Well”.It is bad enough to destroy their only claim to fame in the arts world, the pioneer architecture of the Mormon Temples. Not one of them is left with the perfect symmetry so lovingly and fiercely adhered to. Nope add-ons so horrible that even garage additions to west valley houses is superior to the north tacked on ceiling rooms that neither match the color of the stone or even the top adornments matching. What has been done to St. George makes even non-Mormons angry as it now looks like a remodeled funeral home. With a pathetic visitors center on the south east corner with a pathetic little copy (copies again) in a room reminiscent of the one in Salt Lake only with the wide top of wall “universe” copy. Yes, it’s bad enough to destroy their own art, but someone else’s beloved masterpiece in artistic agreement by the way with the winged angels of Ezekial’s vision. Maybe Joseph didn’t see them, but prophets in the old testament said they did. Who cares. Make your own propaganda. Don’t make it out of someone else’s work. God, I wish someone in the estate would sue their socks off like the movie folks in California did after making unauthorized cuts to “Last of the Mohicans” with Daniel day Lewis that closed the movie theater on campus. This is disgusting and gives me yet another reminder of what BYU WAS LIKE IN 1971 when Romney was there and with the mind set used in indoctrination makes it impossible to vote for this man for President of anything, except he would be the perfect President-of the LDS Church.
I just like looking quickly from the left pic to the right pic and imagining that this is a graphic novel depicting a miracle of Jesus recounted in an apocryphal gospel.
Ed FTW
My seven year-old daughter just walked in as I was reading this post. She said, “Oo, Mommy, is this a finding game?” and proceeded to recount all of the differences between the censored and uncensored versions of the painting. In the Friend and other kid magazines, they print two similar images side by side, and kids win by finding all the differences. It looks like in grown-up magazines, we do the same thing, but delete the original version.
I have a suggestion for the editors of the Ensign. Rather than mess up a beautiful and well-known piece of art to avoid confusing those of us Mormons who happen to be stupid and easily confused, couldn’t you just add a footnote, as follows, “The artist portrayed the angels with wings. Doctrinally, we do not believe that angels literally have wings, but wings have been used as a symbol of heavenly messengers for centuries, including in Biblical passages.”
As for the sleeveless female angels/resurrected beings (and the one male one that Ensign editors apparently aren’t bothered by), I suggest this footnote to the editors of the Ensign, “The artist portrayed the angels and resurrected beings without garments. Doctrinally, we do not know whether angels wear garments, as we have only been instructed to wear them throughout our lives, but we do have reports from Joseph Smith that he saw at least one resurrected being without garments. This is a relief to the many modern Mormons who find garments uncomfortable.”
That second disclaimer is great. I few disclaimesr like that and I might start reading the Ensign again (just for the disclaimers).
I get that artists have their own views on artistic and integrity freedom of expression and all that, but the aim of the church publication is to help people feel the Holy Spirit and build faith in Jesus Christ. I am not an art critic and am not qualified to analyze the works from that perspective, but as a member of the LDS Church, I can see how the altered picture could be more in harmony with church standards and beliefs. I in fact like it. The image seems more real to me. As the purpose of the image in the LDS publication was to testify of the reality of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, I think it does the job nicely.
I think DKL could be right–it’s a remix!
This seems like a decision someone in the production department made, foolishly applying a directive meant for photographs (no bare shoulders) to classic works of art. Hello…? I still need to read all the comments—but is it even legal to alter the painting? [And as for removing the wings of angels for the sake of ACCURATE representation . . . if THAT’s the reason, we don’t know the resurrected Christ was wearing anything at all; the gospels say the shroud was left in the tomb!]
I won’t throw my opinion on this out anymore, but I can clarify it is legal. Copryights last 70-100 years depending on the country. This painting was done in 1875 according to this page, which also lists the copyright status. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:TheResurrectionOfChrist.jpg
Those are not just shoulder shields. Those are garments hanging out for crying out loud. Tacky. Someday the Mormons might undo the nonsense the same way the Catholics finally undraped a lot of the add-on overpainted genitals, buttocks, haunches and loins on Michelangelo’s Last Judgement. Maybe after the brethren are finally rid of Gayle Ruzicka?
Alright everyone you need to pay attention to what the article in the Ensign is talking about. The two images are showing the original and the site of the original superimposed over anothother similar to it. The reason it looks that way is because of the super imposed look of the two paintings. The author of the article is pointing out how the painting in one light shows Christ at the time of being Crusified and the other shows him as a resurrected being. His little girls (the author of the article) point out the different angle. I really don’t think that they changed the image at all. As I read the article it is showing how the super imposed image looks, pull out your copy of the Ensign with the article in it and pay attention to the image. It clearly shows the imposed image and how the two paintings look individually as well. The point of the article was to show how our angles of looking at things differ. I’m not critizising anyone, but as an artist myself I found it quite an effective article showing how our perspective of things alters our views.
I choose NOT to be offended by something as simple as adjustments to a painting that goes into a religious magazine. If you don’t like it … don’t read it. That simple. I don’t make a habit of scanning religious magazines looking for reasons to be offended. Come on people, let them worship anyway want. Some people put too much energy into foolishness!!!
This comment shows that you don’t understand the issue. For me, it’s about removing the wings. It’s about the church bureaucracy saying the there is no place for symbolism in our worship, and moving to a literal interpretation of all things. It’s about the official capacity of the church pulling the stakes of the tent inward to be more inclusive, rather than expansive. That’s hardly foolishness.
Removing the wings off of angels on this piece of art, says to me “worship the way we do – literally. There’s no room for your kind here anymore.” I’m not offended by it, but I think the message is loud and clear.
Disappointing but not surprising. Our culture is so immature and generally unsophisticated- look at who our popular contemporary artists are. The Thomas Kincades of Jesus paintings. This censorship is pretty much the type of thing I think of when I think of church culture in Utah.
I fully agree with the posters who surmise that this was some low level staffer thinking they were being helpful- like BYU-I Testing center nazis and temple workers telling young women that they can’t do baptisms if they are on their period.
Art is important and should be discussed. And how we interact with art says a lot about our culture. What this says makes me sad.
“How we interact with art says a lot about our culture”…. Amen!
re: Homer
John A Widtsoe was president of Utah State University from 1907 to 1916 and president of the University of Utah from 1916 to 1921. He was never president of BYU. The controversy over the beard being removed by BYU art restoration actually was done to a painting of Karl G. Maeser, first president of BYU. Further controversy followed when the altered Maeser portrait was used as the cover of the BYU phone directory.
@ Hans & Homer
the Maeser directory picture palava was during my first year at the Y. The morning after the story broke his statue and the one of Brigham outside the admin building were found with a generous lather of shaving foam covering their offending bits. Brilliant. Calls followed for JC, Santa and others to be given the same makeover.
For those getting themselves in a “this proves the church ain’t true” lather now, I’m afraid it really only proves that the church bureaucracy, like every other, is largely staffed by out of touch idiots.
The standard is not new to 4 year olds today. It was taught to me by my mother over 30 years ago. And it is what I am teaching my children.
Oh my goodness, those angels must be wearing their bras UNDER their tops! Or none at all . . .
The fact that the idea of modifying this great painting even occurred to someone somewhere in the bureaucracy is sad. The idea that no one objected somewhere along the way in the editorial department is even more sad. Soon we’ll be counting how many steps we take on Sunday…
FYI I ordered a Karl Bloch painting of the nativity (for about $5) from the church distribution center about 15 years ago. They had retouched out the halo over Mary. The painting has been republished so many times with various saturations and hues. Is it bright orange? Dark and Raphael-like? Who knows.
With Halo
http://fpcyo.wordpress.com/2011/11/29/advent/
W/O Halo
http://0.tqn.com/d/lds/1/0/X/X/2/nativity_manger_scene_carl_bloch_sm.jpg
It made me sad to see her halo gone, as I had always perceived halos to be an artistic rendition of a shining countenance (something we very much believe in).
To me it’s not really a big deal… Christ is still Christ The Church of Jesus Christ of lds is still His church… I don’t think it’s worth the excitement… unsubscribe to the ensign if it’s that offensive.
Don’t know if you saw that your post hit the Salt Lake Tribune:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaithblog/54142351-180/bloch-church-angels-modesty.html.csp
I was very disappointed (though not at all surprised) that the Church declined to comment.
Just for the record, I wouldn’t say I’m offended by this. It doesn’t shake my testimony. It just reminds me of how human we all are. A religion does not make one perfect in their choices! We have to remember that even the most esteemed church leadership are still mortal and still make mistakes! Yup – shock huh! This is issues is simply poor taste to modify the painting and an embarrassment in the art world. The church not commenting isn’t what I’d wish for as I’d like to hear a straight up honest response. But that would probably continue or deepen the banter. So I guess some things are better left unsaid. On that same note, some things are better left untouched!
Late to the party here, Heather, but really wanted to thank you for trying to draw some attention to this execrable practice.
I’m surprised they didn’t give Jesus a haircut and put him in a suit and tie with a name tag! After all, you can’t perform any priesthood ordinances unless you are properly attired, and I’d say ressurection is right up there with the rest of them.
And wing-tips. Everyone knows flip flops are evil.
http://swearingelders.blogspot.com/2010/04/flip-vs-flop-my-review-of-general.html
I never understand why people bicker about paintings, modesty, and prop 8 when the church openly accepts a God that whispers into His child’s ears that it’s ok to kill a drunk man in the street. If you can accept a God that does such things, you accept a world where every atrocity may be justified to any individual. Us humans need to grow up and let go of our imaginary friends. When we start trying to build our relationships with the people who really exist, we just might find that we’re already in heaven.
Karl for the win.
Rabble-rousers posting corporate-busybody-Photoshopped-artocities. Grownups talking passionately about how angels should dress and whether they have wings. And a sweet soul or two bearing testimony that none of this matters but Jesus and His Church (plugging ears and going ‘lalalalalalal’) All friends of Doves and Serpents. Long live you. :)
Miss you, Matt!
I picked this up from the SL Trib, and briefly scanned comments. My apologies if this has already been said. First and foremost, the Ensign is an official publication from the Church. The content can be construed as an official guide to the beliefs and doctrine of the church. The content including artwork and illustrations is approved by the leadership. I was once told that there are seven levels of approval of the magazine. The highest is the first presidency. Though it may be uncool (offensive, censoring…pick your own word) to modify a work of art, since we don’t believe that angels have wings in a literal sense, the wings had to go. Nothing new here. If they were left in, some thousands of the subscribers, including new converts would be debating about whether we believe that angels have wings and point to this painting in the Ensign as proof that we do.
You just don’t go in and airbrush a classical piece of art!! Its atrocious. I understand the reasons someone did it, but the reasons are not viable, it’s immoral. I, and many with me, find it incomprehensible how anybody actuell could have decided that this was a good idea. If you can’t stand wings on a piece of classical art, then don’ use it.
This pharisaical obsession with in particular woman clothing that is going on at the moment, it just has to stop before we loose our way completely.
The Student Review takes this a bit further :)
http://thestudentreview.org/2012/05/29/fixing-blochs-mistakes/
Wow. I am a Mormon and I am embarrassed at the massive collective stupidity that our self-righteous pharisee like community carries on their shoulders… I guess some power hungry people among us need to feel they *must make things right.*
This is massively stupid and self-righteous. I am actually surprised we haven’t come up yet with a clean shaven short hair Jesus (that wears a nice suit coat from MrMac of course).
I don’t think this is about power hungry ambition–I think it’s founded in fear. Fear of loss of control, fear of change, fear of the next generation being different than them (which calls into question everything they have believed or perceived as normal). Fear of not being what they think their parents’ generation would have wanted. This fear trumps rationality and begins to feed off itself until it becomes doctrine, or something even more powerful . . . cultural dogma.
Ditto what Manuel said. This is totally embarrasing…
I agree that art should never be touched, for any reason.
On the other, women and girls who have not “gone thru the Temple” and received their endowments are not required to cover their shoulders. Saying that is not true, and if you’re going to lie about something, do it better. I have not yet received my endowment, and am not required to, but I cover my shoulders when I go to Church, or will be in the company of others…simply out of respect. Just as I would dress appropriately if participating any culture’s or religious event.
The only issue at hand is the changed art. The rest of this conversation is just krap.
Hey everyone, just relax a little bit! The church is operated by PEOPLE. That is to say MORTALS with MORTAL FLAWS. Most everyone is doing their best and is operating at different levels. They make the best decisions they can and yet they inevitably do things that offend others. If you don’t like this dynamic in the church, then go start your own church with just you in it, because this kind of stuff is going to happen all the time in any church. Somehow God still exhalts people through this majorly flawed organization. Personally, I think that happens when people learn to let go of offenses and and focus on how their own actions affect others. Believe it or not, you too make similar kinds of mistakes. Relax. It happens. Love people.
As Joseph Smith said, “I’ll throw a cloak over your sins if you throw a cloak over mine.”
There is a play on Broadway right now named “The Book of Mormon”. It has changed and modified the Original. So according to those here this is ok because the original is still ok and not touched. So who here has a problem with that??? How is it different??
There is a play on Broadway right now named “The Book of Mormon”. It has changed and modified the Original. So according to those here this is ok because the original is still ok and not touched. So who here has a problem with that??? How is it different??
The BofM musical is an intentional parody and makes no bones about it. That’s totally different from altering a piece of artwork to suit your ideological/theological purposes, but not telling anyone . . .
Clipping the wings is symbolic of limiting one’s ability to be in control of one’s self. Maybe there’s more to the symbolism than just “modesty.”
Mormons are so extreme and ridiculous to think those angels are immodest.
Oh please, this is so dumb….not the editing of the picture, but the fact that you had to point it out like it’s some sort of a big issue….which it really isn’t. And are we all surprised by the fact that the LDS church teaches and focuses on modesty???? Really???? Not surprised here, nor is it really all that concerning, or testimony shaking, or even an issue. Frankly, assuming Carl Bloch was a Christian, and assuming he’s not an arrogant artist that would even care that the church edited it for publication in their magazine…what does it matter? Even if he would care, so what? It may be somewhat disrespectful to his work, if he were to care, but not the worst thing like it’s made to sound by some of the comments on here. People revere ART as something greater than it is many times….it’s art people, great and wonderful and uplifting at times, etc. but it’s art.
Hmmm. . .what if I took your work and changed it so that it was different than you intended? Maybe your work still says the same thing, but maybe not. Adjustments to small details can make a big difference. Shall we put some tighty-whiteys on Michaelangelo’s David? Maybe, rewrite parts of the Bible that we don’t like?
The Mormon church has uninspired people making ridiculous decisions who shouldn’t be making decisions at all. The June 2012 LDS Church News has doctored a photo to put a T-shirt under a a 7-y.o. girl’s sun dress to cover up her immodest, bare shoulders. The church has its standards, you know.
Small Mormon minds don’t have enough to do looking after more important things. Like caffeine and Coca-Cola, for instance.
But we can still see Jesus’s nipple?
Stunning example of hypocritical, religious intolerance,censorship, and control. They are deluded, and sick.
The fact they fear that there “readers” will get “tittilated” or aroused by the sight of a bare shoulder or back,
speaks volumes about the nature of the READERS!
Busty latina Yurizan Beltran slips off her sexy green bikini
Why didn’t they cover up Jesus’ nipple?
You people bitch about some of the most idiotic shit!
Your religious train has NOT been hijacked. The insanity of the drivers of your religious train has just become obvious. Take a goood long look at Mormonism…..there’s a lot of unsavory things under the mask.
Did you see this?
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaithblog/55930850-180/wings-church-angels-bloch.html.csp