One could perhaps imagine sacrament meeting as a re-enactment of prophetic communication: rather than God speaking to the prophet who utters the divine word to his audience, people in sacrament meeting are supposed to listen to the words the speaker prepared, ideally under the guidance of the spirit.

Jonathan, I think you are dead-on with this.

Kevinf, your observation about art in worship spaces (chapel vs. temple) representing a fundamental difference in levels of church membership is a good one. I don’t agree with the sort of hierarchy it creates either, as though those who have attained a certain level of spiritual understanding are somehow more worthy to partake of art than others. But, maybe this does point to a higher liturgical function of art. This strikes me as very Hegelian, art is a preliminary means to a higher spirituality. The need for art as a tool of spiritual development will eventually disappear, although art itself will not actually disappear. You can read a brief summary of Hegel’s aesthetic theory here. This view certainly jives with Mormon eschatology.

And yes, the letter has been around in various forms for a long time. I think this particular iteration, as I have heard in a rumor, came about because people started using powerpoint presentations in sacrament meeting, undoubtedly inspired by some of those leadership meetings where powerpoints are used.

The primary distinction you’re making in your post is between the visual and the textual, but I see it somewhat differently. The instructions to avoid using visual aids or directing audience members to consult their scriptures suggests that sacrament meeting after the sacrament is not meant for visual access to spiritual experience, nor for textual/literate access, but rather only for oral/spoken access. The letter made clear that imagery and textual work were entirely appropriate for other settings, but I find it striking that audience participation in sacrament meeting is so narrowly focused on hearing the spoken word. One could perhaps imagine sacrament meeting as a re-enactment of prophetic communication: rather than God speaking to the prophet who utters the divine word to his audience, people in sacrament meeting are supposed to listen to the words the speaker prepared, ideally under the guidance of the spirit.

First, regarding textual interpretations. Does our culture view texts as less ambiguous and therefore less subject to misinterpretation than visual art or music? The paradox is that we are taught and have experienced the concept of personal revelation, yet function in a hierarchical organization that does tightly control the message. I personally have never heard the idea that BIV floated in her FMH post. The text that went along with the Ten Virgins “drivel” that BIV linked to also seemed to emphasize that texts can make sure we all get the “right” message from visual arts.

Second, I thought about the differences in no artwork (or at least not under current policies) inside our chapels (the actual worship space, not the whole building) versus the obvious dramatic imagery in many of our temples. Even the newer temples which don’t have the murals still have a great deal of symbolic touches to the architecture, furnishings, and interior finish. There is a perceived difference between being a member of the church, and a recommend carrying member who enjoys the blessings of the temple. It appears to me that this is a conscious choice in the architecture, as if there is less chance for misinterpretation at that level.

Have you been reading ‘Reformation of the Image’? You should give this work a look–I think it would be helpful to your position in this post.

Chris, I appreciated your comment about the imagery in the temple and the liveliness of the symbolism you found there. We need more of that in our meetinghouses, I think. There is something so strange to me about the pseudo-sacred nature of LDS meetinghouses. Are they sacred, are they secular? What do we make of that space? The “stark contrast” you describe has something powerful to say about Mormon beliefs about art, I think.

Ben, yes! I wanted to say something about the representational nature of Mormon art, but you picked up on that! I definitely want to do more research on the history of images in Mormonism.

Ardis, the question of artistic authority versus prophetic authority is an interesting one (which Tod mentions below). I’m glad you brought it up. I had a philosophy of art class at BYU and we watched an interview of Pres. Packer, who is a woodcarver and he talked about his philosophy of art in Mormonism—linking recreational art with power. I wouldn’t really call what Pres. Packer does “Mormon art,” but he is Mormon and he does produce art, of a certain kind—wooden birds and mantle pieces and such (possibly paintings too, if I remember correctly).

I know this is becoming my mantra, but art is powerful. Unauthorized religious images are an inherent problem of having, to take a Marxist stance, the means of artistic production in the hands of lay people. When artists were primarily commissioned by the church and wealthy patrons, and much of the art produced was for worship spaces, the images created could be much more tightly controlled. But artists still managed to get away with things; I think of Michelangelo’s Last Judgment where Christ is portrayed nude but later had a loincloth of sorts hastily painted over his manly parts. But, Mormons are still afraid to have an artistic revolt against authority. And I’m not sure if such a revolt should happen. But I think any real changes in the uses of Mormon art will come ex cathedra.

Stapely, that is a goooood question. I’m trying to imagine what that would look like. Someone composing a symphony for General Conference or for an official Christmas fireside or something? I actually really love that. I don’t think my argument would change if I replaced visual arts with music. The “correct” music to use in church services is also debated. Musicians aren’t supposed to draw attention to themselves in their church performances. But, I would have to say that any truly great musician must draw attention to herself by virtue of performing well. And sure, the humility of the artist is important, not letting ego get in the way of glorifying God. But what artist does not suffer from some pride in their created abilities? Can we really expect these things of artists whose responsibility it is to be true to their craft, first, above all outside considerations—including authority. Yikes!

And as far as official hymns for the temple goes, I will share a personal anecdote. When I was in the temple about a month ago, some Sisters decided to sing hymns while waiting outside the baptistery. I can’t remember the song they proposed when a man requested they change the selection, but I didn’t feel like the song was one that would detract from the Spirit. In fact, singing these hymns was the most worshipful experience in the temple I’ve had. Everyone was singing a capella, and somewhat off-key. But, you can see where I’m going with this, it was the community of worshipers engaged in worshiping their God that mattered to me, not adherence to a certain rule. What detracted from the Spirit for me was having someone request the change.

And I don’t know the theological underpinnings of this rule, but that was my experience. I have a feeling the underpinnings have to do with the concept of reverence. But we have to be careful that we are actually being reverent for the sake of Someone and not just for the sake of being reverent, quiet. Reverence means nothing unless it is directed toward someone or something. And if true reverence means not singing an up-tempo number, I guess I must be okay with that. But I think God wants our worship to be joyful, too, especially in His holy house. God’s probably a lot more austere than I would paint him, though. What are our images of God. . . . And thus it begins again.

The literary arts are more palatable to Mormons in light of our textual emphasis. But I still feel like it’s only okay to talk about certain literatures over the pulpit or in class discussion. I heard someone give a talk in sacrament meeting when I was about seven. It’s one of the most vivid church memories I have, but the person spoke about the redemptive figure of Silas Marner from George Eliot’s novel. The power of that story stuck with me until I read the book and it has continued. We could use more of this in our meetings. But Silas Marner’s a pretty “harmless” story. I would expect to hear it in a meeting, just as I would expect to hear someone talk about Jean Valjean as a redemptive figure. But I probably wouldn’t get up and give a talk based on The Great Gatsby, which is a very powerful but violent ethical text.

Tod, your question of nudity in art is a very important and delicate one. But what you have pointed to is the theological implications of nudity. What does our portrayal or not-portrayal, as the case may be, of nudity point to in Mormon theology? Or does it have more of a cultural basis? Although our theology says otherwise (spirit is matter), I think Mormons suffer from a kind of cultural cartesian dualism. We’re not comfortable with our bodies. We’re uncomfortable talking about sex too much as a theological principle because it’s so culturally loaded outside of Mormonism. And although I think the function of modesty in Mormonism is fundamentally a good one, because it is tied up with cultural taboos some of that spills over into Mormon discourse and culture.

Ooh, and I love your point about the visions and the interpretation of visions—potentially very fruitful for this discussion.

Bored in Vernal, thank you.

I hope what comes out of this questioning looks nothing like one of these firesides, although I am exceedingly intrigued by this kind of systematized image/meaning-making. And boy, I attended so many Young Women’s activities like this! And I don’t think they were ultimately successful in instilling the “virtues” they purported to be instilling. Mormon’s training in a very particular kind of exegesis (primarily faith rather than knowledge-based), including visual exegesis, naturally feeds into this problem. And why so much Church-sponsored activity over this one image? I would suspect that the image lends itself nicely to this kind of cultural production—it is easy to interpret in a very dualistic way (good and evil) that also leaves room for specific elaboration (divisions of virtues, that somewhat go along with YW values).

Wm Morris, I’d like to hear more of what you have to say about this. I’ll have to think about it some more.