Comments on: Of Prophets and Artists: A Household of Faith Or A House Divided?

By: Tatiana

Tatiana — Sun, 29 Oct 2006 15:54:33 +0000

Thank you for that passionate and sincere statement. I feel moved by it. I think about Chaim Potok, and his wonderful novels about the constant tension between orthodoxy and the conscience. “Some people think the law is a cage, and others think a cage is the law” is the statement in his book (in which a woman habitually went to the synagogue for the early morning prayers, which were held in a small basement room, so they had to build a tiny box around her so that she would not be sitting with the men, which was the law). Far from depicting the orthodox view as an outmoded dead-end, though, he also had his reform-minded character say “we cannot sing and dance as they do”.

Does God intend for there to be a dynamic tension between orthodoxy and the consciences of (or spiritual guidance he gives to) the body of faithful members? I’m not sure. It seems that our scriptures speak of one heart, of us being one. “If you aren’t one you aren’t mine.” And yet, oneness must imply that every element contributes and is heard. The cells of my body are joined to be as one, and yet, if my feet ache, they send the message to my brain, and I sit down and elevate them. If I ignore the message for too long, then they die and must be amputated.

What are the nerves of the church’s brain? By what means do the pains of the members get conveyed to the central authority? I have to believe that art is one of those channels. Nerves that only report “all is well” despite the true situation, are not useful. They don’t report the truth. I think it is crucial in the body of God’s church to have nerves that speak the truth.

Do my feet say “Brain, what are you doing? why are you putting us through this ordeal?” All the time. Does the brain listen and heed? Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn’t, depending on the circumstances.

By: Alex Hall

Alex Hall — Thu, 26 Oct 2006 15:24:04 +0000

Papal infallability? We don’t have Popes. We have human beings who happen to be called to represent God for the Church on diverse topics, but who are also men who express their own opinions on matters when they aren’t speaking for the Lord. Figuring out when they do which and whether if when they give the Lord’s general council it applies to us – which we can determine through meditation and prayer – is the trick. I recently heard someone quoting one of the brethren saying “A General authority is someone who gives general council on general matters”. That means it’s a matter of discerning where and how their council applies. Just this past conference one of the brethren stated that they are aware that many people are in situations that make an exception to council and that those people don’t need to write to the brethren but can trust to the Lord to guide and sustain them. Does this mean weighing everything the brethren say with so much cuation that we’ll seldom follow a step in line until we’re convinced it’s all good council? I don’t think so – I’d rather follow unthinking than think too much and not follow – while on the other hand, it’s nigh impossible to get any man to move until he’s made up his mind that something is right ;)

Also, there are many points of doctrine and commandment in the scriptures and from the apostles to which there is almost never or never exception.

It is my view that one point of “doctrine” was given by many successors of Joseph Smith in disagreement with what seemed Smith’s own philosophy – way up until 1977, when the matter was settled. I think it possible the same could continue on other points today. If so, the Lord was willing to bear that, and if there are other points of error, He may be willing to bear those. In a sense, that nobody in the Church is asked to presently totally live the Law of Consecration might be seen as just such an error – evidently too few are prepared to live it.

But let me say this: following the brethren will never lead one soul to hell and only lead every soul back to God. If the brethren make mistakes they are the mistakes of men and not of God – and for that matter, a lot of men regard the council of God a mistake and folly. Those two facts are put forward in the Book of Mormon in reference to the book itself, and as that was a book given of the spirit of prophecy and revelation, it follows that the same standard may be applied to the men who today guide the Church under the spirit of prophecy and revelation – which spirit, to come circle to my point again – flows from God to men who are fallible but called and chosen.

Side note to one of these tangents – it doesn’t help anyone to state that any apostles or general authorities are antagonistic towards artists or art. Prove it. But don’t. Intent is terribly hard to prove and no on is – or no one should be – going to court against the intents of the brethren. Assume they mean well. It is abundantly evident that they do, besides. Also besides which, no one speaks for them but themselves, and I’d be very surprised if they would be happy to hear someone heading into such an argument against them. That’s not appropriate, I think. I might recast it as simply saying they may not understand or appreciate art as much as a lot of artists – just as I don’t understand or appreciate the professions of tracking money with computers and books.

By: MeM

MeM — Thu, 26 Oct 2006 05:31:00 +0000

JKC, if you haven’t already read either or them, the entries on this site titled “Sunstone Journal – Friday” (http://www.motleyvision.org/?p=267) and “Richard Dutcher: Variations on a Theme” (http://www.motleyvision.org/?p=283) provide more context for this entry.

By: JKC

JKC — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 21:52:00 +0000

Yes, that’s the kind of detail that helps me. I (obviously, I think) wasn’t there and am ignorant about the panel itself. Was there anything said that degraded or disparaged church leaders?

I don’t want to distract from your intention in this post (which I should emphasize again that I enjoyed reading), but another question that comes to mind is the difference between disagreement, criticism, and outright disparagment? Is it okay to disagree or even criticize, or does that just place us on a slippery slope? On the other hand, if we think that even disagreement is wrong, then how do we distiguish not evil speaking against the Lord’s annointed from papal infallibility? I don’t claim to know the answer, but I think the question lurks behind this discussion.

Again, Mahonri, thanks for your post. I think you’ve generated a good discussion on this.

By: Mahonri Stewart

Mahonri Stewart — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:10:34 +0000

Well, the fact that there was a whole panel with prominent artists (two of whom had been excommunicated or withdrawn from the Church) at the Sunstone Symposium who discussed the issue of tensions between art and the Church make the issue very timely and relevent in my mind, JKC.

By: JKC

JKC — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:34:25 +0000

Thanks for including at least two examples. Now your point is becoming a bit more clear. I guess my next question is this: why write this now? Is this a current problem in the church? Have you seen this getting worse in recent years?

I’m not arguing that it isn’t a problem, but I just am not really aware that it’s a big deal right now, at least not any more than it ever was. I want you to convince me that your observations are timely as well as accurate.

Regarding your example of Quinn as an analogy for an artist, actually, I think there’s a lot to be said for the idea that history can be considered an art. The Historian is a teller of stories. It could be said that the only significant difference between a good novel and a good history book is that the history book has to cite to an authority while the novel can be original. Both the historian and the artist feel some loyalty to truth or vision, which is the source of a lot of of the tension that Quinn and others exemplified.

By: Mahonri Stewart

Mahonri Stewart — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 05:39:04 +0000

Shawn,
Of course I recognize that the Church’s authorities are human, too. No debate there. They make mistakes like anyone else, sometimes severe ones. On a local Church leadership level, look at Helmuth Huebner– his Bishop was a Nazi. Literally.
However, I do stand by my post in the sense that I think we as artists sometimes inflate the situation to an even more difficult level of tension when people publicly start criticizing the Brethren. Like I said to JKC, I didn’t want to cite specific examples, but I may have to do so I can really say what I want to say: let us look at D. Michael Quinn as one such example. I don’t necessarily think he deserved the fate he received because of his writing– but it was what he did after there was some adverse reactions to his writing that I think really got him in hot water. Now I want to make it clear, that I think he is an excellent historian (I own Magic World View) and this is in no way passing a judgment on his character, nor his intentions. However, where I do feel like Quinn crossed a line was when he publicly criticized Elder Packer. When President Hinckley had a meeting with him (then as a member of the first presidency) he was very sympathetic to Quinn’s cause of telling a realistic Mormon history, but then President Hinckley stated the same point I have just made: Quinn should not have denounced the Elder Packer in a public meeting at BYU. Now Quinn is a historian and not an artist, but the same principle applies. Certainly, there is going to be differences of opinion, even among the Brethren. There’s many historical examples of that, from Orson Pratt to President Benson. But when we feel justified in trying to publicly embarass the Brethren, we are really feeling justified in publicly embarassing the Church and giving ammo to its critics. We undermine the principle of living prophets, and instead supplant it with the idea that they are no more qualified to lead the Lord’s Church than the think tanks and pseudo-intellectuals who would love to have the same ability to shape the attitudes of the Church’s membership.
I agree with Jack that its hard to find a better lot of people than LDS artists and intllectuals. For example, I’ve treasured the time I’ve had with the AML List. They are a diverse lot, and I enjoy that diversity. It expands my vision. They are generally very charitable, full of the Spirit and so, so interesting. That’s why it discourages me when I hear certain people, for whom I normally have a tremendous amount of respect for, suddenly pull out a rapid fire stream of criticisms of the men and women who have literally consecrated their lives at great personal costs to build the kingdom of God. To me, that shoots Mormonism’s chief principles right in the foot. As if they’re saying: A prophet is only a prophet when I’m comfortable with what he’s saying.
What I think is most tragic is that it does the cause of LDS artists and academics great harm. It raises the tension, not deflates it. Shawn is completely right when he says there is some suspicion from certain Church leaders about certain LDS artists and intellectuals. But when we turn around and, instead of turning the other cheek, instead go on the offensive and take shots at the general or local Church authorities, we are only confirming their suspicions. When a “soft word” would have turned away the wrath, we instead publish an article turning our heels against them, or publicly lambast them in an intellectual conference. That, to me, is not good logic. If we want to show the Church that we ought not to be suspect– that we have many good, godly things to consecrate and contribute to the Church and to the world– then it does us no good to prove to them that their suspicions are indeed correct: that we are more loyal to our “artsitic voice” than to the forward movement of Zion.

By: Jack

Jack — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 02:27:04 +0000

Mahonri,

Overall, I agree with your post. I would say, though, that we probably ought to be careful about drawing too strong a connection between loyalty to the church and great art or artists in the church. Collectively, mormon artists are a good lot. In fact, I think one would be hard-pressed to find a better group of creative souls on the planet. So the question that comes to mind is: should we assume that Bach was a better person–a more spiritual person–than the most virtuous LDS artists today?

By: S. P. Bailey

S. P. Bailey — Tue, 24 Oct 2006 20:33:56 +0000

I agree that we should not be unduly critical or otherwise uncharitable to church leaders. And I share your optimism that artists can both enjoy full and harmonious church fellowship and produce excellent art.

However, I do think that you gloss over many difficult realities. Sometimes church leaders are wrong. Some church leaders may be unduly suspicious of and uncharitable to artists. Mormon culture in some ways is hostile to fine art and artists.

The challenge is to navigate our way through these and other difficulties without becomming bitter or willingly sacrificing our places in the kingdom.

By: JKC

JKC — Tue, 24 Oct 2006 14:15:55 +0000

Fair enough. But isn’t it possible to get specific without revealing identity? Or to take a cue from psychological literature and create a fictional character that is a kind of amalgamation/composite of the experiences of many real people? I don’t mean to harp on this (like I said, I like your observations), but if you simplify/generalize too much then we’re left with a blanket condemnation of disparaging church leaders, which is fine, but not something that anyone would really disagree with. When you give me an example of what you consider disparaging, then I can apply that to myself and see where I may be doing that. Otherwise, I’ll just read it and think, “yeah, those other people that talk badly about the prophets are bad.”

However, having said all that, I do think you’re right that it is bad to talk badly about the brethren.