I certainly agree that neither of the ideas should be important, but they help us focus. The same way that a garden tomb is iconic (an image President Hinckley has invoked) to symbolise or represent the ‘living Christ’.

#26 – I agree that our chapels can seem banal and boring, but I think we could make more of an effort to decorate our chapels with inspiring art (we are allowed to showcase local art) and the church supplies through Church distribution other more thought-provoking pieces that are outside the mass-produced gospel art kit. Moreover, I have seen other art from LDS artists that has been displayed with no concern.

I think we as members should try and take more ownership for the artistic-based forms of worship in our wards.

The best way I can think to put it is that the act rather than the means seems to me should be the focus. Not a cross (that was not unique to the event) and similarly not Gethsemane.

I can understand the want to associate elements of the event to represent the act (which in a way comes back to your point in the actual post that the graphic art brought the reality home) but I don’t think it necessary to use an object that seems to have replaced the act.

#23 – The link provided was merely to illustrate that the history has not been one-sided. Moreover, this may result in a threadjack, but the garden of gethsemane was equal to the cross, if we are to believe BRM, Robert Millet and others. Although, we as Mormons have emphasised this aspect because again from a desire to solidify the community. tehologically speaking at least it does not seem to be accurate.

That the cross has become to be seen as the pinnacle is as incorrect as seeing the garden as the pinnacle, something we have seen too much of in Mormon art. That knife cuts both ways.

Once a leader mentions something like this, all of the other leaders mention it wanting to be seen as “supportive” of the original talk. After a while of hearing talks, the point achieves the “doctrinal” status that it does, even though it’s not actually based in doctrine but in someone’s feelings. After this, no one wants to be seen as not “supporting” their leaders, so it is actually incredibly difficult to change. Look at the effort it took to change what BY started with his feelings on blacks and the priesthood. It took literally years of behind the scenes work to get to the point where people would accept a change in something that made absolutely no sense to anyone.

[http://www.mormontimes.com/studies_doctrine/doctrine_discussion/?id=10632]

There are plenty of scriptures in the New Testament reverencing the symbolism of the cross. It is a recognition that ultimately, suffering (Christ’s, and ours with him) is the means of salvation.

On the flip side I also think the LDS church not having a physical symbol is great. Constantly adorning a symbol, or putting it up as a standard, seems too tribalistic to me and can be a barrier.

Good post as usual Rico. That type of art isn’t usually to my taste but then again I haven’t seen much up close so maybe Id experience the same turn around.

#8 – I agree that it can be disturbing but I wonder whether the shock can be a emotionally/spiritually productive experience. one that can lead us to Christ.

#10 – I really like your insight about the seasons and music and think that would be a nice addition.

#11 – I think your right about the role of Christ, in that he is open to multi-faceted interpretation. he can both be a king and friend etc. However, I think that these images of suffering helped people accept the compassion and love as demonstrated by Christ’s suffering. If that does not work for you that is great.

#12 – I sense that the distinction between signified/signifier in statues is most accesible through a variety of expressions. I do not think this type of iconography is the only way to approach these issues but might be a useful one.

#13 – Such helps I think are really valuable. I used to picture in my mind the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper and imagine that I was being given the bread and water by the Saviour himself.

#14 – Thanks for your thoughts. I completely agree that such images might not be good for children and so should not be used in our chapels.

#15 – I agree and thanks for your thoughts

I tend to agree. While as an adult I have an appreication of religious art, as a child I found it extremely confronting. It is one thing to hear that Christ died for me, but an entirely different thing to see pictures of bleeding wounds, exposed hearts and Christ hanging on the cross. Spending much of my free time as a child in my catholic BF’s house was initially very disturbing. The prints that hung on the walls made for some bad dreams as a small child. I think to adorn Mormon chapels with such art may perhaps be of value to our adult members, but haunting for those who lack the years to reconcile these images of suffering and torture.

But I too love the image of the empty cross. It evokes so many emotions related to the sacrifice and resurrection of Christ. I don’t think I’d like it to be prominent on the spires of our buildings, but as a personal statement it is a symbol that can carry power and conviction.

I think there is a difference between a moving visual medium that is telling a story honestly and a still work of art that depicts suffering. The Passion of the Christ had a great concluding scene. Finding Faith in Christ/The Testaments had concluding scenes. These help the viewers find resolution of the grief they feel and put it in perspective. My youthful visit to San Xavier del Bac and other Cathedrals were more difficult to appreciate because the sculptures of Christ in suffering were not only religiously foreign to my personal experience, but difficult in their setting with my lack of maturity to find the resolution of grief. The darkness and reality of depicted blood loss was so intense as to overpower the rest of the Cathedral experience.

I’m glad that my childhood religious culture filled me with images of Jesus wanting me for a sunbeam and inviting children to gather on his knee. When I took my junior primary-aged children to an LDS baptism and they were watching Finding Faith in Christ, I felt uncomfortable allowing them to watch the depiction of the nails being driven. I wonder what children feel when attending a Cathedral for church services where they see the suffering of Jesus depicted so graphically.

Now that I have some years behind me, I can better appreciate the spiritual artistic heritages of other faiths. I think the exhibition you attended would be very moving.
I appreciate Thomas’ thoughts on treating the Sacrament too casually. Thinking of passion iconography could help me refocus my thoughts. But I do reconcile that imagery with the visit of Christ to the Nephites with the Savior no longer darkened by blood but with wounds to testify of his atonement, with those witnessing his visit kneeling before him in love and gratitude.

A while ago, upon noticing that I might be treating the sacrament too casually (spending the time keeping four kids under eight under control has that tendency), I tried the experiment of approaching it the way a Catholic might (minus the whole literal transsubstantiation thing).

Believe it or not, mouthing the words “Hic est enim Calix Sanguinis Mei” before downing the little plastic cup of water went a long way towards increasing my reverence.

The shade of Elder McConkie is probably not amused, but I believe the overall spiritual effect of the exercise was positive.

For what it’s worth, I have a masters degree in organ performance, and for the last umpteen years have had weekend employment playing for worship services in other denominations. I have to admit it’s often rather painful when I hear the music in my ward. Don’t me wrong, it’s not that crave attention and wish I were playing – I just wish someone with competency were! But I’m not sure going the “paid musicians” route would a wise choice, as that opens up a whole other can of worms. And trust me, paid musicians aren’t necessarily better, especially in this era where trained organists are becoming a rather scarce commodity in many areas.

What I do wish we could do in the church, however, is extend the seasonal specificity to our worship often found in other denominations. The commemoration of Holy Week, i.e., Palm Sunday, Maundy Thursday, and Good Friday, prepare the worshiper for the joy of Easter Morning. Likewise, the quite contemplation of Advent, with emphasis on the prophecies of the coming of the Lord – including that coming which is yet to come – gives a whole new tone to the celebration of Christmas when it does come. I keep joking that as soon as I’m running things, we’re going to introduce both Advent and Holy Week to our worship schedule.

#8: I don’t particularly like the overly graphic depictions of the Crucifixion, although perhaps that’s just me trying to shelter myself from reality. But I think the empty cross is a beautiful depiction of the fact that Christ overcame death and the cross and is now resurrected.

I never have bought into the LDS thing on the cross ie. if your son was shot by a magnum would you want that on your wall and the same is with God he doesn’t want us to have cross’s in our houses.

I actually think when you go into another church and see the crossthat makes you think of christ. I rarely think that or get that immediate focus in an LDS church. On the other hand when the statues are too graphic it focuses your mind but it also makes it a sad disturbing place to worship IMO

where can I go to sign up? 20 bucks for sacrament meeting, 30 bucks and you can request the hymns (and tempos) yourself!