Racism in Mormon Art?

[_Gadianton]

BC: You'll need to ask the present-day KKK or WCC who honor the white race, rather than putting down other races.

And, those apostates remember, were once the smiling members --- you never know which one of those beaming LDS faces at church is secretly depressed and dissatisfied with everything but feeling too guilty and scared to admit it.

Gaz: The problem with LDS Book of Mormon art which depicts Lamanites in their cultural dress (which was what by the way? think about it, the sterotyping of what the dress must have been is yet another blind spot) is that it follows one of three different trajectories, as faithfulness to the Book of Mormon would have it. Obviously, merely mentioning a dark-skin Lamanite in a story or representing him in a picture when the skin color is a curse for bad behavior and he's blood-thirsty and ferocious doesn't do a lot for equality. But niether does the baptism scenes, you know, the white man bringing the truth to the one with a darker skin and graciously allowing him the chance to be a 19th century American. And possibly even lighten that complexion a little over the generations if worthiness prevails. And then finally, there is the Lamanites as the stately civilization, "more righteous than the Nephites." But that's just "White Man's burden" art.

So, Book of Mormon art, because of the narrative of the Book of Mormon, in the didactic form at least will never be able to portray a non-racist depiction of "lamanites." The Soviet art isn't so constrained. So, I'm particularily interested in Mormon art that shows other ethnic groupds outside of the Book of Mormon context. Why not an African-American in one of those "woodsman" scenes? One objection might be it's unrealistic given the time period and so on. But FAIR apologists have assured us that blacks even in the early church were treated with dignity, so why not be part of one of these scenes? A further point would be that, the way Joseph Smith is portrayed is also false and unrealistic. What we see in the LDS art is already out the window for "accuracy", but what's interesting is how it reveals either the assumptions of the artist or the assumptions about the artists view of those who will consume her art. Milton Friedman, after all, argued that refusal to serve minorities food in a restaraunt doesn't necessarily make the shop owner racist, because he's just reflecting the values of his customer base. So either the artists, or the LDS consumers clearly don't care or don't want other ethnic groups involved in the sacred recounting of Mormon history. Let me be crystal clear on this point, even if everyone in Navoo were white, if Mormons value other ethnic groups, they'd fudge the scenery to work them in, just as they do with moral values and even physical characteristics.

(i might need to edit this in the am because my eyes are forcing themselves shut now)

[_beastie]

Well, the above painting is a step in another direction I think. The church is very global now, and artwork will begin to follow this as well, especially when artwork from around the world begins to pour in more.

As I said, I think it is apparent that the church is now trying to present more racial diversity. And, once again, instead of being a leader and trend setting in terms of righting social wrongs, the LDS church lags behind the larger society and takes several decades to catch up to those who already were the leaders and trend setters in terms of righting social wrongs.

But it's ok, we can't tell God what to care about, and evidently he cares more about things like how many earrings a woman wears than helping his prophets be leaders and trend setters in terms of righting social wrongs.

[_Blixa]

Well, the above painting is a step in another direction I think. The church is very global now, and artwork will begin to follow this as well, especially when artwork from around the world begins to pour in more.

I'm not sure how global "the church" really is---despite whatever member numbers are given out, I suspect the reality is different. But that's another debate. What I wanted to point out here is the idea that artwork from around the world will be "pouring in." This phrase seems to assume a kind of spontaneous outpouring of work from global members who are moved to express their new found religious beliefs in aesthetic form. That is not likely for a number of reasons, significantly because we are talking about a "top down" organization that doens't look kindly on individuals "at the bottom" creating their own interpretations of events/doctrine. What is a more likely scenario is that SLC will commission more globally-inflected brethern approved art.

[_bcspace]

BC: You'll need to ask the present-day KKK or WCC who honor the white race, rather than putting down other races.

How have I put down another race?

And, those apostates remember, were once the smiling members --- you never know which one of those beaming LDS faces at church is secretly depressed and dissatisfied with everything but feeling too guilty and scared to admit it.

The question remains, how does depicting only one skin color in a work or set of works qualify as racism?

[_Mister Scratch]

Scratch,

Is it possible that the lighting in the picture would have made it difficult to see them when the page went to print, so they were asked to be lightened so that you could make out their definition better? Your obviously not going to be able to make them look white, as you seem to be implying.

No. This editor clearly understood that he was being (unethically) asked to alter the photos as a means of reckoning with the Church's uneasiness regarding race.

[_Gadianton]

BC, I think the answer is obvious.