Yeah. I don’t buy it either – about the nature of arts or the reason for Mormon failure in them. I guess we have to qualify the word “failure,” though. Financial failure? From my perspective, that’s the least serious failure we can have, although one of the hardest to deal with in the short term. Failure to be true to the vision that inspires our art – failure to create from body, mind, and spirit – I see that as the bigger failure.

In discussing the success of a recent ward party, my bishop asked me if my family, being new to the ward, felt at all strengthened or helped by our attendance. I answered in the affirmative, which was true. He then declared the party an unmitigated success, because at least one person was genuinely benefited thereby. I wonder if that sort of Abiniadite (can that be a word?) success is not enough to justify our efforts in art as well as fellowship – even if the artist is the one receiving the benefit.

I don’t buy it for a moment, but I’ve seen it expressed that way.

For me, an answer to this comes through my favorite definition of charity: the ability to see others as they really are, which means as God sees them. When I can expand my vision to see others as God sees them, I’m not blind to their faults, but I see those frailties in the larger perspective of hope and grace and possibilities full of light.

But I realize that not everyone would define charity the same way I would. And it may be presumptuous to say that I “see others as God sees them.” That’s how it feels to me, though, like I see eye to eye.

Is it brownnosing to say I found it in Bound on Earth? . I also saw a great deal of charity in On the Road to Heaven. But I’m embarrassingly unfamiliar with other major works of Mormon literature. I suspect that as I continue to educate myself, I will find more of that kind of charity.

(This was simply a Hostess brand snack related joke and not indicative of any kind of smug, self-righteous judgment on my part.)

I have to run and go teach a class, but when I have more time I do have something serious to offer regarding Stephen’s post.

Stephen, that’s a frighteningly insightful way to view some of these works of “art” that we encounter. I wonder if you would extend your idea this far or not, but the “warm fuzzy” experience may be a form of this “spiritual pornography” by your definition.

After a little thought, I figured that if pornography simulated the veneer of sex without having its substance, then spiritual pornography must simulate the veneer of spiritual experience without having its substance.

And I really love your definition of how God expects us to show obedience: “to present us with a magnificent testimony of His reality and our potential, provide us with the opposition necessary to agency, and allow us to make our own choices.” Excellent way of putting it.

Thank you for your thoughts.

“Say that we feel that the highest good we can do is to induce someone to join the church–which is a noble goal to have–but if the work of art grows out of the impulse to persuade and convince rather than the impulse to illuminate and communicate, it risks becoming propaganda, not art. And in my mind, convincing someone to do good (or be good) is a different proposition than engendering charity.“

I love this comment. Even our missionary impulses should be directed by charity. Forgive me if I get a bit heady here. It’s a weakness of mine.

I consider creation to be our purpose in life – I’m not just talking about art, though that is one creative path that many choose, including (hopefully) myself. Consequently, I think we ought to follow the example of our Father in Heaven, the perfect creator. He made this wonderful world and everything in it, but why? Well, according to scripture, it was to see if we would obey Him. In other words, to present us with a magnificent testimony of His reality and our potential, provide us with the opposition necessary to agency, and allow us to make our own choices.

To me, that’s what the best art does as well. It shows you a vision, but doesn’t force the human mind. It helps you along the path of decision making, it provides means for understanding, it bears out the love of the creator and the created, but leaves the ultimate choice to you. You notice that Christ and many of the prophets frequently refer to the natural world to illustrate true principles. Nevertheless, we can all consider the lilies without feeling compelled to accept their teachings. There is no unrighteous dominion in the testimony of the lilies. They are perfect art – perfect creation.

However, I think art does need to offer a choice, and that may be what you were getting at with the comment about reading only “uplifting” literature. Such things have a purpose, as we all need affirmation from time to time, but there comes a point at which we need challenge to grow. Of course, what is affirming to me may be challenging to you, and vice versa, and methods for offering that choice are as diverse as the choices themselves.

Alright. I’m done. Thanks for your indulgence.