In Orson F. Whitney's ambitious plead for the LDS people to create and advance the artistic and technological advancements of the world, he practically begs for us to, "above all things, [...] be original." He reasons that we have a culture and a religious history that is so unique and innately different that it should be easy for us to create works of art that are, if nothing else, unique from anything else in the world.
Considering the time of Whitney's address (1888) and the release of Nephi Anderson's Added Upon (1898), I can't help but imagine Anderson hearing this plea, running home to his favorite writing spot, and putting pen (quill?) to paper (parchment?). His ambitious portrayal of the Plan of Salvation in its whole--including the parts wholly unique and original to our religion--is practically a direct response to Whitney's statement.
The question that must then follow this, is "was he successful?"
Successful in being original? Absolutely.
Successful in being good? Not quite.
I understand that this book comes from a time early in the church's history when fascination with our doctrine must have (understandably) been incredible. But to now read a book where we get to follow two characters through the War in Heaven and then find each other (as "soulmates" nonetheless--something of a dirty word among LDS singles nowadays) on Earth and then into the postmortal realm, gives me the same icky feeling that I get when I see a painting of people in robes standing around in what's supposed to be the pre-Earth life, or seeing old Church videos depicting heaven.
We have absolutely no clue what either of those places would be like. And until we do, any attempt to depict it will fall miserably, unsettlingly short.
Considering the time of Whitney's address (1888) and the release of Nephi Anderson's Added Upon (1898), I can't help but imagine Anderson hearing this plea, running home to his favorite writing spot, and putting pen (quill?) to paper (parchment?). His ambitious portrayal of the Plan of Salvation in its whole--including the parts wholly unique and original to our religion--is practically a direct response to Whitney's statement.The question that must then follow this, is "was he successful?"
Successful in being original? Absolutely.
Successful in being good? Not quite.
I understand that this book comes from a time early in the church's history when fascination with our doctrine must have (understandably) been incredible. But to now read a book where we get to follow two characters through the War in Heaven and then find each other (as "soulmates" nonetheless--something of a dirty word among LDS singles nowadays) on Earth and then into the postmortal realm, gives me the same icky feeling that I get when I see a painting of people in robes standing around in what's supposed to be the pre-Earth life, or seeing old Church videos depicting heaven.
We have absolutely no clue what either of those places would be like. And until we do, any attempt to depict it will fall miserably, unsettlingly short.
I would have to agree with you that anyone who strives to depict heaven will fall short but that doesn't mean we shouldn't stretch our minds and try. I have thought a lot about his depiction of heaven and the resurrection and have begin thinking for myself how it might be. Maybe if we do think and pray about it we can receive inspiration and come up with an answer.
ReplyDeleteYou're right, we cannot know what the pre-earth life looks like, nor what the life hereafter will look like. I think the only people lucky enough to get glimpses of that have been the apostles and prophets throughout the ages. There are a few beautiful descriptions in the scriptures or in books written by the brethren, but I think it is save to say that it is a place of beauty, a place of community, a place of joy. I think seeing artwork and portrayals of it may fall short, but it could give us the hope to strive for such a world. Personally, I believe that without artwork, without some books to describe heaven and the hereafter, we won't have much hope or much of something to look forward to. It may be incomplete, but it's something to strive for.
ReplyDeleteI would think that, even though we might fall short, trying to depict these places with our imaginations is okay. Obviously, we need to remember that we have no idea what these places look like, but it can help to have an idea of what these places look like. This way, I think, we can have these places in mind as our eternal goals. For me, it's harder to do this if I don't have something I can think of or imagine.
ReplyDelete