This is a quick thought but: what makes something cheesy? The first definition that comes up when you google it is this:

cheap, unpleasant, or blatantly inauthentic

Oxford says that it is:

not very good or original, and without style, in a way that is embarrassing but funny

I think that "not very good" is a not very good definition, Oxford. I also don't think that something has to be blatantly inauthentic to be cheesy either.

If I can give my own definition:

Cheesy

/ˈCHēzē/

When art or media is created to be representative of something grand but fails to fully capture the drama or gravity of the real thing.

It is the falling short that feels cheesy and awkward. The more dramatic the presentation aims to be the more potential there is to be cheesy should it fall short.

It is not that something cheesy is blatantly inauthentic, rather, I tried to be more authentic than possible.

A religious deterrent for many may be the plethora of cheesy representations of God. And how can they not be? How can art not fall short while trying to capture the divine? Maybe that is one of the reasons graven images are no-go. I also think that the religious individual must remember this when the representations of their faith fall short as they so often do, and they must choose to believe that the real thing exists.

Obviously, great religious art does exist, but in my opinion they are few and far between. Great religious art doesn't reach too far and humbly admits when it can't capture what is inherently unreachable. Maybe religious art's punch must be derived from simple human and emotional contexts rather than flashy and dramatic ones.

I take this as a divine reminder that the moral tenets of my faith also live in those small and simple spaces.

In short: The Chosen vs. The Book of Mormon videos

Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk

P.S: Thanks to Mary S. for thinking through this with me