Hamba Tuhan Posted May 19, 2012 Posted May 19, 2012 I find it interesting that the church felt the need to "cover" the immodest female angels...The angels are males.
Log Posted May 19, 2012 Posted May 19, 2012 The angels are males.ARE THEY???? This thread just keeps on giving!
volgadon Posted May 19, 2012 Posted May 19, 2012 ARE THEY???? This thread just keeps on giving!Traditional Christian art frequently imbued angels with feminine features in order to emphasise their otherworldly qualities. Angels were sexless. Here is the archetypal Eastern Orthodox depiction of the Trinity.
Log Posted May 19, 2012 Posted May 19, 2012 (edited) Traditional Christian art frequently imbued angels with feminine features in order to emphasise their otherworldly qualities. Angels were sexless.I have to admit that is a little disturbing to my presentist feelings. But, it is true, we don't often see manly angels or manly Christs depicted (and no, beards alone do not suffice!).Which just goes to show everyone knows women are more spiritual (otherworldly) than men! Edited May 19, 2012 by Log
Yirgacheffe Posted May 19, 2012 Posted May 19, 2012 Why did the Ensign have to resort to altering a non-members artwork? Why couldn't they commission appropriate artwork or why is there no already done acceptable artwork depicting the Resurrection?
Log Posted May 19, 2012 Posted May 19, 2012 (edited) Why did the Ensign have to resort to altering a non-members artwork? Why couldn't they commission appropriate artwork or why is there no already done acceptable artwork depicting the Resurrection?Correct me if I am wrong - having not read every post in this 12 page monstrosity - but unless I am mistaken, it has not been established that the Ensign did, in fact, resort to altering a non-member's artwork. The artist's estate may very well have provided an altered print, or the artist himself may have made variant versions of his painting.Do you have any additional light or knowledge upon this point to bestow upon us ignorant knaves? Edited May 19, 2012 by Log
volgadon Posted May 19, 2012 Posted May 19, 2012 The ball is in your court if you want to show that Bloch or Bloch's estate removed the wings. The shoulders aren't as big a deal.
Log Posted May 19, 2012 Posted May 19, 2012 (edited) The way I see it, the burden of proof rests upon the accusers of the Ensign. Y'all are the ones makin' the claim. Edited May 19, 2012 by Log
selek1 Posted May 19, 2012 Posted May 19, 2012 The way I see it, the burden of proof rests upon the accusers of the Ensign. Y'all are the ones makin' the claim.And a tedious, tendentious claim it is, fraught with innuendo, unproven assertion, and "reading-between-the-lines" ad hominem. 1
Log Posted May 19, 2012 Posted May 19, 2012 And a tedious, tendentious claim it is, fraught with innuendo, unproven assertion, and "reading-between-the-lines" ad hominem.Well, how else can one be made an offender for a sleeve?
selek1 Posted May 19, 2012 Posted May 19, 2012 Well, how else can one be made an offender for a sleeve?Ummm....get a half-time show with Janet Jackson?
Bernard Gui Posted May 19, 2012 Posted May 19, 2012 The Ensign's art director winged this decision. It makes no censor it might have just been anhonest mistake What else might he have had up his sleeves? Whatever the truth may be, he alone will have to shoulder the burden. Bare with me here...if he doesn't fess up, he's clearlya Bloch head. Bernard 3
Robert F. Smith Posted May 19, 2012 Posted May 19, 2012 I heard the same story except it was President Kimball and it was multiple girls. And he also said something different.So, I used to believe that story, but just this very second, I am inclined to wonder if it is unsupported apocrypha! You could be right, although you are probably a youngster and are seeing the same story applied to a later pres. These types of stories with much the same lesson are also told of Buddhist monks, one of whom lives his religion internally, the other only outwardly.
Bernard Gui Posted May 19, 2012 Posted May 19, 2012 (edited) You could be right, although you are probably a youngster and are seeing the same story applied to a later pres. These types of stories with much the same lesson are also told of Buddhist monks, one of whom lives his religion internally, the other only outwardly.Two monks stood by a river. A beautiful girl came to cross the river. One monk carried her across the river and set her down onthe other side. As they continued their journey, his companion upbraided him for touching the girl. "But, my friend," he replied. "I lefther on the bank of the river. It is you who still carries her."True or not, using the DOMK story to justify immodesty seems a bit odd.Bernard Edited May 19, 2012 by Bernard Gui
Robert F. Smith Posted May 19, 2012 Posted May 19, 2012 Two monks stood by a river. A beautiful girl came to cross the river. One monk carried her across the river and set her down onthe other side. As they continued their journey, his companion upbraided him for touching the girl. "But, my friend," he replied. "I lefther on the bank of the river. It is you who are still carrying her."True or not, using the DOMK story to justify immodesty seems a bit odd.BernardI love that monks' tale.I'm not trying to justify immodesty (which is usually culture specific and relative in any case), but I am suggesting that both beauty and immodesty are often in the eye (or mind's eye) of the beholder.Frequently it is nothing more than a misplaced set of values, as when Jesus' disciples objected to little children taking up their very important master's time, or when a woman began to use expensive ointment on the master's feet. Judas understood only too late how warped his priorities were, hanging himself in shame.
volgadon Posted May 19, 2012 Posted May 19, 2012 The way I see it, the burden of proof rests upon the accusers of the Ensign. Y'all are the ones makin' the claim.Really? If a very conspicuous, important part of Bloch's work that just happens to differ from LDS teachings is removed, then we ought to suspect his estate?
Brother Pete Posted May 19, 2012 Posted May 19, 2012 This is not censorship, this is correction. We know that angels do not have wings, and we know that modesty is a standard the Lord expects. Thus, the pictures have not been censored, the pictures have been corrected to comply with the Lord's wishes.Everlasting,Brother Pete
Log Posted May 19, 2012 Posted May 19, 2012 Really? Yes, really - the burden of proof belongs to you and your ideological mates in this thread. Just to help you out, I poked around at ensign.lds.org and found the following.Ensign Editorial Office: Phone: 800.453.3860, ext. 22950 or 801.240.2950 (US numbers)Remember: mp3 or it didn't happen.
volgadon Posted May 19, 2012 Posted May 19, 2012 If a very conspicuous, important part of Bloch's work that just happens to differ from LDS teachings is removed, then we ought to suspect his estate?
Log Posted May 19, 2012 Posted May 19, 2012 If a very conspicuous, important part of Bloch's work that just happens to differ from LDS teachings is removed, then we ought to suspect his estate?You may suspect ("accuse," in context) whomever you wish for whatever reasons you wish whenever you wish - that's your natural right, and I certainly prescribe no normative condition for accusing others in this petty matter.I personally prefer to not make a man an offender for a sleeve, but, as has been said elsewhere, de gustibus non est disputandum.
wenglund Posted May 19, 2012 Posted May 19, 2012 If a very conspicuous, important part of Bloch's work that just happens to differ from LDS teachings is removed, then we ought to suspect his estate?Youi are free to suspect whomever you wish. However, the burden of proof for accusations logically rests with the accuser.Thanks, -Wade Englund-
volgadon Posted May 19, 2012 Posted May 19, 2012 Youi are free to suspect whomever you wish. However, the burden of proof for accusations logically rests with the accuser.Thanks, -Wade Englund-Thank you, as Log was the one accusing the artist's estate.
wenglund Posted May 19, 2012 Posted May 19, 2012 (edited) I am thinking back on all the movies I have seen that were based on books that I have read, and given some of the sentiments expressed in this thread about altering the original work, perhaps I should break out the sackcloth and ashes and begin weeping and wailing and gnashing my teeth. Thanks, -Wade Englund- Edited May 19, 2012 by wenglund
Log Posted May 19, 2012 Posted May 19, 2012 (edited) Thank you, as Log was the one accusing the artist's estate.Volgadon has hereby earned his place on my ignore list.That I point out that the Ensign has not been shown to have altered the artwork, and that alternative theories would also account for the artwork the Ensign published, does not reduce to an accusation against the artist's estate. Edited May 19, 2012 by Log
volgadon Posted May 19, 2012 Posted May 19, 2012 CFRPost #231. "The artist's estate may very well have provided an altered print, or the artist himself may have made variant versions of his painting."Now please go answer the CFR in the grove thread.
Recommended Posts