Ensign Censorship

[volgadon]

Using the same standards of truth, honest and respect for the feelings of others, the Church did what was right. After all, the truth is, Angels do not have wings. The Church would be dishonest -- or at least neglectful -- if it did not remove them when it could and as for feelings of others -- who can know this sort of thing? It goes both ways. People get upset over rainbows in sprinklers and you certainly cannot win a "Feelings" argument on this issue.

Christ wasn't a Dane either, nor did he dress that way and the scenery looks nothing like Israel, is that dishonest?

[Darren10]

So young teenage girls with large chest sizes should not only wear one piece swim suits, but also a t-shirt in order to be "modest." I'm not trying to offend, but I've found your comments in this thread deeply concerning.

I said no such thing, did I? I said that *all* people need to ask themselves if wearing attire "X" would provoke immodest thoughts and / or desires in others. *If* the answer is 'yes" than it may be better not to wear attier "X". This standard is universal, not just ot those whose chest may extend beyond that of others. I do a lot of political blogging and many MANY times I would love to post let's say a You Tube video to make a point, make others laugh, or to point out something fascinating. But, manytimes there are side videos connected to my desired video. so, if I linked my desired video, it would consequentially also link immodest videos to the viewers. I therefore make a decision to not make the link in the first place. I conclude that whatever my good desire is, it is not worth exposing others to less than standard modesty. In fact, now that I developed this thought, isn't this what you are arguing in the first place with the paintng? That if it cannot be used without modifying the painting itself, the article's author should simply choose another painting? Likewise, why should a different standard be used in what swimwear the youth should wear? If it provokes immodesty, then wear something else. When they don't, they need to be told to do so. it's that simple.

[Darren10]

I'm not trying to offend, but I've found your comments in this thread deeply concerning.

LOL. You seem quick to leap to that conclusion.

[Darren10]

And, of course, no offense taken, sir.

[CASteinman]

Please do explain what you meant by this. "We may not merely disagree about the painting. We may even disagree about what constitutes "good" and "Faithful". ::: Shrug :: I don't know these people."

The statement that some people are "good" and "faithful" and therefore should be listened to, is a kind of ad hominem appeal (which most people see as a term for "insult" but which merely means that the argument relies upon some personal characteristics of the individual in question). And in that regard:

1. I do not know him

2. I do not know his standards

3. I do not know these people

4. I do not even know where he saw these people give their views (I really had not connected you and did not know who he was talking about).

5. I do not even know if HE actually knows these people

And so, he and I may disagree on what the standards of "good" and "faithful" are. I don't know but chances are fair to good. How then does an appeal to their "goodness" and "faithfulness" make this argument valid? But even if we were to agree on those standards of goodness and faithfulness (and we might), I don't actually know anyone he is talking about and so, even if it were a reasonable or comprehensible argument to me -- that their goodness and faithfulness should affect my opinion-- I do not know them and it is not the kind of thing I can rely on. Not only that, I have no reason to believe that HE actually knows them. So there is just no way that this argument holds any kind of water.

That is what I meant. Nothing more, nothing less.

And there is just absolutely no way on earth that I would think - as you obviously believed -- that mere disagreement about what constitutes "good" and "faithful" would make either of us "bad" or "faithless". The very idea of that is ridiculous to me and I shake my head. I don't live in such a black and white world. There are even issues where I don't believe that disagreement necessarily makes one or the other party wrong, -- much less bad.

Don't you agree that it comes across as you stating that you disagree that said members are good and faithful, especially as you don't know them?

No. I just would never think that my not knowing things about these people would be a way to draw a conclusion that they are one way or the other. That makes no sense to me at all. Well, I guess if you want to dig around and intuit meanings that I did not express but which you might want to read into the words, you might justify that sort of thing, But it does not come across that way to me. Maybe because I can't separate myself from what I know I meant.

What's more, I had absolutely ZERO insight that he was referring to anyone on this board -- I thought he was talking about some mysterious other people not around here -- people I had no clue about. So it really was not anything the way you are picturing it. I did not make it a personal insult... And I wish you had been able to refrain from that as well. I don't know why you are resistant to my request to remove your unkind words.

Edited May 17, 2012 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

Christ wasn't a Dane either, nor did he dress that way and the scenery looks nothing like Israel, is that dishonest?

Don't think the painting makes him look Danish, Don't know whether he dressed that way or not, and I don't know how Israel looked back then. I am unable to detect any dishonesty in any of those things.

And anyway, I may have a different view of what is dishonest. To me, it is not dishonest to be wrong or to make a mistake nor do I put what I call "white lies" into the category of dishonesty.

To me it is dishonest to knowingly misrepresent a material fact (especially something of importance or emphasis) for the purposes of defrauding someone or to betray them or to lead them astray.

I do not see any of that in this painting, even if your descriptive points were valid -- and I don't agree with those either.

===

Since it will almost certainly come up, I consider white lies to come into play in cases like this:

The wife asks "Do you think this dress makes me look fat from behind?" (Hint: You don't say "Dear, its not the dress")

You have some minor malady - physical or emotional. You meet a friend on the street and they say "Hi! How are you?" and you reply "Fine, thanks for asking".

Things like that. Such white lies have been studied by psychologists and they say that these things are normal in almost all cultures an that people who do not use them, fail to get along well in society. They are a kind of social lubricant. So I do not oppose them and do not class them with "dishonesty".

Edited May 17, 2012 by CASteinman

[The Nehor]

I do not think censorship means what you think it means.

[why me]

Reading the comments section from the blog, I see many people blaming the church. However, this decision was made by someone dealing with the Ensign. It may have been the editor, or a magazine designer. But I would have a difficult time seeing a GA having a say in this.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I'm curious to read other people's reactions to this act of censorship:

http://www.dovesands...mmodest-angels/

Do you find the matter troubling?

My concern with this act is twofold:

1. Acts such as this add to the perception that through its publications, the Church is presenting a rewritten/ sanitized version of its history. Whether real or imagined, this view has led many members to feel that the Church has deceived them.

2. I believe this act reflects a mindset that I've witnessed in many Church members regarding modesty for women. Sadly, in recent years, an over zealousness for female modesty has been the cause of several examples of well-meaning Church members dealing out emotional abuse to young women/girls deemed immodest in their apparel. I believe we really, really need to stop beating people up over this issue.

The Church has borrowed photos and paintings in the past with permission and taken bird wings of angelic beings because it is not Biblical or doctrinal. Our painting in many Temples of the second coming was borrowed and the “wings” removed. I also know of no female angels in all of scripture they are always men…methinks it must be a Priesthood thing. As far as the sleeves, I think they call that “You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel”.

[volgadon]

The Church has borrowed photos and paintings in the past with permission and taken bird wings of angelic beings because it is not Biblical or doctrinal. Our painting in many Temples of the second coming was borrowed and the “wings” removed. I also know of no female angels in all of scripture they are always men…methinks it must be a Priesthood thing. As far as the sleeves, I think they call that “You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel”.

I'm pretty sure though that I've seen pictures of winged angels in the Ensign before, such as Dore's Adam and Eve. The new lds.org format isn't helping me search, though.

[why me]

I'm pretty sure though that I've seen pictures of winged angels in the Ensign before, such as Dore's Adam and Eve. The new lds.org format isn't helping me search, though.

You could be right. But the problem is that people who want to be critical of the lds church will now have another reason to do it. The critic negative self-feeding is like the 'walking dead' feeding off human flesh, if one goes by the comment section of the blog.

[why me]

I find it was tastefully done as well.

In fact, the new version looks more holy and humble.

[Vance]

The natural man prefers the angels be totally naked. The spiritual man prefers the angels be modest so as to not distract from the spirit, or the message.

PS.

I like the changes that were made.

Edited May 17, 2012 by Vance

[stemelbow]

An unqualified, this is ridiculous.

[mapman]

If someone was worried that the picture might confuse people about angels and wings, they should have just put a note saying that angels don't literally have wings below the picture. That seems like less work and isn't weird like editing the painting. The covering of the shoulders of the angels is just silly.

Edited May 17, 2012 by mapman

[mapman]

The natural man prefers the angels be totally naked. The spiritual man prefers the angels be modest so as to not distract from the spirit, or the message.

PS.

I like the changes that were made.

I honestly cannot understand how the original painting could have been distracting to anyone.

[thesometimesaint]

I think that if someone is looking for an excuse to complain any will do.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I'm pretty sure though that I've seen pictures of winged angels in the Ensign before, such as Dore's Adam and Eve. The new lds.org format isn't helping me search, though.

Yes, but we cannot change a painting or picture without permission of whomever owns the copyright. When we can make them more "doctrinal" we do. But I never said they did not appear, they are just changed when we are allowed.

[cinepro]

Reading the comments section from the blog, I see many people blaming the church. However, this decision was made by someone dealing with the Ensign. It may have been the editor, or a magazine designer. But I would have a difficult time seeing a GA having a say in this.

Well, here's the masthead for the magazine:

The Ensign

A MAGAZINE OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS

CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS

March 2012 Volume 42 • Number 3

The First Presidency:

Thomas S. Monson, Henry B. Eyring,

Dieter F. Uchtdorf

The Quorum of the Twelve Apostles:

Boyd K. Packer, L. Tom Perry,

Russell M. Nelson, Dallin H. Oaks,

M. Russell Ballard, Richard G. Scott,

Robert D. Hales, Jeffrey R. Holland,

David A. Bednar, Quentin L. Cook,

D. Todd Christofferson, Neil L. Andersen

Editor: Paul B. Pieper

Advisers: Keith R. Edwards,

Christoffel Golden Jr., Per G. Malm

I doubt President Monson is picking typefaces for the "Around the Church" feature every month, but the fact that the FP and Q12 list their names at the top has to mean something.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I think that if someone is looking for an excuse to complain any will do.

"Any port in a storm".

[cinepro]

Yes, but we cannot change a painting or picture without permission of whomever owns the copyright. When we can make them more "doctrinal" we do. But I never said they did not appear, they are just changed when we are allowed.

That raises another interesting point, because this shows how picky the creators of the Ensign are, and the lengths they will go to get things "right", even over something as insignificant as paintings of winged angels and a few inches of bare arms on said angels.

And can someone please tell me why it's okay for Jesus to be bare chested? I just can't figure out why they had to fix the angels' bare upper arms but not Jesus' bare chest. It makes no sense.

Edited May 17, 2012 by cinepro

[why me]

Well, here's the masthead for the magazine:

I doubt President Monson is picking typefaces for the "Around the Church" feature every month, but the fact that the FP and Q12 list their names at the top has to mean something.

I can see some editor looking at the original, seeing a nice painting for the article but not liking the sleeveless angels and their wings. Then the editor has the painting touched up to his or her liking by an expert on the magazine and going with it. To me, it was a really stupid thing to do. But I wouldn't blame the entire church for it. The problem is that when someone makes a mistake or does something like this, it becomes a 'church' issue. It becomes a release for the critic pressure cooker to let loose some steam.

Having names in the magazine doesn't mean much outside of those who are working on the magazine. It is they who should get the blame.

[KevinG]

There are multiple issues being mixed here.

I think altering the art is silly. There are enough good LDS artists to paint cap sleeved angel pictures for the Ensign without altering existing masterworks to fit our sensibilities.

I think I would like the punch the next guy in the nose that has nothing better to do than look upon and comment on the amount of cleavage my daughters show. (I almost did this one time - fortunately a strongly worded letter to the Bishopric to keep his prurient and perverse butt away from my girls at YW was my better alternative).

I think we should refrain from taking offense to every little thing. Like altered art and the clothing on other people's children.

Or as Brigham would have said: MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS!

Edited May 17, 2012 by KevinG

[KevinG]

And can someone please tell me why it's okay for Jesus to be bare chested? I just can't figure out why they had to fix the angels' bare upper arms but not Jesus' bare chest. It makes no sense.

Many of those representations show the wounds in Christ's side - a doctrinally significant representation.

[ERayR]

My only concern is what is the the legal ramifications of altering someone's artwork without permission. Probably nothing sense we see the Mona Lisa and the backwoods husband and wife with the pitchfork altered all the time. It actually doesn't bother me though if your going to go through that much trouble just pick another painting.

Edited May 17, 2012 by ERayR