MorningStar Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 This isn't something that would stand out to me.
canard78 Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 For those less educated among us (read: me), please can you explain why you think this is so significant. I appreciate that you've written a book about how the crucifix has become a taboo in mormonism (especially as either a necklace or in/on a church), but why would it be significant that a child's magazine has a boy thinking about Christ's death and imagining the cross while doing so. There are many references to the cross in our culture. Many of the hymns talk about it:https://www.lds.org/music/library/hymns/upon-the-cross-of-calvary?lang=eng I'm just not sure why you think it's so significant to have a cross in The Friend.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 Thoughts?Cool, maybe the day will come when it is not as you wrote a "Mormon Taboo".
mfbukowski Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 Thoughts?Hey- I'm with you and have no problem with LDS crosses, and again want to point out that there are crosses clearly displayed on the exterior of the LA temple on one door, and in other places as "negative space" in designs comprised of successive square shapes, and yes I am aware of all the history. But a thread based on an Easter illustration showing crosses? Hope it sells some books for you ! 1
Mike Reed Posted March 20, 2014 Author Posted March 20, 2014 (edited) It could easily be regarded as a depiction of the aftermath of the crucifixion. That the crosses are being "glorified" is your own interpretation.It is a common motif for the cross to be portrayed with the sun behind/rays extending out from it. Doesn't merely express the dark and gloomy moment of the crucifixion that is more common in LDS art. Edited March 20, 2014 by Mike Reed
mfbukowski Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 (edited) Your book looks interesting, Mike. I've never really been intellectually persuaded by the reasons Mormons have given me why they don't use crosses -- it has always appeared to be more cultural than doctrinal/theological. I can understand not using a crucifix, maybe because so many protestants don't. I like all the symbolism surrounding the crucifix. Not only does it denote the moment of the atonement (yes, I know we differ on this), but it also reminds me that I have to pick up MY cross and I have to be willing to be "crucified," that I have to allow my ego to die in order to attain salvation. Is this something new -- to have crosses depicted in the children's magazine? Or is it just unusual?It's no biggie as far as I am concerned. To me this is one of the weirdnesses of Mormonism. Definitely approach-avoidance conflict time. It largely derives from some old culturally Protestant beliefs that slipped from pioneer culture into the church. I think images of Moroni are cooler and more distinctive anyway, but I have no problem if there were crosses on chapels. It would definitely help public relations immeasurably, but we have never been too concerned with that until recently. It will be interesting to see how all this shakes out. But it really has no theological basis. I hope Mike sells a lot of books to help the cause Edited March 20, 2014 by mfbukowski 1
MiserereNobis Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 It is a common motif for the cross to be portrayed with the sun behind/rays extending out from it. Doesn't merely express the dark moment of the crucifixion, which is much more common in LDS art. We Catholics prefer our crucifixes, though you'll find some strange ones in modern Catholic churches that try to move away from the traditional depiction of Christ's death and more towards the protestant view (like the one you show here). Here is an example:
cinepro Posted March 21, 2014 Posted March 21, 2014 None of these are empty crosses, let alone glorified with the sun's rays. I would be more worried if the crosses weren't empty, it being the Friend and all.
Mike Reed Posted March 21, 2014 Author Posted March 21, 2014 (edited) I would be more worried if the crosses weren't empty, it being the Friend and all.Like the crucifixion scenes depicted on pages 3 and 35 of the same magazine?http://media.ldscdn.org/pdf/magazines/friend-april-2014/2014-04-00-friend-eng.pdf Edited March 21, 2014 by Mike Reed
Mike Reed Posted March 21, 2014 Author Posted March 21, 2014 It will be interesting to see how all this shakes out. But it really has no theological basis. I hope Mike sells a lot of books to help the cause
ERayR Posted March 21, 2014 Posted March 21, 2014 Thoughts? My oh my I really must cancel my grand children's subscriptions. Seriously though why is this a problem?
Mike Reed Posted March 21, 2014 Author Posted March 21, 2014 My oh my I really must cancel my grand children's subscriptions. Seriously though why is this a problem? Nobody said this was a problem. 2
Calm Posted March 21, 2014 Posted March 21, 2014 It isn't a depiction of the crucifixion. Look a little closer. The crosses are empty, and they are sillouetted against a sun with rays extending outward.It is a children's story. I am not surprised the illustrator might be a bit squeamish about depicting an actual crucifixion.
Calm Posted March 21, 2014 Posted March 21, 2014 Like the crucifixion scenes depicted on pages 3 and 35 of the same magazine?http://media.ldscdn.org/pdf/magazines/friend-april-2014/2014-04-00-friend-eng.pdfSo one artist/compiler is comfortable with it and another, who is aiming for a younger audience if style is any indication, isn't quite so comfortable. Why would that be remarkable? The Friend has always carried a range of stories and art for different ages.
Mike Reed Posted March 21, 2014 Author Posted March 21, 2014 (edited) It is a children's story. I am not surprised the illustrator might be a bit squeamish about depicting an actual crucifixion.The crosses are silhouetted against the sun and extending rays, and the young boy smiles. You think the boy is depicted by the artist as smiling at Jesus' crucifixion, huh? Edited March 21, 2014 by Mike Reed
Calm Posted March 21, 2014 Posted March 21, 2014 (edited) No, I think you are overthinking it all. I haven't found Friend artists to be all that profound in their depictions. Edited March 21, 2014 by calmoriah 1
guerreiro9 Posted March 21, 2014 Posted March 21, 2014 Thoughts?Someone has an obsession.-guerreiro9 1
Mike Reed Posted March 21, 2014 Author Posted March 21, 2014 (edited) No, I think you are overthinking it all. I haven't found Friend artists to be all that profound in their depictions.What I am suggesting is hardly profound at all. It is really quite simple. Edited March 21, 2014 by Mike Reed
Tacenda Posted March 21, 2014 Posted March 21, 2014 What I am suggesting is hardly profound at all. It is really quite simple.Mike I keep waiting to hear exactly what it is that is so simple. Is it that the boy shouldn't be smiling but sad. I'm thinking the artist is portraying the living Christ while at the same time showing that Jesus died on the cross. You mention the sun shining, is that possibly showing that he has risen and it's a new day/life? On the other page where the artist shows Jesus on the cross, I was thrilled. Usually it's the Garden of Gethsemene that is shown instead. 1
Mike Reed Posted March 21, 2014 Author Posted March 21, 2014 (edited) Mike I keep waiting to hear exactly what it is that is so simple. Is it that the boy shouldn't be smiling but sad. I'm thinking the artist is portraying the living Christ while at the same time showing that Jesus died on the cross. You mention the sun shining, is that possibly showing that he has risen and it's a new day/life? On the other page where the artist shows Jesus on the cross, I was thrilled. Usually it's the Garden of Gethsemene that is shown instead.If this is a mere depiction of a crucifixion scene (as some here have asserted)... yes he should be sad. But if the crosses represent more than that, such as you suggest... then these would indeed be symbols of the cross (not mere depictions). Symbols are symbols when they communicate meaning beyond the thing depicted. Edited March 21, 2014 by Mike Reed
Bernard Gui Posted March 21, 2014 Posted March 21, 2014 (edited) Well, if The Friend is going to be publishing cross art, then I'm convinced it's time to go buy some cross bling. I'll be flashing these boots in sacrament meeting. They are so cute! http://www.ebay.com/itm/NEW-ANGEL-WINGS-CROSS-BLING-RHINESTONE-BLACK-BROWN-LADIES-WESTERN-BOOTS-8-9-10-/161212034064 Edited March 21, 2014 by Bernard Gui
krampus Posted March 21, 2014 Posted March 21, 2014 some of us fundies in Utah were taught that in sunday school and seminary that crosses were evil. Our leaders would ask us, "would you where an emblum of a gun, or a guillotine around your neck?
mormonnewb Posted March 21, 2014 Posted March 21, 2014 Well, if The Friend is going to be publishing cross art, then I'm convinced it's time to go buy some cross bling. I'll be flashing these boots in sacrament meeting. They are so cute! http://www.ebay.com/itm/NEW-ANGEL-WINGS-CROSS-BLING-RHINESTONE-BLACK-BROWN-LADIES-WESTERN-BOOTS-8-9-10-/161212034064Don't you dare outbid me for those boots!
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted March 21, 2014 Posted March 21, 2014 If this is a mere depiction of a crucifixion scene (as some here have asserted)... yes he should be sad. But if the crosses represent more than that, such as you suggest... then these would indeed be symbols of the cross (not mere depictions). Symbols are symbols when they communicate meaning beyond the thing depicted. Yes, Mike they do seem to be symbols used in the friend.
Bernard Gui Posted March 21, 2014 Posted March 21, 2014 Yes, Mike they do seem to be symbols used in the friend.Oh, mola, why did you have to go and spoil it?
Recommended Posts