Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 Normally Tonie is critical of the church. It is possible that she is not, this time, being critical.
The Nehor Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 I think this board puts more thought and concern into the Ensign's editorial choices about wings and sleeves then the entire magazine staff. 2
coolrok7 Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 (edited) It makes a difference in how it is presented JLH, the subject matter of the thread.The plates have something to do with an angel, correct? Edited March 3, 2015 by coolrok7
tonie Posted March 3, 2015 Author Posted March 3, 2015 So you have just proven the Church to be false/not true. Boy you have finally convinced me. Not. Petty nit picking. What did Brigham Young say about those who find offense when none is intended?
tonie Posted March 3, 2015 Author Posted March 3, 2015 If I remember correctly... there was no end of criticism leveled because apparently the wings were deleted for the Ensign artricle... so now a painting is left intact because of it's beauty, and again there is criticism... darned if we do, darned if we don't... GG Who is criticizing the current painting? I am aware of the past controversy, which made the current picture such a pleasant surprise when I visited lds.org. It is a very beautiful painting.
ERayR Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 What did Brigham Young say about those who find offense when none is intended? I never claimed I wasn't but then we all are at one time or another. If I erred then I apologize. Sorry.
Garden Girl Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 Who is criticizing the current painting? I am aware of the past controversy, which made the current picture such a pleasant surprise when I visited lds.org. It is a very beautiful painting. Sorry tonie... I guess I read more into your OP and #4 post than you intended... GG
The Nehor Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 Who is criticizing the current painting? I am aware of the past controversy, which made the current picture such a pleasant surprise when I visited lds.org. It is a very beautiful painting.I am. I think the brushwork is subpar.
SeekerB Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 Whether angels have wings or not, the paintings by Carl Heinrich Block are magnificent. And based on the powerful spirit I felt when I viewed them at BYU, the Lord likes them, too.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 (edited) Whether angels have wings or not, the paintings by Carl Heinrich Block are magnificent. And based on the powerful spirit I felt when I viewed them at BYU, the Lord likes them, too. Or the Lord likes the reverent, worshipful attitude you have when you view them. That could come about through many kinds of media. Edited to add: I think of "Saturday's Warrior," which emerged while I was on my mission and achieved its apex of popularity during my university days. A lot of people in the Church, especially adolescents, were highly moved by it and credited it with facilitating the formation or strengthening of their testimonies. Others members, who in every measurable way seemed believing and devout, found the play cheesy and embarrassing. Do we conclude from this that the latter group didn't have as great a spiritual sense as the former? Or that the spiritual edification experienced by the former group when viewing the play is somehow less than authentic? Or are gifts of the Spirit such that any number of things could be a catalyst to bring them on, and such stimuli might vary greatly from individual to individual? Edited March 4, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 1
Scott Lloyd Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 Don't listen to that part of you that doesn't like it. Art is all about symbolism ,as scripture is also. The wings make this painting in my opinion. Just as we take refuge under the saviors wings, this painting represents (in my mind) the savior taking refuge under the wings of an administering angel in his time of need. I think it is absolutely beautiful. Wings are used as symbolism all throughout scripture. OK, so a painting showing Joseph looking at the plates could represent (in the mind of the viewer) the concept that he translated the Nephite record by the gift and power of God. Does it have to correspond in precise detail with each and every historic account one might come up with? It could be symbolic, just like you say the wings on the angel are, right? So why do people have such a problem with it?
pogi Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 (edited) OK, so a painting showing Joseph looking at the plates could represent (in the mind of the viewer) the concept that he translated the Nephite record by the gift and power of God. Does it have to correspond in precise detail with each and every historic account one might come up with? It could be symbolic, just like you say the wings on the angel are, right? So why do people have such a problem with it? I am not personally offended by it, but I have never found a work of art depicting the translation that I really liked. Wether his head be in a hat, wearing a breast plate, or translating directly from the plates, I find them all to be lacking in artistic quality. I think people find such pictures as evidence that we have been "duped". That is why they have a problem with it. There are a few that depict him with his face in the hat. I don't think I would hang them on my wall though, simply because they are poor quality in my opinion. I am also not offended by depictions of Jesus as a caucasian, blond haired, blue-eyed, long haired man, when he probably had dark hair, dark eyes, and olive skin with shorter hair given this scripture: "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?" (l Corinthians 11:14). Maybe something more like this: http://www.rejesus.co.uk/site/module/faces_of_jesus/P9/ Edited March 4, 2015 by pogi
Scott Lloyd Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 (edited) I am not personally offended by it, but I have never found a work of art depicting the translation that I really liked. Wether his head be in a hat, wearing a breast plate, or translating directly from the plates, I find them all to be lacking in artistic quality. I think people find such pictures as evidence that we have been "duped". That is why they have a problem with it. Undoubtedly. Judging by the universal or near-universal way in which angels are and have been depicted for a long, long time, I'd say a lot of people have been duped into thinking angels literally have wings. Edited March 4, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 1
Pahoran Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 Ensign, December 2011, page 54. The Angels in the Ensign article do not have wings, the Angels in the original painting have wings. The paint is title The Resurrection, by Carl Heinrich Block I think it's Bloch. And, so? This is a discussion forum. The general idea is that we are supposed to discuss things. Merely announcing something isn't a discussion. So what is your point? Or don't you actually have one? Regards,Pahoran
Pahoran Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 I am not personally offended by it, but I have never found a work of art depicting the translation that I really liked. Wether his head be in a hat, wearing a breast plate, or translating directly from the plates, I find them all to be lacking in artistic quality. I think people find such pictures as evidence that we have been "duped". That is why they have a problem with it. There are a few that depict him with his face in the hat. I don't think I would hang them on my wall though, simply because they are poor quality in my opinion. I am also not offended by depictions of Jesus as a caucasian, blond haired, blue-eyed, long haired man, when he probably had dark hair, dark eyes, and olive skin with shorter hair given this scripture: "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?" (l Corinthians 11:14). Maybe something more like this: http://www.rejesus.co.uk/site/module/faces_of_jesus/P9/ Hi Pogi, That face was reconstructed from a Levantine skull that was dated to the 1st Century; the hair and beard are based on illustrations from the Dura Europos synagogue. IOW, that's not the face of Jesus. It's just the face of some guy who lived in the same area at around the same time. You can look at your neighbours and decide just how reliable a guide that face would be to how anyone other than the owner of the skull would have looked. Regards, Pahoran
KevinG Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 The face might not be Jesus, but the expression is probably about right in response to some of the questions the apostles asked him. 2
pogi Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 (edited) IOW, that's not the face of Jesus. It's just the face of some guy who lived in the same area at around the same time. I realize that. If they found and used the actual skull of Jesus, this would have been much bigger news. The idea wasn't to reconstruct the exact image of Jesus, but simply to suggest a more realistic idea of what he may have looked like. The article says, “Jewish heads are very different today to 2000 years ago, so the team looked for a Jewish skull from the period of Jesus.” Obviously there are going to be variations from skull to skull, but the overall shape is likely much closer than the 21st century european, white skinned, blond haired, blue eyed, long haired head that we all recognize today as Jesus. You are likely to see much greater variation in skull shape and facial structure today in America due to the fact that we are all a bunch of racial mutts than you would have seen in a purebred society 2000 years ago. Edited March 4, 2015 by pogi
williamsmith Posted March 5, 2015 Posted March 5, 2015 Ensign, December 2011, page 54. The Angels in the Ensign article do not have wings, the Angels in the original painting have wings. The paint is title The Resurrection, by Carl Heinrich Block It's called ART..... It's representative, not literal. A little variation doesn't hurt at all. It's no different than Joseph Smith Translating the Book of Mormon.He used nothing at all, he had the plates in front of him open/closed, he used a hat to look in a hat at a rock, he used the Urim & Thummim and on and on. The translation didn't occur with just "one" method as anti-mormons falsely state.Thus guess what? Artists in order to portray a "Translation" image, simply place the plates in front of Joseph to be tell the story in Art form.It's not lying, it's not misrepresentation, etc. It's called artistic "representation" that tells the point of the story in the easiest way possible, which IN FACT was one of the ways the book was translated.The same for an Angel with wings. It's representation of Angels being able to fly through the air.Yes, LDS art generally portray's angels without wings, with an aura around them etc., but wings are fine also to portray not just flying, but a feeling of being enveloped with love. Thus, much ado about nothing, just more anti-mormon misrepresentation.
rpn Posted March 5, 2015 Posted March 5, 2015 Thank heaves, the magazine department came to its senses: I guess they heard the outcry when they removed the wings from another painting. Artwork is artwork. We use other people's inspiring words: we can also use non-member artwork.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 5, 2015 Posted March 5, 2015 Thank heaves, the magazine department came to its senses: I guess they heard the outcry when they removed the wings from another painting. Artwork is artwork. We use other people's inspiring words: we can also use non-member artwork.The issue is not over using non-member art work. The Church has been doing that for a long time. Ever hear of Harry Anderson? A Seventh Day Adventist. In art, as with music, poetry and literature, doctrinal correctness is an appropriate consideration when it comes to using it in the Church. I get the inspirational symbolism of the wings on the angels, and I don't have a problem with it occasionally, as with the Carl Bloch works. I also understand past reservations about depictions of winged angels in art used in the Church. I would not like to see it become cliche or standard or routine in the Church as it has become in the outside world. Briefly stated, as Latter-day Saints, we know better.
Recommended Posts