MiserereNobis Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 7 hours ago, mfbukowski said: You did that just to tempt me, didn't you? 😜😉 Well..... did you go look?
Bernard Gui Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, Tacenda said: Sad, IMO. As a child, during the Sacrament I would count ceiling tiles or wall tiles, can't remember or something close to that to focus. It boggles my mind that we can't have something. I'll bet there isn't another church like that besides the Scientologists, or non Christian that doesn't have something Jesus related in their chapels. What's to prevent you from having your favorite portrait of Christ in your purse, pocket, scriptures, iPhone, etc. to contemplate whenever you like? I have the Rembrandt portrait on my desk and in my living room. I don't pray to them, but I love his depiction of strength, innocence, and compassion Edited May 13, 2020 by Bernard Gui 2
Bernard Gui Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 27 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: Well..... did you go look? Made you look! 2
Calm Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 58 minutes ago, Tacenda said: I love the diversity, you mean there aren't more depictions? There are two people in that frame, one black, one white....not one or two black or Latino or Asian among many, often majority white. I think that makes a significant emotional difference. I believe this is the only one with such a balance. I really like it being one child and an adult Christ as well rather than two adults. Both create a different dynamic than more typical constructs. Think of how you would feel if you walked into a Sacrament meeting and found out in the future there would be the bishop and the RS President only on the stand as opposed to finding the RS Pres up there with the full Bishopric, speakers, etc. It just has a different impact imo even if technically the results (how authority is structured in a ward) are identical.
Calm Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 10 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: What's to prevent you from having your favorite portrait of Christ in your purse, pocket, scriptures, iPhone, etc. to contemplate whenever you like? I have the Rembrandt portrait on my desk and in my living room. I don't pray to them, but I love his depiction of strength, innocence, and compassion I spent a lot of time reading hymns during SM. It is why I fell in love with All Creatures of Our God and King since we rarely sang it. I wrote a couple of more verses to it as a teen. I read Old Testament a lot as well. I think that is when it became my favorite scripture, the stories were easier to imagine and I thought I saw some snark from the writers as well as God from time to time. 2
Tacenda Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 (edited) 40 minutes ago, Calm said: There are two people in that frame, one black, one white....not one or two black or Latino or Asian among many, often majority white. I think that makes a significant emotional difference. I believe this is the only one with such a balance. I really like it being one child and an adult Christ as well rather than two adults. Both create a different dynamic than more typical constructs. Think of how you would feel if you walked into a Sacrament meeting and found out in the future there would be the bishop and the RS President only on the stand as opposed to finding the RS Pres up there with the full Bishopric, speakers, etc. It just has a different impact imo even if technically the results (how authority is structured in a ward) are identical. Whatever, I guess we need one on one depictions that would be more closely like the Saviour. Here's why I think it important to portray Jesus as he most likely was. ETA: Here is a better link. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35120965 Edited May 14, 2020 by Tacenda
Calm Posted May 14, 2020 Posted May 14, 2020 (edited) I have no issue with each culture portraying Christ as they see him, the only problem with that I see is if one culture dictates it to others. There are things I really, really love about the Church being centralized so it is consistent wherever you go and other things I dislike. One is artwork is dominated by the European/American style. I am hoping after we manage to have a more truly global hymn book that we will start working on opening up to other cultures’ depictions as part of our standard options. Edited May 14, 2020 by Calm 2
mfbukowski Posted May 14, 2020 Posted May 14, 2020 1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said: Well..... did you go look? Well, I tried, but there was too much drool on my phone screen to see much.😜😥 1
theplains Posted May 14, 2020 Posted May 14, 2020 On 5/11/2020 at 9:59 PM, Scott Lloyd said: It’s clear that President Nelson is not backing away from the renewed and sustained emphasis on the centrality of Christ in the Church, this despite some grumbling, murmuring and lampooning that has transpired over some statements made and measures that have been mandated. Why would he need to do this? Is it because Christ's position has taken a back seat in the LDS Church and President Nelson feels the need to have a renewed (restored?) emphasis on His centrality?
Tacenda Posted May 14, 2020 Posted May 14, 2020 (edited) 41 minutes ago, theplains said: Why would he need to do this? Is it because Christ's position has taken a back seat in the LDS Church and President Nelson feels the need to have a renewed (restored?) emphasis on His centrality? I wonder the same thing. It's like we have to convince people that we are Christian, or we believe in Christ. Edited May 14, 2020 by Tacenda
Calm Posted May 14, 2020 Posted May 14, 2020 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Tacenda said: like we have to convince people that we are Christian, or we believe in Christ. When people hear others say we are not Christian, they assume that means we don't believe in Christ. I had an Orthodox Priest wander into the church related bookstore I worked at in Calgary, back in 2002 iirc and asked if we carried a certain Bible. I told him it was a store mainly for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, also known as Mormons and then after looking at all the pictures of Christ on our walls, asked "you believe in Christ?" And sounded very mystified that we did. Outside of the US, from my own experience as well as what I have been told, we much more often have to inform others we are Christians just in the basic sense and not arguing over theology and whether or not we worship the 'right Jesus'. Edited May 14, 2020 by Calm 4
Scott Lloyd Posted May 14, 2020 Posted May 14, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, theplains said: Why would he need to do this? Is it because Christ's position has taken a back seat in the LDS Church and President Nelson feels the need to have a renewed (restored?) emphasis on His centrality? I think it’s because too many people in these latter days try to spread the dis-information that we are not believers in Christ and, for too long, we as believers have fallen into their trap by referring to the Savior’s Church by names other than His. President Nelson is trying to get us to follow the commandment Christ Himself gave as recorded in scripture. Not to play “gotcha,” but look at your own post. In contravention of what President Nelson has asked, you chose to call it “the LDS Church” instead of referring to it by the name of Christ. Admittedly, I don’t know your background. Maybe you are not a member of the Church, in which case, I could give you a pass. But there are too many professed believers who seem determined to ignore President Nelson on this matter, although he has been more than clear. Edited May 14, 2020 by Scott Lloyd 1
bluebell Posted May 14, 2020 Author Posted May 14, 2020 13 hours ago, Tacenda said: I wonder the same thing. It's like we have to convince people that we are Christian, or we believe in Christ. Haven't you argued in other posts that the church needs to put more emphasis on the Savior? And now in this post you imply that when the church puts more emphasis on the Savior it's because we have to 'convince' people we are Christian. It seems like you've created a 'damned if they do and damned if they don't, situation. 4
bluebell Posted May 14, 2020 Author Posted May 14, 2020 14 hours ago, theplains said: Why would he need to do this? Is it because Christ's position has taken a back seat in the LDS Church and President Nelson feels the need to have a renewed (restored?) emphasis on His centrality? I think he did it because we are, in general, a pragmatic church and sometimes pragmatism can lead to too much of a focus on practicality, with weightier issues being pushed to the side accidentally. Basically, we are often a church of Marthas and sometimes we need to be reminded to be more like Mary. I see Pres. Nelson's reminder on the importance of focusing on the Savior in the foyer instead of blood drives, stake conferences, and firesides as doing just that. 2
Tacenda Posted May 14, 2020 Posted May 14, 2020 1 hour ago, bluebell said: Haven't you argued in other posts that the church needs to put more emphasis on the Savior? And now in this post you imply that when the church puts more emphasis on the Savior it's because we have to 'convince' people we are Christian. It seems like you've created a 'damned if they do and damned if they don't, situation. Well maybe if they had, we wouldn't be trying so hard now. Or I'm wrong. I guess it's our theology perhaps as well. I really don't know where we got off the rails. Maybe they believe we're like the Muslims. They believe in a man named Jesus but that he was a prophet.
HappyJackWagon Posted May 14, 2020 Posted May 14, 2020 22 hours ago, bluebell said: More variety would be nice. I don't think the approved pictures are correlation (or at least, that correlation isn't the only reason) as much as they are a sign that our leadership wants to make sure exuberant members don't put up art work that isn't supported by our doctrine or isn't recognizable on who it's supposed to be to the average person off the street. For example, my wonderful friend put up some pieces that she would love to see used in our buildings instead of the approved pieces, a couple of them so abstract (beautiful, but definitely out there) that most people would not know, looking at them, that they were supposed to be a representation of the Savior. That doesn't mean that there isn't room for more options that are more varied and fit more local cultures (hopefully we'll get those options eventually), but I think it does mean that the church can't just give free reign to local leaders and hope for the best. In my opinion, local leaders are trusted with decisions of much greater importance than what art to display. If General leaders don't feel they can trust local leaders with the more trivial things like art, then I think that is a much bigger problem. 1
juliann Posted May 14, 2020 Posted May 14, 2020 On 5/12/2020 at 3:45 PM, Ginger Snaps said: That article was an April Fools day joke. But I’d love to see that stuff replaced. My daughter ran into a corner in a dark church hallway and had a set of “stripes” on the left hand side of her face for quite a while. Church member Brena Huffman and her five-year-old daughter, Brykynlay...... 2
juliann Posted May 14, 2020 Posted May 14, 2020 2 hours ago, bluebell said: Haven't you argued in other posts that the church needs to put more emphasis on the Savior? And now in this post you imply that when the church puts more emphasis on the Savior it's because we have to 'convince' people we are Christian. It seems like you've created a 'damned if they do and damned if they don't, situation. Yes, this will be an uncomfortable one for the critics.... 1
Maureen Posted May 14, 2020 Posted May 14, 2020 12 minutes ago, juliann said: Church member Brena Huffman and her five-year-old daughter, Brykynlay...... Only in Utah can people come up with the craziest names and spellings for their children. It's as if they forget these babies will eventually grow up to become adults. I'm pretty sure there's at least one Brykynlay out there in Utah somewhere. The article is funny, but there are poor children out there with awful names. 😃 https://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/25-of-the-most-unique-names-in-utah-valley/collection_f0d3f110-c84f-565d-af2c-bcee5ee2940d.html M. 1
bluebell Posted May 14, 2020 Author Posted May 14, 2020 1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said: In my opinion, local leaders are trusted with decisions of much greater importance than what art to display. If General leaders don't feel they can trust local leaders with the more trivial things like art, then I think that is a much bigger problem. So what you're saying is that if general leaders can't trust local leaders personal opinions on art, then they shouldn't trust them to be able to use listen to the Spirit as they administer and lead while following the handbook? I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that. 2
bluebell Posted May 14, 2020 Author Posted May 14, 2020 2 hours ago, Tacenda said: Well maybe if they had, we wouldn't be trying so hard now. Or I'm wrong. I guess it's our theology perhaps as well. I really don't know where we got off the rails. Maybe they believe we're like the Muslims. They believe in a man named Jesus but that he was a prophet. Some people become very invested in being critical of the church and they do sometimes get to a point where they always see the critical side of everything that the church does, regardless and irrelevant of what it is. 1
HappyJackWagon Posted May 14, 2020 Posted May 14, 2020 33 minutes ago, bluebell said: So what you're saying is that if general leaders can't trust local leaders personal opinions on art, then they shouldn't trust them to be able to use listen to the Spirit as they administer and lead while following the handbook? I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that. You had previously suggested that leaders couldn't trust local leaders to decide on art, to the extent that they can only choose from 27 pictures to hang. I'm suggesting that the general leaders may not have a very high level of confidence in local leadership if they can't be trusted with such a basic thing. Local leaders make much bigger decisions on a regular basis which impact the souls of many members. Those are major decisions. Art isn't. So either the general leaders are being petty or just really like their 27 pictures, or they really don't have as much confidence in local leaders as we might think/hope/expect.
alter idem Posted May 14, 2020 Posted May 14, 2020 3 hours ago, Tacenda said: Well maybe if they had, we wouldn't be trying so hard now. Or I'm wrong. I guess it's our theology perhaps as well. I really don't know where we got off the rails. Maybe they believe we're like the Muslims. They believe in a man named Jesus but that he was a prophet. I think one reason may be that the pendulum went too far a few decades back when the church and it's members were trying to distinguish themselves from other churches. I remember hearing a man one time (this was when I was much younger) say, 'I'm not Christian, I'm Mormon' I think this opinion was much more prevalent 40 years ago, and his meaning was that he wasn't a member of a protestant church, which he equated as being 'Christian'. But, what impression was he giving person he said this to? The wrong impression. That's the problem, I see. Our theology is not the problem, if you look at The Book of Mormon, the Cornerstone of our religion, a belief in Jesus Christ dominates it. Even the Doctrine and Covenants is full of references to Christ, as well as the Pearl of Great Price. There's no question we worship him as the Son of God, like other Christians. Everything in our theology centers on the Savior Jesus Christ and his divine mission in the plan of Salvation. I think some churches look technically at the title 'Christian' as being a religion that accepts the Nicean creed, and if a religion does not accept it, they can't call themselves Christian. There's nothing we can do to change that mindset, we aren't going to accept the Nicean creed just so we can be accepted. 3
theplains Posted May 14, 2020 Posted May 14, 2020 18 hours ago, Tacenda said: I wonder the same thing. It's like we have to convince people that we are Christian, or we believe in Christ. Jehovah's Witnesses also claim to believe in Christ but their understanding of his nature is wrong - since he is said to be Michael the Archangel. Muslims believe in Christ - but to them he is a prophet. Others believe and worship Heavenly Father - but to them, he is a man who became a God.
theplains Posted May 14, 2020 Posted May 14, 2020 17 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I think it’s because too many people in these latter days try to spread the dis-information that we are not believers in Christ and, for too long, we as believers have fallen into their trap by referring to the Savior’s Church by names other than His. President Nelson is trying to get us to follow the commandment Christ Himself gave as recorded in scripture. Admittedly, I don’t know your background. Maybe you are not a member of the Church, in which case, I could give you a pass. But there are too many professed believers who seem determined to ignore President Nelson on this matter, although he has been more than clear. My background is not LDS, but I have read some of the church teaching manuals. There are many people who claim they believe in Christ but their understanding of his nature is wrong.
Recommended Posts