The Correlation Committee strikes again

[Jeff Lebowski]

Unless you think we are on the brink of a greased up 80 degree slope, I'm not sure I understand this statement. And if you think we are on the edge of said precipice, I'm not sure I understand how you would conclude that either.

I am not sure where we are. But I fail to understand what that has to with my statement. My point is quite simple.

[Indy Coug]

I am not sure where we are. But I fail to understand what that has to with my statement. My point is quite simple.

Well, I'm shrugging my shoulders. When I take a step back and look at the world around me and all of the issues that it faces, pruning off angel wings and sleeve lengthening is pretty damn meaningless.

[TripletDaddy]

Well, I'm shrugging my shoulders. When I take a step back and look at the world around me and all of the issues that it faces, pruning off angel wings and sleeve lengthening is pretty damn meaningless.

I think Indy Coug is agreeing with Jeff Lebowski that it is bizarre for the Church to expend the effort necessary to censor something so meaningless.

[FMCoug]

Aside from scale based on what they have control of, is there much difference between the correlation committees actions and this?

When the "Kingdom of God" is on the earth will the correlation committee be the Taliban?

[Indy Coug]

I think Indy Coug is agreeing with Jeff Lebowski that it is bizarre for the Church to expend the effort necessary to censor something so meaningless.

If you read my initial post in this thread, I think it's clear I do.

[Jacob]

But that's not really the point. I have no problem with promoting a doctrine of wingless angels. But it should be pretty easy to do so without desecrating a work of art in the process. That is disturbing on many levels. God help us if we get to the point where we all just shrug our shoulders at such nonsense.

I agree with you, except for how you have used the term "desecrating a work of art." What the correlation committee has done here is absurd and annoying. But they didn't desecrate any works of art. They photo-shopped a digital reproduction of a work of art in an act of total lameness.

[New Mexican Disaster]

Aside from scale based on what they have control of, is there much difference between the correlation committees actions and Buddhas of Bamiyan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia?

When the "Kingdom of God" is on the earth will the correlation committee be the Taliban?

Yes, of course there is. But this is an embarrassing and needless move.

[falafel]

Aside from scale based on what they have control of, is there much difference between the correlation committees actions and this?

When the "Kingdom of God" is on the earth will the correlation committee be the Taliban?

Wait, are you serious?

[creekster]

I am not sure where we are. But I fail to understand what that has to with my statement. My point is quite simple.

Are you offended that they 'desecrated' art or that they wasted the time to do so?

I think it is weird that they bothered to use an illustration that they felt needed to be revised. That said, I am not sure they 'desecrated' the art or the idea of the art. It is along the lines of 'cleanflix' from my POV. I assume they felt like they wanted to be doctrinally correct or consistent and didn't want to give anyone a chance to say "see, the official publication of the church depicts angels having WINGS!" Although, again, if that is the issue, then use a different painting/drawing.

[creekster]

Aside from scale based on what they have control of, is there much difference between the correlation committees actions and this?

When the "Kingdom of God" is on the earth will the correlation committee be the Taliban?

Yes, there is a huge difference. If a church employee had run amok in the danish church where Bloch's works are found and had scissored out the wings then you could make a small comparison. But the act at issue here is more like someone painting a mustache on a reproduction of the Mona Lisa: Stupid but not important.

[FMCoug]

Wait, are you serious?

Not really. But it's a similar mindset IMO.

Yes, there is a huge difference. If a church employee had run amok in the danish church where Bloch's works are found and had scissored out the wings then you could make a small comparison. But the act at issue here is more like someone painting a mustache on a reproduction of the Mona Lisa: Stupid but not important.

Maybe not important overall, but it should be important to us. It's the attitude of censorship that concerns me. As others have said, if you don't think the painting is doctrinally correct, use something different.

[creekster]

Maybe not important overall, but it should be important to us. It's the attitude of censorship that concerns me. As others have said, if you don't think the painting is doctrinally correct, use something different.

I am one of those others, btw.

It is not censorship. It is an alteratio0n, or even a parody, but nothing is being censored as this is not a book about Bloch's art or art in general. This is a book about church principles and they choose to illustrate those ideas with this altered version of the painting. It is a dumb approach, IMO, as there are many alternatives, but I think I understand the impetus. It was just a really bad idea. But the art it self is not censored, per se.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Are you offended that they 'desecrated' art or that they wasted the time to do so?

I think it is weird that they bothered to use an illustration that they felt needed to be revised. That said, I am not sure they 'desecrated' the art or the idea of the art. It is along the lines of 'cleanflix' from my POV. I assume they felt like they wanted to be doctrinally correct or consistent and didn't want to give anyone a chance to say "see, the official publication of the church depicts angels having WINGS!" Although, again, if that is the issue, then use a different painting/drawing.

I think it is a form of desecration. Sure, the original was unchanged (duh), but they fundamentally altered the painting as it was transmitted to the readership at large. It's a form of censorship. You are right, if they don't like what it shows, pick something else.

At the same time, I am embarrassed that someone felt that using a classic piece of art with angel wings and bare shoulders would be harmful to the membership at large. It's insulting. Treat us like adults, for heaven's sake.

[Moliere]

Are you offended that they 'desecrated' art or that they wasted the time to do so?

I think it is weird that they bothered to use an illustration that they felt needed to be revised. That said, I am not sure they 'desecrated' the art or the idea of the art. It is along the lines of 'cleanflix' from my POV. I assume they felt like they wanted to be doctrinally correct or consistent and didn't want to give anyone a chance to say "see, the official publication of the church depicts angels having WINGS!" Although, again, if that is the issue, then use a different painting/drawing.

I don't disagree but just wanted to add a couple thoughts:

- I'm not sure that "desecrated" is the correct term, but it's not far off. deleting the wings not only took away part of the meaning of the painting, but also threw off its balance. The original painting seems to have been triangularly structured and the deletion of the wings not only throws off the geometrical balance, but also takes away the softness of the angels. It's more offensive than cleanflix in that it doesn't really delete a bad word here and there, but totally changes the painting, IMO.

- Doing things to be "doctrinally correct" is what stifles a lot of art in Mormonism (you probably know this). We aren't allowed to be abstract or to really search for deeper meaning through art because some in teh church are afraid it would give people the wrong impression. I'd love to see the Ensign publish an abstract rendering of the First Vision but I doubt it'll ever happen. No, we are left with "doctrinally correct" works of art, which are pleasing in some ways but lack any sort of real depth. In many ways, the changes to this painting mirror the same lack of depth that exists in our SS/PH curriculum.

- I do find the changes offensive though, in the same way that I'd find it offensive if BYU decided to display the works of Rodin by putting a pair of Levi Jeans on John the Baptist to cover up his nakedness.

- The fact that we have a committee in the church that is tabbed with making changes like this makes me laugh and cry. The fact that this committee is writing articles in the Ensign is also a bit bizarre. Hopefully people realize that this article is about as authoritative as the talk given by your local RSP.

[FMCoug]

Maybe the Church should just commission McNaughton for all official artwork.