The Correlation Committee strikes again

[CardiacCoug]

Pretty good -- now he just needs a shave. Why does Jesus have moobs, though?

[Viking]

Pretty good -- now he just needs a shave. Why does Jesus have moobs, though?

Jesus needs a leather braided belt, Birkenstocks and socks to complete the COB-approved look

Man, mormonism can be beyond goofy

[The Rambam]

So we cannot even get an official apology for the priesthood ban, but you want one for putting sleeves on an angel? If this is really a "deep sickness embedded in the church body" then who is the "someone" that should get fired over this?

I agree that it seems ridiculous to put sleeves on an angel, when, according to Joseph Smith, Moroni appears to like wearing togas that wouldn't cover his garments. Or that Jesus had no problems chilling with a naked Adam and Eve, but he would be offended if angels were showing off their shoulders.

But calling for an apology and a firing seems like an over the top reaction in the opposite direction. If this is a "deep sickness" then wouldn't your action just be fighting a sympton and not the actual disease? Do you think this disease (culture) is fostered by Church authority or its membership, or both? Or is this disease (culture) what really bands the church and its membership together, i.e. makes us a peculiar people?

Why is apologizing such a radical and heightened reaction to screwing up. We all seem to agree that the alteration was a mistake; they probably do too. So why not say sorry, we were wrong? In addition to the deep sexual dysfunction in the Church, there is a deep sickness related to not being willing to say sorry when we get something wrong. We believe the Prophets, Seers, and Apostles are infallible in practice, if not in theory. We don't want them to admit error, it might cause the whole stack of cards to fall.

Someone should be fired only if this was done without knowledge of the GAs. Assuming it was an overzealous employee or two, they should be let go. You can't cure this depth of crazy, IMHO.

Rambam, if nothing else, is consistent.

I think this incident is hugely revealing of some very deep problems in Mormonism. We have too little respect for history, other than our own Mormon history. We sexualize things that have no business being sexuality (children, angels in centuries old paintings, etc.) We deceive without disclosure of the true nature of things (history, art, current state of affairs). In all of this, the ends justify the means. Our loyalty isn't towards truth or even goodness--but first and foremost our loyalty is to the organization and whatever will breed loyalty to the corporate "church."

When you see people observe dishonesty and the destruction of beauty and hyper-overreactions to sex/modesty like this incident does, and they agree that it was not honest, not true to the beauty of the art, and not an indecency mandating alteration--but in spite of all this, when you see people say "It's not a big deal, don't make a mountain out of a mole-hill, your overreacting to call for an actual spoken apology", you know that the defenders are totally lost in the borg, incapable of being true to truth or beauty when the organization's interests are at stake. They will say anything to protect the Church because the ends justify the means and the end isn't truth or beauty or healthy sexuality, but rather the end is loyalty and engendering loyalty in others. Truth and beauty and healthy sexuality be damned.

When we stop standing up for honesty and truth and healthy sexuality and place a higher value on defending the reputation of the organization, apostasy has occurred. Apostasy from what Christ taught, apostasy from the scriptures, apostasy from truth. But, hey, you have a really cool club to go feel sumg in and laugh at me. With great big expensive buildings to enjoy--some even look like spaceships! I'll be wandering around down in the fog trying to find my way. Thinking the scriptures place a higher value on truth and beauty than loyalty to man and earthly organizations. And I'll probably be having healthier sex too.

If you don't think dishonesty and destruction of art and viewing the shoulders of century old oil-painted angels as indecent are all big deal problems, then I pity you.

[UtahDan]

For the record, I did not create this.

[LA Ute]

As long as we're making "for the record" statements, I find it embarrassing that the alterations were made. I just don't see it as a big deal.

[wuapinmon]

Isn't the real issue editing the painting, and then still calling it Bloch's work, instead of "after" Bloch?

Well?

[UtahDan]

As long as we're making "for the record" statements, I find it embarrassing that the alterations were made. I just don't see it as a big deal.

Small potatoes to me too, but I do think I understand why it is bothersome to others.

[Indy Coug]

If you don't think dishonesty and destruction of art and viewing the shoulders of century old oil-painted angels as indecent are all big deal problems, then I pity you.

No you don't. You're an insincere purveyor of lies and hyperbolic venom.

[LA Ute]

Small potatoes to me too, but I do think I understand why it is bothersome to others.

I do too. I just disagree. This is not an uncommon occurrence on this board.

[Viking]

No you don't. You're an insincere purveyor of lies and hyperbolic venom.

This is hysterical. Nicely done.

[SteelBlue]

So, I finally got around to actually reading the article with which this picture appeared. Turns out they couldn't just use another picture of Jesus. The crazy thing? The first paragraphs of the article are about this painting and the author viewing it with his family in Denmark. Amazing that they would alter an artwork about which the author is gushing.

[DU Ute]

So, I finally got around to actually reading the article with which this picture appeared. Turns out they couldn't just use another picture of Jesus. The crazy thing? The first paragraphs of the article are about this painting and the author viewing it with his family in Denmark. Amazing that they would alter an artwork about which the author is gushing.

Wow, that takes a bit of chutzpah.

I was in the camp of those who thought it was a lame thing to do, but not something to make into a big deal. This makes me feel like it is a big deal.

[The Rambam]

No you don't. You're an insincere purveyor of lies and hyperbolic venom.

The orthodox right nearly always ends up calling names, making vague insupportable allegations, and retreating into metaphor because reality does not serve them. It is too bad really.

The alteration of the artwork without is disclosure is a form of dishonesty, especially in the context they used it. It does alter the artist's intent without permission, destroying the art as created. It is clearly a sign of obsession with the sexuality of non-sexual beings in a non-sexual setting.

Orthodoxy is losing because honest observers see these things clearly, then see the orthodox shrug it off and go back for more crazy without caring--the honest observers shake their heads and walk away. I had a family over for dinner a bit ago who have left the Church. The cumulative effect of the crazy become too much at a point. If the orthodox in the Church cared more about them than bare shoulders, maybe they'd still be in the Church.

So, I finally got around to actually reading the article with which this picture appeared. Turns out they couldn't just use another picture of Jesus. The crazy thing? The first paragraphs of the article are about this painting and the author viewing it with his family in Denmark. Amazing that they would alter an artwork about which the author is gushing.

Exactly. It is a big deal. The orthodox want to ignore it. The Church is losing its core to the orthodox. No more HBBrown or BHRoberts, only ETBenson and BKPacker. Both are needed and we only have one type left. It isn't a healthy dynamic.

[Jacob]

So, I finally got around to actually reading the article with which this picture appeared. Turns out they couldn't just use another picture of Jesus. The crazy thing? The first paragraphs of the article are about this painting and the author viewing it with his family in Denmark. Amazing that they would alter an artwork about which the author is gushing.

At first, I was merely annoyed. But knowing this, I am now angry. If I had any power, I'd fire the committee members who did this.

[UtahDan]

At first, I was merely annoyed. But knowing this, I am now angry. If I had any power, I'd fire the committee members who did this.

You are probably being sarcastic, but firing a correlation committee member over this would have been like firing Randy Bott over his comments.