temple picture

[jewels8]

When my husband and I were on our honeymoon, we both went through the Salt Lake Temple for the first time.  I was amazed at the beauty and sacrfice that the Saints gave to build the temple.  Of all the temples, I feel that this has special significance because the pioneers came to the Salt Lake Valley, built their homes and the Church is headquartered here.  However, during the session we were in, I noticed a picture of Adam & Eve leading the Garden of Eden.   It is a  famous picture.  But I was disappointed.  Eve, the Mother of all Living, an example of righteousness and womanhood and motherhood, was not dressed as much as I think she should have been.  Granted, yes, we know they were at least figuratively, maybe literally naked in the Garden, we know that that was symbolic in some ways, as they were given knowledge and taught the importance of modesty and to have faith in the Lord, as they were banished from the Garden.  But I feel that for the headquarters of the Church, that she should have been shown more respect in being more covered up in a painting that was in a temple, a House of the Lord.  And with the prophets & apostles frequenting it so much, and perhaps heads of the Church RS and other organizations, couldn't someone have decided to depict her in a more modest state?  I feel that this is not the best reflection we should have of our grand Mother Eve, and that it distracts from what we should be learning in the temple. I think it would be best to replace the picture or paint over it to reflect her in a more better way.  Any thoughts on this, reasons why this hasn't been done and why it would be a good idea, when it is representing the Church and our beliefs? 

Edited September 8, 2017 by jewels8
wrong word

[jewels8]

I put "leading"   the Garden, I meant leaving the Garden.  At the last sentence I mean it would be a good idea to replace or make more modest the picture. I don't think Mother Eve would appreciate being depicted in that way.  It is disrespectful.  I'm surprised the church leaders allowed a picture showing that much to be displayed in the Temple

[Vort]

46 minutes ago, jewels8 said:

I put "leading"   the Garden, I meant leaving the Garden.  At the last sentence I mean it would be a good idea to replace or make more modest the picture. I don't think Mother Eve would appreciate being depicted in that way.  It is disrespectful.  I'm surprised the church leaders allowed a picture showing that much to be displayed in the Temple

jewel, you might consider the possibility that if the prophets and apostles of the Church, as well as the vast majority of its membership, are okay with that particular depiction of Eve, then perhaps it's you that's out of step. You may want to examine your ideas about nudity and sex in light of prophetic teachings and common-sense biology.

[jewels8]

I don't think the Lord condones nudity, partial nudity, it is contrary to His teachings. 

[jewels8]

or almost nudity is not acceptable.  The film is very  careful.  Also, we know that Adam & Eve were dressed when they left the Garden.  The picture is poor at showing that. Perhaps it was overlooked when put in there and their were more pressing matters, but just as there is good, better and best, a more modest picture would be a better accurate reflection of what we believe.and keeping with the sacred nature of the temple.

[jewels8]

often it is up to us, with our free agency and folllowing the Spirit to help bring about good changes.  Just because something is one way, doesn't mean it needs to stay that way.

[Fether]

33 minutes ago, jewels8 said:

often it is up to us, with our free agency and folllowing the Spirit to help bring about good changes.  Just because something is one way, doesn't mean it needs to stay that way.

Yes  "good changes" are good! but the church can't change things every time a small minority of the church is offended by something. I feel like that would politicize the church very quickly. I side with Vort. If there was a real problem with the picture, I'm sure those who have a higher degree of spiritual sensitivity and stewardship would make the change.

I have a friend that told me once "If I have a view that I find is not shared by the general authorities, I will change my view". In other words, he would repent (and repent is not some scary word we use when we are awful murdering sinners, repenting is simply a change of heart and mind to become more christlike)

[anatess2]

58 minutes ago, jewels8 said:

often it is up to us, with our free agency and folllowing the Spirit to help bring about good changes.  Just because something is one way, doesn't mean it needs to stay that way.

You have a hang up, my friend.

President Monson has been looking at the picture and doesn't see disrespect to Eve.  I look at that picture and don't see disrespect to Eve.  I have a feeling Eve would look at that picture and not see disrespect too.  After all, President Monson is not the only prophet that has looked upon that picture to see beauty instead of vulgarity.

So, we're back to the self-censorship discussion.  When one looks at a painting and see vulgarity when vulgarity is absent from the creator's intent as well as the people of authority that displayed such picture at the temple as well as the people that have gazed upon such picture at the temple, you get to work on self-censorship.  Clean up your mind.  The temple's Celestial Room is the perfect place for you to do that.

[jewels8]

It is more Christ-like to want a modest more doctrinally appropriate picture.  I think if people humble themselves and are spiritually sensitive they would agree

Not saying certain people aren't that way, but the closer we come to Christ, the more we can see the problem.  No one is perfect, it simply may not have been something someone brought up, but definitely I can see a humble, penitent person wanting that changed.  A person who isn't sensitive will see it as no big deal.  Just as for example someone who isn't as close to the Spirit can't see the importance of keeping a commandment and may not have as much reverence for it.

[zil]

9 hours ago, jewels8 said:

Eve, ...., was not dressed as much as I think she should have been

Have you not considered that it was a prophet of God who approved every detail of that temple?  That prophets of God have walked the halls of that temple ever since it was built?  If the Lord disapproved of that image, don't you think he had a zillion ways to take care of the issue - either on his own, or through one of those prophets, or even through one of the thousands (if not millions) who have had physical access to the picture since it was put in place?  (By these, I mean: have you really spent a significant amount of time pondering these things and their implications?)

I understand that for whatever reason you personally are very sensitive to this issue, but it seems this and other depictions of Adam and Eve in the garden aren't a problem for the Lord, but are for you.  When that happens, the wise decision is to take the problem to the Lord and ask him to help you see as he sees.

[jewels8]

I do not think the picture was meant to be vulgar, nor do I need to clean up my mind.  I have one of the purest minds around.  I don't watch movies other mormons and non mormons do, I don't joke and laugh at inappropriate things that others do, and I don't wear immodest clothing like so many do.  I usually wouldn't even look at the picture. I prefer to focus on goodness

[jewels8]

I believe that if the brethren were approached in the right way, they may well have the picture changed.

[jewels8]

I believe if people all followed the Spirit better they would see it as I see it.  I'm sure the Lord would have no problem changing the picture.  And i don't think he thinks anyone who wants it to be modest has a problem.  I'm sure He knows there are too many in the world, in and out of the Church who have  a problem with modesty, obedience and reverence.  Its not my problem.  Just saying, learn to follow the Spirit and not call good evil and evil good.  Don't chastize a righteous person when you can look at yourself and hopefully repent of flaws you may see in yourself.  I have my own to look at , but they aren't the problems you want to see.  How were you taught about chastity, modesty, obedience, kindness, reverence?  If it s  lacking, you really have no place to judge another.  If I have offended, I do apologize, but I will not take back the righteousness , nor apologize for upholding goodness among any degree of corruption.  If you aren't prayerful and studying scriptures, etc, you really aren't spiritually prepared to write a comment.  I have noticed that there has been a problem with people being careful in what they post.  Just be careful, you decide where you'll be and I don't think you can speak for the Lord or His mouthpiece.   The Lord will judge us each individually in the end.  I have plenty to work on myself, so lets all work on ourselves and stop judging each other.  Thank you and have a good day.  I need to go take care of other things and spread some good.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

11 minutes ago, jewels8 said:

It is more Christ-like to want a modest more doctrinally appropriate picture.  I think if people humble themselves and are spiritually sensitive they would agree

Not saying certain people aren't that way, but the closer we come to Christ, the more we can see the problem.  No one is perfect, it simply may not have been something someone brought up, but definitely I can see a humble, penitent person wanting that changed.  A person who isn't sensitive will see it as no big deal.  Just as for example someone who isn't as close to the Spirit can't see the importance of keeping a commandment and may not have as much reverence for it.

Jewel, have you considered that perhaps you are the one that needs to humble yourself?  The Leaders of the church don't have a problem with that picture.  So "people" are not the ones that need to humble themselves in this situation. 

The more Christlike thing to do is to follow Him, and one of the ways we do that is by following the Leaders He has called . . . 

Edited September 8, 2017 by LiterateParakeet

[estradling75]

8 hours ago, Vort said:

jewel, you might consider the possibility that if the prophets and apostles of the Church, as well as the vast majority of its membership, are okay with that particular depiction of Eve, then perhaps it's you that's out of step. You may want to examine your ideas about nudity and sex in light of prophetic teachings and common-sense biology.

This reminds me of something that happened to me way back in school.  I was in math class and the teacher had a problem on the board.  I worked the problem and got my answer, others got their answer.  Then the teacher asked what answer we got and it became clear that the class had two different answers to the problem.  Roughly half and half.  I was confident that I was right.  I had done the work I had learned the lesson. So I must be right.  Then I took a look at who was in the two groups.  Everyone I thought was as good at math or better was in the other group.  And I had to ask myself am I so full of pride that I think all these other people are getting it wrong?  These people who I had to acknowledge were probably better at math required then I was?  I ended up revisiting the problem and I found a simple error that I had made.  (And I presume that the others in my group made).

To me the church leaders are the one that are better at knowing the mind of God then I am. (Although I do not think I am a inexperienced in the matter).  If I was ever in a place were I thought I was more spiritually in tune then the Prophet, his Councilors, the whole quorum of the 12, plus all the General Authorities... Well I would hope that I would recognize my prideful state and repent quickly. 

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

3 minutes ago, jewels8 said:

  Just be careful, you decide where you'll be and I don't think you can speak for the Lord or His mouthpiece.  

That's precisely what all of us are trying to tell you . . . 

[zil]

Let's take this to its logical conclusion:

19 minutes ago, jewels8 said:

It is more Christ-like to want a modest more doctrinally appropriate picture.  I think if [President Monson] humbles [himself] and [is] spiritually sensitive [he] would agree

Not saying [President Monson isn't] that way, but the closer [he] come to Christ, the more [he] can see the problem.  No one is perfect, it simply may not have been something someone brought up, but definitely I can see a humble, penitent [President Monson] wanting that changed.  A [President Monson] who isn't sensitive will see it as no big deal.  Just as for example someone who isn't as close to the Spirit can't see the importance of keeping a commandment and may not have as much reverence for it.

 

That is, in essence what you're saying.  This is the kind of pondering I'm suggesting you do - follow your thoughts to their logical conclusion and you will be left with either:

A) the Lord and his prophets are fully aware of this picture and have made a conscious evaluation that it is acceptable in the House of the Lord.

or

B) the Lord and his prophets are not sufficiently humble, penitent, and/or spiritually sensitive, otherwise the picture would no longer be in the House of the Lord.

...now which of these do you honestly think is more likely?  If (A), then you need to ask the Lord to help you understand why.  If (B), you are on the most dangerous ground there is.

Edited September 8, 2017 by zil
Clearly the new version hates me

[jewels8]

When the Lord said he would destroy the city of Soddom and Gommorah, His prophet didn't say, "ok, Lord, you know best"  (though of course the Lord knows best, and maybe He was "trying" him to see what he would do)  He asked to please not destroy the city if they could find so many righteous people there.  He kept asking for lower and lower numbers and the Lord agreed with him

[Guest]

@jewels8 Where in the session is the painting?

[anatess2]

27 minutes ago, jewels8 said:

It is more Christ-like to want a modest more doctrinally appropriate picture.  I think if people humble themselves and are spiritually sensitive they would agree

Not saying certain people aren't that way, but the closer we come to Christ, the more we can see the problem.  No one is perfect, it simply may not have been something someone brought up, but definitely I can see a humble, penitent person wanting that changed.  A person who isn't sensitive will see it as no big deal.  Just as for example someone who isn't as close to the Spirit can't see the importance of keeping a commandment and may not have as much reverence for it.

This passive-aggressive attitude is really annoying.

"Oh you don't see anything wrong with it, you must not be very spiritually sensitive and humble enough because if you are, you'll find something wrong with it."

No jewels8, your mind is dirty.  You see dirt at the most clean places.  Bluntness is my response to passive aggressiveness.

Edited September 8, 2017 by anatess2

[my two cents]

18 minutes ago, jewels8 said:

 How were you taught about chastity, modesty, obedience, kindness, reverence? 

I'm really wondering what you were taught.

(just thinking out loud)

[Guest]

This thread kind of reminds me of one islamic extremist from Egypt who declared a couple of years ago that even husbands and wives should remain fully clothed around one another at all times!  I wanted to ask, if this were to be standard, how, pray tell, would the human race continue to reproduce and survive?

Point being - while pornography and nudity often overlap, they are not the same thing.  Not all nudity is evil.  Examples of nudity that is not pornography can include nudity for the sake of medical research, nudity within marriage, and sacred artwork in the temple (or arguably non-sexual artwork, period).

Pornography = nudity plus intent to sexually arouse.  No such intent exists in temple artwork, medical literature, or the Venus de Milo.

I am just as anti-pornography as the next Mormon, but you have to draw the line somewhere.

Edited September 8, 2017 by DoctorLemon

[Midwest LDS]

You know I've been too many temples in my short time on this Earth, and I can honestly say I've never been offended in one. They are so peaceful, and full of the Holy Ghost I honestly did not think it was possible to be upset there. This is such a minor issue, I don't understand how you go from being offended by a sacred picture to calling the Bretheren to repentance. Don't try to steady the Ark @jewels8 it will only lead to unhappiness.

Edited September 8, 2017 by Midwest LDS

[estradling75]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

This passive-aggressive attitude is really annoying.

"Oh you don't see anything wrong with it, you must not be very spiritually sensitive and humble enough because if you are, you'll find something wrong with it."

No jewels8, your mind is dirty.  You see dirt at the most clean places.  Bluntness is my response to passive aggressiveness.

Indeed.  Now the scripture do say that if your eye offends you pluck it out... so I totally get people who go to extremes to avoid things that tempt them...  However they need to remember that the scripture does not say "Pluck everyone else's eye out."

[Dillon]

Jewels you talk as though you are holier than thou.  I dont buy it.