temple picture

[Maureen]

11 hours 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

Again @jewels8, learn to use the Edit button. That's what it's there for. It's not a sin to Edit.

M.

[Just_A_Guy]

3 hours ago, miav said:

@jewels8 Where in the session is the painting?

I think Jewel is thinking of a Tiffany stained glass window in (IIRC) the main hallway outside the Celestial room, by the elevator.

4 hours ago, jewels8 said:

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

Then it's a very, very good thing you didn't receive your temple initiatories in the late 19th or early 20th century.  Before accommodations were made to members raised in a less-innocent culture, the temple washings were actual washings; and the Salt Lake temple as-built was equipped with full-sized bathtubs for the purpose.

Edited September 8, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

14 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Then it's a very, very good thing you didn't receive your temple initiatories in the late 19th or early 20th century.

Or for that matter, before 1990.

[Anddenex]

14 hours ago, jewels8 said:

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? 

Our pioneers, the saints that traveled to SLC, truly made a great sacrifice that we all benefit from. There hard work and merits constructed a magnificent temple that we are able to attend. Key words within your paragraph are "I think" and "I feel." The easy answer to your question is they "think" and "feel" differently than you. The reflection on the Church is a personal interpretation you are having, and the image represents an authors best guess as to how she was clothed. If Eve would have been in a long animal skin dress, full sleeves, and with a hoodie I am sure other women in the Church would have felt, "I think" and "I feel", that Mother Eve is being disrespected and the woman's body is nothing to be ashamed of.

The real question, why let an image "you thing" and "you feel" is inappropriate ruin your stay at the temple. The Spirit is evident at the SLC temple. The picture doesn't dissuade the Spirit from being in the temple, nor does it dissuade God from walking the halls of his house.

4 hours ago, jewels8 said:

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.

I realize, and I am a big offender of writing before thinking at times, if you realize the possible implications of your first sentence, which probably have others on here thinking "I think" and "I feel" this woman who talks about reading scriptures might need to read Alma 5 one more time.

I would assume the Lord would be fine either way. I noticed in the Provo temple this passed weekend that there are new pictures, and I would assume the Lord is pleased with his sons and daughters who want to live modest lives, and to enjoy modest pictures. The real question, is whether or not the Lord thinks the same as you. Your initial statement appears to say, that you have the mind and will of the Lord in this matter, and anyone else who doesn't isn't following the Spirit. I have been in the temple, seen the same image, and never once felt the Spirit leave me because of this picture. So I would have to say this is easily a personal opinion, which you are welcome to, but doesn't appear to be inline with the Spirit.

Yes, definitely the Lord knows there are too many in the world who have issues with modesty. I would hope you are taking your own counsel, "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," but from other posts you have definitely called good evil (Apostles, or anyone for that matter, remarrying after their spouse dies for eternity -- you made something that is good into something evil and then also implied that women were forced).

How were we taught about modesty, chastity, kindness, and reverence? I was taught through the principles that are in the Church. I wonder if you sense the irony of your comments after this. You speak of "upholding goodness among any degree of corruption," which implies from your OP that the temple is "corrupted." You will have to really consider and ponder this judgement, especially in line of talking about "[having] no place to judge another."

I also wonder if you sense the irony of this comment with regards to other comments you have made, "Just be careful, you decide where you'll be and I don't think you can speak for the Lord or His mouthpiece." Have you judged the Lord's mouthpiece with his approval of the Adam and Eve picture? Yes, you have.

The picture is not something to worry about. Enjoy the Spirit of the temple.

[The Folk Prophet]

We talking about this?

Edited September 8, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[jewels8]

I am sorry if I may have come across in a way that was not comfortable for others, but as you can see, the picture does show things that should be covered.  Anyways, I have a responsibility to believe as I see it.  Someone once said that we should not judge another person until we have walked in their mocassins.   That is so true.  I am not judging others, but just stating where I am coming from and what I believe.  I had a meeting today where there was a lot of respect for different ideas and things were handled in a spirit of cooperation and kindness.  I think that is the best way to be.  If I have come across as judgemental, and I can see how it can be taken that way,  then I am sorry.   However, I will continue to respect and uphold common decency and courtesy, and hope we can all start off on a new foot, so to speak , and do the same.  Thank you.

[Guest MormonGator]

7 minutes ago, jewels8 said:

Someone once said that we should not judge another person until we have walked in their mocassins.   That is so true.

I never liked that saying, though I'm sure I've used it before and I get what you are saying. If we should never judge another until we've walked in their shoes, then those who haven't murdered someone have no right to judge murderers. 

Edited September 8, 2017 by MormonGator

[Jane_Doe]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

We talking about this?

Beautiful!

[Vort]

7 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I never liked that saying, though I'm sure I've used it before and I get what you are saying. If we should never judge another until we've walked in their shoes, then those who haven't murdered someone have no right to judge murderers. 

And those who have not laid wait lurking just beneath the surface to lunge at innocent, unsuspecting prey should not judge gators. That's what you're getting at, isn't it?

[zil]

Frankly, I'm far more bothered by the awkward positioning of her legs than anything else.  Bare shoulder, bare side down to the hip, bit of bare back - just not bothering me.

[BeccaKirstyn]

7 minutes ago, zil said:

Frankly, I'm far more bothered by the awkward positioning of her legs than anything else.  Bare shoulder, bare side down to the hip, bit of bare back - just not bothering me.

Looks like there are some neurological issues going on there. Or just a broken leg. 

[Vort]

9 minutes ago, zil said:

Frankly, I'm far more bothered by the awkward positioning of her legs than anything else.  Bare shoulder, bare side down to the hip, bit of bare back - just not bothering me.

Right leg forward, left back. Looks perfectly natural to me.

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, BeccaKirstyn said:

Looks like there are some neurological issues going on there.

My thoughts completely. We all still love @zil though, don't we? 

Edited September 8, 2017 by MormonGator

[mordorbund]

For what it's worth, this is how Elder Talmage described that picture:

Quote

The passage from the Garden Room below to the World Room on the next floor is by way of the Grand Stairway and the Side Corridor last described. On the south side of the passage is a splendid art window of elliptical shape depicting the expulsion of the first parents of the race from Eden after the Fall. It is of particular appropriateness in this part of the building, and impresses the beholder as a symbol of the great change brought about by the Fall of Man.

 

[NeuroTypical]

Just thought I'd re-share my story about how all the angels on all our temples start out naked.

Here's my slice of life story - your mileage may vary.

We were all totally shocked, back in seminary class in the '90's.  The teacher was a brother Quilter - he was actually one of the artists who worked on various Angel Moroni statues adorning our temples.  He walked us through the process of making one, and our sheltered LDS sensibilities received mortal blows.

When you make an Angel Moroni to go on top of the temple, you start by making him nekkid.  Like, all the way nekkid.  Like, you-could-see-his-private-parts-if-you-looked-style nekkid.  

Oh, the humanity!  Aren't nudes in art the same thing as playboy?  We were, at the time, an entire class full of kids trying to be pure and chaste, and struggled mightily with the notion that someone would intentionally carve a roughly male-genitalia-shaped mound on an angel that would eventually adorn a temple.  Not only that, but a realistic-looking bum, complete with crack and everything!  We were struggling with the paradox of respecting our good seminary teacher, and guilt for thinking about words like "mound" and "crack".  It was shocking and testimony-challenging.  

As he moved to the next slides where the clothing was added, it was a small relief, but not much.  "Clothing" on a Moroni statue, suddenly seemed very sheer.  Tight.  Form-fitting.  An uncomfortable amount of the body didn't actually get any clothing added - just drapes and ridges here and there causing the eye to see robes that didn't cover everything.  The end result is a modest-looking, robe-wearing man, but we were scarred for life.  Angel Moroni was naked under his robes - we'd seen it.  Not only that, but now every time we looked at the Angel, we remembered.

Angel Moroni: 

To be totally transparent, I stayed shocked and kept my sensibilities for another two decades.  I argued online, often, defending BYU's art program for not using nude models.  I strove to avoid not only raunch and pr0n and whatnot, but also tv shows featuring immodestly-dressed people, newspaper ads for women's clothing, my wife's knitting magazines, beer commercials featuring young people on beaches, you name it.  I admit to being an imperfect sinful male, but I often worked very hard to be good. 

It started changing when my daughter was born.  Here was a little naked thing, sent directly from God to us.  Learning to put on clothes, how to poop, all the stuff that babies/toddlers/kiddos learn.  I was awash in the total innocence of the whole experience.  We've never been too formal at our house, and behind closed doors my daughters often ran around in their birthday suits, and life was full of innocent childish glee, and I totally loved being a father.  Now we'd look through magazines in the doctor's office and play the "modest or immodest" game - spotting pictures of people, are they modest or immodest?  Plenty of examples of both.  They learned - I taught.  And they also taught me things too.  So healthy, so wonderful.

Then I was totally floored, as my daughters went through puberty.  Outside the house, they were always modest.  Inside the house was safe with family, and that didn't change, even though they were growing up.  The thing that totally floored me, was that it didn't change for me either.  Here they were, flouncing around innappropriately, and they were still my babies, and I was still full of the glee and love I had for them as I'd chase their little jiggly bums through the house.  More talk of modest, and husbands, and appropriate - all in the sacred safety of the home.  Mom and dad are safe - our home is safe (as long as there are no visitors) - plenty of time to maintain appropriate standards out in the world.  

I had a pretty hefty opinion shift during these years. 

Then my wife starts up teaching art to our kids, and we all start drawing and learning together.  And something totally amazing happens to me that I never, ever expected to happen.  I now see things from Brother Quilter's eyes.  When I see immodest now, I see the glory of God reflected in divine potential and clad in mortal flesh.  I mean, I'm still a guy, and I still avoid raunch and pr0n and all that - but the angel Moroni or that image of Adam and Eve leaving the garden or newspaper ads or beer commercials or knitting magazines don't bother me any more.  I have no words to describe what changed in me - but I'm honestly not impacted by this stuff like I used to be.  Short description: I was able to draw or copy human forms without feeling guilt.  Even while drawing the private parts.  Nope - nekkid in art is not the same as playboy.  I spent my first 40 years of life believing it was, but I'm not there any more.  

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, NeuroTypical said:

"...I have no words to describe what changed in me..."

When men get older they tend to....um........not respond quite as.........strongly.......in regards to.............beer commercials and.......um......wait.........knitting magazines?

[zil]

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

Right leg forward, left back. Looks perfectly natural to me.

If that's her right leg forward, the thigh is totally out of line with her right hip.  On the other hand, that really does look like a right leg in front, so it's not matching up.  If the thigh were angling left from the knee, instead of continuing straight on, that would look more natural.  If we printed it out and tried to draw her without the draped cloth, I think it would be obvious.  On the other hand, it appears to be stained glass (in style, at least) and that's not exactly the easiest medium for details.

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, zil said:

If that's her right leg forward, the thigh is totally out of line with her right hip.  On the other hand, that really does look like a right leg in front, so it's not matching up.  If the thigh were angling left from the knee, instead of continuing straight on, that would look more natural.  If we printed it out and tried to draw her without the draped cloth, I think it would be obvious.  On the other hand, it appears to be stained glass (in style, at least) and that's not exactly the easiest medium for details.

The robe ends just above her right knee, so you have to infer the position of her right thigh based on the location of her knee and her hip.

[zil]

Just now, Vort said:

The robe ends just above her right knee, so you have to infer the position of her right thigh based on the location of her knee and her hip.

I respect your right to not see where her leg is headed.

[The Folk Prophet]

We're debating Eve's modesty and her leg...arrangement (Vort's been smoking something again)... But what about Adam's nakedness??

Where's the equality!!!?

[person0]

6 hours ago, jewels8 said:

It is more Christ-like to want a modest more doctrinally appropriate picture.

Jesus sees people completely naked everyday.  In that light, wouldn't it technically be more Christlike to be able to see nudity and not experience lustful emotions than to eschew all nudity because you will experience those emotions if you don't?

[Vort]

16 minutes ago, zil said:

I respect your right to not see where her leg is headed.

Here's what I see:

Looks perfectly proportional and correctly positioned to me.

[Maureen]

13 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

We're debating Eve's modesty and her leg...arrangement (Vort's been smoking something again)... But what about Adam's nakedness??

Where's the equality!!!?

Exactly. @jewels8, what are feelings about Adam's somewhat nakedness?

M.

[zil]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

Here's what I see:

Looks perfectly proportional and correctly positioned to me.

I respect your right to see that.

[mordorbund]

2 minutes ago, zil said:

I expect you're right to see that.

Fixed