Pope Francis passes away

[MrShorty]

Just saw this on a news feed (using KSL, since I generally trust them as a news source): https://www.ksl.com/article/51298343/pope-francis-first-latin-american-pontiff-dies-on-easter-monday

[NeuroTypical]

RIP Pope Francis.  I thought he was doing better, guess not.

I had a bit of a political crisis this morning, as I thought about how one of Pope Francis' final acts in life was to chew out VP Vance on deporting illegals.   I mean, I'm LDS, but I have a measure of respect for the Catholic church and it's leaders and find Popes worth listening to, even if we differ politically and on various religious details.    With about every hospital I've ever been to having "Saint" in the title, and a full 20% of my church service projects for the poor involving some sort of group run by Catholic Charities, they know a thing or two about the plight of the less and the lost and the least. 

Vance converted to Catholicism a while ago, had been battling out Catholic theology on the matter on X, eventually advising people to google "ordo amoris"  I hadn't heard of it before, so I did.  It's interesting stuff.  It helped me resolve my political crisis, leaving me still mostly supportive of our efforts to control our border and remove illegals, coupled with a re-emphasis on "what you do to the least of these thy brethren, ye do it unto Me". 

 

Edited Monday at 04:03 PM by NeuroTypical

[HaggisShuu]

30 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I mean, I'm LDS, but I have a measure of respect for the Catholic church

The only thing that depresses me about our church is how iconoclast it is. I adore high churches, their architecture and interior design. They are beautiful spaces to gather and worship in.  
 

My local Anglican Church which I attended before being baptised is often open during the day, all week round for personal prayer and contemplation and I have been known to visit from to time. 

[Carborendum]

54 minutes ago, HaggisShuu said:

The only thing that depresses me about our church is how iconoclast it is.

Do you know what the word means?  Apparently not.

Quote

• a person who attacks cherished beliefs, traditional institutions, etc., as being based on error or superstition.
• a breaker or destroyer of images, especially those set up for religious veneration.

Synonyms: radical, dissenter, rebel, nonconformist

The way you're using it (as an adjective) means that we break established rules of accepted beliefs.  Well, that is kinda the point of a restoration.  We don't accept the fallen state of things as they are, and we want to restore that promise the Savior gave us.

54 minutes ago, HaggisShuu said:

I adore high churches, their architecture and interior design. They are beautiful spaces to gather and worship in.

If you're just talking about the lack of artwork in our churches, I've never heard the term "iconoclast" to mean that.  The word often used is "spartan."

Quote

rigorously simple, frugal, or austere.

Well, in our churches we are. 

Temples OTOH are all unique.  The symbolism of temples requires that every temple have some significant feature that makes them different from any other temple.  If you want to see some artwork, attend the temple more often.

[HaggisShuu]

44 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Do you know what the word means?  Apparently not.

The way you're using it (as an adjective) means that we break established rules of accepted beliefs.  Well, that is kinda the point of a restoration.  We don't accept the fallen state of things as they are, and we want to restore that promise the Savior gave us.

If you're just talking about the lack of artwork in our churches, I've never heard the term "iconoclast" to mean that.  The word often used is "spartan."

Well, in our churches we are. 

Temples OTOH are all unique.  The symbolism of temples requires that every temple have some significant feature that makes them different from any other temple.  If you want to see some artwork, attend the temple more often.

Sorry for using the wrong word and thanks for the lecture. 
 

I was remarking on something I miss from previous faith based experiences. Not trying to attack the church. 

I attend the temple as often as I can too, and it's not the same. Also, a beautiful place and experience though. 

Edited Monday at 06:20 PM by HaggisShuu

[Vort]

2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

I had a bit of a political crisis this morning, as I thought about how one of Pope Francis' final acts in life was to chew out VP Vance on deporting illegals.   I mean, I'm LDS, but I have a measure of respect for the Catholic church and it's leaders and find Popes worth listening to, even if we differ politically and on various religious details.

Said the guy living in the country that is literally surrounded by thick brick walls and that doesn't allow immigration at all.

[Carborendum]

51 minutes ago, HaggisShuu said:

Sorry for using the wrong word and thanks for the lecture. 

I apologize.  I shouldn't have been so condescending.

[Just_A_Guy]

Random thoughts:

1.  I loved the Vatican when I visited.  I’d like to live there.  I also recognize that if it became the sort of place where the likes of me could go and live, much of what I love about it would be lost.  My love for it—and indeed, a big part of its allure and spiritual power—derives from the fact that it is not what it would inevitably become if it were under my control.   And I wish that Francis had understood and conceded about my country, what I understand and concede about his.

2.  LDS temples are beautiful, but (with a handful of exceptions) their artistry is not even in the same ZIP code as the artistry of the great medieval and renaissance basilicas and cathedrals.

3.  Artistry can be a form of worship.  Craftsmanship can be a form of worship.  In our temples we do the latter very well; as I think we are theologically beholden to do.  But we do the former only at a very elementary level.  Temple artwork is first and foremost intended to recall and evoke the spirit of specific past events; not about embracing beauty as an aspect of divinity and then pioneering new ways of seeking beauty for its own sake.

4.  There are good reasons for the LDS Church as an institution to *not* prioritize artistry, even (arguably, especially) in its temples.  Structures can become enormous money pits if you aren’t willing to say goodbye to them when they become obselete or damaged beyond repair (see SL Temple, SL Tabernacle, Provo City Center Temple, Kirtland Temple; compare Ogden Temple, Anchorage Temple, Provo Rock Canyon Temple).  And the architectural uniqueness of France’s great cathedrals is a big part of why the government there expropriated those buildings and has often refused to give them back in the intervening centuries.

[Carborendum]

49 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

3.  Artistry can be a form of worship.  Craftsmanship can be a form of worship.  In our temples we do the latter very well; as I think we are theologically beholden to do.  But we do the former only at a very elementary level.  Temple artwork is first and foremost intended to recall and evoke the spirit of specific past events; not about embracing beauty as an aspect of divinity and then pioneering new ways of seeking beauty for its own sake.

4.  There are good reasons for the LDS Church as an institution to *not* prioritize artistry, even (arguably, especially) in its temples.  Structures can become enormous money pits if you aren’t willing to say goodbye to them when they become obselete or damaged beyond repair (see SL Temple, SL Tabernacle, Provo City Center Temple, Kirtland Temple; compare Ogden Temple, Anchorage Temple, Provo Rock Canyon Temple).  And the architectural uniqueness of France’s great cathedrals is a big part of why the government there expropriated those buildings and has often refused to give them back in the intervening centuries.

I wonder if it is a matter of the 2nd commandment: 

•  Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

We usually think this is only about idols.  But why was it so important that Samuel dragged an un-hewn stone (the Ebenezer) to be the monument to the Lord?  He didn't even make it smooth and shiny.  It was completely natural.  That rock showed nothing by the hand of man.  All of it was done by God.

While we do a lot more than that in our temples today, maybe it is a good thing (religiously) to NOT have such ornamentation and artistry at the level of Catholic Cathedrals and such.

Maybe it is the ascetic in me. 

While I can certainly appreciate the beauty of man-made artistry, I tend to think that when it is done in a manner that makes one praise the artist more than the art, maybe it is just too much (for a religious setting).  When we go somewhere that is a place of beauty (by the hand of man) are we really appreciating the Lord and all His creations?  Or are we appreciating the work of man?

Maybe I'm just being a kill-joy.

 

 

[Vort]

4 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I wonder if it is a matter of the 2nd commandment: 

•  Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

We usually think this is only about idols.  But why was it so important that Samuel dragged an un-hewn stone (the Ebenezer) to be the monument to the Lord?  He didn't even make it smooth and shiny.  It was completely natural.  That rock showed nothing by the hand of man.  All of it was done by God.

While we do a lot more than that in our temples today, maybe it is a good thing (religiously) to NOT have such ornamentation and artistry at the level of Catholic Cathedrals and such.

Maybe it is the ascetic in me. 

While I can certainly appreciate the beauty of man-made artistry, I tend to think that when it is done in a manner that makes one praise the artist more than the art, maybe it is just too much (for a religious setting).  When we go somewhere that is a place of beauty (by the hand of man) are we really appreciating the Lord and all His creations?  Or are we appreciating the work of man?

Maybe I'm just being a kill-joy.

To my mind, the point is that if we judge the truthfulness of a church's doctrine by how well-developed their arts are, how beautiful their worship music, how stunning their cathedrals, how impressive their ceremony, how rigorous their reasoning, how popular their reputation, how erudite their scholarship, how deep their history—by all of these and any combination of these elements, the Roman Catholic Church buries the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In a race between the two religions based on these things, we are not merely a poor second; the RCC has lapped us numerous times. We are hopelessly outmatched.

As President Kimball used to say, Latter-day Saints should excel in the arts and sciences. But that is not and never has been (nor ever will be) the measure of the truthfulness of the Church and of the gospel it preaches. The Roman Catholic Church has a truly impressive history and record of world-changing actions and artistic developments. Ultimately, the only virtue the Restored Church of Jesus Christ has is that it is the kingdom of God on earth, the only true Church that preaches the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ. By that measure alone, the Restored Church of Jesus Christ stands above all other churches, and not by any other metric.

[Carborendum]

31 minutes ago, Vort said:

To my mind, the point is that if we judge the truthfulness of a church's doctrine by how well-developed their arts are, how beautiful their worship music, how stunning their cathedrals, how impressive their ceremony, how rigorous their reasoning, how popular their reputation, how erudite their scholarship, how deep their history—by all of these and any combination of these elements, the Roman Catholic Church buries the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In a race between the two religions based on these things, we are not merely a poor second; the RCC has lapped us numerous times. We are hopelessly outmatched.

As President Kimball used to say, Latter-day Saints should excel in the arts and sciences. But that is not and never has been (nor ever will be) the measure of the truthfulness of the Church and of the gospel it preaches. The Roman Catholic Church has a truly impressive history and record of world-changing actions and artistic developments. Ultimately, the only virtue the Restored Church of Jesus Christ has is that it is the kingdom of God on earth, the only true Church that preaches the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ. By that measure alone, the Restored Church of Jesus Christ stands above all other churches, and not by any other metric.

Point well made.  But it wasn't exactly what I was getting at.  Maybe, the following image may speak for itself.

The image I attached above is done with an average level of skill for a well-trained artist (still a lot more than I could do).  There is nothing outlandishly praiseworthy about the paints or the media used to create this.  But when I first saw this image many years ago, the "message" of the painting immediately hit me.  That message was what I praised.  I still don't know the name of the artist.  I have no idea how he got the paint to portray the reflection in black stone, which I can appreciate.

Even with all that and more... I appreciate the message more than anything about the painting.

I've never been to Italy.  I've only seen images via media.  What I tend to hear people say is that they love to be surrounded by the artistry. They overflow with praise for such "artistry" and the "skill of the artist".  It was done with such precision.  They drone on and on about the methodology (which as a scientist, has me curious).  But I don't feel a religious experience by seeing such artwork.

I just think that the Catholic artistry has gone so far over the other side that we appreciate the artists and the historicity more than the message.

You may now pile on me about being too... whatever.  

Edited Monday at 09:11 PM by Carborendum

[NeuroTypical]

I'm a massive fan of the up-and-coming undiscovered artist.  There's endless amazing works and creations out there on discord servers and bandcamp and such places. 

The folks producing these works are some of the most immature, clueless, rainbowest children out there.  And their works are totally hit-or-miss when it comes to being in the same universe as truth, beyond insanely vivid and accurate portrayals of emotion.    But that's rarely stopped me from enjoying what they produce. 

Art ≠ Truth.

Great art ≠ Great truth.

The spirit can speak to people through art, but not always, and not exclusively.  I remember a handful of LDS folks who watched the heaven scene from What Dreams May Come and believed they were having the spirit testify to them that "that's how it is in heaven - it explains how making your own world works".

 

 

Edited Monday at 09:28 PM by NeuroTypical

[HaggisShuu]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I apologize.  I shouldn't have been so condescending.

It's all good. No hard feelings here.

[mikbone]