General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMormon leaders condemned for photoshopping a 1650s painting to cover Mary's cleavage
The Church of the Latter-day Saint (LDS) have been condemned for photoshopping a 17th Century painting of the Virgin Mary to make her clothing more modest.
LDS released 18 nativity scene images for its members to download for the holiday season, including an edited image of Italian painter Carlo Maratta's 1650s painting The Holy Night painting, which has since been taken off the site.
In Maratta's original artwork, Mary can be seen flanked by three angels while she held her newborn close to her chest, which the painter included a tiny bit of cleavage.
However, the classic artwork was modified before being released to the church's members, drawing her neckline up higher and eliminated the angels surrounding her.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11588083/Mormon-Church-condemned-photoshopping-painting-Virgin-Mary-cover-bust-shoulders.html
The European sector of the church also blurred Jesus' genitals in Domenico Ghirlandaio's nativity scene (pictured) this year during their Christmas concert
In 2011, it also altered Carl Bloch's The Resurrection by removing the angels' wings and covering the females' shoulders
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11588083/Mormon-Church-condemned-photoshopping-painting-Virgin-Mary-cover-bust-shoulders.html
Shermann
(7,423 posts)Now that the cat is out of the bag so to speak, I have many questions.
Like, why does he even need genitals? Or any organs for that matter?
Croney
(4,661 posts)Holy fertilizer!
Shermann
(7,423 posts)God is the agent that supposedly created the Cosmos. The diameter of the observable universe is 93 billion light years, so he'd presumably have a form conducive with zipping around in it. What in the world would he need with feet? Or hands? Or a cock and balls? Or any anatomical features whatsoever??
Croney
(4,661 posts)My personal favorite rabbit hole is the search for answers to these: If I'm going to see my loved ones in heaven, what if I didn't really like them, do I still have to see them? What if I want to see Elvis but he isn't interested? Am I going to see them as dried-up old dead people or 20-year-olds or 50-year-olds?
Nobody ever has answers. 😒
Shermann
(7,423 posts)What is the point of torturing souls if they aren't ever given a second chance? Also, an "eternity" seems excessive. Wouldn't there be a diminishing return after, say, 100 years of torment?
It seems like a lot of trouble; it would probably be better to just zap them into non-existence. Studies have shown that the deterrence effect from severe punishments is limited.
Croney
(4,661 posts)They must be packed into Heaven and Hell like sardines. I'm not going to either place. I'll push up daisies in a field... so much nicer to imagine.
msfiddlestix
(7,282 posts)Maraya1969
(22,482 posts)times, do you all just get together as a group? And whose kids are included - just biological kids or step kids and then those step kids also have another parent.
omg It could go on forever!!!
Croney
(4,661 posts)People are just nuts.
ret5hd
(20,493 posts)circumcised?
FreeState
(10,572 posts)so yes probably.
panader0
(25,816 posts)Hekate
(90,714 posts)Last edited Sun Jan 1, 2023, 06:33 AM - Edit history (1)
he had to be circumcised in accordance with Jewish law. That ritual was done on the eighth day after his birth, at which time he was also named.
The Catholic Church celebrated the day as the Feast of the Circumcision until 1960. Not sure why they stopped, but it is now one of Marys feast days.
Anyway, if no male genitalia, then no circumcision of the foreskin.
In addition, Jesus was supposed to be fully God and fully Man, so he needed those bits.
Finally, artists in the Renaissance were not shy about depicting the human body, especially infant males and Mary the Mother of Jesus in the act of nursing her baby boy. Every part of that act was considered sacred her breasts that nourished her son, her milk, all of it.
The fact that the artists chose pretty girls as models was just a bonus.
Hekate, your friendly local mythologist
FakeNoose
(32,641 posts)As I recall (hazy though my memory is) the Circumcision and Epiphany got rolled into one. When I was growing up in the 1950's and 60's it used to be a holy day of obligation, meaning attendance at Mass on that day is required. I'm not sure if they still do that though. I'm not much of a Catholic any more.
drmeow
(5,019 posts)was when the three wise men finally got there?
FakeNoose
(32,641 posts)Jesus was 2 or 3 years old when they showed up. Maybe that's why the Church changed the name.
I don't know, I haven't been keeping up with this stuff.
Maraya1969
(22,482 posts)frankly it looked awful and barbaric.
Hekate
(90,714 posts)That makes it the physical ritual embodiment of the spiritual link between god and person and tribe.
https://www.rcpe.ac.uk/sites/default/files/doyle_circumcision.pdf
Ritual male circumcision is known to have been practised by South Sea Islanders, Australian Aborigines, Sumatrans, Incas, Aztecs, Mayans and Ancient Egyptians. Today it is still practised by Jews, Muslims and many tribes in East and Southern Africa
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)circumsized, because he would do it right after he was born. I asked my husband and he said yes (he was circumsized at birth). In those days, I never thought of it as a political issue, which it became shortly after.
msfiddlestix
(7,282 posts)vlyons
(10,252 posts)where did he get his male chromosomes?
Hekate
(90,714 posts)Last edited Sun Jan 1, 2023, 06:58 AM - Edit history (1)
are neither here nor there in mythological stories. Just as a woman might dream of a white elephant piercing her side and rendering her pregnant, resulting in her giving birth 9 months later in a grove in Lumbini.
Bucky
(54,020 posts)And even if it was a female elephant, there's no reason why she couldn't have had human semen on her tusk. And indeed, it would have been the jism of a truly brave and capable man
Permanut
(5,610 posts)They should have fixed that as well.
dalton99a
(81,514 posts)Bucky
(54,020 posts)panader0
(25,816 posts)LeftInTX
(25,364 posts)Maraya1969
(22,482 posts)looks like a woman. It's sad also because the lighting in the first picture is beautiful.
Hekate
(90,714 posts)
of the radiance.
In flattening and concealing the breasts, the Mormons who prudishly bowdlerized these beautiful paintings also removed the visual reference to the motherly nourishment provided by the young woman who had just given physical birth to the infant.
I really dont get it.
getagrip_already
(14,764 posts)And what did the Mormons do to them? I don't even want to think of the horrors........
Takket
(21,575 posts)it is like changing the ending of a book or a stanza in a poem someone else made. you do not change or alter an artists vision. if you don't like the female body you are perfectly free to make your own painting of it completely covered, but don't alter someone else's work. completely immoral and unethical
catbyte
(34,398 posts)What's the deal with that?
FreeState
(10,572 posts)Angels who are spirits have not yet obtained a body of flesh and bone, or they are spirits who have once had a mortal body and are awaiting resurrection.
-
Its also odd that they made an outfit for Mary that would cover her garments. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_garment
frogmarch
(12,153 posts)Mind-Melting Horror Beasts"
https://www.cracked.com/article_28289_reminder-angels-in-bible-were-mind-melting-horror-beasts.html
snip:
dembotoz
(16,807 posts)Does porn hub in utah have a fetish section for religious paintings?