Mormon Artist Jon McNaughton

[twopekinguys]

Is that Black guy on Jesus’ right holding The Five Thousand Year Leap?

I don’t think you guys appreciate exactly how Mormon this painting is.

What book is the guy in the lower right hand corner holding?

My trifocals ain’t helpin me none

 

[JHow]

I can see why a liberal might not like it but its not offensive. He obviously put a lot of time and thought into it. Can we call him “Mormon Rockwell”?

 

[RebeccaJ]

What book is the guy in the lower right hand corner holding?

My trifocals ain’t helpin me none

Just found this.

All is revealed. It is Darwin’s, “Origin Of Species”, being held by a smug, leftist, humanist, Godless, professor (according to McNaughton’s description).

 

[WildCatholic]

Just found this.

All is revealed. It is Darwin’s, “Origin Of Species”, being held by a smug, leftist, humanist, Godless, professor (according to McNaughton’s description).

Now that’s going a little far. I know Mormons don’t believe in evolution, but if you are any sort of Christian, you should realize evolution is not bad when it is directed by God (as I think it is).

 

[JHow]

Just found this.

All is revealed. It is Darwin’s, “Origin Of Species”, being held by a smug, leftist, humanist, Godless, professor (according to McNaughton’s description).

I was slow on the uptake in not discovering the interactive nature of the painting until now. D’oh!uch:

 

[RebeccaJ]

I was slow on the uptake in not discovering the interactive nature of the painting until now. D’oh!uch:

It’s kind of cool.

 

[zaffiroborant]

The only reason I don’t like it is because it gives into this idea that God favors the US over any other country. As a Catholic, I love my country, but I love my church more, and I feel that while governments change and fall, Christ’s church won’t fall.

I will admit they are kind of cool paintings though, in spite of the message

I agree, while I see the Constitution as the best we’ve come up with yet, it is a human product. It seems almost blasphemous to imply that it came from Christ’s hand, and that is what the painting implies.

I see that in the painting too. I just can’t get past the over-the top politics. In this painting, it’s the strawman-esque depictions of ‘the media’, ‘the liberal professors’, etc in the corner with Satan. I know plenty of good, even wonderful liberals, and it’s awkward at best to look at this painting and think of them. I also can’t disassociate this painting from the artist’s others, like the even-more-political one of President Obama burning the Constitution. The politics in this painting irks and bothers me, and I believe denigrates the religious aspect of the painting.

Why I think this painting is good, though, is that it raises to an art form all the political extremes we are capable of in America. Whether we’re offended by it or not, the feelings it evokes are something we’ll experience repeatedly in life. I believe this tendency to politicize (and as I think, abuse religion) is capable of the right or the left, the religious or athiest, young and old, etc. And because of that, I think it’s something we need to recognize, acknowledge, and discuss.

I think the painting servers no other purpose than to divide people, it in no way acknowledges that good people can have different views on things.

I know, but I guess I feel that while we are a Christian nation in the sense our people are (or were) Christian and for most of our history had those values, its not like we have a hold on God. I feel that when nations do this its dangerous. Kind of like how Kings used to have the whole belief they were ordained by God.

Thats just me though.

And many of the people who admire this painting will go on and on about the evils perpetrated by the Catholic church when it was aligned with or was in a position of secularleadership, but of course their church/denomination/sect is actually lead by God not like those power hungry Catholics.

Now that’s going a little far. I know Mormons don’t believe in evolution, but if you are any sort of Christian, you should realize evolution is not bad when it is directed by God (as I think it is).

If you read the links in his blog you can see he’s quite upset that BYU tolerates Democrats and people who believe in evolution on campus.

For me the words that come to mind when viewing his artwork are, trite, jingoistic, maudlin, manipulative, divisive and even hateful. I’m not fond of his work.

 

[TexanKnight]

I find his actual quality amateurish, and there’s no doubt that the content is over-the-top political. Even as a practicing Mormon I couldn’t stand his artwork. I say BYU did well here. I’m honestly quite surprised to find certain Catholics here that are OK with the Americanization of Jesus like this. Sort of takes away from the whole Catholicity of the Church, no?

I just don’t see any Americanization of Jesus. I think it would be foolish to say Jesus did not have a hand in how our country came to be. Why wouldn’t he hold the Constitution? If I spend time with one of my children, does that mean I love the other three less?

 

[aspirant]

The stuff I’ve seen by Jon McNaughton is pretty shallow, sentimentalistic, and trite. I don’t really care what BYU does or doesn’t do with it, though.

This painting is the one that is referenced…
It’s very much in line with Mormon belief/doctrine. It is way over the top conservative, that’s for sure.

Phrases like “American nationalism” and “Mormon propaganda” spring to mind.

I find his actual quality amateurish, and there’s no doubt that the content is over-the-top political. Even as a practicing Mormon I couldn’t stand his artwork… I’m honestly quite surprised to find certain Catholics here that are OK with the Americanization of Jesus like this. Sort of takes away from the whole Catholicity of the Church, no?

Agreed.

I see the Constitution as… a human product. It seems almost blasphemous to imply that it came from Christ’s hand, and that is what the painting implies.

Which is right in line with Mormonism, as I understand it. Ezra Taft Benson even called it “our divine Constitution.” Blech.

I think the painting servers no other purpose than to divide people, it in no way acknowledges that good people can have different views on things… For me the words that come to mind when viewing his artwork are, trite, jingoistic, maudlin, manipulative, divisive and even hateful. I’m not fond of his work.

Total agreement.

 

[JHow]

Look, this is way less offensive than Robert Mapplethorpe, for instance. Do you think the bullwhip was symbolic, or just a bullwhip? How about Ofili’s dung?

The "liberal college professor " here actually just looks like a pleasant sort of guy… not, you know, soaking in a jar of urine or anything.

Is it great art? Who knows? I couldn’t paint it. What I find interesting is that BYU seems to find it too rigorously Morman for BYU.

I looked for a cougar in the picture as well, but, alas. Perhaps McNoughton should have included one.

 

[zaffiroborant]

aspirant:

The stuff I’ve seen by Jon McNaughton is pretty shallow, sentimentalistic, and trite. I don’t really care what BYU does or doesn’t do with it, though.

RebeccaJ:

This painting is the one that is referenced…
It’s very much in line with Mormon belief/doctrine. It is way over the top conservative, that’s for sure.

Phrases like “American nationalism” and “Mormon propaganda” spring to mind.
St Nephi:

I find his actual quality amateurish, and there’s no doubt that the content is over-the-top political. Even as a practicing Mormon I couldn’t stand his artwork… I’m honestly quite surprised to find certain Catholics here that are OK with the Americanization of Jesus like this. Sort of takes away from the whole Catholicity of the Church, no?

Agreed.

zaffiroborant:

View Post
I see the Constitution as… a human product. It seems almost blasphemous to imply that it came from Christ’s hand, and that is what the painting implies.

Which is right in line with Mormonism, as I understand it. Ezra Taft Benson even called it “our divine Constitution.” Blech.

zaffiroborant:

I think the painting servers no other purpose than to divide people, it in no way acknowledges that good people can have different views on things… For me the words that come to mind when viewing his artwork are, trite, jingoistic, maudlin, manipulative, divisive and even hateful. I’m not fond of his work.

Total agreement.

Oh my goodness I forgot cheesy, how could I forget cheesy when the painting is such a fine example of it.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Look, this is way less offensive than Robert Mapplethorpe, for instance. Do you think the bullwhip was symbolic, or just a bullwhip? How about Ofili’s dung?

The "liberal college professor " here actually just looks like a pleasant sort of guy… not, you know, soaking in a jar of urine or anything.

Is it great art? Who knows? I couldn’t paint it. What I find interesting is that BYU seems to find it too rigorously Morman for BYU.

I looked for a cougar in the picture as well, but, alas. Perhaps McNoughton should have included one.

While Mapplethorpe and others works may be more offensive, saying the Constitution comes from the hand of God is in some ways more troubling.

 

[TexanKnight]

While Mapplethorpe and others works may be more offensive, saying the Constitution comes from the hand of God is in some ways more troubling.

why is troubling to think God inspired those who wrote the Constitution?

 

[JHow]

While Mapplethorpe and others works may be more offensive, saying the Constitution comes from the hand of God is in some ways more troubling.

Yes, it is wrong, and it depends on the degree to which you take it. In school we used to have posters on the wall with the Ten Commandments, Magna Carta, declaration, constitution; the implication being that human law has its source in Gods law. I think most people would not find that concept remarkable. On the other hand if you read the painting as saying: “I’m Christ, and I endorse this Constitution,” then you have placed the Constitution on the level of God’s law, where it clearly does not belong. In this respect, I don’t think it is orthodox Christian, but, as noted, this is a Mormon work and they may see it as okay. It is not intended to attack Christianity, however, and is mostly annoying to secular types who would prefer to ignore or erase Christian cultural influences.

 

[aspirant]

why is troubling to think God inspired those who wrote the Constitution?

This comes to mind:
Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation:

Jesus perfected revelation by fulfilling it through his whole work of making Himself present and manifesting Himself: through His words and deeds, His signs and wonders, but especially through His death and glorious resurrection from the dead and final sending of the Spirit of truth. Moreover He confirmed with divine testimony what revelation proclaimed, that God is with us to free us from the darkness of sin and death, and to raise us up to life eternal.

The Christian dispensation, therefore, as the new and definitive covenant, will never pass away and we now await no further new public revelation before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ (see 1 Tim. 6:14 and Tit. 2:13).

 

[TexanKnight]

This comes to mind:

what does that have to do with divine inspiration? Are you saying we cannot have divine inspiration?

 

[WildCatholic]

why is troubling to think God inspired those who wrote the Constitution?

Because it was written by men. Now they were (at least in some sense) Christian and had the right ideas, but it was not from God in the sense that God wrote it or endorsed it. Being a man made institution, it has its faults. Even the Church (or more properly Church members and prelates) are not perfect even if they are chosen by the Holy Spirit like the Pope. They are still men who can make mistakes (btw i’m not attacking infalibility. I firmly believe in it, since even the worst popes didn’t make doctrinal errors).

To me this seems like a kind of state worship. But being as Mormonism is tied to the U.S. (I swear I read in the Catholic Answers guide that the Mormons are supposed to follow and allow all laws of the U.S., somewhat similar to how the Church of England’s beliefs and doctrines can be technically rewritten by Parliament) I see why he might feel this way and show it in his artwork

 

[TexanKnight]

Because it was written by men. Now they were (at least in some sense) Christian and had the right ideas, but it was not from God in the sense that God wrote it or endorsed it. Being a man made institution, it has its faults. Even the Church (or more properly Church members and prelates) are not perfect even if they are chosen by the Holy Spirit like the Pope. They are still men who can make mistakes (btw i’m not attacking infalibility. I firmly believe in it, since even the worst popes didn’t make doctrinal errors).

To me this seems like a kind of state worship. But being as Mormonism is tied to the U.S. (I swear I read in the Catholic Answers guide that the Mormons are supposed to follow and allow all laws of the U.S., somewhat similar to how the Church of England’s beliefs and doctrines can be technically rewritten by Parliament) I see why he might feel this way and show it in his artwork

wow…I guess we have to disagree. I believe God can inspire men without God writing it and endorsing it. I see heavenly inspiration and guidance in a lot of things…including the forming of this country.

 

[aspirant]

what does that have to do with divine inspiration?

Keep reading the same document I quoted. “Inspiration” is a term we use in the context of public revelation:
Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation:

Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself. In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted.

Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God, for the sake of salvation, wanted put into sacred writings. Therefore “all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text).

Public revelation is complete in Jesus Christ. The canon of scripture is closed. The Constitution of the United States is not divinely authored.

I understand that people sometimes use the word “inspired” in a very loose sense, in phrases such as “Wow, that Shakespearean sonnet was really inspired! I’ve never encountered poetry so well written!” But when we’re talking about Mormonism, which really does teach that the Constitution of the United States is divinely authored, it would be better not to confuse the matter by using terms like “inspired” in that loose way. We Catholics do not believe the Constitution of the U.S. is divinely authored.

It certainly isn’t something Jesus handed to us, as the painting seems to suggest. In fact, the American Constitution and its underlying philosophical liberalism have been criticized by a number of orthodox Catholic philosophers and theologians.

Now {the men who wrote the Constitution of the U.S.} were (at least in some sense) Christian

I’d argue that this is probably overly-generous. Jefferson, for example, sometimes called himself a “Christian,” but he used his own definition of the term and was a unitarian deist. Franklin would be another example of the same. I don’t consider this any more “Christian” than I would consider Islam “Christian” (in some ways, Islam would actually be closer to Christianity, for example in believing that God actually works miracles in the world).

but it was not from God in the sense that God wrote it or endorsed it. Being a man made institution, it has its faults.

Yes.

 

[WildCatholic]

wow…I guess we have to disagree. I believe God can inspire men without God writing it and endorsing it. I see heavenly inspiration and guidance in a lot of things…including the forming of this country.

I understand, and don’t think that there isn’t heavenly inspiration. It’s just that like all things manmade they can be corrupted. I think a pertinent example is that of our Catholic colleges in this country. They were founded as very good institutions intended on promoting the church and educating their graduates not only in their majors but in the faith. However, many have lost their way. Just because something is founded with the right ideals doesn’t mean it will remain.

Now I know you will say the church has remained, but Christ said it would remain in the Scriptures.

By the way, thanks for being so civil in this argument Texan Knight. I know I might have been blunt, but even though we disagree, I understand your beliefs. Thanks