Mormon Artist Jon McNaughton

  • Thread starter Thread starter TexanKnight
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
aspirant said:
…
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).
.
Click to expand...
You need to consider Madison, if the question is the Constitution.
 
JHow said:
You need to consider Madison, if the question is the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Madison’s ideas did not occur either in a vacuum or in a particularly orthodox context. His writings and biographies suggest he too leaned deist/indifferent.
 
aspirant said:
Keep reading the same document I quoted. “Inspiration” is a term we use in the context of public revelation:

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.

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).

Yes.
Click to expand...
So, if I have inspiration about something, it is public revelation?

So, when I was inspired to join the Catholic Church, it was public revelation and should have been ignored?
 
WildCatholic said:
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
Click to expand...
I agree things can be corrupted. But that was the question. I believe God inspired the men when they were writing the Constitution. Has it been corrupted? Yes. Does that take away from original inspiration? Nope.
 
TexanKnight said:
So, if I have inspiration about something, it is public revelation?
Click to expand...
That depends on how you are using the term. Regardless how you intend it, however, in the context of a conversation concerning Mormonism and the Constitution the word is, at best, misleading and ill-advised. I would recommend that you not use it, since Mormons actually believe the Constitution to be divinely authored and we do not.
 
aspirant said:
That depends on how you are using the term. Regardless how you intend it, however, in the context of a conversation concerning Mormonism and the Constitution the word is, at best, misleading and ill-advised. I would recommend that you not use it, since Mormons actually believe the Constitution to be divinely authored and we do not.
Click to expand...
I never said it was divinely authored. I said the men, or at least some of them, were divinely inspired.

And I believe I was inspired, when my conversion took place. We are told the Holy Spirit can guide us and help us. You can call it what you want…I will call it inspiration.
 
What I don’t get is the part of the Constitution that the child is pointing to:

Section. 6.

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States.


😃
 
campeador said:
What I don’t get is the part of the Constitution that the child is pointing to:

Section. 6.

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States.

😃
Click to expand...
:rotfl: I thought it was Mormon propaganda, but clearly it’s Congressional compensation propaganda.
 
aspirant said:
Madison’s ideas did not occur either in a vacuum or in a particularly orthodox context. His writings and biographies suggest he too leaned deist/indifferent.
Click to expand...
Yes, but IMO too much hay is made over his resistance to establishment of religion. The idea is not antithetical to Christian thought. Also Madison wasn’t nearly the bloviate Jefferson was, so his personal beliefs aren’t as easy to detect.

Finally, the Virginians were and are very different in their approach than the northern founders, as noted in the 19th c.
 
I have enjoyed the CAF’s responses to this thread about the works (or, at least the single painting posted) of Jon McNaughton and the discussion it has prompted about the constitution. But, what is the reason BYU will no longer display his work?

Jon McNaughton has his constitutional right to express his views through his art, just as BYU as a private institution has the constitutional right to display art that is consistant with its values. The LDS church has tried to maintain a neutral stance on all political candidates and elected officials. A painting by McNauhton which depicts President Obama holding up a burning constitution and another where Obama is stomping on a shreded constitution are, in my opinion, the reason BYU will no longer display his work.
 
mtolympus said:
I have enjoyed the CAF’s responses to this thread about the works (or, at least the single painting posted) of Jon McNaughton and the discussion it has prompted about the constitution. But, what is the reason BYU will no longer display his work?

Jon McNaughton has his constitutional right to express his views through his art, just as BYU as a private institution has the constitutional right to display art that is consistant with its values. The LDS church has tried to maintain a neutral stance on all political candidates and elected officials. A painting by McNauhton which depicts President Obama holding up a burning constitution and another where Obama is stomping on a shreded constitution are, in my opinion, the reason BYU will no longer display his work.
Click to expand...
Yet Romney said the same thing that the paintings depicted and I never heard a single LDS GA come out against what Romney was saying and announce the Church did not agree with him.

hmmmmm
 
One other question: is Joseph Smith in the picture? I didn’t see him.
 
TexanKnight said:
Yet Romney said the same thing that the paintings depicted and I never heard a single LDS GA come out against what Romney was saying and announce the Church did not agree with him.

hmmmmm
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, I must have missed the part where BYU is displaying Mitt Romney’s artwork. :confused:
 
St_Nephi said:
I’m sorry, I must have missed the part where BYU is displaying Mitt Romney’s artwork. :confused:
Click to expand...
ok…let me break it down very slowly for you…
  1. Artist paints things that are very conservative about the Constitution, etc. BYU removes them after displaying for some time.
  2. Mormon poster says it is because LDS Church tries to stay neutral in politics.
Following me so far?
  1. So I said that I found that position odd because Romney SAID the same things that the painted PAINTED…
still with me?
  1. So my point is that it is odd that the poster took the stand against the painter, yet said NOTHING against Romney…
if this easy point STILL escapes you, PM me and I will try using different words.

Sorry for confusing you
 
JHow said:
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”?
Click to expand...
:yup::rotfl:

I actually didn’t know that Jon McNaughton was LDS, but now that you mention it, the Jesus figure is a bit superman-like…

Tell me some other LDS elements of his paintings.
 
TheRealJuliane said:
:yup::rotfl:

I actually didn’t know that Jon McNaughton was LDS, but now that you mention it, the Jesus figure is a bit superman-like…

Tell me some other LDS elements of his paintings.
Click to expand...
RebeccaJ already found them, but the 5,000 Year Leap by Skousen is a popular work among Mormons, for one.
 
TheRealJuliane said:
:yup::rotfl:

I actually didn’t know that Jon McNaughton was LDS, but now that you mention it, the Jesus figure is a bit superman-like…

Tell me some other LDS elements of his paintings.
Click to expand...
he has a whole line of paintings from LDS history and Biblical history. It is not just political stuff
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top