Mormon Artist Jon McNaughton

  • Thread starter Thread starter TexanKnight
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
But it wasn’t inspired in the sense scripture was inspired. Scripture was from God using Paul and the Gospel writers and Moses. The founding fathers merely adhered to Christian principles. While it may be something favorable to christianity (or was) it isn’t inspired in the sense God wrote it or was guiding Madison to write certain things
 
his resistance to establishment of religion… is not antithetical to Christian thought.
Not necessarily. His arguments in favor, however, sometimes were: “Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize every expanded prospect.”
 
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
Has the LDS church said they disagree with McNaughton? Mormons are pragmatic.
 
Has the LDS church said they disagree with McNaughton?
I’m not aware that the LDS church has said anything at all about McNaughton. 🤷

When the BYU bookstore stopped selling the painting in question, McNaughton pulled all of his paintings. Apparently they have since come to a mutual agreement that the store will sell some of his paintings but not all of them.

The bookstore’s decision not to sell this one particular painting appears to have been based on opposition from people on campus, such as this:
Deseret News:
Utah painter Jon McNaughton decided to remove all of his artwork from the bookstore after school officials decided they would no longer sell one of his most famous, and politically charged paintings, “One Nation Under God,” which features Jesus Christ holding the U.S. Constitution, flanked by public figures and representative individuals.

BYU spokeswoman Carri Jenkins said they reached an agreement with McNaughton in December that they would no longer buy and sell that specific piece, and that decision was enforced again recently.

“It’s the bookstore’s prerogative to determine what the bookstore purchases and sells,” she said, adding that the bookstore focuses on religious art and adheres to a school policy of political neutrality…

Jennifer Barton hated it. The adjunct art professor at BYU found the piece way too politically charged, and expressed concerns to the bookstore that it was a propaganda piece for the tea party.

Her main concern was not Christ holding the Constitution, because most Mormons believe God had some role in the American founding, she said. Instead, her biggest problem was with specific ideological details portrayed - and explained by conservative McNaughton on his website.

There’s the “good” student who is holding a copy of Cleon Skousen’s book, “The 5,000 Year Leap,” which has been heavily promoted by Glenn Beck and somewhat “adopted” by the Tea Party, she said.

Among the “bad” people is a professor holding a copy of “The Origin of Species,” by Charles Darwin.

“For a university to have that promoted as a bad thing, where half the biology department probably has you read that, just seemed really out of place for BYU,” she said. “Really unprofessional.”
But, in all honesty, I don’t think the reasons why the bookstore made the decision not to sell “One Nation Under God” make any real difference. It makes no sense to me that an artist would feel entitled to have all of his paintings, without exception, sold by any bookstore.
 
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.
Of course not. How would that be neutral?
  1. So my point is that it is odd that the poster took the stand against the painter, yet said NOTHING against Romney…
I am not an LDS GA and I haven’t taken a stand against the painter.🙂

My point is that displaying McNaughton’s art at BYU would be interpreted by many, (as proven by some CAF posters) as “Mormon propaganda”.
 
Of course not. How would that be neutral?

make up your mind. Either they are neutral or they are not.

I am not an LDS GA and I haven’t taken a stand against the painter.🙂

My point is that displaying McNaughton’s art at BYU would be interpreted by many, (as proven by some CAF posters) as “Mormon propaganda”.

So could have Romney’s comments…the LDS Church has a double standard when it comes to their own becoming president, I guess
 
Not necessarily. His arguments in favor, however, sometimes were: “Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize every expanded prospect.”
I agree. “Religious bondage” IS a bad thing. JM was no respecter of religious bureaucrats. But I fear we will stray OT. I actually agree with most of your drift, especially on Jefferson.
 
Why does Jesus have to be a white man? We all know He was not. Also, who is the devil on the right side of the painting towards the edge?
 
Why does Jesus have to be a white man? We all know He was not. Also, who is the devil on the right side of the painting towards the edge?
The dark figure on the right is Satan. If you scroll your cursor over the images it will give a text from the painter explaining what the symbols are.
 
We had Gonzaga reject the KoC student group.
We just had an ELCA Lutheran collage reject an LCMS Lutheran President for holding too closely to his church’s doctrine.
I’m more of a lurker on this forum than a commentator, but I feel I must (even though off topic) comment. It was my alma mater, Luther College that rejected a potential LCMS president because of his beliefs. It wasn’t for the reasons stated above, but for something much worse. From my understanding, he acknowledged that he would respect the more liberal values of the school, but that respect wasn’t enough for those going against him. This was even after several ELCA pastor alumni and the campus pastors wrote letters supporting his candidacy in the student newspaper. Personally, I see it as a shameful chapter in the school’s long history, though I’m gladdened to see the response of even the more liberal campus pastors.
 
Well, they are interesting, and seem to generate discussion. Too much going on at one time to appreciate his art.
 
TexanKnight:

Please try to keep your commentary to quotes outside of the quote box (even if you alter the color of your text), as it makes it very difficult to reply to your posts. Either put your commentary at the very end of the quote, or physically break up the quote by adding and
at the beginning and end of your commentary.
To your point; I’m not actually following it at all. mtolympus claimed that BYU removed the obviously partisan artwork as to be politically neutral. Whether this is true or not is not a concern of mine, I simply took issue with your very strange tu quoque regarding the LDS GAs. While BYU is owned and operated by the LDS Church, it is nevertheless an institution of higher education and serves in both an ecclesiastical and a secular capacity (just like Catholic hospitals and universities do). Given this, I could understand why the LDS Church might behave politically partial while insisting that their universities remain neutral as to save the integrity of the university as a university.
This notwithstanding, the LDS Church has claimed to be political neutral. Being politically neutral means that the Church would not explicitly favor one political ideology over another. If the LDS Church were to chastise Mr. Romney for his political beliefs this would stand as evidence that the LDS Church is in fact acting politically partial, and yet you’re here insisting that their failure to do so shows that they are in fact not impartial. This seems to me to bend the very definition of partiality beyond any point of coherence.
 
TexanKnight:

Please try to keep your commentary to quotes outside of the quote box (even if you alter the color of your text), as it makes it very difficult to reply to your posts. Either put your commentary at the very end of the quote, or physically break up the quote by adding
and
at the beginning and end of your commentary.
sorry…this is how I post
To your point; I’m not actually following it at all. mtolympus claimed that BYU removed the obviously partisan artwork as to be politically neutral. Whether this is true or not is not a concern of mine, I simply took issue with your very strange tu quoque regarding the LDS GAs. While BYU is owned and operated by the LDS Church, it is nevertheless an institution of higher education and serves in both an ecclesiastical and a secular capacity (just like Catholic hospitals and universities do). Given this, I could understand why the LDS Church might behave politically partial while insisting that their universities remain neutral as to save the integrity of the university as a university.
This notwithstanding, the LDS Church has claimed to be political neutral. Being politically neutral means that the Church would not explicitly favor one political ideology over another. If the LDS Church were to chastise Mr. Romney for his political beliefs this would stand as evidence that the LDS Church is in fact acting politically partial, and yet you’re here insisting that their failure to do so shows that they are in fact not impartial. This seems to me to bend the very definition of partiality beyond any point of coherence.
Nope. I have no idea why you could not follow my train of thought. My 10-year-old nephew could. That is why I offered to discuss it with you privately. I figured English is not your first language and maybe we could muddle through it privately. Notwithstanding, my point was that the LDS Church is hypocritical if they get rid of paintings due to political neutrality but fail to chastise their LDS candidate for saying the exact same things that the painting portrays.
 
TexanKnight:

Please try to keep your commentary to quotes outside of the quote box (even if you alter the color of your text), as it makes it very difficult to reply to your posts. Either put your commentary at the very end of the quote, or physically break up the quote by adding
and
at the beginning and end of your commentary.
To your point; I’m not actually following it at all. mtolympus claimed that BYU removed the obviously partisan artwork as to be politically neutral. Whether this is true or not is not a concern of mine, I simply took issue with your very strange tu quoque regarding the LDS GAs. While BYU is owned and operated by the LDS Church, it is nevertheless an institution of higher education and serves in both an ecclesiastical and a secular capacity (just like Catholic hospitals and universities do). Given this, I could understand why the LDS Church might behave politically partial while insisting that their universities remain neutral as to save the integrity of the university as a university.
This notwithstanding, the LDS Church has claimed to be political neutral. Being politically neutral means that the Church would not explicitly favor one political ideology over another. If the LDS Church were to chastise Mr. Romney for his political beliefs this would stand as evidence that the LDS Church is in fact acting politically partial, and yet you’re here insisting that their failure to do so shows that they are in fact not impartial. This seems to me to bend the very definition of partiality beyond any point of coherence.
When it comes to politics, the lds church will change its stance at any moment just to suite its needs. There is no seperation between church and state here in Utah so I think you get my point.
 
and

When it comes to politics, the lds church will change its stance at any moment just to suite its needs. There is no seperation between church and state here in Utah so I think you get my point.
It isn’t just politics.

The mormon god bends to social pressure no matter what the issue. Polygamy, blacks and the priesthood, divorce, abortion, etc.

You are right that there is no separation of church and state in Utah. Who was that state legislator that got a standing ovation after admitting inappropriate behavior with a minor?
He was even a Bishop. Where was the separation then?

BTW, it was Kevin Garn
 
It isn’t just politics.

The mormon god bends to social pressure no matter what the issue. Polygamy, blacks and the priesthood, divorce, abortion, etc.

You are right that there is no separation of church and state in Utah. Who was that state legislator that got a standing ovation after admitting inappropriate behavior with a minor?
He was even a Bishop. Where was the separation then?

BTW, it was Kevin Garn
Very true Two!
 
It isn’t just politics.

The mormon god bends to social pressure no matter what the issue. Polygamy, blacks and the priesthood, divorce, abortion, etc.

You are right that there is no separation of church and state in Utah. Who was that state legislator that got a standing ovation after admitting inappropriate behavior with a minor?
He was even a Bishop. Where was the separation then?

BTW, it was Kevin Garn
He was nude in a hottub with a 15-year old…and says “nothing happened”…right.

What amazes me is that he was later called to Church positions.

Now, when I was LDS, I was always told "
the Lord has called you to this position.". I was told that only after prayer was I given the calling.

Are we to believe that the Lord told the LDS Church to call this pedophile to a leadership position?

No, before you go comparing this to the Priest scandal, let me be clear that I do NOT defend the Priests…but no one ASKED the priests to be Priests and none of them were ever called AFTER they had done their crimes to tell them that the Lord had called them to be Priests.

If the LDS Church is led as it claims to be led, how did that happen? Was the LDS god just wrong again?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top