LDS Freedom Forum

Bye bye breasts, cheerio cherubim.
https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2022/12 ... -nativity/

They have done similar things in the past. Adding sleeves, removing wings, etc. I think they should use famous paintings in their original state, or find another painting, or commission an original.

This just makes the church look ridiculous.

Lizzy60 wrote: ↑December 29th, 2022, 6:59 pm They have done similar things in the past. Adding sleeves, removing wings, etc. I think they should use famous paintings in their original state, or find another painting, or commission an original.

This just makes the church look ridiculous.

The rich blue and white tones have also been removed from this painting... it's lost a lot in translation.

I can't help but be reminded of the way Stalin had pictures doctored. Like the famous one where his former secret police chief Yezhov was removed after he fell out of favour.

Niemand wrote: ↑December 29th, 2022, 7:17 pm

Lizzy60 wrote: ↑December 29th, 2022, 6:59 pm They have done similar things in the past. Adding sleeves, removing wings, etc. I think they should use famous paintings in their original state, or find another painting, or commission an original.

This just makes the church look ridiculous.

.... Like the famous one where his former secret police chief Yezhov was removed after he fell out of favour.

That's so petty lmaoooooo

You can buy prints of this painting several different places online where the swaddling clothes are more yellowy white rather than the blue and white.

The fact that Mary had breasts disturbs them. But Joe Biden doesn't. They approved of Clinton, also. I wonder if he invited them to Epstein Island?
Their actions are usually exact opposite of their words.

I think the doctored picture is a lot better.
Mary wouldn't have been flashing her cleavage.

Robin Hood wrote: ↑December 30th, 2022, 8:14 am I think the doctored picture is a lot better.
Mary wouldn't have been flashing her cleavage.

She is a nursing mother so it would make sense for her to have both of them "on standby". The LDS version also messes up the colour scheme.

They would have been better doing a new picture.

After all they refuse to use Holman Hunt's Light of the World so they just did their own cleaned up version instead. (I could do some art criticism of both of these but maybe further down. The LDS version misses a lot which is in the original.)

Fred wrote: ↑December 29th, 2022, 7:43 pm The fact that Mary had breasts disturbs them. But Joe Biden doesn't. They approved of Clinton, also. I wonder if he invited them to Epstein Island?
Their actions are usually exact opposite of their words.

I shouldn't laugh at these things, but sorry this did get a chuckle out of me.

It is worth pointing out that the new LDS is what one could be called "epicene". We have men without beards, women without bumps on top and then we wonder why the genders are getting all mixed up. I'm not saying they should be hanging out but Mary looks noticeably more feminine in the original.

Robin Hood wrote: ↑December 30th, 2022, 8:14 am I think the doctored picture is a lot better.
Mary wouldn't have been flashing her cleavage.

The fact that anyone would consider the first picture as "flashing her cleavage" just shows what a bunch of prudish, puritanical, whited sepulchers we have become. No offense.

Niemand wrote: ↑December 30th, 2022, 11:16 am

Robin Hood wrote: ↑December 30th, 2022, 8:14 am I think the doctored picture is a lot better.
Mary wouldn't have been flashing her cleavage.

She is a nursing mother so it would make sense for her to have both of them "on standby". The LDS version also messes up the colour scheme.

They would have been better doing a new picture.

After all they refuse to use Holman Hunt's Light of the World so they just did their own cleaned up version instead. (I could do some art criticism of both of these but maybe further down. The LDS version misses a lot which is in the original.)

She was a religious Jew.
She would have been covered up.

Original_Intent wrote: ↑December 30th, 2022, 11:27 am

Robin Hood wrote: ↑December 30th, 2022, 8:14 am I think the doctored picture is a lot better.
Mary wouldn't have been flashing her cleavage.

The fact that anyone would consider the first picture as "flashing her cleavage" just shows what a bunch of prudish, puritanical, whited sepulchers we have become. No offense.

None taken.
But like I said, she was a religious Jew, so she would have been covered up.

Robin Hood wrote: ↑December 30th, 2022, 11:57 am

Niemand wrote: ↑December 30th, 2022, 11:16 am

Robin Hood wrote: ↑December 30th, 2022, 8:14 am I think the doctored picture is a lot better.
Mary wouldn't have been flashing her cleavage.

She is a nursing mother so it would make sense for her to have both of them "on standby". The LDS version also messes up the colour scheme.

They would have been better doing a new picture.

After all they refuse to use Holman Hunt's Light of the World so they just did their own cleaned up version instead. (I could do some art criticism of both of these but maybe further down. The LDS version misses a lot which is in the original.)

She was a religious Jew.
She would have been covered up.

Even they don't breastfeed through a bit of cloth. I take it that she is nursing at the time.

Covering the cleavage is one thing, but they've removed the curve so she looks more androgynous now.

Maratta is a catholic artist, so of course he going to make a huge deal out of Mary and make her the focal point of the painting. The cleavage bosomy aspect is probably there to make her appear more especially maternal, I suppose.

The LDS version makes the infant Jesus the center of the painting and the complete focal point. For this reason I prefer it to the original for myself, although the original is certainly a great work of art, and granted with the changes made to Mary she loses some of her majestic appeal.

Maybe they could just have AI create art for them - instead of changing other peoples’ art. Although some say AI plagiarizes too.