Ponderings on nudity and modesty

[dahlia]

14 hours ago, Snigmorder said:

I have no reverence for art and I am therefore unbothered.

I don't even know what to say to that. Some of my happiest times were taking my son to the art galleries of Philadelphia and exposing him to art. My godmother was Alma Thomas, who used to take my sister (who grew up to be a halfway decent artist herself) and I to the galleries of Georgetown in DC. They were wonderful and enriching experiences for us.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alma_Thomas

Just curious - do you read books? Or, are you unbothered by them as well? I'm surprised you use a computer.

[Vort]

22 minutes ago, dahlia said:

exposing him to art

Perhaps a too-appropriate choice of wording, given the topic...

[Snigmorder]

43 minutes ago, dahlia said:

I don't even know what to say to that. Some of my happiest times were taking my son to the art galleries of Philadelphia and exposing him to art. My godmother was Alma Thomas, who used to take my sister (who grew up to be a halfway decent artist herself) and I to the galleries of Georgetown in DC. They were wonderful and enriching experiences for us.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alma_Thomas

Just curious - do you read books? Or, are you unbothered by them as well? I'm surprised you use a computer.

I like art. When I say I don't reverence art, I mean I won't tolerate something just because it's "art." There actually is art which I reverence, and that's music, but I don't consider it part of this.

[Vort]

16 minutes ago, Snigmorder said:

There actually is art which I reverence, and that's music

You and Metallica both, dude! 

[NeuroTypical]

Fortunately, someone solved the problem for us.  

[Traveler]

Perhaps I have a different perspective because I was raised in the home of very devout parents of pioneer LDS stock and a father that was an artist – both by talent and training.  There is a reason that art studios use live nude model in training artists.  The simple and short reason is that if an artist cannot accurately visualize the nude structure of the human body when creating their art – even clothed, their artistic depiction of human figures will appear distorted and flawed. 

In general, we tend to think of those that develop artistic talents (including the fine arts in higher education) as being more “liberal” minded.  Because of my father’s association with other artists; I grew up thinking quite otherwise.  I do not intend this post to be an art lesson – but I would say that it is unfortunate that many do not seem to understand that being well versed artistic pursuits ought to be considered a necessary part education – including and especially even from an eternal perspective. 

But there is another side to this conversation – in short is in what the world calls sex.  I am somewhat unhappy with the word “sex”.  Not for the reasons many think.  I personally believe that the intimate relationship of a man and woman in marriage has become so taboo that almost any discussion in the matter becomes distorted, polluted and unchaste to a very large segment of religious society.  This leave a void that cannot be filled without some vulgar references to the lowest elements of a fallen human society that results in various levels of abuse and misconduct surrounding the most sacred relationship given by G-d to the human family.  And this void is very easily and cleverly filled by Satan with such a wide and effective net – that I believe this matter to be the single most distractive force in mortality to leading the children of G-d away from G-dly pursuits.   

I wish I could quote some scripture and say something so intelligent and brilliant that all the proper elements of intimate relationships between a man and a woman in marriage would be clear and understandable to all – but even after over 40 years of marriage I am bewildered, amazed, confused and so blessed that I find adequate communication on the subject impossible for me.   My father once counseled me that this subject of understanding intimacy is one thing that just about everybody will look you in the eye and deliberately lie to you about how well they understand and apply such important and necessary principles themselves.

Yes @Vort – you have only exposed the tip of an iceberg that is not just difficult to understand but much more to say (or in any other way communicate) anything useful and helpful.

 

The Traveler

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Perhaps I have a different perspective because I was raised in the home of very devout parents of pioneer LDS stock and a father that was an artist – both by talent and training.  There is a reason that art studios use live nude model in training artists.  The simple and short reason is that if an artist cannot accurately visualize the nude structure of the human body when creating their art – even clothed, their artistic depiction of human figures will appear distorted and flawed. 

Very good point. I'm sure you can be a great artist and not draw/know about the human form-but it's sort of like being an English major who has never heard of or read Charles Dickens before. 

[NeuroTypical]

Traveler's post rocks.  It was quite a jump for me to get this, to visualize the anatomy I was trying to draw, and not think I was doing or thinking something wrong.  I'm still surprised and shocked at how, well, clean and healthy the whole process felt to me.

Quote

As my daughters and I learned about art from my wife, I drew beauty.  The figure is dressed immodestly, but wearing more clothes than the models in BYU art classes.  You can see it here.  5 years ago, I never would have come within a million miles of drawing someone this cute.  Doing so would have been the equivalent of not just looking at pr0n, but actively creating it.  After all - this cartoon has girl parts, and in order to make it, those parts had to be drawn.  But now, I can look through spiritual eyes, and see just a hint of what God must see.

 

[Traveler]

4 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Very good point. I'm sure you can be a great artist and not draw/know about the human form-but it's sort of like being an English major who has never heard of or read Charles Dickens before. 

 

It is worse than that – it is like expecting a contractor to build you a house or an architect to design a house that does not understand foundation and framing structure necessary for supporting a building.

 

The Traveler

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, Traveler said:

 

It is worse than that – it is like expecting a contractor to build you a house or an architect to design a house that does not understand foundation and framing structure necessary for supporting a building.

 

The Traveler

Very true. Agree 10,000%. 

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

It is worse than that – it is like expecting a contractor to build you a house or an architect to design a house that does not understand foundation and framing structure necessary for supporting a building.

 

The Traveler

Well, Disney, Nest, & Pixar seem to be quite successful without such adherence.

SQUIRREL!

Edited July 11, 2017 by Guest

[Traveler]

On ‎7‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 11:03 AM, Carborendum said:

Well, Disney, Nest, & Pixar seem to be quite successful without such adherence.

SQUIRREL!

 

You may be surprised to discover how much classical training is required for working in the digital graphic art industry.

 

The Traveler

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Traveler said:

You may be surprised to discover how much classical training is required for working in the digital graphic art industry.

I was referring to the fact that the bodies shown on such animations certainly don't have the level of detail that is being touted about all artists here.  Specifically, no detail of "soft tissue" is required to draw most  of the animations that we see.  The shapes we end up seeing are far from detailed.  They show no indication that they care about the details of the classical training of "a study."

[Traveler]

37 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I was referring to the fact that the bodies shown on such animations certainly don't have the level of detail that is being touted about all artists here.  Specifically, no detail of "soft tissue" is required to draw most  of the animations that we see.  The shapes we end up seeing are far from detailed.  They show no indication that they care about the details of the classical training of "a study."

That is why the images appear distorted and flawed - we call them cartoons.  I did not intend this to turn into an art lesson concerning various styles of impressionism and realism.  My intent was to point out that if an artist intends to create an accurate representation of humans in their art – it will require a lot of attention, understand and ability to visualize the naked human form and anatomy.   

My brain does not visualize much of such things – I was a disappointment to my father – I can copy and paste and do math.  I have published dozens of White Papers, a couple of articles and I do not know how many manuals but I am incapable of creating a decent character for a novel.  We all have different gifts.  I am pleased and thankful for my own as well as the gifts and talents in others – and especially grateful and respectful for those that develop as best as possible the talents they are given.

 

The Traveler

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

I did not intend this to turn into an art lesson concerning various styles of impressionism and realism. 

I was not talking about that.  I was addressing your previous comment.

On 7/11/2017 at 11:51 AM, Traveler said:

it is like expecting a contractor to build you a house or an architect to design a house that does not understand foundation and framing structure necessary for supporting a building.

Yet with art, it apparently doesn't really matter since there are successful "artists" who don't follow that line of reasoning.

You made an unfair comparison to a structure -- which is quite exacting in its requirements to serve the need -- with art which is quite forgivingly imprecise (hence impressionism).

I was pointing that out.  But you made it about methodology when you countered with:

4 hours ago, Traveler said:

You may be surprised to discover how much classical training is required for working in the digital graphic art industry.

If you want to go the rounds on art methodology, I can go the full 15 with you.

Look, I'm not holding to the Puritanical idealism when it comes to exposure of the human body.  But I simply do not agree with people who say "oh, it's art, therefore it's not pornographic."  No, it's not "necessarily" pornographic "just because" it exposes the human body.  But labeling pornography "art" does not all of a sudden make it acceptable viewing for the chastity minded individual.

IOW: "Art" does not excuse pornography.

Edited July 14, 2017 by Guest

[Traveler]

14 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I was not talking about that.  I was addressing your previous comment.

Yet with art, it apparently doesn't really matter since there are successful "artists" who don't follow that line of reasoning.

You made an unfair comparison to a structure -- which is quite exacting in its requirements to serve the need -- with art which is quite forgivingly imprecise (hence impressionism).

I was pointing that out.  But you made it about methodology when you countered with:

If you want to go the rounds on art methodology, I can go the full 15 with you.

Look, I'm not holding to the Puritanical idealism when it comes to exposure of the human body.  But I simply do not agree with people who say "oh, it's art, therefore it's not pornographic."  No, it's not "necessarily" pornographic "just because" it exposes the human body.  But labeling pornography "art" does not all of a sudden make it acceptable viewing for the chastity minded individual.

IOW: "Art" does not excuse pornography.

 

You are right about one point in question and that is – what is the art communicating?  There are two parts to any communication (including art).  One is what the creator (or initiator) is trying to put across and the second is what the beholder interprets.   I am personally of the opinion that the difference between art and pornography is more of a spectrum than a boundary separating the two.  When dealing with artistic presentations of the human form there are extremes that we all should be able to agree – at one end is definingly a perversion and at the other something inspiring that lifts the soul and broadens the understanding of human divinity.   There are, however, between the extremes, that which can be interpreted differently for so many reasons.   

As with so many things – greater problem are created when one individual intends to “force” their interpretation on everyone else or even just someone else.  It is even worse – something we call hypocritical – when individuals try to “force” standards on others that they secretly do not intend to keep for themselves. 

This thread point out a problem concerning the human relationship from which human life is replicated and preserved in time.  The standard I have tried to adopt for myself is answered by the question – is the main purpose for something being given or for something to be taken?

When it comes to the intimate human relationship – like some many things considered religious – I realize there are a lot of different opinions.  I am not so interested in one opinion or another as I am the path or journey someone has taken to define and discover their opinion.  And for the record – someone saying that they have concluded their opinion based entirely on something they read (or observed through a single source) – is an opinion I do not highly regard.  And if such an opinion is publicly touted – I believe it should be publicly challenged.  Not so much if it contains truth or not as much as to validate that they actually understand what they seem to have concluded.

 

The Traveler

Edited July 14, 2017 by Traveler

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, Traveler said:

You are right about one point in question and that is – what is the art communicating?  There are two parts to any communication (including art).  One is what the creator (or initiator) is trying to put across and the second is what the beholder interprets.   I am personally of the opinion that the difference between art and pornography is more of a spectrum than a boundary separating the two.  When dealing with artistic presentations of the human form there are extremes that we all should be able to agree – at one end is definingly a perversion and at the other something inspiring that lifts the soul and broadens the understanding of human divinity.   There are, however, between the extremes, that which can be interpreted differently for so many reasons.   

As with so many things – greater problem are created when one individual intends to “force” their interpretation on everyone else or even just someone else.  It is even worse – something we call hypocritical – when individuals try to “force” standards on others that they secretly do not intend to keep for themselves. 

Well, it's kind of hard to argue with you when you seem to be almost quoting my previous posts.

Edited July 14, 2017 by Guest

[Traveler]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Well, it's kind of hard to argue with you when you seem to be almost quoting my previous posts.

Interesting – as we have progressed through this discussion I am reminded that if there was a movie made of my experience serving in the military – it would have to be rated “R” or worse.  Any attempt to make the experience suitable for non-adults would result in important elements being left out that would likely cause inadequate understanding of the experience. 

Some may say that not all the gory details are necessary – but I am not sure that certain life experiences are communicated without certain details.   @Vorthas introduced a very interesting paradox concerning human intimacy and nudity.  Generally, we think that by making taboos (pornographic label) we avoid problems – maybe the taboos and labels contribute to the “gender” confusions – because those that become confused have nowhere to turn other than the gutters and sewers of human ideaology.   Because we have labeled such effort as perverted.   I agree this is a most delicate subject and one that I personally have more questions, concerns, fears and confusion than clear understanding and answers.  But I also think it is impossible to have a meaningful discussion without upsetting someone.   Asking serious questions concerning the logic of attempting to manipulate gender will likely result in accusations of bigot and homophobe.

 

The Traveler

Edited July 14, 2017 by Traveler

[Tomato_Stalk]

On 07/07/2017 at 11:14 PM, Snigmorder said:

 Let me rephrase, what he said reminded me of a discussion me and my friend had a while back. Where he claimed that he can "handle" women in bikinis "i.e. not become aroused" (though I didn't believe him)  I told him that his reaction to nudity is not the point. (everything I say  in the next sentence is directed at my friend only and not Mike) I told him his complacent and prideful tolerance of immodesty and nudity was the point. 

So I will rephrase the "thought experiment" (this isn't a judgment scene, though I called it a tribunal.) Imagine explaining to God the reasons you tolerate things that are contrary to his kingdom. 

Please don't take anything I saw personally, Mike. My response is more or less directed at the attitude my friend had on a similar issue. Which attitude I assumed from your post based on a superficial reading.

I must admit I have debated an idea in my head for a long time. The bible and the teachings of the Mormon faith say on multiple occasions that men and women are made in the image of the Lord. We are born naked. Adam and Eve were supposedly naked and without shame. Why when we apparently return to the Lord should we feel shame in nudity at all? 

I have struggled with this notion for a long time. When I get into basic, simple principle, I see nothing wrong with nudity. Nothing inherently wrong. It is our natural clothing. 

I have heard many Mormons exclaim that the Mormon God has made such a beautiful world with many beautiful things and intricate designs. Don't you think that perhaps the human body and form is one of them? You did express a strong opinion that all forms of art depicting nudity were pornographic. I can only conclude that you believe the intention of these pieces of art is to arouse sexual excitement. I have to ask - do you think the Mormon God meant for you to shun one of his greatest physical designs?  

[Snigmorder]

19 minutes ago, Tomato_Stalk said:

I must admit I have debated an idea in my head for a long time. The bible and the teachings of the Mormon faith say on multiple occasions that men and women are made in the image of the Lord. We are born naked. Adam and Eve were supposedly naked and without shame. Why when we apparently return to the Lord should we feel shame in nudity at all? 

I have struggled with this notion for a long time. When I get into basic, simple principle, I see nothing wrong with nudity. Nothing inherently wrong. It is our natural clothing. 

I have heard many Mormons exclaim that the Mormon God has made such a beautiful world with many beautiful things and intricate designs. Don't you think that perhaps the human body and form is one of them? You did express a strong opinion that all forms of art depicting nudity were pornographic. I can only conclude that you believe the intention of these pieces of art is to arouse sexual excitement. I have to ask - do you think the Mormon God meant for you to shun one of his greatest physical designs?  

God himself made tunics of skins for Adam and eve. God knew they were naked. Adam and Eve did not know until they had a knowledge of good and evil. It is not good to be naked.

 

[askandanswer]

5 hours ago, Tomato_Stalk said:

I must admit I have debated an idea in my head for a long time. The bible and the teachings of the Mormon faith say on multiple occasions that men and women are made in the image of the Lord. We are born naked. Adam and Eve were supposedly naked and without shame. Why when we apparently return to the Lord should we feel shame in nudity at all? 

I have struggled with this notion for a long time. When I get into basic, simple principle, I see nothing wrong with nudity. Nothing inherently wrong. It is our natural clothing. 

I have heard many Mormons exclaim that the Mormon God has made such a beautiful world with many beautiful things and intricate designs. Don't you think that perhaps the human body and form is one of them? You did express a strong opinion that all forms of art depicting nudity were pornographic. I can only conclude that you believe the intention of these pieces of art is to arouse sexual excitement. I have to ask - do you think the Mormon God meant for you to shun one of his greatest physical designs?  

When visitors arrive from Heaven, whether God, Christ, or Angels, the records we have indicate that they are always dressed. The description of Moroni's "clothes" in JS - H vs 31 may be of interest:

31  He had on a loose robe of most exquisite whiteness.  It was a whiteness beyond anything earthly I had ever seen; nor do I believe that any earthly thing could be made to appear so exceedingly white and brilliant.  His hands were naked, and his arms also, a little above the wrist; so, also, were his feet naked, as were his legs, a little above the ankles.  His head and neck were also bare.  I could discover that he had no other clothing on but this robe, as it was open, so that I could see into his bosom.
 

 

[Tomato_Stalk]

14 hours ago, Snigmorder said:

God himself made tunics of skins for Adam and eve. God knew they were naked. Adam and Eve did not know until they had a knowledge of good and evil. It is not good to be naked.

 

Unfortunately I still fail to see the 'wrongness' in nudity. I am also confused why the killing of an animal for clothing is thought justifiable to simply cloth ourselves for the sake of modesty. There is debate on the literal meaning of the tunic skins also - some interpret it as literal (as in Adam and Eve's immortal and immaterial vessels being changed for solid, mortal vessels).

[Snigmorder]

1 hour ago, Tomato_Stalk said:

Unfortunately I still fail to see the 'wrongness' in nudity. I am also confused why the killing of an animal for clothing is thought justifiable to simply cloth ourselves for the sake of modesty. There is debate on the literal meaning of the tunic skins also - some interpret it as literal (as in Adam and Eve's immortal and immaterial vessels being changed for solid, mortal vessels).

There's a pseudepigraphaI Book called the book of Adam and Eve or the book of Adam or something, from Ethiopia (I think.) It contradicts the book of Moses in a few important details. But it talks as though Adam and Eve have been clothed in a mortal skin from their previous form (which, in this book, was some kind of brilliant divine form) prior to their exiting the garden. And later Adam and Eve complain about the elements and the dirt on their bodies and desire clothing. So God leads them to a sheep which has fallen and has them gather the skins and from them, via an angel, he prepares clothing. 

So at least someone thought of the skins they acquired in the garden as mortal skins.

Here's what the book of Moses says about it:

"And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they had been naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons." – Moses 4:13 (We see here that Adam and Eve first tried to cover their nakedness)

"And they heard the voice of the Lord God, as they were walking in the garden, in the cool of the day; and Adam and his wife went to hide themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden.

And I, the Lord God, called unto Adam, and said unto him: Where goest thou?

And he said: I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I beheld that I was naked, and I hid myself." – Moses 4:14–16 (We see here that because of their nakedness, they desired to be hidden from the Lord)

Here's the part about the skins:

"Unto Adam, and also unto his wife, did I, the Lord God, make coats of skins, and clothed them." -Moses 4:27

 

[Vort]

49 minutes ago, Snigmorder said:

There's a pseudepigraphaI Book called the book of Adam and Eve or the book of Adam or something, from Ethiopia (I think.) It contradicts the book of Moses in a few important details. But it talks as though Adam and Eve have been clothed in a mortal skin from their previous form (which, in this book, was some kind of brilliant divine form) prior to their exiting the garden. And later Adam and Eve complain about the elements and the dirt on their bodies and desire clothing. So God leads them to a sheep which has fallen and has them gather the skins and from them, via an angel, he prepares clothing.

The idea of flesh being an evil clothing for the divine spirit is an old gnostic heresy, taken directly from Greek philosophy (e.g. Plato) and adopted wholesale into Christianity after about the first century AD. My guess is that the pseudepigraphal book you mention is gnostic in origin. ("Pseudepigraphal" means "falsely attributed", so by definition a pseudepigraph is a work believed not to have been composed by the purported author. So the "Testament of Abraham" would be considered a pseudepigraph if it was thought not to actually have been written in the original instance by Abraham.)

So-called "gnosticism" was one of the first and most persistent heresies of early Christianity, one which led directly (and quickly) to what we Latter-day Saints call the Great Apostasy. The Greek γνῶσις "gnosis" means knowledge; both words share a common Indo-European linguistic origin, and the now-silent "k" in "knowledge" was originally the same sound represented by the "g" sound in "gnosis".

The gnostics made profit, both financially and socially, by claiming to have Christ's secret teachings to his apostles given during the "lost" 40 days following Jesus' resurrection. Lots of false stuff, some of it quite bizarre, arose at the end of the first century and throughout the second century AD, attributed to Christ as a secret teaching. The early Church tried so hard to keep these teachings from taking root, but after the apostles died, it was an impossible task. False prophets gladly taught their pet doctrines and gained followers, and the humble and sincere seekers were left to try to work out Christian doctrine through the lens of Greek philosophy. This is why so much Greek philosophy is baked into traditional Christianity, things such as the corrupt and evil nature of matter and the utter "otherness" of God. The very earliest Christians were mocked and excoriated for being so simple and gullible as to believe as literal truth stuff like the resurrection of the dead and the appearance of God to men. If not for the work of Augustine, Christianity might even now be marked by crudely literal belief in such ideas. Instead, it took a restoration through the likes of a Joseph Smith to get back to such breathtakingly naive, crudely literalistic ideas like, "If you want to know if an angel is from God, ask to shake his hand." The sophisticates can't help but roll on the floor in laughter at such things.

[Traveler]

8 hours ago, Vort said:

The idea of flesh being an evil clothing for the divine spirit is an old gnostic heresy, taken directly from Greek philosophy (e.g. Plato) and adopted wholesale into Christianity after about the first century AD. My guess is that the pseudepigraphal book you mention is gnostic in origin. ("Pseudepigraphal" means "falsely attributed", so by definition a pseudepigraph is a work believed not to have been composed by the purported author. So the "Testament of Abraham" would be considered a pseudepigraph if it was thought not to actually have been written in the original instance by Abraham.)

So-called "gnosticism" was one of the first and most persistent heresies of early Christianity, one which led directly (and quickly) to what we Latter-day Saints call the Great Apostasy. The Greek γνῶσις "gnosis" means knowledge; both words share a common Indo-European linguistic origin, and the now-silent "k" in "knowledge" was originally the same sound represented by the "g" sound in "gnosis".

The gnostics made profit, both financially and socially, by claiming to have Christ's secret teachings to his apostles given during the "lost" 40 days following Jesus' resurrection. Lots of false stuff, some of it quite bizarre, arose at the end of the first century and throughout the second century AD, attributed to Christ as a secret teaching. The early Church tried so hard to keep these teachings from taking root, but after the apostles died, it was an impossible task. False prophets gladly taught their pet doctrines and gained followers, and the humble and sincere seekers were left to try to work out Christian doctrine through the lens of Greek philosophy. This is why so much Greek philosophy is baked into traditional Christianity, things such as the corrupt and evil nature of matter and the utter "otherness" of God. The very earliest Christians were mocked and excoriated for being so simple and gullible as to believe as literal truth stuff like the resurrection of the dead and the appearance of God to men. If not for the work of Augustine, Christianity might even now be marked by crudely literal belief in such ideas. Instead, it took a restoration through the likes of a Joseph Smith to get back to such breathtakingly naive, crudely literalistic ideas like, "If you want to know if an angel is from God, ask to shake his hand." The sophisticates can't help but roll on the floor in laughter at such things.

 

Great summary.  However, it would seem that many want to take advantage of the Gnostic flaws and attribute more to Gnosticism than they deserve.   For example, many believe that the Book of Enoch was a Gnostic addition that copied much of the New Testament.  In fact, this is what was claimed when the Book of Enoch was rejected as scripture in the 4th Christian century.    But we now know that the Book of Enoch preceded any New Testament writings by as much as 300 years before Jesus was born.

 

The Traveler