We may be overblowing this. My point was/is that a painting…and with Monet it’s rather obvious…that he uses individual strokes of paint, sometimes even mixing the paint hues right on the canvas, to end up with a composite that becomes the whole. I wouldn’t call those ‘blotches’ or brush strokes “ugly” I would just say that they are necessary even if on their own they would not have much in the way of meaning. I suppose Monet is not alone in that way. It’s that some of his paintings seem to stand out more so in this respect to me.Morley wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2023 2:27 amNow you're mixing Monet and Kinkade.MG 2.0 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 15, 2023 9:39 pmThat’s where we differ. As I look at the Monet I see the whole as being ‘good fruit’. The gospel of Jesus Christ is what it’s all about. He who was crucified for our sins, rose the third day, and lives today and guides and directs His church in order to bring souls back into God’s presence.
I do not view that as toxic.
You've repeatedly referred to the perceived mistakes made by the LDS Church, or the anachronisms in The Book of Mormon, as being like blotches that are unappealing when you're up close but look beautiful when you step back and look at the whole picture. Then you use Monet's work as an example.
Monet didn't paint ugly blotches or make what looked like unfortunate mistakes that, when taken taken as a whole, joined to make a larger composition that looked beautiful. His work is compelling whether seen up close or from afar. There are no questionable blotches. For the most part, you don't even have to step back to get the whole picture.
This is generally true for any piece of art that I can recall. Small, ugly parts don't usually combine to create a gigantic, beautiful, splendid whole. Maybe Huckelberry, or somebody else, can correct me on this.
It's irritating and offensive when you repeatedly misrepresent and misuse a discipline (and a painter) that I have some familiarity with to bungle your argument. All I'm asking you to do is to find a more appropriate analogy.
I see a comparison in this with looking at the greater whole of humanity and history and science and religion…etc., in trying to get a glimmer of some sort of an overarching design or purpose. But that whole is composed of many varied hues and shades of good and evil, light and darkness, love and hate, etc.
I would expect to find that. I would expect to find that in Mormonism. I would expect that in the way the restoration evolved and continues to evolve in a world that is also evolving.
There are going to be some dark hues mixed in with the light in LDS history and its leaders. There will be shades of gray and bright patches that stand out against the shadows. Much of this due to the agency of human beings doing great things and human beings doing dumb things.
It’s all part of the ‘masterpiece’ that the Great Artist is creating in which all of His ‘brushstrokes’ or in some cases blotches play their own part.
Anyway, I don’t want to keep harping on this but I hope this might help you understand where I’m coming from on Monet…he being an example one who created magnificent art from individual strokes/dabs of paint exquisitely placed where needed.
By the way, just as with renowned artists creating many works of art I think God’s plan includes a number of paintings that when all put together in a collection end up in an eternal gallery where all paintings composed of their own brush strokes, blotches, and dabs of paint will all be valued and find a place of beauty in that spacial (non spacial?) gallery.
God’s Plan is BIG. In my opinion. And I think the CofJCofLDS plays an important part in that plan. As do the curators and the artists that paint and create works of art (unrelated to the purposes and mission of the LDS Church) that are all part of God’s Art Gallery.
Regards,
MG
