Making Mary Modest -- Light The World

[dastardly stem]

Lol. To the church’s credit I think they reasoned this way rather than through attempts at modesty: If Mary were a real live virgin pre-teen it may be that she not have breasts yet at all. So for the sake of historical accuracy, which we’ve been heinously dinged on in the past, and for the sake of clearing us of any sexual deviancy attempting to be put upon us, let’s give her a young child’s bosom in this picture. Killing two birds with one stone here has to be one of the finest tools god has given mankind.

Meh…then again it’s more likely they arrogantly decided for Jesus to change this art piece to do just as Jesus advocated and effectively prayed their prayers on the housetops so others could see their good works and give praises to god, which under inspection happens to be, just as with any other claimed gods, none other than their own imaginations. I know it’s all a bit confused. Sometimes I can’t tell if religionists are telling me it’s a good thing to believe in god or it’s not a good thing. Their messages are as tainted as Jesus’.

[Alphus and Omegus]

I think this is actually a painted copy of the original, not a digitally edited one. The point still stands though. The original was just fine for most people. There was no need to make a new image and censor the angels and the cleavage.

Alqhus, I am curious as to why you think that.I do not know that you are wrong but repainting it is a bunch of work and the drawing is exact duplicate except for the breast covering which is the only drapery completely smooth. Not a trace of a wrinkle or fold. I realize a photo duplicate of the original could be completely painted over into a new painting so that all the drawing (all those other drapery folds) remain the same.

However done the new image doesn't have that Catholic earthy style and quality.

I don't know for certain. But the church has spent money to make other copies of famous artwork, most notably the Christus statute at Temple Square. Making paid copies of known works is a way that many artists use to support themselves.

[huckelberry]

Lol. To the church’s credit I think they reasoned this way rather than through attempts at modesty: If Mary were a real live virgin pre-teen it may be that she not have breasts yet at all. So for the sake of historical accuracy, ......

Preteen? that is weird , I have not heard that idea before. It explains something though. If a person imagines Mary was preteen they could also easily imagine her child was imaginary as well.

[dastardly stem]

Preteen? that is weird , I have not heard that idea before. It explains something though. If a person imagines Mary was preteen they could also easily imagine her child was imaginary as well.

Here's a good Jesus-y site or two:

Scholars believe Mary would have been somewhere between 12-16 years old when she had Jesus.

https://Christ.org/questions-and-answer ... -was-born/

Historians agree that Mary was most likely between 12 and 14 years old when Jesus was born.

https://www.crosswalk.com/faith/Bible-s ... Jesus.html

The notion that Mary may have been preteen isn't all that odd. Its pretty common, I thought.

[drumdude]

Preteen? that is weird , I have not heard that idea before. It explains something though. If a person imagines Mary was preteen they could also easily imagine her child was imaginary as well.

Here's a good Jesus-y site or two:

Scholars believe Mary would have been somewhere between 12-16 years old when she had Jesus.

https://Christ.org/questions-and-answer ... -was-born/

Historians agree that Mary was most likely between 12 and 14 years old when Jesus was born.

https://www.crosswalk.com/faith/Bible-s ... Jesus.html

The notion that Mary may have been preteen isn't all that odd. Its pretty common, I thought.

Christians don’t like to think about it.

Mormons really don’t like to think about it, considering they teach the deep doctrine that Mormon God physically raped her.

[huckelberry]

Preteen? that is weird , I have not heard that idea before. It explains something though. If a person imagines Mary was preteen they could also easily imagine her child was imaginary as well.

Here's a good Jesus-y site or two:

Scholars believe Mary would have been somewhere between 12-16 years old when she had Jesus.

https://Christ.org/questions-and-answer ... -was-born/

Historians agree that Mary was most likely between 12 and 14 years old when Jesus was born.

https://www.crosswalk.com/faith/Bible-s ... Jesus.html

The notion that Mary may have been preteen isn't all that odd. Its pretty common, I thought.

stem, I was intending a lighthearted observation that she had to be old enough to physically have a child or the child would only be an imaginary one.

I suppose 12 might be the dividing line and that does qualify as preteen by part of a year. Your links make estimates based upon what was the usual range of betrothal at the time. Mary was betrothed not just became so. That indicates a range between 12 and 18. Odds would be 14 to 17 most likely with 12 the least likely. Of course those possiblities look young to us but would not to people at that time because that was the expected age. In fact the only reason to pick those ages instead of 19 is social convention of the time.

[dastardly stem]

Here's a good Jesus-y site or two:



https://Christ.org/questions-and-answer ... -was-born/



https://www.crosswalk.com/faith/Bible-s ... Jesus.html

The notion that Mary may have been preteen isn't all that odd. Its pretty common, I thought.

stem, I was intending a lighthearted observation that she had to be old enough to physically have a child or the child would only be an imaginary one.

I suppose 12 might be the dividing line and that does qualify as preteen by part of a year. Your links make estimates based upon what was the usual range of betrothal at the time. Mary was betrothed not just became so. That indicates a range between 12 and 18. Odds would be 14 to 17 most likely with 12 the least likely. Of course those possiblities look young to us but would not to people at that time because that was the expected age. In fact the only reason to pick those ages instead of 19 is social convention of the time.

Understood. Thanks.

[drumdude]

Mea Culpa:

Apparently this was an original alteration done in the 1600s by the author himself. This was pointed out recently on a small LDS apologist website.

https://www.museodelprado.es/en/the-col ... 46fe8083de

Obviously this proves that Mormon criticism is a failed venture and I'll be getting re-baptized tomorrow!

[huckelberry]

Mea Culpa:

Apparently this was an original alteration done in the 1600s by the author himself. This was pointed out recently on a small LDS apologist website.

https://www.museodelprado.es/en/the-col ... 46fe8083de

Obviously this proves that Mormon criticism is a failed venture and I'll be getting re-baptized tomorrow!

drumdude, interesting addition you have made. I had a few idle moments to compare and this version does not match either of the first two versions. The face and child much the same but the drapery is different, much closer match in the pair in the opening post. I think making copies of paintings was common in the 17th century. Searching might come up with the existence of even more versions with some variation.

I was puzzled both by noticing that the image in this link is not the source of either image in the opening post but by finding this link saying the image it has is from another painting to which they refer which is much different. (unless I missed a link to the source image intended)

[Everybody Wang Chung]

The Church definitely altered it:

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/75 ... ks-of-art/