I need some advice

[Dave McClung]

Because I trust your collective judgment, I am asking for some advice.

Here is my issue -- I am preparing to post the pictures I took in Russia to my personal web site. Some of the pictures are of Russian Palaces and Russian art. Much of their art work contains depictions of people who are not fully clothed. In particular, a lot of their art shows women with bare breasts. Is it appropriate to include such photos in my albums?

[Dana Grant]

Personally, I would not have a problem with that.

And I'm looking forward to your pictures!!

Dana

[Ian Gentles]

Its art Dave not ponography i personaly wouldent have a problem.

[Joanne Vergin]

I think most of us have been to a museum. If you're really worried post a disclaimer before people move on.

[DA Weaver]

Although I personally wouldn't have a problem with it, I would be concerned about the nonbelievers and the students who might be able to view it. My question for you I guess would be... what kind of example would you be setting? I once had a pastor who used to tell me that if we doubted that we should do something, perhaps we should err on the side of caution.

All said from a loving heart....

[Ryan Scott]

Its art Dave not ponography i personaly wouldent have a problem.

I don't think that's a good reason, but I wouldn't have a problem with it. I think I've posted some similar photos of paintings on Facebook before. (I hope I didn't violate any terms of service there?!?)

I do like all the advice. If you're very conflicted, don't do it; if you're marginally conflicted, post a warning, even if it's just a part of the album description.

[Cindi Hammons]

Go for it. Art is art. This is the kind of stuff that makes people think of us as a "quaint little religion." I might feel differently if you were posting photos that you took at a nude beach. That is different than art...in my opinion.

Then again, I'm quite the nonconformist these days.

[Gary Swartzlander]

Good art is good art.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Dave I think you have good judgment and don't think it is major issue. However, if it was my photo album, I would be uncomfortable having such "art" in my album.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Dave, could you just put them in your personal albums, but not on the internet. That would seem to be oK. Otherwise, you will continue to have a question, in the back of your mind, about it. I just look at these things as art, but you don't need to post it on line--my opinion. You lnow better than I, if it would get you in trouble that way.
But, present day art like that, we would all probably look at as porno.

I always told our children, basically what Diane said to you. If you have a doubt, don't do it--and I am referring to on line posting.

[Wilson L. Deaton]

Whether it be art, photos, topless beach, or a topless bar, I think topless women contradict a Christian ethic of modesty, create an unhealthy atmosphere of sensuality and yes, even feed lust. I think it further contradicts a Christian understanding of the sanctity of sexuality.

We don't live in a society where it is appropriate for women to walk around topless so why would we consider it be appropriate when labeled, "art?" Perhaps I'll be thought a prude but I think "art" nudes simply demonstate the chauvinistic, exploitative, objectifying, sinful culture that created them. I further think that to display and glamorize such art perpetuates that culutural mindset.

My opinion: Don't post the topless pics.

Wilson

[Terri Knoll]

I am by no way a prude, I have a myspace page :eek:

however I agree that nudity is porn even if ya try to pass it off as art. I know several photographers that do nudes and sell it as art...so a photo of a nude or a painting in the Louvre is still just that... nudity.

If I were you, with your heart, I would not do it. My thinking would be that I don't know who is addicted to porn in my circle, that just might send someone over the edge. (Not that I make it my business to know who does what in the leisure of their home.) but just from getting to know your heart for people, I don't think you would do anything that could possibly cause another to stumble. and since you asked, I would say you have some doubt and would agree with the others: I wouldn't do it.

of course that's just my opinion :basic05

[DA Weaver]

Dave,

I just took a minute to look at a few of your pictures on your web site. I couldn't help but to notice the beautiful pictures of children... perhaps your grandchildren? I couldn't help but to wonder, is the art you speak of something you would feel free to share with those children, or is it something you would guide those children away from? Personally, I know my children would find such art appauling. So his time I ask, how would it affect those beautiful little children if they were to be surfing your site and find pictures of that type of art?

[Mike Wooldridge]

I have no problem with the pictures being posted. If it would make you feel more comfortable, either post a disclaimer or make a "PG-13" album for the pictures you're unsure of. That way those who are uncomfortable with the pictures could avoid them.

[Terri Knoll]

Because I trust your collective judgment, I am asking for some advice.



just had to add...collective judgement makes me feel part of the Borg lol

[Alisa Stoll]

I respectfully disagree with some of the posters - I've seen the statue of David and all I felt was awe at the artwork - I certainly didn't have any lustfull thoughts and I think my reaction is typical.

If God objected to the human body being displayed, he would have clothed Adam and Eve in the first place. Sin caused the need for clothing. So I think some nudes are artwork and some are pornography - what was the intent of the artist? The artist is not responsible for the reaction of the viewer - that it why it is art.

For my daughter's figure drawing class, her final project was a female nude study. It does show the woman's breasts but the legs are posed to hide anything else in the one pose and the other pose shows her back/backside. Mae's intent was certainly not pornographic and those who have entered my son's room where it is posted have not made any comments about it being so. I would not have a problem if my niece or nephews (ages 5 to 14) saw this piece of artwork. Nor would I have a problem taking them to a major museum that had similar artwork such as the statue of David.

I believe the naked body in and of itself is not pornographic. It is the posing of the body is a suggestive position or in a sexual act that makes it porn.

Alisa

[Dennis M. Scott]

Dave,
My personal opinion is that this is just your way of getting everyone to look at another of your albums. We would have looked anyway!

[Mark Metcalfe]

The Supreme Court had difficulty defining pornography to the point of saying that they know it when they see it.

Some of us may have the argument about the "weaker brother" - those who may struggle with such images that have been over-sexualized. But to over-sexualize a breast-feeding Madonna (as one example) is probably a swing of the pendulum too far. It is an interesting observation that we Americans have little trouble with violence in our entertainment and Europeans have little trouble with occasional nudity, while the reverse is true for both cultures. (We've had threads on this.)

I've been to museums, and antique shops, and not felt the same way that I feel if the adult periodicals rack is too exposed at the local convenience store. I don't think all nudity that is depicted in art is immodest (and I have seen some clothing that is downright provocative). So, I think that Dave's judgment is fine with me, though for the sake of the objectors in this thread, I might reconsider posting (without having a qualm about possessing).

Mark

[Gina Stevenson]

Maybe I'll come off as a prude, when I wasn't even going to touch this thread with that proverbial 'ten-foot pole!'

Perhaps it's because of knowing there's some of the porn history that's caused problems with many men ... with some families known, not just those "out there" ... having learned of its existence when younger by finding it in a household that was not a congenial household, etc, etc ....

With that background, it leads to the tho't that perhaps some might begin by seeing what's only considered 'art' and then, due to their bent/circumstances/whatever, with that as a 'teaser,' feel it's not enough, going further down the road to what's considered 'real porn,' whatever that is, exactly {Cindi clarified the difference OK, if I recall).

Not saying this about your pictures, Dave ... just about how the two versions of nudity -- art vs. porn -- seem somehow connected. But, as stated, having lived through a household where, I'm sure, it's had its effects/consequences, anything just hinting at such things makes me cringe, sort of, I guess.

Would also think that perhaps someone having been brought up in a different household, where such a thing was not any problem, would be more open (as Cindi's posts indicate, & putting that together with things we've heard re her upbringing) to considering there's a difference in types of nudity ... with one being art, the other porn.

[Brad Mercer]

Much of classical Greek and Roman sculpture of both men and women were nudes, and they were ART, not "art". There is no question about their artistic value, and I don't remember finding any of it particularly arousing even as a hormone loaded adolescent. The same is true of most Renaissance art. Likewise, many early political cartoons featured some degree of nudity. I remember particularly one of Russia's Katherine the Great striding topless across a battlefield, sword in hand, with a face only a mother could love. It was odd, but it wasn't titillating.

I've taken my children to art museums without apology or negative effects. I don't see any difference here.

And I certainly don't think we need to worry about the example it would set for non-Christians. They'd mostly view the entire conversation with a good bit of incredulity.

Brad

[DA Weaver]

And I certainly don't think we need to worry about the example it would set for non-Christians. They'd mostly view the entire conversation with a good bit of incredulity.

Brad

Brad,

I appreciate your point of view, but recently within my own life I've been dealing with a lot of worldly people. It appears as if the "world" holds Christians up on a pedistol, and they expect them to be perfect. Now I as a Christian know that Christians aren't perfect, and that we struggle to be more like Christ every day. Some of the people I know would find a "Christian" posting something like that to be offensive, and would be very judgemental in regards to that type of thing. Then there are others who would look at it and say something like "we're really not all that different", and it MIGHT serve as some kind of way to connect with someone they otherwise thought they had nothing in common with.

Thanks for sharing though, I do appreciate what you had to say.

[Dave McClung]

Thanks for all of the advice. I value each of the opinions.

As I have been thinking about these issues something came to my memory that I had not thought about in a long time. My uncle, Elbert Dodd, was one of the most radically conservative clergy in the Church of the Nazarene. In fact, he left the Church of the Nazarene to be a founder of the Bible Missionary Church because he considered the Church of the Nazarene to be too "liberal." Although he preached that women shouldn't wear makeup, short sleeves, or seamless hose he had no problem subscribing to National Geographic Magazine that had pictures of African women who were topless. He didn't consider National Geographic to be a pornographic magazine. He recognized that a picture of a partially nude person for educational purposes was different from presenting a similar picture for sensual reasons.

[Brad Mercer]

Obviously there are all sorts of non-Christians. I find many to be quite negative toward Christians and the church when they're really honest. Whether we're banning art as obscene or draping garments over the statues or just treating art like art, I don't think those decisions will change many non-Christian perceptions. But, to each his own. Dave asked for opinions and he's gotten them, boy howdy! ;-)

Brad

Brad,

I appreciate your point of view, but recently within my own life I've been dealing with a lot of worldly people. It appears as if the "world" holds Christians up on a pedistol, and they expect them to be perfect. Now I as a Christian know that Christians aren't perfect, and that we struggle to be more like Christ every day. Some of the people I know would find a "Christian" posting something like that to be offensive, and would be very judgemental in regards to that type of thing. Then there are others who would look at it and say something like "we're really not all that different", and it MIGHT serve as some kind of way to connect with someone they otherwise thought they had nothing in common with.

Thanks for sharing though, I do appreciate what you had to say.

[Thaine Sprenger]

Huh. This goes to the concept of how sin works... the addictive model says that one little step in the wrong direction can lead to total collapse. So you have to always be on guard and guard other people too! So never put something that in anyway could lead someone to that first little thought of ...whatever. Protect your weaker brother.

If you are an addictive person, then that's great. An addicit needs to not get one wiff of alcohol or whatever the problem is. Guess for a porn addict, you shouldn't look! But lot's of people just don't function like that. They face different temptations maybe, and in a different way?
Addicts tend to believe everyone is an addict. Goes with the territory.

To each their own.

[Gina Stevenson]

Addicts tend to believe everyone is an addict. Goes with the territory.

Probably ... but to those watching them, it begins to seem this way, sometimes ... perhaps wondering what led them down a certain path ... what then might lead yet another down that same path ....

To each their own.

It's what we gathered, seeing all the varying opinions that popped up here! :cool:

[Thaine Sprenger]

Probably ... but to those watching them, it begins to seem this way, sometimes ... perhaps wondering what led them down a certain path ... what then might lead yet another down that same path ....


I think addiction is a weird thing all it's own. It's not logical or rational at all. For the rest of us to not put 'temptations' in the way of addictics... is to a large extent impossible, or at least impractical. Not that we don't care.
I do believe the CotN really tries to minister to this specific population.

I'm not sure Gina what you're asking. When you say 'what led them down a certain path'... does that mean to you they had a choice, and were logically picking this path or that?
<laughing> of course... EVERY choice I make is logical... :p
Or are we being 'led' kind of without our much knowing it. Maybe we take one baby step and then are helpless and trapped in that path?
With an addict the latter choice seems to be the truth. I don't think that applies to most of us.

I've been thinking about nudity. Do I hear gasps of astonishment from you all?? I've only had one or two jobs that didn't include at least some dealing professionaly with nudity. I've worked in hospitals, nursing homes, for 15 years was a part time massage therapist. [If Mike is reading and wondering how my being at SNU where I had a job as the 'chief' lab assitant and had keys to the science building... relates to nudity... oh boy, going in after hours was sometimes very educational!]
I would never have become a massage therapist if I hadn't had one experience. In grad school I discovered some friends where nudists, and low and behold... the local nudist place was run by a Mormon family. Huh. Very family oriented! What else would you expect from Mormons, after all!? And I was much much younger than today! So on a lark I went. After being nervous, etc., I relaxed and started talking to people. After about 20 minutes, all at once it was like I'd been hit in the head with a 2x4. Because I realized that I'd become involved in a conversation and in a way forgotten people where in the all-together. But the real shock was realizing that I was having zero lusty thoughts. None. It seemed obvious to me no one else was either.

That's when I first realized I had believed I was helpless in the face of temptation. And I was spending a lot of my energy in life avoiding temptation. And trying to keep temptation from others...
What a waste!
(but with addiction you do need to avoid temptation -- but I'm not an addictive type person. That lifestyle and way of dealing with 'sin' just doesn't fit.)

So that was a profound realization for me, and changed alot of my grasp of life and spirit... for the worse, some of you might think! But that's just the way it was. I am deeply grateful to those people.
The nudists there generally didn't give a hoot about seeing anyone else naked, they just felt more alive when they themselves were naked. Well. I didn't. So I'm not a nudist. And the Mormon couple did a good job of running the place. ....<groaning> You know, SOME people try to stick labels on you for one thing in your life. Hey! I've been in a Catholic church once or twice... does that make me a Catholic? Mercy.

So, in not putting nudity out, you may be hurting some people!
Did you think of that?? Huh? Huh? That is actually a serious question, but...
--sorry, I think this topic also is just funny... --

[Dave McClung]

Thanks for all the advice. How did I know that I wouldn't get a clear, consistent answer?

I have made a decision. It probably won't surprise many of you. I am going to compromise. I will consider each picture and make a judgment call. I have some pictures of statues that show private parts below the waist. I won't post them. I have some other pictures where nudity seems to be the focus of the painting. I won't post those either. There are some pictures where nudity is incidental, such as part of the painting on the ceiling of a room filled with other art. I am not going to eliminate those pictures.

If, after I have posted the pictures, any of them offend you, please feel free to send me an email. My intention is not to offend. Obviously, if you are one who doesn't want to see any nudity, then please don't look at my Russia pictures of the museums in St. Petersburg. You will be safe to look at the rest.

[Gina Stevenson]

The nudists there generally didn't give a hoot about seeing anyone else naked, they just felt more alive when they themselves were naked. Well. I didn't. So I'm not a nudist.

Well, Thaine, after all your nudist colony commentary, you had to know what a 'next question' might be. But then you came out and answered it before we could ask you. :basic07

As for your commentary re 'hurting some people by keeping some things from them, so they won't learn that it doesn't bother them' [rephrased, as I didn't quote it] --- well, I still have to agree with what we read in the NT re ... of all things, huh? ... modesty. ;)

[oh, no! she's picking & choosing where she'll agree with Paul, and where she won't -- recalling his comments re both marriage/singleness and women keeping quiet] :basic05

[Ryan Scott]

I'm not sure why, but I'm surprised by the amount of more Puritanical answers to this post and from whence some of them came. Not that I think they should be disparaged for their view; I just found it surprising.

[Thaine Sprenger]

Well, Thaine, after all your nudist colony commentary, you had to know what a 'next question' might be. But then you came out and answered it before we could ask you. :basic07

As for your commentary re 'hurting some people by keeping some things from them, so they won't learn that it doesn't bother them' [rephrased, as I didn't quote it] --- well, I still have to agree with what we read in the NT re ... of all things, huh? ... modesty. ;)

[oh, no! she's picking & choosing where she'll agree with Paul, and where she won't -- recalling his comments re both marriage/singleness and women keeping quiet] :basic05

Gina, guess I've had the 'next question' asked before...

I don't know that the point is 'not learning what doesn't bother you'. Though maybe that is just putting it in the negative... to me it's more learning that I am strong. That I can stand, within reason, anywhere in 'the world' and be confident of my spiritual shoring, my ground of being. When I don't have to be afraid of temptation, I am free to love without offense... in a sense. It opens many doors that generally speaking are closed.

As to modesty. Of course it has something to do with clothes... but I have been in the presence of many naked women (eg in childbirth and other times!) ...and there was total modesty. While to me many people with clothes on have been less than modest.
So clothes may not be the essential element of modesty.

Hummmm. Are clothing an outter expression of an inner work???
LOL
Could be!

...as to Paul ...you go Girl! (can a guy say that?)

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Really, I am not easily offended by the VERY old art, considering these people probably may not have any knowledge of Heart Purity.
We have two grandsons that got into porno on the internet--one, far worse than the other. He would get to the point of tears talking with me, and wishing there was some way, to get it off of his mind, and be able to feel pure and clean inside again. He would love the pictures of long ago, and another man on here has fought these problems for years, and another one on here has had this problem, also, in the past...maybe more than we realize.
God's word teaches us modesty, and modesty is not the newest way that fashion is seeing that women's dresses and blouses are made--so low, that a man cannot keep their eyes on the woman's face when they are talking with her. It was terrible what I saw at campmeeting this past summer.
You can call me fanatical, or anything, your conscience will let you call me. I felt the same way when I was a young lady. I daresay, that there is not a one of you men, if you honestly told the truth, that does not enjoy the new styles that are even more prevalent thant they use to be. They have strongly invaded the Holiness denominations.

I will not have one less bit of confidence in Dave, no matter what he posts, but I still know things that I have experienced along the way with other people--including pastor's. One walked up to me once when he was visiting at Dwayne's first pastorate, and whispered something in my ea,r that he should have never said. I immediately turned to his wife, and said, "Did you hear what he said?" She did not, so I told her right in front of that ordained elder. He is out of the ministry now. He is not the only one, either.
Ladies, the best thing to do, if this occurs to you, is to bring it out loud immediately, and there will not be that little, whatever you want to call it, between you and the man. Else, the next time, it will probably be worse, since he saw he could get by with it.
I know a friend that fell, after being brought down by an ordained elder. She backslid, and to my knowledge, even after his tryst with her, is still an elder in the COTN. Hopefully he got forgiveness. she did.

And, ladies, PROTECT your husbands. Sometimes they are so naive, and maybe enjoying having fun talking with some woman, that they have no idea in the world where she is heading. Now, ladies, don't just see every woman you are around as being this way, becuse they are not. But, be careful and protect your husband.
THERE IS NO WOMAN IN THIS WORLD STRONG or SMART ENOUGH TO
TAKE MY MAN!

[Russell Metcalfe]

Did you see Rembrandts' The Return of the Prodigal?? Henri Nouwen said he had a chair in front of it and sat and looked . . .then wrote a book by that same name. I'm surprised you were allowed to photograph; museums are touchy sometimes...I'd like to see your pictures..

Russell

[Ryan Scott]

Most museums I have been in allow photography as long as there is no flash. Although I've never been allowed to photograph something that was on loan from another collection.

I have been to a few museums that said "no" to photography altogether to avoid any complications with the aforementioned exceptions. I think they're pretty justified either way.

[Gord Evans]

I remember particularly one of Russia's Katherine the Great striding topless across a battlefield, sword in hand, with a face only a mother could love. It was odd, but it wasn't titillating.

Brad, I have always greatly admired your distinct wit, from a distance.. usually without comment ... frequently with a sense of awe.

This, however, made me LOL!

Thank you ... I needed that!

:M)

I love you, brother!

[Dave McClung]

Did you see Rembrandts' The Return of the Prodigal?? Henri Nouwen said he had a chair in front of it and sat and looked . . .then wrote a book by that same name. I'm surprised you were allowed to photograph; museums are touchy sometimes...I'd like to see your pictures..

Russell

Yes, I saw The Return of the Prodigal. I took a photograph of it. I will post it here later. I can't do it now because I have a doctor's appointment.

I was also surprised that I was permitted to take pictures everywhere execpt in the Armory of the Kremlin. Some places I had to buy a permit, butthe permit was never more than $4.

A few places restricted flash, but the Hermitage, where The Return of the Prodigal was displayed, didn't restrict use of a flash. as long as one had a permit. A few of the "master pieces" were under glass, but most were hanging with no protection. They had a person stationed in each room to protect the art, but we could stand as close as 18". Electronic beams sounded an alarm if anyone got too close.

[Judy Hamilton]

Please Dave share with us the priceless art work you and Linda were privileged to view.
Most of us may never make such a journey to Russia and I for one can profit from your photos and comments.
God made our bodies and He did a fine job and I feel perhaps He is smiling at our comments.
As a nurse there are innumerable times where I have either had to tear off the clothes to "take a good look" or assist my patient with hygiene.
I always attempt to provide a fig leaf of sorts (usually a bath towel) as modesty is a concern.
However, with all the talk on nudity aside, just a brief walk in the mall with teen's (and many women past their prime) dressed provocatively seems to have the ability to stir up sensual thoughts with the male gender than does a sculpted nude pose.

[Gina Stevenson]

Gina, guess I've had the 'next question' asked before...
Tho't so. ;)

As to modesty. Of course it has something to do with clothes... but I have been in the presence of many naked women (eg in childbirth and other times!) ...and there was total modesty. While to me many people with clothes on have been less than modest.Yes, tho' I've never had a kid, I learned rather young that modesty is something one must give up rather quickly when amidst an extended hospital stay. Funny thing, once I got out of there, I still had my 'normal' modesty intact. You just 'do whatcha gotta do' when in hospital. :eek:

So clothes may not be the essential element of modesty.Yes, there are some designed to be very purposefully provocative ... not to provoke admiration, but to provoke lust, I swear, from some of what we see on the street, etc.

Hummmm. Are clothing an outter expression of an inner work???
LOL Could be!'Could be, huh? One---sometimes with some mentoring to 'wise 'em up'---concerned with projecting a certain persona, rather than merely drawing attention to one's body, will be careful in/with their dress.

...as to Paul ...you go Girl! (can a guy say that?)'Guess a guy can get away with it. Haven't read any 11th commandment to the contrary, and we gals will take such encouragement from whichever corner it may come. :basic05

And now to Miss Anne's post ..........

....................

God's word teaches us modesty .....................
I daresay, that there is not a one of you men, if you honestly told the truth, that does not enjoy the new styles that are even more prevalent thant they use to be. They have strongly invaded the Holiness denominations.
Yes, they are a bit more revealing than in the past, for the most part, huh? And know what? I'll not say what state it was in [safe enough, since I've lived in several], but there was one pastor we noticed even whose up-and-back-down-again gazing at someone's way of dress. We're both responsible for that, men & women ... she for not being too provocative in public, and he for controlling/disciplining his eyes in spite of some women's provocativeness.
I will not have one less bit of confidence in Dave, no matter what he posts .............Agreed.

And, ladies, PROTECT your husbands. Sometimes they are so naive, and maybe enjoying having fun talking with some woman, that they have no idea in the world where she is heading.Have to say that sometimes I've seen this is so. Also have noticed that, with discernment, one can usually know of whom to be wary and who will be no problem ... especially if you don't make it into one, can tease about it, etc ... things out in the open tend to stay aboveboard, thank God.

Reading this portion, in fact, Miss Anne, reminded me of a couple of different situations in the past. In one instance, I didn't feel a certain gal could be trusted any further than she could be thrown ; whereas, another one who was in a class of Danny's and like to call and discuss anything & everything ... well, 'didn't think anything of that at all ... I'd say: "It's your girlfriend on the phone." ;) He knew who it was when I said that, and knew I didn't mind at all.

Now, ladies, don't just see every woman you are around as being this way, becuse they are not. But, be careful and protect your husband.Right. Living paranoid would be no easy/comfortable way to live, for sure!

THERE IS NO WOMAN IN THIS WORLD STRONG or SMART ENOUGH TO TAKE MY MAN!We know, Miss Anne! It's not just your being smart, but ... well, I shall say no more. If one's taken good care of at home, most often will not stray. If they will, even when home's a congenial place, then that's just being a jerk!

And now to Gord re Brad:

Brad, I have always greatly admired your distinct wit, from a distance.. usually without comment ... frequently with a sense of awe.

This, however, made me LOL!

I love you, brother! :M)

That was funny, Brad ... such an ugly face, a man's eyes are drawn away from what they'd normally be drawn towards, to much later remember that ... [I]face!? :cool:

[John Kennedy]

Dave -

I found your reference to your uncle, Elbert Dodd, to be interesting. For a number of years I have been reading several forums participated in by former members of the BMC.

They are almost unanimous in their very negative feelings toward that organization. Many have stated that their relationship to Christ was almost in spite of the culture of the group - many others decided that if that was what Christianity was all about, they weren't having any.

But the ones who knew him are unanimous in their respect and affection for Rev. Dodd. Numerous references are made to his kind and loving disposition - that even though he held to a very strict standard of conduct, his love for Christ and for people, saint and sinner alike, was always evident. The overwhelming opinion is that had he lived and continued in leadership, the history of the group would have been very different.

[Dave McClung]

Yes, I saw The Return of the Prodigal. I took a photograph of it. I will post it here later. I can't do it now because I have a doctor's appointment.

I was also surprised that I was permitted to take pictures everywhere execpt in the Armory of the Kremlin. Some places I had to buy a permit, butthe permit was never more than $4.

A few places restricted flash, but the Hermitage, where The Return of the Prodigal was displayed, didn't restrict use of a flash. as long as one had a permit. A few of the "master pieces" were under glass, but most were hanging with no protection. They had a person stationed in each room to protect the art, but we could stand as close as 18". Electronic beams sounded an alarm if anyone got too close.





Here is the link to my photo of The Return of the Prodigal -- http://www.davemcclung.com/album/displayimage.php?album=131&pos=38

I was snapping pictures as fast as I could. The Hermitage has 3,000,000 pieces of art. If one spent 8 hours a day studying the art and spent one minute studying each piece of art, it would take 17 years to study all the art. We had 3 hours.

[Rance Gould]

Because I trust your collective judgment, I am asking for some advice.

Here is my issue -- I am preparing to post the pictures I took in Russia to my personal web site. Some of the pictures are of Russian Palaces and Russian art. Much of their art work contains depictions of people who are not fully clothed. In particular, a lot of their art shows women with bare breasts. Is it appropriate to include such photos in my albums?




Greetings Dave,

I understand You have already chosen to compromise. That is my mistake in not paying attention tio the new posts each day. I Will follow your decision prayerfully and with respect. If I may, here is my opion anyway-after the fact.

Firsr, I'd like to make an important point. To have doubts is a good thing sometimes isn't it? The first thing we think of as Christians is that we're not supposed to doubt concerning matters of faith and trust. Doubt is a good thing; however, when you consider the many ways the Holy Spirit guides His children. We can praise God for doubts especially when it comes to decision making.

For the Christian, or anyone for that matter, who may struggle with sexual temptation, it does not take full-blown pornorgraphy to trigger the thought process that ends in yeilding to sexual sin. What may be unstimulating to one could possibly lead someone else down a path toward hell. Sexually addictive behavior includes finding any picture anywhere that's easily accessible to fantisize with.

My decision would be to not make your photographs public. Even on your personal web site I would be afraid of the above. May God continue to bless you real good.

Rance Gould

[Marsha Gupton]

I have entered this post late because I've been away. How many of us have been to an art museum? How many of us have studied art in college and viewed Michaelangelo's work?

This is much ado about nothing.

[Judy Hamilton]

Greetings Dave,

I understand You have already chosen to compromise. That is my mistake in not paying attention tio the new posts each day. I Will follow your decision prayerfully and with respect. If I may, here is my opion anyway-after the fact.

Firsr, I'd like to make an important point. To have doubts is a good thing sometimes isn't it? The first thing we think of as Christians is that we're not supposed to doubt concerning matters of faith and trust. Doubt is a good thing; however, when you consider the many ways the Holy Spirit guides His children. We can praise God for doubts especially when it comes to decision making.

For the Christian, or anyone for that matter, who may struggle with sexual temptation, it does not take full-blown pornorgraphy to trigger the thought process that ends in yeilding to sexual sin. What may be unstimulating to one could possibly lead someone else down a path toward hell. Sexually addictive behavior includes finding any picture anywhere that's easily accessible to fantisize with.

My decision would be to not make your photographs public. Even on your personal web site I would be afraid of the above. May God continue to bless you real good.

Rance Gould

Rance...I gather from your take on fine art, you would avoid such magnificent museums and Du Louvre and the world renown Hermitage Museum?

Please will you allow your own parameters on Christian morality to be limited to yourself and allow we remaining Christians the liberty to enjoy art. Telling Dave he has made a decision that alludes in any manner to a compromise is tantamount to judging him.

If you are so very concerned with the sensual desires of men or women being stirred with what we view, then these art pieces would be way down on the list; where movies, TV- Sit Coms, and current fashions touted by women are a matter of greater concern. Do you suggest we each sequester ourselves indoors, no TV; no movies,; no walks in the park or the malls, until our bodies no longer produce hormones, or we all become near sighted with old age..which ever comes first??

[Dave McClung]

Rance...I gather from your take on fine art, you would avoid such magnificent museums and Du Louvre and the world renown Hermitage Museum?

Please will you allow your own parameters on Christian morality to be limited to yourself and allow we remaining Christians the liberty to enjoy art. Telling Dave he has made a decision that alludes in any manner to a compromise is tantamount to judging him.

If you are so very concerned with the sensual desires of men or women being stirred with what we view, then these art pieces would be way down on the list; where movies, TV- Sit Coms, and current fashions touted by women are a matter of greater concern. Do you suggest we each sequester ourselves indoors, no TV; no movies,; no walks in the park or the malls, until our bodies no longer produce hormones, or we all become near sighted with old age..which ever comes first??

Judy

Thanks for coming to my defense, but in all fairness, I was the one who used the term "compromise" first. It wasn't Lance.

[Thaine Sprenger]

If you are so very concerned with the sensual desires of men or women being stirred with what we view, .... no walks in the park or the malls, until our bodies no longer produce hormones, or we all become near sighted with old age..which ever comes first??

There is a group of people who say the CotN is 'immature' in many ways. I pondered that for years without a clue what they could be talking about.

Not to argue rather that is true or not... I just wonder if this discussion topic might be the kind of thing that led them to that conclusion? It seems likely part of it. Well, one person's treasure is another persons trash! [Strange thing is, we seem to recyle...? !! ..and there is 'found art' which is trash in a sense made beautiful. Guess we all can grow no matter if we are in the treasure mound or the trash heap? Bloom where you are planted? Help! I'm stuck in analogy and can't get out!]

And Judy, when I hear your above quote, I can't help but think about a lady or two I've know over the years who where extremely aggitated by male dog's genitalia. One actually came into my place of business with a petition to require all dogs to wear clothing covering the bits... she was very passionate about it...

[Randy Wise]

Looking at the many replies I wonder if it would have been easier to create a poll question for compiling the responses. It reminds me of the "survey says.." response. Somehow my sense of good and evil doesn't attach evil to the artwork you speak of, but that is just my opinion. Wilson's reply could be correct as well
Randy

[Thaine Sprenger]

Looking at the many replies I wonder if it would have been easier to create a poll question for compiling the responses. It reminds me of the "survey says.." response. Somehow my sense of good and evil doesn't attach evil to the artwork you speak of, but that is just my opinion. Wilson's reply could be correct as well
Randy

<laughing> but would your poll have included my experience that public nudity profoundly altered and actually deepened my spiritual connection and life?

It wasn't my fault... It was those dang-dingle-berry Mormons!! :o
Actually it was my choice, and I wouldn't change it. Wouldn't recommend it to everyone either! But for some of you stodgy types... <just kidding>
but I don't think most would even think to ask how it helps you... or if it could.

[Dave McClung]

Looking at the many replies I wonder if it would have been easier to create a poll question for compiling the responses. It reminds me of the "survey says.." response. Somehow my sense of good and evil doesn't attach evil to the artwork you speak of, but that is just my opinion. Wilson's reply could be correct as well
Randy

It certainly seems that the lessons to be learned from the art go much deeper than "good" or "evil." At the time the art was created there was a deep struggle in western society between repression and expression. It is hard to believe that those who wanted to keep the "common" people in slavery were less "evil" than those who favored a change in society to allow people more freedom.

In Russia, the "old way" was for women to be completely covered -- even more so than in islamic countries today. It was forbidden for any hair to show. In fact, women generally were not allowed outside their own home. Contrast that with the "liberated" women shown in the art.

Looking at it through the lense of today's society, one can legitimately argue that the art is sensual. At the time it was created, the art had much deeper meaning.

In my own mind, I have concluded that the original artists did not intend the art work to be pornographic. In the end, one has to decide whether something is pornographic is determined by the creator or by the person seeing it, or by both.

I guess my position is that art is pornographic if it was intended by the artist to be pornographic or if a person of reasonable sensitivity would view it to be so. The art work I saw will pass the first part of the test, but I still struggle with the second part.

Some who have posted here seem to suggest that art is pornographic if anyone would view it to be so. In a prior post, I mentioned the BMC Denomination. In my opinion, the thing that prevented the BMC from being an effective denomination was their adoption of this view. They attempted to draw the line on modesty at the point that no one would be offended. They found that to be an impossible standard.

Some who have posted here seem to suggest that because certain people, like doctors and nurses, become desensitized to nudity, then the rest of us shouldn't have a problem with it either. I know a good, Christian doctor who frequently tells off color stories. He doesn't realize that he has become desensitized. I think the standard needs to be "normal sensitivity" and not whether a doctor or nurse would be offended.

With such a flexible standard, there is a lot of room for disagreement. Even if we all agreed on the same standard, we would likely differ on the application of the standard to a particular piece of art.

Anyway, for those who feel so inclined, I have posted the first four albums from our Russia Trip. They are the only ones that contain any questionable art. Those who want to see our pictures, but want to avoid the art should avoid Catherine's Palace, Peterhof, and The State Hermitage. The rest of our albums will be noncontroversial.

The albums are on my personal web site -- http://www.davemcclung.com

[Randy Wise]

<laughing> but would your poll have included my experience that public nudity profoundly altered and actually deepened my spiritual connection and life?

It wasn't my fault... It was those dang-dingle-berry Mormons!! :o
Actually it was my choice, and I wouldn't change it. Wouldn't recommend it to everyone either! But for some of you stodgy types... <just kidding>
but I don't think most would even think to ask how it helps you... or if it could.

Well to understand you I looked at your avatar. Then understanding came.
:)

Randy

[Thaine Sprenger]

Well to understand you I looked at your avatar. Then understanding came.
:)

Randy


Spoken from one who is wise......

[Gina Stevenson]

Well to understand you I looked at your avatar. Then understanding came.
:)

Randy

Yeah, Thaine even seems to think his dog needs to wear something! [even if it is bunny ears, hey! :basic05]

[Rance Gould]

Rance...I gather from your take on fine art, you would avoid such magnificent museums and Du Louvre and the world renown Hermitage Museum?

Please will you allow your own parameters on Christian morality to be limited to yourself and allow we remaining Christians the liberty to enjoy art. Telling Dave he has made a decision that alludes in any manner to a compromise is tantamount to judging him.

If you are so very concerned with the sensual desires of men or women being stirred with what we view, then these art pieces would be way down on the list; where movies, TV- Sit Coms, and current fashions touted by women are a matter of greater concern. Do you suggest we each sequester ourselves indoors, no TV; no movies,; no walks in the park or the malls, until our bodies no longer produce hormones, or we all become near sighted with old age..which ever comes first??

Judy, I'm very sorry for prompting you to reply in the manner you did. You are correct with nearly everything you said. From what I viewed, Dave's photos would be way way down on the list you mentioned. Of course, I agree also with your bringing up what our society has to offer in regard to sensuality.

Forgive me, Dave, Judy and anyone else for my crude choice of words concerning my post two nights ago. I really didn't intend to judge anyone.

The referrance above to "nearly everything," is that you seem to think I am the only Christian man who should feel the way I do. All men, including Christians are naturally attracted by the opposite sex. We are lying if we say we aren't. God made us that way.

A former pastor said , "Admiration is not wrong in itself. A problem occurs when we men allow the admiration to blossom into desire and sinful thoughts." There's a difference between thoughts of sin and allowing them to become sinful thoughts. God can teach us men, strengthen us and help us just how and when to say "no."

I say, Go for it - the enjoyment of the type of art this thread is all about.

God bless everyone.

:w)

[Thaine Sprenger]

I know a good, Christian doctor who frequently tells off color stories. He doesn't realize that he has become desensitized. I think the standard needs to be "normal sensitivity" and not whether a doctor or nurse would be offended.

]


Nobody has mentioned the Ophra show a couple of weeks ago about sexuality. "normal sensitivity".... apparently there has been a real shift in that particularly in women. I'm just recalling this from memory... but they reported that 15 years ago about 80% of women saw sexually explicit materials as degrading to women. Today 60% of women see sexually explicit materials as empowering women. Huh.

I think one implication was that men don't tend to read much these days, and women have found that if they show their guy pictures, he can learn some things he otherwise wouldn't!

If you think about it, this is degrading to men!! Saying they can't read and have to be led by the nose!! Well!! All male sex models in these films should boycott further activities until women learn to treat men better....

Sorry, I just get carried away. I think sex is funny and for fun, as well as for bonding and for procreation. And there is beauty and character there. Art reflects that. We need it. I treasure monogamy. Yet, I think the more 'desensitized' we are the healthier we would be, and the deviants would stand out more <no pun intended> <sorry, I did it again!> <sigh>, and we could deal better with all these issues. Trying to protect the weak and hiding things, and the fear around this... actually makes it worse.

Children of course need to be protected, but they see so much so early these days... I think protection is more education and... I wish I had known more than I did as a child, it could have saved me a lot of grief. I know in having other ideas your intentions are truly nobel, and culture changes but the Bible doesn't.... I just see it this way.
Well, just my opinion and experience and POV and surely you can AT LEAST agree with trying to get male models to boycott new films?? :rolleyes:

[Gina Stevenson]

I know in having other ideas your intentions are truly nobel, and culture changes but the Bible doesn't.... I just see it this way.
Well, just my opinion and experience and POV and surely you can AT LEAST agree with trying to get male models to boycott new films?? :rolleyes:

Of course ... whatever it takes to stop those hideous porno films ... forever. Seriously. Burn those already made. While, as you said, sex may be made for enjoyment, as well as procreation, it's meant to be enjoyed within the confines of marriage, never meant for public consumption, which porno definitely is.

[Thaine Sprenger]

meant to be enjoyed within the confines of marriage, never meant for public consumption, which porno definitely is.


I agree with the confines of marriage. Tho education in this topic goes to different tollerance levels!

I'm still thinking about the above statement I made about nobel effort and that what saves some, seems to **** others... That's just so strange, and part of all the... pulling in different directions... when we have the same goals really.

Somehow referrencing the Bible doesn't seem to tell us how to get to the goals, but does help us have the same goals??

The impression I got from the Ophra show is that porno exists certainly, but the larger part of the market has shifted from dirty old men in a dark corner to... explicit materials that women are controlling (and often producing) and using for a different purpose.
Which I think can be part of the conversation on art.... and how things change in how we see things... in art... or in our sacred texts... somethings seem to be viewed differently over time. The large themes seem to stay in place. Guess we all play our part, saying what works and enhanses our spiritual connections and sensibilities, and that is the adventure of our lives....