Paintings explore the Bible's end times

By day, Clinton resident Chris Adams teaches art classes to about 200 tweens and teens at Roy Junior High.

After hours, the 34-year-old father of three produces abstract paintings about some of the weightier matters of the universe -- in particular, the end of the world.

"There's a lot we do that's very unnatural in how we live our lives," said Adams, a self-described Christian and Mormon. "There's a growing tension with people -- perhaps it comes from 9/11 -- and we don't feel safe anymore."

"But there's a general belief," Adams added, "that things will get worse and an apocalypse will happen."

Fueling that Armageddon angst, the ancient Mayan calendar runs out on Dec. 21, 2012, which some believe signifies the need for people to get their lives in order.

Adams incorporated this concept into an independent study as he completed a master's degree in education at Weber State University.

"That's where I started doing the Perilous Times series," Adams said. "I'd done some large paintings on the Holocaust and looked at that as the end of the world for those victims."

His 14 intriguing pieces belie the harsh underlying theme of human weaknesses that the Bible sets forth as signs of the end times.

"Some attributes -- like pride -- we value," Adams said. "Some vices seem not so bad as they once did. We value selfish pursuits, being an individualistic society."

Adams combined earth tones, ink, acrylic, oil paint and watercolors, different textures of paper, repeating bars and circles, and Greek words for the traits listed in 2 Timothy 3:1-5.

"I love the abstract," Adams said. "It started with some self-therapy -- visual poems, I would call them -- representing people or a situation with a shape of some kind."

"I've built myself an art shed, a nice work space that is almost ready to move into," Adams grinned. "So my wife gets her kitchen table back, and we can start playing ping-pong again."

Emma Dugal, Bountiful/Davis Art Center's executive director, lauded Adams for his innovative work.

"I've known Chris for a lot years and have watched him develop as an artist," Dugal said. "I've enjoyed his fresh approach. He's not afraid to explore new ideas."

Along with Adams, eight other artists have work on display at the center through Oct. 2: Adrian Van Sucthelen, Marion Hyde, Rob Adamson, Chase Leslie, Janet Clark , Laurel Casjens, Jerry Thompson and Theresa Otteson.

"I'm very excited about this whole exhibit," Dugal said. "It's one of the best we've had in a long time."

From the article: “a self-described Christian and Mormon.”

The two are mutually exclusive. [GF]

Which is it? [SP]

Well, that seems to also have been the "parallel thinking" of recently deceased Lds "prophet" Gordon B. Hinckley:

Sept. 8, 1998 airing of Larry King Live show:
KING: But when the word [polygamy] is mentioned, when you hear the word, you think Mormon, right?
HINCKLEY: You do it mistakenly. They have no connection to us whatsoever. They don't belong to the church. There are actually no Mormon fundamentalists.

So, there ya go. The Mormon "prophet"
speaking on behalf of the Mormon "god"
claiming that Mormon fundamentalists don't exist.
They are mere phantoms.

So. If Hinckley could say: "Fundamentalist Mormons are not Mormons." Then I'm not sure how anybody could get riled up -- without also getting riled up @ Hinckley -- about the statement, "Mormons are not Christians."

Lds "prophets" are not the only ones at liberty of establishing definitions and distinctions.

And now it’s time for a game of...WHO IS BEHAVING LIKE A CHRISTIAN?

See post #18. (applicable to your comment)

Of course, I'm sure that when the Lds "prophet" made the comment I mentioned in post #18 on the Larry King Live show 11 years ago...
... it must have prompted you to write a letter or e-mail to the Lds "prophet"...
...chastising him for not behaving very "Mormon-like" (or Christian-like)...
...for being guilty of stressing how "labels and religious affiliations are FAR more important than deeds and beliefs"???

Yes? No??? (If not, why not?) Why is it we seem to see so many FReepers who want to "police" fellow Freeper comments via crits -- yet only extend their crits one way when more than one side has apparently violated their personal standards?

If it was a mere case of lack of awareness of what Hinckley said, can we perhaps expect a belated letter to the editor from you? Or a crit written to LDS HQ? Or how about even a crit of the Lds "prophet" right here, right now, in your response to this post? I mean, what? Are you, Ms. e-cop, going to write your "ticket" out to A.M. as he sped on by and ignore what Hinckley said about fundamentalist Mormons?

Aren't polygamous fundamentalist Mormons worth your protective comments since you don't like the "labels and religious affiliations" tags some folks might assign to them?

Could we see some consistency here?

...everyone knows labels and religious affiliations are FAR more important than deeds and beliefs as far as God’s grace is concerned.

Since your facetiousness was running down my screen like melting, smeared make-up, let's unpack your underlying dictum:

To paraphrase you: What's important in God's grace are deeds and beliefs, not labels and religious affiliations.

Q #1: Is this Julia H. 3:16?
Q #2: Where did you derive this from? What's your authority to make this claim? Is this just your gut feeling?
Q #3: If this = your gut feeling inside, well how was Alex Murphy supposed to know this was to be imposed upon him if you've never revealed it from on high to him?
Q #4: Or have you just assumed this is supposed to be, "Well, anybody who's anybody knows this is to be the case"???
Q #5: What does God's grace, which is a gift He gives unearned or undeserved, have to do with our deeds?
"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast." (Eph. 2:8-9) Are you assuming that your deeds are what prompts God's grace? Isn't this religious assumption one of the fundamental problems w/the Mormon religion to begin with?

Q #6: As for "labels and religious affiliations" -- isn't that also just another way of saying GROUP "deeds" and GROUP "beliefs"??? Aren't groups and the religiously affiliated allowed to define themselves according to group teachings anymore, or are you either...
...(a) so individualistic oriented that group beliefs are close to anathema in your eyes?
...(b) or, perhaps you're tied at the hip to the common liberal's kneejerk to "stereotyping" that you stand aghast at labels?

(On the other hand, if you really are provoked by "labels," why were you calling Alex a "contestant?" Isn't that a bit of a stereotypical tag?)

Q #7: Since you dislike religious labels so much, could you also critique the labels in this foundational Mormon of all Mormon "Ground Zero" statements upon which the entire Mormon religion was built? (And is now Lds "scripture"):

I mean, after all, you said: Contestant Number One is going out and using his God-given artistic skills for His glory, and to inform people about the events outlined in the Book of Revelations.

Well, the following statement was written by a (con) artist, who was trying to emulate the "vision" of that received by John the Revelator, who wrote the book of Mormon. And, if you're going to try to defend all visionary Mormon religionists, you might want to start with their founder:

My object in going to ainquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects [Label #1] was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects [repeats label #1] was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join. I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong [Label #2]; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt [Label #3]; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me [Label #4] they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” [Label #5] He again forbade me to join with any of them; [Label #6]

So, Julia, what'd ya think of the way Smith labeled every single Christian religious sect & denomination? He said:
we're ALL wrong (all apostates)
we're ALL unjoinable
we're ALL creedally abominable -- 100% so
we're ALL "corrupt" professors of faith
etc

So why are you defending a follower of one who concluded this about every Christian denomination if you're so into protecting the individual believers from being defined by their broader affiliation?

Don't you have your targets turned around?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.