Years ago, your congenial editor worked in a Plastics Factory before, during and after obtaining a Bachelor of Arts. Most of the time the machines operated themselves; so, we found ourselves with extra time, which furnished an opportunity to do homework or to be mischievous (such as throwing plastic pieces at other machine operators). Occasionally, there would be time to have a theological discussion with my Mormon Foreman. He didn’t like to be called a Mormon because he was part of the “true” followers of Joseph Smith, the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, headquartered in Independence, Missouri. The Mormons had been deceived and had received the wrong revelation. Only the RLDS were the true group.
In the course of our many conversations, he made the statement more than one that if a beautiful, naked woman stood right in front of him, it would not tempt him at all. To say the least, this claim stretched one’s credulity. Was he that spiritually-minded, or was he deceiving himself? Most Christian men would get rid of the temptation by turning away or perhaps fleeing, as Joseph did from Potiphar’s wife, but, no, he gave the impression that he could continue to stare ad infinitum without any appreciative affect. I could not speak for him, but I do know what Jesus said: “But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matt. 5:28).
“But he said he didn’t lust after her.” Right! Maybe he could avoid doing so, but the Scriptures also teach that “the flesh lusts against the Spirit and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another…” (Gal. 5:17). Would anyone affirm that it would be right to gaze upon nude photos in a magazine or a book published by Madonna? How about in a “art” textbook? How about drawing nude figures? I could not defend my Mormon foreman’s claim—even if it was true. Neither can I defend Freed-Hardeman’s policy—and can’t help wondering why other people do. How can brethren, who are otherwise sane, not get that the policy is wrong?
“Well, maybe you misunderstood it.” Think so? Here are the exact words which President David Shannon said and which he claimed the faculty backed him up on: “It is crucial for an Art graduate from a liberal arts university to be able to draw the human and therefore understand the body.” Then he had the temerity to say: “Perhaps drawing the human form or studying semi-nude or nude art violates your conscience.” Perhaps? The entire art population at Freed-Hardeman must be as unfazed as my Mormon foreman. No one is ever affected by nude art, and it doesn’t bother their consciences, which is absolutely incredible. In years past anyone who made such statements would have been called upon to repent, but the church today has become so sophisticated that David Shannon is instead called upon to speak to young people at youth gatherings. How can the majority of brethren be as silent as those Elijah addressed in 1 Kings 18:21?