Quote:
Originally Posted by UtahDan
Undoubtedly you are right about this. Guess I'm going to have scrap my plans for my line of "Daughters of Zion" toe rings. Don't you think we ought to save excommunication for people who actually commit a serious sin (or any sin)? This seems to just boil down to some kind of branding infraction.
|
Trivializing it as a "branding infraction" in light of the fiercely divisive topic of homosexuality in modern American society is hopelessly myopic. Surely you cannot be blind to the political overtones here. Do you think this calendar would've seen the light of a printing press had it NOT been about LDS missionaries? That very thing was what distinguished it from other similar calendars.
And let's not pretend like Hardy was some bishop-in-waiting whose innocent side business got caught up in the nets of a bunch of bigoted, overbearing high priests. The attitude of the accused has a lot to do with how these councils deliberate, and I'm guessing his strident, unrepentant, go-ahead-I-dare-you tone had something to do with it too.
By the way, I agree I don't think it was the most wonderful move from a PR perspective, but if it allows the church to fully divest itself when Hardy produces his next calendar (or who knows ... maybe a missionary porn video is next), it may have been worth it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UtahDan
No? Both are marketing an embarrassing product whose subject matter is the intellectual property of the church.
|
Perhaps my sarcasm detector is malfunctioning today, but I'm having a hard time believing you're serious.