Men on a Mission Calendars

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Tex

My guess is, had the guy published his calendar and left the church out of it, they likely would've left him alone. It was the overt marketing association with the church and its missionary movement that got him into hot water.

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.

Originally Posted by Tex

By the way, your Perry/de Azevedo line was cute, but ultimately a poor comparison.

No? Both are marketing an embarrassing product whose subject matter is the intellectual property of the church.

[MikeWaters]

Why not ex the guy who is selling his DVDs about book of mormon archaeology?

And ex the stake president who hired him and allowed him to sell the DVDs.

Those are the guys doing the damage. Yet, they are celebrated and revered.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Why not ex the guy who is selling his DVDs about book of mormon archaeology?

And ex the stake president who hired him and allowed him to sell the DVDs.

Those are the guys doing the damage. Yet, they are celebrated and revered.

Is the guy who did the artwork for the BOM still alive? I'm pretty sure there is a bear chest or two in there.

[MikeWaters]

Neil Labute was disfellowshipped for writing a play that featured two LDS characters who were gay bashers. This was a fictional play.

Kind of ironic, huh.

[Ceteris Paribus]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Why not ex the guy who is selling his DVDs about book of mormon archaeology?

And ex the stake president who hired him and allowed him to sell the DVDs.

Those are the guys doing the damage. Yet, they are celebrated and revered.

Hallelujah and amen! To add insult to injury, SU's buddies at FAIR are now on a witch hunt against Meldrum: http://www.fairblog.org/

On a side note, new bishop complained yesterday of the Primary mandating church wide practicing of a proscribed monthly song in Sr Primary. Almost lost it when he wondered aloud about how long until "Called To Serve" is taught complete with the German salute.

[Tex]

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.

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.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Tex

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.

And let's not pretend like Hardy was some bishop-in-waiting whose innocent side business 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 calender (or who knows ... maybe a missionary porn video is next!), it may have been worth it.



Perhaps my sarcasm detector is malfunctioning today, but I'm having a hard time believing you're serious.

What did the High Priests ask of him do you think? No more male shirtless models touting their spiritual experiences? No more male shirtless models?

What I don't get is the "My stake president was a bar tender" and that's just fine and dandy. I've heard that more than once.

[Gidget]

I obviously don't know ALL the details of Chad Hardy's membership in the Church, but the obvious infraction here wasn't the bare chested mormons. It was the clear correlation he created with missionaries and lude suggestive conduct. Maybe this is a conversation killer, but the bottom line is the church is made up of men, in my opinion that is the beauty of it. When we are baptized and made official members of the Church - we all commit to putting our faith in them as the leaders of it - and supporting and upholding them in the role of their callings - which call for them to decide things like appropriate discipline. This might be easier for me to say given the fact I converted and made the decision to be a member at an older age (17). But if you can't handle men running the church then who should? If the Big Guy wanted it run perfectly He would be down here doing it Himself, but He has us do it instead, go figure.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Ceteris Paribus

On a side note, new bishop complained yesterday of the Primary mandating church wide practicing of a proscribed monthly song in Sr Primary. Almost lost it when he wondered aloud about how long until "Called To Serve" is taught complete with the German salute.

LOL. Or a zombie march for the robotic "Follow the Prophet".

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Adam

Because they value their covenants at some background level. Because it would hurt their familes. Because they don't believe they have done something worthy of being excommunicated. Because they don't care if their names are on the rolls or not. Because they are not thinking "how can I handle this abusive process in a way that will make the church look the best?"

If they no longer having a burning "orthodox" type testimony and yet don't want to disassociate themselves from the "culture", they ought to at least familiarize themselves enough with how the orthodox folks, who are generally in leadership, feel about things.

For this guy not to think he might be in some serious conflict with the orthodox folks indicates he isn't too bright.