Mormon Religion

  • Thread starter Thread starter penguinchicky
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
twopekinguys said:
What is odd about the whole thing is. The guy that makes the calendar gets ex-d, but the guys who posed (of their own free will) don’t get ex-d.
Click to expand...
Dianaid made an analogy by suggesting that adults could be ‘put in’ clothing. It seems degrading to me, but if it is common in Mormonism then maybe the poor Missionaries were just doing what they were told and are innocent. The whole thing gives me flashbacks to my military service; “conduct unbecoming……….”
 
RebeccaJ said:
Yeah, there is a 2010 calendar, obviously made long after Hardy was excommunicated.

Well, at least it isn’t cupcakes.

:rotfl:
Click to expand...
Geez… maybe I don’t get out enough. Is a cupcake a term worse that muffin?
 
dianaiad said:
Ok. Let’s try this: let’s have a calendar of young, attractive novice nuns, entitled 'Sisters on the beaches" and put 'em all in bikinis.

Think about it.
Click to expand...
Or better yet, lets have a calender of Priests with the title: Hunky priests. Each priest would be in a slinky bathing suit with a bare chest. I am sure that that wouldn’t go over well in Rome. And a censor would follow.
 
Xavierlives said:
Lewd? I heard they were topless, which implies wearing pants. I didn’t want to do it, but maybe I should look… Nah, I won’t look! You can’t make me!

Surely they are just flexing their Mormon muscles and being all manly. But, the Mormon body is not one to be admired, obviously.
Click to expand...
First, this calander was not made for artistic purposes to glorify male bodies made in god’s image. The calander was to be a hunk calender for women or men to buy for other purposes than art.

And that made all the difference. By the way, the title of the calender was: Men on a Mission. Well, I wonder what kind of mission is being referred to. Imagination please. 🙂
 
why_me said:
Or better yet, lets have a calender of Priests with the title: Hunky priests. Each priest would be in a slinky bathing suit with a bare chest. I am sure that that wouldn’t go over well in Rome. And a censor would follow.
Click to expand...
But if they dressed like that you wouldn’t know they were Priests.
 
Stephen168 said:
But if they dressed like that you wouldn’t know they were Priests.
Click to expand...
I think that you proved my point. No problem with that calender. But take off the clothes, put on a skanky bathing suit, and call the calender: Catholic Priests on a Mission and lets see what happens. 🙂
 
why_me said:
I think that you proved my point. No problem with that calender. But take off the clothes, put on a skanky bathing suit, and call the calender: Catholic Priests on a Mission and lets see what happens. 🙂
Click to expand...
The former missionaries are not in “skanky” bathing suits they are just shirtless why do you change the parameters?:confused:
 
why_me said:
I think that you proved my point. No problem with that calender. But take off the clothes, put on a skanky bathing suit, and call the calender: Catholic Priests on a Mission and lets see what happens.
Click to expand...
IF a Priest were to do that, they would not be excommunicated. We are not trying to sell an image like Mormonism does, the Catholic Church is the true Church of Jesus Christ.
 
twopekinguys said:
But they were “former” missionaries, so former nuns, I wouldn’t have a problem with.

Apples to apples.
Click to expand...
That would only be ‘apples to apples’ if these young men were ‘former Elders.’ They weren’t.

To really compare apples to apples, it would be…young nuns who are just back from a specific mission, so that they are no longer required to wear a formal habit. Now they wear ‘street clothes,’ but they are still nuns.

Those young men may have been back from their missions, but they were still Elders.
 
Stephen168 said:
I’ve thought about it. I’ve decided what I bolded in your statement is very sexist, but other than that; I don’t understand why anyone would be excommunicated.
Click to expand...
Well, having young men displayed shirtless in calendars is ALSO sexist. That’s the POINT. 😉

I view that calendar as equivalent to some anti-cult idiot standing in front of the Temple waving Temple garments and ridiculing Temple goers. Or…the guy who wants to display the ‘**** Christ’ in front of a local Catholic parish. It was the sort of insult that fairly screamed: “you guys are idiots, unworthy of any respect, stupid, and I don’t want anything to do with you…excommunicate me!”

So we did.
 
dianaiad said:
That would only be ‘apples to apples’ if these young men were ‘former Elders.’ They weren’t.

To really compare apples to apples, it would be…young nuns who are just back from a specific mission, so that they are no longer required to wear a formal habit. Now they wear ‘street clothes,’ but they are still nuns.

Those young men may have been back from their missions, but they were still Elders.
Click to expand...
How do you know they weren’t former elders? Were you privy to all of the details, or is this just an assumption on your part?

Please provide a reference for your assumption, otherwise, your comment bears absolutely no weight.

Sisters are sisters whether they are in their habit or not, and it has nothing to do with them serving a mission. They remain sisters unless they renounce their vows through a formal process, or die.

You’re not sticking with apples to apples. The men who posed were “former” missionairies. Not current missionaries. Are you not seeing the difference?

Now if you want to find women who have left the convent, and are truly “former” nuns, then fine.

But lets stick with comparing like things. You realize that in this conversation, “former” means that they were a missionary at one point, but arent’ any longer. So the same would apply to the nun. They were a nun, but aren’t any longer.
 
twopekinguys said:
I’ve asked the question, and no one has given an answer.

Parker eluded to the commandments, but I can’t find the one that says you shouldn’t go shirtless. I haven’t found one that says to not make a living.
Click to expand...
Let’s see…now I’m sure that, if someone threw a bunch of soft bedroom slippers at you, you would think it a very odd sort of attack; who could possibly be physically hurt by a bunch of bunny slippers? However, (and I may be incorrect about this…but even if it’s not true it works for the analogy) if you are Muslim and someone throws all those bunny slippers at you, you KNOW you have just been insulted in one of the deadliest manners there is.

I mentioned the “**** Christ.” Now if you were not Christian, especially if you were not a Catholic Christian and unaware of the meaning of a crucifix, you would simply think it very strange to have a figure of a man in extreme pain attached to a wooden stake with a cross bar in the first place, and then to put that into a jar of urine, then photograph it? What is that? The man got $15,000 AT LEAST for this little photograph.

But we are Christians. We understand very well what the symbology–and the insult–is. (though when you think about it, you have to wonder who is being insulted…)

Like the slippers and the urine, the insult is understood only by those who know the rules and the symbology…and this calendar maker knew both, and deliberately chose to break them.

If these young men had posed shirtless as athletes, or dancers, or indeed as anything else–even if their religion is mentioned somewhere in the bio–that wouldn’t have been a problem. A little off-note, perhaps, but not too awful.

But this was a calendar of ‘former missionaries.’ It’s ALL ABOUT their religions. In which case, AS former missionaries and current Elders in the church, these young men would never go shirtless anywhere but the beach or a swimming pool.

…and to portray them as such is having them break Temple vows. I don’t know what happened to the young men–they weren’t excommunicated, but they were very certainly spoken to. It’s possible that they didn’t quite ‘get’ the seriousness of what they were doing. However, the calendar maker? He knew exactly what he was doing.

twopekinguys;6170880Then we heard something about the BYU “honor code” said:
portion of the proceeds going to Breast Cancer research
Click to expand...

."

Sounds pretty evil to me. 🤷

The double entendre is pretty obvious…and pretty funny—"kitschy vintage pinup style’ doesn’t necessarly mean that they break any promises, y’know.

The thing is, the calendar would have been a better seller–a lot funnier–and a FAR better poke at Mormon more’s–if all those hunky former Mormon missionaries had been portrayed in full missionary suits doing all the traditional ‘hunk’ poses–

As it is, it crossed the line from irony and a gentle nudge at Mormon prudery to outright mockery and insult.

…I’ll have to look at the ‘muffin’ calendar, but I can see how that one can be done withOUT crossing that line.
 
Stephen168 said:
But if they dressed like that you wouldn’t know they were Priests.
Click to expand...
Aren’t these nice looking young men? Now imagine the kerfufle if these same young men were photographed shirtless in provocative poses–in a calendar that specifically states that these men are priests?
 
zaffiroborant said:
The former missionaries are not in “skanky” bathing suits they are just shirtless why do you change the parameters?:confused:
Click to expand...
No, they are NOT ‘just shirtless.’ They are deliberately posed in traditional ‘beefcake’ photographs–and in situations (like a fireman with suspenders) where anybody with an ounce of sense would not only be wearing a shirt, but would probably have several layers OVER that shirt.

It’s about Temple garments, Z. These are supposed to be Temple worthy Mormons (if these young men are no longer members, or are inactive and have stopped wearing the garments, that’s one thing—but that’s also very dishonest.) they do NOT wear the briefs that some of those poses have the young men hooking their thumbs in.

They are not wearing the Temple garments. I know, I know, you think that the Temple garments are stupid; laughable. Well, the religious symbols you wear and use might be seen as laughable by those who don’t believe as you do, too.

What those calendars are doing (and that goes for the women’s "muffin’ calendar too, now that I’ve seen it) is presenting young men and women who are BREAKING THEIR RELIGIOUS PROMISES as good Mormons. It is making fun of us–and not in a good way.

I saw a calendar of nuns once that made me smile, a lot. Every month had a picture of nuns who were engaging in some obviously fun activities; basket ball, baseball, coaching a swim team, teaching children to dance, singing, my favorite one was of a group of nuns bicycling down a French country road. All the pictures were beautiful, celebrating the nuns, their lives and their religious commitment–and all were wearing full formal habits.

What these “Men on a MIssion” and “Muffin” calendars are doing is extreme sarcasm; they are attacks upon our faith, our lives and our beliefs. YOu see, here’s the thing: those men may be former missionaries, but in order to pose for those pictures, they had to break a couple of rather important religious promises and rules. They were NOT being the 'good Mormons" they are portrayed as.

It is JUST like a bunch of nuns posing for Playboy–even if they insist on wearing bikinis.
 
Stephen168 said:
IF a Priest were to do that, they would not be excommunicated. We are not trying to sell an image like Mormonism does, the Catholic Church is the true Church of Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
You would not excommunicate a priest for doing this?

…and you think that’s a good thing?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top