Mormon Religion

[twopekinguys]

I don’t know. Perhaps they weren’t ex’d because you don’t need to excommunicate someone twice. .

Another assumption.

Personally, I don’t think that they should be ex’d for this. Disfellowshiped, perhaps…or, if they were decieved about what the calendar was about in the first place, yelled at for being terminally stupid—but it is the calendar MAKER who went into it knowing precisely how many very serious rules he was breaking.

Let’s see here. The producer of the calendar was looking to make a buck and help some people. The guys who posed were looking to make some bucks and help some people. But yet the producer is the bad guy.

You know, the funny thing is, if you look at any of the promotional pictures of the calendar, it doesn’t seem like any of them are under any kind of duress. You really can’t believe they were “deceived” can you? Even if they were, and I HIGHLY doubt it, don’t you think that would have affected his ability to get additonal candidates to pose, given the amount of publicity?

Considering he is now publishing his 3rd calendar, it doesn’t sound like he’s having any problems getting people. I am sure that more than 36 men have applied to be on the calendars.

The young men involved? I imagine that they got into trouble sufficient for the offense.

Another assumption.

Why is their offense less serious than his?

Yeah. It’s not what you CAN’T do. It’s about what you SHOULD be doing. In this case, beefcake photos taken to advertise your status as a former Mormon missionary is misrepresenting things.

Funny, the BYU honor code says men can’t have beards. It also says you can’t use alcohol, tobacco, etc.

And you understand the problem quite well. I can’t help but consider that your stated misunderstanding of the problem is more than a little disengenuous. However, I’ll attempt to be plain, here.[/QUOTED]

Where do you get that I am misunderstanding this. Please don’t make unfounded assertions.
dianaiad;6173626:

Mormon missionaries have all gone through the Temple. Since they have, for the rest of their lives they are expected to behave and dress modestly. We are supposed to wear our Temple garments almost all the time. There are times and events that we do NOT wear them

, because doing so would expose them, and us, to mockery. We don’t wear them to swim in, for instance. We don’t wear them to play sports that would expose them to public view. Actors and dancers don’t wear them if doing so would expose them to public view and mockery. They are important religious symbols. For former missionaries to be in a calendar wearing clothing that would expose those garments if they were being worn is a little problematic–but depending upon the calendar and the purpose of it, mught be just fine. A calendar of ballet dancers, for instance, or a swim team, or beach volleyball athletes…I can think of quite a few. However, when the calendar DEPENDS upon the fact that the models are former missionaries–when that’s the whole point of it–then we have a double problem. Not only are those poses immodest, but it is obvious that these men are not wearing Temple garments at all; even as they are claiming to be great examples of missionary Mormondom, they are breaking one of the most fundamental taboos of Temple worthy—never mind Missionary–life. We wear the garments all the time. They help define who we are.

It sounds like you are projecting what you think is acceptable use and display of the garments over what they understand. Why is your view more important or correct than theirs?

How do you know they aren’t wearing their garments? I believe in one of your other posts, you indicated there are two piecers now. From what I have seen, the calendar doesn’t expose that much.

Using your example of dancers, athletes etc. Let’s carry that one step further. If they are professional models, there would be cases when the garments wouldn’t be appropriate.

News flash…These guys were acting as professional models. (i.e. getting paid to pose) So theoretically, they wouldn’t have to be wearing them. I am sure there are several garment wearing models out there.

What is the difference between these guys, getting paid to do a calendar, just bareing their chests, and the mormon actor Jon Heder in the movie “Blades of Glory” prancing around in his tightie whities?

This calendar, to LDS viewers, is a little like a calendar for Farmer John bacon and sausage–featuring Hassidic Jews.

I’m sure it’s been done, but do you think anyone got ex-d?

 

[dianaiad]

Perhaps the missionary experience challenged their faith enough that they chose that way to exit a belief system they could no longer support. Therefore, it is a reasonable action for a “closet apostate” RM

After all, one of the principles Mormon missionaries use is let’s call it— romance appeal. A good-looking man converts a vulnerable and lonely young woman who thinks that by converting she will become marriage-material for the sexy young man. Then he is reassigned, and she is lost and disappointed. Do you think that happens, even occasionally?

I would call it a rather blatant ‘coming out of the closet,’ if that’s the situation, jerusha.

…and the ‘romance appeal’ is NOT a principle that Mormon missionaries intentially use. In fact, the rules of mission life are such as to mitigate against that. For instance, young women are NOT taught by young missionary Elders without lots of chaparonage–and then there are those frequent transfers. That there is a ‘romance’ factor is inevitable. Handsome young men are going to appeal to young women. However, that’s not the fault of the young men, is it?

…and what in the world does that have to do with the calendar, anyway?

 

[twopekinguys]

Actually, I"m beginning to be on Hardy’s side in re’ the diploma. I have no idea what you are talking about with your comment about doubting them.

I AM saying that this comment about their having an opportunity to donate part of the proceeds of the calendar to charitable organizations back in the area where they served is disengenuous. OF COURSE they have that opportunity. They always did have that opportunity–and that might have been a way to rope them into the shoot in the first place. anybody can donate their earnings to anybody they want to.

It’s like any employer bragging about their company, and including in that brag that their employees can donate their paychecks to any organization they want to–as if they had the right to determine what anybody does with what he or she earns.

You are making the assumption that they aren’t donating a portion of the proceeds. Are you automatically doubting their sincerity just because they posed for the calendar? That would be extremely judgemental on your part don’t you think?

The same could be said when the lds say they contributed x dollars to this, or x dollars to that. Should we automatically assume that statements from the lds with regard to their humanitarian efforts are disingenous? No, I don’t think so. Personally, I prefer to take a person at their word, until proven otherwise.

 

[RebeccaJ]

yes there was, Rebecca…and since you were LDS and have an LDS family, I’m quite certain you know exactly what the problem is.

Yes, I know what the “problem” is, but I doubt you want me to describe what it is.

I am puzzled over which commandment though, really.

 

[RebeccaJ]

…and what in the world does that have to do with the calendar, anyway?

Perhaps calendar-boyz used their good looks to woo young golden contacts into a baptismal font, I think, is Jerusha’s point. Now they are using those looks to make a buck, and irritate you.

All the same thing, really…

 

[twopekinguys]

Y’know, he does have a point about the diploma.

I have to agree.

I thought is was a very fair and balanced article.

 

[dianaiad]

Another assumption.

If you can, I can. You are the one assuming that nothing happened to any of these young men, after all. In fact, something probably DID–but nobody would know that but them and their immediate priesthood leaders, unless they were all the way excommunicated, and sometimes not even then. As it happens, some of the men WERE called to ‘disciplinary hearings,’ but not excommunicated. Since they were not, what happened there is none of our business, any more than what happens to you in the confessional is any of my business.

Let’s see here. The producer of the calendar was looking to make a buck and help some people. The guys who posed were looking to make some bucks and help some people. But yet the producer is the bad guy.

He could have picked a bunch of other ways to ‘make a buck and help some people.’ He chose this way. I just read a story about a prostitute who had a habit of stealing money from the wallets of her ‘dates’ and donating the funds to a local homeless shelter. By your lights, she was just trying to make a buck and help some people’ too, right?

You know, the funny thing is, if you look at any of the promotional pictures of the calendar, it doesn’t seem like any of them are under any kind of duress. You really can’t believe they were “deceived” can you? Even if they were, and I HIGHLY doubt it, don’t you think that would have affected his ability to get additonal candidates to pose, given the amount of publicity?

Considering he is now publishing his 3rd calendar, it doesn’t sound like he’s having any problems getting people. I am sure that more than 36 men have applied to be on the calendars.

Possibly. What difference does that make?

Another assumption.

Why is their offense less serious than his?

Well, their immediate priesthood leaders think it was. As for me, I think that they thought it was fun, that they could earn some money for themselves or for a charity, and that’s it. HE, however, was fully aware of all the ramifications of what he was doing–and since he is doing it over and over again, can confidently be called ‘unrepentant.’

I imagine that the young men who currently apply for the job of being on the calendar are no longer active in the church, and are quite aware of the statement they are making by being in it.

Funny, the BYU honor code says men can’t have beards. It also says you can’t use alcohol, tobacco, etc.

Ok…and I’ve already said that I’m beginning to see the light in regard to his diploma. Now, if that calendar was part of any online assignment required to get it, I can see denying the diploma, but other wise? Nah, he should get the diploma. However, getting excommunicated? Yep. That was the right decision, I think.

And you understand the problem quite well. I can’t help but consider that your stated misunderstanding of the problem is more than a little disengenuous. However, I’ll attempt to be plain, here.[/QUOTED]

Where do you get that I am misunderstanding this. Please don’t make unfounded assertions.

It sounds like you are projecting what you think is acceptable use and display of the garments over what they understand. Why is your view more important or correct than theirs?

Because I’ve been to the Temple. I know what the instructions are. Do you?

How do you know they aren’t wearing their garments? I believe in one of your other posts, you indicated there are two piecers now. From what I have seen, the calendar doesn’t expose that much.

Great googly moogly–are you SERIOUS? As comfortable as they are, they aren’t invisible!

Using your example of dancers, athletes etc. Let’s carry that one step further. If they are professional models, there would be cases when the garments wouldn’t be appropriate.

Absolutely, which is why I said I wouldn’t have that big a problem with them appearing this way on a different sort of calendar. The problem is that they are appearing, not as MODELS, but as themselves; as former missionaries–and evidently they are supposed to be fine examples of former missionaries. They aren’t. It is decietful.

News flash…These guys were acting as professional models. (i.e. getting paid to pose) So theoretically, they wouldn’t have to be wearing them. I am sure there are several garment wearing models out there.

What is the difference between these guys, getting paid to do a calendar, just bareing their chests, and the mormon actor Jon Heder in the movie “Blades of Glory” prancing around in his tightie whities?

Jon Helder was not prancing around as “Jon Helder, Mormon and former missionary and isn’t he a hunk?” Someone else could have played that part. His religion isn’t mentioned. In this calendar, the whole point is that these guys are former missionaries. If they were not, they wouldn’t be on the calendar.

I’m sure it’s been done, but do you think anyone got ex-d?

I’m very sure it has NOT been done. Sheesh…I can’t imagine many things that would be more ‘politically incorrect,’ or more likely to have the Jewish anti-defimation league sueing the pea-waddin out of you. As to that, any Jew who allowed such a thing would be in SO much trouble…

 

[why_me]

Chad Hardy should not have done what he did. But he had the perfect right to do it. For that reason, BYU had no right to do what they did.

Hardy’s problem was with his attitude and reasons for the calender. This was his problem. He has shown that he had an agenda with the other calenders that he sponsored too. To have a sexy mormon mom calender with the slogan: a taste of motherhood is provocative and can leave a sexual image in someone’s mind. Likewise for the slogan: Elders (Men) with a mission.

 

[RebeccaJ]

So what you are saying with all of this is that you feel, or maybe the heirarchy felt they insulted the church.

Diana can correct me, but I think what she has been trying to do is make a comparison for how the LDS culture feels about their missionaries.

 

[dianaiad]

You are making the assumption that they aren’t donating a portion of the proceeds. Are you automatically doubting their sincerity just because they posed for the calendar? That would be extremely judgemental on your part don’t you think?

I’m not doubting the sincerity of the models. The models weren’t doing any talking here. I AM noting that the calendar maker, in saying what he said in that quote of yours, is spouting air and snot. It’s such an amorphous thing to say. HOW do the models ‘get to donate a portion of the proceeds’ to anything at all? As I noted, this paragraph is perfectly accurate, if morally decietful, if it only means that the missionaries can use their modeling fees to help charitable causes in their old mission fields. I simply pointed out that this has always been true. The models could use their fees for anything they wanted to use them for.

The same could be said when the lds say they contributed x dollars to this, or x dollars to that. Should we automatically assume that statements from the lds with regard to their humanitarian efforts are disingenous? No, I don’t think so. Personally, I prefer to take a person at their word, until proven otherwise.

You are conflating things. The missionaries didn’t say that they contributed anything. The missionary/models didn’t say anything at all. Those words are Hardy’s (or his representative). HE is claiming that the models ‘have the opportunity to donate’ portions of the proceeds of the calendar to charitable organizations in their old mission fields. What does he mean by ‘have the opportunity?’ I mean, really—think about it. If this is something apart from the modeling fees–a separate part of the proceeds, then what does ‘have an opportunity’ MEAN, exactly? If Hardy is willing to donate a portion of the calendar proceeds to charitable organizations in the old mission fields, then he’s going to be doing that anyway, right? The former missionaries would then not "have an opportunity’ to donate. They would have an opportunity to direct where the donation is sent, but HARDY is doing the donating, not the missionaries. However, if what he is saying that the missionaries can decide to donate their fees (or a portion of them) to some charitable organization rather than take the money, well…as I said, they’ve always had that right/opportunity. It’s their money, They can do what they want to with it.

This has nothing to do with what the young men did, or claimed they did, with the money. In fact, we have no clue what they did, or said they did. That claim was from Hardy, who is taking credit for whatever the former missionaries decided to do.

I find that more than a little off-putting, don’t you?

 

[why_me]

Diana can correct me, but I think what she has been trying to do is make a comparison for how the LDS culture feels about their missionaries.

Culture is very important. In lds culture is is very important to avoid the appearance of evil. This is something that Hardy did not do. His beefcake calender and his sexy mormon mom calender with their provocative slogans can lead someone’s mind to stray into lust. And this became Hardy’s downfall with the lds church.

 

[Stephen168]

Diana can correct me, but I think what she has been trying to do is make a comparison for how the LDS culture feels about their missionaries.

How do they feel about their missionaries?

 

[dianaiad]

Diana can correct me, but I think what she has been trying to do is make a comparison for how the LDS culture feels about their missionaries.

You may be on to something here…could you expand that a bit? It’s true–LDS culture feels pretty protective about our missionaries. We also have a standard we expect them to live up to. One of those standards is–missionaries and former missionaries are modest; they do not do this sort of thing while they are representing the church.

By ‘this sort of thing,’ I mean–breaking their promises regarding modest behavior. It’s a timing issue; there is a time and a place for going shirtless–even for being photographed going shirtless, but as you are representing the CoJCoLDS as a missionary isn’t one of them.

…There is a time and a place to wear a speedo bodyskin swimsuit–and a time to wear a ball gown. You do not want to wear one in an arena where the other is appropriate.

 

[twopekinguys]

If you can, I can. You are the one assuming that nothing happened to any of these young men, after all. In fact, something probably DID–but nobody would know that but them and their immediate priesthood leaders, unless they were all the way excommunicated, and sometimes not even then. As it happens, some of the men WERE called to ‘disciplinary hearings,’ but not excommunicated. Since they were not, what happened there is none of our business, any more than what happens to you in the confessional is any of my business.

I’m sorry, but you seem to all over the place with the models and discipline. You say something “probably” did, but nobody would know, then you say they did face disciplinary hearings. On another post where you responded to me asking why the models didn’t get ex-d, you said:

I don’t know. Perhaps they weren’t ex’d because you don’t need to excommunicate someone twice

Which implies they were ex-d.

Which one is it?

He could have picked a bunch of other ways to ‘make a buck and help some people.’ He chose this way. I just read a story about a prostitute who had a habit of stealing money from the wallets of her ‘dates’ and donating the funds to a local homeless shelter. By your lights, she was just trying to make a buck and help some people’ too, right?

There are lots of ways for people to make money. Including the guys who posed. These guys just happened to find a niche that needed filled. You know, like Magicjack, or Bowflex.

We aren’t talking about prostitutes who are already performing an illegal act. This is far from an illegal act. Let’s stay on topic shall we?

Possibly. What difference does that make?

The point is, they weren’t forced to apply, or pose. They did it voluntarily.

Well, their immediate priesthood leaders think it was. As for me, I think that they thought it was fun, that they could earn some money for themselves or for a charity, and that’s it. HE, however, was fully aware of all the ramifications of what he was doing–and since he is doing it over and over again, can confidently be called ‘unrepentant.’ ?Quote]

You don’t think the guys who posed new the ramifications? If they were Elders, as you assume they were, wouldn’t they know the ramifications?
dianaiad;6173626:

I imagine that the young men who currently apply for the job of being on the calendar are no longer active in the church, and are quite aware of the statement they are making by being in it.

That could be, but again, it is an assumption. Imagine does mean you don’t know for sure right?

Great googly moogly–are you SERIOUS? As comfortable as they are, they aren’t invisible!

You have heard of photoshop right? There was a news story sometime last year blasting the fashion industry for the amount of retouching they do to photographs.

Absolutely, which is why I said I wouldn’t have that big a problem with them appearing this way on a different sort of calendar. The problem is that they are appearing, not as MODELS, but as themselves; as former missionaries–and evidently they are supposed to be fine examples of former missionaries. They aren’t. It is decietful.

But they ARE appearing as models. Take Tyra Banks for example. She gets paid to take pictures of her being her.

How do you get they are being deceitful? They are posing in non lewd pictures, and have the opportunity to donate money earned to the place where they served their mission.

Don’t you think it is respectable they are showing prospective missionaries and converts that even though their mission is over, they are trying to help the world as a whole?

Jon Helder was not prancing around as “Jon Helder, Mormon and former missionary and isn’t he a hunk?” Someone else could have played that part. His religion isn’t mentioned. In this calendar, the whole point is that these guys are former missionaries. If they were not, they wouldn’t be on the calendar.

Someone else could have played that part, just like someone else could have modeled for this calendar.

I’m very sure it has NOT been done. Sheesh…I can’t imagine many things that would be more ‘politically incorrect,’ or more likely to have the Jewish anti-defimation league sueing the pea-waddin out of you. As to that, any Hassidic Jew who allowed such a thing would be in SO much trouble…

Just like you’re sure about the discipline of the calendar models? Just because something isn’t politically correct doesn’t mean that it hasn’t been done.

Would they sue, or would they forgive? I don’t know, how could you?

 

[twopekinguys]

I’m not doubting the sincerity of the models. The models weren’t doing any talking here. I AM noting that the calendar maker, in saying what he said in that quote of yours, is spouting air and snot. It’s such an amorphous thing to say. HOW do the models ‘get to donate a portion of the proceeds’ to anything at all? As I noted, this paragraph is perfectly accurate, if morally decietful, if it only means that the missionaries can use their modeling fees to help charitable causes in their old mission fields. I simply pointed out that this has always been true. The models could use their fees for anything they wanted to use them for.

You are conflating things. The missionaries didn’t say that they contributed anything. The missionary/models didn’t say anything at all. Those words are Hardy’s (or his representative). HE is claiming that the models ‘have the opportunity to donate’ portions of the proceeds of the calendar to charitable organizations in their old mission fields. What does he mean by ‘have the opportunity?’ I mean, really—think about it. If this is something apart from the modeling fees–a separate part of the proceeds, then what does ‘have an opportunity’ MEAN, exactly? If Hardy is willing to donate a portion of the calendar proceeds to charitable organizations in the old mission fields, then he’s going to be doing that anyway, right? The former missionaries would then not "have an opportunity’ to donate. They would have an opportunity to direct where the donation is sent, but HARDY is doing the donating, not the missionaries. However, if what he is saying that the missionaries can decide to donate their fees (or a portion of them) to some charitable organization rather than take the money, well…as I said, they’ve always had that right/opportunity. It’s their money, They can do what they want to with it.

This has nothing to do with what the young men did, or claimed they did, with the money. In fact, we have no clue what they did, or said they did. That claim was from Hardy, who is taking credit for whatever the former missionaries decided to do.

I find that more than a little off-putting, don’t you?

Here is a quote from one of the missionaries bio’s.

"CJ, currently studying architecture, has chosen Enfants and Developpement, a French charity that helps children in France and around the world, for Mormons Exposed charitable contribution on his behalf. According to him, “I want to give back after living in France for two years. I saw that there were a lot of families that were in financial crises and their children had to suffer. Children are the future and if we help them we can help what will become of France.”

Now, is his statement more or less credible than the producers? How do we know that the missionaries don’t get their royalty check and pocket all the money instead of sending it to the charity they’ve declared?

All I am talking, and have been talking about is a level playing field.

The guy who dreams up the calendar gets all the grief, he’s the bad guy, the evil one, but the guys who voluntarily posed and got paid, get off scott free.

 

[dianaiad]

I’m sorry, but you seem to all over the place with the models and discipline. You say something “probably” did, but nobody would know, then you say they did face disciplinary hearings. On another post where you responded to me asking why the models didn’t get ex-d, you said:

Which implies they were ex-d.

Which one is it?

There are lots of ways for people to make money. Including the guys who posed. These guys just happened to find a niche that needed filled. You know, like Magicjack, or Bowflex.

We aren’t talking about prostitutes who are already performing an illegal act. This is far from an illegal act. Let’s stay on topic shall we?

The point is, they weren’t forced to apply, or pose. They did it voluntarily.
dianaiad;6173626:

Well, their immediate priesthood leaders think it was. As for me, I think that they thought it was fun, that they could earn some money for themselves or for a charity, and that’s it. HE, however, was fully aware of all the ramifications of what he was doing–and since he is doing it over and over again, can confidently be called ‘unrepentant.’

You don’t think the guys who posed new the ramifications? If they were Elders, as you assume they were, wouldn’t they know the ramifications?

That could be, but again, it is an assumption. Imagine does mean you don’t know for sure right?

You have heard of photoshop right? There was a news story sometime last year blasting the fashion industry for the amount of retouching they do to photographs.

But they ARE appearing as models. Take Tyra Banks for example. She gets paid to take pictures of her being her.

How do you get they are being deceitful? They are posing in non lewd pictures, and have the opportunity to donate money earned to the place where they served their mission.

Don’t you think it is respectable they are showing prospective missionaries and converts that even though their mission is over, they are trying to help the world as a whole?

Someone else could have played that part, just like someone else could have modeled for this calendar.

Just like you’re sure about the discipline of the calendar models? Just because something isn’t politically correct doesn’t mean that it hasn’t been done.

Would they sue, or would they forgive? I don’t know, how could you?

You are making all the assumptions here, I’m not. First, you are assuming that these models DID know all the ramifications of what they were doing. I simply say that they might not have. You are assuming that none of them were disciplined. I didn’t know, but speculated that if not, one of the reasons may have been because some of them may already have been excommunicated for something else. I didn’t claim that they HAD been. I simply mentioned it as a possibility. You are assuming that none were. You are using your standard of moral behavior as if it must be the standard everybody else must use–even though quite obviously different standards of behavior apply to different people and for different situations. The standard of behavior for a Catholic priest at a local dance is far different from the standard of behavior expected from a 16 year old at that same dance…and the standard of behavior for a former LDS missionary presenting himself AS a former LDS missionary is a lot more strict than that expected of someone else in some other venue.

As far as ‘photoshopping’ is concerned—oh, give it a rest. If any of those pictures had been photoshopped to that extent, believe me, we’d know about it. That wouldn’t involve a little airbrushing. That would involve body swapping–and it would open up an entirely different can of worms.

In fact, you are stretching credulity way past the point of snapping.

 

[twopekinguys]

You may be on to something here…could you expand that a bit? It’s true–LDS culture feels pretty protective about our missionaries. We also have a standard we expect them to live up to. One of those standards is–missionaries and former missionaries are modest; they do not do this sort of thing while they are representing the church.

By ‘this sort of thing,’ I mean–breaking their promises regarding modest behavior. It’s a timing issue; there is a time and a place for going shirtless–even for being photographed going shirtless, but as you are representing the CoJCoLDS as a missionary isn’t one of them.

…There is a time and a place to wear a speedo bodyskin swimsuit–and a time to wear a ball gown. You do not want to wear one in an arena where the other is appropriate.

First, let me say that you will never see me in either a speedo or a ball gown. No matter what the arena.

I get the whole modesty and protection of image. My whole thing is, and always has been the equality of how it was handled. Or the lack there of.

The whole issue of modesty is subjective at best. What I consider immodest may be OK with you.

Personally, I hate wedding dresses that are strapless. 9 out of 10 times, it is ill fitted, and the womans breasts are either falling out, or don’t fill it up at all. Either way, I’m getting a view that I don’'t want, and don’t think is appropriate. Not to mention I really get irritated talking to a bride that is constantly putting her hand in between her cleavage, grabbing the top of her gown and pulling it up.

But that is just me. Obviously the fashion industry doesn’t see it that way.

With all of that being said, I would just like to tell everyone out there (men and women alike).

Just because it comes in your size, doesn’t mean you should wear it. Also, chances are if you think it fits you well, you should probably go up a size or two.

 

[dianaiad]

Here is a quote from one of the missionaries bio’s.

"CJ, currently studying architecture, has chosen Enfants and Developpement, a French charity that helps children in France and around the world, for Mormons Exposed charitable contribution on his behalf. According to him, “I want to give back after living in France for two years. I saw that there were a lot of families that were in financial crises and their children had to suffer. Children are the future and if we help them we can help what will become of France.”

Now, is his statement more or less credible than the producers? How do we know that the missionaries don’t get their royalty check and pocket all the money instead of sending it to the charity they’ve declared?

All I am talking, and have been talking about is a level playing field.

The guy who dreams up the calendar gets all the grief, he’s the bad guy, the evil one, but the guys who voluntarily posed and got paid, get off scott free.

As I mentioned, evidently not. Being called to a church disciplinary hearing is NOT 'getting off scott free," even if you don’t know what the outcome of that hearing is. After doing some research, I discovered that many of these young men were called on the carpet.

As to the quote you just gave me…so what? Nothing I have said here denies that any of the missionaries actually might have taken advantage of the opportunity to donate. It is simply noting that his brag about allowing them to do so is…distasteful. He is taking credit for what the missionaries choose to do.

 

[twopekinguys]

You are making all the assumptions here, I’m not. First, you are assuming that these models DID know all the ramifications of what they were doing. I simply say that they might not have. You are assuming that none of them were disciplined. I didn’t know, but speculated that if not, one of the reasons may have been because some of them may already have been excommunicated for something else. I didn’t claim that they HAD been. I simply mentioned it as a possibility. You are assuming that none were. You are using your standard of moral behavior as if it must be the standard everybody else must use–even though quite obviously different standards of behavior apply to different people and for different situations. The standard of behavior for a Catholic priest at a local dance is far different from the standard of behavior expected from a 16 year old at that same dance…and the standard of behavior for a former LDS missionary presenting himself AS a former LDS missionary is a lot more strict than that expected of someone else in some other venue.

As far as ‘photoshopping’ is concerned—oh, give it a rest. If any of those pictures had been photoshopped to that extent, believe me, we’d know about it. That wouldn’t involve a little airbrushing. That would involve body swapping–and it would open up an entirely different can of worms.

In fact, you are stretching credulity way past the point of snapping.

I’m making all of the assumptions? You said they did face discipline, and you said they “probably” did, and I’m the one making assumptions?

You stated:

As it happens, some of the men WERE called to ‘disciplinary hearings,’ but not excommunicated.

You are the one assuming that the producer of the the calendar knew the ramifications, and assuming the models did not. I merely went by what you said in an earlier post claiming the models were Elders. I asked the question that as Elders, wouldn’'t they know the ramifications?

Don’t try and turn this on me, you’re the one all over the place.

You are using your standard of moral behavior as if it must be the standard everybody else must use

Quite the contrary. It is you that is projecting your standard on others.

You have made it quite clear that the guy who produced the calendar is wrong, and the guys who posed were duped into it.

All of the men involved in this are returned missionaries. Including the producer. If he should know all of the ramifications as you suggest, then so should the men who modeled.

 

[RebeccaJ]

You may be on to something here…could you expand that a bit? It’s true–LDS culture feels pretty protective about our missionaries. We also have a standard we expect them to live up to. One of those standards is–missionaries and former missionaries are modest; they do not do this sort of thing while they are representing the church.

By ‘this sort of thing,’ I mean–breaking their promises regarding modest behavior. It’s a timing issue; there is a time and a place for going shirtless–even for being photographed going shirtless, but as you are representing the CoJCoLDS as a missionary isn’t one of them.

…There is a time and a place to wear a speedo bodyskin swimsuit–and a time to wear a ball gown. You do not want to wear one in an arena where the other is appropriate.

I get the emotional let down. I don’t get how it is applied to a reasoning for excommunication. As twopekingguys has pointed out several times, it is inconsistent. But, I am fairly certain it is because the decisions for each individual are based on subjective emotions of several different LDS church leaders (bishops).