Mormon Religion

[dianaiad]

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

If they ARE former Elders…that is, if they are no longer members of the church, then that is extremely dishonest of the calendar maker, don’t you think? Because the only way that former missionaries can be ‘former’ Elders is if they had either resigned from, or been excommunicated from, the church. I have to tell you that if those young men were not members of the church at the time they made the calendar, that brings up an entirely different problem.

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.

Exactly…and Elders are Elders in precisely the same way.

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.

And these former missionaries may be former missionaries, but they are STILL Elders and thus still under the same ‘rules’ that they were under while they were missionaries. One of those rules is…you don’t pose for beefcake photographs that present you as a Mormon missionary, former or current. Missionaries went through the Temple. They wear Temple garments. That rather restricts the places one can go shirtless.

…and as I mentioned, if they are former members as well as former missionaries, that in and of itself makes that calendar extremely dishonest, doesn’t it?

 

[twopekinguys]

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.

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.

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

If that is the case, then there should be a whole heck of alot more ex-ing going on than what there is. Namely, the gentleman that voluntarily posed for the pictures, or how about previous prophets that have made inappropriate comments. (and there have been a few)

Just so you know, I checked out this guys website, and found a couple of interesting comments.

“the “devout dozen” are stepping away from Mormon stereotypes, and “baring their testimony” to demonstrate that they can have strong faith and be proud of who they are, while reaching out to a broad audience with a sense of individualism and a sense of humor.”

“Each of the twelve former missionaries have the opportunity to donate a portion of the proceeds from the sale of the calendar to a cause in the area where he has served. Not only have they helped those in need personally, they now have the opportunity to help financially.”

How much more evil can this guy get!?!

 

[twopekinguys]

Snipped and bolding mine.

And these former missionaries may be former missionaries, but they are STILL Elders and thus still under the same ‘rules’ that they were under while they were missionaries. One of those rules is…you don’t pose for beefcake photographs that present you as a Mormon missionary, former or current. Missionaries went through the Temple. They wear Temple garments. That rather restricts the places one can go shirtless.

…and as I mentioned, if they are former members as well as former missionaries, that in and of itself makes that calendar extremely dishonest, doesn’t it?

You have just proven my point, showing the inconsistency in all of this.

These guys posed voluntarily. Why weren’t they ex-d?

Is there a citation for that rule of not posing for beefcake photos? I know there isn’t a commandment for it.

 

[twopekinguys]

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.

You know, I went to a Chinese resturant several years ago, and got the best fortune cookie ever. In fact I still carry it in my wallet today.

“A man who can laugh at himself will never run out of things to make himself laugh.”

I don’t remember anyone here saying that your temple garments are laughable, so I would appreciate you not putting words in my mouth, or anyone elses for that matter. If you want to wear them, it’s no skin off my nose one way or the other.

As you are very fond of saying, Don’t tell me what I believe.

The funny thing about all of this is really quite simple. It’s only wrong if someone else is doing it, or beat you to it.

 

[why_me]

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.

But he may lose his vocation. A priest takes a vow of celibacy and to pose in beefcake would be a scandal. And he would lose the confidence of the parish. He would be on the way out.

 

[why_me]

You have just proven my point, showing the inconsistency in all of this.

These guys posed voluntarily. Why weren’t they ex-d?

Is there a citation for that rule of not posing for beefcake photos? I know there isn’t a commandment for it.

Hardy was the instigator of the calender. He supplied the idea for the Men on a Mission calender. Plus, I do think that he did other things that an elder of the lds church should not do. Hardy then went on with the muffin calender and sexy mormon moms calender. He is a man on his own mission.

 

[why_me]

You would not excommunicate a priest for doing this?

…and you think that’s a good thing?

And this is what makes this so funny. Here we have good catholics complaining about the lds chiurch for standing for its values of modesty and purity as if the catholic church does not do so.

Most opus dei members would understand the problems with the beefcake calender and the other calenders. And priests would also. I would find it hard to believe that priests would encourage their parishers to buy such calenders. But the anti mormons just can not see the hypocrisy of their own position.

 

[twopekinguys]

Here is a very interesting article from a practicing mormon.

Even he agrees that BYU botched all of this.

american-partisan.com/cols/2009/rollins/qtr1/0218.htm

 

[Jerusha]

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.

 

[dianaiad]

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

If that is the case, then there should be a whole heck of alot more ex-ing going on than what there is. Namely, the gentleman that voluntarily posed for the pictures, or how about previous prophets that have made inappropriate comments. (and there have been a few)

Just so you know, I checked out this guys website, and found a couple of interesting comments.

“the “devout dozen” are stepping away from Mormon stereotypes, and “baring their testimony” to demonstrate that they can have strong faith and be proud of who they are, while reaching out to a broad audience with a sense of individualism and a sense of humor.”

“Each of the twelve former missionaries have the opportunity to donate a portion of the proceeds from the sale of the calendar to a cause in the area where he has served. Not only have they helped those in need personally, they now have the opportunity to help financially.”

How much more evil can this guy get!?!

“stepping away from Mormon stereotypes and ‘bareing their testimony?’”

That sounds, quite frankly. like the young men who were baring whatever it is they were baring are not just former missionaries. It sounds like they are former members. Or if not that, then certainly not active members. I wonder if any of the men and women portrayed in those calendars are active in their wards right now?

…and what a bunch of idiocy that paragraph spouts. OF COURSE those former missionaries 'have the opportunity to donate a portion of the proceeds from the sale of the calendar to a cause in the area where he has served." They can do anything they want to with their paychecks.

 

[twopekinguys]

“stepping away from Mormon stereotypes and ‘bareing their testimony?’”

That sounds, quite frankly. like the young men who were baring whatever it is they were baring are not just former missionaries. It sounds like they are former members. Or if not that, then certainly not active members. I wonder if any of the men and women portrayed in those calendars are active in their wards right now?

…and what a bunch of idiocy that paragraph spouts. OF COURSE those former missionaries 'have the opportunity to donate a portion of the proceeds from the sale of the calendar to a cause in the area where he has served." They can do anything they want to with their paychecks.

Why doubt them? Their views and statements are as credible as yours aren’t they?

Why is your view, opinion or statement more credible than theirs?

But, even if they aren’t active, neither was Hardy. He himself stated he went inactive in 2002. They ex-d Hardy, they should ex these guys too right?

It’s inconsistent, and smacks of hypocrisy.

Also, why would they let him walk across the stage at graduation, and afterwards deny the diploma?

 

[dianaiad]

You have just proven my point, showing the inconsistency in all of this.

These guys posed voluntarily. Why weren’t they ex-d?

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

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.

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

Is there a citation for that rule of not posing for beefcake photos? I know there isn’t a commandment for it.

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.

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.

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.

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

 

[dianaiad]

You know, I went to a Chinese resturant several years ago, and got the best fortune cookie ever. In fact I still carry it in my wallet today.

“A man who can laugh at himself will never run out of things to make himself laugh.”

I don’t remember anyone here saying that your temple garments are laughable, so I would appreciate you not putting words in my mouth, or anyone elses for that matter. If you want to wear them, it’s no skin off my nose one way or the other.

As you are very fond of saying, Don’t tell me what I believe.

The funny thing about all of this is really quite simple. It’s only wrong if someone else is doing it, or beat you to it.

Explaining the difference between mockery and humor is difficult…but in case you don’t think we can’t laugh at ourselves, try reading 'Mormonspeak" by Orson Scott Card, or any of the J.Golden stories.

This guy crossed the line, and he did it deliberately.

 

[zaffiroborant]

You would not excommunicate a priest for doing this?

…and you think that’s a good thing?
dianaiad;6172822:

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.

No they didn’t break any promise, that is why Mr. Hardy was ex’ed right? Although it is highly inconsistent that Mr. Hardy was ex’ed and the models were not since they obviously broke their promises.

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.

I don’t remember ever calling garments stupid or laughable though I admit I’m glad I do not have to wear them:shrug:

 

[dianaiad]

Here is a very interesting article from a practicing mormon.

Even he agrees that BYU botched all of this.

american-partisan.com/cols/2009/rollins/qtr1/0218.htm

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

 

[RebeccaJ]

Still no answer to which commandment was broken.

 

[Jerusha]

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?

 

[dianaiad]

Why doubt them? Their views and statements are as credible as yours aren’t they?

Why is your view, opinion or statement more credible than theirs?

But, even if they aren’t active, neither was Hardy. He himself stated he went inactive in 2002. They ex-d Hardy, they should ex these guys too right?

It’s inconsistent, and smacks of hypocrisy.

Also, why would they let him walk across the stage at graduation, and afterwards deny the diploma?

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.

 

[dianaiad]

No they didn’t break any promise, that is why Mr. Hardy was ex’ed right? Although it is highly inconsistent that Mr. Hardy was ex’ed and the models were not since they obviously broke their promises.

Yes. They broke a rather big one, Z. That’s the problem. However, it is possible that they weren’t aware of exactly how bad it was…(shrug) and it is probable that they WERE disciplined–given an interview by their bishop, for instance. Whatever was done with the young men is between them and their church leaders. Mr. Hardy, however, WAS excommunicated. His actions were both different from, and far more deliberate, than those of the models.

I don’t remember ever calling garments stupid or laughable though I admit I’m glad I do not have to wear them:shrug:

That was a more universal ‘you’ than personal, Z. A great many people DO call them such. However, they ARE a rather important part of this particular issue. Former missionaries are supposed to be more modest than this. Former missionaries who actually pay attention to their faith WOULD have been more modest than this.

It’s also a matter of venue. There’s nothing wrong with any of these young men, to look at.

The problem is that they are being represented as something they aren’t; sort of like using a picture of poor Tiger Woods as an example of marital felicity because he USED to be happy.

 

[dianaiad]

Still no answer to which commandment was broken.

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.