Mormon Religion

[dianaiad]

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.

You have NO idea how this was handled with the individual models. Neither do I…and none of us ever will. Many of them were called to disciplinary hearings. What happened there is NONE OF OUR BUSINESS. However, being called to such a hearing is by no means getting off ‘scott free,’ and your assumption than anything less than excommunication IS ‘getting away’ with something is erronious.

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

Possibly. However, THIS issue IS about what MORMONS consider modest and appropriate, for Mormons. Trust me, if someone publishes a calendar about shapely nuns and their angel food cake recipes, I figure that the Catholic church can handle it anyway they want to.

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.

All of which I happen to agree with, but doesn’t have a whole lot to do with the topic.

By the way, Mormons don’t WEAR strapless gowns. Just so you know…

Also by the way, properly fitted strapless gowns do not depend upon the…er…chest to hold them up. They are held up by the hips and by stays around the ribs. There should never be a problem with a strapless dress not covering the essentials…in fact, a properly fitted strapless dress is built a little like a battle tank. A woman wearing one should be able to turn cartwheels, perform trampoline stunts and do a full court curtsey to the Queen of England and never expose a millimeter of skin she doesn’t want exposed. Wonder Woman could be Wonder Woman.

But the above is reason #2 that you will never see me in a strapless gown. #1 being my religion, and #2 is that I don’t WANT to wear battle gear.

Diana

 

[twopekinguys]

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).

bingo!!

 

[RebeccaJ]

How do they feel about their missionaries?

Patriotic is the best word I can come up with. Missionaries being the warriors (of the stripling variety).

 

[dianaiad]

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).

My personal opinion is…

The models should have been disciplined (and many were…we just don’t know how.) because yes, they should have known that what they were doing was inappropriate. However, HARDY not only modeled–he dreamed up the idea, did all the work for it, and had to deliberately and with great forethought see it through.

I’m having a little trouble explaining my thoughts on this…but…

It is a common practice in law enforcement to get a small time drug dealer (someone who uses and sells small amounts of drugs) a lesser sentence, and sometimes even turn him loose with a lecture, in order to get his boss; the big guy. Why is that?

It is also a common practice, in an edited book that contains writings from many different authors, to give the editor all the praise (or blame) for what’s in the book even if he or she doesn’t personally contribute an article.

The RICA statute was specifically written to “get,” and get HARD, the mob bosses. It specifically states that the guy in charge is as guilty as all of the lawbreakers in the group, plus.

That’s what’s happening here. Each of the men posing for that calendar is guilty of one offense of immodesty, misrepresentation and, quite frankly, immoral conduct. Hardy is guilty of every one of those offenses separately, and is also guilty of his own, by dreaming up the idea in the first place and deliberately putting it into place.

In other words, if each model is guilty of a transgression, then Hardy is guilty of twelve–PLUS his own, larger, transgression.

And THAT is why, I believe, that he was excommunicated and the models, though disciplined, were not.

 

[RebeccaJ]

My personal opinion is…

The models should have been disciplined (and many were…we just don’t know how.) because yes, they should have known that what they were doing was inappropriate. However, HARDY not only modeled–he dreamed up the idea, did all the work for it, and had to deliberately and with great forethought see it through.

I’m having a little trouble explaining my thoughts on this…but…

It is a common practice in law enforcement to get a small time drug dealer (someone who uses and sells small amounts of drugs) a lesser sentence, and sometimes even turn him loose with a lecture, in order to get his boss; the big guy. Why is that?

It is also a common practice, in an edited book that contains writings from many different authors, to give the editor all the praise (or blame) for what’s in the book even if he or she doesn’t personally contribute an article.

The RICA statute was specifically written to “get,” and get HARD, the mob bosses. It specifically states that the guy in charge is as guilty as all of the lawbreakers in the group, plus.

That’s what’s happening here. Each of the men posing for that calendar is guilty of one offense of immodesty, misrepresentation and, quite frankly, immoral conduct. Hardy is guilty of every one of those offenses separately, and is also guilty of his own, by dreaming up the idea in the first place and deliberately putting it into place.

In other words, if each model is guilty of a transgression, then Hardy is guilty of twelve–PLUS his own, larger, transgression.

And THAT is why, I believe, that he was excommunicated and the models, though disciplined, were not.

Well you are making a comparison to law, which is a question that still remains. What commandment was broken? What is the object of the objective reasoning? I don’t think there is any, as I’m fairly certain I am not wrong when I recall bishops are free to judge “using the spirit”. Though with Hardy, it is pretty clear a good amount of judging was thrown at him from outside his bishop.

 

[dianaiad]

Patriotic is the best word I can come up with. Missionaries being the warriors (of the stripling variety).

That may be pretty close. We do have a motto for them; “return with honor.”

We expect our missionaries to behave with honor: to treat their experiences, and themselves AS missionaries, with some respect. They gave two years of their lives; hard work, a lot of faith and a great deal of sacrifice, and that’s true no matter what they may ultimately come to believe. THAT’S what, I think, happened with this calendar; those men were dishonoring themselves as missionaries by allowing themselves…AS former missionaries…to be portrayed as just another set of beefcake pinups.

It’s like having a calendar of men using their military uniforms to clean motorcycles, or their medals to play fetch with their dogs. (shrug)

And yes, it’s also like having a calendar of young priests wandering around in nothing but their neckbands–oh, yes, and pants…

 

[dianaiad]

Well you are making a comparison to law, which is a question that still remains. What commandment was broken? What is the object of the objective reasoning? I don’t think there is any, as I’m fairly certain I am not wrong when I recall bishops are free to judge “using the spirit”. Though with Hardy, it is pretty clear a good amount of judging was thrown at him from outside his bishop.

Rebecca. We are asked in the Temple to behave with modesty. We are asked to wear the garments at all times except when doing so is physically impossible, or when doing so would subject them, and us, to ridicule.

Can you tell me that these young men, posing as former missionaries were behaving modestly, and wearing their garments appropriately? They were not, as you well know. Returned Mormon missionaries who still observe their religion would wear their garments almost all the time—and posing shirtless for a calendar ‘exposing Mormons’ and showing them AS returned missionaries–can not by any reasonable measure be considered an appropriate thing to do.

As to what commandment was broken? Do we really need to get pharisitic about this and declare 'thou shalt not pose for beefcake photos in a calendar entitled 'Men on a Mission?" " Doesn’t “behave with honor, with modesty and wear your garments appropriately” cover that sort of thing?

 

[twopekinguys]

You have NO idea how this was handled with the individual models. Neither do I…and none of us ever will. Many of them were called to disciplinary hearings. What happened there is NONE OF OUR BUSINESS. However, being called to such a hearing is by no means getting off ‘scott free,’ and your assumption than anything less than excommunication IS ‘getting away’ with something is erronious. ?QUOTE]

That is exactly what I was trying to point out from your posts saying they probably did, then they did, etc. Bottom line is neither one of knows whether the models were ex’d or not.
dianaiad;6174160:

Possibly. However, THIS issue IS about what MORMONS consider modest and appropriate, for Mormons. Trust me, if someone publishes a calendar about shapely nuns and their angel food cake recipes, I figure that the Catholic church can handle it anyway they want to.

But then again, it is all subjective. Remember that article I quoted

at

american-partisan.com/col…/qtr1/0218.htm

If you click the link to the original article, it is equally informative. Here is a quote from the article.

“Chad Hardy’s actions undoubtedly rattled many of the ‘uptight-y whiteys’ who live along Utah’s Wasatch Front. These folks for the most part, are a fringe element who believe in their own right to free choice, but seek to deny that right to others;”
All of which I happen to agree with, but doesn’t have a whole lot to do with the topic.

By the way, Mormons don’t WEAR strapless gowns. Just so you know…

Also by the way, properly fitted strapless gowns do not depend upon the…er…chest to hold them up. They are held up by the hips and by stays around the ribs. There should never be a problem with a strapless dress not covering the essentials…in fact, a properly fitted strapless dress is built a little like a battle tank. A woman wearing one should be able to turn cartwheels, perform trampoline stunts and do a full court curtsey to the Queen of England and never expose a millimeter of skin she doesn’t want exposed. Wonder Woman could be Wonder Woman.

But the above is reason #2 that you will never see me in a strapless gown. #1 being my religion, and #2 is that I don’t WANT to wear battle gear.

Diana

I understand the whole battle gear thing. Believe me, I don’t understand how women do it sometimes.

I have to say though, I have seen many of these strapless gowns that don’t have the stays and structure they should have. Those are the ones who pose the biggest problem.

Just like there is no accounting for taste in wedding dresses, there is no accounting for taste in calendars.

 

[aspirant]

IF a Priest were to do that, they would not be excommunicated.

True.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca. We are asked in the Temple to behave with modesty. We are asked to wear the garments at all times except when doing so is physically impossible, or when doing so would subject them, and us, to ridicule.

Can you tell me that these young men, posing as former missionaries were behaving modestly, and wearing their garments appropriately? They were not, as you well know. Returned Mormon missionaries who still observe their religion would wear their garments almost all the time—and posing shirtless for a calendar ‘exposing Mormons’ and showing them AS returned missionaries–can not by any reasonable measure be considered an appropriate thing to do.

As to what commandment was broken? Do we really need to get pharisitic about this and declare 'thou shalt not pose for beefcake photos in a calendar entitled 'Men on a Mission?" " Doesn’t “behave with honor, with modesty and wear your garments appropriately” cover that sort of thing?

Plenty of mormons do not wear their garments, or dress immodestly, and are not excommunicated.

It is not “pharisitic” to ask which commandment has been broken.

You know, when mormons are excommunicated for adultery or murder, these are serious sins. Is what Hardy & Co. did at this level?

I’m not seeing the commonality between posing with a shirt off and sleeping with the neighbor’s spouse. Or murder.

 

[RebeccaJ]

That may be pretty close. We do have a motto for them; “return with honor.”

We expect our missionaries to behave with honor: to treat their experiences, and themselves AS missionaries, with some respect. They gave two years of their lives; hard work, a lot of faith and a great deal of sacrifice, and that’s true no matter what they may ultimately come to believe. THAT’S what, I think, happened with this calendar; those men were dishonoring themselves as missionaries by allowing themselves…AS former missionaries…to be portrayed as just another set of beefcake pinups.

Yes, I know this.

It’s like having a calendar of men using their military uniforms to clean motorcycles, or their medals to play fetch with their dogs. (shrug)

Yeah, someone already said you were bringing back memories of the military for them.

And yes, it’s also like having a calendar of young priests wandering around in nothing but their neckbands–oh, yes, and pants…

Certainly would raise a few eyebrows, and plenty of Catholics would have their panties in a wad, but there would not be an excommunication.

 

[why_me]

Plenty of mormons do not wear their garments, or dress immodestly, and are not excommunicated.

It is not “pharisitic” to ask which commandment has been broken.
?

.

In the lds faith, you do not need to break a commandment to be excommunicated. And you can break a commandment and not be excommunicated. Hardy did not represent himself as a returned missionary should. Also, as his new calender points out, he is attempting to extend the bounds of the lds church’s view of modesty. Thus, he was disciplined. Mormons are cautioned to not be of the world. Hardy certainly got a little worldly with his calender.

 

[why_me]

Hardy’s calenders contribute to the pornofication of society. Thus, he was disciplined. To have a sexy mormon mom calender complete with a woman with big breasts with a dozen muffins right under those breasts with the slogan: ‘A taste of motherhood’ does not create modest thoughts in the men and women interested in such a calender. And the same can be said with his returned missionary calender. To have a beefcake calender with a slogan of ‘Men on a mission’ does not create modest thoughts inside people and does contribute to the pornofication of society.

This was the problem. Now of course, if catholics here endorse such calenders may I suggest that they give the sexy mormon mom calender to their priests. I am sure that they can use the receipes of muffins located on each month of the calender.

 

[why_me]

You know, when mormons are excommunicated for adultery or murder, these are serious sins. Is what Hardy & Co. did at this level?

.

No, but he contributed to the pornofication of society and attempted to challenge the lds view of modesty. The lds (unlike catholics) believe in modest dress in both men and women. They have a dress code. Hardy’s calenders attempt to challenge such a dress code and the lds church’s view of modesty.

May I suggest that you purchase the sexy mormon mom calender for your parish priests in salt lake. For after all, this calender does have good muffin receipes and I am sure will not give the priests something else to think about (except a couple of muffins) when they celebrate the eucharist.

 

[why_me]

I can’t believe that we still have two or three catholics arguing this issue. The catholic church is also concerned about the pornofication of western societies and role that indecent thoughts play in commiting sin.

I say that we should give the mormon church a round of applause :clapping: for their stance on modesty.

Here is a story about the sexy mormon mom calender.

ktvb.com/news/local/Mormon-Mom-Calender-Creates-Controversy–66763007.html

You can watch a news report about the calender controversy from the above link.

 

[RebeccaJ]

why me - whoever said anything about supporting the calendar?

I do see LDS cannot provide a answer. It comes down to what I have already said. Hardy violated the unwritten LDS commandment, thou shalt not commit publicity. In other words, it is ok to be lds and do what ever you like until you do something that brings large public attention. Of the sort that is not in line to the public image your church wants to maintain. In political terms, a crime against the state. You are an example of this, right? Have you been excommunicated for not wearing garments yet?

As to your digs at Catholics…it is a bad argument, which has nothing to do with the subject. Choose the logical fallacy to apply, as you have more than one going.

 

[why_me]

why me - whoever said anything about supporting the calendar?

I do see LDS cannot provide a answer. It comes down to what I have already said. Hardy violated the unwritten LDS commandment, thou shalt not commit publicity. In other words, it is ok to be lds and do what ever you like until you do something that brings large public attention. Of the sort that is not in line to the public image your church wants to maintain. In political terms, a crime against the state. You are an example of this, right? Have you been excommunicated for not wearing garments yet?

As to your digs at Catholics…it is a bad argument, which has nothing to do with the subject. Choose the logical fallacy to apply, as you have more than one going.

Hello Rebecca!

I have already stated often why he was excommunicated. He was contributing to the pornofication of society and by putting out that calender of Men on a Mission he attempted to challenge the the lds concept of modesty. And now we see him with more calenders made in bad taste doing the same. And as one or two women stated who posed for the sexy mom calender they did it to break the modesty stereotype. The lds church had to put its foot down and give the needed discipline to Hardy.

Mormons and catholics view modesty differently, however the two churches do have one mind in terms of modest dress. It is just that the in general do take it more seriously.

 

[dianaiad]

Plenty of mormons do not wear their garments, or dress immodestly, and are not excommunicated.

It is not “pharisitic” to ask which commandment has been broken.

You know, when mormons are excommunicated for adultery or murder, these are serious sins. Is what Hardy & Co. did at this level?

I’m not seeing the commonality between posing with a shirt off and sleeping with the neighbor’s spouse. Or murder.

Well, I don’t see a commonality between heresy, procuring an abortion, dropping the Host on the floor, and taking a swing at a Bishop, either, but Catholics who do any of these are excommunicated at the instant they do any of these.

…and you do NOT excommunicate murderers–unless the victim of the murderer is the Pope, a Bishop or an unborn child.

(shrug)

…and you are forgetting; Hardy didn’t pose. The men who did were disciplined, but NOT excommunicated. I guess the difference is between being a pimp and being a prostitute; prostitutes are sometimes viewed with sympathy–a pimp never is.

 

[dianaiad]

Yes, I know this.

Yeah, someone already said you were bringing back memories of the military for them.

Certainly would raise a few eyebrows, and plenty of Catholics would have their panties in a wad, but there would not be an excommunication.

Perhaps not…but then Catholics don’t excommunicate murderers, either, while they DO excommunicate people who drop the Host on the floor.

I figure that you have the right to ex whoever you want to, and we have the right to ex whoever we want to; and if you want to raise an eyebrow because we get rid of men like Hardy, then you are just going to have to defend your own position of excommunicating heretics and people who treat the Host badly, but do NOT excommunicate murderers and child abusers.

(shrug)

Your outlook on these things is different from ours. I prefer ours.

 

[twopekinguys]

Well, I don’t see a commonality between heresy, procuring an abortion, dropping the Host on the floor, and taking a swing at a Bishop, either, but Catholics who do any of these are excommunicated at the instant they do any of these.

…and you do NOT excommunicate murderers–unless the victim of the murderer is the Pope, a Bishop or an unborn child.

(shrug)

…and you are forgetting; Hardy didn’t pose. The men who did were disciplined, but NOT excommunicated. I guess the difference is between being a pimp and being a prostitute; prostitutes are sometimes viewed with sympathy–a pimp never is.

Wrong.

Dropping the Host/Eucharist is not a reason for excommunication. Neither is taking a swing at a Bishop? Your comment about the Pope, or Bishop is not only false, but way out of line.

Where are Earth do you come up with these things? Now who is telling who what they believe?

Diania, you yourself said they were called into a hearing, but no one knows what the discipline was, if any. But yet you are saying they were disciplined, but not excommunicated.

Either you know for sure, or you don’t. Either way, stick with one side.

So what if Hardy didn’t pose. I don’t think it is a requirement for the publisher of any calendar or magazine to pose. NOt everyone is meant to be on that side of the camera lens.

You have NO idea how this was handled with the individual models. Neither do I…and none of us ever will. Many of them were called to disciplinary hearings. What happened there is NONE OF OUR BUSINESS. However, being called to such a hearing is by no means getting off ‘scott free,’ and your assumption than anything less than excommunication IS ‘getting away’ with something is erronious.