This is actually old news, but now the maker of the calendar is up for discipline (he hasn't been active for 6 years, so I don't see what the controversy is about)... they are both muscly, but it appears that the 2,000 sons have better tans. Really though, one group is trying to share the gospel via war, and the other via sexy calendars... What's really amusing is the url for the calendar: mormonsexposed.com... "mormons exposed" or "mormon-sex-posed"? Kind of sneaky with that one.
What do you think? Is this non-news? Sensationalistic to even be reporting? I'm sure the man's calendar sales will go through the roof now that Fox has covered it, and some helpless girls out there will no doubt have their interest in the gospel piqued by those pectorals.
wow is really all i can say. what will mormons come up with next?
ReplyDeleteI have mixed feelings about this (actually I didn't know anything about it until right now). I mean, one argument says that a returned missionary young man can go to the beach or to a pool and be swimming and/or walking around in a bathing suit without a shirt on and it's not a crime. In fact, I'm not sure that it's even frowned upon (certainly not explicitly but perhaps implicitly in the design and use of the garment). I was never told though that I had to wear a shirt with bathing suit for ever more or that I had to wear the mid-19th century one piece full cover up sleeveless ankle or knee lengthed striped swim garment. So what's the big deal really? Being a man, these images conjure up absolutely nothing for me. Maybe if the young RMs disregarded the word of wisdom more and plumped up more on ice cream, they'd be too embarrassed to go shirtless, but rather opting to cover up their bellies with rash guards or something else (works for me)...
ReplyDeleteWe do make covenants to guard against immodesty, where protecting chastity is the number one objective, so to taunt or flaunt so as to stir up such emotions or appetites is probably directly counter productive to those covenants (and to the building up of the kingdom of God here on earth). The fact that the calendar author has gone a.w.o.l on the LDS faith suggests that he doesn't really care about covenants that he may have made. I think it is right for the church leaders to express their disappointment in making light of serious matters, and to take the opportunity to teach or re-ignite his awareness of potential eternal consequences (if his actions were to have somehow contributed to the destruction of God's work here in mortality, I certainly wouldn't want to be taking those risks). It will be interesting to see if action will be taken against him. I'm glad I don't have to worry about those weighty matters...
Now, if 2009 brings a calendar of shirtless sister missionaries, I've got a big problem with that (is this a double standard?). I don't know the magnitude of woman's appetites and what shirtless men do for them since I'm a man, but I do know the magnitude of at least one man's appetites and it doesn't take much to arouse or stir up his emotions... Freedom of expressions says it isn't illegal, but I say woe to that man who crosses those boundaries... Are men and women equivalent in this respect? My guess after 20 years of marriage is "no", but in reality I haven't a clue.
Personally, I think this is Satan's work. To give the church a black eye by drawing negative or contraversial publicity, and especially to draw attention to making light of something as important and significant as modesty and chastity to me is plain wrong. If the church takes severe action, they are sending a message stating that they do not condone this type of disregard or mocking for sacred matters. They also de-legitimize him because now he is just a non-member guy trying to make money by poking fun at Mormons. I just don't know that these offenses merit church action to be taken and I'm grateful that I don't have to know.
I certainly hope this non-news and mere nonsensical sensationalism. It certainly makes for interesting blog fodder for LDS folks.
I could have written another post on modesty… Thanks for your comment!
ReplyDelete“young man can go to the beach or to a pool… without a shirt on and it's not a crime.”
“shirtless sister missionaries, I've got a big problem with that (is this a double standard?).”
For whatever reason, there is a double standard in society. Logically, I don’t think a topless man is more modest than a topless woman. I DO, however, believe that our culture and history has conditioned us to be the way we are. If a man’s chest had the same history as a woman’s, and if men had been covering theirs up, they would certainly be immodest now, if that makes sense. As for the rest of the body, that’s another matter, but that’s how I see it here.
“I don't know the magnitude of woman's appetites and what shirtless men do for them since I'm a man, but I do know the magnitude of at least one man's appetites”
Also related to my last comment, I believe (and there is some research that supports this idea) that men are more visually stimulated than women. However, I think this is changing, and that it has more to do with an interaction between biology, evolution, and culture than just innate genetics. I would agree; I’m more visual than my wife but I don’t think I was completely born that way, rather, culture plays a big role.
“making light of something as important and significant as modesty”
I’m glad you said this, because I think it is making light of modesty as well. I don’t think it’s any better that it is men on the calendar. Men get away with a lot more immodesty in some settings than women do, I think.
I suppose everyone has a different standard or line they have to draw. For me (modesty relating to one’s apparel) it has to do with the setting, and one’s attitude. A swimsuit would be inappropriate at a restaurant, and Levi overalls and work boots don’t work for the temple. A bikini or a speedo are both immodest in most of the settings we would be in in the U.S., but in some countries the women wear burkas, or go topless on the beach, or cover their faces, men wear speedos (without embarrassment) or no one wears much of anything.
Culture dictates, to some extent, what is modest or appropriate, and I’m fine with that. I also don’t have a problem with cultural change in regards to dress, except for the fact that it often seems to be done with the attitude or intention of arousing sexual attraction in others, or in rebellion against church standards.
I heard on KUTV last night the creator of the calendar was summoned before his Stake President and High Council and was excommunicated. He had a letter with him with the intent of resigning from the Church. He also said it has been good for business and he is selling buku beef calendars. KUTV contacted a spokesman for the LDS Church but no one had any comment. Apparently some serious feathers were ruffled by his art.
ReplyDelete"Personally, I think this is Satan's work. To give the church a black eye by drawing negative or contr[o]versial publicity..."
ReplyDeleteHmmm... there really wasn't any negative publicity that I saw, until the guy was exed. Since then I've heard a few negative things, comments on news sites and the like. I think that if the calendar was the only or main issue (which I doubt) then it was silly to excommunicate him. However, perhaps it was a brilliant step by the stake president: get the guy out (make conservative members happy) and push forward missionary work with more publicity for the beefcake calendar. A subtle win-win? I just hope that the excommunication itself does not end up being a black eye for the church ("oh those mean Mormons," etc).
I don't know if this was already discussed, but I seriously doubt that the primary market for the calendars is female. Maybe that's part of the reason he got into so much trouble.
ReplyDeleteGood point Emily.
ReplyDeleteAs for the double standards, that is mostly a US and ironically, Muslim thing. In Europe female toplessness is much more ignored. I even had a membership at a co-ed suana when I lived there. Oh, the mammaries, er, memories! ha.
Men are more turned on visually, but that doesn't mean if I see a topless girl I have to hump the nearest leg. I was always insulted with Church members treated us guys (mostly) like cretines. If they expect us to act that way with nudity, then why are they surprised when they do since that is what they tell us our reaction is supposed to be?!?!?!
Steve – Maybe some people will really think I’m strange, but I think a woman in a tiny bikini is less modest than a topless one. If men had been covering up their chests for centuries their nipples would be scandalous as well… not a huge issue for me this political season though… :)
ReplyDeleteI read his comments on an ex-mormon blog. The guy is a self-righteous, narcissistic smut dealer, plain and simple. He was on his way out anyway; excommunication is just an official way of saying, "Don't let the door hit you on the way out."
ReplyDeleteI try to be merciful, but this one got exactly what he deserved.
Attitude often seems to play a big part in people getting exed. I didn't think the calendar by itself was enough, but you can do almost anything a little rebellious and then have a belligerent and self-righteous attitude about it in a disciplinary council and not have good results.
ReplyDeleteIf he were really clever, it would have been a 2-year calendar.
ReplyDelete