Deseret News | Reader comments: Mormon missionary calendar-maker facing discipline

Reader comments
Mormon missionary calendar-maker facing discipline

344 comments | Read story

Page:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Next >

Steven | 2:30 p.m. July 11, 2008

"I just feel like my right to free speech is being violated."

I don't see anybody infringing on his right to free speech - he can say and do whatever he wants, including publishing the calendar.

BUT.... he is not immune to consequences to his free speech.

That's a difference that many people are quick to forget.

James | 2:31 p.m. July 11, 2008

Why is he being diciplined? This calender was the best PR the LDS church has gotten in a while thanks to the FLDS church. Every non-mormon I've talked to who has seen this calender loved it. They said if missionaries who looked like that came knocking on their doors the would definitely let them in.

BigDave | 2:42 p.m. July 11, 2008

Seems to me "The Church" needs to relax. It uses the First Amendment for protection when it sees fit yet wants to infringe on another person's First Amendment rights. So a few RM's took off thier shirts. Big Whoop. I bet if he paid his 10% membership fee there would be no need for discipline.

Comments continue below

Mark Bucambusso | 2:46 p.m. July 11, 2008

This is crazy. Does anyone know whether the dudes in the calendar are all gay? Did this calendar get sold to more gay guys or more females? No one should have a problem with this calendar unless it is targeting the closet mormon gays....or open mormon gays for that matter. If thats the case then that is a problem. If people view this calendar as a faith promoting vehicle, then what is your logic in that? I think the photos could have been shot in a more conservative way, and still project the church in a positive light. Having the guys with their shirts off I think pushes the "worry" line a little too far.

Dave | 3:06 p.m. July 11, 2008

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints VOLUNTARILY submit themselves to the discipline of the Church. If one doesn't accept this then he should walk away and not look back...

Oh, yes, this is Utah...that means that career, family, and general well-being are at the mercy of an unelected, uneducated, and generally uncaring Church hierarchy which discriminates against all who don't fall under their sway.

Good luck...

Craig | 3:08 p.m. July 11, 2008

Maybe since Hardy hasn't attended a church meeting in 6 years he has forgotten a little (or a lot) about what Mormonism is all about. This meeting should be a good refresher course for him. Oh, and "The Church" is doing nothing to infringe on his First Ammendment rights. Church membership, or disicipline within any private religious organization, is not something the constitution directly addresses.

Serendipity083087 | 3:13 p.m. July 11, 2008

Well said Dave! Well said!

L. Wasden | 3:11 p.m. July 11, 2008

Regarding Mr. Hardy and his attempt to shake up the Mormon church by publishing his trite little calendar; I suspect that Mr. Hardy, whom i have never met or heard of was more hoping for a little income boost than to rattle the church. The Mormon church has faced many trials of almost unspeakable magnitude and has always proven worthy of the task. The Church has world wide concerns that encompass feeding poor and destitute people both spiritual and temporal food. For Mr. Hardy to assume that Headquarters is massing an attack over such trivia is laughable. As is always the case those who lose their faith and depart therefrom are always trying to "provoke the Church and it's leaders to do a better job", even though they themselves can not or could not muster the faith to stay "active" and serve their fellow man. Mr. Hardys assertion that no one has ever encouraged him to return to activity, is not possible, however it may make him feel justified in trying to degrade such an important work, by saying so.

wrong, Dave | 3:15 p.m. July 11, 2008

It's Las Vegas. Last I checked that was in Nevada, not Utah. Just couldn't pass up an opportunity for Utah-bashing, could you? Makes you look foolish as well as bigoted.

By the way, all church callings are presented to church membership for a vote, so calling them unelected is a little off, too. As for uncaring, I've not experienced that in church leaders. The rest of the rant in your second paragraph is just too ridiculous to address.

John Lambert | 3:36 p.m. July 11, 2008

The church will excommunicate members for speech. There is no free speech within the gospel. You do not have an unlimited ability to express yourself and stay in the church.
This is a very offensive item. However if Hardy has broken his temple covenants as he seems to have than he has other issues besides this publication. Also, the very act of having made this whole thing public will not help his case. He is definantly not showing an attidute of trying to advance Christian behavior or any amount of respect for the church and its authorities.

a few thoughts | 3:36 p.m. July 11, 2008

"I wondered what would happen if we took that perfect Disneyland image that the church spends millions of dollars cultivating each year and shook it up a little bit."

Well, there is a pollyanna approach & outlook on life behind the Zion curtain. How else do you explain Utah leading the nation in anti-depressant use if for no other reason than to keep up appearances.

As for L. Wasden's comment, "For Mr. Hardy to assume that Headquarters is massing an attack over such trivia is laughable."

I doubt HQ is behind this particular witch hunt. It seems that most crusades to save people from themselves are conducted at a grass roots level.

My guess is there is an uptight puritan of a neighbor who believes their Mr. Hardy is deviating to far from their ideal of what should be acceptable.

John Lambert | 3:39 p.m. July 11, 2008

I also think some of the comments from people who do not understand why members find pictures of shirtless Mormon missionaries offensive are from people who do not understand that all Mormon missionaries are under covenants that require them to wear shirts except for a very few activities, like swimming, that are exceptions.
I have to agree with the 3:15 poster. When did Utah annex Las Vegas?

hello... | 3:41 p.m. July 11, 2008

this guy hasn't attended church since 2002...why does this guy feel like he needs to shake up the sterotype of a church he han't attended in 6 years. Its all about the money...

John Lambert | 3:42 p.m. July 11, 2008

Even if Las Vegas was in Utah the comment about not being a member ruinging your career does not add up. Ross Anderson has had a plenty good career, not only outside the church but proactively attacking it half the time.

RL | 3:46 p.m. July 11, 2008

Steven: You are so right. Well said.
It does bother me, though, that we are reading about this in the news. I don't know who (I know it wasn't the church leaders.) contacted the media about it, but I'm disgusted that something that is between them, him, and the Lord, is being plastered on the news. It's not anyone elses business if he's been asked to meet to explain himself.

Chris Plummer | 3:48 p.m. July 11, 2008

Bwahahahahaha.... I recommend church members who are offended by this NEVER go to the beach... or the swimming pool, or take showers.

anon | 3:48 p.m. July 11, 2008

How silly. It's a shame he didn't just publish it with shirts on. When you "rattle the church" as has been said, you quickly learn it's not yours to rattle.

As for all those who say oh well, big deal--shame shame shame too.

Further, Las Vegas started as a colony of Church Members. Know your history folks. Get off the strip and you realize the percentage of mormon population is much larger than even that of many Utah towns.

Go Utah basher Go!

Agreed.. | 3:52 p.m. July 11, 2008

should be treated as a matter of "Internal Affairs" for the LDS Church...

OC Surfer | 3:53 p.m. July 11, 2008

What would be more meaningful, is to bring the former home teacher, Bishop, and Elder Quorom President who failed "their covenants" by not caring, reaching out, or contacting Chad when he become inactive back in 2002, to a discpline council.

That seems to be bigger issue in my view than some guys without a shirt on. Big deal.

And I'm an active LDS member btw...

Todd | 4:05 p.m. July 11, 2008

This is not a first amendment issue. It is a spiritual issue; hence the churchï¿½s valid and rightful interest. It is an issue of our covenant relationship with God. Modesty matters. It is a true principle lived by those who know and love God. Both the man making the calendar and those who posed for it were out of line. If they reflected upon the meanings of their voluntary commitments of discipleship and of living the gospel in a covenant relationship with Christ, they would have automatically understood such a calendar was out of line with the spirit of Christ and our relationship with Him. Life is not about us, our vanity, our wealth, our rights, our pleasure, me, me, me. Rather, life is about knowing God, loving what He loves, and living as He would, which, brings indescribable peace and joy. Immodesty for profit which can besmirch a church by those who have made voluntary, covenants not to do such things is a proper point of interest for any church, and the inquiry will be guided by a genuine love and interest for the spiritual well-being of the subject.

Stupid | 4:08 p.m. July 11, 2008

I own this calendar, and I LOVE it! It's nice to see Mormon men who aren't Donny Osmond look alikes. I also have a picture of Steve Young sans shirt.

It's trivial situations like this that make the church look foolish. Isn't there an election they need to rig somewhere?

Not fair | 4:22 p.m. July 11, 2008

Why isn't Marie Osmond being called into a Church court? Did you see those immodest outfits she wore on Dancing with the Stars?

Japan | 4:27 p.m. July 11, 2008

The reason this guy is facing church discipline is because he has chosen to associate his questionable product with the church. He uses the Church as a marketing tool by touting the missionary aspect of the models. The calendar has side-by-side photos of the shirtless men along with photos of them dressed in their missionary attire (including name tags).

It's easy to see that he is basically making money by portraying the church in a way that the church might deem offensive. Kind of like people who write and sell anti-LDS books, except this guy falls into a grey area. The difference here is that those anti-LDS people are obviously trying to discredit the church. It isn't obvious whether this guy is intentionally participating in an activity that he knows could detract from the Church. Hence the disciplinary council, which could result in excommunication, disfellowship, or exhonoration.

Image is all that matters | 4:33 p.m. July 11, 2008

It's all about image, isn't it? If anything goes against the Church's image then the guy needs the boot. And why is it wrong for him to make a few bucks showing bare-chested missionaries, but it's okay for Marriott to make millions showing porn and selling alcohol in their hotels? I just hate the hypocrisies.

David the Ex-mo | 4:39 p.m. July 11, 2008

If any of you bothered to read all of the articles, you would have come across one in which he states that he "does not attend services nor does he pay tithing." While that in an of itself is not different than most Jack mormons, even I can't help but believe there is more to it than meets the eye. The Church would obviously offer no information in that the Church holds it to be private, and the man obviously would not disclose anything that justifies the action.

Rex from LV | 4:40 p.m. July 11, 2008

Las Vegas was FOUNDED by Mormons, and has had a very strong Mormon presence and influence from the beginning. It is surrounded by small, outlying communities that have historically been predominately Mormon. It is not too far off to treat Las Vegas as if it was in Utah!

I go along with the "Utah - basher"!

Right on, buddy!

54 year old womans perspective. | 4:43 p.m. July 11, 2008

OK, I just went and viewed this, with the music and such, I would have to say this is nothing but soft porn. So, should a person meet with Church leaders when they use the Mormon church to promote sexuality for money, YES YES YES. Actually the ones that disgusted me the most were the ones where they were wearing their name tag, but had a sultry look, or the one where his shirt was open and he was looking at a Book of Mormon. You know, I feel bad for the parents of these boys, and you have to wonder how strong these boys will stay after doing such a thing. What is wrong with this LDS generation??? Don't forget Juliette Hough wrapped up in the USA flag appearing to be naked, I liked her up until then, these things are just as wrong as teenage girls putting nude pictures of themselves on U-tube. Message to the young people of the church, IT ISN'T WORTH IT!!!

just wondering? | 4:54 p.m. July 11, 2008

Why is it everytime anything negative is brought up, the Osmonds or Steve Young are brought into it somehow? IF there was an issue with Marie, she has a Bishop and a Stake President who can handle it, it isn't anyone else's business!! Why are members of the Church so quick to judge others?
Also this Hardy guy, is being disiplined through the proper channels, but I just want to know one thing...what about the RMs who posed for the calendar? Anything happening to them?

trifling | 5:03 p.m. July 11, 2008

Ever heard of trifling with sacred things?

Who's to blame? | 5:04 p.m. July 11, 2008

OC Surfer has a point. I have known people to leave the church for feeling ostracized (Its not right but its not right for some wards to be a social clique either).

The church is a hospital for sinners not a museum for saints (pun intended?). Mr Hardy's ecclesiastical leaders should be ashamed for letting him slip through the cracks and then forgetting about him until now.

David the Ex-mo is spot on. It is suspicious For someone to be making this big of a stink about someone who has been inactive for 6 yrs.

Be honest about motives | 5:19 p.m. July 11, 2008

When you want to feel better about yourself or justify why you don't want to belong to or be part of something... the typical reaction is to put that group, or thing down. Those of us who are actively engaged in the Church and believe in it's doctrines and principles... are not going to be traumatized by pictures of attractive young men without shirts on in a calendar. Most of the "mainstream" Mormons I know, enjoy fun and humor in their lives. However, when reverence is taken away from something of a religious or spiritual nature, that becomes offensive. Firemen, servicemen... they are about physical protection, through skills and brawn in order to protect our freedoms... therefore such a calendar does not take away from that image. Conversely, being a missionary for the LDS Church is about being humble, serving others and teaching them about Jesus Christ. This is not what the calendar protrays.

Jeffrey | 5:27 p.m. July 11, 2008

His free speech is NOT being violated. Private entities, corporations, and churches are not subject to the Bill of Rights. The freedoms enshrined in the Constitution exist to protect us from government intervention in our liberties, not from private ones.

For example, if someone is saying something offensive in my home I have the right to throw them out. I have not violated their free speech.

This guy, who in my view is disgustingly "shaking" up the Church, has not had one iota of his rights violated. If the Church has a problem with his actions - and honestly I'm surprised it's taken them this long to act - they are 100% within their rights to discipline or excommunicate him.

When belonging to a private organization you are bound to abide by their rules/beliefs. If you do not wish to you have the RIGHT to go elsewhere, but you do NOT have the right to force a private organization to be accepting of your actions.

David the Ex-mo | 5:34 p.m. July 11, 2008

Hey Just Wondering, why do you assume he is telling the truth when he suggests they are former missionaries?

what i can't understand is | 5:32 p.m. July 11, 2008

why someone would want to be part of a church, gang, etc. where you aren't allowed to think for yourself?

A- | 5:44 p.m. July 11, 2008

"DAVID THE EX-MO" If they're not..then wouldn't he be guilty of false advertising as well? After reading his views in the article, I think this young man has bigger problems than just making a stupid calendar!

Fredd | 5:43 p.m. July 11, 2008

Het, obviusly the church is within its rights. I don't understand why anyone who hasn't attended a meeting in six years would bother going to the meeting. But hey, maybe he's going to go to his council and say so what.

Rob H | 5:49 p.m. July 11, 2008

I am surprised that this would be published in a newspaper. This is a very private issue. But I should say that the few disciplinary councils that I have been involved with have been very uplifting experiences, as the goal is to bring people back to Christ. He wants us to return to him, and we should do what it takes, including not thumbing our nose at his church anymore.

Just wondering | 5:59 p.m. July 11, 2008

During the 6 years that he has not attended and claims that no one has visited himn to try to get him reactivated--is it possibler that those who should have/could have couldn't find him? People in the church often spend many, many, many hours trying to locate lost members who move but don't attend church in their new area, so no one knows that they are there. Because they have been so inactive in the previous area, it is a while before people realize that they are gone. They have no forwarding address. Who knows where they are! And if the ward clerk doesn't give up and forward the membership back to church headquarters, they may never be found. Hardly the church's fault. He is just using that as an excuse to justify his behavior.

STEVE-O | 5:56 p.m. July 11, 2008

I see nothing wrong with the calander. How many LDS people may be models, and pose in swim wear or other clothing catalogs? How many of us here critisizing have some skeletons in our closet far worse than creating a calander with some shirtless men?
The church leaders will determine what happens in this situation and I'll support whatever they decide.

Be very afraid | 6:02 p.m. July 11, 2008

All you saints who have been playing shirts and skins ball at the wardhouse better be careful.

wow | 6:05 p.m. July 11, 2008

Time to be free, son. Go to the nearest Christian church and join. God loves you, and so do I.

Mormon Mon | 6:03 p.m. July 11, 2008

Hey Rob - you are making a judgment that he has left Christ or that Christ has left him. That is the major problem in the church today.....judgment. Didn't Christ say "Judge not that ye be not judged?" So many church members live in fear of being judged. My God is a God of love. He loves me no matter what! I don't have to stifle my beliefs to fit into a box so I can say "I am one of the chosen ones." That belief also comes from a space of judgment. Christ taught one thing: Love one another. When Mormons learn to love everyone based on the love Christ taught us, this world will change. So, let's go and do just that.

$$$ Real Motive $$$ | 6:05 p.m. July 11, 2008

Please, please, please!!! Mr. Hardy is anything but a victim. Mr. Hardy's real motive for this whole news event appears to be money. And a lot of people are missing another big pointï¿½Mr. Hardy is quoted in the article saying: "I prefer not to say anything else about it," he said. "THERE IS MORE INVOLVED [than just the calendar]..." There clearly IS MORE involved than just the calendar, but he "prefers not to say anything else aboutï¿½ that aspect of it. It appears Mr. Hardy may have "bigger issues." (And how could he not?) The Associated Press didnï¿½t contact Hardy, HE strategically contacted themï¿½for free marketing to boost his calendar profits. He obviously does not care two cents for the church he left 6 years ago, but he obviously caresï¿½in a very calculated wayï¿½about lots of free national advertizing to make him more money. THAT is the reason he went to the AP and blathered about his calendar and wonï¿½t comment on the ï¿½THERE IS MORE INVOLVEDï¿½ part. Hardy is no victim (except, perhaps, of his own shallowness).

edith | 6:16 p.m. July 11, 2008

If this guy is excommunicated, he has earned it. His attitude and his work offends me.

If he wanted to make a calendar showing goodlooking men, I am ok with that; but he should have left missionaries out of it. He shows no class.

Afrank | 6:29 p.m. July 11, 2008

This doesn't infringe on First Amendment Rights. Free speech is a right. Church membership is not. Please stop embarassing yourselves.

Remember when | 6:41 p.m. July 11, 2008

I remember when Pres. Kimball said he thought we should not try to make money off of other members in the church by doing things like this. He included selling YW ideas, neighborhood pre-schools ect. I guess he saw what was coming. Any way we can make a dime off our fellow members we certainly will try!

David | 6:55 p.m. July 11, 2008

Jeffrey and Afrank have it right. Read the First Amendment folks. "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech...." A church or any other non-governmental entity can abridge your free speech because they can't take away your life, liberty (i.e., throw you in jail) or property. Every restriction we experience in this life is not a violation of our constitutional rights. Thank goodness I live in a country where I'm free to restrict some kinds of behavior in my own domain.

RE: Steve-O and others | 6:55 p.m. July 11, 2008

LDS men and women may be models, and might even model clothing that would be inappropriate in public. I wouldn't personally agree with it, but I'm willing to suspend judgment as far as one's private career, unconnected to the church. Some members even choose to wear "immodest" swimsuits and the like in public. THAT is their choice, and a matter between them and their Savior.

But the calendar crosses the line by BRINGING THE CHURCH INTO IT. These guys were former missionaries--official representatives of the church! That was the very basis of the calendar--its marketing and everything. The church understandably wants NO association with this calendar whatsoever. It's wholly contrary to its teachings about modesty and sexuality.

I'm a bit puzzled also how this calendar supposedly creates goodwill for the church. Actually, it does more harm than good. People who let the missionaries in based on the images in this calendar might well be interested in, um, let's say, other things than the Gospel. That creates a whole new set of challenges, false expectations and misunderstandings.

Whatever this calendar is and ever was, it's NO step forward.

really? | 7:10 p.m. July 11, 2008

"The church leaders will determine what happens in this situation and I'll support whatever they decide" = mind control!!

Shoe on the Other Foot | 7:17 p.m. July 11, 2008

Another way to think about this issue to understand why it bothers LDS people--supposing a similar calendar were created with former SISTER missionaries?

Much as I'm sure the world would applaud the objectification of young Mormon women, at least in this way, this hypothetical calendar would NOT be true to what LDS people are or believe. It'd not only create a false image of who and what we really are, but it'd imply that we as a church approve of gateway imagery to soft porn--which puts people on a slippery slope to hard porn. This is not right by any standard of any known world religion.

Creating sex symbols of either men OR women for financial gain is inappropriate and wrong. It contributes to the "natural man's" focus on the body rather than the soul, the material rather than the spiritual, and the earthly rather than the eternal.

The prophets, scriptures, and Savior all teach that we--men AND women!--are more than just our bodies. We need not display our bodies to others for their attention or for the honors of the world.

Page:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Next >

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.