Deseret News | Calendar-maker ousted by LDS

Reader comments
Calendar-maker ousted by LDS

327 comments | Read story

Blah | 6:14 a.m. July 15, 2008

This is a joke of a story.

ramper | 7:14 a.m. July 15, 2008

There seems to be a two edged sword when those in authority must judge others. "Judge not" and "Casting stones". You are damned if you do and damned if you don't.
To reply to John Lambert's statements: Romney was on the Board at Marriott from 1992-2001. And, public companies do control what occurs under their franchised name. McDonalds is a prime example.

Anonymous | 8:00 a.m. July 15, 2008

The church leaders didn't take this decision lightly; Mr.Hardy did. And it appears it wasn't his first decision taken lightly. He's made his choice and he's making his money. it's clear where his priorities lie.

Comments continue below

Re "John B Sheffield | 5:42" | 8:58 a.m. July 15, 2008

John said, "I wonder if Our Loving Savour JESUS CHRIST, from who The Church takes its name ever turned away a sinner".

I wonder if John realises that being excommunicated from the church doesn't mean that that person has been turned away or that he doesn't have any less ability to repent than any other being on this earth. It's just part of the process of comming back. You can't come back if you never leave. People like this guy have in a way left the church (by severe sin and disregarded their covenants) and they need to make an official exit so they can repent and be baptised for the remission of their sins again.

Many people who are excommunicated from the church take care of their problems, repent and are again baptised into the church and are just as clean as they were the first time they were baptised.

This guy isn't being turned away. Excomunication doesn't mean he can never be forgiven. Excommunication is just the start of the journey back.

Marky | 9:12 a.m. July 15, 2008

I'm surprised this is making headlines. I think the calendar is a pretty cool idea. Why punish him for it? Also, does anyone know how to leave the church? Do you just send them a letter asking to be removed? I'm looking to get out of the LDS faith. I think Mr. Hardy deserves a lot of credit. He has upset the establishment and the only way they could get even was by doing this to him.

Fed up | 9:13 a.m. July 15, 2008

He wasn't excommunicated for making a calender. That is not grounds. Not even close. But he conveniently neglected to tell the REAL reason he was ex'd. The stake president quoted is bound and is not allowed to tell what really happened. Please don't buy into the fact that the calender had anything to do with it.

Joe | 9:57 a.m. July 15, 2008

I am bemused by those who claim he wasn't excommunicated for making a calendar, yet at the same time say nobody knows. It reflects a hope that excommunications aren't capricious. Except they can be. Both ways. I've witnessed it with my own eyes. In one case, I participated in council's where everyone but the stake president voted to excommunication, yet the stake president insisted on disfellowshipment and persisted until he got a majority. (This resulted in an argument about the actual rules according to the handbook of instruction.)

It should also be pointed out that the notion that why someone is excommunicated is secret is VERY modern. Many years ago, the names were actually read from the pulpit. This is how it should be. You MUST have transparency. Of course, this isn't done now because a bishop admitting he excommunicated a woman for leaving her husband because of HIS behavior looks capricious (yes, that really did happen.) The fact is there are no checks and balances.

Alex | 10:25 a.m. July 15, 2008

Joe:

Whether the names should be read from the pulpit or not, or whether the stake presidency and high council acted capriciously or not is irrelevant. The fact is that we do not know why he was excommunicated. Those whom you are "bemused with" are dealing with what is.

Tina | 10:31 a.m. July 15, 2008

Check out the calendar and the great bodies...WOW!

Wow | 12:44 p.m. July 15, 2008

Marky, how's the grass out there in left field? Enjoying yourself along with all those other buffoons who are out there with you?

Mr. Hardy didn't want to be a member of the church any more or he we would have displayed a little more of a distressed attitude over "hurting his family's feelings". Truth is he's too much of a coward to get out the manly way so he forced the hand of the church in order to accomplish his goal and have the support of all you nobody's who actually think he got the boots because of his light in the loafers calendar.

We'll all know soon enough why he got shown the door because I'm sure he'll display further bad judgement by allowing his formal excommunication letter to be published on TMZ like he did his summons.

He'll find out though that in the end he made a stupid move. His calendar empire won't survive and he'll have plenty of time on his hands to watch his DVD collection of Brokeback Mountain...

Marky | 12:53 p.m. July 15, 2008

That's quite a question "Does anyone know how to leave the church?" You know full well that all the anti-mormon websites have mountains of documentation on how to leave the church. Funny thing is, it's not nearly as complicated as they paint it to be. Give a signed letter to your bishop requesting it and have patience for a few months while it runs it's course and it will be done. While you'll get priesthood leaders trying to talk you out of it, they'll remain civil as long as you do and it will happen.

It's laughable to see the elaborate "legal" procedures the antis tell you you need to go through. Like a typical brat kid...spend more time trying to get out of doing work than you'd have spent just doing it the right way to begin with...

Ignorance | 12:57 p.m. July 15, 2008

@ Amber - "I wish the church would grow up and move into this century." If this truly is your feeling as a member of the church then you definately don't believe it. Are you in the world, or are you OF the world?

@ John - You think Jesus would let one of his apostles go out and slander him and do nothing?

DD | 1:10 p.m. July 15, 2008

I've seen a post written by Chad where he states that this was 100% about the calendar. Nothing more nothing less. Sorry to disappoint all of you ultra-judgmental people who are convinced that there must be some dark sin involved here.

For those of you who want to crack down on the former missionaries who posed for this calendar. What is wrong with wanting to exhibit the results of hard work and clean living? As someone who was gained weight and worked hard to lose it, it takes a lot of effort to achieve and maintain the physiques displayed in the calendar.

Several years ago my Bishop recommended that I look into the Body for Life book. In his opinion it was a very balanced way to lose weight and maintain health through exercise and clean eating. Throughout the book there are color photos of men and women showing a before/after picture. Most of these people are wearing bathing suits.

I hate to break it to some of you, but a few of the people were from Utah. I think we need to convene a court of love for these people. They aren't overweight like most Utahns.

Marky 12:53 pm | 1:31 p.m. July 15, 2008

Thank you so much for your advice. I'll go ahead and write a letter today. I appreciate you taking the time to answer my question. Take care!

To Wow: | 1:30 p.m. July 15, 2008

Leave Marky alone... He's just asking a question himself as to how to leave. Don't pester him.

Re: LoveSac Dude | 2:08 p.m. July 15, 2008

I think you are confused. The LoveSac Dude is Shawn Nelson. He was occasionally seen reading his scriptures on Richard Branson's show. This is not the same guy. The LoveSac Dude seems to be doing just fine. Try doing a little research before you smear somebody's good name!

John Lambert | 2:11 p.m. July 15, 2008

To Jeremy,
The church is not the one who made this public, Mr. Hardy did. The more I read and think about this, the more I am convinced there are other issues. The stake president, when asked by the AP said there were others but refused to elaborate.
On the other hand I have definantly learned that church members have a totally different take on modesty than the population at large.

John Lambert | 2:17 p.m. July 15, 2008

To why so many comments,
The main answer is that there are anti-LDS people who troll the internet searching out these articles to post their demeaning and hateful comments.
On the other hand, there are many church members living in other states who can and do get most news from other sources but come to the Deseret News for LDS News.

John Lambert | 2:24 p.m. July 15, 2008

To Jeremy,
The missionsries in the church defacing issue did not get off with a slap on the wrist. The one who was still on his mission was sent home immediately. I believe that the church held disciplinary councils against all of them.
However since it was not a chance to mock the LDS church and they were not out to get more attention it did not get broadcast in the news.

To Marky | 2:25 p.m. July 15, 2008

If you do write the letter and leave the church, please be patient. It does take some time to process and chances are you will be contacted and asked why you are leaving. They may even try to convince you not to leave. However, if you remain civil and cool headed, they should do the same. They won't be happy about your decision, but will cancel your membership.

I just have one request for you. You sound like a kind and considerate guy. Please continue to be kind and considerate to any representative of the church who you meet. As a missionary, I once knocked on the door of a woman while tracting. She had submitted a letter herself and then moved. She was furious and convinced that we had tracked her down. She was screaming at us and called the police because we weren't leaving her neighborhood.

Although I don't like seeing anyone leave the church(I have a close family member who left), I understand that the church isn't for everyone. I just hope that you will keep any friendships you have with other members and not break your ties with them because you are no longer a member.

John Lambert | 2:26 p.m. July 15, 2008

To Jeremy,
You do not understand. Both the calendar incident and the desecrtation of the statues are part of the same problem. They are both incidents of missionaries and other people not apprecieating that being a missionary is a high and holy calling that deserves respect.
Also, Mr. Hardy only wants to claim this is about the calendar. There were other issues, things he did, I do not know what they were but they were the real issue he is hiding. The church does not make public why people were excommunicated so the full truth will not be known for some time, but if you were able to convince the church to let you view the meetings minutes you would see that the calendar was not the main issue.

Jeremy | 2:26 p.m. July 15, 2008

Oh well... I don't think he should have been excommunicated. He seems like a pretty likeable guy. This made national headlines and it's not him that looks bad.

wake me up on J Day | 2:30 p.m. July 15, 2008

re: Back to Basics | 12:14 a.m. July 15, 2008

I agree 100%.

Marky | 2:38 p.m. July 15, 2008

To Marky (2:25 PM),

I really appreciate your advice on how to leave the church. You have been very considerate about this. I have asked this question to others and I get an earfull. I plan on being gracious and considerate when filing my request to leave. I just would like to have it done sooner rather than later. I wish you and your family the best.
Take Care!

John Lambert | 2:39 p.m. July 15, 2008

To Marie,
The reason people do not get it is because for some reason they assume that if it is on the Deseret News it must be a deliberate church announcement.
Like many other things people assume that is totally dead wrong.

John Lambert | 2:45 p.m. July 15, 2008

To ramper,
I never claimed that Marriott corporation did not control what happened with its name. What I was saying is that J. Willard Marriott Jr. does not have absolute and unlimited control over what happens in his company.
Beyond this, Marriot does not push porn movies involving missionaries or sell a brand called "Mormon wine", so the analogy has no standing.

John Lambert | 2:52 p.m. July 15, 2008

Joe,
You assume a lot, and expect us to take your statements at face value.
First off, it is possible that the bishop made a bad decision. However, I think openly reading the names of people excommunicated publicizes private matters unneccesarily.
Secondly, you are using innuendo in place of facts. You do not say what the husband was doing, whether there were children, what the bishop knew and on and on. You also do not give any indications of the time frame.
Maybe the bishop felt that the man had basically stopped what he was doing and the wife was unChristian in her decision not to cooperate with it. Maybe there were other reasons for excommunicating the wife. You want to set us all up as judges in Israel instead of just the bishop.
On the matter of the high council you mentioned. I am shocked that you find a council that decided not to excommunicate someone as "capricious". I would think that being an undieing advocate for those you feel are "oppressed" you would laud that a lesser punishment was meated out. It seems you really just want to attack church leaders and do not care about people.

Kentucky | 3:07 p.m. July 15, 2008

You all want to pass judgement I'm sad for you all. What he chooses to do is his business and should be none of our concern. It's sad you have nothing better to do than criticize him. Don't buy the calendar. That's your choice. We all have the choice to use our free AGENCY. Right? or Wrong?

ramper | 3:21 p.m. July 15, 2008

To John Lambert

What are you talking about? Porn is fine if it does not include missionaries? The analogy concerning the discipline of the calender guy and the lack of discipline of others with more status is obvious. Marriott defended the practice for business reasons. The Church says, do not view it, distribute it, or support it, period. Romney did nothing about it either.
Check out this newspaper's past articles and editorials on the subject. No analogy? Give me a break!

ramper | 3:23 p.m. July 15, 2008

To John Lambert

What are you talking about? The question was church discipline for offenses. What is the criteria for some to be disciplined and others (in seeming higher status) not to be? The Church's position on porn is clear. Don't view it, don't distribute it, do not condone it, period! Marriott defended it for business purposes and Romney turned an eye. Look into this papers past articles on the whole sleazy issue. No analogy? Give me a break!

Lasertrac | 4:00 p.m. July 15, 2008

If I'm not mistaken did not the late President Hinckley say as a church "we love and welcome our gay members"? I don't believe he said that love was conditional except to say the church had the same expectations of conduct as it did of single straight members. And yet, most of the pious members posting their comments here seem to show nothing but a very real hate towards gay people simply because of their existence. With reactions like that, why would anyone in their right mind divulge their sexual orientation or want to attend church? So their every word, action, and appearance can be scrutinized? Only assigned church positions (if at all) where it is deemed they might not contaminate others? Recently, two church apostles stated they do not know why some people are homosexuals, a bold and damning admission. Every great revelation of the church has occured when the Prophet inquired of the Lord and been given an answer. It seems with such a divisive issue in society, it is now time for the Prophet to inquire and get a definitive answer on the subject.

Anonymous | 4:09 p.m. July 15, 2008

Can we get back to talking about the calendar guy or are all of the LDS folks going to keep telling us how better they are then the rest of the world. Stay on topic.

thelogenator | 4:25 p.m. July 15, 2008

The church just got punked by a guy named Chad. As if it needs help doing things that make it look backwards and stupid. I wonder how many other people have been inspired by this story to get excommunicated in a creative new way?

Sid Miser | 4:58 p.m. July 15, 2008

According the story, Mr. Hardy seems relieved to be excommunicate from the Church. Well, to be sure, I'm relieved that he no longer is a member if he conducts himself in such a manner. That being said, I will pray that he will repent and make his way back into the Church someday.

star utah | 5:05 p.m. July 15, 2008

well people just get over it we all no he did nothing wrong look at the people that drink caffeine do drugs watch t.v. the same thing should happen to them. i live in Utah so i am around alto of more horrible people then what this guy did so. so all u people that say its right in what happen to him take it and shove it i no u all have done worse...so stop judging him an forget about it ok..........

cathic girl | 5:08 p.m. July 15, 2008

what ever do something better with all ur time then this.... judgment.......

Anonymous | 5:12 p.m. July 15, 2008

Mr. Hardy does sound somewhat happy that he was excommunicated. I think he's going to find that his life will be much better without interference from the church. He should be very proud to be moving on.

Jasper | 5:23 p.m. July 15, 2008

Yep,to be excommunicated will makes you a nonmember. ahhhhhhhh now that's the life.

Jer | 5:24 p.m. July 15, 2008

Hello Time's (3:58 PM)

Yes, if you threw me a buoy I would go ahead and make sure and drown. I mean it's either that or get back up on the boat and be preached to. Don't put Mr. Hardy down for making a calendar just because it doesn't jive with your views. Nothing seems to jive with the church these days.

I left quietly | 6:42 p.m. July 15, 2008

I applaud Chris Hardy for forcing the LDS Church to show its true face to the world. I left quietly, so as not to drag my parents into it, but I regret it.

The paranoid intolerance of the LDS needs to be exposed, because "sunlight is the best disinfectant."

To John B Sheffield | 7:07 p.m. July 15, 2008

"I wonder if Our Loving Savour JESUS CHRIST, from who The Church takes its name ever turned away a sinner , well we know the answer is NO!

That's exactly what I also believe. So, that's why my decision to leave the church is clear simply because the way the church operates is not the way Christ works. It's actually the exact opposite of what Christ does.

The LDS church has forgotten, that, Christ washed the disciples feet, a major principle He was trying to teach, that He and His church is not the master, but the servant.

He also stated sharply to His disciples when He rebuked them by questioning His actions to be amongst the sinners, not the well.

This LDS church, has become the master of people, the dictator, and they're the destroyers of sinners, instead of the healers. Of course, they claim otherwise, but like their own prophet, Benson said, "Your actions are so loud, I can't hear what you're saying".

The church is no longer Christ's church, if it was ever one in the first place, because the church only loves those that loves them.

This is not the Christ I've come to worship.

to star | 7:08 p.m. July 15, 2008

right on!

To John B Sheffield (7:07pm) | 7:44 p.m. July 15, 2008

Amen to that my friend... You hit the nail on the head there. I am behind you 100%.

Sad | 7:46 p.m. July 15, 2008

That could be 10,000 LDS members who have been misled by this individuals.

Jon Halverson | 8:25 p.m. July 15, 2008

While I'm not sure that excommunication was the appropriate resolution, the calendar itself was certainly in poor taste. Someone who respects the church would never publish something of that nature.

Re: To John B Sheffield | 8:41 p.m. July 15, 2008

You're forgetting that Christ also sharply rebuked (to the point of destroying their property) those who desecrated His holy temple. Of course the Savior loves everybody unconditionally, but He does not tolerate sin. His message was to repent and go and sin no more, not that they could continue in their sins without any consequences whatsoever.

People are not excommunicated because the Church is oppressing them. Mr. Hardy clearly did not want to remain a member, nor did he wish to repent of publicly flounting the Church's restrictions on modesty and any other acts he may have committed that were contrary to the teachings of the Gospel. Because he did not show any desire to remain a member of the Church (he stated that he had wished previously to leave, but stayed because of his family's wishes), and because he did not show any desire to repent and humble himself for his actions (whatever they may have been), he was released from those standards expected of a member of the Church. He is now free to live however he wishes, with the consequence being that he can no longer call himself a member of the Church.

Cheryl | 9:21 p.m. July 15, 2008

I would like know why the returned missionaries did this. I can't believe that they would wear their dress attire with their name tags and allow a bio on themselves, not to mention they posed in suggestive ways. Certainly not porn but not your "normal" way of being photographed either.
Their parents must be very upset. I would be if my son had done this.

andrew | 10:43 p.m. July 15, 2008

(from New Zealand)...hey dude...i respect your right to choose what you do....and i have not seen the calendar either...but as a returned missionary..its not the right thing to be doing...unless you live double standards!!..come on man...CTR.."choose the right"....where's the standards gone man?.....think hard and long about it!

However | 11:02 p.m. July 15, 2008

He that has not sinned let him cast the first stone..

John B Sheffield | 11:04 p.m. July 15, 2008

I am sorry but I find some of the reasons and claims about "Excommunication" in this case to be very lame, the same as such as BYU Professor's where treated this way in the past for writings they made.

May I ask if the RM's where forced to do what they did in being featured this way? - NO! it was their freedom of choice.

I still go back to my comment ONLY ONE Person may JUDGE! and cases like this do The Church no good and again comments that it was not the Church who made this public again raises questions about secrecy.

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.