Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex
Trivializing it as a "branding infraction" in light of the fiercely divisive topic of homosexuality in modern American society is hopelessly myopic. Surely you cannot be blind to the political overtones here. Do you think this calendar would've seen the light of a printing press had it NOT been about LDS missionaries? That very thing was what distinguished it from other similar calendars.
And let's not pretend like Hardy was some bishop-in-waiting whose innocent side business got caught up in the nets of a bunch of bigoted, overbearing high priests. The attitude of the accused has a lot to do with how these councils deliberate, and I'm guessing his strident, unrepentant, go-ahead-I-dare-you tone had something to do with it too.
By the way, I agree I don't think it was the most wonderful move from a PR perspective, but if it allows the church to fully divest itself when Hardy produces his next calendar (or who knows ... maybe a missionary porn video is next), it may have been worth it.
Perhaps my sarcasm detector is malfunctioning today, but I'm having a hard time believing you're serious.
|
Reality check: there is a HUGE difference between guys with shirts off and a porn video. We talked about this at work and every person had a similar opinion: "what's so bad about that?" (including some very conservative LDS). I doubt they would say the same thing about a porn video.
Who brought the homosexual debate into this? What in the world does this have to do with homosexuality? Based on the reaction of the nurseshere, there will be plenty of women buying this calendar.
I agree with you that Hardy was no saint. I imagine there were other issues involved; he even alludes to this in the article. If this was just to protect the name of the church, it backfired--they're looking kind of silly.