CrimsonKairos

First, Jesus didn't make that sculpture of himself. So there's the first problem with your analogy. Second, the sculptor of the Christus statue did not create the statue to elicit sexual responses in others. That's the second disconnect between what you're comparing. Third, Christ was pierced in his side by a lance or spear. After his resurrection, he always displayed the tokens of his unjust death to the Old World peoples and the New World Book of Mormon peoples. Christ's intent wasn't to titillate his disciples. Christ would have revealed the wound in his side to testify of his atonement. The 12 guys in the calendar aren't testifying of Christ's atonement by going without their shirts. I'm really amazed that alot of you guys can't see the difference. Wow. I thought it was pretty simple and clear. The path to Hell is paved with justifications (and probably some cement for good measure). I can hear the 12 posers now, saying: "Where exactly are we headed? And, what's with this handbasket?"

Maureen, you may not see anything wrong with it. That's fine. What they are admittedly doing is selling images of themselves meant to stir up sexual thoughts in the women (hopefully it's meant for women!) who view the pictures. The calendar doesn't feature quotes from the scriptures; it's not meant to point out the beauty of LDS beliefs; it's not intended to strengthen testimonies or bridge doctrinal gaps between religions. Their sole purpose in posing for this calendar is to appeal to the carnal nature in all who view them. Your pool analogy doesn't float (pun intended). First, because guys at the pool aren't charging people to peek at their bods. Second, because guys at the pool aren't covering themselves with makeup and oil and who knows what else to appeal to a more specific carnal appetite in viewers. Third, because most guys at the pool don't walk around in an unnatural "stretch" so that they can better flex their biceps while adopting a dreamy look in their eyes. C'mon, you know the two situations aren't even close. Well, I'd hope you could see that. It's not just about content, but intent. Anyway, the other major problem is that they are making such a big deal about their being RM's. The only reason they're doing that is to tap into the LDS market, because there are already a ton of male models out there who probably put them to shame. So they think, "Uh, let's invoke the title of 'RM' and we'll get lots of special interest business!" It's a joke. The law of chastity is not just about only having sex with your legal and lawful spouse. It's about alot more. It is wrong to pose or act in ways that are specifically meant to stir desires and feelings in others that would lead to sin if they acted on those feelings. Christ said if a man lusts after a woman in his heart, he has committed adultery. So what these 12 "spiritual" men are doing is giving lots of women reasons to commit adultery in their hearts, all in the name of religious tolerance and charity? Gimme a freakin' break. Yeah, I can see Christ and his apostles distributing titillating drawings or sculptures of themselves to further their religious goals. These 12 guys may have been recruited for their looks, but what they ended up displaying was not their bodies but their complete lack of respect for their temple covenants (chastity and all that jazz I just mentioned) and for the women they are targeting with their calendar. Idiots.

To me it's pretty straightforward: These 12 guys are asking people to pay them for a provocative glimpse of their bodies. Whores don't have to have sex to be whores in my opinion. These are RM's alright, but not Returned Missionaries...Ridiculous Monkeys.

Just remember, you get what you pay for...

Hey, hey, not so hasty...how much lettuce are we talkin' here?

Agreed.

The Church apologized in order to placate all the thin-skinned, melodramatics out there. We have nothing to apologize for, any more than all the citizens of Missouri have to apologize for the actions of Joseph Smith's murderers or the governor.

I'm selling my body ladies. $500 for sex. The proceeds will go to benefit charities in my mission. Through having sex with as many women as I can, I am demonstrating that I have a strong testimony and a sense of individuality. Plus, it goes to benefit a good cause. I will also be paying tithing on my filthy lucre. p.s. All you smarty pants who are going to pounce with the, "Good luck getting any buyers," jokes, I've already anticipated that so p.p.s. For what it's worth, my bod looks like those of the idiots in that calendar. I just don't put makeup on my pecks. p.p.p.s. I'm not really for sale. Sorry ladies. The above post was satire, not solicitation. Besides, money can't buy my rockin' body.

:rockon: Did you say something, Elphaba? I didn't hear it, I was too busy rockin' on!

Not everything a General Authority says will be scripture, or infallible, or 100% accurate. That is why we have the Gift of the Holy Ghost. Case in point: Elder McConkie and the priesthood ban. The point isn't to doubt our leaders, but to seek spiritual confirmation that what they teach is true. Not everything will be. That is why we have the Spirit to guide each of us. That is the meaning of the Parable of the Ten Virgins: 56 And at that day, when I shall come in my glory, shall the parable be fulfilled which I spake concerning the ten virgins. 57 For they that are wise and have received the truth, and have taken the Holy Spirit for their guide, and have not been deceived—verily I say unto you, they shall not be hewn down and cast into the fire, but shall abide the day. (D&C 45:56-57) Of course our leaders' words are "scripture" when they speak by the Spirit. The question is, when are they speaking by the Spirit, and when are they going off of an opinion or personal perspective? That is what the Spirit is for. In addition, that is what the standard works are for. They establish the standard of our doctrines. The standard works are the ruler against which all teachings and doctrines are measured and compared. If something contradicts the standard works, it is probably false. If it is not false, but is a reversal of a previous policy (polygamy, priesthood ban, etc...) then that is when the Spirit's confirmation becomes invaluable, to assure us of what is true and what is not. Standard Works + Spirit's Guidance = A Perfect Measure of Truth Does anyone seriously dispute that?

It is offered as speculation. I don't think anyone has a problem with speculation. I don't. What would concern me is when speculation is held to be superior to canonized scriptures and modern-day revelations. I know you're not doing that, Elphaba, but others are and it is to them that I speak.

Snow has already pointed out that not everything taught at Conferences is guaranteed to be inspired by the Spirit. That's why we as members are counseled to cultivate the Spirit's influence in our lives, so we may test and try the teachings and hold fast to that which is true and of God. To claim that everything in Conference is scripture makes where something is said, and not what is said, the standard for truth. It's always telling when someone has to appeal to non-canonical, unofficial sources to support a point or doctrine.

I don't get your point Gaia: because the Aaronic priesthood is specifically for the performance of preparatory ordinance or whatever you're claiming, then women can have the Melchizedek priesthood and not have to do anything with it? Ever heard of temple sealings? Ever heard of presiding over those with other priesthood keys and offices? Ever heard of authority to set others apart and confer keys and offices on them? Do women do those things? Do you? Then you don't have the priesthood, not Aaronic, not Melchizedek, and not Patriarchal. Sorry. You can't just take all these quotes about the Patriarchal priesthood being about kings and priests, and then substitute "queens and priestesses" because they're kinda' similar. You find me one quote that says specifically (not by implication or through substitution) that the Patriarchal priesthood is about queens and priestesses doing stuff, and you'd have a starting point for your hypothesis. Failing that, I'm sorry but you're really leaning your ladder against the wrong wall.

And pushka rushes to Elphaba's defense, right on cue.

True enough.

If you want to learn about sealings and the rules that govern them, ask your stake pres. or when you're at the temple, ask to speak to a member of the temple presidency or the temple recorder. Now, I'm still confused as to what you're really saying so I'll just be as direct as I can: Are you saying that you did not have a good relationship with your husband who's passed on? And that you're worried that you might have to be "stuck" with him? And that you want to be sealed to another man? That's kinda' the vibe I'm getting, but I don't know if that's what you're saying.

In addition to that, they can't keep their stories straight. On one hand, they claim its to open up dialogue and break stereotypes about missionaries. Then in their youtube video, they claim the proceeds will go to help charities in their respective missions. Why don't they just sell cigarettes to earn money for their charities? Gimme a break, these absolute idiots just amaze me with their stupidity. I knew missionaries like this on my mission, and they were all idiots and hamstrung the Lord's work. They didn't then and they aren't now helping anybody.

Understanding what? That missionaries can wear body-makeup too? They're freakin' idiots. Guys, get over yourselves, and then clothe yourselves. p.s. I love how everyone waits for an LDS presidential candidate to enter the scene before movies start getting made about MMM, and missionaries start acting like three year olds. What's next? An all-LDS strip club in SLC?

First off, I thought it was interesting that in all the "behind-the-scenes" photos, it's women loading down these supposedly "hot" missionaries with makeup and only the Lord knows what else. Second, several of these women have definitely never been to the temple based on the way they're dressing...or else they figured they'd leave their garments at home during the photo-shoots. (yeah, I had to get my baseless attack in somewhere ) Third, trying to show a guy as sexy while he's grinning like an idiot and reading his Book of Mormon is about the stupidest thing I've ever seen. Fourth, can we say "Photoshop?" Someone's been using the "dodge" and "burn" tool, not to mention applying Guassian blurs with multiply and screen blend modes like there's no tomorrow! Fifth, these guys make me want to discard my Christian reserve and slap 'em upside the head. It's those kinds of missionaries that give the rest a bad name. No offense to Utah here...but...I bet the majority are from Utah. Looks like the Sons of Zion are now trying to keep pace with the Daughters of Zion. Don't these flippin' idiots listen to anything the General Authorities have said about porn and using images to titillate others? So it's not hard porn...so what. These guys make me want to just take a baseball bat to their faces so they can't have any more "pretty face" photo shoots as ridiculous as this ever again. I can't wait until they have kids who ask, "But daddy, why can't I dress like this or that, you posed for those sexy man calendars? Why is it wrong now?"

First off, you didn't even explain what Joseph Smith said the three orders were (pp. 322-323): Melchizedek Patriarchal Aaronic So I'm still confused as to how any of what the Prophet said in those two pages has anything to do with women having any portion of the Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God. You quote Joseph Smith, and then just say, "That says alot about exaltation, the ph, etc..." as if that advances your assertion one whit. I might as well say, "Genesis shows that Abraham had the priesthood at one time. That says alot about progression, the ph, etc..." Would you mind clarifying what your point was in posting that quote from TPJS? p.s. 'berry, good call not meeting that lady again. Sounds like one of those cults hiding behind the Church's skirts, pretending to be of the flock.

I believe Snow's point, Gaia, was that he's not interested in copying and pasting Elphaba's comments just to appease you. Go read her posts. And remember that there's explicit, and implicit.

Then I don't get the point of your post. You were posting as if the current policy accomodated more than one man being sealed to one woman. So was your point that you hope the Church allows in the future for you to get sealed to another man? I'm totally lost now.

I guess I see "the Church" as inseparably connected to him whose it is: Jesus Christ. Hence when someone criticizes "the Church" I see it as criticism of Jesus. Now criticism of men and women in "the Church" is different, though rarely useful or efficacious. The doctrines, ordinances and priesthood of the LDS Church are---to me---handed down by Christ. Hence, any criticism of them is tantamount to trying to pluck a "mote" from Christ's eye. But in answer to your original question, Jason, yeah someone can disagree with the Church's teachings and not be anti-mormon. I don't consider you to be an anti, though there have been two or three times I can think of when you're having a mood (which we all do) and you can be a bit more acerbic in your objections than I'd prefer. Overall, you're a cool guy. B)

Now why couldn't the stripling warriors have just sent chalk drawings of themselves nude, to the Lamanites. Religious intolerance would have ended instantly!