Deseret Book pulls Twilight

[BlueHair]

Maybe the author lost her temple recommend.

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_12193772?source=most_viewed

[Fiyero]

Twilight was published in 2005. Sure took their focus group long enought to determine that hot vampire seduction isn't condusive to what they feel the store represents.

[TripletDaddy]

Pelagius will be devastated.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Maybe the author lost her temple recommend.

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_12193772?source=most_viewed

I haven't stepped foot in a Deseret Book for years. Last time I was in there, I could swear they sold Stephen King and Tom Clancy books. King is obviously not exactly in line with what Deseret Book is supposed to represent. Clancy's novels are filled with profanity and sporadically with sex.

[SeattleUte]

You guys kill me. Deseret Book is owned by the LDS Church. Ergo, if you don't approve of Deseret Book's world view... Deseret Book is run by the guys who think you should jettison your fiance if she gets a second piercing in her ear.

[TripletDaddy]

You guys kill me. Deseret Book is owned by the LDS Church. Ergo, if you don't approve of Deseret Book's world view... Deseret Book is run by the guys who think you should jettison your fiance if she gets a second piercing in her ear.

The weird thing about this is that the book is offensive enough (or out of standards) to pull from the shelves.....but not quite offensive enough to stop selling ($$$$) altogether. What is up with that?

[Babs]

The weird thing about this is that the book is offensive enough (or out of standards) to pull from the shelves.....but not quite offensive enough to stop selling ($$$$) altogether.

Well obviously that would be censorship.

[byu71]

You guys kill me. Deseret Book is owned by the LDS Church. Ergo, if you don't approve of Deseret Book's world view... Deseret Book is run by the guys who think you should jettison your fiance if she gets a second piercing in her ear.

I agree with your last sentence. However, I missed your point. I am going to make a concerted effort to gain insight from your side of the fence and therefor will need further clarification on some points you make.

What enlightenment is gained from what you just posted. That isn't said sarcastically, I am being humble here and admitting I am not quick enough to pick up on it.

[byu71]

The weird thing about this is that the book is offensive enough (or out of standards) to pull from the shelves.....but not quite offensive enough to stop selling ($$$$) altogether. What is up with that?

When $$$$ are involved, levels of hypocricy raise their heads and peak out. That is I guess what happens when you try to live in two worlds. The highest level of morality and the desire to rake in the bucks to function in the real world.

[smokymountainrain]

The weird thing about this is that the book is offensive enough (or out of standards) to pull from the shelves.....but not quite offensive enough to stop selling ($$$$) altogether. What is up with that?

"Like any retailer, our purpose is to offer products that are embraced and expected by our customers. When we find products that are met with mixed review, we typically move them to special order status," the statement read.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but it doesn't appear Deseret Book is moving the books off the shelves because they (Deseret Book/LDS Church) are offended by them, but rather they are moving the books because some customers might be offended by them. They are being sensitive to those customers who might be offended, but are still making them available to customers who aren't offended by the books. Call me kooky, but that makes sense to me.

[SeattleUte]

I agree with your last sentence. However, I missed your point. I am going to make a concerted effort to gain insight from your side of the fence and therefor will need further clarification on some points you make.

What enlightenment is gained from what you just posted. That isn't said sarcastically, I am being humble here and admitting I am not quick enough to pick up on it.

I have to run now but in the future I'll try to do better explicitly connecting the dots for your sake.

[TripletDaddy]

Perhaps I'm missing something, but it doesn't appear Deseret Book is moving the books off the shelves because they (Deseret Book/LDS Church) are offended by them, but rather they are moving the books because some customers might be offended by them. They are being sensitive to those customers who might be offended, but are still making them available to customers who aren't offended by the books. Call me kooky, but that makes sense to me.

Well, I have no inside dealings, but I am wondering...why would they pull them unless they were in agreement that vampire sex books might be offensive or inappropriate?

And if they agree that the books might be offensive or inappropriate, then why sell them at all?

Personally, I don't care what Deseret Book sells. I just think it is a strange move. I don't buy that Deseret Book is totally amoral when it comes to these books. They either think they are appropriate or they do not.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Can someone fill me in on what is potentially offensive in this book series? I know lots of little girls that are reading it.

[Commando]

well apparently they're "vampire sex books," according to those who are trying to paint the Church as hypocritical for allowing it to be sold in Deseret book. And Harry Potter is evil literature from the occult, too, I guess.

[Babs]

Can someone fill me in on what is potentially offensive in this book series? I know lots of little girls that are reading it.

I was going to mention this. It's become a huge problem at elementary schools.

As far as what's offensive, a lot of conservative families find the idea of vampirism itself offensive. And then there's the obvious sexual overtones and the depiction of the forbidden fruit toward which the young girl is so powerfully enticed.