The Correlation Committee strikes again

[Dwight Schr-ute]

I'd argue that is only the second most infuriating thing. The most infuriating thing is that it appears to have been poorly done.

How dare you question the Photoshop skills of a church employee. Surely this piece of evidence will change your mind. Currently on the front page of ksl.com:

[BigPiney]

How dare you question the Photoshop skills of a church employee. Surely this piece of evidence will change your mind. Currently on the front page of ksl.com:

lol, that is awesome.

[The Rambam]

I just called my teenage girls in and showed them the photoshop job on the angels. I told them that I hope they can take the good from the Church and not partake of the crazy. I honestly don't think the Church has any idea of how stupid they look when they do this stuff. This crap drives people out of the Church, literally. Who wants to claim this level of ignorance and uber-uptight sexual dysfunction? And this is only the most recent evidence of a deep sickness embedded in the Church body. Someone needs to be fired and they should make a public apology and run the unedited version as a full page in the next Ensign.

[Sullyute]

I just called my teenage girls in and showed them the photoshop job on the angels. I told them that I hope they can take the good from the Church and not partake of the crazy. I honestly don't think the Church has any idea of how stupid they look when they do this stuff. This crap drives people out of the Church, literally. Who wants to claim this level of ignorance and uber-uptight sexual dysfunction? And this is only the most recent evidence of a deep sickness embedded in the Church body. Someone needs to be fired and they should make a public apology and run the unedited version as a full page in the next Ensign.

So we cannot even get an official apology for the priesthood ban, but you want one for putting sleeves on an angel? If this is really a "deep sickness embedded in the church body" then who is the "someone" that should get fired over this?

I agree that it seems ridiculous to put sleeves on an angel, when, according to Joseph Smith, Moroni appears to like wearing togas that wouldn't cover his garments. Or that Jesus had no problems chilling with a naked Adam and Eve, but he would be offended if angels were showing off their shoulders.

But calling for an apology and a firing seems like an over the top reaction in the opposite direction. If this is a "deep sickness" then wouldn't your action just be fighting a sympton and not the actual disease? Do you think this disease (culture) is fostered by Church authority or its membership, or both? Or is this disease (culture) what really bands the church and its membership together, i.e. makes us a peculiar people?

[Indy Coug]

But calling for an apology and a firing seems like an over the top reaction in the opposite direction.

Rambam, if nothing else, is consistent.

[Jeff Lebowski]

The funny thing is, this may have been simply the work of a single nut in the graphics department. I have no idea if the Correlation Committee was involved, although it is clearly a byproduct of the correlation mindset.

[Tone Loc]

The funny thing is, this may have been simply the work of a single nut in the graphics department. I have no idea if the Correlation Committee was involved, although it is clearly a byproduct of the correlation mindset.

Did you just troll yourself?

I love CUF and this thread is a perfect example why. It's a one-stop shop of comedy gold. The way huge issues are tackled and broken down by some you is so funny. Half the time I am trying to figure out if people are serious or joking, and when I find out they are being serious it only makes it funnier.

Keep up the good work around here, this is some serious shit. You are making the world a better place, one important issue at a time.

[creekster]

The funny thing is, this may have been simply the work of a single nut in the graphics department. I have no idea if the Correlation Committee was involved, although it is clearly a byproduct of the correlation mindset.

So, IOW, the outrage of your intial post (not to mention the thread title you chose) may have been without foundation and misguided? Good thing that doesnt happen often around here.

[LA Ute]

So, IOW, the outrage of your intial post (not to mention the thread title you chose) may have been without foundation and misguided? Good thing that doesnt happen often around here.

Stop challenging orthodoxy.

[Jeff Lebowski]

So, IOW, the outrage of your intial post (not to mention the thread title you chose) may have been without foundation and misguided? Good thing that doesnt happen often around here.

Ha. Tone Loc is right. This thread is entertaining.

Does it really make a big difference whether it was one person or a coordinated effort on the part of the correlation dept? This is, without doubt, a prime example of the lunacy of the correlation mindset. This is the flagship publication for the LDS church. Regardless of the mechanics of how it got there, it is an embarrassment for our church.

If it was in fact a rogue employee, the irony cuts both ways. I have been mildly surprised at how some members (here and elsewhere) get so defensive about it and try to rationalize it. For all we know, the Ensign editor may be as upset as anyone. Although I think it is far more likely that it was not the work of a rogue employee.

[UtahDan]

So, IOW, the outrage of your intial post (not to mention the thread title you chose) may have been without foundation and misguided? Good thing that doesnt happen often around here.

I don't know why anyone would want to nitpick this one thing that Jeff has said after all the good experiences they have had with him. Is it really representative of his whole body of work? Is what he said here crucial to anyone's understanding or opinion of him? I guess if one is looking to be offended they might take exception to his comments here. I think it is okay to ask him questions, but to attack his words with the intent of deconstructing them and finding fault with them sounds to me like questioning Jeff as a person, which I don't think is right.

This could easily all be the product of a single bad mood or a bad week at work and not represent the position of Jeff over all. What he says does carry a lot of authority around here, but discerning members of the board who are attuned to who Jeff truly is through many experiences large and small ought to be able to tell when he speaks as the board owner and when he is just speaking as a board member. I don't know, I guess I don't understand the motivation to try to tear Jeff down over little things.

[RobinFinderson]

This one hit a little too close to home, did it? lol...

[Donuthole]

This one hit a little too close to home, did it? lol...

More like "wasn't nearly as clever as RF thought it was". It merited a smile, maybe a mild chuckle. I sure you got some of those. Besides, everybody knows there aren't any v-neck garments.

[RobinFinderson]

More like "wasn't nearly as clever as RF thought it was". It merited a smile, maybe a mild chuckle. I sure you got some of those. Besides, everybody knows there aren't any v-neck garments.

Well not THESE days. But who is to say about back in Nephi's day? I think an image like this might also might raise some debate among apologists about whether the technology to develop poly-mesh synthetic fabrics might have been available to the Nephites.

[LA Ute]

I don't know why anyone would want to nitpick this one thing that Jeff has said after all the good experiences they have had with him. Is it really representative of his whole body of work? Is what he said here crucial to anyone's understanding or opinion of him? I guess if one is looking to be offended they might take exception to his comments here. I think it is okay to ask him questions, but to attack his words with the intent of deconstructing them and finding fault with them sounds to me like questioning Jeff as a person, which I don't think is right.

This could easily all be the product of a single bad mood or a bad week at work and not represent the position of Jeff over all. What he says does carry a lot of authority around here, but discerning members of the board who are attuned to who Jeff truly is through many experiences large and small ought to be able to tell when he speaks as the board owner and when he is just speaking as a board member. I don't know, I guess I don't understand the motivation to try to tear Jeff down over little things.

I read creektser's comment as more about this thread than about JL, and about the tendency on this board, quite often, to take a "shoot first, ask questions later" approach to perceived mistakes by the institutional church. As creek noted, "Good thing that doesn't happen often around here."