The Correlation Committee strikes again

[Indy Coug]

You've now earned Rambam's pity.

If that results in him finding some help for all of his psycho-sexual issues, then that's a good thing.

[Blueintheface]

I heart CUF, warts and all!

[wuapinmon]

Whoa, Indy dropped the f-bomb.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Whoa, Indy dropped the f-bomb.

Meh. He does it all the time.

[Viking]

Indy is the new Viking.

[The Rambam]

If the church was going to publish an article about a specific painting, then they shouldn't have changed the painting. If they couldn't bring themselves to show the painting as-is, they shouldn't have published the damn story.

However, in the grand scheme of things, big fucking deal.

See, I'm still interested in your opinion of whether the painting is indecent and in need of alteration to be suitable for publication in a church magazine. We still don't know what you think.

You are clever, but at the end of the day, are being somewhat cowardly. Do you share the Church's abhorrence of bare angelic shoulders at the feet of our resurrected Lord? Do you think the painting is indecent?

[TripletDaddy]

Good job, Indy. Way to stand up for the Church and promote your cause of focusing on others.

[Indy Coug]

Good job, Indy. Way to stand up for the Church and promote your cause of focusing on others.

Standing up for the church? Is that what you think I was doing?

[UtahDan]

Quit trying to chase Indy off everyone.

[TripletDaddy]

Standing up for the church? Is that what you think I was doing?

In your own clumsy, profane way.

[cowboy]

See, I'm still interested in your opinion of whether the painting is indecent and in need of alteration to be suitable for publication in a church magazine. We still don't know what you think.

You are clever, but at the end of the day, are being somewhat cowardly. Do you share the Church's abhorrence of bare angelic shoulders at the feet of our resurrected Lord? Do you think the painting is indecent?

Did your mom have to pay other kids to hang out with you when you were a kid?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Indy is the new Viking.

Ouch. That's cold, man.

[The Rambam]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/soraya...Ingrid_Mattson

The obsession with modesty exposed.

[The Rambam]

Did your mom have to pay other kids to hang out with you when you were a kid?

I just think it is funny that Indy won't say what he believes about the painting. Either he has to admit that he is an idiotic pervert who sexualizes the shoulders of angels. Or he has to admit that he disagrees with the Church. To this point all he has said is that they shouldn't have published the article or they shouldn't have changed the painting. But he hasn't said which he thinks is right.

When someone refuses to tell you what they think. They are usually ashamed of the way they feel. Either Indy is ashamed of disagreeing with the Church or ashamed of being aroused by the scandalous shoulders.

And he has said that the whole dishonest, desecration of art, sexual/modesty dysfunction in the Church this episode reveals is no big deal.

And he has said asking for an apology is excessive and out of the question.

I think he, like most of the Orthodox, actually believes the painting indecent and demanding of alteration. I think those shoulders gave him a bit too much excitement and he feels the need to eradicate them. I would love to hear I am wrong and he was not aroused by the shoulders in question, that they aren't indecent. That the mouth-breather at HQ who mandated the change is an idiot. But I think I'm waiting in vain.

[ERCougar]

Ok, Rambam, we get your point.

Of course, Indy didn't think the original painting was obscene, or sexually stimulating, or whatever. At least, I would guess so. You've just cornered him into a position of coming out and admitting that there are some really effed-up people making some decisions in some pretty high places (not referring to the prophet or Q12 here, but the perhaps even more powerful positions of directing church media), and that sort of shakes up the standard worldview. I do think you make an important point on why this stuff IS important. It's tempting to laugh it off, which is what I initially did when I read the news, but it hits on a deeper point of how we fundamentally view both women and sexuality, both of which are problematic, and that IS important. The Huffington Post article does a great job of extrapolating these kinds of views--I'm just afraid that the girls who need to read it won't until certain ideas are too deeply ingrained for it to have an effect. I hate bringing my daughter to church each week and reinforcing the idea that men are the figureheads, the decision-makers, the examples. I don't CARE if they're nice men. I don't CARE how many times we tell her that she can do anything, be anything, accomplish anything. I don't CARE how many times we tell her she's just as powerful and capable as any man. The stronger lesson she learns each week undercuts it all.

Sure, like my wife says, most women don't really WANT the priesthood. But really, isn't that somewhat telling?