The Correlation Committee strikes again

[kccougar]

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

Not really. Most men don't either.

[ERCougar]

Not really. Most men don't either.

Ha, I agree. Also somewhat telling.

[lambdacoug]

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.

Why the obsession with having Indy say something specific? Why does it matter if he says it explicitly? You made your point. I agree in that I think there are a lot of people that won't admit the church is in error, and the more you point it out, the craftier the evasions will become. What I've seen from this board, though, most people here aren't like that.

[Sullyute]

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

There is a interesting thread on this very subject at New Order Mormon. The overall sentiment is that women don't want the priesthood, they simply want equality. They want to run their own organization and want equal input on the Church as a whole. If having the priesthood gets them to that point then so be it, but it would just be a means to an end not the end in its self.

[DU Ute]

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?

ER nails it

[The Rambam]

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?

ER nails it

Yes. ER nails it indeed. Amen and amen.

And I'll back off Indy and leave him alone.

Last comment: the fact that most members of the Church don't see that this episode is a big deal is just as big as deal as the actual dishonest alteration (motivated by sexually-dysfunction and sexism) was in the first place. We are crazy and we are in denial about our mental illness. As ER makes clear above.

[ERCougar]

ER nails it

Meh...it was a little bit of a rant, now that I read it again.
I understand how people blow this off, because it alone is more laughable than anything. But I also get Rambam's frustration. If this were the only item we could point to, it wouldn't be a big deal. It's the underlying mindset that it belies that I think is disturbing, a mindset that is reflected in a thousand small examples. I wish we were as vigilant about these kinds of signals as we are about keeping teenage boys thoughts pure.

[Northwestcoug]

The morality editors of lds publications has a distinguished history protecting the delicate sensitivities of members. This time, they are hard at work preventing us from becoming pedophiles.

Originally published in the lesser-known lds church news:


But it was too racy for lds.org:


Thank you, unknown church employee, for covering up little girls' shoulders. And making the church look utterly ridiculous in the process.

From the blog By Common Consent http://bycommonconsent.com/2012/09/0...is-a-bad-idea/

And picked up by SL Tribune http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfa...hurch.html.csp

[CardiacCoug]

Yeah that's embarrassing.

[TripletDaddy]

I have a sneaking suspicion that other than the malcontent morans at bycommonconsent and various hard-to-please message board nobodies, this irrelevant and unimportant minutiae will go entirely unnoticed by the world at large and that it will have zero effect on how the church is perceived.

Go cougars! Beat the Utes!

[Moliere]

The also should have gotten rid of the stripes on that kids shirt.

[byu71]

I have a sneaking suspicion that other than the malcontent morans at bycommonconsent and various hard-to-please message board nobodies, this irrelevant and unimportant minutiae will go entirely unnoticed by the world at large and that it will have zero effect on how the church is perceived.

Go cougars! Beat the Utes!

I agree and probably go unoticed by the bulk of the church membership. I would hate to think that if my granddaughters showed their bare shoulders, most of the members in the neighborhood would consider my children bad parents. Especially as you said over something so irrelevant and unimportant.

[FMCoug]

The also should have gotten rid of the stripes on that kids shirt.

And the kid in the cardigan needs a tie.

[Uncle Ted]

The morality editors of lds publications has a distinguished history protecting the delicate sensitivities of members. This time, they are hard at work preventing us from becoming pedophiles.

Originally published in the lesser-known lds church news:


But it was too racy for lds.org:


Thank you, unknown church employee, for covering up little girls' shoulders. And making the church look utterly ridiculous in the process.

From the blog By Common Consent http://bycommonconsent.com/2012/09/0...is-a-bad-idea/

And picked up by SL Tribune http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfa...hurch.html.csp

This reminds of a painting that was in the Ensign some years back...



The Jan 1999 Ensign, however, had a different version of this painting that with the boy Jesus completely clothed covering up the fact that Mary had her hand on his bottom. Ironically Jesus was wearing something that looked like a Roman toga.

[pellegrino]

I have a sneaking suspicion that other than the malcontent morans at bycommonconsent and various hard-to-please message board nobodies, this irrelevant and unimportant minutiae will go entirely unnoticed by the world at large and that it will have zero effect on how the church is perceived.

Go cougars! Beat the Utes!

I don't think the malcontents really care how this reflects on the church, but rather that it is an opportunity to bring up the unhealthy Mormon obsession with the body and modesty.