Creator of Mormon Mishie Calendar busted ....

Post by **_Mahonri** » Sun Jul 13, 2008 8:30 pm

Well Harmony, the Bishop can say 'no comment' and let it lie. Backhanded slander such as 'there is more involved' sure paints the picture for you, doesn't it?

Instead of building shopping centers the LDS church might try actually being 'Christ like' sometime instead of running down anyone they like.

Post by **_Jason Bourne** » Sun Jul 13, 2008 9:03 pm

harmony wrote:
Mahonri wrote:Per the Bishop involved in this whole foolishness: "I prefer not to say anything else about it," he said. "There is more involved, and he and I will have our meeting."

Nice going guy, innuendo to make him look bad. Really helps all knowing your attitude before this 'brother' comes before you to be judged, you prejudiced MoronicPriesthoodMoron.

Well, what's he going to say? His hands are tied by the church; he can't say anything. They'll meet, they'll talk, they'll reach a decision... and guess what? Life will go on.

The church only has as much as the members give it; that's the beauty and the power of the vote. If Chad gives his bishop the power to call him into his office for a chat, then Chad must live with the consequences. If he does not give his bishop that power, then the bishop can't touch him. Of course, it all depends on how much the bishop wants to push it.

And why does this smell like BKP on the rampage again?

Uhhh a bishop can take disciplinary action even if someone does not show up to meet with the bishop or attend the DC.

Post by **_Jason Bourne** » Sun Jul 13, 2008 9:04 pm

KimberlyAnn wrote:Missionaries just don't do it for me.

Love me some hot priests, though. Mmmm. They're utterly forbidden and utterly sexy. Plus, I like the fact that they're not shirtless. I prefer to imagine what's under those cassocks.

KA

ohhh my this is just too much for me!!! You naughty girl you! ;-)

Post by **_Jason Bourne** » Sun Jul 13, 2008 9:08 pm

Local church units have lots of swimming or water skiing parties where men go shirtless. Seems to me that not paying tithing or going to Church is more grounds for excommunication than the calendar.

But have you ever seem anyone ex'd for these things? I doubt it.

Indeed it would be hypocritical of the Church to censure this guy and not censure Harry Reid who has done far more damage to the Church's image simply by being a Democrat in high position, not to mention his attacks on the Church sponsored Marriage Ammendment.

There are much bigger fish to fry imho.

Well we all know that you are not objective on this one being a rabid hater of any political view that differs from your own, even to the poinr of wanting to use the Church as a club to beat members into political submission. But aside from that, assuming, and this a a big assuming, that Reid should be disciplined maybe that indicates that Church is afraid to do so because it would be a huge bad PR wrap. So Reid gets away with his rebelliousness because of his high profile but this poor obscure fellow gets wrath. Hmmmm. What does that say about this process?

Post by **_christopher** » Sun Jul 13, 2008 9:20 pm

Jason Bourne wrote:
Uhhh a bishop can take disciplinary action even if someone does not show up to meet with the bishop or attend the DC.

I don't think that is correct.

If memory serves me (and I served in three bishoprics/branch presidencies), we could impose disciplinary action on women, girls, and young men up to and including priests (and adult prospective elders). If someone was an elder or high priest, the discipline council and or any action had to come from the stake not the unit.

Chris <><

Post by **_Jason Bourne** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 1:31 am

christopher wrote:
Jason Bourne wrote:
Uhhh a bishop can take disciplinary action even if someone does not show up to meet with the bishop or attend the DC.

I don't think that is correct.

If memory serves me (and I served in three bishoprics/branch presidencies), we could impose disciplinary action on women, girls, and young men up to and including priests (and adult prospective elders). If someone was an elder or high priest, the discipline council and or any action had to come from the stake not the unit.

Chris <><

The SP must approve all DCs a bishop does and can delegate back to the bishop a DC for a MK priesthood holder if the Elder or HP most likely will not be ex'd. A bishop can disfellowship an Elder but is has to be ok's by SP. So yes you are correct in general. Sorry . I missed the fact that this fellow was an Elder.

Post by **_bcspace** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 4:05 am

It has just been announced that this guy has been excommunicated.

His reported claim: He was asked to stop the calendar and refused. He replied that it was like asking the Marriot's to stop allowing pornography in their hotels.

Whether he said that in the meeting or remembered to say it afterwards, he does have a good point there imho (assuming the Marriot's who are in control of the chain are indeed LDS).

Post by **_Scottie** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 4:12 am

bcspace wrote:It has just been announced that this guy has been excommunicated.

His reported claim: He was asked to stop the calendar and refused. He replied that it was like asking the Marriot's to stop allowing pornography in their hotels.

Whether he said that in the meeting or remembered to say it afterwards, he does have a good point there imho (assuming the Marriot's who are in control of the chain are indeed LDS).

That's not really apples to apples, in my opinion. If the porn stars were touted as being LDS Stake Presidents or something like that and the Marriot's refused to stop showing them, then I could see the connection.

Post by **_Boaz & Lidia** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 7:25 am

harmony wrote:Hmmm.. Smac says this calendar is "smut".

Perhaps because he is turned on by it?

Post by **_Trevor** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 1:31 pm

Well, the LDS Church is sure building a reputation as The Excommunicator.