Half nekkid missionaries bring woe to Vegas man… Kinda…

This is REALLY no surprise, and when Dej brought it to my attention, my first thought was “I wonder what took so long.”

See, I saw this half-naked missionary man calendar a while back. Men on a mission. Ha. Funny. The Web site name itself is “Mormonsexposed.com.” Uh, yeah, I pretty much knew that was no active TBM who put THAT whole endeavor together.

Anyone who thought it was has been puffing at the old crack pipe a little too long. Do people even smoke crack anymore? Or is meth the drug of choice? I digress.

This story pretty much confirms my suspicions.

SALT LAKE CITY – A Las Vegas man who devised a calendar that features shirtless Mormon missionaries is facing a disciplinary hearing and possible excommunication because of the project.

A lifetime member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Chad Hardy was summoned by letter to a Sunday meeting with a council of elders to discuss his “conduct unbecoming a member of the church.”

Later in the story, Hardy confirms that he is NOT an active member of the Church.

A returned missionary himself, Hardy acknowledged he has not been an active member of the church since 2002. He said he’s never been contacted by anyone from the church encouraging his return to the fold and he suspects the current inquiry was driven by the church’s Salt Lake City headquarters.

Down at the bottom of the story, we get this:

An excommunicated person would be removed from official church rolls, although he or she would still be welcome at church services. Excommunicated members are prohibited from receiving the sacrament and can’t perform church callings such as teaching or preaching during meetings. They also cannot enter church temples.

All I have to say is, DAMMIT, why didn’t I think of this?


About Natalie R. Collins

Natalie has more than 30 years writing, editing, proofreading and design experience. She has written 20 books (and counting), has worked for the Sundance Film Festival, and as an investigative journalist, editor, and proofreader. She embraces her gypsy-heart and is following her new free-thinking journey through life. Follow her as she starts over and learns a bunch of life's lessons--some the hard way.
This entry was posted in Natalie's Posts. Bookmark the permalink.

60 Responses to Half nekkid missionaries bring woe to Vegas man… Kinda…

  1. Cele says:

    Wow, that is a heck of a website and a mission that man was on.


  2. Mimi says:

    Tee hee, I literally laughed out loud at your last line.


  3. Justme says:

    Between the Mormon owned Marriott hotel selling pay-per-view porn and Marie Osmand showing off her tushy in that tiny baby doll dress on Dancing with the Stars, I’m truly at a loss why this guy was excommunicated. Are the rich and famous absolved from moral indiscretions in LDS Inc.? If calendar boy had maintained a 10% tithe (including calendar profits), would he have remain on the Mormon roster?


  4. I thought the Marriot hotel chain was owned by Marriott International, Inc. (MAR), not LDS, Inc. (LDS). You might also be surprised to know that Steve Young, Brigham’s decendant, played football on Sundays. He’s rich and famous, too (but no longer publicly traded)!

    And then there is Julianne Hough, also of dancing with the stars fame, who also wears those skimpy little dancing outfits. And she’s a mile and a half hotter than that 50-whatever-year-old, eight-child, divorced Marie Osmond! (Were you really watching for Marie’s tush? You’re a sick man!)

    Besides, excommunication = he’s no longer a member of the church. All contracts, covenants, commitments, etc. are null and void. Using your logic from that perspective, the church is doing Mr. Hardy a BIG favor….no? Oh, and I don’t believe Mr. Hardy was paying his tithing anyway; so leaving him on the roster, even with the calendar profits, was not value-added.

    Your sister has more dirt on her than the mormon church over this issue.

    But we appreciate you trying.



  5. Renee says:

    Todd, your superiorness is showing.

    Just sayin’….


  6. sorry…

    and thanks for pointing that out.

    All future postings will reflect true humility.


  7. Tracy says:

    The calander is none of the LDS’s business, and if Chad Hardy hasn’t attended church for a long while, who cares what LDS has to say about his business. He owes the council elders no explanation.


  8. Natalie says:

    This is an interesting subject to me, because I feel like the LDS Church had every right to ex Mr. Hardy. I know, I know, that may not sound like my usual position, but COME ON. He was not living by the LDS rules, and he was pretty much PRETENDING to be a an active Mormon to make a buck, when in fact he was anything but that.

    Now, I have no issue with him making a buck as well. But facts are facts. If there was a Catholic Priest Calendar, you can bet the Vatican would get involved. Probably the NAACP, the AAR, the FBI and a few other acronyms as well.

    While I understand the above Trappees who commented on the hypocrisy of Church members, the bottom line is, Chad Hardy pretty much mooned Temple Square. And this my friends? This will sell more calendars.


  9. azteclady says:

    Well, if you *had* thought about it, Natalie, you wouldn’t be trapped, now would you? Of course, you’d probably had been run out of town on a rail…

    Humility, Todd?

    You belong to a religion who has the utter arrogance of baptizing a dead Pope–because hey, the mormon church knows better that the individual person did when he was alive. Somehow I don’t see humility as something encouraged in mormonland…


  10. azteclady,

    In all humility, we baptized that dead pope only because he didn’t *really* have the opportunity while he was alive. It was out of love, the pure love of Christ, and not arrogance as you misinterpret. I’m sure he counts it a great blessing to be able to make that covenant with God as a spirit and continue on in his journey towards eternal life.

    I’m always baffled by the narrowness with which unbelievers view that particular ordinance. Open your eyes! Expand your horizon! Remove the chains with which you are bound! Repent and come unto Christ! 🙂

    I would revise your comment from “the church knows better,” to “God knows better.” The church is merely the vehicle, not the ultimate authority. God is in the driver’s seat.

    Your humble servant,


  11. azteclady says:

    If I didn’t know better, I would imagine you to be pulling my proverbial leg.


  12. Tracy says:

    Todd, I’m always baffled by the narrowness of Mormons who intrude on others and their beliefs, who want nothing to do with the cult.

    If I have to live for eternity in Mormon heaven with jerks like you, I want to go to the other place.


  13. Todd says:


    IF I was a jerk, I’d say something like…

    Very substantial post. You used all the buzz words. Thanks for exposing your intelligence and providing your immense insight. I can see why you’re baffled.

    But I’m NOT a jerk, so I won’t….


    Forever yours,


  14. azteclady says:

    Tracy, worry not. Even if you were baptized, you would have to have the sekrit temple name and have your mormon church husband call you through the veil to mormon heaven.

    ’cause we wimmen are also all equal-like, like say gays… ‘cept we ain’t.

    And I’ll save you a seat 😉


  15. azteclady says:

    Todd, isn’t it just a teensy weensie little bit arrogant to claim to know the will of God?

    I’ll help you out: the correct answer is, “Yes, it’s the height of arrogance.”


  16. Natalie says:

    Yikes, Todd, you are REALLY scaring me. I half expect you to go all “TOM CRUISE” on us and tell us that YOU KNOW and WE DON’T KNOW. Oh wait. You kinda did.

    Come on, please. I’m sure the Pope has NO idea the silly little Mormons baptized him. Kinda reminds me of the old joke. Giving a tour of heaven, St. Peter stopped at one particular room and told all the tourists to be quiet and tiptoe by. Why? “This is where the Mormons are,” he explained. “They think they are the only ones here.”

    And so we tiptoe quietly by, except I am a clutz and don’t tiptoe well. Count me out of the tiptoeing and GET A CLUE.

    Everybody thinks they have the only true thing. Well, maybe not everyone. But the FUNDAMENTALIST religions do, and that’s why Mormonism lies right there with other fundamental religions. You really think that those terrorists flying those planes into the World Trade Center weren’t convinced they were doing it FOR GOD? They were. They KNEW THE HAD THE ONLY TRUE THING. That kind of arrogance is not only disturbing but dangerous. When you believe something that strongly, go ahead and be fervent, but you damn well better respect that YOU DON’T GET TO DECIDE for everyone else, or next thing you know you are flying planes into buildings. Don’t tell me it’s a stretch, either. Ever hear of the Lafferty Brothers?

    The harm of Mormons beliefs, such as baptism for the dead, is the UTTER arrogance of assuming that someone who has not CHOSEN to be baptized would want you to do it for them. The harm is believing that YOU are smarter than the rest of us, and that YOU know the only true thing, and that since we are just too stupid and too silly to know better, you’ll just baptize us all and then we will be SOOO thankful when we are hanging out in the Celestial Kingdom.

    But you really haven’t thought this out. I mean, consider the utter silliness of assuming that a God with one iota of a brain would not require YOU down here on earth to make such a silly gesture. Why would this be required? What possible reason could he have for YOU doing these proxy baptisms, when he could just put his hand on the Pope’s shoulder and tell him, “Guess what?”

    The only reason for baptizing the dead is arrogance. Plain and simple. “Well, we have the truth, and you don’t, so we are just going to MAKE you live it.”

    Arrogance. Plain and simple.


  17. tex841 says:

    do you ever thing that there exists a small group whose mission it is to call you out ever few days? I see it working like this: group gets together; critical mass is formed; group assigns each member to not only post here but to get, say, 4 friends to do the same resulting in a constant stream, or snowball, of posts clearly written by non-readers.

    No one ever actually reads because each as been told by a friend that you are an anti and that it is the duty of each to call you out….Therefore, what is the purpose of actually reading a post when each already knows you to be full of hate!

    They are hazing you, babe.


  18. tex841 says:

    And, BTW, your reasoning against baptisting the unwilling dead is excellent and to the point. Well done.

    How dare anyone think he knows my path to God and his grace? If I can’t get myself to heaven, then I don’t deserve to be there. How dare anyone think that he can relieve me of my personal responsibility to obtain the grace of God for myself.

    I am working on forgiveness and tolerance of such ignorance even as I type.


  19. Georgia says:

    Brilliantly said, Natalie. I’m copying and pasting this into my great quotations file. Arrogance is a big LDS negative. Get over yourselves.


  20. Natalie,

    Wow! I really SCARED you? I KNOW better than THAT! It’s gonna take a lot more than spewing out a little boilerplate LDS doctrine to scare YOU!

    (And the only thing Tom Cruise and I have in common are extremely good looks. He looks GOOD, and I LOOK good!) 🙂

    So, now you’re telling me YOU KNOW and I DON’T KNOW. I will readily admit that I DON’T KNOW. I’m a believer. So, is it fair for me to say I BELIEVE? You’re an unbeliever, that’s clear.

    [BTW, that is a great joke, because it plays on a common (but completely invalid) stereotype of Mormons: that they think they’ll be the only ones in heaven.]

    So let’s examine your post a bit and see what we can make of it. Of course, this all relates to the doctrine of proxy baptism for deceased persons.

    Here’s how I interpret your logic:

    1) Fundamentalists think they have the only true thing and that they get to decide for everyone
    2) Mormonism, and terrorists by inference, are fundamentalists
    3) Mormonism is arrogant (because they’re fundamentalists) and potentially dangerous (because terrorists are both dangerous and fundamentalists)

    Then you go on a bit about how arrogant we are for believing in proxy baptism, and how silly we are for believing that God really cares about what we do down here on earth anyway.

    Here’s my thoughtful response.

    Fundamentalists are characterized by a strict adherence to fundamental principles. In this case, the principle is that baptism is required for salvation. Strict adherence to the principle would dictate that deceased persons who did not receive baptism REQUIRE some form of baptism in order to obtain salvation.

    I would argue that the proxy baptism performed in LDS temples is a form of baptism, and is therefore at least plausible as an avenue to satisfy the baptismal requirement. As you pointed out, God waving his magic wand and issuing a decree waiving the baptismal requirement could also be plausible. Who gets to decide which method is acceptable?

    The unbeliever might argue (and probably does) that ANY earthly religious rite or ordinance is silly, because after we die what happened way down here on earth is inconsequential to God, if He even exists.

    In a directly comparative sense, the atonement of Christ is a vicarious or proxy principle. Christ in a very literal sense, received the punishment for our violations of divine law as a proxy, or vicarious substitute, for us. Of course, the principle in this case is that the demands of justice must be satisfied. Maybe God could have waived the punishment requirement, but then maybe he couldn’t whilst still being considered a “just” God. It’s clear, at least to me as a believer, which method He chose.

    I would therefore argue that proxy baptism is no more arrogant or dangerous than proxy suffering. If Christ is ARROGANT enough to believe that He could suffer in my place and that God would accept His offering on my behalf, then why not be ARROGANT enough to believe that someone could be baptized as proxy for a deceased someone else and expect the same divine acceptance?

    I would further argue that neither proxy baptism nor proxy suffering has ANY effect for an individual against their will. So fortunately, despite all the family history work and such, the individual still gets the final choice. So while the non-believer would like to accuse the Mormons of “making the choice” for someone, you’ll have a very difficult time defending that position. Sure, we can say a prayer and immerse somebody in a tub of water, but that’s a long way from assuring salvation. Besides, baptism is only the START. There’s a LOT more that comes after that!

    And, lastly, I would argue that God gets to decide which method He’ll accept. After all, it’s His heaven and His rules.

    For sure; unbelievers, such as yourselves, would be expected to think such doctrine is “silly” and to make every scornful attempt to belittle and mock. Try as you will, but the principle of vicarious ordinances is VERY solid doctrinally.

    Your humble friend,


  21. azteclady says:

    I wonder, Todd, if you realize just how insulting your use of the word “unbeliever” is.

    I happen to believe. From where I sitting, that makes me a believer. Wish people would stop co-opting words this way.


  22. Todd says:


    Please don’t be insulted. That is not my intent. For the purposes of my responses, “believer” = accepts LDS doctrine, whereas “unbeliever” = rejects LDS doctrine.

    Of course, we all believe something. I’m merely trying to distinguish between two positions relative to the topic of our debate, which happens to be LDS doctrine.

    I couldn’t help but notice that there are several very common derogatory adjectives used by several of the posters, yourself included, that appear to be INTENDED to insult myself and those I call “believers.” I’m hopeful that you are ashamed and insulted by those words as well.

    Kindest Regards,


  23. azteclady says:


    Oh indeed?

    Picture that!


  24. Todd says:

    I didn’t think so…. But at least we’re clear on where the other stands.


  25. Tracy says:

    azteclady, Todd thinks he’s so wise, yet he doesn’t see the irony of me using some of his words back at him, and then calling them buzz words.

    Then again, maybe he’s just angry because I used the word jerk. I was going to use moron, but that’s too close to Mormon…and I didn’t want to insult all Mormons.

    He also thinks I ride the short bus, so save me a seat in the back, then we can lick the windows.


  26. Todd says:

    What’s hilarious is that I pointed out the irony to you BY calling them buzz words…

    Yep, I’m fumin’… cuz I ain’t never ben called a jerk or a moron b’for… I jus don undustan u wimmen…

    betta hurry… da bus is leavun…

    Ur frend,


  27. K*tty says:

    Todd, I may not believe everything you say or share some of your opinions, but I have to say, you are a hoot. You are knowledgeable in your subject matter and I enjoy your banter. You have a super sense of humor and I hope you will stick around. I sense you are really a darling man and it is okay if you are Mormon and stick up for your church. Goodness knows, someone has to.


  28. azteclady says:

    I don’t know, perhaps I don’t have a sense of humor.

    See, it would seem to me that my beliefs and opinions offend Todd’s mormon sensibilities.

    Which is sad, really.

    Because it would seem that the only way not to offend him would be to convert to mormonism, believe every single word of the BoM and other stuff published by the LDS church, stop questioning things that make no sense to me, and accepting that men are superior to women–so that perhaps someone will take pity on my poor soul and call my temple name so that I can go to heaven.

    Pity that ain’t happening; I’ll have to bear the burden of offending mormon sensibilities by existing as I am.

    Oh well, there are worse things in life.

    And not that it makes any difference as far as Todd is concerned, but non-mormon does not equal unbeliever. Non-mormon means… gee, this is soooooooo difficult! it means non-mormon. But oh man, that would not be condescending enough, and it certainly wouldn’t highlight the inherent superiority of mormons, now would it?

    Of course, someone who would argue that God gave humans free will–so that they could chose by themselves whether to be Saved or not–doesn’t preclude any church from choosing for the individual after his dead. Yikes, we are so ungrateful! The mormon church is just trying to save those who were unlucky enough to chose some other path to heaven–and therefore ignoring their right to chose.

    Thoughtfully, and still believing, only non-mormon,

    (who is not hypocritical enough to add “kindest regards” when she feels nothing of the sort for a condescending arrogant know it all)


  29. azteclady says:

    Oh and I have been meaning to say that, whenever I read the post above, I see this: mormon sex posed



  30. Todd says:


    Wherein hast thou offended me? Why, you must think I’m a thin-skinned weasel. 😉

    My “mormon sensibilities” take no offense whatsoever by your beliefs and opinions. (I find them quite amusing!) I actually get along quite well with LOTS of unbelievers, such as yourself, despite vast theological differences. Afterall, we’re family!

    What I really like about you is your ability to completely disregard the obvious and simply make stuff up! Have you ever thought about working for a tabliod newspaper? You’re absolutely brilliant at regurgitating stuff NOBODY REALLY BELIEVES, not even the most ARDENT BELIEVER! I think you’ve got a career path, girl! You could make a killing!

    And, it’s not in the least bit hypocritical for me to use “kindest regards” or any other well-wishing valediction, because I *truly* mean it.

    With Love,


  31. azteclady says:

    Hello, Mr Pot, are you calling me kettle?


  32. Todd says:


    *blush* Thank you so much! I try really hard.

    I think growing up a middle child (meaning I got it from both ends) has helped me maintain a healthy sense of humor. That, and I have great women in my life. I guess I’m lucky!

    With Appreciation,

    P.S. I’ve also spent the last 20 years outside Utah.


  33. Renee says:

    I think Todd has picked up on a key thing here. I can tell the difference in AN instant between who’s been here all their lives (especially in Happy Valley) and whose traveled extensively, even been on a mission, or lived outside Utah. It’s truly amazing.


  34. Natalie says:

    You know what I appreciate about Todd? When I point out an issue, he actually ADDRESSES it, instead of resorting to “LOOK OVER THERE” tactics, or calling me names, etc.

    I may not agree with his assumptions, like he doesn’t agree with mine, but he DOES address them. That makes him very different from the other haters who come here to “hit and run.”

    Tex, that’s a frightening thought! And if those people exist, they need jobs! Or an addiction to porn. Something, anything, to keep them busy.


  35. tex841 says:

    And yet baptism for the dead remains ridiculous. Stop baptising poor Anne Frank. She doesn’t need it. If she and the other 6 million dead in the Holocaust aren’t in heaven, there is no heaven.


  36. tex841 says:

    And leave that poor little pope alone, too. He was the leader of the one church, the church universal (in latin). If that isn’t good enough, explain why.

    Do you baptism Jesus, John the Baptist, and Mary? What about Joseph, did you dunk him yet?


  37. Todd says:


    Thanks for the kind words. It means a lot to me, especially coming from you.



  38. Todd says:


    Are you arguing against baptism in general, or just against baptism for the dead?

    Or, are you just mocking mormons, because… well… that’s just what you do?



  39. tex841 says:

    B’tism for the dead is silly. if that makes you feel mocked, so be it.


  40. azteclady says:

    Actually, baptism for the dead is beyond silly–it’s arrogant.

    Natalie, I disagree with your take on Todd’s attitude–I see plenty of sidestepping or manipulating. Witness his question to tex re: baptism, above.


  41. Todd says:

    With all due reverence to the victims of history’s greatest tragedy…

    “Silly” is believing that 6 million Holocaust victims are guaranteed a spot in heaven due to the circumstances of their deaths.

    I would argue that God is MUCH MORE concerned about how you LIVED rather than how you DIED.

    Just my opinion of course. I’m not arrogant enough to claim to know how God thinks.



  42. tex841 says:

    How they lived…exactly. Their faith in God; their Judaism. Not you or anyone else dunking their “proxy” in water 60+ years later.

    Keep side stepping the theology. Focus on my “mocking” you.

    Aztec, you are right, of couse. It goes way beyond silly. It is disrespect for the religion that is foundational to all that came after.


  43. azteclady says:

    And it’s also antithetical to that much vaunted “free agency” bit, isn’t?

    Or is it that one only can have freedom to choose after becoming a mormon? and only if one’s choices are then approved by the church at large?


  44. Todd says:

    So, you’ve side-stepped your all-holocaust-victims-earn-a-spot-in-heaven position? That was relatively easy.

    How they lived?…YES. Their faith in God?…YES. Their Judaism?…huh? That’s one of the silliest things I’ve heard yet.

    I would argue that a religion, ANY religion, no matter how old or how “foundational”, will NEVER guarantee a person’s spot in heaven.

    With all due respect to those of the Jewish faith, I would also argue that the lowest form of disrespect possible was dished out by the ancient Jews against their “foundational” law-giver.

    Who is arguing that proxy baptism will guarantee someone a spot in heaven? I’m certainly not. But, of course, I understand your need to mock something. So I can see why you’d need to make up something silly, just so you can mock it.



  45. azteclady says:

    Let me see.

    I’m pretty certain–as in, more than a hundred percent certain–that the late Pope John Paul II was baptized as a child. And as a practicing Catholic, he would have also undergone something called Confirmation, during his late childhood or early adolescence. That second sacrament, in the Catholic church, is the reiteration, freely given by the individual, of his or her acceptance of God, the Holy Trinity, and his or her desire of belonging to the Catholic Church.

    Further, as a priest first, and all the way through the ranks up to Cardinal and then Pope, John Paul II reiterated that desire and that acceptance.

    Why–how????–would anyone think that ignoring his choice, his free will, his faith, and his desires, is not arrogant?

    Or are you now going to say, Todd, that I’m being silly because of course the mormon church has some right to do so? or perhaps you are going to claim that I am ridiculous in claiming to have seen the online record stating that Pope John Paul II has been indeed baptized by proxy into the mormon church?

    Mormon arrogance is not worse than that of many other organized religions, I readily admit that–but it’s up there with the worst of them for sure.


  46. Natalie says:

    Hey Azteclady,

    I didn’t say he was addressing it WELL. I just said he was actually talking about the issues, rather than trying to use the “Look over there” method. I don’t agree with his position any more than you do.


  47. Todd says:


    Excellent post! Thanks for taking the time to post something thoughtful.

    As a believer (in LDS doctrine) I find an error in your logic. If I’ve got it correct…

    Pope JPII was baptized a Catholic as an infant
    Pope JPII professed his faith in his Catholic baptism throughout his life
    Therefore, Pope JPII will ALWAYS profess his faith in his Catholic baptism

    Of course, fundamental to LDS theology is the belief in an afterlife, where God’s children are still capable of learning, growing, progressing, and making choices.

    So to me, it’s at least plausible that Pope JPII could be brought to a knowledge of the truth, accept it, and further desire an authoritative baptism in order to fully receive the blessings of Christ’s atonement; all while an unembodied spirit.

    So what you mock as arrogant and silly; I call a marvelous work and a wonder of a wise, loving God! 🙂

    Kindest Regards,


  48. azteclady says:

    Ah yes, perfectly clear.

    Pope John II may may change his mind/beliefs after his death. Therefore it follows that the mormon church takes it for granted that

    a) Pople John II will change his mind, and
    b) that he will change it to believe in mormonism; so that
    c) baptizing him by proxy not only makes sense but it’s a gift the mormon church is giving this devout Catholic.

    See, I don’t find errors in “your logic”–I just don’t find logic in your comments.

    Manipulation, arrogance, and definitely mocking superiority–plenty. Logic? Not so much.

    But, please, feel free to have the last word here.


  49. Todd says:

    We never take anything “for granted” including baptism. That’s the point girl! It’s all VERY logical and orderly, in principle. The execution does get a little messy. 😦

    And, I would argue it’s a gift God is giving that devout Catholic. The mormons perform these baptisms out of a sense of duty and love; not because we’re trying to mock Catholic baptisms, nor because we feel superior to Catholics (or any other religion). We’re all just trying to get along the best we know how in an imperfect world.

    Thanks for the last word!



  50. azteclady says:

    Post-last word—cause I forgot this single little bit…

    if Pope John Paul II were to change his mind after his death, wouldn’t it make sense that he would appeal directly go God about it? You know, that free will / free choice / free agency thing?

    Oh but I forget–the mormon church has the right to ignore dead people’s free choice. ‘Cause it’s a gift that the church, in it’s all knowingly fashion, bestows on all the rest us heathens.

    After all, why let God take care of giving that gift when the church can take care of that little pesky detail for Him, right?

    Is that the point you meant, boy?


  51. azteclady says:

    (I have entirely too much time in my hands)


  52. azteclady says:

    (and typos are eeeeeeeeevil :sigh:)


  53. Todd says:


    I think you’re starting to get it!

    Of course, all gifts from God are there for the taking; but are of absolutely no benefit if the recipient doesn’t accept them. This same logic applies to the atonement and all other blessings available to God’s children. If an individual doesn’t accept (i.e. receive) the gift enabled by the atonement via repentance and obedience, etc., it’s of zero benefit. It’s that free will / free choice / free agency thing again.

    I would further argue that an appeal directly to God is quite possibly what resulted in the doctrine of proxy baptism. Jesus himself on many occasions asked those seeking His divine help to go do seemingly mundane things, like wash in the river, etc. So, proxy baptism would definitely be within the range of plausible divine requirements based on a direct appeal for intervention.

    I do like that you’re thinking about the “why” though. Why wouldn’t God just handle it himself? You know, snap his fingers and save us all the trouble. Hmmmm… I guess He has His reasons….girl! 🙂



  54. Tracy says:

    azteclady, the Mormons have relieved God of a great responsibility. He no longer has the power over our lives, and we no longer make our decisions for ourselves in regards to what we believe, the Mormons will do it for us, whether we like it or not.

    It’s their will over God’s, and they will win, because even God doesn’t know what is good for his children, only the First Presidency and the Quorum of Twelve.


  55. azteclady says:

    Tracy, I could kiss you–you just gave me the most perfect cue to post one of my most favorite quotes ever:

    Zealot: someone who does what God would do, if only God understood the situation.


  56. Natalie's Editor says:

    Wow!! Natalie, if you are going to try to have an official website with profanities, please, learn how to spell damnit!!


  57. Renee says:

    Natalie’s Editor – if you read her most recent post, she doesn’t need your crap. Idiot.


  58. Tracy says:

    Hey Natalie’s Editor, who made you the spelling nazi? Jerk.


  59. nerdycellist says:

    Oh No! Profanities!!! Also, gerunds and participles – to say nothing of the rampant use of modifiers. I, too, have been shocked by the promiscuous use of the entire ENGLISH LANGUAGE around here. Or might have been, if I were still a priggish, self-important 13-year old who liked to draw attention to her own holiness by pointing out an adult’s minor-league “naughtiness”.

    Thanks, editor – you’re so special and nice and the rest of us are bad and not nice. Maybe you’ll share some further passive aggression regarding sleeve-length or coffee cups and the appearance of evil. Meanwhile, I’ll be over here confusing eros with agape. I’m pretty sure I’ll be having more fun.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s