Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

FauxRaiden wrote:I think the person should be allowed to do whatever they want, so long as they don't partake. If I can be a barista or bartender without having to drink either, what's the problem? I don't think I'm actively condoning anything, I'm just making a sale. Am I supposed to quit working at movie theaters that show rated R movies, stores that sell wine, or companies that work on sunday (even if I don't)?

Would your opinion (or anyone else's) be different if we were talking about working for a company that created and/or distributed pornography? Or if you worked at a (legal) brothel? Or at an abortion clinic? After all, you're not actively condoning prostitution or abortion or the viewing of pornography, you're just making a sale.

If so, how do you differentiate? (And if not: really?)

(Just to be clear here, I'm again talking about companies whose main business is these activities, not about companies that mainly focus on other things.)

FauxRaiden wrote:On a related note, I always wondered how the church feels about nude modeling or nude artistry. It's not as though these people that are doing the art or modeling are doing it for sexual purposes, it would seem to be okay, no?

Uhh...I was fairly recently at an arts "soiree" in the East Village where there was live nude modeling by the head of the New York School of Burlesque....who goes by Jo "Boobs" Weldon (no joke). It was $5 PER MINUTE to watch a wire sculpting of her. Most of the photograph exhibits were nudes of a very sexual nature. (I was volunteering for a charity event for orphans, okay! I didn't go for the porn "art" fest. I had no idea it would be what it was.)

I realize this was the East Village scene and a lot more scandalous than usual, but I tend to think that there are a whole lot more people modeling nude for sexual purposes than not. Also, modeling nude for a photograph (even a non-sexual one) seems really different from modeling for a classical style sculpture, or nude painting, to me.

People that get upset about classical nudes, especially the David, drive me nuts. You can't study art without it, and to me there's a huge difference between tasteful nudes like David and smut. There are nudes that are all about the subject being naked, and nudes where being nude is beside the point. David's man-parts are not what the statue is about. I'll never forget seeing it in person, it's very, very powerful. It feels sacred. You can miss a whole lot of the high points of human achievement if you refuse to see any nudes. I feel like tasteful ones can uplift and glorify the human body, not degrade and defile it.

/tangent

I worked at a restaurant and served alcohol while a BYU student. It didn't occur to me at the time that I was breaking the HC. It seems pharisee-esque to say that you can't have any exposure to alcohol, whether or not you're partaking. Most people drink at least socially on occasion. Interpreted strictly, I wouldn't have been allowed to even go to some non-member friends' or even a few family members' weddings. That's just ridiculous. I'm all for the spirit of the law where that's concerned.

habiba wrote:It seems pharisee-esque to say that you can't have any exposure to alcohol, whether or not you're partaking.

I like this. I like this a lot.

habiba wrote:I worked at a restaurant and served alcohol while a BYU student. It didn't occur to me at the time that I was breaking the HC. It seems pharisee-esque to say that you can't have any exposure to alcohol, whether or not you're partaking. Most people drink at least socially on occasion. Interpreted strictly, I wouldn't have been allowed to even go to some non-member friends' or even a few family members' weddings. That's just ridiculous. I'm all for the spirit of the law where that's concerned.

I agree. (I'm actually not sure that anyone has espoused that viewpoint, however; people keep arguing against it, but as far as I can tell no one is actually in favor of it. )

Ha, the spirit of the law, ha. Let's all embrace that.

/no real contribution to discussion

Laser Jock wrote:

habiba wrote:I worked at a restaurant and served alcohol while a BYU student. It didn't occur to me at the time that I was breaking the HC. It seems pharisee-esque to say that you can't have any exposure to alcohol, whether or not you're partaking. Most people drink at least socially on occasion. Interpreted strictly, I wouldn't have been allowed to even go to some non-member friends' or even a few family members' weddings. That's just ridiculous. I'm all for the spirit of the law where that's concerned.

I agree. (I'm actually not sure that anyone has espoused that viewpoint, however; people keep arguing against it, but as far as I can tell no one is actually in favor of it. )

I think the wording of the Honor Code (as stated on the Ecclesiastical Endorsement form) implies a strict interpretation. However, I just noticed that the wording on the Ecclesiastical Endorsement form is different from the wording on the Honor Code website. Perhaps it is something that has been altered over the years.

Ecclesiastical Endorsement Form wrote:All students shall be required to conduct  themselves in a manner consistent with the principles of The Church of  Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the BYU Honor Code. Furthermore,  all students are required to abstain from possessing, serving, or  consuming alcoholic beverages, tobacco, tea, coffee, or harmful drugs.
[...]
(The  standards expressed above apply to students at all times, whether on or off campus.)

Source: http://theboard.byu.edu/index.php?area=viewall&id=57832

Honor Code Website wrote:All students and residents are required to conduct themselves in a manner consistent with the Honor Code. Students must abstain from the use of alcohol, tobacco, and illegal substances and from the intentional misuse or abuse of any substance.

Source: http://saas.byu.edu/catalog/2009-2010uc ... orCode.php

Therefore, I have no idea.

Since both apply, it seems reasonable to me that we're to live by both: that is, we're not to use alcohol, tobacco, etc. (per the statement on the Honor Code website) and we're also not supposed to possess or serve such substances (as further detailed by agreement we sign as part of obtaining an ecclesiastical endorsement). Rather than contradicting, one simply goes into more detail (or adds more restrictions, if you prefer).

(Note that the Honor Code website also says that "Specific policies embodied in the Honor Code include (1) the Academic Honesty Policy, (2) the Dress and Grooming Standards, (3) the Residential Living Standards, and (4) the Continuing Student Ecclesiastical Endorsement." [emphasis added])

Laser Jock wrote: Would your opinion (or anyone else's) be different if we were talking about working for a company that created and/or distributed pornography? Or if you worked at a (legal) brothel? Or at an abortion clinic? After all, you're not actively condoning prostitution or abortion or the viewing of pornography, you're just making a sale.

If so, how do you differentiate? (And if not: really?)

(Just to be clear here, I'm again talking about companies whose main business is these activities, not about companies that mainly focus on other things.)

I was tempted to say I don't differentiate just to mess with you.

Ya know, I'm not sure exactly where we should draw the line. I think it just comes down to personal accountability and your relationship with God. If you can pray and feel that working at one of these places is acceptable, who am I to deny that?

I'll say this much, I think the line just has to be said "within reason". I think it comes down to whether you're advocating a negative lifestyle or not. A barista and bartender don't [generally] go out and encourage people to live that lifestyle, they simply provide the service. A brothel...well I'm not exactly sure how that works so I can't really speak to it. Doesn't sound like it would be acceptable as that's dealing with something much more serious than drinking coffee. An abortion clinic is a sketchy subject especially since the church has never technically said abortion was against the church laws. I'm going out on a limb and suggesting that it would be acceptable, but as I've mentioned that's VERY sketchy. As far as porn goes, that's another thing that I think goes along with prostitution. It's such a severe sin to indulge in the act that I would say it's not acceptable on that premise. The nature of the job is such that it would be impossible to stay away from it. In other words, too risky.

I don't know, this is really just the way I feel and has no real arguable basis and as such and I can't advocate it for anyone but myself.

As per the nude artistry comment,

I suppose nude artistry is another slippery slope. It could just come down to whether or not it's tasteful art or not, such as the statue of David which is celebrating the intricacy of the human body. I mean, if you're modeling for porn that's a different story but if you're modeling to make a statement about say the taboo of the human anatomy, well that's another story. I guess it's just another case by case basis but I don't have a problem with nude artistry.

It kinda just comes down to the intent. Like in some movies, I feel that sexual scenes do a lot for the movie and are tasteful. On the other hand, a lot (read: most)of movies just do it so the audience will be happy. *shrug*

Just poking my head back in to give a thumbs up for the use of the term "man parts".

I would also like to applaud the use of man parts.

I'd like to point out that there's a very stark difference between the following phrases:

Marduk wrote:the use of the term "man parts".

thebigcheese wrote:the use of man parts.

Anyway...

Just sayin'

FauxRaiden wrote:An abortion clinic is a sketchy subject especially since the church has never technically said abortion was against the church laws.

Hmmmm, false. This article by Elder Nelson quotes the sentiments of President Kimball that basically summarize the current statement in the Church Handbook. Also for the record, Mormon doctors are not allowed to perform abortion operations unless the abortion would be allowed by the Church--they would be subject to Church discipline if they "made a sale."

Now, if you just work at an abortion clinic, things are different, but I thought I would make that clear.

Right, meaning that there are allowable circumstances and there are proscribed circumstances. This is not the case for alcohol, pornography, coffee, um...."being naked", and the other things we've discussed.

Gimgimno wrote:

FauxRaiden wrote:An abortion clinic is a sketchy subject especially since the church has never technically said abortion was against the church laws.

Hmmmm, false. This article by Elder Nelson quotes the sentiments of President Kimball that basically summarize the current statement in the Church Handbook. Also for the record, Mormon doctors are not allowed to perform abortion operations unless the abortion would be allowed by the Church--they would be subject to Church discipline if they "made a sale."

Now, if you just work at an abortion clinic, things are different, but I thought I would make that clear.

That's why I said technically as there are still allowable circumstances under the church's sentiment for cases like rape and the like. Working at a regular abortion clinic is another story.

FauxRaiden wrote:That's why I said technically as there are still allowable circumstances under the church's sentiment for cases like rape and the like. Working at a regular abortion clinic is another story.

Dude, I already had you. Check the post one up. I got your back, brotha.

Marduk wrote:

FauxRaiden wrote:That's why I said technically as there are still allowable circumstances under the church's sentiment for cases like rape and the like. Working at a regular abortion clinic is another story.

Dude, I already had you. Check the post one up. I got your back, brotha.

*fist bump*