Comic's ad for Utah Show includes picture of him in garments

[pogi]

23 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I'm disappointed, but this is pretty much what I'd expect from a never-nude.

(He also had a small role in Spielberg's "The Post":)
 

That's a great pick.  I never would have imagined all 3 of those actors together in a scene.  I really liked all of them before, but now I am disappointed in the middle guy. 

Edited August 20, 2018 by pogi

[pogi]

I remember what a never-nude is now! Lol!

 

[Okrahomer]

Folks in Utah should not be too shocked by this; after all, the long-running "Saturday's Voyeur" has lampooned Temple garments on-stage for years.  Some lass active LDS friends of mine invited me to attend a performance several years ago when I was fresh out of BYU.  I'll admit that I found a lot to laugh about--until this particular scene.  Not only did it deeply offend me, I felt my friends (who knew exactly what was coming) had completely blindsided me; and were actually more interested in my reaction to this scene than they were in the play itself.  I don't accept this sort of invitation from these sorts of friends without doing a bit of research any more.

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Not all reaction and attention is good for comedians - Michael Richards got PLENTY of reaction and attention from his racist rant in 2006, which ended up negatively impacting his career. 

Sure but most people out there don’t relate at all to sacred underwear.  So I think most wont see this as a big deal and it’s likely Cross has little idea how big a deal this will be for many people.  On the other hand racism is understood by most so it makes sense to have Repercussions.  

I’m not feeling the offense...feeling a little more like he doesn’t really know what he’s doing and wish him the best.  

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Sure but most people out there don’t relate at all to sacred underwear.  So I think most wont see this as a big deal and it’s likely Cross has little idea how big a deal this will be for many people.  On the other hand racism is understood by most so it makes sense to have Repercussions.  

I’m not feeling the offense...feeling a little more like he doesn’t really know what he’s doing and wish him the best.  

Yep. This is exactly why very few people outside the church objected to the Book of Mormon musical's merciless lampooning of the church and its missionaries but some people did object to the depiction of African people, calling it offensive and racist. Apparently, if you're a small enough group on the margins of society, you're still fair game. 

[Calm]

Would most people respond well to underwear jokes in general?  That they may not get the depth of insult this is, sure, but I think most would understand there is a problem.

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Yep. This is exactly why very few people outside the church objected to the Book of Mormon musical's merciless lampooning of the church and its missionaries but some people did object to the depiction of African people, calling it offensive and racist. Apparently, if you're a small enough group on the margins of society, you're still fair game. 

Perhaps it was just the reviews I happened to come across, but I saw a number of reviews recognizing the offensiveness of lampooning a religion so I wouldn't categorize it as "very few".

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Calm said:

Perhaps it was just the reviews I happened to come across, but I saw a number of reviews recognizing the offensiveness of lampooning a religion so I wouldn't categorize it as "very few".

Well, my impression (it's been a while), is that a few reviewers--I recall National Review, for one--objected, but the overwhelming majority did not. And certainly the popularity of the play and the awards it won suggest that, if there were any qualms about religious mockery, they weren't enough to keep people from enjoying it. 

And no, I am not justifying the lampooning of the church at all. I sort of understand what Parker and Stone were trying to do, but I thought there was no reason to ridicule people's religious beliefs. 

[Tacenda]

42 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Sure but most people out there don’t relate at all to sacred underwear.  So I think most wont see this as a big deal and it’s likely Cross has little idea how big a deal this will be for many people.  On the other hand racism is understood by most so it makes sense to have Repercussions.  

I’m not feeling the offense...feeling a little more like he doesn’t really know what he’s doing and wish him the best.  

I guess I shouldn't be offended since I'm not a TBM or true believing latter-day saint like I once was. But I still wear garments, so it's one thing I can't let go quite yet. And I hate that others in my inactive family see what I wear. So I don't like the judgements. 

ETA: Also, since the temple sessions are being privately recorded and blasted out on youtube, now my inactive or non lds family members look at me strangely, or it's all in my head. 

Edited August 20, 2018 by Tacenda

[pogi]

25 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Sure but most people out there don’t relate at all to sacred underwear.  So I think most wont see this as a big deal and it’s likely Cross has little idea how big a deal this will be for many people.  On the other hand racism is understood by most so it makes sense to have Repercussions.  

I’m not feeling the offense...feeling a little more like he doesn’t really know what he’s doing and wish him the best.  

I agree that this wont be viewed as a big deal to most.  However, based on the reaction this has received, Cross has a very good idea now of how big a deal this is for members and others, but he doesn't seem to care.  Why?  Probably for the very reason you mentioned, it is not a big enough deal for enough people.  That is lame!   That shows no integrity.  It is like making fun of black people, only until it becomes unpopular. 

[SouthernMo]

Things I understand:

David Cross has not made the covenants associated with the garment, and seems to be wearing the (albeit photo-shopped) garments to shock.  He likely knew that what he was doing would be offensive to some.  He has every right to be offensive, but I don't have to like it.

For those who have made covenants associated with the garment, tradition, the LDS handbook, and LDS.org teach that the garment should be covered by other clothing.

Something I don't understand:

Why must the garment always be covered?  This seems to be more of a covenant/symbolic 'rule' than a modesty issue.

In Genesis 3:21 and in holy places, we learn that the garment's function is to cover Adam and Eve (and symbolically, all of us).  Why then, the need to cover the cover?

How does the need to cover one's garment relate to the teaching in LDS handbook 2: "Wearing the garment is also an outward expression of an inward commitment to follow the Savior."  How can it be an 'outward expression' if no one (besides those VERY close to us?) is allowed to see one wear it?

Would love any official teachings and/or speculation.  Also - I am aware that one of the reasons is probably just good sense to not expose one's underwear no matter what kind one chooses to wear.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900028735/u-president-decries-deeply-offensive-tweet-from-comedian-david-cross.html

I've never heard of this guy, but I'm flabbergasted that he thinks this is o.k.  If he did this with something Jewish people believed was sacred, would he get away with it?  Would the university still say that it was protected free speech?  Sincere questions as I can't wrap my head around people who are like this and then defend it.

Also, did the SLC tribune cover this story?  So far I've only seen it in the Charlotte observer, but the trip's paywall could be the reason.

It is quite clear that Mormons are allowed targets. Even in SLC at General Conference those who yell obscenities, that otherwise get them arrested, are protected by the police. News agencies, do not report it, but would be go crazy if it were Jewish or Muslims groups, no only U.S. news agencies, but much of the world. Simply put, all but four days of the year in SLC, people yelling obscenities would be locked up for disturbing the peace, and disorderly conduct. On the days we are their to worship, barely "ANY" behavior is not protected by the police.  

[cinepro]

4 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

How can it be an 'outward expression' if no one (besides those VERY close to us?) is allowed to see one wear it?

I'm pretty sure everyone in your ward knows if you're wearing garments or not.

[SouthernMo]

2 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I'm pretty sure everyone in your ward knows if you're wearing garments or not.

Interesting - so the intent might be as an outward expression to those who can see the little lines and creases that show through our outer clothing?  But it's not an outward expression to those who wouldn't recognize 'garment lines?'

And then if that is true, should we be encouraged to wear clothes (men and women) that show off just a little garment to make sure people in our wards know we're wearing garments?

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, SouthernMo said:

Interesting - so the intent might be as an outward expression to those who can see the little lines and creases that show through our outer clothing?  But it's not an outward expression to those who wouldn't recognize 'garment lines?'

And then if that is true, should we be encouraged to wear clothes (men and women) that show off just a little garment to make sure people in our wards know we're wearing garments?

Then there's the "garment feel-up," which is always fun.

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Interesting - so the intent might be as an outward expression to those who can see the little lines and creases that show through our outer clothing?  But it's not an outward expression to those who wouldn't recognize 'garment lines?'

And then if that is true, should we be encouraged to wear clothes (men and women) that show off just a little garment to make sure people in our wards know we're wearing garments?

I think they mean outward expression to ourselves. 

[SouthernMo]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

I think they mean outward expression to ourselves. 

While that may be, my initial read is that would be a little oxy-moronic.  But, again, I don't know - so thanks for sharing the possibility!

[Calm]

32 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I guess I shouldn't be offended since I'm not a TBM or true believing latter-day saint like I once was. But I still wear garments, so it's one thing I can't let go quite yet. And I hate that others in my inactive family see what I wear. So I don't like the judgements. 

ETA: Also, since the temple sessions are being privately recorded and blasted out on youtube, now my inactive or non lds family members look at me strangely, or it's all in my head. 

It is underwear.  And he is essentially labeling a group by its underwear.

You don't need to believe garments have sacred significance to get that such portrayal is not civil.  If he was coming into a predominantly female area and chose to wear women's underwear to mock, I think most people would find that inappropriate and offensive.

There is also the simple cultural significance.  Even if something does not have religious overtones, when something is highly identified with a culture and it is lampooned, most people will understand why those of that culture will be offended.

Edited August 20, 2018 by Calm

[Jeanne]

It upsets me that he did this..the reality is underwear isn't funny.  It is just not.  It has been a long time since a comedian gave me a real belly laugh..has humor changed? I am embarrassed for him. 

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is underwear.  And he is essentially labeling a group by its underwear.

You don't need to believe garments have sacred significance to get that such portrayal is not civil.  If he was coming into a predominantly female area and chose to wear women's underwear, I think most people would find that inappropriate and offensive.

It was obviously done to get attention, the more offensive the better. If he was going to Riyadh and had a flier in which he was dressed in a burqa, he would probably not make it to the venue from the airport. 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, cinepro said:

I'm pretty sure everyone in your ward knows if you're wearing garments or not.

I don't believe I have a clue for the vast majority because I don't look.  The only ones I would know if I thought about it is those with clothing that is sheer enough it stands out or who choose to wear sleeveless...and while on occasion I note someone is wearing such, I can't say I remember the names or faces  or anything else of any of these except for one young lady who wore a spaghetti strapped dress to a seminary graduation...hadn't noted her attire prior to this, it was just the juxtaposition of wearing such a dress and accepting a certificate for seminary I found notable because I was thinking "that wouldn't make for a shot in the New Era, I bet".  It was a nice summer dress, imo. And likely the dressiest thing she had and thus probably her effort to be respectful.

Perhaps you assume everyone knows about who is wearing garments because you make it a habit to look?    

I suspect there is a good proportion of members who don't.  I have, for example, never had a conversation with another member except on this message board about noticing who is and who isn't wearing garments save for one case back at BYU where a young man who had not gone on a mission was complaining about how it mattered so much to the young women.  And I was quite surprised at his insistence since I had never heard in the dorms, classes, apartments, or anywhere else such a discussion among my fellow female students.

Edited August 21, 2018 by Calm

[Vanguard]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I guess I shouldn't be offended since I'm not a TBM or true believing latter-day saint like I once was. But I still wear garments, so it's one thing I can't let go quite yet. And I hate that others in my inactive family see what I wear. So I don't like the judgements. 

ETA: Also, since the temple sessions are being privately recorded and blasted out on youtube, now my inactive or non lds family members look at me strangely, or it's all in my head. 

So you think a person has to be a TBM to appreciate or even feel the offense? What about offense at something you once held sacred? It should all be erased away? : (

[carbon dioxide]

Since I strongly believe in the First Amendment and that censorship is toxic to liberty, I support his right to do this even though it is in very bad taste.  What it does demonstrate that he himself is admitting that he is not that great of a comedian.  The great ones don't need to do things like this to draw crowds.  They don't need to be this offensive to be funny.  They have talent.  Anyone can be offensive to get a laugh or two from somebody but that does not mean they have talent. 

[USU78]

2 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

It is quite clear that Mormons are allowed targets. Even in SLC at General Conference those who yell obscenities, that otherwise get them arrested, are protected by the police. News agencies, do not report it, but would be go crazy if it were Jewish or Muslims groups, no only U.S. news agencies, but much of the world. Simply put, all but four days of the year in SLC, people yelling obscenities would be locked up for disturbing the peace, and disorderly conduct. On the days we are their to worship, barely "ANY" behavior is not protected by the police.  

There was an elderly crank that wore ritual temple gear while marching up and down South Temple on the sidewalk outside Temple Square back when I worked downtown ('84-'02).  She had hand-done brochures she'd try to hand out, and if you spoke with her, even to say hello [which I tried], she would launch into typical Godbeite tirades.

Cranks.

[Rain]

 

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I think they mean outward expression to ourselves. 

I would heart this if I could. I don't know if it is the same for everyone,  but it is to many.

3 hours ago, Jeanne said:

It upsets me that he did this..the reality is underwear isn't funny.  It is just not.  It has been a long time since a comedian gave me a real belly laugh..has humor changed? I am embarrassed for him. 

There are some good comedians now, but I do find them hard to find sometimes. There may be a thread on it in the social hall from some time ago? Either that or I am thinking of another board.