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

[Tacenda]

6 minutes ago, Rain said:

 

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

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. 

I stumbled across Jeff Gaffigan not too long ago, and really loved his act on youtube, now I can't remember which one it was.

[bluebell]

The Dry Bar Comedy club usually hosts funny comedians and they are o.k. for all ages.  You can google them and they have a ton of stuff on YouTube (and Facebook).  One of my favorites is "Defiantly Going to Collage"

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

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 such, I can't say I remember any actual person 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.

Indeed. At least in our ward, there aren’t a whole lot of opportunities to check out Brother Taylor’s or Sister Pratt’s underclothes. It’s a tad strange that someone would even be curious whether or not they were wearing garments. Seems kind of puerile. As Brother Brigham said, “To mind your own business incorporates the whole duty of man.” I reckon someone’s undies are their business. It is best that we all learn to mind our own business.

Regarding the so-called comedian and BoMTM, anyone can be offensive and vulgar and get cheap laughs. Requiring zero talent or intelligence, it’s  the laziest form of wit. It illustrates the joylessly dumbed-down state of our pop culture. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I don't care if it's freedom of speech, I would cut the guy off from performing there. But I guess I'm an emotional person that way. 

I wouldn't. I certainly wouldn't go, but I'm pretty committed to free expression as a principle. This has to include potentially holding things I consider sacred up to ridicule.

[Tacenda]

8 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I wouldn't. I certainly wouldn't go, but I'm pretty committed to free expression as a principle. This has to include potentially holding things I consider sacred up to ridicule.

I know and it was my emotional side, my brain side feels as you do. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 hours ago, cinepro said:

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

I call shenanigans on this claim.

[sunstoned]

10 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.

This is tasteless and totally our of line.

[Robert F. Smith]

36 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

This is tasteless and totally our of line.

Maybe so, but it is fully acceptable in throwing shade at Mormons.  Had he used the n-word it would have been much different, and the UofU would have cancelled his appearance.  Cross is crass and smug.  He knows that he can get away with it and doesn't care at all.  

[california boy]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Maybe so, but it is fully acceptable in throwing shade at Mormons.  Had he used the n-word it would have been much different, and the UofU would have cancelled his appearance.  Cross is crass and smug.  He knows that he can get away with it and doesn't care at all.  

Some people find it ok to throw shade on those that throw shade on other peoples beliefs such as how the church devalues gay marriages, their families, as well as their civil rights.  Personally, I think it is never ok to devalue another's beliefs and what they highly value.  I find this comics exploration and demeaning of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints beliefs to be offensive and unacceptable.  Two wrongs don't make a right.

Edited August 21, 2018 by california boy

[Kenngo1969]

11 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I stumbled across Jeff Gaffigan [sic] not too long ago, and really loved his act on youtube, now I can't remember which one it was.

Jim.  

[Tacenda]

6 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Jim.  

Thanks Ken! Didn't catch that!!

[pogi]

11 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I call shenanigans on this claim.

I don't know, it can be pretty hard to hide, at least for the brethren...

This pic made the rounds:

[RevTestament]

21 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.

Yes, it is in poor taste, and I believe LDS Christians ought to boycott this disrespectful performer. However, under current law, this is a free speech issue. If porn can be protected as free speech, despite the desires of state legislators, so can this kind of mockery. It really is nothing knew and is tame compared to what comics have portrayed before about the Church - using racial prejudices and prejudices against polygamy to scare the public and demean the Church. This is the category in which Mr. Cross has now placed himself in my mind. There are good-humored ways to poke fun at the Church, but once someone starts being disrespectful or mean-spirited, I draw the line.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Yes, it is in poor taste, and I believe LDS Christians ought to boycott this disrespectful performer. However, under current law, this is a free speech issue. If porn can be protected as free speech, despite the desires of state legislators, so can this kind of mockery. It really is nothing knew and is tame compared to what comics have portrayed before about the Church - using racial prejudices and prejudices against polygamy to scare the public and demean the Church. This is the category in which Mr. Cross has now placed himself in my mind. There are good-humored ways to poke fun at the Church, but once someone starts being disrespectful or mean-spirited, I draw the line.

I understand it being a free speech issue, but at the same time, would the U host a porn convention or a white supremacy rally?  Maybe they would but I think probably not. 

Which makes it seem that it’s not completely about the First Amendment. 

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

Some people find it ok to throw shade on those that throw shade on other peoples beliefs such as how the church devalues gay marriages, their families, as well as their civil rights.  Personally, I think it is never ok to devalue another's beliefs and what they highly value.  I find this comics exploration and demeaning of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints beliefs to be offensive and unacceptable.  Two wrongs don't make a right.

Yes, but the ADL (for example) would never accept the notion that anti-Semitic remarks are O.K. in light of some of the wrongs done by the state of Israel to the Palestinians, and Cross wouldn't dare use an anti-Semitic slur just for the reason that the ADL would hit him so hard.  Mormons are an easy target, and Cross is a hypocrite to selectively attack when he sees a weakness.  The Mormon herd is easy pickens for a predator.  The UofU goes along with it for the same reason that they have always allowed atrocious behavior toward the Mormons and BYU.  Civility be damned.

Some years ago, an elderly couple from my ward went to a BYU - UofU game.  Aside from all the profanity freely expressed by UofU students, they got beer poured on them by UofU students.  They never went to another such game.  

As to the claim that "the church devalues gay marriages, their families, as well as their civil rights," that is not completely true.  It leaves out concrete improvements in LDS official efforts to push for LGBTQ civil rights, as well as to find some sort of rapprochement with that community in keeping with actual LDS doctrine.  Certainly moreso than Muslims and Orthodox Jews.  LDS are simply not credited for anything positive that they do.  Anything short of completely changing doctrine is viewed as complete failure to comply with the demands of the LGBTQ community.  I should have thought that finding a modus vivendi would be enough.  Nothing short of unconditional surrender?

[RevTestament]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I understand it being a free speech issue, but at the same time, would the U host a porn convention or a white supremacy rally?  Maybe they would but I think probably not. 

Which makes it seem that it’s not completely about the First Amendment. 

My guess is when he was booked, there was nothing like this being aired. Then since he is coming to U of U, he thought it would be "funny" to do this garment thing. This now leaves the University in the position of allowing him to come or canceling him. If he is canceled, what might he do? He would say I had no problem being booked until I did the garment promo, and then I got canceled. He would claim it's an obvious case of a state entity violating his free speech. I believe that is why the Univ pres is denouncing the garment promo as offensive but saying it is protected by free speech. Whether you feel there is something else going on is frankly irrelevant to the decision. Maybe you are right. I don't think a porn convention would gather much interest in Utah, but white supremacists have pushed their free speech rights before at colleges and public parks. I don't think in this case the University realized what it was getting itself into - that came about when Mr Cross chose to create this offensive promo after he had already gotten his billing. To cancel now would potentially subject the university to a lawsuit. The right way for LDS to handle this is to boycott Mr Cross imho. I don't think you are going to get the University to cancel him.

[Jeanne]

I don't object to the U of U not censoring at that time..I respect them for that because it takes the rights away from others...that being said, I don't think he will be invited again.  He shot himself in the foot on this. 

[Kenngo1969]

21 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

... I don't think in this case the University realized what it was getting itself into - that came about when Mr Cross chose to create this offensive promo after he had already gotten his billing. To cancel now would potentially subject the university to a lawsuit. [Emphasis added by Kenngo1969.] The right way for LDS to handle this is to boycott Mr Cross imho. I don't think you are going to get the University to cancel him.

On what grounds?

[Kenngo1969]

24 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I don't object to the U of U not censoring at that time.. I respect them for that because it takes the rights away from others [Emphasis added by Kenngo1969.] ...that being said, I don't think he will be invited again.  He shot himself in the foot on this. 

How so?

Hint: A government or one of its entities (such as the University of Utah) saying, "You can't say that!" is censorship.  By contrast, a government or one of its entities saying, "You can say whatever you want, you just can't say it here," is not censorship, nor does it take away anyone's rights.  The First Amendment protects a person's right to speak.  It does not, however, guarantee him a venue at which to do so, nor does it guarantee him a captive audience to which he may speak.

Edited August 21, 2018 by Kenngo1969

[bluebell]

25 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

My guess is when he was booked, there was nothing like this being aired. Then since he is coming to U of U, he thought it would be "funny" to do this garment thing. This now leaves the University in the position of allowing him to come or canceling him. If he is canceled, what might he do? He would say I had no problem being booked until I did the garment promo, and then I got canceled. He would claim it's an obvious case of a state entity violating his free speech. I believe that is why the Univ pres is denouncing the garment promo as offensive but saying it is protected by free speech. Whether you feel there is something else going on is frankly irrelevant to the decision. Maybe you are right. I don't think a porn convention would gather much interest in Utah, but white supremacists have pushed their free speech rights before at colleges and public parks. I don't think in this case the University realized what it was getting itself into - that came about when Mr Cross chose to create this offensive promo after he had already gotten his billing. To cancel now would potentially subject the university to a lawsuit. The right way for LDS to handle this is to boycott Mr Cross imho. I don't think you are going to get the University to cancel him.

No, it's frankly not irrelevant.  It's my entire point.

My point is that entertainers in our society get away with mocking the restored gospel of Jesus Christ when they would never get away with mocking black people, Jewish people, or, being pro-white supremacy (to name a few examples).  All of those forms of mockery or support would be issues of free speech, but not all of them are as acceptable as mocking latter-day saints.

And to clarify, I don't care if the U cancels the show or not.  It's the cultural attitude that would allow someone to think that it would be good for business to mock our beliefs that I'm talking about.

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

On what grounds?

I'm not a lawyer, but unless there was a clause in the contract that disallowed the photo, I'm guessing it would at least be breach of contract.

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

How so?

Hint: A government or one of its entities (such as the University of Utah) saying, "You can't say that!" is censorship.  By contrast, a government or one of its entities saying, "You can say whatever you want, you just can't say it here," is not censorship, nor does it take away anyone's rights.  The First Amendment protects a person's right to speak.  It does not, however, guarantee him a venue at which to do so, nor does it guarantee him a captive audience to which he may speak.

Just thinking equal..that we all have a right to say things..of course it doesn't  mean we have to.  The rights of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are protected in a way .  What if networks refused General Conferences??  Or voices of other religions.  It is not easy to be fair in a world that isn't fair..

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

How so?

Hint: A government or one of its entities (such as the University of Utah) saying, "You can't say that!" is censorship.  By contrast, a government or one of its entities saying, "You can say whatever you want, you just can't say it here," is not censorship, nor does it take away anyone's rights.  The First Amendment protects a person's right to speak.  It does not, however, guarantee him a venue at which to do so, nor does it guarantee him a captive audience to which he may speak.

Yes, this is a crucial distinction that is often missed when people talk about free speech.

[Kenngo1969]

29 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Just thinking equal..that we all have a right to say things..of course it doesn't  mean we have to.  The rights of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are protected in a way .  What if networks refused General Conferences??  Or voices of other religions.  It is not easy to be fair in a world that isn't fair..

What does that mean, "thinking equal"?

Since "we all have a right to say things," how far does my "right to say things" extend?  May I raise a false alarm of "Fire!" in a crowded theatre?  May I make statements about you that I know are false and which a reasonable person would conclude may well subject you to public opprobrium?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints owns the networks on which it broadcasts General Conference and other Church-related programming, so if it is in compliance with the law otherwise, yes, I would say it would be a problem for the Federal Communications Commission  or some other government apparatus to say, "Nope!  Sorry, Church of Jesus Christ!  You can't broadcast your programming on your stations!"  Again, does the fact that "we all have a right to say things" mean that the State must guarantee me a venue and an audience?

Edited August 21, 2018 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

25 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I'm not a lawyer, but unless there was a clause in the contract that disallowed the photo, I'm guessing it would at least be breach of contract.

I'm not a lawyer, either, of course , and contract law was, Oh, so long ago!  Now, with those two exceedingly tiresome caveats out of the way, unless the contract was poorly drafted (and I'm not saying that it wasn't), more than likely, it gave each party an "opt-out" clause, preserving each party's right to cancel and enumerating what consideration the party opting out would owe the other party in the event that such a cancellation occurred.