Comments on: A Mormon Image: Preparing for the Wedding Reception

By: Bill of Wasilla

Bill of Wasilla — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 06:24:51 +0000

Thanks for the explanation, Kaimi

By: S. G.

S. G. — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 05:53:24 +0000

“My 6-year-old prefers to unbutton the top two buttons and then hang the little tie clip at mid-chest. I’m thinking about getting him some gold chains. Will that count against his priesthood advancement?”

Alison,

He’s not baptized yet, so all will be forgiven. However don’t let infractions such as these occur post-baptism or serious consequences in regards to priesthood ordination may occur. You will regret it when he is a 50-year old deacon, who still lives at home. : )

By: S. G.

S. G. — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 05:25:31 +0000

Actually, I think this is nothing more than a cynical attempt to get free, targeted advertising/product placement for Halladay Motors in Cheyenne, Wyoming, in an effort to capitalize on the lucrative Mormon market.

Halladay Motors…marketing geniuses I tell you… :)

By: Kaimi Wenger

Kaimi Wenger — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 17:31:00 +0000

Bill, your earlier comment was flagged as possible spam by our automated spam catcher. It’s a generally good program, and usually catches spam. (It had 207 spam comments this morning, linking to dubious sites involving porn, gambling, or pharmaceuticals.)

It occasionally gives a false positive and flags a legitimate comment as possible spam. Those don’t show up on blog until they’re manually checked and released. That was what happened with your earlier comment.

The wordpress spam filter is automatic, and uses a whole bunch of tests which are designed to flag spam and not legit comments. They don’t make the algorithms public (if they did, spammers would analyze it for gaps). It’s supposed to be a “learning” program — i.e. it adds new rules to itself based on comments that we flag as either spam that got through, or false positives, so that it doesn’t repeat those errors in the future.

Anyway, that’s what happened to your earlier comment. Sorry about that.

And thanks for your submission, it looks good, and I’m adding it to the queue.

By: Johnna

Johnna — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 17:03:00 +0000

I agree with #16 sth. The way the woman is dressed does indicate LDS wedding reception. And I would add, not only for modest neckline, but also because the cardigan with white skirt is less expensive and more casual than you would probably see at a non-LDS wedding. All the moreso for the boy’s black pants, white shirt, and big bow tie, all nod to something more formal. And I think she looks lovely. Thanks for sharing the picture, L-s Sus

By: Bill of Wasilla

Bill of Wasilla — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:47:31 +0000

Now, this is really strange. When I came to my computer this morning, I did a “refresh” on this page and the followup comment that I wrote last night was not there.

So, as stated above, I restated it and posted again.

And now the comment from last night has suddenly appeared, too!

And so has the new one.

I look so redundant!

But anyway, L-d sus, it should be clear to you now that your image is appreciated!

By: Bill of Wasilla

Bill of Wasilla — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:38:08 +0000

typo: should read “does not reach as deep…”

By: Bill of Wasilla

Bill of Wasilla — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:36:05 +0000

Well, I wrote a followup comment addressed largely to L-d sus last night, but it didn’t show up here. I can’t recreate it, but I will state the main theme of it:

L-d sus, I think your photo works. To me, this definitely looks like a young Mormon boy. If I had seen this photo in a context with no other information, I would have thought, “Mormon boy” right away. Yes, a Catholic boy could conceivably be dressed the same, but so what?

As to the issue of “busy,” again – so what? Life can be busy. In this regard, the flagpole is the most “busy” element, but I rather like it. Mormon Churches generally all have a flag flying. Not all other churches do.

And I decided to go ahead and submit a photo, anyway, one that was easily at hand, deep not reach as deep perhaps as some of my Mormon photos but none-the-less has a strong personal significance to me and should, in some way, speak to others who lack that same personal tie – even though I do not know the subjects.

By: sth

sth — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:03:55 +0000

With no other explanation, you can definitely tell it’s a Mormon picture. Any non-LDS woman going to a wedding reception would be wearing a dress that showed a huge amount of cleavage whenever she bent over like that.

By: crazywomancreek

crazywomancreek — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:18:32 +0000

I love the photo, I think people who comment negatively on pictures of children will be seated next to library-cell-phone-talkers in Hell and finally, I believe that is a truck purchased in Cheyenne behind you. Well done.