The Public Affairs Department of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints announced Sunday morning that, effective immediately, Elder Dieter F. Uchtdorf of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles will sport a burqa-like head covering to all future public appearances.
“Recently it’s come to our attention that Elder Uchtdorf has, for some time, apparently, been arousing lust in Young Women and TwiMoms throughout the Church,” spokesman LaHortense Sticklefritz revealed in a recent press release. “In an effort to maintain the dignity his high and holy office merits, Elder Uchtdorf has graciously agreed to don several additional layers of inhibitive fabric when in public as an act of charity toward his fellowwoman.”
An anonymous participant in the Young Women’s program in attendance at General Conference expressed dismay at the news. “The European one?” she asked, seemingly incredulous. “Ooohhh! He has a hot bod! Do you know what type of hair gel he uses? I’d hate to see him, like, cover it up with a turban or whatever.”
“Polls have disclosed that his sexy and daring taste in ties, his bronzed skin, his mellifluous German accent, and his suave James-Bondian mannerisms all conspire to incite intrusive and unwanted sexual thoughts in innocent females of the Church the world over,” Sticklefritz affirmed. “We just couldn’t stand by idly once we recognized: Elder Uchtdorf has become pornography to some of the women who see him.”
Uchtdorf nobly accepted complete responsibility for all objectifying language used in reference to him. “Perhaps I haven’t been as sensitive as I might have to women’s needs to watch the Conference of the Lord while maintaining absolute sexual purity in their thoughts, and for this I apologize profusely,” he told a ZD reporter in a somewhat muffled voice from behind layers of fabric in a private interview Friday. Asked whether the additional clothing would be burdensome or demeaning, Uchtddorf insisted it was an honor to demonstrate his commitment to God over convenience or comfort. “Sometimes we forget that our clothing choices can inhibit others’ efforts at complete sexual repression,” he added. “For this the world groans in sin.”
Elder Uchtdorf’s restrictive head covering marks only the most recent in a series of increasingly draconian measures the Church has adopted with respect to body modesty.
“The world would have us believe that there’s no sartorial solution to the societal scourge of sexual seductiveness,” Sticklefritz stated. “Critics claim the only ways of completely purging the public square of sexual attraction are chemical or medical. But in the Church we know better. Clothing is key.”
Not all Church members agree. “I just think the modesty rules are getting more and more byzantine,” remarked Hoglah Wigglesworth, a women’s studies major in her third year at the University of Celestial Navel-Gazing and an advocate for family-friendly nudism. “Women are supposed to act feminine, but they’re also supposed to hide the fact that they have female bodies. We’re supposed to dress ‘modestly,’ but that seems to mean we should dress like we have money. Our clothes are supposed to be ‘nice’—which in our culture means fitted—but they should also disguise our figures—in other words, be frumpy. I don’t get it.”
Others have raised questions about the alleged timelessness of these principles, which Sticklefritz contends “were put in place by a loving Father in Heaven before the foundation of the world. From the beginning of time God has prohibited women from showing their belly buttons or their collar bones in public.”
“I think our leaders understand body modesty exactly backwards,” remarked anthropology professor Vashti Featherruffler, who teaches an undergraduate course in sartorial semiotics at Brimstone College. “Not counting our genitals, we generally cover up parts of our body in order to sexualize them; we don’t cover them up because they’re inherently sexual. Collar bones and belly buttons aren’t sexual in every culture. Neither are breasts. By fixating on rigid modesty norms we’re only making our public spaces more sexually charged, not less so.”
Others concur, marveling at the changes in body modesty evident even within the Church. “Can someone explain to me why Moroni’s robe was open to his bosom?” asked Rufus Ketzer, a construction worker in the Salt Lake valley who characterized Uchtdorf’s new headwear as “a ludicrous abomination.” “Were the heavenly modesty police not on duty that day, or are the eternal standards different in the celestial sphere?”
But in a private interview with ZD staff, Sticklefritz insisted a “sartorial magic bullet” is within reach. “We have faith that we can stop all sexual attraction in its tracks with clothing alone. It’s just going to take a lot of fabric and a little heat exhaustion.”
The TwiMoms salivating over Uchtdorf’s dashing figure would seemingly disagree. “If I can still see his eyes and hear his voice, he’ll still be a heartthrob to me,” confessed LuLu Shizbam, a mother of four who hosts a local Uchtdorf fan-club in her home. “There’s just no stopping it.”
insufficient! he must cover those eyes with mesh. i cannot look away from those eyes.
Hey, this isn’t funny.
It’s split-a-gut, pee-your-pants, laugh-until-it-hurts hilarious.
Of course, there is another demographic for whom this action by Elder Uchtdorf will be most helpful.
There is a very large subset of men in the church, ranging in age from deacons to high priests, who have been experiencing confusion about their divine gender roles when they catch sight of such a manly man as Elder U. All these years they thought they were heterosexual, but then they watch him preside in conference and suddenly they begin feeling so, so………free.
even as I watch conference this very moment, I feel the wisdom of this. My Uchtdorf crush overwhelms me.
This is hilarious and sad. I read a book where a muslim sect outlawed women wearing high heels because the clicky clack sounds of the heels enticed men. Sigh.
You just watch that loud laughter, Elder Burka.
My grandmother informed me today that she saw some pictures of Elder U. as a younger man and that he’s much better looking now, and will likely only improve with age. He’d better get that burqa on, posthaste, as I don’t think my grandma can be held responsible for her actions. I mean, it’s Elder Uchtdorf.
Just FYI, it’s *President* Uchtdorf.
And this is ludicrous.
Thanks for the feedback, Mother at Heart. So glad you enjoyed it!
You’re welcome.
Er, ludicrous as is foolish and ridiculous. Maybe blasphemous describes it better though. . . .
Aw, shucks, Mother {at} Heart. You’re just too kind. Ludicrous-Blasphemy’s my middle name, and I do aim to please.
Ooooh. So it’s blasphemous to hold someone else responsible for your own thoughts? Yeah, I can see that.
It’s blasphemous to speak of a prophet of the Lord in such a manner. I’ve never had to deal with a crush on any of the General Authorities. I can’t help but say that it’s a persons’ own problem (male or female) if they do. Referring to President Uchtdorf as “attractive” is one thing, but “sexy” is another.
Exactly. Some of the language used in reference to Uchtdorf rubs me the wrong way—not because he’s a prophet, but because he’s a person. I have no problem with blasphemy, but I do have a problem with objectification.
Exactly! Very nicely put.
Love this post! I recently watched a program in which one of our church leaders scolded women because 16 year-old boys, who were strategically placed on the stand above the congregation to administer the Sacrament, were taking advantage of their high view to look down women’s blouses. The solution? Not to scold the horny boys-in fact, the boys were praised for trying so hard to administer sacred ordinances while distracted by females. Placing the sacrament table to the same level as the congregation was not even suggested. Instead, the women were berated and told to do a better job of ensuring that boys couldn’t see into their blouses. This post (for those who didn’t get it) demonstrates how ridiculous it is to blame lust on those who are lusted upon. The speech I heard about women protecting boys by wearing turtlenecks makes about as much sense as a man protecting girls by donning a burka.
Wow. I don’t usually comment on articles that are so ludicrous that not even TMZ thinks it’s newsworthy, and they are the lowest of low, but this struck a chord of anger and annoyance in me. This is nothing but unfounded salacious slander. Lowering President Uchtdorf to the status of sex symbol is disrespectful. I don’t usually read trashy articles, but it popped up on my google search. I have respect for all religions and I have never felt compelled to criticize or fabricate false information about the leaders of other religions. And to use a burqa to cover his face is insulting to the Muslim religion. It doesn’t matter that Muslims in the middle east despise anything America, to retaliate only solidify the fact the we are hypocrites and no better than them in their terrorist attacks. We have freedom of speech–you could write a dozen obnoxious articles such as this and have no fear of recrimination from the government. President Uchtdorf could sue for slander, but it is not in his nature to allow the words of others to dictate his actions. He is truly a Christ-like individual. In the Muslim tradition, women wear robes that cover every part of a women’s skin, such as a burqa or an abaya, and the church of Latter Day Saints of Jesus Christ neither provokes nor criticizes other religions on their practices . We are allowed free agency, meaning we make our own decisions. It is not President Uchtdorf’s fault if you find him sexy, you choose to. We are here to learn discipline and to control our thoughts and actions. Here in America we have freedoms that most countries do not, such as Saudi Arabia and other countries in the middle east. Wearing the burqa could be deciphered as you and your site mocking what is a serious matter to Muslims. It is only matter of time before you will not have a job as a journalist, because you are going to write some more trash and someone’s is going to go after you legally. Appreciate your freedom of speech and use it to uplift and educate, rather than tear down others with stupid lies.You could make a difference if you really wanted to–but it will not be down this road you are currently traveling. This article is fluff and no one will ever take you serious. It’s not funny in any sense of the word. Oh, and you might want to work on your photo shop skills–my six year old could see that it was a fake picture. And if this is your idea of a joke, I recommend you rethink your sense of humor.
Should you feel the need to critique our flawless Photoshopping and journalism skills again, Kate, please stop first and remember that it is your duty to choose not to be offended.
Oh, no! K, your career in journalism is over before it even began.