Kirby Heyborne Beer Commercial
Kirby Heyborne (Singles Ward, RM, The Best Two Years, Saints and Soldiers) recently acted in a commercial for US brewer Miller. Here's the video:
Any thoughts?
Popularity: 20% [?]
[?]
Type in a relevant tag, and click the button, and help organize this blog's information.
[More Help]
[More Help]
Maybe it was the root-brewski that attracted him there.
9 Jun 2008 @ 21:42 | Permalink
In spite of the big freak out many members seem to be having, they forget he is an actor, he took a job and at the end of the day, that's his choice, not ours.
10 Jun 2008 @ 4:09 | Permalink
Sooo Dissapointed. I'm going to have to destroy those pictures of my wife with Kirby now... :-)
10 Jun 2008 @ 7:53 | Permalink
And Gordon Jump played a child molester on a very special episode of the sitcom, "Diff'rent Strokes".
By the way, in Saints and Soldiers, Heyborne portrayed an RAF officer, and was depicted smoking a cigarette. Not much of a hue and cry over that that I can remember.
Is it the fact that he appears to be shilling for Miller Lite that is disturbing?
10 Jun 2008 @ 10:39 | Permalink
I agree with someone else that posted on a discussion forum out there in the blue nowhere. They said that an actor portraying a character in a movie we often see as pretend, but in commercials, or advertisements, we see it as endorsements. So, in essence, it's easier for us to watch a guy like Gordon or Kirby portray characters that are doing things against our beliefs rather than seeing them endorsing something.
I'm not sure that they two things are all that different though. Kirby is acting in the commercial as much as he's acting when he takes that drag on that cigarette.
10 Jun 2008 @ 11:09 | Permalink
2,4, & 5,
I agree, but . . .
I still don't like it, I still wish he hadn't done it. My opinion, however, makes no difference. I don't think he's gone apostate or anything. He's an actor, but . . .
I still don't like it, I still wish he hadn't done it.
10 Jun 2008 @ 15:49 | Permalink
HeidiAnn, is it the same as watching Harry Connick, Jr. portray a creepy serial killer in Copycat? Or hearing Pat Boone sing heavy metal songs "his way"?
Is it that twisting of what we thought represented reality: ie., Heyborne is a good Mormon boy and would never touch a beer, even while acting?
Or is it merely the fact that he's in a commercial for beer that's troubling?
I'm still going to wait for this commercial to play during Game 3 of the NBA finals tonight (I remmeber it from Game 1, but didn't see K.H.) and point him out to my family.
10 Jun 2008 @ 16:03 | Permalink
Just don't take him fishin' alone. ;)
10 Jun 2008 @ 21:31 | Permalink
I think its sad that here is someone that many LDS kids look up too and now he is portraying something that is obviously against their faith - it is sad that he has decided to do this, I hope it doesnt have an effect over a person whose faith is LDS and sees this and decides it ok to "do as kirby does".
11 Jun 2008 @ 10:53 | Permalink
Ryno,
What is he portraying that is against the LDS faith?
11 Jun 2008 @ 10:57 | Permalink
Well, he's playing a person who likes to drink beer, and he not only likes to drink beer, he is travelling across the city to find said beer. Last I heard, beer drinking is against the LDS faith.
Granted, the beer drinking is implied, but what exactly is he going to do with that bottle when he goes inside?
11 Jun 2008 @ 11:34 | Permalink
There is nothing in the commercial that indicates Kirby's character likes to drink beer. For all we know, he likes to go to parties. Even so, his character doesn't seem any where near as excited as his friend.
No drinking is implied. He doesn't even open the bottle. For all we know, he is holding it for a friend.
Even if his character does go into the party and drink, which is just conjecture, that would be implying, not portraying.
11 Jun 2008 @ 12:51 | Permalink
I think it sounds like a good career move. I would have taken the job, too.
11 Jun 2008 @ 13:10 | Permalink
Give the guy a break. Making a career of acting is a real achievement. Besides, beer is one of the few things still Made in the USA. We should thank him for his economic development efforts among the Gentiles!
11 Jun 2008 @ 15:01 | Permalink
I have no problem with LDS actors portraying a character as long as the material isn't R, but promoting beer is an entirely different story. In response to several other comments, Brother Heyborne used stage cigarettes in Saints and Soldiers.
11 Jun 2008 @ 15:07 | Permalink
I think you are pushing it a little bit Kim. I think that if you asked 99 out of a hundred people what they think his character was planning on doing after he went inside, they would say that he was going to drink the beer. If Miller wasn't implying that he was going to drink the beer, then why have the commercial in the first place?
So, maybe Kirby isn't portraying a character that is drinking beer, he is portraying a character that it is implied that he is going to drink beer.
It's all semantics anyway. It's pretty clear that Kirby Heyborne is in a commercial that is advertising beer. If you are fine with that, that's cool, but I can really see how many members of the church would have a problem with that.
11 Jun 2008 @ 15:16 | Permalink
The whole point of the commercial is to portray that beer makes a great party, not that people specifically drink the beer.
So can I. Mormons judge way too much.
11 Jun 2008 @ 15:21 | Permalink
Hey, he probably got what he wanted...people are talking about him. Publicity is good for an actor.
11 Jun 2008 @ 15:23 | Permalink
I think that's an artificial distinction. Unless you believe that beer makes a great party by just sitting there on the counter where people can look at it.
11 Jun 2008 @ 16:50 | Permalink
doesnt everyone judge way too much? and by making your assumption that "mormons judge way to much" - aren't you making an judgement? Not all mormons judge people, just like all Americans arent fat, and anyways- Kirby is portraying something that is against the beliefs of many people that are familiar with the type of movies that Kirby acts in, and this recent "career move" is one that goes shows him going against the faith that all pretty much know him by, all that I was saying is that it is sad he chose to go that route.
11 Jun 2008 @ 19:33 | Permalink
"I hope it doesnt have an effect over a person whose faith is LDS and sees this and decides it ok to "do as kirby does"." If that's the case, maybe it's time for a real testimony. Grow up people.
11 Jun 2008 @ 20:42 | Permalink
I agree with what Owen said. If you have a testimony of the "word of wisom" you aren't going to go drink a beer because Kirby did it. It's not like President Monson was is in a beer commercal!
11 Jun 2008 @ 21:49 | Permalink
JimD, if the point of the commercial were to show people drinking beer, why did no one drink beer in the commercial?
Technically, yes, since no one should judge at all.
Yes. But my judgement is at least anecdotal (2 years all over Utah, 10 years in Southern Alberta, and various wards in Saskatchewan and BC)and not based on moral superiority.
Agreed, but then again, I didn't say all do. I made a generalization, but it wasn't absolute.
No he's not. Unless you are referring to something that may or may not be implied. Or unless it is against the beliefs of many of his viewers to not attend parties. Which is entirely possible, but it's not immoral.
It's not a career move. He hasn't had any work, his family needs food, and this job came along.
It's sadder he's being held under a microscope. Nothing he did would keep his temple recommend away.
11 Jun 2008 @ 21:56 | Permalink
Now THAT would be something. President Monson on a bud light commercial.
Actually, this is a who cares for me. Gordon Jump would also drink "purple cows" on WKRP and would look pretty excited about that as well.
Dunno, seems like a whole lot of nothing to me. My kids of course would have no clue who he is. It is not like he is dancing with a few bikini babes or something.
11 Jun 2008 @ 21:58 | Permalink
What I think is it that it is no one's business what he does. He didn't do anything that threatens his membership, but the fact that everyone seems prepared to judge and condemn him speaks loudly for 'our' priorities...which seem to be more about 'his' salvation rather than our own.
The huge furor about it is ironic in a way. How many members of the church work at casinos? Or sell alcoholic drinks r cigarettes to people? I don't see everyone getting in an uproar about them.
12 Jun 2008 @ 5:54 | Permalink
I thought people might want to read this interview with Kirby about the commercial.
http://www.mormontimes.com/MITN_entertainment.php?id=1282
12 Jun 2008 @ 6:34 | Permalink
I should say also that it always amazes me how members of the church seem to think alcohol, coffee, tea and cigarettes are more important than the other parts of the Word of Wisdom. They aren't. They are of equal importance, but so many members seem to forget that and think they are following the W of W as they eschew alcohol and coffee, but scarf those donuts and cookies while ignoring vegetables and fresh fruit.
12 Jun 2008 @ 6:45 | Permalink
It's one thing to say "well, that's none of our business, so I won't comment publicly". (But then, if "judging" Kirby [or condemning his conduct--and no, the two are not the same, theologically speaking] really is so very reprehensible, I'm a little baffled as to why you would have written a blog post that you must have known, in some quarters at least, would spur precisely that reaction. Trying to set up a stumbling block for your conservative brethren, are you? ;-) )
It's entirely another thing to try to justify the behavior by making artificial distinctions such as "well, the commercial is only to get people to buy the beer, not to actually drink the beer."
At the end of the day, Kirby accepted money from a beer company (well, from a beer company via the advertiser) in order to help it to distribute its product, whose sole purpose is to be ingested. There's no getting around that. There's a lot of merit to an "economic duress" defense (I've used it myself to justify working on Sundays), but let's not pretend that the commercial was something other than what it was.
12 Jun 2008 @ 7:05 | Permalink
He wrote it to generate discussion (thought that was obvious).
At the end of the day it isn't our business. Let's worry about what WE are doing and not what someone else is doing. I am not responsible for Kirby's salvation and he isn't responsible for mine. Frankly I have enough in my own life to worry about and work on and anyone who wastes time criticizing him or anyone for that matter, needs to take a good hard look at their own life and when thy become perfect, they can judge. But wait. Jesus IS perfect and I don't see HIM condemning Kirby!!
And besides that, how many members work in places that sell alcohol? So they do exactly the same thing, but don't get vilified on the internet for it.
WHO CARES about the commercial? Too many do, obviously.
12 Jun 2008 @ 7:25 | Permalink
Do you really think brewers care if people drink their beer? What does it matter to them? They're just happy if the beer is purchased. Whether some drinks it or pours it down the drain, it's the same dollar to them.
By that same logic, I guess Mormon violinists shouldn't play in music festivals sponsored by cigarette manufacturers, and Mormon race car drivers should drive in races sponsored by brewers. I don't think I am ready to make that claim.
The funny thing is if Kirby were in a Krispy Kreme commercial eating 3 dozen doughnuts, no one would have said a thing. Yet that would have been in direct violation of the Word of Wisdom, whereas picking up a bottle of beer isn't.
12 Jun 2008 @ 7:46 | Permalink
Mary, I agree that Mr. Heyborne's decision to act in the commercial isn't my business. You may have noticed that I didn't start commenting to this thread until Kim seemed to suggest by implication that there's really nothing wrong with soliciting the purchase of alcohol.
I am under no obligation to remain silent in the face of a public attack on my standards just because a Mormon actor whom we all like has chosen to disregard them in a very public way.
Kim--
To me, it's a question of the primary motive of the production and the degree to which the actor understands that motive. If one performs in a TV program (or other event with significant entertainment value and whose overall message does not promote immoral behavior) sponsored in part by a brewer, or tobacco company, or whatever--I don't see any problem with that kind of behavior. Ditto if one genuinely doesn't understand that the primary motive of the production is the propagation of some objectionable purpose.
But I maintain that your distinction between the purchase and consumption of an item is an artificial one. First, you do not account for the hope of most producers that the consumer will consume the item purchased, develop an affinity for it, and then come back and purchase more of that item.
Second, even barring the first factor, your argument begs the question of why we prohibit the sale of alcohol and tobacco to minors if there is only a minimal link between purchase and consumption. Why do we prohibit the advertising of same in close proximity to school grounds? Why do we adopt dram shop liability for the damages caused by drunk drivers?
As I interpret your argument, there would seem to be no problem with selling pornography or fully automatic assault weapons (no hyperbole here!) to any person, under any circumstances, so long as the primary motive of those items' producers/sellers is to make a buck rather than ensure the use of those items.
So the question is, where do we draw the line?
12 Jun 2008 @ 8:55 | Permalink
Jim
I never said you or anyone should remain silent. I just wonder why Kirby is being dragged through the mud when many other members even more blatantly break the commandments but aren't tarred with the same brush?
I also still say that alcohol is no more important than other aspects of the Word of Wisdom (and this comes after deep study of the issue) but members still focus on it being more important to abstain from alcohol than to eat healthy (and I have never had any alcohol in my life). The promises in the Word of Wisdom do not just apply to abstaining from alcohol, coffee, tea and cigarettes, but also to KEEPING the admonitions later in Section 89. But members are notorious for ignoring those scriptures almost completely.
How about instead of slamming Kirby for taking an acting job, we target the real culprits, the alcohol manufacturers?
12 Jun 2008 @ 9:11 | Permalink
JimD,
Before I comment further, what do you think I am arguing? With your statements "your argument begs the question . . ." and "As I interpret your argument . . .", I want to ensure you understand what I am arguing before I respond to it. I certainly don't want to respond to something I am not arguing.
That being said, I will respond to this:
Just because you interpreted that from my comment, does not mean I was implying it.
12 Jun 2008 @ 9:12 | Permalink
How is this any different from the Marriotts showing adult films at their hotels?
It's his job to portray things he doesn't really do. Get over it.
12 Jun 2008 @ 9:14 | Permalink
They don't, rick. The hotels are independently run.
12 Jun 2008 @ 9:15 | Permalink
Yeah right, Kim. But for some reason they can still get a Book of Mormon in every room.
They could opt to make it policy and they choose not to.
12 Jun 2008 @ 9:18 | Permalink
Kim, I interpreted your post #17 as saying that the commercial isn't really encouraging people to drink the beer they buy, so there really isn't anything wrong with the commercial and there's nothing wrong with participating in its production.
If I've misinterpreted, please set me straight.
12 Jun 2008 @ 9:30 | Permalink
Kim, my memory is a bit hazy, but it seems that BCC or T&S had the discussion about Marriott and the upshot (I think) was that Marriott actually has its own subsidiary company that handles providing cable services to Marriott hotels.
12 Jun 2008 @ 9:34 | Permalink
Jon W., FYI, the WOW is fairly silent on purple cows, unless you count the calories as excessive to the point that the drinker couldn't "run and not be weary, and ... walk and not faint."
It's a grape soda (or grape juice) with an ice cream float, or ice cream mixed in. I don't think it's as heinous as you imply.
12 Jun 2008 @ 9:40 | Permalink
Re: #36, rick, that'd be easier if the board of directors were all Mormon.
Re: #37, JimD, I never said there isn't anything wrong with the commercial, nor did I say there's nothing wrong with participating in its production.
The point of all my comments is that we shouldn't be judging Kirby for his choice. I mean, after all, where was the uproar when he smoked a cigarette on Saints and Soldiers? It's one thing to drink a bottle of beer, and quite another to pick up a bottle of beer.
12 Jun 2008 @ 9:40 | Permalink
I agree with you, Kim, though for clarity I'd like to define "judging Kirby".
If you mean "judging" in the scriptural/Elder Oaks sense of saying "Kirby has forfeited his exaltation", great.
If you mean "judging" in the sense of "Kirby has gone his way, and I wish him well, but it's not a path I would travel or recommend others travel"--It's certainly impolitic to bring up his name rather than keeping the discussion in purely hypothetical terms, but I don't know that the discussion ought to be shut down by invocation of the dreaded "j" word.
I personally think the issue with appearing in a beer commercial (versus smoking a stage cigarette in a war movie) goes back to the "overall message" of the production. I didn't see Saints and Soldiers, so I can't comment as to that. But, speaking hypothetically, I don't see a problem with a Mormon actor playing a nasty character like Thenardier or an abusive pimp in the musical Les Miserables, because clearly the overall message is that those guys are reprehensible and conduct such as theirs should be avoided. With a beer commercial, the overall message is very different. I, at least, would be uncomfortable with appearing in such a production even if the role I was playing were that of a good, teetotaling Mormon boy.
12 Jun 2008 @ 10:34 | Permalink
2 news in Salt Lake City is interested in interviewing people about their reaction to Kirby Heyborne acting in a beer commercial. If you would like to comment please call 801-455-1806
12 Jun 2008 @ 12:42 | Permalink
I honestly can't believe that the SLC news is interviewing people on their reaction to this individual acting (doing his Job) in a beer commercial. How ridiculous!! Why do "most" members feel that they are entitled to judge others at all??
Oh wait...I can totally believe it!
I have way too much going on in my own life to worry about what other people are doing.
12 Jun 2008 @ 14:26 | Permalink
I find it sad that so many members are such self-righteous idiots and so quick to judge others. Instead of worrying about someone’s career choices, maybe we should be more worried about what we do with our own lives. Anyone trying to judge, condemn, critique, or any other form of examination of this mans character, best bury their heads in their scriptures and spend a little more time on their knees.
12 Jun 2008 @ 21:31 | Permalink
The last I checked, the church hasn't taught that moderate use of alcohol is inherently immoral. Come on, Jesus drank wine, and so did Joseph Smith (even after the Word of Wisdom was revealed).
And some wonder why Mormons have a reputation for being so judgmental ...
12 Jun 2008 @ 22:21 | Permalink
Why did no one drink beer in the commercial?
No one ever does. I think it's a restriction on what they will allow in the advertisements in general.
It is no one's business what he does
Sure it is. An performer's life is all about the fans and keeping them happy. Mormons are a particularly picky crowd. We all can and do have opinions about who and what we will endorse with our own money. I can't help but think this will, in the long run, hurt his career if he cares about keeping loyalty of the fans he has had to this point. It's about image management, and this was a bad move if he wanted to keep LDS folks happy.
It's just like 'judging' a company for what it endorses. You hear people not wanting to patronize this company or that company because of what they do or don't do or what they do or don't support. To me, it's similar with an actor. He is a living business in a sense, his own company. There is nothing out of line with this kind of personal analysis. We all have to decide what people/businesses/causes we are willing to support.
There is a difference, imo, between making judgments about his eternal soul and being disappointed in someone's choice who chose a career that put him in the public eye, and again, is all about keeping the fans happy. Some won't care, and some will, and that should matter to an actor, imo.
I'm sympathetic to the need to support a family, but I do think there are other ways he could consider making money than doing something that obviously bugged a lot of people.
12 Jun 2008 @ 22:37 | Permalink
re#26 It was still his choice, and not ours.
I suppose I have never fallen into the trap of believing celebrities are out there for my own pleasure, but rather, human beings in their own right.
13 Jun 2008 @ 4:16 | Permalink
Really? I thought it was performing. Granted, some probably do it for the fame, but there are many who do it because they love to. Some actors love to act, some singers love to sing, and some ball players love to play ball. Celebrities shouldn't be guilted in doing whatever their fanbase wants them to.
That's actually kind of the point. If he stays in LDS cinema, he doesn't have a career.
It's one thing to feel disappointment. It's quite another to go as far as saying the following:
That's judging.
13 Jun 2008 @ 7:37 | Permalink
In light of the Dallin H. Oaks speech I link to below, that seems somewhat questionable.
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=2d0584d4a0a0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD
13 Jun 2008 @ 9:23 | Permalink
Hm, Kim, I guess I don't really see it that way, regarding my last statement. It's a matter of fact that actors can choose other work on the side. And what he did DID bug a lot of people. In the end, his choice on a personal level is between him and God, but I still think that it was a poor choice, a poor business choice if nothing else. And I think it was a poor role model choice for someone who is a youth speaker.
On another topic, thanks for the kind note at my blog. :)
13 Jun 2008 @ 9:41 | Permalink
Get a life people.
13 Jun 2008 @ 15:44 | Permalink
Troll.
13 Jun 2008 @ 17:36 | Permalink
Kirby is my fav actor! i agree with the comment close to the top, it's just a job. It's not breaking the comandments and he's not really drinking it. Personaly I wouldn't have done that, but its not our place to judge him. And I think he is a great guy, a great actor, and great member of the church. We all need to remember we are all gods children!
14 Jun 2008 @ 16:24 | Permalink
Great thoughts, Craig.
14 Jun 2008 @ 17:30 | Permalink
I appreciate Eric's comment #45. I don't think people are sinning by having a beer unless they're under a covenant not to do so. It's comparable to a malum prohibitum crime rather than a malum in se crime. Obviously the use of alcohol isn't inherently evil, but it would be wrong for me because, as a Latter-day Saint, I've made covenants not to do it.
14 Jun 2008 @ 22:29 | Permalink
When?
15 Jun 2008 @ 6:03 | Permalink
I've never seen his movies, but when he said in the news that he doesn't "endorse beer," he's kidding himself.
Dude. You do a commercial, you're making an endorsement. You don't fool anyone but yourself if you think doing an ad isn't endorsing something.
This guy is one beer short of a six-pack.
15 Jun 2008 @ 6:24 | Permalink
No, when you are in a commercial you are doing a job. It doesn't automatically mean you endorse it. And let he who is without sin cast the first stone. The amount of condemning Kirby has received seems to indicate there are numerous perfect people out there.
15 Jun 2008 @ 8:11 | Permalink
Besides that, he is breaking no commandments by being in the commercial and is still perfectly worthy to receive a temple recommend. Not that it matters to anyone except himself, his wife and the Lord.
15 Jun 2008 @ 8:12 | Permalink
I never said he was "sinning." That would be lame. I just said that he was kidding himself if he says he isn't endorsing beer. Because he totally is. No matter how much you idolize this guy, and rush to his defense, and declare all jobs worth doing, it doesn't change the fact: You do an advertisement for anything, you are endorsing it. I'm sure he's a fun actor, I've never seen him, but I wish him well.
16 Jun 2008 @ 6:27 | Permalink
I don't idolise him at all, I wouldn't even call myself a fan. I have only watched one of his shows. I just don't believe in vilifying people strictly because they are celebrities and putting them to a higher standard than anyone else. Whether I agree with his decision or not isn't important. What is important is that it his own decision and as I said; it is between Kirby, his wife and the Lord.
16 Jun 2008 @ 7:05 | Permalink
The argument that he was just acting is silly. Perhaps he should get into porn as the copier repair man who cannot do his job because the copier is currently being "used for something else". I mean, nothing wrong with that, right?
If Mr. Heyborne is a temple worthy member as he claims to be, how did he ever answer this question honestly?
"Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?"
I'm pretty sure that by apprearing in the beer commercial, he not only affiliated with, but directly supported such a group.
16 Jun 2008 @ 11:26 | Permalink
Kim, in answer to Question 56, I'd say the two occasions that stand out in my mind are when I was baptized, covenanting to follow Christ and keep all his commandments, and when I was endowed and made essentially the same promise.
16 Jun 2008 @ 22:49 | Permalink
Interesting. I didn't realize picking up a bottle of beer or starring in a beer commercial was breaking a commandment.
17 Jun 2008 @ 7:35 | Permalink
Kim, would you consider yourself as a letter of the law person or a spirit of the law person?
17 Jun 2008 @ 7:37 | Permalink
I have personally met up with Kirby and asked him several questions. First of all, with the Saints and Solders movie, those cigs were herbal. Second, there are always reasons for his decisions in life. He may have been in need of money for his family. We can not judge him for his actions. I have been a huge fan of his for several years and I know he is a great man and he would never cause anything to harm himself. I still would consider him temple worthy guy and I will not judge him for what he has done. Remember- there are always reasons for our actions. He will make mistakes and he will fix them on his own if he thinks it's that bad. I'm a fan and I am on Kirby's side.
17 Jun 2008 @ 7:47 | Permalink
Both, Ian.
When I say "keep the commandments", I refer to actual commandments.
I also try to go beyond that by doing things that may not be commandments, but that I have interpreted to be things I should be doing to improve my spirituality.
17 Jun 2008 @ 7:58 | Permalink
I only ask that because you seem to be pretty letter of the law on this issue. There is no letter of the law on getting paid to pick up a beer bottle for a commercial, so it must be ok. The letter of the law of the word of wisdom does not in any way say anything about what Kirby did. However, many people would consider the commercial against the spirit of the law. Just my two cents.
Personally, I am a tad dissapointed that he did the commercial. I am not judging him, I will not boycott his movies. I'm sure he is a member in good standing... but, i'm dissapointed in him the same way i'm disappointed in my son for not cleaning his room. It's not that I hate him or dislike him or think he's a bad person for not doing his chores, but I can be disappointed for sure. That's how I feel in this situation. I'm sure others feel the same way. That is not in any way judgmental in my book. I hope my children do not choose to appear in beer commercials.
Yes, there are many judgemental people out there, there are many judging Kirby for his actions. That is probably not the best way to look at the situation.
17 Jun 2008 @ 9:35 | Permalink
Actually, the "letter of the law of the word of wisdom" says what Kirby did is fine considering D&C 89 states mild drinks (of which beer is one) are fine to consume. But that's a whole other discussion.
17 Jun 2008 @ 9:39 | Permalink
Ian
I don't agree with that choice either, on a personal level, however I too, do not judge Kirby, it was his choice and so as such doesn't affect me as far as it making a difference in my life. But so many members are literally irate about his choice which I think goes WAY beyond the importance of this issue and speaks more about their own characters rather than Kirby's.
17 Jun 2008 @ 9:52 | Permalink
The last I heard was that the LDS Church teach thier members about forgivness. We all make mistakes in this life. And what about free agency!
17 Jun 2008 @ 9:57 | Permalink
Call me a hypocrit if I judge: Kim S, point simple: Avoid the appearance of evil. How would you react if you saw your husband, father, son, or whoever pick up a beer? Maybe carry it in their pocket. Use it to roll out dough? A beer is alcohol. Alcohol is against the Word of Wisdom. You pick up a beer you are giving the appearance of evil EVEN IF IT IS YOUR JOB. If my job asked me to embezzle money, that wouldn't make it okay for me to do it because it was my job. Or how about fudging numbers to make them LOOK right. So should I keep doing my job when it gives the appearance of evil? According to your intellectually logical but spirtually devoid stance I guess it's okay for me to do so.
17 Jun 2008 @ 14:10 | Permalink
I think you misinterpret 1 Thess. 5:22. "Appearance of evil" doesn't mean anything that seems evil; it means "every time evil shows up/presents itself".
Your examples of embezzlement and fraud do not parallel Kirby's experience considering both are illegal and can result in church discipline, whereas Kirby faces no such result.
The issue wouldn't be how I would react. The issue would be how my wife (and even the church) would react to my being married to a man.
17 Jun 2008 @ 14:17 | Permalink
So you deflect the question with humor and rhetoric?
17 Jun 2008 @ 14:19 | Permalink
"You pick up a beer you are giving the appearance of evil EVEN IF IT IS YOUR JOB."
So working in shipping is out of the question, I guess. You never know what you might be transporting...
17 Jun 2008 @ 14:21 | Permalink
"So working in shipping is out of the question, I guess. You never know what you might be transporting..."
Semantics. I can't be as perfect as you intellectual giants in making my point.
Elder Bruce R. McConkie said:
The gospel is one of peace, harmony, unity, and agreement. In it argument and debate are supplanted by discussion and study Those who have the Spirit do not hang doggedly to a point of doctrine or philosophy for no other reason than to come off victorious in a disagreement. Their purpose, rather, is to seek the truth by investigation, research, and inspiration (Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed. [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 19661, p.161).
Kirby made a decision that affects his IMAGE in the church but not his standing. I think it was a bad one and he will be responcsible for it. I am going to let this one go. Even if you can't.
17 Jun 2008 @ 14:26 | Permalink
I can't believe the justification that is going on in these posts. Millions of LDS kids have seen Kirby's movies and now they see him in a beer commercial promoting beer and at the end even picking one up. If you can't see what's wrong with that I am sorry for you.
17 Jun 2008 @ 14:34 | Permalink
I answered your question, but in an effort to be clearer, yes, I think it is possible to have job that appears to be evil. I mean, should someone not sell bottled water because it looks like bottled vodka?
I used to work for a carpet cleaning company. We had to clean several bars in the city. I guess I should have told me boss I couldn't come to work those times because my bishop might see me coming out of the bar. Is that the point you're trying to make, Andy?
And this quoted by someone who labelled me (or rather my stance whatever that is) as spiritually devoid. Odd.
Walter, the issue isn't whether it's wrong. It's whether we should be the ones determining whether it is wrong.
17 Jun 2008 @ 14:37 | Permalink
"Millions of LDS kids have seen Kirby's movies."
Millions? I mean, really? A bit over-dramatic, no?
17 Jun 2008 @ 14:39 | Permalink
You fellas really like to nit pick and argue don't ya? Your trying so hard to look smart by making others look dumb that you don't see how dumb you look. Get of your high horse and don't be so contrary.
17 Jun 2008 @ 14:45 | Permalink
The issue here is that you are all concernewd about the image an actor has on your children. maybe as parents you should take the time to talk to your children and see how they feel about this issue and let them know that because one person used bad judement they do not have to follow.
17 Jun 2008 @ 15:22 | Permalink
kay, great idea!
Why not talk with your kids about this actor's choice and see if it alters their choices?
Why not talk with your kids about proper role models and help them to evaluate choices made by peers and other public personas? (Of course, "evaluate" is another way of saying "judge", but it is proper judgment, IMO. It is judging the behavior, not the person.)
I think parents sometimes abdicate too much responsibility for being role models to those in popular media, which is a shame considering how much control we have over their behavior.
I think it's cool that I can tell my kids that James Valentine of Maroon 5 passed the sacrament to us when he was a deacon and we lived in the same ward. But I make sure to point out that while he is a talented and popular musician, he's not a role model to them. He's just trying to do the best he can with the choices he has made.
17 Jun 2008 @ 16:11 | Permalink
I teach my kids that if someone drinks, or holds alcohol, it doesn't make them bad or less of a person than ANYONE else. It wouldn't matter to them if it was JC himself in the commercial, because I have taught my kids that we are all equals and that we shouldn't judge others.
It doesn't matter to them which band members or "celebrities" are members of a particular religion because we are all just people. I want my kids to be individuals, not making choices based on what others are doing or not doing.
Who cares what people choose to do....it really shouldn't matter.
17 Jun 2008 @ 22:20 | Permalink
Thank you for your input. I'm glad we have this problem solved and can now move on to something worthy of our time.
18 Jun 2008 @ 6:50 | Permalink
I am extremely disapointed with Kirby Heyborne. I'm not condeming him to hell, but I do think it is ok to express my thoughts about Kirby's decision. Even though Kirby doesn't drink beer, I still think that promoting and endorsing it is wrong. I don't understand why so many of these posts, particularly the ones from LDS people, are justifying Kirby's decision. The way I see it,the prophets have told us not to watch R-rated movies because they contain immoral, profane, violent, and other images in them that offend the spirit of the Lord. Just because we might not actually do what we see in the movies doesn't mean we should go watch R-rated movies. Kirby chose to promote beer. It wasn't something he was obligated to do as when you work in a grocery store that sells beer as one of its products. It's not like he is hard up for money, and even if he was does that make it right? Personally I think not. I would love to see an LDS actor who is a light to the world. Someone who doesn't compromise his beliefs for money or whatever reason. I don't think Kirby is an evil person, and I'm not saying that he is going to hell and I'm not. I'm simply expressing my thoughts. I have lost a great deal of respect for him.
18 Jun 2008 @ 11:47 | Permalink
No one is justifying his decision. We don't need to. It isn't ours to justify or not, and again he wasn't breaking a commandment, whether he made a poor judgment choice is between him and the Lord, not he and his fan base.
18 Jun 2008 @ 12:42 | Permalink
everyone has spent alot of time attempting to condemn this young man for his judement in excepting the job with the Miller Light advertisers. We all agree he make a bad decision. I sure would like to hear Kirby's side of the story. Not that it would make it right, but perhaps understandable.
18 Jun 2008 @ 13:57 | Permalink
Not everyone has condemned him and not everyone agrees he made a bad decision. That isn't ours to make, as some of us are trying to say.
18 Jun 2008 @ 14:21 | Permalink
http://www.mormontimes.com/MITN_entertainment.php?id=1282
There is a little bit of Kirbys side. I heard part of an interview with a local radio commentor too. I can't find a transcript of that though.
18 Jun 2008 @ 14:22 | Permalink
Ok so we have had a lot of discussion relating to the appearance of evil and whether or not Kirby made the right choice. I am interested in a different thread on this discussion. What about those individuals who make money directly from products contrary to the teachings of the church. For example I am a partner in a Chartered Accounting firm. What if one of my clients were a strip joint should I refuse to do their books because of my moral stance? What if I owned that strip joint? My life is not that exciting I am just curious as to your opinions.
18 Jun 2008 @ 15:43 | Permalink
Good question, Tyler. That's what I was trying to get at in an earlier comment. As a carpet cleaner, I had bars as clients. They paid us in "beer money". Should we have refused the work?
When I worked for a courier, I often delivered to a casino in town. They paid the company in "poker money". Should I have refused those runs?
18 Jun 2008 @ 16:55 | Permalink
I'm glad the moderator of this forum asked for our thoughts. It is extremely important for each of us to evaluate whether or not we think someone else's choice is correct or not so that we can make correct choices ourselves.
As a youth leader, I would never ever allow an actor who appeared in a beer commercial to speak at a youth fireside unless he very publicly apologized for his piss-poor judgment and shockingly poor example to the youth of the world (not just the Church); beer ads target teens all the time.
I've always felt that beer advertisers were partly accountable for all the teen drunk driving deaths. And I will now lump this actor in that mix. Beer advertisers and the actors who choose to help them sell their deadly product are the conspiring men and women that the Lord warned against in the D&C.
What was this dill-weed thinking?
18 Jun 2008 @ 18:00 | Permalink
Did I just use the word "dill-weed?" That's strange. Hmm... I heard that word this afternoon on an AT&T radio ad... I guess commercials can be influential!! What do you know? That would explain why marketers are willing to spend billions of dollars on ads each year.
18 Jun 2008 @ 18:05 | Permalink
I don't see that name calling serves any purpose. He's still a fellow child of God.
18 Jun 2008 @ 18:19 | Permalink
Well, I guess it's ok to own a strip joint. It's not expressly forbidden as far as I can tell. As long as i'm not stripping or watching the strippers. I guess I could own a bar as well. As long as i'm not drinking. It would be hard to do porn, but as long as i'm not the one having sex or as long as I don't watch people doing it, it's ok.
I guess.
18 Jun 2008 @ 18:19 | Permalink
I find it extremely humorous that the parent of this post asked what people's thoughts were about this commercial, and then proceeded to get up on her intellectual pedal stool to tell everyone that they're wrong and judgmental (not that there isn't truth there).
Why did you ask for people's comments in the first place? You always seem to have to get the last word in with everyone. Seems more like you wanted to troll and flame, as opposed to really hearing the thoughts of others.
Just an observation. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how it seems.
18 Jun 2008 @ 23:45 | Permalink
I find it extremely humourous that you think Kim was getting on a high horse (by completely misinterpreting words) and second of all that you automatically think he is a 'she'. Also he hasn't had the last word :)
19 Jun 2008 @ 4:19 | Permalink
I'd like to hear either Kim, Mary, or zMormon answer my question in #62 since they both claim that nothing he did would keep him from having a temple recommend.
19 Jun 2008 @ 9:13 | Permalink
Re #62 I don't know what he answered, but wonder how the beer company is against the church in what particular? Not saying it isn't or is. You would have to ask Kirby. He may not respond as I hear he is getting a lot of emails, but perhaps his assistant will if s/he is privy to Kirby's private conversations with his Bishop or SP member.
19 Jun 2008 @ 9:22 | Permalink
That's a different question than what I have been asked, JM. Nevertheless, if it were me in Kirby's place and that specific question was asked of me, I would explain the situation and let the bishop make the call.
That being said, I don't know that he affiliated with Miller, using a strict definition.
Regarding "supporting", I think it is even less clear. One could argue that Miller supported Kirby since they paid him.
19 Jun 2008 @ 9:22 | Permalink
Wow!
19 Jun 2008 @ 9:26 | Permalink
Not sure if I answered you? Yes, the company is an alcohol company, but I have to wonder (as I keep asking) why Kirby is being held to a higher standard than other members of the church. I can't count how many people work in gas stations which sell cigarettes (just as verboten as alcohol), or work in casinos or restaurants where alcohol is served.
But we might argue that eating healthy is just as important (as it seems to signify in D &C 89) as abstaining from alcohol and cigarettes, but people certainly aren't dragged over the coals for eating at fast food restaurants. Quite the opposite actually, as youth activities often end up at Wendy's or McDonald's.
19 Jun 2008 @ 9:31 | Permalink
Still haven't.
My question isn't about what other people are doing. Nor is it about the effects of the word of wisdom. It's about how he could answer the temple recommend question honestly.
I have no problem with anybody appearing in any sort of commercial for anything. I have no problem with people drinking beer (unless they choose to drive thereafter with a blood alcohol level over the legal limit).
Mr. Heyborne talks about supporting his family. I have no problem with that either, even if he were to star in a porn film as the "Main Talent". That's his choice.
My issue is with his lack of honesty.
He claims that by being an actor in this commercial, he still thinks of himself worthy to hold a temple recommend.
One of the questions one is asked in a temple recommend interview is:
"Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?"
So, first I'll ask, does the Miller brewing company have any teachings or practices contrary to or oppose those accepted by the COJCOLDS?
I'm pretty sure any reasonable person, knowing the teachings and practices of the LDS church and the product line of the Miller brewing company would answer yes. If I'm wrong, please, show me how.
Assuming we all agree on that, the next question is whether or not Mr. Heyborne supports, affiliates with, or agrees with the Miller Brewing company.
My understanding is yes. He hits at least two out of three. I argue that he supports and affiliates with them.
By definition, he supports them:
"to maintain (a person, family, establishment, institution, etc.) by supplying with things necessary to existence; provide for"
By assisting them in advertising their product, he provides them with the revenue necessary for corporate existence. That's why they advertise. Without advertising, they risk going broke.
By definition, he affiliates with them:
"to associate oneself; be intimately united in action or interest"
His association and affiliation with their produce creates brand recognition, aiding in the advertisment of their product.
Although those words have other meanings as well, his association fits within a reasonable definition of those terms.
You can't appear in a beer commercial, promote the product, entice other people to buy and consume it, and answer no to that temple recommend question in good conscience.
In all his interviews, if he would have just left out the temple recommend bit, there'd be no problem.
19 Jun 2008 @ 11:32 | Permalink
Two comments.
First off. I don't know where you keep getting that question, but none of my bishops have ever asked that exact question.
Secondly, you state:
What makes you think he didn't answer the question honestly (even if it was the one you assert)? None of us on here have any idea what he said when his bishop asked the question, so we really have no accurate way of determining how honest he was in answering the question.
Like I said I would do if I were in his position, it is entirely possible he said neither yes or no. It is possible when asked the question, he simply explained the situation and let the bishop make the judgement call on whether he met the requirements of that part of the interview.
Of course, as I said already, I wasn't present, so I have no idea of knowing whether he responded in that way. I am left to speculate, and simply offer it as one possible explanation.
Which of course brings me back to the point I have made several times above. It's not up to me to determine how he was able to get his temple recommend while being in the commercial. But he did, so it must be possible. It's not up to me to determine whether what he did was wrong. On both counts, it's between him and the Lord (or the bishop in the case of the recommend).
We can speculate all we want. I mean, maybe he was dishonest, and he has a corrupt bishop who is letting the dishonesty slip under the table. Maybe he's giving the bishop a payoff from his huge salary.
The bottom line though is that this is between Kirby and the Lord. If he's worked it out with the Lord, then who am I to judge further?
19 Jun 2008 @ 12:28 | Permalink
Then why ask what we think about the situation?
19 Jun 2008 @ 13:00 | Permalink
In answer to JM I have to agree with the fact that no one knows or at least should not know what took place or what may have been said between Kirby and his Bishop during Kirby's Temple recommend review. This is a very private interview But I cannot think for one minute that the Bishop would be anything other than an honest person serving in this calling.And lets remember it is not just his decision. Kirby still had to talk with the Stake Presidency. Or Maybe they are all unworthy of their callings also.PLEASE! This whole issue is between Kirby and Heavenly Father and as I said in #71 The Church does teach forgiveness!
19 Jun 2008 @ 13:14 | Permalink
JM
So he could generate discussion (and look at that, it worked).
I concur with Kim, which was my point right from the start.
19 Jun 2008 @ 13:25 | Permalink
To generate discussion. I apologize for not making that clearer.
I asked for the thoughts of the readers, and they provided them (you included).
I don't see how his decision's being between him and the Lord negates anyone discussing what he did. Certainly much of what we discussed in more than 100 comments hasn't been covered in any news article.
I think there is value in much of what has been discussed.
19 Jun 2008 @ 13:35 | Permalink
Re: 102:
Corbin Allred, who also appeared in Saints and Soldiers as well as another LDS-themed film with Kirby Heyborne, was in a Wendy's commercial as a lucky fellow "stuck in the middle" between two beautiful women while eating his bacon double cheeseburger. Is that on par with the Miller Lite ad given your interpretation of D & C 89?
But if either of them had appeared in the Wendy's "Air Supply Burger" commercial, they'd be my heroes for life. Yuk, yuk, yuk.
19 Jun 2008 @ 17:45 | Permalink
By JM's standards, can anyone answer that recommend interview question in the affirmative? Why just this morning, I bought a quart of oil from a gas station that sells alcohol and tobacco products. By so doing, I gave my support (in the total of $3.50) to an organization whose practices are contrary to the teachings of the church. Guess I'll have to surrender my recommend to my bishop tonight. (I'll have to walk to his house instead of drive, as I don't know where I'm going to find gas ever again.) Can I go to the grocery store and buy food made by a large conglomerate that includes beer and tobacco companies? Hmmm. Probably need to expand my garden....
Next, I'll have to review my mutual funds and make sure that the portfolios don't have any investments in companies that make or sell tobacco or alcohol. While I'm at it, I should probably make sure that none of those companies make or sell bikinis, advertise or do other business on Sundays, or print or distribute any material that has profane language (just to name a few examples).
Where does it end?
Oh No! I just realized - I have to quit my job, as the company I work for provides internet services 24x7. I wonder if the boss will be willing to change the business plan to 24x6?
On the other hand, I clearly have been too lax in asking those questions when members of my ward ask me to renew their recommend.
OK, I'm done now....
19 Jun 2008 @ 18:08 | Permalink
:) My point, thanks Sedz (I take it you are in the Bishopric).
Though I don't think JM was being critical.
19 Jun 2008 @ 18:24 | Permalink
The only thing more disturbing than Kirby Heyborne selling out to the U.S. brewery industry is his co-star from "Saints and Soldiers", Larry Bagby, selling out to Kentucky Fried Chicken!
20 Jun 2008 @ 10:00 | Permalink
I don't believe that anyone has "sold out"....they are doing their jobs. He hasn't done anything wrong. (And I love how people are deciding what is right and wrong...or good and bad) Everyone knows that on their own. They don't need someone else telling what is supposedly the difference.
Also, the whole temple recommend thing. I have never been to one an interview/ interrogation, however...I have heard some of the questions that are asked. Well, if you are going to get technical maybe no one should hold a recommend. Is anyone perfect??
I mean, come on Jesus drank wine, and probably with his 12 Homeboys to boot. Perhaps that carving should be removed from the temple in Cardston as well.
PS. I have no problem with Wine Drinkers to set the record straight.
20 Jun 2008 @ 11:53 | Permalink
(sarcasm alert!)Rriiight. Because we all agree on what is right and wrong/good and bad. That's why there's no need for law enforcement ... or even laws!
For me, if I am not looking at the painting of the Savior on the wall and not welled up with gratitude and humility for my frailties by the last question, knowing full well that the only way I am worthy to enter the temple is through the atonement, then I can't answer affirmatively.
I believe that the introspection is necessary when we consider the obedience required to obtain the blessings of the temple. Yes, we all fall short. But, the questions are intended to get us to determine our commitment to the Savior and his commandments.
Dar, the question isn't about wine, it's about our commitment. Are we willing to do all that we can do to keep the commandments? If we have done all we can do, we can rely on the atonement to make the difference. And if the person has had struggles, it is up to the Bishop and no one else to make that determination.
20 Jun 2008 @ 12:12 | Permalink
O.K. I admit it, I'm out of the loop! What is the KFC deal?
20 Jun 2008 @ 12:38 | Permalink
I think DPC is being tongue in cheek.
20 Jun 2008 @ 18:44 | Permalink
So here's a related question, and it sort of goes back to what Tyler was asking. The contractor renovating our basement smokes. If we let him smoke, does that mean we are supporting someone whose practices are contrary to those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Is letting him smoke jeopardizing our having recommends?
20 Jun 2008 @ 19:29 | Permalink
Kim, it is my feeling that anyone who enters my home need respect my feelings of not Smoking in my home. I can't control what they do away from my home but I feel I have a right to control what happens at my home. If not then I would check into a new contractor. It would not effect my recomend unless I encouraged him to smoke in the first place. Good Luck.
20 Jun 2008 @ 20:24 | Permalink
He doesn't smoke in our home, he just smokes.
He's a wonderful contractor and we wouldn't want to lose him just because he smokes cigarettes.
21 Jun 2008 @ 9:00 | Permalink
Bull:
Actually, Law Enforcement is there to enforce the laws set. Not to tell people what is good or bad. People make decisions on their own, and know that if they make a bad choice there will be consequences.
People know that killing, stealing, and such is wrong (bad). However, some choose to do that. In a perfect world, people would focus more on the good, but...
We don't need someone to tell us the difference.
It is all these little things in the LDS religion that someone is deciding are wrong/bad that gets me. This is not a bad thing.
We should all do things that we know or feel are good and right...not because someone says they are, or because they show "commitment", or they will get us to a higher degree of glory, or because we are following some one's example.
22 Jun 2008 @ 1:38 | Permalink
Don't you all feel we have really milked this subject dry? We need to move on now!
22 Jun 2008 @ 11:08 | Permalink
All you have to do is not comment and go comment on another post. It isn't the top post anymore.
22 Jun 2008 @ 13:21 | Permalink
It really isn't our responsibility to pass judgement. That being said, we are all going to have feelings or opinions. I feel disappointed in this career choice. I understand needing to support a family, however - in my opinion, living your faith is priority number one if you are a member of the church. I know we must decide what is best for our family, however one doesn't HAVE to be an actor. One also may choose to be an actor, and still perform other jobs in between acting jobs. Also, to those who compared this to playing a character in a movie - the difference is, a movie tells a story. In a commercial, you are helping a company to promote and sell their product. In this case a product which our faith tells us to avoid. I still like Kirby. I will still support his projects. It doesn't mean I have to approve of every choice he makes in his life. I also still think he is a fine, upstanding member of the church.
23 Jun 2008 @ 19:07 | Permalink
Likewise, one doesn't HAVE to be a doctor, and thus COULD avoid having to work Sundays. Same goes for police officers. Expounding on that idea, perhas there shouldn't be any Mormon firefighters, paramedics, nurses or pilots. Pilots. Hmmm...I wonder if President Uchtdorf ever had a Sunday flight. For that matter, I wonder if any of President Uchtdorf's flights served alcohol or showed R-rated movies. Would that consistent supporting someone whose practices are contrary to those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
23 Jun 2008 @ 19:13 | Permalink
Your comments might carry a little more weight if every profession/responsibility you named wasn't completely incongruous with acting in a beer commercial. All the above named jobs are life-saving, humanity-serving professions which by their nature make them in line with the gospel of Jesus Christ, and which society couldn't survive without, 24 hours a day. There isn't a realistic alternative to flying the friendly skies in order to build the Kingdom. There is a realistic alternative to acting in a beer commercial when jobs are few and far between for an LDS actor. Again, none of us, including myself is in a position to judge. I still can feel disappointed, and have my opinion on what may have been a better choice.
23 Jun 2008 @ 19:30 | Permalink
I'm not saying they're not important or life saving. I'm just pointing out that it's not as simple as saying that Mormons shouldn't take jobs that compromise principles. After all living our faith is priority number one. Saving lives shouldn't take precedence over keeping the Sabbath holy, right?
But some non-essential examples could include grocers who sell cigarettes or alcohol, photographer who shoot bridal cleavage, and taxi drivers who work Sundays. The list goes on.
23 Jun 2008 @ 19:50 | Permalink
Saving lives is not breaking the sabbath. Even the Savior healed people on the Sabbath. Living our faith is priority number one, yes. Obviously serving mankind is one of the most Christ-like acts one can perform. Understanding the spirit of the law, not looking for how something might contradict the letter of the law is something we all must strive for.
Also, the other examples you named, grocer, photographer, etc., in my opinion are professions that either don't need to be practiced in a way contrary to the teachings of the gospel, or if they must be - then should be avoided by Latter-day Saints. I happen to know from experience that it can be done. My husband and I own a service business. Ther is a market for our services on Sundays, most of our competitors provide this same service on Sunday. We have chosen to nev