Formal Church discipline begins when a presiding priesthood leader determines that it is necessary to hold a disciplinary council. The purposes of disciplinary councils are to save the souls of transgressors, protect the innocent, and safeguard the purity, integrity, and good name of the Church.

There are lots of (mostly inactive) LDS Church members who are engaging in conduct that would typically warrant a disciplinary council, but the Church as a rule doesn’t track down and hold councils on such. The news coverage for this particular council and excommunication was extensive and actually brought the individual far more publicity (and, I suspect, sales) than he would have had otherwise. And it was clear from news reports that this was someone who had been inactive for several years and who didn’t seem at all broken up about his excommunication.

In other words, in this case the disciplinary court neither helped the calendar-maker nor did it “protect the good name of the Church”. In my opinion, anyway. ..bruce..

In other words, I think he very much welcomed and wanted all the press coverage and publicity. The stake president handed it to him, while making the Church look a bit silly in the process. And, as I’ve noted before, the Church never speaks about what goes on in disciplinary councils, so Hardy is free to spin the excommunication as a heavy-handed move dictated by Church headquarters to suppress his calendars, when it could just as easily have been for unrelated moral issues.

Actually, I think if a fully active bishop released a calendar like that, he’d end up released from his calling very quickly. But I do agree that I doubt he’d be excommunicated. I think. ..bruce..

If a fully active Bishop, for example, released a similar calendar, I doubt he’d get more than a slap on the wrist. Just a guess, of course.

(Now topless photos of Sister Missionaries would probably be a different issue).