Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

[mingano]

Wow, we sure have gone a long way off here. Someone links a promo picture of an active LDS woman in a dance costume and then we "progress" to a reference to someone's sex tape?

Please tell me you do not see these as issues that even come close to being related to each other.

Did you do that on purpose? If you did I'm kind of annoyed.

Do you really not see how the prevalent standard on this forum is "thou shalt never point to anything anybody does in public as a bad example" applies to both situations? Do you not see how I am attempting to show that limits DO exist, even in the eyes of those who are claiming that they don't?

[patriotsaint]

I cannot believe this.
Interestingly for a crowd accusing me judgeing (which is apparently unnaceptable), they then judge the behavior acceptable with full acceptance of the manner of dress. Is judgement only correct in acceptance of something? Oh thats right this is regarding some form of sexualization. If this had been City Creek, polygamy, 9/11, Mitt Romney, Obama, or even Ron Paul, then the gloves can come off and judgment is then righteouss 8-| Even on a public forum with specific examples #-o

You have to be kidding right? You assume that someone saying, "don't cast the first stone" is a tantamount to acceptance? What a ludicrous idea.

Comparing politicians to this girl is comparing apples to oranges. They ask us to judge their ideas and their fitness for office by promoting their ideas and asking us to consider them and cast our vote for them. When has this girl asked for your judgement?

[patriotsaint]

I'm starting to get annoyed here. Why won't you judge me based on what I actually said rather than what I didn't? "Talk to the bishop" is significantly different than "the bishop had better do something".

What ridiculous hair splitting. When you say she should talk to the bishop you have already judged that she is guilty of something that needs to be brought before her priesthood leader. Maybe worry about your own beams first?

Anyway, I'm with ATL. Probably better to leave this discussion at this point. Enjoy your crusading!

[mingano]

What ridiculous hair splitting. When you say she should talk to the bishop you have already judged that she is guilty of something that needs to be brought before her priesthood leader. Maybe worry about your own beams first?

Read what I said again. Very slowly and very carefully. Then look at your response. There is a disconnect.

Do you want me to say that you are right and nobody should ever talk about standards?

[patriotsaint]

What ridiculous hair splitting. When you say she should talk to the bishop you have already judged that she is guilty of something that needs to be brought before her priesthood leader. Maybe worry about your own beams first?

Read what I said again. Very slowly and very carefully. Then look at your response. There is a disconnect.

Do you want me to say that you are right and nobody should ever talk about standards?

There is no disconnect. Talk about standards all you want, just don't drag a girl through the mud in order to do it.

[sadie_Mormon]

When you say she should talk to the bishop you have already judged that she is guilty of something that needs to be brought before her priesthood leader.

There is a distinct difference between judging one guilt and correction to guide one who is misguided back onto the correct path. If we all act as if we approve of ones inappropriate behavior we are as guilty as they are for the behavior because we say nothing.


"Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear." 1 Timothy 5:20 KJV

"Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted." Galatians 6:1 KJV

[mingano]

There is no disconnect. Talk about standards all you want, just don't drag a girl through the mud in order to do it.

If you are claiming that commenting on a dress is the same thing as commenting on the wearer's soul then you are tacitly declaring the soul and the dress to be one and the same.

[Henmasher]

I cannot believe this.
Interestingly for a crowd accusing me judgeing (which is apparently unnaceptable), they then judge the behavior acceptable with full acceptance of the manner of dress. Is judgement only correct in acceptance of something? Oh thats right this is regarding some form of sexualization. If this had been City Creek, polygamy, 9/11, Mitt Romney, Obama, or even Ron Paul, then the gloves can come off and judgment is then righteouss 8-| Even on a public forum with specific examples #-o

You have to be kidding right? You assume that someone saying, "don't cast the first stone" is a tantamount to acceptance? What a ludicrous idea.

Comparing politicians to this girl is comparing apples to oranges. They ask us to judge their ideas and their fitness for office by promoting their ideas and asking us to consider them and cast our vote for them. When has this girl asked for your judgement?

@-) No has asked for judgement from me. I have been commanded to make judgement when it comes to politicians. I have also as a father and protector of my home been commanded to make judgements and destroy that which brings about misery and suffering to my family. I reject sin as best I can and will seek to destroy it in any form. Tolerance and acceptance are different in action. Acceptance is passive and tolerance will seek to correct.

What thread are you reading? This is disappointing in that I enjoy your views on freedom and agree with 95% of what you post. However it is completley apparent the acceptance of what was done. You are either for or against something. Time rolls forward and there is no difficulty like that of trying to do nothing (John Clare). The best way to avoid doing something bad is by doing something good. You have to take a stance on this and it is either accept or reject the actions. You can not be neutral. The time has passed for indecision.

[Henmasher]

There is no disconnect. Talk about standards all you want, just don't drag a girl through the mud in order to do it.

If you are claiming that commenting on a dress is the same thing as commenting on the wearer's soul then you are tacitly declaring the soul and the dress to be one and the same.

:ymapplause: A very grave judgement indeed

[marc]

So... after five pages, how productive has this topic been and how many people have come closer to Christ because of it?

[mingano]

So... after five pages, how productive has this topic been and how many people have come closer to Christ because of it?

What percentage of threads result in anybody coming closer to Christ?

[marc]

So... after five pages, how productive has this topic been and how many people have come closer to Christ because of it?

What percentage of threads result in anybody coming closer to Christ?

That's actually an intriguing question. A small one, unfortunately, unless you count those in the Approaching The Heavenly Gift forum. Then the percentage spikes, though probably only marginally.

[mgsbigdog]

Mingano-

After your 6:43 post I'm actually closer to understanding where you're coming from. In the OP all we saw was a young woman apparently being totally judged on dress alone. There were some vauge references to comments about being sexy but we didn't get direct quotes until page 5. With those in place your position is more tenable. I still disagree with singling out sinners and would rather have a discussion about representing the church or modesty standards generally rather than focusing on this one young woman.

If i came on a little strong in my defense and passed judgement on any of this forum i sincerely apologize and recognize the need for all of us to show more love and spend more time on our knees begging for forgiveness. Because i have obviously errored in making members here feel that i have judged them and it is something i vow to work on.

[patriotsaint]

There is no disconnect. Talk about standards all you want, just don't drag a girl through the mud in order to do it.

If you are claiming that commenting on a dress is the same thing as commenting on the wearer's soul then you are tacitly declaring the soul and the dress to be one and the same.

:ymapplause: A very grave judgement indeed

Nice strawman. When did I equate the soul to one's dress? I simply stated my belief that standards can be discussed without focusing on one girl. You guys can keep clapping for each other though...it really makes no difference to me.

[mingano]

Nice strawman. When did I equate the soul to one's dress?

When you said that I was judging/condemning HER when I was talking about the dress.

Does the phrase "condemn the sin, love the sinner" mean anything to you?

[patriotsaint]

Nice strawman. When did I equate the soul to one's dress?

When you said that I was judging/condemning HER when I was talking about the dress.

Does the phrase "condemn the sin, love the sinner" mean anything to you?

You weren't talking about the dress when you advocated that she see her bishop...you were talking about her.

[mingano]

You weren't talking about the dress when you advocated that she see her bishop...you were talking about her.

Le sigh.

You're right, I should have suggested that the dress go in to see the bishop while she waited out in the lobby without it.

Do you ever separate behavior from the person? Are there ever instances where you still like/love somebody even though they are doing (or not doing) something that you find to be unacceptable? If somebody wrongs you do you immediately say "this person did this, they are a bad person and I'm going to kick them out of my life"?

If your child said that they were attracted to the persons of the same sex would you immediately disown them, throw them out onto the street and pretend that they didn't exist as some members do? Or let's go with a less extreme example - would you love your child any less if they pushed somebody on the playground? (And if you say that I am equating pushing somebody on a playground with being gay I am going to throw a fish at you so don't you even dare pretend that this is what I am saying. You know it is not.)

[patriotsaint]

your example might be meaningful if you were talking to somebody privately instead of talking about someone publicly. do I think it is appropriate to counsel a child or friend? Of course. But it is an entirely different matter to rake a complete stranger over the coals on a public internet forum where they have no opportunity to defend themselves and pretend you are "loving the sinner".

[sadie_Mormon]

You weren't talking about the dress when you advocated that she see her bishop...you were talking about her.

Actually the Bishop should seek her and address the matter considering she's on public media.

Personally I don't see anyone here attacking this particular young woman rather she is used as reference... an example. You wouldn't be able to make up an imaginary person to discuss this topic trying to give a visual. This particular person is being used as a visual example. If you put yourself out in the public forum as she has done it's not surprising that she (or any like woman) would be used as an example to explain a topic such as immodesty.

To go beyond this and accuse forum members of casting judgement is a bit harsh. If I met her it would not alter how I spoke to her or thought of her as a person. Let's put that all aside for a moment and look even further at how when a woman dresses seductively as this example she is tempting men in a stimulating way. That in itself is sinful behavior because as said in Matt 5:28 KJV, "But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

"In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array." 1 Timothy 2:9 KJV

You can still look beautiful and be modest in your appearance.

[mingano]

your example might be meaningful if you were talking to somebody privately instead of talking about someone publicly. do I think it is appropriate to counsel a child or friend? Of course. But it is an entirely different matter to rake a complete stranger over the coals on a public internet forum where they have no opportunity to defend themselves and pretend you are "loving the sinner".

She has no opportunity to comment in a public forum? Really? Has she been banned? Are you preventing her from speaking her mind?

She is a public figure. She wanted to be in the public's eye, set out to be in the public's eye and got into the public's eye. This is actually quite significant and relevant. Do you see no difference between somebody showing up at a ward dance with a skirt that is too short and somebody who goes onto a TV show that is broadcast around the world and mirrored on youtube declaring "look at me!"?

Private actions are private. Public actions are public. Public actions are fair game for comment, discussion, criticism, support, fans, foes and whatever. Her light is up on the hill for all to see - should we just ignore it? Did you ever comment on any public forum anywhere that Michael Vic was doing something wrong? Have you ever posted anything, anywhere about a president or a senator doing something inappropriate? Have you ever chewed out anybody else because they stated that the actions of a person or corporation were out of line? If not, why not?

[Henmasher]

So... after five pages, how productive has this topic been and how many people have come closer to Christ because of it?

:ymapplause:

Well if you consider being able to have others justify immoral behavior and then still stand true to your conviction based upon a personal understanding of Gods teaching.....then yes. I am closer to Christ after rejecting others criticism of his apparent teachings and my personal ability to stay true, and not condone immodest bahavior.

[Henmasher]

Shouldn't her bishop have some words about this?

If I had a nickel for every time I heard someone as I was growing up, say the words "I'm going to tell your bishop!!"

I've been thinking about this as the thread has digressed, and my answer to the first part of this regarding the bishop, is NO - he should not have some words about this. Though I may not necessarily agree with choosing a career/hobby that would expect me to wear that kind of dress, it is that young lady's decision, and hers alone. She is of age to make those choices on her own.

It is not her bishop's stewardship to tell her how to dress unless she is acting as a representative of the church (like the missionaries for example), or inside the church at a church activity or church function or church meeting. The only things I could find in the church handbook regarding modesty were related to church activities as I just mentioned.

https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2 ... odest#13.2

Again, it is not a bishop's stewardship to chastise that girl for her personal choice in this case. The Pharisees would have taken it upon themselves to command everyone down to every step they took. But clearly the Lord does not approve of this kind of unrighteous dominion, and does not want us to be commanded in all things:

26 For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is acompelled in all things, the same is a bslothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

And also, we can judge her personally if we choose to, but we need to be prepared for our own consequences:

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

Right from the Savior's mouth - the one who WILL be judging us, we will be judged with the level of condemnation we impose upon others.

Jules I agree with the taddle to the bishop however I do not feel that mingano was talking of discipline. The intent was probably meant as it is not my place to talk about this with her but worthiness issues would be the bishops jurasdiction. It is not out of line or unrighteouss dominion for a bishop to speak with members regarding public sexually explicit behavior. Should everyone just stand by and not talk to her? There is nothing wrong with a rebuke if it is followed with love and understanding.....right?
However the judge not lest ye be judged line is a drum that is always misused. It is a scapegoat scripture that people use when they fear that which should be corrected. If we have serious sexual sins or publicly act like that girl then by all means don't approach her or use her as an example of innapropriate behavior. That is called a hypocrite, you know the pharisees that Christ was talking to when he was teaching them a principle when that scripture was recorded. Judgment is a part of life and mingano did not hand down a judicial judgement like the pharisees were doing when they brought the woman to be stoned. Had they brought her to Christ with a judgement of what she was doing wrong with the intent for Him to correct her and heal her then where would that story have gone? I hope you see the difference and the application of the Lords words.

[Fiannan]

Maybe I am just too isolated or something but I have heard church leaders ask us to dress modestly in order to not cause OTHERS to sin by having impure thoughts. I am not aware of any talks in which the mere act of wearing something someone might consider immodest is actually a SIN!

The WofW tells us our body is a temple and we should eat healthy. Is being obese a sin that one should confess to the bishop since it is quite clear in the WofW that if one is healthy they are more open to spiritual insights?

[Fiannan]

By the way unless the girl's bishop and stake president as well as (I assume) quite a few GAs who keep a close tab on the image of the church in media are blind they know who this girl is and what she wears. I will bet you she has had nothing but praise from her local leaders and has the admiration of higher leaders who like the positive publicity she has brought the church.

[Henmasher]

Maybe I am just too isolated or something but I have heard church leaders ask us to dress modestly in order to not cause OTHERS to sin by having impure thoughts. I am not aware of any talks in which the mere act of wearing something someone might consider immodest is actually a SIN!

The WofW tells us our body is a temple and we should eat healthy. Is being obese a sin that one should confess to the bishop since it is quite clear in the WofW that if one is healthy they are more open to spiritual insights?

What has the temple taught you about immodesty?
Yes glutiny is a sin. The difference here is the attempt to minimize the actions that associated the clothing. Could you smut up temple clothes.....yes, are you more likely to than with skimpy lingerie?.....no. We are given things for a protection and to teach us. At the end of the day take the clothing, the actions, and tell me would it be appropriate in the lords presence? Would it be great for standards night at the Stake Center? Lets put it on the cover of the For the Strength of Youth. C'mon people can we not see the longing for babylon in this????

By the way unless the girl's bishop and stake president as well as (I assume) quite a few GAs who keep a close tab on the image of the church in media are blind they know who this girl is and what she wears. I will bet you she has had nothing but praise from her local leaders and has the admiration of higher leaders who like the positive publicity ) ) ) ) she has brought the church.

Well if that is what it takes to enter the presence of God and secure ones salvation.....the praise of local leaders :-s