Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

[patriotsaint]

I personally think these dresses are immodest considering you couldn't pull off wearing your garments with it. Plus your shoulders, forearms, and thighs are exposed. However there are MUCH worse attire worn today then in those pictures. Those pictures are very tame compared to stuff I see daily.

Why would you have to wear garments with those outfits? We are allowed to take our garments off for athletic events or when exercising and I think these dance competitions would qualify as such. I personally choose to wear my garments when exercising (except swimming of course), but that doesn't mean that someone is horrible because they wear a uniform in athletic competition that does not cover garments.

I'm not condoning provocative dance as I said in a previous post, but it seems like some of you would be more comfortable with the standards of Islam. Lets all wear robes and burkas in order to keep ourselves pure!!

[mingano]

I'm not condoning provocative dance as I said in a previous post, but it seems like some of you would be more comfortable with the standards of Islam. Lets all wear robes and burkas in order to keep ourselves pure!!

If robes are good enough for heaven, why aren't they good enough for us? And burkas violate the bible - 1 Corinthians 11:15

[ATL Wake]

You are completely missing my point, but making a different one (even a better one) in the alternative.

There is no good that comes from picking out any individual and starting a thread on how they are not a "good" Mormon, then judging what a "good" Mormon is by YOUR criteria.

If you have a concern about modesty, that is a good topic for a thread. Let's discuss modesty, but it does not need to be done WHILE criticizing someone else.

That leads to another point, the focus on the outer vessel. Multiple scriptures note that it is more important to focus on the inner vessel. Clean out your own motives and intentions. Love others, forgive others, be kind, be meek, be humble. The scriptures talk very little about modesty, yet, there are many more that discuss charity, faith, and forgiveness. Understanding these should be of greater importance to you than "figuring out" modesty.

You are right in noting that that is a big concern in conference, yet, it's strikingly absent in scripture. Do we care more about appearances? Are we caring more about the outer vessel?

My personal opinion is this, and you're welcome to dismiss it-though it's served me, study the scriptures and follow the spirit. Don't get too caught up with the teachings of men. They're not bad, they're many times good. But the Spirit will teach you all things that you should do.

[mgsbigdog]

Mingano - it has been said in this thread before (and you keep ignoring it) that many of us don't necessarily disagree that the outfit is inappropriate but we take issue with you attacking a specific young girl, labeling her with disgusting words, and standing in place of a righteous judge in israel by claiming the right to pass judgement. Again repeating what has already been said: if you want to have a discussion on the question of revealing clothing used during dance and other athletic competition thats fine. Let's talk about that. But attacking a young woman and labeling her a slut and acting as if you have a right to judge her relationship with her faith, her church, or her heavenly father is WAY out of line.

[patriotsaint]

I'm not condoning provocative dance as I said in a previous post, but it seems like some of you would be more comfortable with the standards of Islam. Lets all wear robes and burkas in order to keep ourselves pure!!

If robes are good enough for heaven, why aren't they good enough for us? And burkas violate the bible - 1 Corinthians 11:15

Your attitude on this issue smells pharisaical to me. Let's get all the details then, what color and cut does the robe have to be? What lengths are appropriate and inappropriate? How is it to be fastened and how much chest is allowed to be exposed? What fabrics are considered inappropriate?

Or we could just do our best to live the spirit of the law instead of creating a hedge around it.

[mingano]

The modern prophets are focusing on the external and are the ones who guide us. If their focus is on the external then shouldn't we focus on it just as much? Isn't the whole point of having modern prophets that God can tell us what is most important at any given point in time? They lead, we sustain and follow. This is their priority so it should be ours as well. Or is this a priority that they created on their own without God's approval and endorsement? I know what my thoughts and feelings are on the issue, but God never asked for my opinion and I'm not about to arrogate myself by declaring that I know better about diddly/squat. I appear to be the only one here who has to figure out a way to resolve a conflict between what I believe and what I am told to believe.

[Andrew52]

Mingano - it has been said in this thread before (and you keep ignoring it) that many of us don't necessarily disagree that the outfit is inappropriate but we take issue with you attacking a specific young girl, labeling her with disgusting words, and standing in place of a righteous judge in israel by claiming the right to pass judgement. Again repeating what has already been said: if you want to have a discussion on the question of revealing clothing used during dance and other athletic competition thats fine. Let's talk about that. But attacking a young woman and labeling her a slut and acting as if you have a right to judge her relationship with her faith, her church, or her heavenly father is WAY out of line.

:ymapplause: :ymapplause:

[mingano]

labeling her with disgusting words

Citation needed. My language was explicitly crystal clear - I attached a label to the dress. An inanimate piece of fabric. Not to the person.

and standing in place of a righteous judge in israel by claiming the right to pass judgement.

Citation needed again. I was explicitly clear that this should be a matter for her bishop.

if you want to have a discussion on the question of revealing clothing used during dance and other athletic competition thats fine.

On the third point - the issue wasn't revealing clothing used during dance and other athletic competition. This was about LDS being representatives to the world.

But attacking a young woman and labeling her a slut

I was about to require a citation yet again but I can see how one of my statements could be interpreted as this (which was not intended). To be fair to me, I never used that word as a noun, only as an adjective. To me there is a difference but I recognize that to many there is not. Sorry about that.

and acting as if you have a right to judge her relationship with her faith, her church, or her heavenly father is WAY out of line.

Citation needed.

[mgsbigdog]

FALSE! The prophets have told us that WE should avoid pornography and immodesty OURSELVES and need to keep a watchful eye on those IN OUR STEWARDSHIP. It is never our place to judge an individual outside of our stewardship. We can only be responsible for our own actions and for the teaching of those individuals who are placed under our watch. Stop being so concerned with what others our doing until you and all those in your stewardship are perfect. (Never)

[mgsbigdog]

By saying that some one needs to have a talk with thier bishop the implication is they have committed a sin which placed in jeopardy thier standing within the church. Thats still a judgement.

[mingano]

By saying that some one needs to have a talk with thier bishop the implication is they have committed a sin which placed in jeopardy thier standing within the church. Thats still a judgement.

If anybody speaks to a defense lawyer do you automatically assume that they must have committed a crime?

edit: you've convinced me - I will never again suggest that anybody should ever talk to their bishop for any reason because even thinking that is some horrible sin. You win, I don't care any more.

Complete nudity for some, tiny American flags for others. There. Problem solved.

[Andrew52]

labeling her with disgusting words

Citation needed. My language was explicitly crystal clear - I attached a label to the dress. An inanimate piece of fabric. Not to the person.

and standing in place of a righteous judge in israel by claiming the right to pass judgement.

Citation needed again. I was explicitly clear that this should be a matter for her bishop.

if you want to have a discussion on the question of revealing clothing used during dance and other athletic competition thats fine.

On the third point - the issue wasn't revealing clothing used during dance and other athletic competition. This was about LDS being representatives to the world.

But attacking a young woman and labeling her a slut

I was about to require a citation yet again but I can see how one of my statements could be interpreted as this (which was not intended). To be fair to me, I never used that word as a noun, only as an adjective. To me there is a difference but I recognize that to many there is not. Sorry about that.

and acting as if you have a right to judge her relationship with her faith, her church, or her heavenly father is WAY out of line.

Citation needed.

When one overcomes pride, the ability to admit fault comes easily. All of us, at one time or another make judgemental remarks.
Repentance is the key. Bless you Mr. mingano. I believe your arguments have only served to cause further contention.
Humility could be the answer.

[ATL Wake]

The modern prophets are focusing on the external and are the ones who guide us. If their focus is on the external then shouldn't we focus on it just as much? .

Don't get so focused on men.

2 Nephi 13:12 And my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they who lead thee cause thee to err and destroy the way of thy paths.

Trust not in the arm of the flesh (men).

2 Nephi 28:14 They wear stiff necks and high heads; yea, and because of pride, and wickedness, and abominations, and whoredoms, they have all gone astray save it be a few, who are the humble followers of Christ; nevertheless, they are led, that in many instances they do err because they are taught by the precepts of men.

I'm not saying their advice is bad. I'm suggesting that the priority you place on that value to the neglect of other values is misplaced.

D&C 76:98 And the glory of the telestial is one....

99 For these are they who are of Paul, and of Apollos, and of Cephas.

100 These are they who say they are some of one and some of another—some of Christ and some of John, and some of Moses, and some of Elias, and some of Esaias, and some of Isaiah, and some of Enoch;

Some of Thomas, some of Boyd, some of Jeffrey.

These are men. Maybe they speak to God. That does not excuse you of your obligation to seek God and talk to Him yourself. Find out what HE wants you to do and stop getting your messages from other men.

Are we not all JUST LIKE ISRAEL? Who were not willing to go up the Mount with Moses. No, we have a prophet (Moses) he will talk to God for us.

mingano, you'll find a lot more peace, happiness, and understanding if you stop relying on the arm of the flesh and seek answers through the Spirit.

[mingano]

Are we not all JUST LIKE ISRAEL? Who were not willing to go up the Mount with Moses. No, we have a prophet (Moses) he will talk to God for us.

They weren't invited... seriously - what could possibly make you think that anybody other than Moses would have been allowed to go up the mount with Moses? Anybody who tried would probably have resulted in Moses not having any experience up there (refer to the testimony of the witnesses) or whoever attempted to follow being struck down for daring to approach. Moses and Moses alone was welcome on that mountain, just as only the High Priest was allowed to enter the Holy of Holies.

[patriotsaint]

Are we not all JUST LIKE ISRAEL? Who were not willing to go up the Mount with Moses. No, we have a prophet (Moses) he will talk to God for us.

They weren't invited... seriously - what could possibly make you think that anybody other than Moses would have been allowed to go up the mount with Moses? Anybody who tried would probably have resulted in Moses not having any experience up there (refer to the testimony of the witnesses) or whoever attempted to follow being struck down for daring to approach. Moses and Moses alone was welcome on that mountain, just as only the High Priest was allowed to enter the Holy of Holies.

You are wrong, they were invited. They rejected the higher law and were given the Law of Moses which included the instruction that only the High Priest was allowed to enter the Holy of Holies. Lucky for us Christ fulfilled the law and rent the veil of his own flesh in order to allow us all access to God's presence.

Hebrews: To Ascend the Holy Mount

[ATL Wake]

..., they were invited. They rejected the higher law and were given the Law of Moses which included the instruction that only the High Priest was allowed to enter the Holy of Holies. ...

Hebrews: To Ascend the Holy Mount

Thanks Patriot. I was looking for something that explained it as nicely as this.

But before any of us start thinking how foolish the Israelites were, we may consider whether or not we have seen the face of the Lord, and liken this unto ourselves.

[mingano]

You are wrong, they were invited. They rejected the higher law and were given the Law of Moses which included the instruction that only the High Priest was allowed to enter the Holy of Holies. Lucky for us Christ fulfilled the law and rent the veil of his own flesh in order to allow us all access to God's presence.

The scriptures in question say that they saw the mountain and asked their prophet to guide them - I don't see anything where they were told that they could climb the mountain themselves. Out of the hundreds of thousands of people I can't imagine that not a single person other than Moses would have been willing to climb if given the ok: when is the last time you could get even 100 people to think/act the same way?

[mgsbigdog]

BYU football game.

[patriotsaint]

You are wrong, they were invited. They rejected the higher law and were given the Law of Moses which included the instruction that only the High Priest was allowed to enter the Holy of Holies. Lucky for us Christ fulfilled the law and rent the veil of his own flesh in order to allow us all access to God's presence.

The scriptures in question say that they saw the mountain and asked their prophet to guide them - I don't see anything where they were told that they could climb the mountain themselves. Out of the hundreds of thousands of people I can't imagine that not a single person other than Moses would have been willing to climb if given the ok: when is the last time you could get even 100 people to think/act the same way?

They do at one point, but later in the narrative we get this information:

"Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel: And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness. And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink." (Ex 24:9-11)

Context is important. If you don't take the scriptures you are referring to in the greater context of the exodus narrative you miss the message. So you tell me, in the scripture above we are told that Moses and seventy-three others went up and saw God. Went up where? We must assume it was the Mount unless you believe that God decided to make a trip down off of the mount and meet them part way.

[mingano]

"Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel: And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness. And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink."

Context is important. If you don't take the scriptures you are referring to in the greater context of the exodus narrative you miss the message. So you tell me, in the scripture above we are told that Moses and seventy-three others went up and saw God. Went up where? We must assume it was the Mount unless you believe that God decided to make a trip down off of the mount and meet them part way.

Do you suppose that those 70 were NOT specifically invited? The verse explicitly calls them the "nobles" of the children of Israel - that is significant. My assertion still stands - there was not a standing invitation for anybody and everybody to climb the mountain. You indicate your willingness and then wait to be beckoned closer. Until then you have to wait, outside, for the bridegroom to arrive and escort you inside.

[patriotsaint]

"Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel: And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness. And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink."

Context is important. If you don't take the scriptures you are referring to in the greater context of the exodus narrative you miss the message. So you tell me, in the scripture above we are told that Moses and seventy-three others went up and saw God. Went up where? We must assume it was the Mount unless you believe that God decided to make a trip down off of the mount and meet them part way.

Do you suppose that those 70 were NOT specifically invited? The verse explicitly calls them the "nobles" of the children of Israel - that is significant. My assertion still stands - there was not a standing invitation for anybody and everybody to climb the mountain. You indicate your willingness and then wait to be beckoned closer. Until then you have to wait, outside, for the bridegroom to arrive and escort you inside.

Everyone is invited to pay the price and receive the blessing. Did you even read the article I linked? It's no different than entering the temple today. Everyone on earth is invited to accept the gospel and prepare themselves for temple ordinances. That doesn't mean that anyone off the street can run into the celestial room, but the invitation is still there.

[sadie_Mormon]

Where's the outrage over lds young women playing volleyball? Have you seen those shorts? What about lds male wrestling? You can't put garments on with those wrestling uniforms. They should really be excommunicated! And those evil football players wearing "tight or revealing" spandex football pants! And can you believe those young men in stake basketball games that wear tank tops! They are obviously not worthy of their priesthood and there is no way they can serve missions with the new raised bar!

It's terrible that the school allows it considering they are church run. There are plenty of modest sports clothing options available that meet the requirements. There needs to be reproof and obviously the church isn't up to the challenge.

I have a few Christian friends who wear very nice modest swimwear (as I do as well) when at the beach with their family. Just shows there are options... they make the choice not to pick the modest option because they want to conform to society's norm.

[mingano]

Everyone is invited to pay the price and receive the blessing. Did you even read the article I linked? It's no different than entering the temple today. Everyone on earth is invited to accept the gospel and prepare themselves for temple ordinances. That doesn't mean that anyone off the street can run into the celestial room, but the invitation is still there.

Are we no longer discussing the physical action of climbing a physical mountain? The claim that was made to start this spur was that anybody and everybody was allowed to climb the mountain with Moses - a very specific point of discussion (and an interesting one because I've never seen anybody even hint that it was an option for the others). There is symbolism, there are parallels, there are related possible activities in the modern day but this is about what people were allowed to do or were not allowed to do on a specific date several thousand years ago in a very specific location.

[patriotsaint]

So Sadie why don't we still follow the dress standards that existed in the early church? Back then garments went wrist to ankle, so the swimwear in the pictures above would be scandalously immodest by that standard. So who is right, the early church, or the church today? Or are we straining at gnats here?

[patriotsaint]

Everyone is invited to pay the price and receive the blessing. Did you even read the article I linked? It's no different than entering the temple today. Everyone on earth is invited to accept the gospel and prepare themselves for temple ordinances. That doesn't mean that anyone off the street can run into the celestial room, but the invitation is still there.

Are we no longer discussing the physical action of climbing a physical mountain? The claim that was made to start this spur was that anybody and everybody was allowed to climb the mountain with Moses - a very specific point of discussion (and an interesting one because I've never seen anybody even hint that it was an option for the others). There is symbolism, there are parallels, there are related possible activities in the modern day but this is about what people were allowed to do or were not allowed to do on a specific date several thousand years ago in a very specific location.

Of course that is what we are discussing, or do you not consider entrance into our temples today as physical? It has nothing to do with dates and everything to do with God's laws governing the admittance of one of his children into his presence. I'm starting to agree with ATL that you just like to argue. I'll leave you to your pedantic musings.