Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

For discussing the Church, Gospel of Jesus Christ, Mormonism, etc.
User avatar
patriotsaint
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1459

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Post by patriotsaint »

sadie_Mormon wrote:
patriotsaint wrote:Why would you have to wear garments with those outfits?
The guide I was told to use is what can't cover the garment is immodest (even if you're not wearing it). I was also advised to wear it at all time except during intimate time and showers. I wasn't told exercise was an option but my workout clothes cover so no issues there.
So what about my former question then? Garments used to be wrist to ankle, so which standard is the "true" standard?

User avatar
sadie_Mormon
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1479
Location: Northeastern US

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Post by sadie_Mormon »

patriotsaint wrote: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.

Well now that's an entirely different topic (church/Temple etc changes) and I do not want to derail the thread.

User avatar
patriotsaint
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1459

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Post by patriotsaint »

sadie_Mormon wrote:
patriotsaint wrote: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.

Well now that's an entirely different topic (church/Temple etc changes) and I do not want to derail the thread.

It's not a different topic but an attempt to show how arbitrary standards can be. If they are scriptural then either our standard or the standard of the early church is false. If they are not scriptural, then what do we use to determine standards? I'm certain that those in the 19th century would view our so called "modest" dress as horribly inappropriate. Would they be right? If not, why?

ATL Wake
captain of 100
Posts: 705

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Post by ATL Wake »

sadie_Mormon wrote:
You're missing the important point in all this. Not only are the scriptures clear but the church is also clear on the expectations put on each of us as members of the church. So if an individual decides that they want to wear something immodest AND be a member of the church should there be no consequences or accountability placed on that person?

Should I go on?
I see your point. Let's bring the woman who was caught in the act before the High Priest and see if we should stone her according to the law.

ATL Wake
captain of 100
Posts: 705

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Post by ATL Wake »

patriotsaint wrote: It's not a different topic but an attempt to show how arbitrary standards can be. If they are scriptural then either our standard or the standard of the early church is false. If they are not scriptural, then what do we use to determine standards? I'm certain that those in the 19th century would view our so called "modest" dress as horribly inappropriate. Would they be right? If not, why?
It's NOT ONLY arbitrary, but if completely MISSES the point. The garment given Adam and Eve represents SO MUCH more than being modest. We as a church to our neglect have lost much of the deeper meaning by focusing on the outer vessel (modesty).

It also misses the point in not even understanding why we wear garments in the first place. The early saints did not wear them 24/7 like we do now. They werent asked to wear them 24/7 until around 1904.

Before the Salt Lake temple was built, there was no temple near Salt Lake, duh. But the members would still pray in the true order of prayer. But only outside at higher elevations or buildings that were dedicated. This was the original purpose to dedicating a building (which we've also forgotten and now we dedicate malls and lawyer's offices). A building would be dedicated so that they could pray in the true order of prayer. And they wore garments, temple cloths, when they prayed. They did not need to wear the garments when they weren't praying.

Joseph Smith was not wearing his garments when he was shot.


It is absolutely amazing how Pharisaical we have become. Looking to the law for life and not studying the principles behind the law.

User avatar
Kaarno
captain of 100
Posts: 317
Location: Logan, Utah

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Post by Kaarno »

mingano wrote:
Thomas wrote:I 'm not judging one way or the other, but what if she was a swimmer, competing in the Olmypics. Would you have the same opinion of her attire?
Swimmers wear MUCH more fabric than she does.
I was a swimmer all through high school and trust me. she is wearing way more clothing than that skimpy speedo i rocked. :ymsmug:

Seriously is this not not a throw the first stone scenario?

mingano
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1343

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Post by mingano »

Kaarno wrote:I was a swimmer all through high school and trust me. she is wearing way more clothing than that skimpy speedo i rocked. :ymsmug:

Seriously is this not not a throw the first stone scenario?
Have you seen the olympic suits these days?

And no, it isn't throwing the first stone or any stone.

User avatar
Henmasher
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1277
Location: West Jordan, Utah

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Post by Henmasher »

I wish people would quit comparing Mingano to the Pharisees. They were evil men that sought to snare the savior by bringing forward a woman that the law they were given merited the request they made. The clothes this woman is wearing is quit different than catching a woman in the very act! Such an accusation is akin to saying mingano will seek the lords life, grow up. Another thing is quit justifying such gross behavior for something like swimming. This is a valid concern broght forth, it was just done less tactful than was probably needed. Latter day saints are becoming of Babylon. Watch her performance and then consider was this the cultural presentation for the prophets at so many temple dedications? Would the lord have been pleased. No! The attire is the least of the issue, she acted like a Babylonian in her lustful dance while representing the church. She had the name of Christ taken upon her when she did that and it bothered a fellow saint. Why are we attacking anyone on this and not discussing the real issue?

User avatar
patriotsaint
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1459

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Post by patriotsaint »

If the Savior was merciful to a woman caught "in the very act" as you say Hen, then why can't posters here do the same for a girl wearing an outfit they don't approve of or performing a dance they find inappropriate? That's the whole point!

If you want to start a thread about the dangers of "becoming of Babylon" as you say, then do it! But stop calling into question how this girl carries the name of Christ. You tread dangerous ground when you do, because you are setting the bar for your own judgement. How would you like to be judged by everyone on this board based on one of your worst moments, or worse, judged by the Lord for your worst moments?

I know when people look at my life I hope they will focus on the good and not the bad....because if they want to look for the bad they certainly will find a lot of it.

ATL Wake
captain of 100
Posts: 705

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Post by ATL Wake »

patriotsaint wrote:...because you are setting the bar for your own judgement. How would you like to be judged by everyone on this board based on one of your worst moments, or worse, judged by the Lord for your worst moments?
I definitely do not want to be judged as my 18 year old self.

I think i'm going to bow out of this conversation at this point. Any more continued pleas to stop judging/accusing this girl and show compassion, patience, and charity will only bring more condemnation on those who ignore it. (And I really do not want anyone to be condemned.)

Thomas
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4622

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Post by Thomas »

Henmasher wrote:mingano, give up, there are rules on this forum and your opinion is not accepted. This whole thread went from you making a rather intense accusation about ones appearance on television to the israelites to you are an unrighteouss judge in israel to page 4. IMHO she shouldn't dress that way, you shouldn't insinuate she is dressed slutty. I truly think your disgust lays in the way she acted so provocative while wearing something just as provocative. She is a member and you felt a collective embarrasment for how she acted on national television. There is nothing wrong with that. Just search the forum and you will see plenty of accusations about political figures that are Mormom with very little backlash and little restraint in the insinuations given. You touched the sex nerve and society has enjoyed quite the infiltration into the church when it comes to sexualizing everything and the acceptance of such. Sadly this forum accepts a half naked mormon that dances very innapropriately but has zero tolerance for a Mormon that would tax you to provide health care for non-mormons. You know the worthless members of society. :-$

She is not in your stewardship so you should stay quiet (sarcasm).
If she runs for political office, the gloves will come off.

User avatar
AussieOi
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6137
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Post by AussieOi »

Andrew52 wrote:
mingano wrote:
mgsbigdog wrote: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.

Dripping with more sanctimony?
Sheesh
Bro, he probably has Asbergers, but it hardly makes him incapable of engaging with discussion.

User avatar
Elizabeth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11796
Location: East Coast Australia

Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Post by Elizabeth »

LDS Church dances have dress codes and standards of behaviour. They are enforced. There are also standards set for music, lighting, lyrics, and the form of dancing. The sexual dances referred to herein would not be officially sanctioned nor allowed.

Personally I love to dance... but not these sexual dances. I would not even be interested in watching them, they are not real dancing, they are disgusting suggestive gyrations. Anyone who thinks otherwise is entertaining immoral carnal thoughts and feelings which are against Christian teachings.

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Post by Fiannan »

mingano wrote:Warning - very immodest dress.

http://realitytv.about.com/od/soyouthin ... TYCD-9.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is an 18 year old Mormon from American Fork. She is currently one of the finalists on the show So You Think You Can Dance. Does anybody else think she is an exceptionally poor representative of the church with her seeming obsession with dressing like this? Shouldn't her bishop have some words about this? Or is everything good because she's on national TV?
I see nothing objectionable.

Now if you want someone who really drags the Church image down click here:

Image

User avatar
gkearney
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5346

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Post by gkearney »

mingano wrote:Warning - very immodest dress.

http://realitytv.about.com/od/soyouthin ... TYCD-9.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is an 18 year old Mormon from American Fork. She is currently one of the finalists on the show So You Think You Can Dance. Does anybody else think she is an exceptionally poor representative of the church with her seeming obsession with dressing like this? Shouldn't her bishop have some words about this? Or is everything good because she's on national TV?
Unless I missed something here there is nothing in the link that says she is a church member.

OMNS
captain of 50
Posts: 54
Location: The real Zion - Lone Star or Bust!

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Post by OMNS »

#:-s
Last edited by OMNS on September 10th, 2012, 3:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Post by Fiannan »

"Modesty in dress is one of the identifying characteristics of true saints. It is an aid in preserving chastity and an outward sign that the modest person is imbued with humility, decency, and propriety. Immodesty in dress is worldly, excites passions and lusts, places undue emphasis on sex and lewdness, and frequently encourages and invites petting and other immoral practices. It is an outward sign that the immodest person has become hardened to the finer sensitivities of the Spirit and been overcome by a spirit of vanity and pride. Low-necked dresses and those which do not adequately cover the body, for instance, are obviously destructive of decency." Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine

Should I go on?
First Sadie there is a lot of truth there but then again "Mormon Doctrine" is not official doctrine, is it?

The part about chastity I can see if one wears clothing that is provocative and draws attention to sexuality. Then again one can be nude and be at a nude beach and not be provocative.

As for being hardened to the spirit I am not convinced that a person who wears lots of clothes is more in tune with God than one who is naked.

User avatar
Henmasher
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1277
Location: West Jordan, Utah

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Post by Henmasher »

patriotsaint wrote:If the Savior was merciful to a woman caught "in the very act" as you say Hen, then why can't posters here do the same for a girl wearing an outfit they don't approve of or performing a dance they find inappropriate? That's the whole point!

If you want to start a thread about the dangers of "becoming of Babylon" as you say, then do it! But stop calling into question how this girl carries the name of Christ. You tread dangerous ground when you do, because you are setting the bar for your own judgement. How would you like to be judged by everyone on this board based on one of your worst moments, or worse, judged by the Lord for your worst moments?

I know when people look at my life I hope they will focus on the good and not the bad....because if they want to look for the bad they certainly will find a lot of it.
There is a difference between merciful and condoning the behavior by justification of swimmers wear less or its art. :-\

The whole point is to discuss and understand, not condone immoral behavior.

If she is baptized, she is a member of a church that does not condone this behavior as does this board! She should not act that way. Do we still love her and wish better for her.....yes. Do we advocate for her to continue this way on national television....no. She is by all means a daughter of God and would not act this way if she "stayed loyal to the royal" and fully realized her worth. I am in no way setting a judgement or advocating for her excommunication. The insinuation from a few is that if any oppose this it is unrighteouss judgement or an expression of perfection from ones self.

I too wish to be judged for my good, however I have not performed a sexual dance with clothes that barely cover my mammary glands. So I too will bow out of a conversation appearing as one without sin. The judgement was upon the act and the clothing, not the character or salvation of the women involved. Sheesh

User avatar
sadie_Mormon
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1479
Location: Northeastern US

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Post by sadie_Mormon »

SARAH Ward wrote:Personally I love to dance... but not these sexual dances. I would not even be interested in watching them, they are not real dancing, they are disgusting suggestive gyrations. Anyone who thinks otherwise is entertaining immoral carnal thoughts and feelings which are against Christian teachings.

I love to dance to but the art of it has died. It's so "bump and grind" now there is no artistic talent to it at all.

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Post by Fiannan »

SARAH Ward wrote:LDS Church dances have dress codes and standards of behaviour. They are enforced. There are also standards set for music, lighting, lyrics, and the form of dancing. The sexual dances referred to herein would not be officially sanctioned nor allowed.

Personally I love to dance... but not these sexual dances. I would not even be interested in watching them, they are not real dancing, they are disgusting suggestive gyrations. Anyone who thinks otherwise is entertaining immoral carnal thoughts and feelings which are against Christian teachings.
Actually church dances have plenty of songs played that are sexual in context. Most pop music is overtly or covertly sexual. If you want music that does not often deal with sex and even often has a spiritual or Christian theme to it you would have to play symphonic or heavy metal. However, that is not generally played at LDS dances because it is loud.

You could play country music -- lots of references to alcohol and adultery though.

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Post by Fiannan »

So basically the church/school tweaks the Bible as they see necessary. I think the scriptures are very clear on Christ's view on modesty.
Sadie could you provide me some NT verses on that one? And please refrain from the "he who looks upon a woman" one since there are men who can have improper thoughts about a Walmart shopper wrapped up in a potato bag.

User avatar
Henmasher
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1277
Location: West Jordan, Utah

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Post by Henmasher »

Fiannan wrote:
SARAH Ward wrote:LDS Church dances have dress codes and standards of behaviour. They are enforced. There are also standards set for music, lighting, lyrics, and the form of dancing. The sexual dances referred to herein would not be officially sanctioned nor allowed.

Personally I love to dance... but not these sexual dances. I would not even be interested in watching them, they are not real dancing, they are disgusting suggestive gyrations. Anyone who thinks otherwise is entertaining immoral carnal thoughts and feelings which are against Christian teachings.
Actually church dances have plenty of songs played that are sexual in context. Most pop music is overtly or covertly sexual. If you want music that does not often deal with sex and even often has a spiritual or Christian theme to it you would have to play symphonic or heavy metal. However, that is not generally played at LDS dances because it is loud.

You could play country music -- lots of references to alcohol and adultery though.
I agree with you Fi, however it is the people that enjoy the sexuality of the music, not the church of herself. That kind of thing is not endorsed by the church but embraced by the membership. Sadly it begins to erode our judgement of what is appropriate on television. :-?

Zkulptor
captain of 100
Posts: 943

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Post by Zkulptor »

patriotsaint wrote:
sadie_Mormon wrote: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!!
=)) so true... mormons are weird people man, some are too extreme for me....I like the mormons that are into charity and loving thy neighbor and stuff, feel bad for those of us that don't realize we all sin differently than others... but we do sin no less.
Sadly it has been my experience that those that usually are scared of the way people dress, or call people names for doing this or that , are usually the ones that are seeing their own sins reflected in the actions of others... we seem to want to convince the world that we abhor that which we in reality covet... :-o

User avatar
jbalm
The Third Comforter
Posts: 5348

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Post by jbalm »

Don't know for sure, but I bet the Nephites wore loincloths. In the BOM painting, the stripling warriors did.

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Post by Fiannan »

jbalm wrote:Don't know for sure, but I bet the Nephites wore loincloths. In the BOM painting, the stripling warriors did.
The women too, probably.

As for those classic paintings we find in the missionary BOMs I will bet that some of the members of the forum would say they should be banned for being immodest.

Post Reply