Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

For discussing the Church, Gospel of Jesus Christ, Mormonism, etc.
ATL Wake
captain of 100
Posts: 705

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Post by ATL Wake »

patriotsaint wrote:..., 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
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1343

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Post by mingano »

patriotsaint wrote: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
captain of 10
Posts: 39

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Post by mgsbigdog »

BYU football game.

User avatar
patriotsaint
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1459

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Post by patriotsaint »

mingano wrote:
patriotsaint wrote: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
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1343

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Post by mingano »

patriotsaint wrote:"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.

User avatar
patriotsaint
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1459

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Post by patriotsaint »

mingano wrote:
patriotsaint wrote:"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.

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 »

mgsbigdog wrote: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.


Image

Image

mingano
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1343

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Post by mingano »

patriotsaint wrote: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.

User avatar
patriotsaint
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1459

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Post by 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?

User avatar
patriotsaint
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1459

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Post by patriotsaint »

mingano wrote:
patriotsaint wrote: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.

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 »

ATL Wake wrote:What possible reason would the bishop have to talk with her about this? Why would he want to lose his priesthood by exerting authority over her? (See D&C 121)
So if ones daughter came out of her room dressed in immodest attire would the parent not reproof her? Would the parent not counsel her on what is proper and improper when representing yourself as a Christian? When you belong to a church and you go out in a public forum representing such church the church authority has every right to address the issue of ones behavior. If she WASN'T representing the church (i.e. not a member) then by all means who cares.

We must hold ourselves accountable and if we do not we should be held accountable by our spiritual leaders.

mingano
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1343

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Post by mingano »

sadie_Mormon wrote:So if ones daughter came out of her room dressed in immodest attire would the parent not reproof her? Would the parent not counsel her on what is proper and improper when representing yourself as a Christian? When you belong to a church and you go out in a public forum representing such church the church authority has every right to address the issue of ones behavior. If she WASN'T representing the church (i.e. not a member) then by all means who cares.

We must hold ourselves accountable and if we do not we should be held accountable by our spiritual leaders.
Church members regarding my five o clock shadow at BYU: get to standards! You can't take an exam! You can't eat in the cafeteria! You can't go to a dance! Leg hair is an extension of pubic hair!

Church members regarding my concern about a very visible member on a national TV show: who are you to even bring it up? You hate women! You have mental problems! You shouldn't judge anybody! How dare you even ask the question?

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

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Post by Henmasher »

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).

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 »

ATL Wake wrote:To make a broader point, you sure seem to be preocuppied with the outer vessel: modesty, nudity, etc. The gospel is not about that. The gospel is about loving God, loving man, serving, forgiving, being humble, learning, being kind and prayerful. Let's master those first, then let's worry about modesty.

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? It's like if a child innocently takes a pack of gum without paying for it do we just say "ow well we love him so much that's we'll let it slide" or do we correct the child by taking him back into the store to return it, apologize and receive appropriate reproof for his actions?


If the scriptures aren't enough let's look what past church authority has said regarding this issue.

"Keep your dress modest. Short skirts are not pleasing to the Lord, but modesty is. Girls, do not be an enticement for your downfall because of your immodest and tight-fitting clothes." Elder Ezra Taft Benson, May 10, 1966, "Safety in the Face of Dangers"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I do plead with the mothers of Zion to undertake modesty in dress. We may like to follow the fashion, but let us follow it in modesty. The most precious thing that a girl has is her modesty and if she preserves this in dress, in speech, in action, it will arm, and protect her as nothing else will. But let her lose her modesty, and she becomes a victim of those who pursue her, as the hare is of the hound; and she will not be able to stand unless she preserves her modesty." Elder Melvin J. Ballard, General Conference, April 1929

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Immodest clothing includes short-shorts, tight pants, and other revealing attire. Young women should refrain from wearing off-the-shoulder, low-cut, or revealing clothes. Young Men should similarly maintain modesty in their dress. All should avoid tight fitting or revealing clothes and extremes in clothing and appearance." For the Strength of Youth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"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?

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: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.
patriotsaint wrote: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!!
Huh? No not even close. I think you're taking one extreme and making another. It's like putting a whore next to a nun... come on now really?

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.)

Post Reply