Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

For discussing the Church, Gospel of Jesus Christ, Mormonism, etc.
Post Reply
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.

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

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Post by Elizabeth »

Young children are also taught to dance sensually, provocatively and seductively in this style of dance... to what end, and for what reason?

katers
captain of 100
Posts: 106

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Post by katers »

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
Henmasher I think you missed the point. We aren't told to "judge not -- except in areas where you haven't sinned." We are simply told not to judge. And when you all start calling for this girl's bishop to take action, you are judging her. It is okay to discuss righteous principles....but this thread has gone far beyond that. You have singled out an individual. You can discuss modesty in dress and dance without doing so.

Everyone is at different places in their progression, individuals in the gospel are still individuals who will make their own choices based on the standards given. Does that mean we condone differences? No. You are free to say that this is a problem and therefore won't support it by watching it. But then to call out this girl on a public internet forum in the way that has been done is taking it too far.

mingano
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1343

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Post by mingano »

katers wrote:Henmasher I think you missed the point. We aren't told to "judge not -- except in areas where you haven't sinned." We are simply told not to judge. And when you all start calling for this girl's bishop to take action, you are judging her.
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". Am I really the only person on the planet who sees a difference between the two statements? (And while we're on the point of not judging others, when somebody - you know who you are - says that I am under eternal condemnation because I don't accept your analysis of things that is far closer to Oaks' "final judgments" than anything else that has been brought up on this thread. But of course nobody called you on it.)
You have singled out an individual. You can discuss modesty in dress and dance without doing so.
Yes. I singled out a person who sought out a national audience and go out of her way to be, in her words, "really sensual and sexy". Yes. I singled out a person who stated, again, on national TV, "When it comes to dancing I like being a woman and I think when I get up onto the stage I really need to bring that sexuality, that confidence.” Yes. I singled out an 18 year old who - with the full permission and encouragement of her parents (who are known personally by somebody on this board) has been working on being an 18 year old sex object for quite some time now.
But then to call out this girl on a public internet forum in the way that has been done is taking it too far.
It is one thing to call somebody out for private activities. It is quite another to discuss in a public forum the actions and statements of a public figure who is performing in a public forum. Is your suggestion that we bury our heads? Ignore it? Pretend that it doesn't exist? Or acknowledge that it is happening but everybody who doesn't support and condone must bite their tongues?

“You’ve got great technique, great legs, great feet, great back, and add to that this smockin’ hot face that is just performing – your dad is really gonna have to look after you young lady.” - this is an acceptable comment, right? THESE kinds of things can be said but nobody must ever dare challenge or contradict them. Nobody must ever speak out and say "hey - maybe we shouldn't be going out of our way to encourage teenagers to overly sexualize themselves". Is it ok to say that Brittney Spears was too sexy? Or is that going to keep me out of the celestial kingdom as well? Should we never say "Paris Hilton is a bad example for making a sex tape then leaking it so she could launch her career"?

Do you have kids? If/when you do, will you refuse to say "don't be like that person" because to do so would be unrighteous judgment? If you were present in the day, would you have told Samuel the Lamanite to keep quiet because to denounce activity in a public forum is some kind of egregious sin?

My opinion is that church standards are being violated when an 18 year old girl wearing breast-revealing lingerie (a costume that she personally selected for her audition so the claim that she "had" to wear that is absolutely false) while saying that she wants to highlight on sexuality. On an international stage. And in response I am told that unless I shut up and stop discussing the For the Strength Of Youth guidelines I am bringing "more condemnation" upon myself. More. As in I'm already condemned for discussing public figures. But THAT isn't judgment. Oh, no - it isn't judgment to say "God has condemned you" because, well, I can't figure out why it isn't. Or maybe it is judgment but it's the good kind of judgment so that makes it ok?

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

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Post by Henmasher »

katers wrote:
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
Henmasher I think you missed the point. We aren't told to "judge not -- except in areas where you haven't sinned." We are simply told not to judge.not true, we are told to judge righteoussly, we make judgements everyday and when you take that stance you condone evil and do so as a result of being scared to stand on a principle. And when you all start calling for this girl's bishop to take action, you are judging her.I have never called for her bishop, you really should read the whole thread It is okay to discuss righteous principles....but this thread has gone far beyond that. You have singled out an individual.I dont even know the girls name, and if we cannot take a specific circumstance to use as a base of discussion then how are we to do it. This was a clear example and worth discussing. Are you saying we cannot use examples and talk with clarity on a subject? You can discuss modesty in dress and dance without doing so. again, I would need an example and since we can't use them???

Everyone is at different places in their progression, individuals in the gospel are still individuals who will make their own choices based on the standards given. Does that mean we condone differences? No. You are free to say that this is a problem and therefore won't support it by watching it. But then to call out this girl on a public internet forum in the way that has been done is taking it too far.just as you are calling me out personally right now? You should have been more vague and taken your stance without singling me out on a public forum.
:-o :-o
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

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Post by Fiannan »

Should we never say "Paris Hilton is a bad example for making a sex tape then leaking it so she could launch her career"?
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.

mingano
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1343

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Post by mingano »

Fiannan wrote: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?

User avatar
patriotsaint
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1459

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Post by patriotsaint »

Henmasher wrote: :-o :-o
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?

User avatar
patriotsaint
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1459

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Post by patriotsaint »

mingano wrote: 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!
Last edited by patriotsaint on September 7th, 2012, 7:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

mingano
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1343

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Post by mingano »

patriotsaint wrote: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?

User avatar
patriotsaint
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1459

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Post by patriotsaint »

mingano wrote:
patriotsaint wrote: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.

Post Reply