For discussing the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Mormon Doctrine, Gospel Principles, etc.

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Postby »

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?
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!"- Patrick Henry
patriotsaint
captain of 1,000

User avatar
 
Posts: 1504
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 11:04 am

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Sponsor

Sponsor
 

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Postby »

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.
"Mormonism is the pure doctrine of Jesus Christ; of which I myself am not ashamed." Joseph Smith
sadie_Mormon
captain of 1,000

User avatar
 
Posts: 1492
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 1:08 pm
Location: Northeastern US

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Postby »

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?
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!"- Patrick Henry
patriotsaint
captain of 1,000

User avatar
 
Posts: 1504
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 11:04 am

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Postby »

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 1,000
 
Posts: 1294
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 7:57 am

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Postby »

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.
ATL Wake
captain of 1,000
 
Posts: 1294
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 7:57 am

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Postby »

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?
A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell.
C. S. Lewis
Kaarno
captain of 100

User avatar
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 11:00 pm
Location: Logan, Utah

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Postby »

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.
mingano
captain of 1,000
 
Posts: 1364
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 7:19 am

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Postby »

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?
When obedience ceases to be an irritation and becomes a quest, we are then endowed with power!
(ETB)
Henmasher
captain of 1,000

User avatar
 
Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 9:10 am
Location: West Jordan, Utah

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Postby »

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.
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!"- Patrick Henry
patriotsaint
captain of 1,000

User avatar
 
Posts: 1504
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 11:04 am

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Postby »

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.)
ATL Wake
captain of 1,000
 
Posts: 1294
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 7:57 am

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Postby »

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.
Thomas
captain of 1,000
 
Posts: 4018
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:32 am

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Postby »

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.
The shelf said enough. AussieOi@hotmail.com
AussieOi
Level 34 Illuminated

User avatar
 
Posts: 5897
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 3:57 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Postby »

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.
SARAH Ward
captain of 100

User avatar
 
Posts: 950
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 11:36 am

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Postby »

mingano wrote:Warning - very immodest dress.

http://realitytv.about.com/od/soyouthin ... TYCD-9.htm

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
"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors."
Plato
Fiannan
captain of 1,000
 
Posts: 3830
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 2:14 pm

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Postby »

mingano wrote:Warning - very immodest dress.

http://realitytv.about.com/od/soyouthin ... TYCD-9.htm

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.
gkearney
captain of 1,000

User avatar
 
Posts: 1333
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 11:31 pm

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Postby »

#:-s
Last edited by OMNS on Mon Sep 10, 2012 3:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
OMNS
captain of 100
 
Posts: 474
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 9:44 pm
Location: The real Zion - Lone Star or Bust!

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Postby »

"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.
"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors."
Plato
Fiannan
captain of 1,000
 
Posts: 3830
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 2:14 pm

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Postby »

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
When obedience ceases to be an irritation and becomes a quest, we are then endowed with power!
(ETB)
Henmasher
captain of 1,000

User avatar
 
Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 9:10 am
Location: West Jordan, Utah

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Postby »

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.
"Mormonism is the pure doctrine of Jesus Christ; of which I myself am not ashamed." Joseph Smith
sadie_Mormon
captain of 1,000

User avatar
 
Posts: 1492
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 1:08 pm
Location: Northeastern US

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Postby »

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.
"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors."
Plato
Fiannan
captain of 1,000
 
Posts: 3830
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 2:14 pm

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Postby »

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.
"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors."
Plato
Fiannan
captain of 1,000
 
Posts: 3830
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 2:14 pm

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Postby »

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. :-?
When obedience ceases to be an irritation and becomes a quest, we are then endowed with power!
(ETB)
Henmasher
captain of 1,000

User avatar
 
Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 9:10 am
Location: West Jordan, Utah

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Postby »

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
Zkulptor
captain of 100
 
Posts: 947
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:08 pm

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Postby »

Don't know for sure, but I bet the Nephites wore loincloths. In the BOM painting, the stripling warriors did.
Where are we going? And, why are we in this handbasket?

Our prime purpose in this life is to help others. And if you can't help them, at least don't hurt them.
-Dalai Lama
jbalm
captain of 1,000

User avatar
 
Posts: 3694
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 7:28 am

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Postby »

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.
"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors."
Plato
Fiannan
captain of 1,000
 
Posts: 3830
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 2:14 pm

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Postby »

Young children are also taught to dance sensually, provocatively and seductively in this style of dance... to what end, and for what reason?
SARAH Ward
captain of 100

User avatar
 
Posts: 950
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 11:36 am

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Postby »

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.
katers
captain of 100
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 3:15 pm

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Postby »

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?
mingano
captain of 1,000
 
Posts: 1364
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 7:19 am

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Postby »

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
When obedience ceases to be an irritation and becomes a quest, we are then endowed with power!
(ETB)
Henmasher
captain of 1,000

User avatar
 
Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 9:10 am
Location: West Jordan, Utah

Re: Egregiously violating church standards on national TV

Postby »

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.
"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors."
Plato
Fiannan
captain of 1,000
 
Posts: 3830
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 2:14 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Gospel Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aeon, Seek the Truth and 23 guests