Leaderboard

One aspect of modesty that I rarely hear anything said about is modesty in speech. I started looking into this particular topic about eight months ago after being disgusted by the constant cussing by my coworkers. Some guys I worked with included the F word in every paragraph at least once. Then I began wondering about my own speech. I do not swear or take the name of God in vain. I was taught early not to use swear words by the simple expedient of getting my mouth washed out with soap. I began considering my use of substitute swear words, “Mormon” swear words and I began looking into it. I came to the conclusion that I needed to change my language. This is still a work in progress as I find myself still using different substitute words for things like fecal matter and I wondered how John Crapper would have felt if he realized his last name had been turned into substitute swear word. Coincidentally enough, there is an article in the August Ensign about this very subject. The parents were concerned about what type of language kids were hearing in school and came up with the following acronym. I taught my children to use proper anatomical language for their body parts and bodily functions. I also taught them that you can say words like, “hell”, “damn,” and “ass” if you are using them in their proper context, otherwise they are not acceptable. There are a number of other articles on the Church web site regarding modesty in speech and I have come to the conclusion that the best way to be modest in my speech is to speak as the language was intended using proper grammar, terminology and phrasing.

No. Palerider is no longer a moderator.

Man. I hope I don't die during the Christmas season while perpetuating the jolly fat man in a red suit thing.

I think he's doing fine, perhaps even better than I had previously thought. He gave a long and powerful talk last night in the Priesthood session. Clearly, he is not as young as he once was, and I don't expect he will return to that younger state. His wife's death seemed to age him. He did appear to be nearly unable to complete his address this morning, but one incident does not reveal the whole story. President Monson will continue to lead the Church exactly as long as the Lord wills.

Caffeine has gotta go. I kicked it once. Then decided to, limitedly, introduce it back into my world. I've kept it moderately limited, but I still feel -- all the time -- like I should have kept off it. During conference I felt it again. I finally gave in and accepted that the Spirit was telling me something and I wasn't listening. I'm not suggesting that I need to treat caffeine like it's one of the big 4. But I use it every day (primarily in work-out substances). And every day, to me, is riding the line of abusive and addictive. However, unlike last time. I'm not going to cold turkey quit. I need to back out a bit slower. Cold turkey caffeine withdrawal is unpleasant. So I've made a plan to back out of it over the next two weeks. Feel free to share, if you'd like, your conference resolutions -- if you feel it is appropriate and you are comfortable doing so. I may have more. Gotta review my notes, pray, etc. We'll see.

From my teenage years I earned to love the German language because it is so straight forward, logical and literal. Basically the difference in German between swearing and and not swearing (slang) is not the words that are used but the emphasis or energy placed in using the words. In essence, anything shouted out in anger or with viscous spiteful intention is considered swearing or cussing. I would also suggest that an evil cousin of swearing is providing safe harbor to angry, viscous or spiteful thoughts. Holding one's tongue may be better than speaking some words but allowing such thoughts to fester is hardly an act of virtue.

Modesty in speech is certainly another laudable goal, as long as it is approached correctly. Interestingly, your post, especially your final statement reminded me of one my pet peeves from BYU. I recall many "non-Utah Mormon" students at BYU who really liked to put down "Utah Mormons", including the way we spoke. One of the dumbest practices they would decry is the habit of some of my fellow Utah Mormons to pronounce words differently -- such as those who pronounce "root" so that it rhymes with "foot" instead of "boot". Others would belittle those whose language and speech made them sound like "some Utah hick". I am all for using language correctly and properly, but I can also see how this sometimes gets used to belittle and put down our fellow man.

A friend of mine (not a member of the church, in fact not even religious so far as I know) was just the other day talking about the decline of modesty in the world today. Interestingly, he was not talking about about clothing styles at all. He was talking about the "selfie" craze that photographs, markets, and promotes themselves none-stop.

I thought ponderize was a real good idea. I think I need to do that. dc

I liked the ponderize talk too. I felt the Spirit whisper to me that I should do this. I'll take some time tonight to come up with tangible steps to do this in my life.

Mountain Dew is a habit me wife says i need to quit. :)

Ponderize. My oldest daughter said the one thing she would like to do is ponderize the scriptures. So, as a family, after scripture study we will ponderize a verse of scripture as a family. One each week.

I don't think it's the "lying" that may condemn this man, but his attitude of not repenting. I think as we mature in the Gospel of Christ, repenting becomes a way of life, a way of becoming like Christ. It isn't a checklist--I lied about x, so I repent of that. But, repenting is wanting and doing better than yesterday.

That could be said for a pretty good chunk of the internet as a whole. :)

Let's think about it. He's 88 years old. This week he has had Elder Scott's funeral, he has had to call 3 new apostles, in addition to all of the speaking he has had to do this week. I can imagine the spiritual strength it has taken to do all of this let alone the physical strength. I think when people say he is doing okay, he is doing okay taking into consideration his age and his responsibilities.

Photograph of Martian duo in their (comfortable) mothership:

Of course. Around 98 AD, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote a short account about northwestern Europe called "Germania." In chapter 40 of that work, in the same breath as mentioning Lombards and Angles, Tacitus says, "In an island of the Ocean stands a sacred grove, and in the grove a consecrated cart, draped with cloth, which none but the priest may touch. The priest perceives the presence of the goddess in this holy of holies and attends her, in deepest reverence, as her cart is drawn by heifers (milk cows). Then follow days of rejoicing and merry-making in every place that she designs to visit and be entertained. No one goes to war, no one takes up arms; every object of iron is locked away; then, and only then, are peace and quiet known and loved, until the priest again restores the goddess to her temple..." (Compare the OT account of a cart, drawn by cows (1 Sam 6) https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/1-sam/6.7,10-11?lang=eng#6 , or even oxen, on which the ark sat. Like the chariot in northwestern Europe, the ark could not be touched by anyone but the priests. https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/2-sam/6.3,6?lang=eng#2. Likewise, the conveyance of the cart before battle in northwestern Europe was akin to the conveyance of the ark in ancient Israel before going to battle.) Tacitus calls this female god Nerthus. Some modern linguists and anthropologists equate her to the male god Njord, who is associated with the sea, seafaring, wind, fishing, wealth, and farming. They have no explanation for the gender shift. Tacitus may have been wrong in assuming the god was female. According to at least one medieval account, Njord was the the son of a seafaring immigrant who arrived on the coast of northern Europe. Medieval accounts place Njord and his seafaring father (from whom European dynasties claim to descend) in the 1st century BC, making them contemporary with Hagoth's voyagers.

Then you are NOT Elder Bednar (what with President Hinckley's response to the gerontocracy question)! 1 down, 14 more to go.

I talked to our deacons quorum about chastity, husband-hood, pornography, and sex. I guess I had forgotten how nervous and embarrassed thirteen-year-olds can get, but their laughter and silliness in response caught me off-guard. This has been a great calling for me as I have learned to exercise patience and love toward these wonderful young (very young) men. I labor on in the hope that they will gain something from my efforts, perhaps even as much as I gain from associating with them.

I was reminded of that as well. Skip ahead to the 8 minute mark. https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2007/10/the-great-commandment?lang=eng#watch=video This is what I think of when it comes to quorum fellowship.

Sounds like you guys are making a big deal about nothing. I know how I would have handled it. Same scenario except it is me and Mrs Omega. Mrs. Omega: Do I look fat in this dress? Omegaseamaster75: You've looked fatter in other dresses. We die in car crash, all is well because I didn't lie.

Oh, I get the second one - "assure some level of peace of mind". Translated = helping people feel safe, because there's a sign that says 'no guns'. That's only thing gun free zones accomplish - giving people a false sense of security. Big difference between feeling safe and being safe. I don't get your first claim at all. Gun free zones do jack squat to "assure some level of safety". Your original statement: "The point of gun free zones it to keep irrational idiots from shooting someone because of an offense (argument). That and people who think they can handle a gun and shoot themselves in the bathroom, by accident. I'm all for gun free zones, as a deterent to idiots." I see you acknowledge gun free zones do nothing to deter a bad guy intent on doing bad things. Good deal. I hope the common sense spreads. I've been arguing the point with people for decades. But you seem to think that 'irrational idiots', who may go shoot someone because of an offense, will leave their guns at home because they realize the will be standing in a gun free zone. That makes absolutely no sense to me. Human behavior doesn't work that way. "Gee, I'm a hotheaded idiot. I usually walk around with my gun and look for trouble, but I'm going to a movie theater that bans guns, so I guess I'll leave the thing home." - said nobody, ever. Got any evidence to support this claim? Because right now, I'm not buying it. You're line of reasoning is not persuasive.

I didn't say either. I'm saying there is a purpose to the gun free zone. It is to assure some level of safety and peace of mind. Some level does not mean 'complete'. I think it misplaced to think a gun free zone makes it a target. The focus needs to be on the shooter not the gun.

I imagine the Lord is very much interested in what is said here. I look at this site as a missionary tool to both members and nonmembers alike. I know I'm not perfect, but, I do try to temper my postings and say what the Lord would have me say. I often pray about what I say here on the site, and as I type, I often ask, "is this what You would want me to say? Please help guide me."

I'm pretty sure that church leaders don't visit this site...oh wait...you weren't talking about MY church leaders, were you?

Yeah, but when the statement was issued in May he was 87. Of course, I'm told we have at least one head mod who can beat that...

Obviously you have some purpose for asking these questions with these scriptural verses referenced that you're wanting us to get at. What is this purpose? Do you feel you have a personal experience similar to this that you need an answer to? Or a friend that had a similar situation? None of us can determine the outcome of any individual. To try to do so is to have the mind of God, which is not even possible. He is all knowing. We are not. I'm just not sure what you're getting at here.

I'm considering this. But we were also taught to listen to the Spirit's next thing for you (kind of a one at a time thing it seemed -- or a few at a time...not running faster than able, and whathaveyou), line upon line, etc...and I don't want to take on too much (meaning I already have a ton of initiatives going on from past conference suggestions, etc). But I really, really liked the idea of this. So maybe I should just jump in!

I found it very surprising that part of President Monson's in the Priesthood session talk was on a subject that I had recorded in my journal a few months prior. The subject was on being cautious about the voices we listen to. I will add more later as I do not have access to my journal presently. Edit: Here are some of the words President Monson said. They were very similar to some things spoken by James Faust in 1993: The [Holy] Spirit's voice is ever present, but it is calm. Said Isaiah, "And the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness quietness and assurance for ever" (Isaiah 32:17). The adversary tries to smother this voice with a multitude of loud, persistent, persuasive, and appealing voices: Murmuring voices that conjure up perceived injustices. Whining voices that abhor challenge and work. Seductive voices offering sensual enticements. Soothing voices that lull us into carnal security. Intellectual voices that profess sophistication and superiority. Proud voices that rely on the arm of flesh. Flattering voices that puff us up with pride. Cynical voices that destroy hope. Entertaining voices that promote pleasure seeking. Commercial voices that tempt us to "spend money for that which is of no worth" and/or "labor for that which cannot satisfy" (see 2 Nephi 9:51). ... In your generation you will be barraged by multitudes of voices telling you how to live, how to gratify your passions, how to have it all.

"Absurd. No rational person could believe such tripe. As Elder So-and-so will surely agree, any faithful Saint could tell you that blah blah blah." Yeah, you're right. It would make a HUGE difference.

You made a decision that you cannot go back and change. I don't know whether or not this decision was made with the Lord in mind through prayer, but either way, it happened and that time in your life was spent being a caretaker when needed. I believe that dwelling on something you wish you could change will only bring you sorrow and grief. This is Satan's way of making you feel bad about not serving a mission. The Lord knows the intent of your heart. Remember this, and move on with your life with the faith that He will guide you to where you are supposed to go. Ignore leaders that seem to speak harsh words about those who do not serve missions. They are the ones sinning, not you. Keep on living your life and the Lord will bless you if you are living worthily. Do not give up on finding a spouse. There are many women who do not have RM stamped on their list as a permanent characteristic that they are not willing to give up. RM DOES NOT equal a worthy member of the church. Honestly, if you're a current temple recommend holder, I find that much more impressive and worthwhile. That shows me the person you are now, not the person you were however many years ago. Remember, the Lord wants you to find joy in this life. Satan wants you to find sadness, anger, and resentment.

I haven't done an exhaustive reconciliation of the issue; but my gut reaction is that the ninth commandment isn't that we not lie; it's that we not bear false witness against our neighbor. In other words, we should't make incorrect statements for the deliberate purpose of harming someone else. I don't think Miep Gies is now in hell because she never "repented" for hiding Otto Frank and his family; and (on a much, much smaller level) I'm strongly disinclined to think that God really considers it "sin" for a husband to choose to conceal from his wife a truth that is not helpful, not remediable and potentially harmful.

If we're going to say that all factually inaccurate statements are worthy of damnation, why not go whole hog and pitch a hypothetical about the little old German man who hid Jews, lied to the S.S. about it, was found out, and summarily executed?

In answer to all the questions, he will be fine and the wife will be fine for all the times she may have not shared her true feelings either. I can't see the Lord being concerned regarding this type of scenario; although, it does give me a good chuckle thinking about Geico's "Honest Abe" commercial -- LOL

I can't find it via Google now, but some bloggernacle site mused on this issue sometime back. As I recall, they suggested "Maverick" for Pres. Uchtdorf and "Pickles" for Elder Bednar, among others.

Missionaries and bishops can probably tell you a little bit about discernment. When I was on my mission, I was knocking on doors one day in a large French city. We had a conversation with a guy who lived in a large walk-up apartment building. He didn't let us in, but he kept talking to us through the door. He kept challenging us with various questions about faith and why it isn't logical or scientific to believe. There was an edge of bitterness in his voice, but my companion didn't quite pick up on it. All of a sudden, I knew (discerned) that this guy had been a former member of the Church. I asked him out of the blue, "So how long has it been since you left the Church?" My companion's head snapped around in astonishment and the guy looked at me incredulous. Sure enough, he admitted that he had been a member and had fallen away. It had been many years since he had left the Church after having his faith damaged by some anti-Mormon literature. I didn't "read" his mind, but I was given the "hunch" and I was bold enough to act on it. Personally, I think that Jesus operated like we do. Although he was a member of the Godhead, he assumed mortality fully and he overcame the veil gradually. His personal purity and obedience to his Father's commandments gave him access to unlimited spiritual gifts. Those gifts came, like the do with us, as he had need of them.

The question involves some fallacious thinking. It seems to suggest that the righteousness of the man in question was reflected by his serving in various Church callings. It focuses on works and does not include grace in the least. Many latter-day saints are mistaken in this kind of thinking. The Book of Mormon clearly teaches that we are saved by grace. "And since man had fallen he could not merit anything of himself; but the sufferings and death of Christ atone for their sins, through faith and repentance, and so forth; and that he breaketh the bands of death, that the grave shall have no victory, and that the sting of death should be swallowed up in the hopes of glory; and Aaron did expound all these things unto the king" (Alma 22:14, italics added). None of us deserve to be saved. Nothing we do merits it. Whether like the man in the "scenario" we lie or we don't, none of us do anything that can merit salvation. We are saved by the atonement of Christ. If we exercise faith and repentance, Christ is merciful and saves us despite our errors and mistakes. Nobody will be error-free when we leave this life. We keep the commandments because we love God, not because we earn his love or forgiveness by doing so. We practice living a celestial law on this earth so we may be able to enjoy the blessings of heaven here while we are in mortality. We will be pleasantly surprised when we see who Father has forgiven because they called upon the name of his Son for mercy, despite the imperfection of their lives.

I don't understand the point of this thread. Speculating on a wildly hypothetical situation when the only answer to the question of anyone's fate in the next world is up to Heavenly Father.

I'm just amusing myself thinking of what funny handles church leaders might have for themselves.

I wouldn't be too quick to say this. The church is very aware of the work that The More Good Foundation is doing (which owns this forum). Even our CEO meets on a regular basis with leaders of the church to discuss how we can help move the work forward.

I have shook hands with Elder Anderson and he did not appear martian at all to me.....least not like any martians I had previously met?

It's a commandment from God. That's all I need to know.

I'm confused. In your scenario, what sin did the girl commit?Other than that, the Catholic Church teaches that all human life is equal in value, to God. And equal in inherent dignity, by vitrue of our, us all, being made in the image of God. There is no view, from Catholicism, that one life had more value than another, or that one has less value. . Everything possible to preserve the lifves of the mother and the unborn child, is obviously preferred. There isn't a view that the unborn child's life is worth less than its mother's, therefore, being disposable. Both lives are valued. That is what is pro life.

Look, I wasn't going to say anything, but... You know what? Never mind. I won't say anything. Just go on about your business. good Saints.

And staff and assistants. And just generally anyone who has their ear who might have heard or seen something. Companies used to pay money for search services where they could get a report any time a newspaper or tv or radio menioned the company name. I suppose that's all done now by computer or internet and the church probably does it too. dc

We always thought it funny that Ed Sullivan said shew. We said show. Shoo. Shoe. No, I can't spell it phonetic. dc

Sexuality is among the most important topics I will ever teach my children. I appreciate and value the help given me by the Church and my fellow members in reinforcing the gospel teachings on this topic. But I cannot imagine turning over the teaching of my children on such a vital topic to the Church or some lady on a DVD or (especially) teachers at government-run schools. I remember when my children were younger, some couple in our ward was excitedly telling us and others about this great book they had bought for their children, featuring cartoonish drawings of naked men and women, duly pointing out the cartoon versions of the penis, scrotum, vulva, and pubic hair, along with a listless description, in one- and two-syllable words, about the act of sex. ("They feel like they will explode. Then, they kind of do explode." I am not making this up.) I didn't say anything to them; I was speechless that anyone would turn to such a laughably awful resource to talk to their precious children about this most important topic. My children get my views and understandings and teaching about sex, not some worthless "expert's" views. I realize that some people consider this "weird", as if it were inviting the children into the bedroom during conception. In my opinion, this is yet another example of the perverseness of our society, calling evil good and good evil.

Many of these experiences are very sacred but I can share with you this experience. Many years ago I was very active in a Christian church. One day a school friend invited me to his youth group meeting, and the Mormon missionaries had been invited to tell them what we believe. When I went, it was the second or third meeting. The lesson was on the Plan of Salvation. They talked about where we came from, why we were here on earth, and what happens to us after death. As they were speaking, I had the very strong impression that I had heard this all before. I remember saying to myself, "This is very familiar. I know that I have heard this before". I went through my memory, but could not remember where I had learned this. In that moment I heard a quiet voice speak very clearly to me. "It is true". That's all it said. I can clearly remember that experience now over 50 years later. It so imprinted itself on my soul that I have never doubted that they were telling the truth. It was before I learned about Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. Whenever I think of this experience, it makes me think of the hymn, "Amazing Grace".

I don't really know if I notice anymore or not, or maybe it just doesn't bother me like it used to. One thing I frequently notice in the modesty discussion is an emphasis on "her clothes make me think ....". Are we really so afraid of what we might be thinking? Do we believe that every sexual thought we have is the equivalent of "lust" as described by the Savior? I do not believe so, and, therefore, I do not fear any consequence for random thoughts brought on by whatever the women at church (or school or work or the mall or whereever) are wearing or not wearing. I have found it interesting how other cultures, such as some tribes in tropical regions or nudist communities, can go topless or otherwise naked or nearly naked, and they are not bothered by it. They have become so "desensitized" to the nudity that it does not overly influence their thoughts or behavior. Since I really cannot control what women I encounter might be wearing, my own approach to other's immodesty is to try to become desensitized to it -- to not let it bother me. If a sexual thought is triggered, so be it, I will move on from it. To paraphrase a somewhat well known (in many sci-fi circles) litany: [sexual thoughts are] the mind-killer. [sexual thoughts are] the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my [sexual thoughts]. I will permit [them] to pass over me and through me. And when [they have] gone past I will turn the inner eye to see [their] path. Where the [sexual thoughts have] gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain. Paraphrased from Frank Herbert's Dune.

I'll give you the view of God from my Catholic background (and it's a very hard view to overcome, btw): God is the unmoved mover who created the entire universe and everything in it. He always was and always will be, and is omniscient in every way. Now if you're wondering about the Trinity, I can give you a simple explanation: God is a being, made up of three persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Like I said, they are different persons, but of the same substance (consubstantial). No one can say for certain why God did what he did, but we assume he created humans to have something to share his love with that knew right from wrong (created in his image: Free will love, a sense of good and evil).