Fiannan

None of these work if your kid goes to the library, looks up the Finnish, Russian, or Italian words for sexual terms and does a search for them in that language. My suggestion is to get one of the programs that takes a snapshot of whatever is on the screen every 30 seconds. You can then review the files every several days or so to see what and when popped up. And if someone finds it, and then erases the pics, you will see the flow of pics interrupted by blank pages.

Anything written by Neal A. Maxwell is worth reading.

Now now, culture determines a lot in regards to what is then considered appropriate by the Church or not. The girls at BYU would be seen as much exibitionists if they were sent through a time machine to Brigham Young's day as much as a group of coeds jogging topless in Idaho would be today. And even my wife once had a bishop who told the young women in his ward that they needed to wear bras to be modest yet Emma Smith never wore one, nor did any of Brigham Young's wives -- they had not been invented yet. And I suspect that if a woman was representing the Church in a public forum yet had hairly legs (that were extremely noticable -- I am from Oregon you know) someone in authority would make a comment even though all women prior to fairly recent history had hairy legs except for prostitutes. This is due to cultural labels that would automatically attach to her even though there is nothing at all immodest about refusing to shave. And do remember, the Book of Mormon does say not a hair on your body will be lost. Sorry gals. How many of our Seventies are military veterans? If they are I'll bet a few have tatoos. Maybe during the Korean or Vietnam War and the 1970s a man with a tatoo was not seen the way society sees them today. I doubt they would get one today but when they were younger a tatoo did not mean the same as it might now with many people. Yet I wonder about tatoos within the Polynesian and Maori LDS communities. Again, culture. Now we have the Church urging men to wear white shirts to meetings and ties yet in the 1980s I blessed the sacrament many times wearing colored shirts, sweaters, and even no tie. In time this may very well evolve into a mode of dress that is associated with LDS people. Again, no ancient Hebrew, Nephite or Lamanite wore a white shirt. I am not saying in any way that LDS people should rebel against the standards promoted by the Church -- but if one recognizes the cultural context they can at least be less likely to challenge them. However, one should not be so quick to label people in a judgemental way if they choose to dress in accordance to the dance or athletic styles that are accepted in modern western culture as long as they are not swinging around a fire pole in a g-string in public.

I agree with you. There is one way to deal with this -- on some other discussion forums there is a rule that you have to post replies only at least 10, 15 or 20 times before you can actually start a thread. That would discourage what I have suspected over the years (especially in regards to threads dealing with sexual matters) are often actually some bored LDS teenagers or some anti-LDS infultrator who laugh as they make up some horrific stories and post them -- never to be seen again but creating a firestorm that is not only contentious but causes people to feel that our Church is made up of some really strange people pretending to be good LDS people.

First, thousands of members of Putin's youth clubs took care of the protesters pretty quick -- the police showed up in time to save the protesters by arresting them. I watch BBC News since I am not into infotainment. However, there too they first report the protests in Russia like they were some sort of groundswell and that they were mistreated but then show pictures from the World Economic Summit in Europe where the police were abusing the protesters against the meeting as harsh as cops in the deep south went after civil rights protesters in the early 60s and didn't even hint that the police were being violent. The question that comes to my mind is that George Soros only took over the US government last week and already his arch enemies (the Russians) are experiencing some "popular" protests. Soros used his influence to install the current Ukrainian and Georgian governments as well as the new American regime. Is it merely coincidence that some protests are starting against Putin? I mean anyone who studies how the US toppled governments in Central America in the 1950s and 1960s as well as toppling a democratically elected government in Iran and installing The Shah (even with the CIA organizing anti-American protests just to show how much intervention was needed) it should not surprise anyone if these anti-Putin protests were more than just some people getting together with ink and paper and blowhorns. Putin is still twice the man than Obama, Pelosi and Dirty Harry Reid combined.

I never actually said I had a problem with those uniforms. However, in the "making a little girls dreams come true" (you linked it for people to see) you can see just about all the legs and the uniforms are a bit tight -- what would have been the reaction of people in Brigham Young's day (they have his name on their uniforms you know) if these girls had shown up to any public event in Salt Lake wearing those outfits? My point all along is that culture, not the scriptures, determines what is okay and what isn't. Of course, the context of how people see you will determine if society sees you one way or another. If suddenly the style for men became long beards again (and they weren't associated with toughness or hippies anymore) I have no doubt we'd start seeing general authorities again sporting long beard. However in today's society people make judgements. So that is why I say if a person is in a dance class, gymnastics, swimming, etc. and the norm is for a certain style of clothing that society today does not see as immoral (except for a few folks) then I do not see a problem. If you wear a tango or sambo style outfit to go to the mall I too would think that's extreme. There is a time and place for things and that is what I mean of context. By the way, in regards to the BYU cheerleaders, would people here be comfortable with their 14 year old sons enlarging some of the pics and posting them on their bedroom walls?

Not going to post a link but if anyone is interested go to the BYU Cougars official site, look up cheerleaders and while I did not take a lot of time there I can say if you go to 2006 football season (and check out the pics from the Arizona game and the Tulsa game) apparently you can see what is in fashion for warmer events. In the pic "making a little girl's dream come true" one could say it might make a few boys happy to be in that pic as well.

Maybe I am wrong but any woman of reasonable mental and physical health can get IVF in the USA if she can pay for it. She also has the right to shop, so to speak, around for donor sperm and choose whatever characteristic she wants whether it is a "dark haired, Muslim of Yemenese descent with an IQ of..." or "red haired, Mormon of Irish/German descent with an IQ of...". You can find these descriptions in the catelogues of sperm banks with web pages on the net. Then again, some women opt for their doctor to order IVF donor sperm. In Europe, shere the state is in charge of medical sevices, things are different. In Sweden the law recently was passed to allow lesbian couples to have access to IVF treatment. You can't shop for donors though (Sweden's still sensitive about the laws the socialists had until the 70s that allowed the state to sterilize people for the good of the state). The government there is considering proposals to allow single women to be able to get IVF as well (most now go to Denmark which has few restrictions). Great Britain is also considering getting rid of laws that bar single women from getting IVF (again, now they have to go to Denmark or the USA for it). The limit I believe in both nations is two children for IVF.

Any opinions of the outfits the BYU cheerleaders wear?

My experiences with posting links has nothing to do with my academic abilities but the way some may interpret the sites and then...well, like I said, I'm sitting with my back to the wall (to coin a phrase from the old west). I am actually finding this debate tedious. All it demonstrates to me is the thruth of the concept of schemas -- the human mind interprets the world not objectively but quite subjectively based on how one has been brought up. So two people can witness the same event or object and interpret it quite differently based on emotional context governed by variables in the formation of values and beliefs. This is why one poster can say that LDS females in Spain have no problem with one piece swimsuits (bottoms) in public but maybe others in the USA might interpret such behavior as immodest. Now the reason I bring up the scriptures is due to the fact that values in a culture led to laws and then those laws reinforce the pathway of those values. Generally these are based on human experience, not through God necessarily, but then will govern the way we look upon the world. So ultimately the scriptures are the basis for what God sees as right or wrong but then humans can, and do, place things into a context that then we may still have to consider (I'll give people that). Like half our modern-day prophets had beards but as the context of beards changed now we kinda look down on men with beards. Of course, God does not look down on beards (and wearing a beard is not against God's values) but it still winds up discouraged in western LDS culture.

My wife switched on a figure skating show for my girls last night. They love that sort of thing -- and it gave me an excellent excuse to chat with friends on MSN. The interesting thing I did notice was the outfits. Now my family would not switch this off, or any of those dance shows that now fill the TV world. However, I would suggest that if people ARE offended by the outfits people wear for ballet, modern dance, tango, rally, etc. they should not even be watching these shows, nor should they even go to sporting events like women's volleyball or mens football (ever notice how the female cheerleaders dress?). And please, avoid art museums -- the last time I toured The Hermitage in St. Petersberg, Russia you could not imagine the amount of nudity in the artworks of the so-called "masters".

'Except that it's found in the Bible and I do believe it's a bit dangerous to try to say that a scripture that says one thing actually means something else. The first time I heard the Isaiah thing was on a history program on one of the educational channels. Then I looked it up, as well as other references to things like nudity and found the information I have shared quite valid and defesible. Discount it if you wish -- I mean in the Victorian Era any references to the human body were taboo in Protestant churches and the influence even caused some places in America to make taking a bath naked a criminal offense. I will leave it up to people to people to research these topics on their own since due to my experiences in posting links.

Okay so I went to Isiah Chapter 20 verse 2. 2 At the same time spake the Lord by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, Go and loose the sackcloth from off thy loins, and put off thy shoe from thy foot. And he did so, walking naked and barefoot. In going to the foot note it states: IE without an upper garment, like a slave or exile. So if we are going to use scriptures to prove a point....read all the footnotes. Believe me, when I checked on this I did quite a bit of research. It seems most Biblical historians dealing with this topic take it literally since the point was to what happens when you are taken captive. It was common practice in ancient times (and even in modern times by the US military -- as in WW2) to strip a prisoner naked to make sure they aren't hiding weapons. In ancient times the prisoners were often not allowed to get dressed again which explains why a reference in chapter 20 to exposed behinds is used.

Great I am not the only one who thinks that (when an item is intended to portray a religious theme) anything that is not purely simple in appearance and mineral content is... Furthermore, if we wear items that are to show off our class then we are immodest. Isaiah did not mention anything about people showing off too much skin -- besides, he ministered in the nude for a period of time (check out Chapter 20).

Rameumptom. those scriptures condemn the showing off of expensive objects and indicate these women were trying to create class distinctions -- something Joseph Smith and the scriptures condemned. The context has nothing to do with the modesty debate here. In fact, those scriptues if applied today would be condemning people for buying expensive designer handbags, jeans and coats as well as driving expensive cars.

No, and that's good, but the purpose in making reference to the hajib and burka is to illustrate that modesty is to a great degree cultural. Those of us whose ancestors came from Europe (not the British Isles) in the 18th. and 19th. Centuries might take note that women in those nations wore a scarf that was pretty much the same as a hajib. And the clothing worn in the 19th. Century in Utah looked almost identical to what FLDS women wear today. I have said it many times that if you transported all the women who come to our services on Sunday back to the 1850s they would be seen as immodest and probably arrested for public indecency. Now I am not one to go to the mall without a shirt or have my duaghters go without clothing at the public beach (although where I live in the summer they are young enough that absolutely nobody would take objection). However, I am also not averse to letting them wear dance outfits or swim suits if they choose to be part of an organized training. Again, I am pretty conservative about the context of the situation. If my wife wears shorts and a bra when doing yard work that's pretty much the norm and when it's hot it's no big deal. On the other hand a few years back I was bike riding with a friend in rural China and it was hot so she took her shirt off (she was wearing a bra I will add) and she thought I was being prudish when I suggested she shouldn't do that. When she rode by a bunch of Chinese men eating lunch, and every one of them turned their heads, she admitted I was right and she put her shirt back on. Again, there are appropriate times and places (and appropriate attire) for whatever activites we are engaging in.

I have to agree with this -- we can't take the human body and completely sexualize it or else then we might as well join our Afghan cousins and dress our females in burkas. Even nudity has to be kept in context. Who knows what was considered modest and immodest in the days of the Bible? We do read that when King David was praising God and dancing everyone could see...well, everything. When one of his wives jumped on his case for acting like a commoner (we know the apostles fished in the nude so perhaps in a hot climate Hebrews may have done labor naked) by exposing his nude body God punished her with not being able to have children -- reminds me of when the sister of Moses criticized him for taking an Ethiopian wife she was cursed with leprosy for a period of time. One would doubt in such a culture just a naked body was eroticized. And one could note that in much of Europe nudity, or partial nudity, is not seen as a ticket for sex and one finds less freaky stuff in those countries than one finds in the more repressed USA. As for the issue of exercise I generally prefer to run with my garmets on but on a hot day I may go running or mountain biking with just shorts. No big deal I think. And I have never objected when friends have posted pics on Facebook when we were running in the snow at Suzdal. Russia sub zero temps or when swimming in a public fountain in the summer in Europe. Nor would I freak out if my daughter wanted to take ballet, figure skating or dance that might mean outfits that might make a few individuals upset. I teach my family to be modest in thoughts and deeds and I don't think that means we have to wear burkas or even the hajib when swimming or dancing or other physical activities.

The apostles of Jesus fished in the nude.

I caught that...except if she was a paid employee the employer, if he or she indeed did not give just cause for the termination, was in violation of the law and could have been sued big time. And being passive aggressive would not be a good legal defense.

Your description of the situation made it appear that she was asked not to take part in a Church function but she did not know why and when she (on her own) changed her way of dressing she was allowed to participate again. How is it jumping to a weird conclusion that it seems nobody gave her an explaination? In my books if someone takes and action but lacks the conviction or strength to stand up for that decision and let a person know what the guidelines are then that person is a passive aggressive.

Wow, whoever told her she was being immodest and was not willing to say why sure was displaying an excellent example of passive-agressive personality disorder.

Has anyone ever chastized the Osmonds for the outfits they have used over the years?

Just a thought, Facebook has the right to use or store any pictures that are posted on its site. Pictures that are a bit revealing can come back to haunt someone in the future. That being said perhaps context is important. If you are at the beach and someone takes a picture of you in a swim suit perhaps that is more tricky. If you happen to be into Latin style cancing some of the outfits are a bit revealing as well, or if you are an LDS figureskater. Yet if you make a point to show off in a semi-sexually provocative manner I think that is bad.

I while back I was asked by a young person who knows one of my kids what Mormons believe and how they think. I think I have an answer for her the next time we talk. Category One -- "Goid said it, I believe it, that settles it" GBIIBITSI personality type. These are the people who feel questioning is a sin and that if the Church comes out with a pronouncement then the point is settled, no reason for discussion. If a child asks why mom took the three earrings out of her left ear the answer is that now wearing such things is wrong and sinful. Positive aspects of GBIIBITSI -- person feels confident in their positions and that they are doing what is right. Negative aspects of GBIIBITSI -- Hard to have a deep conversation with them. Their kids often wind up either becoming just like them or leaving the Church. Usually the family splits (i.e. 6 kids, three go totally inactive, a couple of them become like the parents and one totally becomes permissive. Category number two -- "I think I need to pray and study" or the ITINTPAS personality type. These people are almost identical in appearance to the Category Ones but their attitudes are not as fixated at all. They feel that when they hear something they have concerns with then they need to examine the issue very carefully. These can be broken down into two sub-categories -- strong member orthodox or strong member liberalistic. The first will attempt to find the reasons why a pronouncement is made -- in the earring example they may try to sort out (personally and with kids) why the Church has taken this stand. However, if it doesn't fit their views or insights in regards to whatever they will continue to have the multiple earrings (even if they are temple workers) and they will let their kids get such piercings. The second will react that they don't want to be controlled and will sort the issue out as well however they will do their best to justify not following lots of stands, but will still be fairly mainstream anyway. They may, just may, get another piercing just to show independence even though they may take them out for Church. Many in Category Two liberalistic may just feel that it isn't worth the effort to "rebel" on this issue. Positive aspects of ITINTPAS is that they are usually the ones who know scriptures and have studied Church history the most and their kids are generally better behaved and fun to have in classes as they have tons of insights and may even disagree with you. Negative aspects -- Sometimes their testimonies become suspect by the Category Ones. Category Three -- "Yeah, I believe, but don't try to rule my life" or YIBBDTTRML personality type. These people have a testimony but also have a liberalistic approach to what the Church says. They might not even have an earring (male or female) but get a few anyway just to show they can, and get away with it. Positive aspects -- can be really creative and fun to be with. Negative aspects -- can justify a whole lot of suspect things. I would like some feedback on this observation since not only did I get this question a while back but I have been invited to speak to a religion class in a local high school (25 17 year olds) and sometimes youth have the notion all Mormons are the same. I also am contemplating a blog on this subject. So please help out please and help me develop it.

Nobody said people should act like animals -- the point is that much of our behavior is actually based on biology and once we recognize that, and combine it with our understanding of scripture, then we are more able to come to gripes with the creation -- both around us as well as inside us.