Vort

Which "immoral meaning" would that be? That the people of the land think it's immodest? Or that you don't like it? Or is there some other "immoral meaning" that I'm missing?

Are you suggesting it would be immoral for Ms. Clinton to wear robes that cover her, in deference to a host country?

Perhaps you are right. I am not intimately familiar with Saudi Arabia's dress laws. But the point remains. Substitute some other dress code for "burqua" or consider Afghanistan instead of Saudi Arabia, if it makes a difference. The point is that Ms. Clinton wears what she is required to wear to be modest within the definition of that culture. Whether or not she agrees politically or socially, she recognizes that she is a guest in someone else's land, and acts accordingly.

I made a clear demarcation between conforming and being immodest. Did you miss that? You should perhaps cool your rhetoric and strive not to get so worked up over discussions. We are to obey, honor, and sustain the law. Even among the Zulus, I'm confident that it's not illegal to dress modestly. If you visit a Muslim country, you are expected to wear a burqa. To refuse to do so is to refuse to obey your commitments. If you feel that strongly, then don't go, but don't condemn those who choose to go and obey the law. How nice to see Godwin's Law alive and well. Not if you're in Saudi Arabia. There is no moral obligation to offend people of another culture in their own lands because you don't like how they dress. On the contrary, the moral obligation goes the other way. Yet you would champion virtually the same thing in Saudi Arabia in defense of your own "moral compass". Interesting. You ought perhaps to separate your cultural beliefs from your moral outrage. People can have all sorts of cultural curiosities and still be well within religious morality.

Opinions, please.

It is not a matter about whether you respect them personally. It is a matter of respecting the law and culture when you're in their land. In any case, refusing to respect an otherwise decent man because he is the product of his culture does not make much sense to me. By such rules, no man or woman on earth is respectable, present company most definitely included.

You appear to think that this life is a game, and if we play by the rules, the Great Judge will give us our reward for winning. Life is not a game. Life is a process of becoming. What are you becoming? Are you becoming a man who is totally dedicated to God and who wishes to do his bidding, come what may? If so, you will be comfortable dwelling in his presence. If not, you will not be comfortable there, and will need to dwell somewhere else, where you ARE comfortable. If you have no desire to endure to the end in this life, you will not magically acquire that desire when you die. As Amulek taught, that same spirit that possesses your body when you leave this world will have power to possess it in the eternal world. Two verses earlier, Amulek explained that this life is the time to prepare to meet God. So what if you don't have desire to endure to the end? Are you hopelessly lost? Not at all. Just start praying for that desire. Pray to come to know your Father better and to desire what he would have you desire. Serve him as best you can. Your heart will change, and eventually you will come to have the desires that you now seem to lack. You will become strong and able to be faithful to the end.

Yet this is what we do all the time, every waking minute of the day. It is practically the definition of civilization, and definitely the definition of society. But this is a strawman argument. Can you provide me even one example of a modern society where a woman is forced to dress immodestly? I believe no such society exists. If one does, it is so rare and unusual as to be ignorable. There are those who see clothing, any clothing, as a sign of subjugation. (I know there are, because I have spoken with them.) If one of these refused to be subjected any more to such an outrageous and stupid custom, and thus stripped naked, in public, in front of your children, would you courageously defend his (or her) actions and champion the brave cause? The prophet Joseph Smith disagreed with you. Refusing to observe modesty in the way law and culture demand is not being respectful of other people's beliefs. I just asked her. Here is a near-verbatim transcript: VORT: If we were to go visit Saudi Arabia, would you wear a burqa, refuse to wear a burqa, or refuse to go to Saudi Arabia altogether? SISTER VORT: My first choice would be to refuse to go, because I would be afraid to go to Saudi Arabia. If we went, I would wear a burqa because I would be afraid of being arrested. VORT: Suppose we visited a part of Saudi Arabia where the morality police or whatever they're called would not arrest you for dressing like a westerner, and you would not be harassed. However, all the Saudis who saw you, male and female, would be offended at your lack of wearing a burqa. What would you do then? SISTER VORT: Hmmm. Well...if I knew I was not going to be arrested or attacked by not wearing a burqa...I would probably wear a burqa anyway. I don't want to offend them. It's their country, not mine. When I go visit a foreign country, I don't want to stand out and have everyone know I'm a foreigner. I want to experience their culture, and in Saudi Arabia, that IS their culture. So I would probably wear a burqa anyway. What a woman. Is it any wonder I married her? Anyway, there's your answer.

What difference does it make? Were we living in the time that the Savior walked the earth, we would look outrageous attending a synagogue in slacks, a tie, and a sports coat. People would stare and point, and probably mock us. Our dress would be a tremendous distraction from the worship service. The best thing we could do is try to procure a robe from somewhere, so we could "fit in" and not distract from the worship. The same would apply to someone from that era visiting us. In a similar vein, if my wife and I were ever to visit a Muslim country, she would be expected to keep her hair and all skin covered and wear a burqa or other form-hiding covering. It does not matter that we personally think such things unnecessary, or even ridiculous. That is the expectation, and it is our duty to meet it. The idea that since some given social custom is temporal and not everlasting, it is therefore unimportant or can be ignored at will, is false. From what I can see in scripture, God does not operate in such a manner and never has. So thinking that we can justify ourselves by saying, "Hey, it's only cultural! No problem!" is a cop out.

No. Rather, it means that it need not be a burden to anyone. It's all in the attitude. I have a great deal of sympathy for those who simply cannot afford "Sunday" clothes -- and in most such cases, I am confident that the bishop and/or ward members are only too happy to rally and help out such good folks with their wardrobe. Similarly, I have sympathy for those who have never worn "nice" clothes (not even fancy or formal, just "Sunday" dress) and who find it artificial and uncomfortable to do so, though I am confident that such people will very quickly find it natural to do so, probably within a few weeks. I have much less sympathy for those who insist on wearing flip-flops and jeans just to make some sort of statement about how proud they are of their non-conformity. Rebellion for the sake of being rebellious is childish at best. I expect more of anyone who calls himself a Saint.

Perhaps, but I find it significant that our leaders have tried, subtly and sometimes overtly, to get us to take our dress at Church more seriously. They seem to think it is worthwhile to remind people to dress nicely for Church. That fact suggests to me that it is a point of concern. With rare exception, I have not allowed my children to go to Church in jeans or tennis shoes. My sons have worn button-down shirts and ties from at least Primary age, and white shirts with ties from Priesthood age. Hasn't been a burden for us at all.

Oh...uh, yeah, I guess you already said that...*blush* That's what I get for responding to a thread without reading through it first. Not that this will stop me from doing the same thing next time. Let this be a lesson as to how smart I am.

I believe you are right. In my mind, Joseph Smith's comments about the Bible being "translated correctly" can be understood equally well by saying that the Bible must be "interpreted correctly". Much of the "mistranslation" of the Bible is, I believe, really just the perpetuation of misinterpretations transmitted for centuries. I think it's telling that there is no "canonical" (if I can use the term) mistranslation that we point to and say, "See, there, that's a mistranslation of the Bible." Even such things as "the Lord repented that he had made man", which Joseph Smith changed to "Noah repented that the Lord had made man", is quickly seen as a Hebrew expression that does not indicate "repentance" of the type we must experience.

One sister in our ward glued miniature cereal boxes all over with knives through them. She was, of course, a cereal killer.

Go with your gut, and you will rarely go wrong. What do others think about those who marry civilly? Probably they don't think much about it at all. Casual friends will not know where you married, good friends will mind their own business, and family and intimate friends will know anyway. So don't worry about it. By your own free admission, you're not worthy to go to the temple, so don't. And don't let your boyfriend talk you into going. If your boyfriend does not have the integrity to stay out of the temple when he's fornicating, then I have to agree with skippy that you may want to rethink how he is, and I would add that you may want to rethink your commitment to someone who is only too willing to mock the sacred.

I'm watching you...

That is, Mormons can dance if they don't mind pepper spray. Well, .

Yes, you will, unless you repent. Pretty much the same as with the rest of us. Repent and be saved. Reject repentance and be damned. But don't think this is about God "punishing" you for your homosexuality. That is nonsense. This is about you choosing whether you will follow God and do his bidding, even when it is not comfortable for you, or whether you prefer instead to follow your own carnal desires. It's natural consequence. If you wish to live with God, you must follow God's commandments and start down the road to salvation. If you choose not to follow that path, you will have proven by your actions that you do not desire salvation. And God forces salvation on no one; indeed, such is impossible. Salvation is a gift, freely given and freely accepted or rejected, not a sentence pronounced by a divine judge. I, for one, invite and implore you to choose salvation and start down that path.

It's only fair, considering all the suffering humans have endured for animals' stupidity.

Sadly, he's a non-believer. Possibly. I am not actually from Utah, but I have visited there a number of times. It's possible I picked up an infection that has never healed.

Interestingly (to me, anyway), LDS-oriented portrayals of the Father are more difficult than is often believed. The standard idea: is not universally accepted. Portrayals of the Christ, even post-resurrection, are more standard: But representations of the Father are more problematic. It seems to me that most artists choose to avoid depicting the Father at all. Seems like I read something very recently saying that Church-approved productions must avoid all physical depiction of the Father (i.e. voice is okay, but no apparitions).

This is exactly PC's point. We view the same scripture very differently depending on our doctrinal prejudice. It's a confirmation of Joseph Smith's lament.

I can believe someone would kill an "infidel" and think they were doing God a favor. I suppose I can believe that someone could think that sacking a conquered city was, if not a service to God, perhaps a form of divinely sanctioned payment for services rendered. I have much greater difficulty believing that anyone could think, honestly, that raping someone constituted a service to God.

Very cool! At the end of 1986 I had reconstructive surgery on my ankle ligaments and missed the first half of BYU's winter semester. I came back in at mid-semester, and since none of my major classes were being offered starting then, I opted to spend six weeks in an intensive Spanish study in Hermosillo, Mexico. It was a great deal of fun, lifechanging in some ways, and I learned to speak Spanish quite tolerably well (though it badly messed up my Italian for a few months). I would do it all over again in a heartbeat, and would encourage anyone else who thought s/he might enjoy such an experience to do the same. I say go for it.

And Acts 5:5, 10.