Vort

Now that my daughter is ten years old, I make some effort not to parade around in front of her in my underwear. I'm not sure there is anything wrong it it per se, especially considering that the garment is representative of something to cover our nakedness, but it feels sort of like running around naked. I'm fine with it in front of my wife (haven't worn pajamas since I was a child) and my sons, but with opposite sex children, it just seems kind of weird. But I suppose that's up to you to figure out. If your son ever expresses any discomfort, then I would certainly suggest that you spare his psyche and put on a bathrobe around him. :) I never wear other underwear on top of the garment. I can't speak for all other LDS men, but I have never known of anyone else to do so. Can't think of a convincing reason why someone might want to do so. Maybe an athletic supporter for jogging or something, but you can get fairly tight, brief-style bottoms that hold everything in place pretty well. I don't see anything wrong with wearing "outerwear underwear" over the garment, just don't really see any call for it.

As the husband of the former Primary president, I have a few thoughts: When they say the appreciate you, they almost certainly mean it. Whatever their criticisms, they desperately need their teachers and Sharing Time personnel, and no one knows that better than they do. When they say you're doing a good job, there is a good chance they are being sincere. Many people (for example, the large majority of my work leads over the years) simply don't offer much, or any, positive feedback. To them, it makes sense to talk about the problems. If something isn't mentioned, that means you're doing it well. I personally hate this style of management, but many organizations (perhaps including your ward) sort of default to it naturally. An hour-long gripe session about a few points of conflict really does not necessarily mean they are dissatisfied with your work. Is it possible you are misinterpreting helpful suggestions or ideas as criticism? It's one thing to say, "We don't like how you're doing your job," but quite another to say, "We like how you're doing your job, but we thought you might incorporate these following ideas into your work." Your Primary president may simply not be good at offering supportive feedback. This is her problem, not yours. If this is the case, your job is to sustain her in her calling, which in this case means growing a thick skin and not taking offense at her ham-fisted attempts to talk with her personnel. Without adding to any sort of gossip going on in the ward, it might be worthwhile to solicit feedback from other Primary teachers and workers to get their viewpoint of your performance. Perhaps there are some things going on that you're unaware of, either with your presentation or with things outside your control, that are influencing factors in this whole thing.Bottom line: Don't get offended, however hard it might be. Don't take her criticism personally. However good you are, you are not perfect. Take this as an opportunity to further hone your skills. Love your Primary president and do your best to make her successful in what is the largest ward organization and probably the third-most-difficult ward calling (after bishop and RS president).

I'm sure the mods will weigh in on the propriety of such a discussion. On the one hand, the chance to help a brother out with decontaminating his mind from the poisons placed there by anti-Mormon literature is a worthy one. On the other hand, those who visit this site don't do so with the expectation of seeing anti-Mormon propagando being disseminated and discussed. Too bad there isn't some secure, non-accessible forum to use. Maybe you could just privately mail some of us with your concerns, to be addressed in a non-public manner?

The Mormon Proposition? I thought it was The Mormon Preposition. I assumed it was talking about peculiar Utah speech habits, like saying "Oh my heck". Thanks for clearing that up for me, PC.

I agree. If you're endowed and your spouse is not, keeping secrets about the garment is silly and counterproductive. Sure, there are certain specific things regarding the ordinances that you should never share, but in general there is nothing secret about the garment. It is sacred, yes; but then, your marriage is (I daresay) even more sacred. If you can't share details about your underwear with the man you're married to, having sex with, and making children with, then something is seriously wrong.

You might find Nibley's How to Write an Anti-Mormon Book enlightening. Here is a page linking to where you can listen to or download the mp3 (which I heartily recommend), and here is a transcript excerpt.

TripleTruth, Since my mission, I have considered antiMormon literature to be spiritual pornography and have avoided it like the plague it is. On the few occasions I have needed to research such literature, I have been able to point out the flaws and absurdities, either immediately or with a bit of research, but I still leave it feeling like I need to take a shower. My friend, you appear to be less sensitive but even more susceptible to such filth than I am. My heartfelt advice to you: From this day forward, never read any aniMormon literature again. Unfortunately, I have read quite a bit of antiMormon stuff, mostly before and during my mission but a fair amount afterward. It breaks down like this: 90% Pure, obvious bunk that I could dispute off the top of my head 6% Stuff I recognized as bunk, but it took some (small amount of) reading to debunk it 3% Stuff that kind of seemed to make sense, and bothered me, but through a fair amount of research I established that it was either false or misrepresentative 1% Stuff that I couldn't figure out how to counter, that wasn't obviously false, and that kind of bothered me For that final 1%, I put it on the back burner and went on with my life. Now approaching 50, I have learned that much of that 1% of "difficult" stuff is irrelevant and not difficult at all, and most of the rest is a misunderstanding caused by an imperfect understanding of Church history and/or a limited vision of existence. This life is a time to walk by faith. We have a veil obscuring our memory of life/lives past BECAUSE we are supposed to exercise and develop our faith in God. Pray at least twice a day, read your scriptures for a half hour or more per day (at least 15 minutes), go to all your Church meetings and fellowship with the Saints, and strive to do what's best. And never read the antiMormon garbage. If you do this, you will find yourself in a much better situation, emotionally and spiritually, in 30 days.

"BVDs", perhaps? Or maybe your uncles were just way ahead of the game in video distribution (see porn thread). :)

Indeed you do. How do any of these, or all of them together, suggest that I base my masculinity on getting sexually excited about the female body?

I'm always a day late and a dollar short. But I hear the Rapture is occurring soon, so I won't have to put with this much longer!

LDSJewess, you seem like a decent and sincere person, so I've been trying to exercise patience in my responses to you. But there is an element in this conversation that you seem to be missing completely. Let me illustrate: Suppose I got it in my head that you were an alcoholic. Doesn't matter why I think this; the point is that, for whatever reason, I think that LDSJewess is an alcoholic. So when you post on an alcohol-related thread, I respond to you with things like, "Look, just because YOU have a weakness for booze doesn't mean everyone else should abide by your narrow-minded ideas." At first, you're taken aback, and maybe you even say, "What? Wait a minute. I don't have any weakness for alcohol. Where did that come from?" But I continue responding to you with statements like, "You have admitted that you're an alcoholic, so therefore maybe you should quit pushing your alcoholic viewpoint onto others." You then say, "Wait! Stop! I never 'admitted' any such thing! Please point out to me where I ever said I was an alcoholic! That's completely false." But I blithely ignore you, all the while continuing to harp on your supposed "alcoholism". Can you sense how irritating that might be? Now, to your post: This might be funny, even LOL-worthy, if I had written what you quote. But of course, I did not write what you quote. Chouchou did, as a portrayal of her (and your) understanding of what I have been saying.Please point out where I have ever said any such thing. Please point out where I have ever said any such thing. Never happened. I never described what my response was to looking at a Hooters waitress. It implies no such thing. That is simply false. Perhaps you inferred that -- but then, that's your business. You should not be putting it on me.The "camel toe" reference is obvious enough. When a woman dressed in shorts/bikini bottoms so tight that her anatomy is obviously outlined, that's immodest. You might say, "Well, don't look." Fine. But then, why shouldn't she just walk around naked? What's the difference, if the response is to tell the other party, "Don't look if it offends you"? Seriously, if the answer is "Quit looking", then no one should be expected to wear any clothing at any time. As for "areola": It's a medical term. What else would you have me call it? "Brown spots"? "Nipples and neighborhood"? Or would you prefer vulgar street language? Many young women today dress in swimsuits with bikini bras that barely cover their <insert whatever term for areola you prefer>, leaving the rest of their breast perfectly visible. I know your response -- "Don't look if it bothers you!" -- but the point is that such clothing cannot reasonably be considered modest in a society that considers female breasts to be private body parts. See, this is what's amazing to me. I have never said anything even approaching this, yet you confidently assert that I have been saying this.Please point out where I have ever said any such thing. Or could it be that you are making this stuff up out of whole cloth? Or could it be that you are paying so little attention to the thread that you are mixing up various elements from various people, taking those elements out of context, and then attributing the absurdity that results to me? Yet in my other thread I made it clear, again and again and again and again and again, that I wasn't interested in what you thought qualified as pornography or immodesty. Rather, I was inquiring why porn and immodesty disgusted you. Somehow, that never quite came through to you, though. They aren't the same thing to anyone. That's why we have two different words for them. I doubt it, especially seeing as how I already posted a rather detailed (though not exhaustive) example of what I found disgusting about pornography, but which you apparently either never read or have already forgotten.But I'm willing to give it a shot. Pornography is that which is designed to pique prurient interest by the improper and unholy display of sexual activity and images. It disgusts me primarily because I prize sexuality as a holy and godly thing, and its prostitution reduces it to a cheap profanity. In addition, I am disgusted by male pornography because it resembles to me a dinner consisting of a steaming helping of dog excrement. And I am additionally horrified by child pornography because it not only degrades the sacred institution of sex, but does so in a way that harms and destroys our little ones, those who are dependent on us for their protection and who ought to be insulated from such things. Immodesty is acting in a way that belies modesty, whether in dress, thought, or action. To the extent that it disgusts me, immodesty disgusts me because it betrays a character deficiency in the immodest individual; pride is almost always ugly. Immodesty in dress partakes of the character of pornography in that it cheapens sexuality and attempts to use what should be sacred and private parts of our bodies as decorative enticements. Your turn.

Then for the ten thousandth time: Show it. If that's what I "sound like" to you, then show my words to me. I maintain that I said no such thing, and only a fool or a liar (or someone acting criminally incompetent) could maintain that I had said or suggested any such thing.Now's your chance, Chouchou. Just show what I said that justifies such a view. It's as easy as that.

As I wrote, the point is that I personally think it's a waste of time (at best) to videotape such intimate acts. At worst, it can be harmful, as anecdotal evidence from this very thread illustrates. Just a bad idea all the way around. In the sense of legality, I agree with you. In the sense of "Is this a good thing?", I think it's a foolish, unwise thing, even if both adults consent.

Of course. But what of the case when (for example) the wife simply refuses sex? She doesn't have an infection or anything; the couple engaged in normal sex for a period of some years; and then the wife says, "No more." Or perhaps she agrees to sex once or twice per month, but even then, only in very strict, controlled conditions (and we're not talking "no whips or chains", more like "no light or talking").A sudden change like this might signify some weird psychological disorder. But what if the wife refuses all efforts to treat or otherwise ameliorate the situation? Would you consider this to be a form of sexual abuse? Not being familiar with abuse, I find this an interesting distinction. Why ought physical mistreatment to be considered abusive the first time, but sexual or emotional mistreatment not be considered abusive until an ongoing pattern is established? I know nothing of such things, but am very happy in my ignorance and don't care to be educated on such topics.

Low humidity, not a lot of rain, but it does snow in the winter and I believe they salt the roads. Rust is not generally a huge problem for cars in most of eastern Washington.

I think if you're going to be a student at BYU, you should recognize that you are a de facto representative of the university and its sponsoring organization and comport yourself as such.Why would a BYU student want to go on HBO's "Real Life" or dance in the almost-nude? Perhaps a better way to ask is: Why would someone who goes on HBO's "Real Life" or dances in the almost-nude want to be a BYU student?

Weird Al wishes you a !

A marriage involves give-and-take compromise. Ideally, a couple eventually becomes one and makes decisions together as a team, always. But even this often involves one person giving in to the other. Only in the most unhealthy of relationships will the same person always or usually "win".The problem with using sex as punishment is when one party (typically the wife) gives in on some decision, but then "gets back at" the other party by withholding sex. The person will never say, "I don't want to have sex with you because I don't want you getting any pleasure or satisfaction, seeing as how we're spending the weekend camping like you've been wanting to do for a year instead of spending it at my mother's house so I could go shopping with her." Instead the person will say, "I just don't feel well." The funny thing is, the person's "not feeling well" so often coincides with the times when the partner's way gets chosen that, eventually, the partner figures things out. Again, I am fortunate not to have been in this position, but I have heard many people talk about and dance around this topic, and even come right out and say things sometimes. I am embarrassed and appalled by the idea. In my opinion, this is nothing short of sexual abuse. I would certainly consider it grounds for divorce if the offending spouse did not take positive and drastic steps to change her/his behavior. If nothing else, it is virtual prostitution and should have no part in a marriage.

This is a matter of definition. What does it mean to "know"?For most of my adult life, I was of the school of thought that Latter-day Saints ought to say "I believe" more than "I know". In the last few years, I have had a change of mind and heart on this topic. I think it is more truthful and meaningful in many instances to say "I know", even if your experience did not involve a divine visitation.

I have avoided commenting on this thread because I don't have anything useful to offer the topic. But I'm curious about KrazyKay's comment above. Not sure whether or not I agree with it -- I may -- but I wonder if KrazyKay considers the refusal to engage in sex, or only in extreme and uncommon circumstances (e.g. once a month, lights out, under covers, no talking, five minutes max), to be a form of sexual abuse and thus a legitimate reason for divorce.(Thankfully, I am not in any such position, but I know people, including members of my own extended family, who have been.)

And yet, you don't... This is false. I consistently reply to all your assertions and answer most or all of your questions. In contrast, you refuse to address my assertions, completely ignore my questions, and in addition make things up out of whole cloth and then attribute them to me. Yet you refuse to cite anything I've written that would justify this absurd idea of yours. Why is that? Yet I have implied no such thing. Ever. That is purely your own inference, and of course it is wrong. If you believe that I have implied such a thing, then again, for the thousandth time, cite something I have written that makes such an implication. ***NEWS FLASH***Chouchou brought up screaming and yelling, not Vort. Vort merely asked why she was bringing up screaming and yelling out of thin air, implying that those who disagreed with her were guilty of said screaming and yelling As I recall, the original topic was a news item about elementary school teachers taking their school children to eat at a Hooters restaurant. The question was whether it was inappropriate and whether it merited being national news. I replied "yes" to both questions. No one said anything about screaming and yelling until you brought it up.

So it appears that you, LDSJewess, and Chouchou have reached this conclusion. I'm curious: Why? What have I written that even suggests such a thing? The two other ladies have both confirmed that they have no intention of dialog; they prefer to throw out barbed comments and baseless innuendo.Can you do better than that, GB-UK? Can you actually cite something I have written that suggests that I "base [my] masculinity on getting sexually excited by the female body?" Or is yours merely another baseless, thoughtless, vacuous accusation? Again, please provide some justification from what I have written for such ridiculous assertions.

That's not phat, cat. That's not rad, dad. Dismiss the heads but don't dis the threads. Don't be rude, dude.

I'm not familiar with this song, but it sounds like the kind of thing antiMormons accuse us of...

To be clear: The "snappy comeback" was something I used on an antagonistic stranger who clearly had no real interest in the garment or the LDS religion except to mock them. For relatives, friends, and well-meaning acquaintances, or even sincere strangers, such a response would be out of place. I can see how that would be an encouragement. :) Nah. Just tell him what others have suggested earlier: The garment is a reminder of my covenants and a spiritual protection. Wearing it privately, underneath my clothing, demonstrates my devotion to God and my promises to him.Honestly, if your choice in underwear is the weirdest thing about you that your husband has to put up with, he will consider himself the luckiest man on earth.