Janice

Hemidakota, I need to ask... sorry... I really can't tell if you are being serious when you say this, or if you are joking.

Are you leaving?

Yes, it has. I've "gone native", but not in France. I lived in Spain during my early teen years (junior high), and whenever our family went to the beach, we all went topless... mom, dad, girls, boys. So did the other female members of our branch, some Spanish, some foreigners. When I tell people about this in the US, most positively freak -- members and non-members alike. The only ones who don't freak are the people who have experienced other cultures first hand themselves. Wasatch Front Mormons positively foam at the mouth. When we lived in Saudi Arabia, as you can imagine, "going native" meant not leaving the house without a burka. Doing so would have meant arrest and deportation. I've lived at both ends of the polar opposites... Mediterranean Europe where every beach is topless and many are totally clothing optional, and Saudi Arabia where the very shape and curve of a mature woman's body is a terrible thing to behold. I've known Saudi girls who wear burkas to sneak off to their boy friends house to have sex, and I've known Saudi girls who guard their chastity with their lives. I've know Spanish girls went topless at the beaches and snuck off into the bushes to commit immoral acts with total strangers, and I've known Spanish girls who went topless at the beaches and who kept themselves virgins until the evening after being married in the temple. (For that matter, *I* went topless at the beaches and kept myself a virgin until the evening after being married in the temple. Ok... the afternoon. Early afternoon.) Having seen how these cultural norms have very little to do with what makes a person truly modest and chaste, I really don't care what kind of bathing suits my kids choose to wear. I DO care, however, that they are modest and chaste, and when they are, I know that the right choices in clothing will follow. Our focus is not on the clothing. It's on the person. Janice

Absolutely! We *should* strive to be 100%, and I hope I never said otherwise. All I'm saying is I won't point fingers at someone wearing a bikini and call them a sinner. That's all. Janice

Truth is, I have always liked the looks of suspenders on a well dressed man... a crisp, heavily starched, cleanly pressed white shirt, a snazzy silk tie, suspenders, black pants with shinny patten leather shoes.... mmmmm! I've suggested to my hubby that he wear suspenders, only to receive a blank stare in return. Someone should alert Church Headquarters... they need to issue a "suggestion" that men should not wear them, as they cause women to have impure thoughts. Janice

Oh Charley! For Shame! You and this man should both be flogged in public! (But while fully clothed, or that would be immodest.)

We've had this discussion before, just on different topics. Is it a sin to not take the advice of a prophet? To each his his own, but I think it's important to ask yourself this question: What prophetic advice has been given that you choose to not follow? How's your food storage? How often do you go to the temple? Are you a 100% visiting (home) teacher every month? Do you read and pray daily? Do you journal? Do you do your genealogy? Do you have 72 hour kits for each member of your family? Do you ever watch R rated movies? How about R rated TV shows, books, video games, thoughts? When was the last time you bought something at a store on Sunday? Do you magnify your calling? Have you ever said 'No' to a calling? Do you pay a truly generous fast offering? When was the last time you referred a friend to the missionaries? Nobody but nobody follows 100% of the advice given to us by church leaders, and I am just not willing to label 100% of the LDS population as sinners. We *are* all sinners, of course... each and every one of us. But that does not mean I am going to point my finger at anyone (or any group) based on their actions and label them as such. An LDS girl who wears a bikini to the beach is not sinning just because she is wearing a bikini, in my opinion. Janice

This is not going to change no matter what type of suit a girl wears. Girls and their swimsuits are not responsible for the thoughts of boys.

I've very much enjoyed reading this thread... had some good laughs. I'm glad to see that we can all manage to voice our (some times differing) opinions and still be civil and crack a few jokes in the process. Naturally, much of the conversation has focused on modesty, and rightly so. Here's my input on the topic of swimsuits and modesty: Modesty is determined much more by the person wearing the suit, and much less by the suit itself. I've seen girls wearing one piece swim suits that would pass any LDS Church Leader's standard of modesty, but the girls inside the swimsuit were anything but. The way they walk and swing their hips, their deep (fake) tans, the "come hither" looks on their faces and in their eyes, and most of all the words coming out of their mouths all screamed "I'M IMMODEST!!" I've also seen girls in tankinis and bikinis that would have been rejected from some church activities based on their swimsuits, but who were pure gems, total sweethearts, and wonderfully innocent and sweet. Which of these two girls would you want at YOUR young woman's pool party? Last spring when I took my oldest to buy a new suit she asked me what kind she "had" to buy. I told her I didn't care, and she could get whatever kind she wanted. The look on her face was disbelief mingled with slight suspicion, but I assured her that I knew she was a modest girl, and that wearing a swim suit that was a once-piece or two-piece was not going to change that. At the store she must have tried on fifty kinds of all shapes and sizes, and when we left she was the happy new owner of a one-piece that would have made even the most conservative Mormon mother happy. Janice

The issue is not about porn in Utah, it's about porn amongst Mormons. I DO wish someone would do such a study. If our leaders spoke about alcohol and drugs as frequently as they do about pornography, then I'd say we *would* need to be as concerned. Again (sorry if I am repeating myself), I am really surprised that the overall response is not, "Yes, there is a problem with Porn in our ranks. Let's theorize on why and what should be done." Instead, what I am seeing is, "Huh? Porn? Nope. No problem." Janice

Some few? I hope that is true. I really do. My husband gives me a full report of every General Conference Priesthood talk,, and I also read them in the Ensign. I can't recall the last time someone did not speak about pornography. When I joined this forum I was surprised to see the number of posts my LDS wives saying "Help! My husband is addicted to pornography!" Again, I am alarmed at the tone of response to this. Everyone seems to be saying, "Porn problem? What porn problem. Mormons don't have a porn problem. Ok, maybe a few, but no more so then the rest of society." Based on the frequency it gets talked about in General Conference, it seems to be much larger then "some few". Janice

Thanks honor. Is it possible for the person who started a tread to close it? I missed that other thread. I'll stop commenting here an move over there. (Wish I had joined this forum years ago. As I look around I see many old topics that I would have loved to discuss, but seem to be hashed and re-hashed.)

My thoughts exactly, and I think this kind of attitude speaks to a much larger LDS phenomenon. Ok, it's actually a human phenomenon, but we Mormons seem to do a fine job of demonstrating it well: We prop up our successes and display them proudly for the world to see, and we sweep our troubles under the rug and pretend they don't exist. The overall response here is surprising to me. "Blah... don't pay any attention to that. Studies don't actually MEAN anything!" Rather then explain away why these studies don't actually mean some Mormons have a problem with pornography, I'd like to see us discuss WHY some Mormons have a problem with pornography. Janice

Deseret News | Utah No. 1 in online porn subscriptions, report says ksl.com - Utah not necessarily No. 1 in porn consumption http://people.hbs.edu/bedelman/papers/redlightstates.pdf Thoughts? Ideas? Janice

And rightly so, as the Christianity of the time was grossly lacking many of it's vital, plain and simple truths. Well, this might be a stretch. Without the basic tenets of the LDS faith, the Christianity of the time wasn't worth much. We too may have been Deists. Right! I would not presume to know such a thing about their deeply personal thoughts or reasons for their ambitions, Again, I would not presume to know such a thing, but I do like to think that the extent to which they placed their own self interests in jeopardy and risked their own lives to betray the Crown and to layout the foundations for a new nation would indicate that they felt at least somewhat driven by a Higher Power. Of course you are correct. I would go far beyond "an aura of legend and mystery". In my mind there can be no doubt that the founding of this nation was an event that was planned and orchestrated by God from the time the apostasy first began. In tracing the events leading up the founding backwards, one can see the roots of it in events that occurred in Rome not long after Christ's death. Slowly, surely, over 1,800 years, the pieces fell into place that allowed for the founding of a free nation. Then, 29 years after the Deceleration of Independence was drafted, 18 years after the Constitution was adopted, 14 years after the Bill of Rights ensured the free exercise of religion.... the very man who was to be the chief instrument in restoring the Gospel was born. God Bless America, Land of the Free! Janice

Oh my. This thread has made me sad. I can't believe the judgmental tones, the name calling, the back biting, the sarcasm... I'm sorry I even started the thread. The reason I asked about Sunstone in the first place is because I'd heard they take a more intellectual approach to the Gospel then you will find in most other Church corners. And frankly, I think this is something that is lacking by some Mormons. I for one would like to see more good-old-fashioned logical *thinking*, with conclusions backed up by prayer and inspiration from the Holy Ghost. I really do feel that too often we skip the thinking-for-our-selves step and jump right to the "What does the Holy Ghost have to say?" part. I am NOT saying that the Holy Ghost is not important. NOT AT ALL. I'm saying that using our brains is also important, and I fear we overlook that step sometimes. I'm also afraid that when people try to use their brains, or advocate that others do the same, some people point fingers at them and say things like, "Oh dear. You have lost your testimony. You should go see your Bishop." That being said, I have followed the links on this thread to Sunstone artciles and briefly read them. I've not really enjoyed what I've found... too much focus on what the Church is doing wrong, or could be doing better. While I may even agree with some of the points, they strike me not as intellectualism, but as airing-dirty-laundry-ism. What I was *hoping* Sunstone would be about: Tackling a gospel principle and examining it from every possible angle, including spiritual, theological, ethical, political, etc. Instead, it seems to be about: My most recent idea on what The Church is doing wrong. That being said, I fully acknowledge that this is only my first (and very thin) impression, and it very well could be wrong. Once I was able to look past what I felt was sarcasm and rudeness in Snow's post, I saw that there was actual substance to what he was saying, and that I perhaps should give Sunstone a deeper look. But, my dear friends... the overall tone of this thread... really? Making fun of others personal inspiration? Telling people they have lost their testimony and need to go see their bishop? And the one that has so frustrated me in other posts when people do it to me: Implying derogatory meaning in other's posts that was never, ever there in the first place? I can relate all too well to Maxel when he says, "I am continually misrepresented by those who are attacking my statements." (I've not felt that way in this thread where I've hardly commented, but in past threads.) I gotta say, I am really saddened by the overall mean spirited tone of this (and other) thread(s). Janice

I did not know this topic has been rehashed. Sorry. I'm still pretty new here. But, I guess I don't see this as a silly discussion at all, and I certainly was not trying to "bait" anyone. Janice

I did not serve a mission, but when I heard that the sisters had private showers and the the elders had public showers, I was mostly curious as to the disparity. Is it okay for the boys to see each other, but not the girls? Are the sisters more deserving of privacy? That being said Aspenmgy... was "the MTC tree of life" REALLY what kept you from serving a mission? Janice

Wow. I just got back to this thread after starting it. Interesting where it's ended up... sure did not mean it to be a conversation about homosexuality, but I guess that is the beauty of forums... you never know where the conversation is going to go! I think the comment I found most insightful was Just_a_Guy's: In my opinion, I think you hit the nail on the head. I especially like your use of the phrase "Society isn't as innocent as it used to be". The examples I used were kids skinny dipping in the creek, but I think we could find many other examples as well. Why? How come? Where did this innocence go? What could be more innocent then a mother breast feeding her child? And yet in the story Jenamarie told, some view this as pornography?!?!? That IS a loss of innocence, in my opinion. I have my theory, but it's just a theory: Granted... I've only been on this plant for a few years longer then thirty, so my understanding is limited to recent history. Based on what I have seen in my life time and learned about in the years leading up to it, it's my opinion that Satan has done a fantastic job of calling good evil and evil good. He has managed to convince most of the world that sex before marriage is not only ok, but desirable. He has managed to paint the pornography industry as a viable business that has it's rightful place in our society. He has managed to teach our youth the sexually laced movies and songs are hip and cool. The rank immorality at events like Woodstock are seen as examples of cultural high points... pillars of progress in suppressing closed mindedness. Satan has turned the human body not into Temple, but into a common playground where all are welcome to trample and tread. In response to this attack, "our" response (ours = the religious conservatives) has been to circle the wagons and to swing the pendulum even further in the other direction. (I know, I'm mixing my metaphors.) What was once acceptable and passed off as innocent slowly became not-so-innocent as we try to distance ourselves from the effects of Satan's onslaught. Thus, a woman breastfeeding is pornographic. What was once viewed as innocent is now viewed as naughty. Janice

Thanks for the clarification Mike. I think I understand you much better now. And I agree 100% with what you just said. Of course I agree that truth is out there. Jim rightly quoted John, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." But as you say, Mike, ten men can read The Word and come away with ten different understandings of what The Word means, all ten of them claiming (and believing) the Holy Ghost told them they were right. Is it possible that they are all right... that the Holy Ghost told each of them what they needed to hear and understand? I guess my main point is this: I agree that Ultimate Truth is decided and spoken by God. But where the line becomes fuzzy is when someone stands on a soap box and says, "I possess the truth! I am right and you are wrong!" As soon as someone says this, they are either A) a liar and a deceiver, B) terribly prideful, or C) a Prophet of God. I don't want to be A or B, and I am certainly not C. Therefore, I don't think I will ever claim to have a grasp on what truth is. If for no other reason then because I don't ever want to stop searching for it. Janice

Good quote Connie. And it makes my point exactly. As soon as we assume that we have the truth, the search for the truth stops. This is why I said it makes me nervous to say that finding truth is a simple as listening to the Holy Ghost, and voila! If it was that easy, I would never have to listen to the Holy Ghost again for as long as I live, because I did that once. It's like the "a Bible, a Bible" argument. "We already have a Bible! We don't need any more Bible!" The Bible is true, but it is not ALL of the truth. If you accept the Bible as ALL of the truth, then the search for MORE truth stops, and the Book of Mormon is rejected. I can't see myself every saying, "I posses the truth" in any context, religion or other wise, because as soon as I say that, I'm done trying to find more truth. I'm willing to allow that in ALL things, I have more to learn. Janice

I'm not saying truth does not exist. I'm only saying that putting a definition on truth is not as easy as saying, "Let's see what the dictionary says." Scholars have been debating the definition of the word "Truth" from the beginning of time. I'm not ready to say that FunkyTown just solved the debate by opening a dictionary.

I always enjoy Maxel's posts. Understandably, this idea is one of our beliefs that causes some to become very upset with Mormons. To state that God was once a man can indeed seem very blasphemous. And to say that we can become like him seem double so. I can relate and understand completely with those who feel this way, especially when I think of the relationship between God and man in the traditional Catholic and Protestant light: God is undefinable, without body, parts or passion (did I say that right?), that we can not and should not try to understand him. Man is debase, fallen, naturally sinful, and the greatest we can hope for or aspire to is to glorify him with our worship. I choose to think of God a bit differently. I choose to see him not an entity, a force, a mysterious something that we can never hope to understand; but as a being who, like us, has a body with a head, arms, legs, etc. but unlike us, has a body that is perfect and immortal. When I think of God in this way, things start to make sense. For example: the Bible tells us that we are created in his image; the idea that we are literally his spiritual children. To think of God this way does not, at least in my mind, diminish him, but it instead bring me closer to him (not him to me). When I pray it comforts me to think of him as my daddy, and not as a mysterious force I can't hope to understand. In this light, the idea that he was once as we are now, and that we can become like him becomes less strange. He IS our daddy. Our Heavenly Daddy. And like any good dad, he wants only the very best for His children, and he is willing to sacrifice a great deal, even his eldest son, to try and give it to us. His hopes for us extend far beyond simply wishing for us to sing His praises and glorify Him with our worship. He wants us to obtain *everything*! He wants us to inherit his throne! In my little mind, this notion of God, of Heavenly Father, is so much more comforting, so much more real to me then the traditional notion of a God who we can't expect or hope to understand who will limit His children and tell them they will never have all that He has. Who among us wants our children to have less then we have? Not I. And I suspect not you either :) Janice

Oh.

Ok, before I begin the real topic of this thread, I want to state unequivocally (I had to look up the spelling of that word) that I am NOT taking sides on this issue one way or the other. I am only stating that it seems, in the last 50 years (or even less?) our attitude has changed on this subject, and I'm really curious if you agree that it has, and if do, why. If the moderators deem this topic unfit for this forum and want to close it or remove it, I won't be in the least bit offended. But I hope they wont! :) Ok, here goes.... I often read the blogs over at Feminist Mormon Housewives. Here's an excerpt from a recent blog entitled "Locker Rooms and Aging". That in and of itself is an interesting topic for another discussion. But it's not what I want to bring up here. In reading the replies I came across this (reply # 66): Again, I AM NOT saying this is okay, or that everyone (or anyone) should start letting this happen in their house. Not at all! But, I've heard from multiple sources that this used to be very common. My dad grew up on a farm in the heart of the "other" Mormon heartland, southern Alberta, where 99% of the population was LDS. (Still mostly is). He tells me that when he was a kid, the swimming hole in the local creek would be full of naked kids swinging from ropes, diving into the river, etc. Most were boys but girls would often join, some of whom would leave on their underwear, some would leave nothing on. I've heard older adults tell of both co-ed and single-gender swimming lessons at the YMCA where swim suits were prohibited. On a more "tame" subject, but still along the same lines, I recently learned that about ten years ago my high school removed the group showers in both the girls and boys locker rooms and installed individual showers. The dorms at BYU have done the same. I have heard the MTC did as well in the Elder's showers... the Sisters showers have been private for many decades already. Thus the subject of this thread... what has changed? Why has skinny dipping down in the creek become anti-cultural, co-ed or not? Why are single-gender group showers quickly becoming a thing of the past? Have we become more enlightened? Have we realized how immoral and immodest we used to be? or is this due to outside influences like media? I honestly don't have the answer, but would like to hear your input. Assuming the moderators allow this discussion to persist, I will refrain from taking any "sides". Thanks, Janice