carlimac

I see.  Perhaps that explains the two young men I saw at the beach last weekend with white tank tops and black name tags.
 
Returning to topic, I noticed this wonderful article today about the garment survey:
 
http://www.ibtimes.com/mormon-women-speak-out-new-lds-survey-temple-garments-1800906
 
It contains all kinds information that I don't need, such as the nursing mother who described the search for her breast under all those layers of clothing as an "Easter egg hunt."  And of course, in this story about garment surveys, they managed to get in the obligatory mentions of polygamy and blacks in the priesthood.

Looks to me as if this survey appeared as a fairly neutral, routine thing... but then the Salt Lake Tribune, always worried about keeping its reader base energized and barking, described the survey as a bombshell event that could lead to garments appearing in Victoria's Secret catalogs.

to the op
don't worry about it. Garments aren't discussed a lot at church, so I can see how people could come to wrong conclusions. And it is nice to know that along with the video the church released that they've come out an asked for feedback.

Garments have a most interesting history - part of which I have lived through.  I survived the difficulties in the military with what was considered non-issues undergarments that was subject to ridicule as well as punishment.  Though it was too late for me I am grateful for special considerations for those that serve in the military.  When I was a young pup - I competed as a cyclist.   I discovered that in order to compete (especially in longer century rides) special clothing that allowed my body to breath was a critical necessity.  I crafted a letter to "the brethren" requesting special garments that could be worn during training and completion.  I received a letter in reply outlining several reasons why it would be better that I not wear my garments during training and competition rather than a special garment be issued - which "the brethren" believed would become an excuse to consider extreme considerations of the physical law of the covenant rather than the spirit of our sacred opportunity. 

Quick, let's rework the rumors; get it out there that the men's garments will change to a Borat-style mankini, and the women's will be sewn together at the knees to make wearing pants outright impossible.

Being able to give input on garments isn't new. When I commente to one of the workers at the distribution center that I wished Carinessa was available in petite (I am only five feet tall), she explained to me why they weren't made in petite, but also gave me a form I could fill out with my feedback that would be sent to wherever in the church such things get sent.
And as most people know, custom garments are available.
I suspect some people (as it seems one of the women quoted did) will misinterpret this as some sort of sign that the church is going to re-design garments to accommodate more revealing clothes. Or get rid of the garment altogether.
I've never understood the whining about garments. I have two different medical conditions that can make garment wearing challenging (not to mention my short stature) but I haven't had any issues. I joined the church in 2011 and was endowed a year later. At this point I can't imagine not wearing garments.

Well in my humble, uneducated opinion, those calling for this prohibition are only seeing the glass half empty. Didn't the BSA recently change the rules to include openly gay members? It's only gay leaders who are banned. 
 
I wonder how many judges this will affect. Apparently they have a year to comply. Will they turn over their merit badges? Honestly. Isn't this a little juvenile?  It makes me wonder if those imposing this law have written their own definitions of tolerance and respect. I bet if there are any judges with say, an Eagle, they got it when they were about 15 and this was probably 30 years ago when we all had little knowledge of or interest in anything gay, aside from AIDS.  
 
 It just smacks again of govt over-reach. And thin-skinnedness.   How about that. I made up a word. 

All my dreams fit the same dismal template.  I enter a classroom and suddenly realize that a critically important exam that I thought had been scheduled for next week was actually being given right now and that I had not prepared at all for it.  I do the best I can and turn the test in, and then I realize that my flight to Europe is leaving in 90 minutes and I haven't gone home to pack yet.  I rush home and discover that the pipes have burst, my cat has escaped, one wall of my living room has been blown out, and my suitcase is in tatters.  Somehow I solve these crises and rush to the airport using a garbage bag for a suitcase.  I'm running down the concourse to catch my flight, and I realize that a murderer with a hatchet is chasing me.  As I get to the jetway, my feet suddenly slow down as if 100-pound weights had been attached to them.  Just as the hatchet swings for my neck, the alarm clock goes off.
 
Dreams actually bother me a lot.  I don't like the idea that our consciousness can be propelled by external forces and all we can do is observe and mourn.

I'd be fine with my hubby telling me about his dream with another woman, but all he ever dreams about is MMA fighting or snowboarding or skydiving lol

I agree. I've wondered how their isn't a conflict of interest problem with allowing gay judges to rule on these laws.  Just as they believe being a BSA would make a judge biased toward gays. Seems hypocritical.

It doesn't surprise me. I'm personally convinced,  many Californian judges are not only friends of homosexuals but homosexual themselves.  (Remember Proposition 8). 
 
In my opinion one should pay attention in the future to the fact, that there is a certain parity between homosexual judges and normally oriented ones. Therefore the state or the authorities would have to put those sexual inclinations publicly. And it should be possible to disqualify a judge of suspected bias if he's a homosexual and has to judge about cases around homosexuality.

Are you just anticipating it's closure? We've been reminded to mind our Ps and Qs. I think we're doing OK so far. 

I don't discriminate over who a person is, but what they do. So a person who has same gender attraction comes into my restaurant. I don't even have any desire to throw them out. If they will pay for the food I serve, it's no problem at all. But if he or she begins talking loudly about his/her lifestyle, getting drunk and disorderly, bothering other patrons...out they go. 
 
If I owned an apartment complex and  a gay couple wanted to rent it, so be it. ( It would be hard but if that's the law, I'd allow it.) But if they behave badly as tenants and bring their gay friends over for orgies- boom- they're out on the street looking for somewhere else to live pronto. 
 
Their is definitely a limit to what we should tolerate. Same goes for any person regardless of orientation.

Well in my humble, uneducated opinion, those calling for this prohibition are only seeing the glass half empty. Didn't the BSA recently change the rules to include openly gay members? It's only gay leaders who are banned. 
 
I wonder how many judges this will affect. Apparently they have a year to comply. Will they turn over their merit badges? Honestly. Isn't this a little juvenile?  It makes me wonder if those imposing this law have written their own definitions of tolerance and respect. I bet if there are any judges with say, an Eagle, they got it when they were about 15 and this was probably 30 years ago when we all had little knowledge of or interest in anything gay, aside from AIDS.  
 
 It just smacks again of govt over-reach. And thin-skinnedness.   How about that. I made up a word. 

Nope . . . life, liberty, pursuit of happiness . . . . nothing about housing in there.
 
I can guarantee I've studied it way more than you have.  
 
Life, liberty, property, doesn't mean I have the right to force someone else to provide me with something.
 
Who owns the apartment complex, the government? Nope.  Whoever owns it has the right to pursue their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness as they see fit.  The moment you claim they must provide you housing you have infringed on their pursuit of happiness. 
 
You are infringing on the owner's rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness by making the claim that you are entitled to their housing.

No, no one is entitled to a job and housing. They are free to seek jobs and housing. They may even qualify for special assistance. But they don't get jobs and housing just for breathing.

Regarding villages, we need villages. Those are families in their own rights. Let's improve our villages instead of disregarding them. Satan is as much after communities as families.

I'm interested in the answer to Vort's question, too.  It's the concept of pushing an idea to an extreme to see if it still holds.
 
I have recently become more aware of this concept during a conversation i had with the hubby.  We were discussing a chapter we read together in a Christian book about forgiveness.  It reminded me of an unusual idea about forgiveness i had read in an LDS book.  I found the book and read the part i was thinking of to my hubby.  He said it was an interesting idea and held very well for the flippant example the author used but suggested we use a more extreme example to see if it still held.  We did, and the idea didn't hold very well for the more extreme example.  It was fascinating.  It doesn't mean the idea doesn't have merit at all, just that it maybe doesn't always hold for every situation.

How our POTUS described the SOTU doesn't match my state where only 1/3 of it's residents make a living wage and that number has fallen every year for the past 6 years.  The number on fed assistance is growing every year.  

Windseeker, off-topic and apropos of nothing: You have a cool avatar.

Two gay brothers.....marrying each other? I would think that not being legal to marry each other, would mostly have to do with them being siblings. :)
 
M.

Cockpit. 

Um...
 
Cherry-picking one small part of a secular definition is hardly a proof that these two concepts are identical in the LDS Church.  Discipline can also be defined as behavior or order maintained by training and control, without an element of punishment.
 
If the Church really wanted to punish people, it could do a lot of things besides restricting the privileges of membership or revoking the membership entirely.  Whether excommunication is punishment depends on your definition of "punishment," I guess.  

Nope, no revoking of membership number.  They used the same number I've always had during and after my excommunication.
 
Other than that, being ex'd and rebaptised, there's not much else I can add to answer the OP's question.  Others have done a fine job.

I had always heard that excommunication was not rooted in punishment.  It was sort of like taking away your driver's license if you were convicted of driving while drunk.  It's how the Church forces you to deal with the fact that you are on a path that the Church believes is profoundly harmful to you and to others.
 
I was once part of a group of friends that attended various locally produced comedies and dramas.  Some were great, others not so much.  We once saw "Confessions of a Mormon Boy" by Steve Fales.  (Isn't that surname interesting?)  I was rather bored by the extended blow-by-blow account of his emerging same-sex attraction, but I was fascinated by the description of his excommunication.  He described it as a bunch of kindly LDS personages who were trying to be sympathetic and constructive about something they regarded as a grave sin.  After the last gavel banged, or however they solemnize the excommunication, he said everyone gathered around him to hug him and shake his hand and wish him well and remind him the door back into the Chuch was always open.  During his dramatic performance later, he made jokes about the jovial atmosphere, almost as if it were the farewell lunch for a longtime employee who was leaving the company.  I remember being very jolted by his description, because I had always pictured LDS excommunication procedures as a panel of black-robed, stone-faced men perched on an elevated platform next to the shadow of an enormous noose.  Shows you what I know.