estradling75

You are doing exactly what you say the members are doing... Fixating on clothing. The example you want to walk through is yet another clothing example. Until you break your fixation you can't see clearly to help others. So on to your example the young girl with the ill fitting swim suit. Modesty is a function of intent. To judge modesty we need to know the intent of the young girl. It seems most likely that she was there to be part of the activity, and that her choice of swimwear was largely her best option. (ill fitting clothes usually is an indication of money hardships rather then choice). If those assumptions hold then the girl was not being immodest, she was doing the best with what she had. Now the people around her might be making claims about her modesty or lack there of... Just like people might make claims about the modesty of Adam and Eve naked in the garden. But that is a judgement and usually an unrighteous one. From the limited details (And my own inherent filling in of blanks) it seems that the direction faithful saints should be going in in this case is not judgemental one but the one to 'Feed the hungry and clothe the naked.'

Again not speaking for anyone but myself... What makes you think I have waited? I am perfectly capable of understanding and even empathizing with a point of view without agreeing with it or thinking it is the path the Lord would have me take personally.

Indeed... I think a more fruitful discussion about dress and appearance would be.... Since no one can control the actions of another (Only influence) So how far do we need to change our behavior before it is considered enough? One of the most common criticism that is given is about how the young women have been taught is that they are responsible for the behavior of the young men.. there are so many problem with this understanding... first being is they literally can't change enough for some people. I mean I am pretty sure we think that full body burkas would be excessive, and yet that would not be enough for some people.

What a very twisted thing to suggest. Where Adam and Eve kicked out of the garden because they were naked? Did God rebuke Adam and Eve for lack of modesty? Of course not. Those in the celestial kingdom will be there because they have put off the natural man. That will shape the culture of the celestial kingdom in ways that we can only imagine. Ways that we can't and don't have here anywhere. The fact that many here have pointed out that modesty is about humble actions and behavior shows that we know what the Lord's standard is, yet you (and many like yourself) are still fixated on hemlines, that just shows just how far we have to go. If you truly want to learn and understand the modesty you need to focus on first part, and the second part will just flow from whatever understanding you possess of the culture you are in

I would say no. Part of modesty is not standing out... but to do that the cultural standards (And yes our dress code is a cultural standard) need to be taught... And the farther away the church and the world gets from having the same standards the more important it is that they standard is communicated clearly. Or to put it another way... one can't use their agency to disobey a command... until the command is given. Either can one choose to disobey a cultural standard until they know what that standard is.

I can't speak for @NeedleinA but I can speak for my own concerns. I do not know what the FDA skipped to grant EUA... but the fact that they skipped something to grant the EUA is evident in the fact that it is a EUA and not a normal approval. We are told to trust the science and trust the experts... So should we be trusting the science and experts when they say the full process is necessary to insure safety or should we be trusting the science and experts now when they say the full process isn't necessary? Or to greatly simplify... where they lying to us then? Or are they lying to us now? And if we catch them in any lie why would we trust them at all? And if they weren't lying before and they are not lying now... that means the current vaccine didn't get all the checks it should (aka an emergency shortening of the process) then it become completely understandable for people to say... No thanks I'll wait for the full completion as a matter of protecting there own personal health.

Ahh... but declaring that someone is being immodest... is a judgement... and potentially an unrighteous one. Thus the topic of our reaction to something someone else does falls under the gospel topic of righteous judgements... not modesty. Now we can and often do make poor judgements based on faulty understanding of both principles, and the motivations of others. And do many have a false idea of what modesty covers? Well yeah that seems self evident

Yeah he does that in other discussions as well... All you can really do in not to engage any further. That is pretty much it... And as a church we do talk about it... But usually not under the heading of modesty, but rather as a bits an pieces in parts of other gospel discussions. I do not consider it an abandonment of the topic but an acknowledgment of its integration

Fundamentally Modesty is about not setting yourself up as a light or to draw attention to yourself for personal reasons. Disciplines of Christ are support to hold up the light of Christ and to draw attention and people to him. In other situations there are other purposes that we should be supporting and not distracting from. Teachers should be focused on educating their students, not on showing how smart they are. Leaders should be about doing what is best for those they lead, not on what they can get or do by leading. Students should be about learning and helping others learn, not about what they can show off about. That is the core idea. A natural subset of that is how we dress. For example there is nothing inherently immodest about pants... or is there anything inherently immodest about the color purple, and therefore there is nothing inherently immodest about purple pants. If you grab purple pants and where them to church because they are part of your Sunday best you are being modest... If however you grab purple pants to make a political or social point aka to draw attention to yourself/causes.. then you are being immodest no matter how much you are covered up.. To continue that line, not drawing attention to ourselves through are clothing applies equally to both men and women. With that standard our hearts can convict both men and women, because we know that sometimes we wear things to draw attention, and that is immodest. Other times we do not intend to draw attention to ourselves and we end up doing so anyways. When we find out about that then we have a hard choice to make... we can either say it is not my problem and they need to deal with it... or they can follow the example of Christ about being our Brothers/Sisters keeper. And before people get all up in arms about how unfair it is to women at this point and stifles their freedom of expression, I would like to remind everyone that men are expected to wear white shirts and ties to church... and if they don't even with the best of intentions they are going to be drawing attention to themselves... and they have to make that hard choice.

Do you often find that you have to ask women to tell you how they feel? Because the women in my life have never felt the need for an invitation. 😁

In prepping and 2nd amendment circles there is a saying... "When seconds count... the police (or other first responders) are minutes away." I have every respect for our First Responders, but there is a lot to be said about the idea of being able to correctly resolve issues or at least keep them from getting worse until the pros can get there and do their thing. But that would require many people to really know what they are doing

Exactly the biological parents are the first chronologically... That is not a value judgement on worth of biological vs adoptive... it is just a simple fact. Thus the biological parents have the first responsibility to do the right thing. As society, as Christians charged with caring for our fellow men when they struggle to do the right thing, no matter if the circumstances are biological or adoptive... That means the biological comes first... and again not a value judgement but a factual one based on chronology. And Just because biological comes first chronologically doesn't mean when/if it fails that we give up thinking we are done. The adoptive deserve just as much support when/if their time comes.

I am/was one of those people whose recommend expired during COVID. I didn't realize it because I had no reason to pull it out and look at it with the temples closed. I only realized it because my wife started talking about getting hers renewed and mine expired before hers did. (I had put mine through the wash so we were out of sync) So I queued up with her for renewal... The reason I am sharing is because my experience with the stake was just like @Carborendum's only through Zoom

I do not have any additional insights to why members might choose to not renew recommend... However I do have a really really good reason for those that are questioning why they should have a recommend if they can't use it. Learning/relearning/reinforcing humility. God gives command we are under covenant to obey the commands. There is no only if I understand/agree with it exception clause. One the biggest acts of Faith is following a command we do not understand/agree with. Yes it can absolutely suck to be asked to take things on Faith, but that is exactly the test of this life... And as a test it is understandable that we struggle with it, it wouldn't be a test otherwise

Thank you for acknowledging that you do not get it... I can work that and with someone that that answers question instead of evading. Thank you for referencing the Family Proclamation... which shows the importance of family, and the need to protect it. So it starts out really simple... which comes first in time... a biological family or a adopted family? (That is a self evident question) Thus per the Family Proclamation the biological is the first family that we need to protect. (Because it is the first one that exists) But sometimes we can't protect it for very good reasons... Then we go to adoption, and once adopted that is the Family that we focus on protecting. This does not make one family better or more worthy in any way shape or form. But it is a clear case of Preventing Damage being better then Healing Damage. (Not that there is anything wrong with getting healed if you need it but not needing it means less suffering). Its about keeping families together if it is possible to do so, at every point. If we truly value families then we have to acknowledge that biologic one comes first in time, therefore it should be the very first one we try to fix (again if possible). How this gets twisted into the adopted children/families being lesser is so mind blowing off the rails its like people are hearing what they want rather then what is being said.

Thank you for the perfect example of a straw man I was taking about. It is so laughing distorted, that is it clear that you do not get the point... or you do not want to . So in the words of @LDSGator

I have repeatably acknowledged and restated my understanding and agreement with your point and I will do it yet again. "A persons Adopted kids, are just as important, just as valuable and just as good as a persons Biological kids." If this is not the correct understanding of your position and point please tell me. When it comes to the point I and others have been making... I have never seen you do more then say that you "get it" and then turn around an amply demonstrate that you do not because you straw man it in into absurdity, or simply say you disagree. You are free to disagree, but since you clearly show you do not understand it, all your disagreement statements show is that you are not willing to consider it. And in that case there is no point in trying to have a discussion with you.

While a correct statement it fundamentally misses the point. I think the Lord's parable of the Talents can be applied to the subject of this thread. With Parents as the Servants and kids as the Talents. The Lord gives each of his servants a differing amount of talents. When he returned, for each of his servants that caused their talents to increase... he was well pleased (Clearly this is the state everyone should be in and we should strive for) But there were servants that 'buried' their talents and they did not grow or increase. These servants he rebuked and took away their talents and gave them to another (Clearly we do not want this to happen) That last bit sounds like an adoption to me (Give the application we are using) The Lord did not rebuke the Talent as being inferior... Nor did he excuse the Servant he gave the talent to treat it any less then that servant did his other talents. If this idea holds then it is possible that those with very bad parents might find themselves in a completely different family after the Lord makes his judgement. Having said that we are not the Lord, and our judgements can be very questionable at best. (Here comes the is the point your missing) By design God put the Biological Family together for a 'wise purpose in him' most assuredly and we need to be very careful and humble about breaking those bonds. With this understanding the biological family has to be the default and preferred arrangement until we know that an individual case is, for lack of a better term 'Toxic.' Only when we are as sure as we can be does the point you make (and I quoted) become relevant and necessary

I am not talking about experience... (I can if you really want to) I am talking about fundamental principles. Show me where I am wrong and I will be more then willing to correct. But just because a problem can (and should) be fixed.. doesn't mean the problem never existed.

Which is kind of like saying that marriage is irrelevant because divorce exists. Both the need for adoption and the need for divorce only exist because we live in a fallen world. Please note that I talked about the 'need for.' In the case of Adoption those that come in an pick up the pieces and let a child that otherwise would not have had a chance at a normal upbringing, have that chance, are doing a wonderful and important thing. The fact that this can happen and can work, does not negate the position/idea that it should not have been needful.

Right But there is a big difference between the parents that put up their children for adoption and parents that adopt. First has had something go wrong, the second is (hopefully) in a very good place and looking to take on the challenge of kids... The first set is in plan B.. The second set generally is not. We need less of the first and more of the second.

It is hard to tell with @Traveler but I think he is trying to point out that adoption is a plan B, a contingency, a backup plan... That should only be used when Plan A, has disastrously failed. That making adoption the Main Plan, aka Plan A will destroy us. If this is the case.. I have no idea why he even felt the need to go there... (assuming he did)

Agreed... But he like all the rest of us need to figure out how to obey the command to Honor them... the way God would have him Honor them

Which is the judgmental idea that many of us are talking about. You are basically calling the vast majority of those saying "I know" to be lying or at the very least mistaken, even if you do not really mean to. The first Principle of the Gospel is not Knowledge is it Faith... People who get hung up on Knowledge (either for or against) are hung up. And if it damages Faith then repentance becomes necessary

Recently in the Come Follow Me program we studied the Gifts of the Spirit. D&C 46 If it is a gift of the spirit "To Know" and "To believe" it seems pretty presumptuous for us to require or declare that someones "Knowing" is a false idea because they did not see with there eyes or hear with their ears... and that they Only really just believe. It seems to deny the Gifts of the Spirit. On a more practical note... Using my example of the Sun Rising... How many times do I have to see the sun rise before it is acceptable to say "I know the Sun will rise" if I do not know why? It seems to me constant tiny confirmations adds up, but I can't say when it crosses over because its probably different for everyone. That being said its very possible that there are some people out there are saying "I know" when they don't... and others that doubt what they know because it did not come in some powerful ways.