Leah

Members
  • Content Count

    1159
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Leah last won the day on November 7 2015

Leah had the most liked content!

About Leah

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Leah

    Modesty

    Boy, Mormons sure like to toss out the "judgment" word. Especially while in the act of judging others. Have I gone to these women and scolded them? But I guess expressing my opinion (what so many Mormons like to call "judgment") that - yes - those outfits are immodest is verboten in Mormonland. As is my confusion at the inconsistent and hypocritical messages sent. No wonder people outside the church roll their eyes. We're supposed to be modest. Except for when we want to make money? Except for when we just feel like? Tell me what are the REAL rules on modesty? And why are you allowed the "judgment" that dressing immodestly is perfectly okay but anyone who disagrees with you is not allowed to make that "judgment"? I have at least half a dozen personal friends in the entertainment industry - for decades - who have never worn outfits...costumes...whatever you want to call them...that would be considered immodest or incompatible with garment wearing. So it IS possible. Just as I knew untold numbers of Orthodox Jews who did the same. It's a CHOICE. Dressing modestly is a choice. Dressing immodestly is a choice. No one is forced either way. But I am not allowed to scratch my head over the mixed message sent. It comes across clearly that the REAL teaching is that we dress modestly and wear our garments except for when we don't want to. No showering, swimming or intimacy need be involved. Or is it just when it involves money, for that is the justification being given here. I am going to be homeless in a few weeks if I don't find a way to increase my income. Pot is legal here in Oregon and there's a crap-ton of money to be made in that industry. Soooo....that would be cool for me to sell pot, right? Or with just a bit of training, I could become a pot "mixologist" and make a cool $90,000 a year. Heck, I could even make more just trimming the plants than working where I work now. Because it would be my JOB and that's a free pass. Or if I wanted to become a stripper. They make good money and I really need the income. And it's a JOB, right? Or...as Folk Prophet hinted at in his post....maybe it's dependent on the time involved. Like if I were a model and I only modeled lingerie part time instead of full-time, that would be cool with the "rules". Or if I worked only part-time in the pot industry. Yeah...I just have to figure out what the time limit is that's allowed by the church and then it's all good. And I wasn't talking about any of those other situations you listed. So nice of you to treat me like a moron. It was this kind of crap on message boards that was a real turn-off when investigating the church. It's still a big turn-off. And still....no one has ever addressed the mixed message. Anyone can use any reason at any time not to dress modestly...not to wear their garments....and it's okay. ALWAYS. For ANY reason. That is the reality. No one is willing to address things like why it's okay for a young, married, endowed woman to post endless photos on FaceBook of herself in various states of undress and partial nudity. That wouldn't be considered modest by anyone. How that aligns with what we are taught in the temple about wearing our garments. Oh yeah...right...I can't n think about that much less ask about it. It's "judging". There are people who have a stroke over the thought of someone not wearing their garments to bed at night, but if someone wants to leave their garments at home because they want to go out in that dress that plunges down to there and slit up to here to make sure they get noticed...well...that's perfectly okay. Nope, can't have a discussion about the dissonance. That would be "judging". You know...one of the reasons I was drawn to the church was because the member who first shared their testimony and beliefs with me did it in a way very different from any other Christian addressed me as a Jew. There was no 'you're bad, you're wrong, you're going to hell". But - wow - once you're a member, the attacks never end. No matter what side of an issue you are on, there's guaranteed to be members to tell you how wrong and bad you are. But...noooo....THEY aren't the ones judging. People can walk down the street naked for all I care. (This is Portland. This happens). But I do care about trying to figure out the logic behind all of this. Or I did. Because there really isn't an answer other than the Mormons top the list of religions whose members pick and choose what "rules" they follow. So the next time I pass on buying that cute dress because....whoopsie...it's backless....I won't have to pass on it. Because it's okay to be modest or not. And it's okay to wear your garments or not. Whatever floats your boat, right?
  2. Leah

    Modesty

    Funny that you mention ballroom dancing. A woman (endowed) in my previous ward was obsessed with it and took classes several nights a week. I went to one of her recitals. Her performance outfit was decidedly not garment-friendly (and was used as her profile picture on FaceBook). Yet - several other women - NOT members of the church - wore beautiful outfits that would be completely compatible with garments if they were members. Each participant had free reign to choose their own outfits. Kind of ironic. No one is holding a gun to anyone's head forcing them to dress immodestly. No one "has to" dress immodestly. These women make a free-will choice to do so. So basically....the true teaching about modesty (and garments, really) is that we are to be modest..and to wear our garments...except for when we don't want to. Got it.
  3. Leah

    Modesty

    This is something about the church (or its members) that makes absolutely no sense to me. We dress modestly/wear our garments except if we want to take a job where dressing immodestly is part of the job?? I guess that means if we want to take a job that requires us to...oh...I don't know...drink...smoke...do drugs...have sex (I hear being a sexual surrogate pays pretty darn good)....then it's all hunky-dory because, hey, it's just part of my job, right? Orthodox Jewish women dress modestly. They wouldn't dream of dressing immodestly just to make a buck or two.
  4. Leah

    Terror attack in Paris

    And you get your "facts" from where, exactly? A government official was just explaining on CNN why they have changed their tactics to just exactly the kinds of attacks that have gone on in France. They require no expensive, long-term sophisticated planning. Coordinated planning, yes. But no hijacking of planes, etc. Just walk into a "safe" place where people gather. You just need a few people to go into crowded, easily accessible venues with guns and can quickly murder dozens, if not hundreds of people. It is a variation on the suicide bomber. These murderers had no intention of escaping, hence their suicide belts. These kinds of attacks are much harder to track and prevent than 9/11 style attacks. These kinds of attacks are going to occur with more and more frequency. I have the privilege in the past of speaking with Israeli and American experts in terrorism. Most people have no clue what is going on, what has gone on, and how many attacks have actually been thwarted. But we can never stop them all and it's just going to get worse, not better.
  5. Some people aren't interested in communicating/understanding. They just want to be "right'.
  6. Leah

    Reading articles on lds.net

    Rarely. I've usually already seen the article or information elsewhere.
  7. So you made a claim that you knew was dishonest in order to prove that you were "right". Your second statement simply further proves that you have no comprehension of the policy. Or of a number of other things. But people who make dishonest claims aren't really interested in the truth of things, are they?
  8. Quote function not working properly.
  9. I have one last thing to say and then I am out of here. Once again, we have people condemning others by trotting out their hypocritical cries of "You're judging others". They don't want others - including Heavenly Father's chosen prophets and leaders - saying anything that conflicts with their limited and self-focused viewpoint. In today's world especially, it is never about anyone or anything else, it's always about me, me, me. And they also are judging our prophet and apostles and,yes, Heavenly Father himself. They don't like what they hear so the immediate reaction is endless criticism and pronouncements that Heavenly Father got it all wrong and that we smug and superior mortal beings know better than him. And I remain frustrated and baffled by the practice of church members who castigate other members for "judging" anyone outside the church but then never hesitate themselves for even an instant to judge those inside the church. I've never seen the likes of it anywhere else and it's just as off-putting now as when I was investigating the church. You will embrace anyone living life at distinct odds with the gospel but won't extend the same kindness to fellow members of the church. As for this policy - I am trusting Heavenly Father on it and not the murmurings of the discontented.
  10. I really don't understand the anger about this. Wait. Yes, I do. It comes mostly from those who are always looking for another excuse to get angry at the church. It comes from those who have a temper tantrum any time the church doesn't do things their way. I was a little puzzled when I first started reading about the handbook changes but the more I thought about it, I understood that it's a good thing and not the evil, hurtful, politically-incorrect attack. It is actually policy meant to protect children, families, and the church. Take the LDS church and same-sex marriage out of it for a moment. You have a minor child who gets interested in a religion through...say...social activities with a friend. The religion is at complete odds with the parents' beliefs/lifestyle. Joining the religion is going to cause a rift...friction...between the child and parents. Why should that be encouraged? And it is a child we are talking about. A still maturing mind and heart. Having beliefs at odds with one another can cause difficulties in a marriage where you are dealing with two adults, who have more experience, education and maturity and they often are unable to navigate the differences and keep the marriage together, but we expect children to deal with all of this and burden them with the responsibility of keeping a family together? Because that is how it is going to feel to them and that is what the naysayers are asking them to do. How does it help the children, the family....anyone....if you have a child who dearly loves his/her parents, but learns that their parents' behavior and choices are at odds with the church? Why would you place such a burden on a child's shoulders? You are expecting them to understand things that they cannot possibly understand and make choices they should never have to as a child. I see this as policy meant to help families, not hurt them. To protect children. And, yes, I think it protects the church, too. There are those with an agenda of hatred who - as same-sex parents whose child is interested in joining the church - would gleefully welcome an opportunity to attack the church (or any and everyone who doesn't agree with their world-view), claiming that the church is harming the child and their family by teaching their child "bigotry", etc. The word 'cult' would be thrown around. Lawsuits would happen. And their goal would be to eradicate anything and anyone who doesn't share their same beliefs. Because that is what the goal is for more and more people. It's not enough that people get to live their chosen lifestyle, that they got to change the definition of marriage, etc. They want EVERYONE to come around to their world-view and not be allowed to live or believe in a way different to their own. And I am not talking just about gay people. I am talking about the growing numbers of people who think any kind of religion is wrong. Its not enough that they have the freedom to not believe in God or live whatever lifestyle they so choose, they don't want anyone else believing in God, either. Just recently here in Portland, some school districts have banned choirs from singing at The Grotto, a beautiful piece of Catholic property, during The Festival of Lights at Christmas time. Because - obviously - singing a few Christmas songs in such a location is somehow "forcing religion down our throats". I guess if you sing a Christmas Carol in such a location - shazam! - you are forced against your will to be a Catholic or something. A few years back, I was personally aware of a situation where one spouse wanted to convert to Judaism but the other parent objected and it was putting the marriage at risk. The rabbi in this situation counseled that he could not recommend - nor would he be a participant in - potentially breaking up a family over it. That if the choice was between the marriage or the conversion, that the correct choice would be the marriage. A child with same-sex parents would be placed in a difficult situation that could cause great distress to them and to the family. It actually seems the kinder thing to me to not place a minor child in that situation. Let them participate as they can, but it makes great sense to have them wait until adulthood to officially join the church if they still so choose. Their salvation is not being denied in any way. They are not being condemned to hell or however all of the malcontents are saying it on FaceBook and internet forums. They are being relieved of some burdens and responsibilities that those who are only looking to their own selfish needs would place on shoulders too young to bear it. And they will get to make the decision to join the church when they are no longer a vulnerable child. The church isn't about destroying families. The church would not institute a policy that would cause such. This policy is actually trying to preserve families. But the anti-church people (members as well as non-members) can only see their own selfish, short-sighted needs and refuse to the eternal goals at work here. I've been woefully inarticulate here. But I have been pondering and praying and I have received confirmation that this comes from a loving Heavenly Father through those He has appointed to lead us through these increasingly difficult times.
  11. Leah

    What does anti mean?

    "I want to be of service....". Now that's a strange way of justifying your condemnation of others for the very action you are engaging in yourself.
  12. Leah

    What does anti mean?

    This exactly. I remain flabbergasted by people in all areas of life who are quick to accuse others of judging when they are in fact engaging in that very act themselves. Apparently, to some, judging is only "wrong" when someone else has an opinion they disagree with. So they issue the cry "You're judging me!", usually followed by further judgment of their own, accompanied by a side dish of condemnation, just prior to a third course of lecturing how those "judgmental" others must change their evil ways, with some false piety and scripture thrown in for dessert. I don't know if it is due to an inability to comprehend scripture or just part of the it's-not-wrong-if-I-want-to-do-it mentality that is so prevalent these days.
  13. Leah

    Really Questioning the Garment

    I am totally with you on this, Anatess. I honestly do not get the gnashing of teeth over some thin fabric. Women of the world won't hesitate to wear Spanx in the name of vanity, but sacred garments are just too much to bear? I guess anything more than a thong is considered oppression these days. I wonder how some women would survive where I grew up - in the wintertime, it wasn't unusual to wear regular underwear with thermal "long johns" (flowered ones for girls!) over that so you wouldn't freeze your fanny off. I had never heard of garments prior to investigating the church. My initial reaction was...meh...that's kind of weird. But I come from Orthodox Judaism so I can trump that "weirdness" with other "weird" practices, no problem (pm if you're curious). Plus, it's not the only religion with some variation of a religious garment, so in both of those contexts it was only weird for about a second and a half. Indeed, as I spent my year between baptism and endowment preparing for the temple, I came to look on the wearing of the garment as a sacred privilege and was - sincerely - looking forward to that privilege. I have spoken to other women who felt the same. My first trip to the distribution center to purchase garments was a special occasion for me. I took along an endowed friend and between her and the sister at the distribution center and - I know there are some who will roll their eyes - it was a memorable experience with the presence of the Spirit evident. (As it was buying temple clothing). After a little bit of experimentation with fabrics and styles (I, too, am vertically challenged), I just don't struggle to wear them. Sure, sometimes I have to give a tug here or make an adjustment there, but they are such a natural part of life that I'm not walking around constantly thinking "Oh, I have these terrible garments on". I would feel weird without them. There was actually a day when I was really, really sick and when I was finally able to drag my miserable self into the shower and change into a fresh nightgown, I was still so miserable and non-functional and after a little bit realized something felt wrong but it took me a few minutes to identify it. I hadn't put my garments on. I have health issues (including an exquisite sensitivity to heat) that I know more than a few people would say "excuse" me from wearing garments at least some of the time. But I would rather focus on figuring out how to make it work, than look for a reason not to wear them. Again, I feel that it is a sacred privilege and that's always worth trying to do my best. As for wearing panties and garments together? I was specifically told when I was endowed that that is acceptable. And my understanding is that there are also men who wear briefs under their garments, as well. A couple of thin layers of fabric isn't going to kill anyone.
  14. I was responding in general to a statement by another poster. Apparently you are reading into it a reflection of your own posted comments about the new member.