Leah
-
Posts
1159 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by Leah
-
-
Not to defend these particular outfits (the one on the right isn't bad...the one on the left is a bit much) but it's not exactly fair to say that this is what they wear for their jobs as if wearing things like this is a full time thing. Performing is a relatively small part of their job, and these are costumes for the performance. Most of the time they are not wearing this sort of thing for their jobs.
There are, certainly, appropriate activities where the wearing of what might be immodest normally is appropriate. Sports comes to mind -- particularly swimming. But I digress... In fact, I'm not, specifically justifying this particular activity (ballroom dancing) as to that. But the general point, I believe remains.
BYU has, perhaps, the largest ballroom dance program in the nation. They have standards for the costumes. Both of these costumes would break those rules, (I find that disappointing and wish they would keep similar standards even for professional ballroom shows) but the costumes that are allowed at BYU for their competitions are still way beyond what would be acceptable for a church dance or the like, and certainly could not be worn with garments. The BYU standards, in my opinion, are appropriate for the activity. But the "modesty" is relative to the activity in some ways some times.
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.
-
Just putting this out there:
These two women are temple worthy members of the Church. They wear these type of outfits to work:
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.
-
No guess. Just fact. They will. They just are not set up for the size of event they next want to stage.
BTW, have you ever heard of the World Trade Center?
dc
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.
-
I don't know why we're always having a miscommunication with you!
Some people aren't interested in communicating/understanding. They just want to be "right'.
- carlimac and lagarthaaz
-
2
-
-
Of course not Leah. But it would have been the same kind of discrimination based on "the sins" of the parents.
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?
-
Quote function not working properly.
-
This new policy makes me wonder how different my life might have been if the church had a policy in place that said if you came from a less active home you could not be baptized until you turned 18.
That is not what this policy says.
-
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.
-
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.
- kapikui, pam, classylady and 8 others
-
11
-
The truth is, I am as guilty as the next guy of judging in a condemning way. When Christ died the law was written on our hearts thus we are condemned by our own hearts when we sin. When I condemn my fellow man (or commit any sin), I know I have done it. I then have a need to repent. If I ignore this need I can feel myself sliding down that slippery slope.
I looked back on my past posts and see how it can be assumed I may be guilty of what you say here. But this is the reason for my post on this thread. I want to be of service when I warn that the errors of perception can lead to false judgment.
Trust me when I say, it is not easy to keep from lashing back at those who have wrongly assumed my guilt. But after resting in God and searching my own heart I find myself grateful for this experience.
"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.
-
How can one preach to another that they need to stop judging without judging that they're judging in the first place?
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.
-
I have worn pantyhose under my skirt and over my panties. Tights under my pencil skirt and over my panties (plus leg warmers over my tights). Split half-slips under my culottes over my panties. Thermal underwear under my wool skirt over my panties (with boots over the thermals). And yes, I have worn girdles (now called spanx) over my panties... and many other layered combinations of clothing over my panties in the name of fashion (ah, to be an 80's kid!). I don't really see the big deal with wearing panties under my garments in the name of the Lord.
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.
- AnnieCarvalho, BeccaKirstyn, Vort and 2 others
-
5
-
If you believe he is being false then don't engage him... If you believe he breaks the rules then report him... But the mods have repeatedly asked forum members not to post their presumptions of the worst when new posters show up
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.
-
I have no problem with his asking the questions. I much rather someone ask me what I believe than "research" it on the internet or ask someone who doesn't know.
That's fine when someone is asking questions in a genuine desire to learn.
-
Hi there. I will be asking a series of questions and would like to insert this introduction before them all to ensure that my intent is not misconstrued.
Though I believe God tells us there is no sin greater than another, I have a particular distain for gossip. Thus I would like to take any hearsay given to me about Mormonism and put it under a spotlight and find the truth.
Hearsay: Mormon's believe that wearing holy undergarments will protect them from harm. That even bullets and knives will not harm them if the garments are worn.
What is the truth here?
The word is disdain.
If you disdain gossip, they why are you indulging in it here? Isn't that rather hypocritical?
-
It seems in my last post, though approved by the moderator, I may have caused discord with a few members.
I checked your forum rules and I do not think I broke any rules but just in case there are certain social "unwritten" rules that the rest of you follow, please let me know if there are topics considered taboo.
I do have many questions because I do not want the answers from people who are already prejudiced against Mormons. That being said, my questions may be difficult for some to hear.
But please bear me no ill will as I do not bear any of you ill will.
Again, I apologize to anyone I may have offended with my last posted question. I am simply seeking the truth. And as Christ said, "The truth shall set me free."
I am puzzled by your statement ".....my questions may be difficult for some to hear". Latter-day Saints get asked questions all the time. I don't see why a question would "difficult for some to hear". If you have a legitimate question, you will get legitimate answers.
-
When he starts acting like a husband, I will act like a wife.
With the attitude illustrated above, I don't understand how you expect ever to have a successful marriage.
Are you this way in other relationships and areas of your life? Stomp your feet and refuse to do the right thing unless others do it first? Is your love for others conditional as it clearly is with your husband? Only loving others if and when they do the "right" thing? Or do things the way you want them to do?
You expect your husband to act like a husband regardless of your behavior, but you will only act like a wife if he acts like a husband first? Pretty hypocritical, don't you think?
-
Living in Oregon (where pot is now legal) I'm more concerned about the actions of idiotic parents as apparently pot comes in all sorts of "edibles" including gummy bears. I think there is a much higher likelihood of some moronic parent leaving their edibles where a child could find them than there is of the trick or treat scenario.
- Blackmarch and Backroads
-
2
-
-
We have a member here named Leah who converted from Judaism. I'm sure she'd be a great resource. Welcome!
I would be happy to answer questions. I was baptized in 2011. I was an Orthodox Jew, so...yeah....pretty big change! :)
-
Here is a scenario. After I describe it, I will list a series of situations. Decide which one of each of the three situations would result in the loss of a temple recommend.
Situation: I go to Bishop for recommend interview. I tell him I lost my job, am nearly out of money and am depressed about it. I have gained 30 lbs in the past 6 months. My DR said I have to lose about 40 lbs as I have high blood pressure and coronary heart disease. No diabetes or other illness which causes obesity- I just like to eat etc…. Bishop asks what has caused the weight gain:
a- I started drinking to deal with my depression.
b- I now smoke MJ to deal with depression and eat too many Doritos
c- I use food as medicine and I cant stop. It makes me feel better.
Me (same person as above) walking out of convenience store with_______ in my hands and the Bishop is walking in at the same time and sees me.
a- A 12 pack of beer
b- A carton of smokes
c- A 64 oz soda and dozen doughnuts
My wife goes to RS pres and complains that I am depressed and need help. I don’t work, look for a job or do anything but sit around. While doing this I _____ . Which answer would cause the RS pres to go to the Bishop to get immediate help? Prob all three, but only two will cause loss of a recommend.
a- Drink beer
b- Smoke
c- Eat, eat, eat
We get appt with Bishop to get foodbox from Bishops storehouse. He asks to see our records to go over financial eligibility and bring in a typical receipt from last couple grocery trips. He looks at the receipts and sees______ . Which one will result in loss of recommend?
a- Alcohol
b- Cigarettes
c- Lots of hostess, Doritos, soda etc
There are only a few things anyone cares about. There may be more that should be addressed, but we do not dare do that.
I don't see any other point to your imaginary, wildly speculative post other than your desire to be "right" in all things and to continue your hobby of judging others.
There are plenty of scriptures and quotes from various sources that I could throw in here, but it would be wasted on someone who won't let anything get in the way of his own personal agenda.
-
Thanks for the advice. I know what I've done is seriously wrong and I need to repent. I guess I'm just confused about the honesty part. Telling him would devestate him and if I've ended things with this other guy and have no intention of being unfaithful again (I know I didn't have the intention before but now my guard is really up) I don't see how telling him would be anything but destructive. I just want to put it behind me..if I tell him I don't know if that's possible. I guess I'm questioning if confession is always a good idea.
Yeah, you really don't understand about being honest with your words and actions. That's why counseling with a professional and your bishop are even more important.
-
My husband is not without blame in our marital problems, and I feel like if he hadn't done the things he did I wouldn't have given this guy the time of day.
A good start would be to stop blaming others for your actions. No one forced you to do what you did. You CHOSE your actions.
And being "tall, slender and pretty" is no excuse either. Wow.
You need to talk to your bishop, you need to get counseling....and you need to take responsibility for actions YOU chose.
And honesty. Honesty would be a great thing for you to start practicing.
Modesty
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
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?