The Folk Prophet

I agree. One always must follow Alma's advise to his son and "cross yourself in all these things". The feelings are natural. Allowing oneself to dwell on them and to lust becomes the problem. When I see something that I find sexually alluring that is not my wife I turn my thoughts and my eyes away -- intentionally and with purpose. I have not always been successful at this, but I am getting better and better through the years. In my experience, the need to cross myself in these things is significantly greater around immodesty. Bikini laden situations leave me to constantly avert my gaze and my thoughts and purposefully focus on other things. Whereas a modestly dressed woman who may be large chested does not do so as frequently. Expose part of that chest and...yeah...effort must be applied. But I'm sure it's different for everyone.

The problem, and the lie in the protestation, is the idea that these modesty teachings imply that dressing sexy "makes" men do something. It does not, and never, anywhere, will you ever find any single teaching that says so. It does not "make" men think bad thoughts. What it potentially does is influence men to that end. All we do, say, speak, wear, etc., has the potential to influence others for good or for bad, and we ARE responsible to that end, without question. This is the plain truth of it. Twisting it to mean something other than what was said and then attacking the teaching does no one any good. It only works towards tearing down righteous principles.

We are not responsible for the influence we have on others? Really? REALLY?

This is a half truth and not the teaching of the church. Never has it been taught that we are only sexual objects. But we do have the power of procreation, and thereby we are sexual object. But the church's teaching is and always has been that we are SO much more than just this. But that does not take away from the fact that we are endowed with procreative power and we have the responsibility to be wise stewards over that. This is baloney and a logical fallacy of mammoth proportions. The teaching has absolutely nothing to do with men's responsibility for their own thoughts and actions. It does not teach that men "cannot" control themselves. What it teaches is that it's unwise to shove drugs in an addict's face. It's unwise to have sweets in the home where there are health and obesity issues. And it is unwise to expose female flesh to men struggling with lust (which, coincidentally, happens to be most men at some point in their lives). It advocate's wisdom, not the removal of choice or responsibility. My responsibility to not tempt others is not implying other's are not responsible. It would be like saying a parent has no responsibility to teach their children right principles because that would take away the child's agency. We are responsible for our influence over others. We are also, all, responsible for ourselves.

From https://www.lds.org/topics/modesty?lang=eng "Your clothing expresses who you are. It sends messages about you, and it influences the way you and others act." "Revealing and sexually suggestive clothing, which includes short shorts and skirts, tight clothing, and shirts that do not cover the stomach, can stimulate desires and actions that violate the Lord’s law of chastity." Robert D Hales: "Moreover, what we wear will influence the behavior of others toward us. "Consider why missionaries dress conservatively in a skirt and blouse or in a suit with a white shirt and tie. How might someone respond if the missionary had unkempt hair and if he or she were dressed in blue jeans, flip-flops, and a T-shirt with a tawdry printed message? That person might ask, “Is this a representative of God?” Why would that person want to engage in a serious conversation about the purpose of life or the Restoration of the gospel with such a missionary? "Of course we don’t need to dress like missionaries all of the time. There are certainly times when modest casual clothing is appropriate. The point is this: How we dress affects how people react to us." "We show love and respect for friends and associates when our language, dress, and behavior are not provocative or unduly casual." Spencer W. Kimball "One contributing factor to immodesty and a breakdown of moral values is the modern dress. I am sure that the immodest clothes that are worn by some of our young women, and their mothers, contribute directly and indirectly to the immorality of this age. Even fathers sometimes encourage it. I wonder if our young sisters realize the temptation they are flaunting before young men when they leave their bodies partly uncovered. “There was provided in our physical bodies, and this is sacred, a power of creation. A light, so to speak, that has the power to kindle other lights. This gift is to be used only within the sacred bonds of marriage. Through the exercise of this power of creation, a mortal body may be conceived, a spirit enter into it, and a new soul born into this life. “This power is good. It can create and sustain family life, and it is in family life that we find the fountains of happiness. It is given to virtually every individual who is born into mortality. It is a sacred and significant power." Boyd K. Packer “You are growing up in a society where before you is the constant invitation to tamper with these sacred powers. … … The only righteous use of this sacred power is within the covenant of marriage. Never misuse these sacred powers” Dallin H. Oaks "Young women, the principle of modesty—the commandment that you should avoid a tempting manner or appearance—is fixed and eternal and will not deviate. "there is a point—which need not and perhaps cannot be identified in inches above the knee—where the wearer is calling attention to herself, exposing too much of her body, and sending off signals and inviting responses that are not consistent with the standards of the gospel." Joseph Fielding Smith “As I walk along the streets on my way to or from the Church Office Building, I see both young and older women, many of them ‘daughters of Zion,’ who are immodestly dressed. … The wearing of immodest clothing, which may seem like a small matter, takes something away from our young women or young men in the Church. It simply makes it more difficult to keep those eternal principles by which we will have to live if we are to return to the presence of our Father in heaven.”

That's what gives us The Force, right? Oh...wait...Midichlorian....my bad.

You are, flatly, wrong. The bishop is responsible for the temporal well being of his ward. And marriage issues, divorce, custody, and the like are very distinctly part of his purview. Beyond that, anyone not seeking spiritual advise in these matters, as well as temporal, is a fool. These things ARE spiritual. Decidedly, distinctly, without question, spiritual.

From Handbook 2: "Endowed members should wear the temple garment both day and night. They should not remove it, either entirely or partially, to work in the yard or for other activities that can reasonably be done with the garment worn properly beneath the clothing. Nor should they remove it to lounge around the home in swimwear or immodest clothing. When they must remove the garment, such as for swimming, they should put it back on as soon as possible." I used to remove my garments to work out until I realized (grew up enough, I guess) that I could very reasonably wear them when doing so. I was making excuses (primarily sweat) that, in my mind, do not qualify as reasonable. However, the handbook also says: "Members who have made covenants in the temple should be guided by the Holy Spirit to answer for themselves personal questions about wearing the garment." Therefore, it is incorrect to state "garments not needed', as it would also be incorrect to state, "garments required". It is a question to be taken to God and the Holy Spirit. But one should always err on the side of wearing them if it is reasonable to do so. The wearing of the garment is a privilege (this plays into how I grew up in my attitude a bit), and we should be look for reasons to wear them, doing so whenever possible, rather than the other way around. The blessings and covenants associated with them are far to precious to treat the wearing of them with a cavalier attitude.

I didn't say ask the bishop for legal advise. I said tell him. You're being contentious for no reason. Apparently you like to write off any scripture you don't care for as "out of context for our day". Hmm. So apparently, according you you, the bishop administering in temporal things was only valid in Joseph Smith's day, all things being spiritual is no longer valid in our new and enlightened age, and God no longer qualifies whom He calls? Am I understanding you correctly?

Which is the exact same thing that I said (minus the maybe).

That advise does not fit with the scriptures: D&C 107:68 "for the office of a bishop is in administering all temporal things;" Moreover, everything is spiritual advise. D&C 29:34 "Wherefore, verily I say unto you that all things unto me are spiritual," Do talk to your bishop. "Whom God calls, God qualifies.” - Thomas S. Monson

You're right... In the terrestrial kingdom the primary law is that anyone caught stealing from another has their head shaved...which never grows back. There's also a law against raising chickens, which is primarily non-enforced because no one actually owns chickens, whereas all chicken fulfilled the measure of their creation and are therefore Celestialized...but somehow a law got put on the books anyway, a leftover from someone's mortal chicken bias that they never quite got over (which, incidentally was the primary reason for the said lawmaker not being Celestialized).

In the Terrestrial kingdom people will live in large dwellings with triangular shaped doors. Each community will have 3 mayors, known as "The Elect", though they will not be elected, but rather will be chosen by pillars of fire that appear in front of their domiciles. Terrestrial dwellers will have to garden for food, but as there will be no weeds it's a cushy job, and the things they grow for food are only for pleasure, as no one actually needs to eat. There will be some who determine that eating is evil and it will create a faction. To set themselves apart they alter their triangular doors into squares. Most will view these as outcasts. There will also be a series of buildings filled with retro-style reel-to-reel computers that are used to... *...record scratch....* What? I'm making this up you say? How dare you!! You mean to imply that we have no idea about what the Telestial, Terrestrial, or Celestial worlds are actually like? But...but.... ...triangular doors... ...someone said it once..... Apparently I'm feeling facetious today.

Must have been. I have a nephew in that area and they got iPads.

I disagree with this analogy. There are boy scout leaders who have done reprehensible things -- that would be more accurate as to the Mountain Meadows analogy IMHO. Even better would be the idea that there are certainly some Mormons out there who support planned parenthood. So would it be accurate to say the church, accordingly, supports planned parenthood? No. However, if members of the church supported it and the church took a sanctioning response (either by saying nothing, thereby giving tacit approval, or by actually stating that they supported the decisions of their members) then it would be appropriate to say the church supported planned parenthood. The church's response to the Mountain Meadow's massacre was not approval, tacit or otherwise. I don't know a lot about the Girl Scouts, but I'm guessing they've never censured or otherwise disapproved of local units for supporting planned parenthood, and thereby it would be accurate to say that they support it.

That's interesting. I'm not sure I'm with you on the why part of it though (engaging in creation), however, if you look at God as a race and we are His children, and refer to the entire race as "the gods" (as we do know, we are gods in embryo), then it does, from a certain point of view, make sense that way. A lot of speculation in this thread though.

Just FYI, David, the account from Joseph at the beginning of the Book of Mormon is taken from Joseph Smith History, which is the link I provided. I absolutely concur with Daybreak79 though. If you want to know about the Book of Mormon, read it! :)

Finished the episode. My response about the 116 pages was accurate. No 2nd set of plates. They were all part of the same plates. Another falsehood: The Book of Mormon does not say that Adam and Eve lived in Jackson County Missouri. That comes from direct revelation to Joseph Smith. Beyond that there's all sorts of half truths. Sort of true, but not entirely accurate. I always forgot how offensive South Park is. Not just to Mormons (though, explicitly to them). It's just offensive.

I decided to watch through the South Park episode again so as to be informed. One falsehood: No one else ever saw the plates. That's not true. At least 10 others saw them.

I don't think the South Park story introduced the idea of the kinderhook plates hoax.

I was thinking about it and I think the answer is the following: Joseph only got one set of plates. However, those plates were combined writings of different authors (mostly abridged by the prophet Mormon, but some directly from the original authors.) Joseph translated 116 pages from the writings of Lehi. These pages were then lost and the Lord told him not to re-translate that portion again, but to instead move on and translated the rest. so that is probably what is being alluded to. There were no other plates found however.

Read the story directly from Joseph Smith here (specifically starts vs. 27). Not sure what 2nd set of plates you mean.

Hi David, Good for you for being willing to explore what we believe legitimately. That's awesome. You will find that many of the South Park claims are somewhat true, but that they are twisted with agenda in order to make fun and marginalize. They are simplified and distorted. Of course, there are other things that are just false. (And, of course, decried as "dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb".) So ask away. We'll happily explain.

Those who have truly experienced the Spirit know better. It's not a warm fuzzy or a feeling of happiness. It is quite concrete. It is no more or less subjective than knowing the sun is shining. This may be true, but it is either because they did not truly experience the Spirit, relied on an emotional "feeling" instead, or else they let the spiritual experience dwindle in their memories because of failure to build upon their faith by continual feasting upon the word of God. You only think this because you have never felt the Spirit give pure knowledge to you. When the spirit speaks you KNOW it. It's not just a "warm fuzzy". That's rhetorical baloney. It comes from trying to describe the indescribably, but it is entirely insufficient. They do not apply the "same" approach. Similar is not "the same". The fact that people become "converts" to all sorts of things based on their feelings does not invalidate the witness of someone who has truly received communication from God. The cynicism of this approach is not useful. It's also not useful to teach those filled with pride and their own sense of wisdom that they must be humble and submissive. It does no good to explain to those who have never seen and felt the sun that their false claims of sunlight are blatantly obvious to those who have come out of the darkness if they refuse to experiment upon your path to the light themselves. Moreover, it is not a sociological experiment. It is a personal witness, and it does not good whatsoever to compare experiences across cultures and religions. It doesn't matter how may cave-dwelling Morlocks' claim to understand sunlight in spite of the fact that they've never been above ground. I've been in the daylight and I know I have regardless of any other claims. Any implication that the LDS religion does not approach the gospel with both faith and reason tells me that the person so implying has no real understanding of the LDS religion. And reason doesn't? You mean to tell me that every "reasonable" thought you've ever had you still retain? So what you considered reasonable when you were 2 years old is still your view? So what we once thought was reasonable concerning science has never changed? You are incapable or unwilling to every update or alter your reason? Sounds like a sure path to growth. Of course reason changes. Reason and emotion must work hand in hand. Faith and the Spirit are something else entirely. But the Spirit must interact with us through our emotions and through our minds.

No. Eat less and exercise more was given as advise. Calories in vs. calories out is not advise, and is significantly more complex than eat less and exercise more. Regardless, eat less and exercise more is hardly "terrible" advise. That's a bit extreme. It may be incomplete advise. It is not "terrible". I'm stepping out of this ridiculous discussion.