Fether

Members
  • Content Count

    3220
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    20

Fether last won the day on March 9

Fether had the most liked content!

4 Followers

About Fether

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Southern Utah
  • Interests
    Being right, stomping the under-dog in "Risk", winning, causing others to lose, blocking people's tracks in "Ticket to Ride", playing drums
  • Religion
    The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Recent Profile Visitors

2157 profile views
  1. Fether

    Tolerance vs inclusion.

    The real meaning is even less than that. It’s choosing to not care at all. not be offended by it, fight it, or love it.
  2. I agree. It is absolutely situational Walking around nude is immodest if in public, but fine in private when you will only be around family that is comfortable with it . A bikini is inherently immodest when it is worn in the company of those that may see you as a potential sexual partner, you wear it to show off your body to the same gender or when it is deliberate revealing. I can see situations where woman wear bikinis and they aren’t trying to be sexy… but there are some bikinis that have one function and that is to provide the bare minimum requirements to keep the wearer from being charged with indecent exposure.
  3. I get the sense this comment is in opposition to what I said. I agree with everything you said, but maybe let me restate it more clearly. I am not saying a bikini is an exception to any commandment. I am saying that God has given us parameters to live within when it comes to how we dress. Additionally, he has taught us that modesty is about not drawing attention to yourself. This means that when it comes to how we dress, we need to dress ourselves in such a way that aligns with those cultural norms, but does not step outside the standards set by God. A bikini is an example that is a cultural norm, but steps outside the standards of the Lord. Probably, why else would we dress them once they recognized they were naked. Perhaps it was just a principle that wasn't necessary yet. We learn line upon line. I am not worried about teaching my children about modesty and sexual desires because they are only 2 years old. I will worry about it when they become old enough to recognize it. But yes, in any activity, my children are indeed immodest if they are naked. This goes back to how modesty adjusts depending on the activity being done. As long as we don't cross the lines put by God, we are fine. A bunch of boys with their shirts off swimming around are not being immodest. Their dress is appropriate for the activity. Should they dress that way in public, yes they are being immodest. I agree completely. It would be insane to put a law about covering square inches of skin. And you are right, there would be far too many exceptions. I do believe modesty belongs in the "love one another" realm. I would also extend it to the "Ye are the light of the world" and "Glorify God in our body and in our spirit". My hairy upper thigh may not be sexually attracted to others, but it would distracting and uncomfortable to be around. Though I don't believe (but am willing to be wrong) a man walking around in booty shorts, or the like, is necessarily crossing spiritual lines, it is surely crossing cultural and should not be done. (and to address obvious comments before they come, I do believe a girl walking around in booty shorts is crossing the line, or at least coming close. If you want to argue that men's legs are as sexualized as any girls legs, feel free... I just won't see it necessary to engage in that argument)
  4. I think modesty is an eternal principle. However, natural man forces us to include our sexual nature into the equation. I don’t think bikinis will be sexually tempting in Heaven because (1) we won’t have such carnal desires, and (2) bikinis are immodest. It’s a two fold reason to avoid revealing clothing, it is immodest and it can cause inappropriate feelings in others. I think modesty is mostly to do with meeting the current cultural expectations as long as said expectations don’t cross the Lord’s standard (amount of one’s body revealed and/or inappropriate messaging on the clothing) . If it crosses that line, culture becomes secondary to the spiritual standards
  5. Fether

    Fallacy question

    Is there a fallacy name or a single-word description where the person attacks the execution of the argument and not the argument itself? I know Ad Hominem is attacking the individual, but I am not concerned about that. I was engaged in a conversation the other day on a different forum where I was trying to explain a concept, but in my initial description, I used a phrase that poorly represented the argument. Despite there being enough content outside that one phrase to fully grasp what I was saying, and I even going back on it to correct myself later and admit it was a poor use of words, everyone pounced at began using that phrase as the source of argument for the next 3 pages of dialogue. Maybe there is a word or fallacy that focuses on a single phrase in an argument and ignores the "however" or the exceptions listed after? In this case, they looked at the misrepresentation of the argument and used that as the base of their argument, and when I went back to correct myself, they still chose to hang on to it. I feel like "Straw-man" doesn't really cut it as a description
  6. I would add that modesty is mostly attributed to cultural norms, but once it passes certain lines, it becomes a spiritual matter and is no longer dependent on culture. ie look at swimsuits and fashion norms. It has changed drastically over time and there haven't been issues until the fashion and swimwear started to become more revealing. The cultural approach takes a back seat to modesty once it cross that line.
  7. This aspect of modesty is very much culturally based. It’s about being aware of cultural norms and to not use your dress as a way to stick out or send a message. The aspect of modesty that has to do with the amount of skin being shown is different. It includes what I said above, but is less cultural, more spiritual
  8. Fether

    Light of Christ and faith in Christ

    Christ is the only thing we can have faith “in”. What atheists are doing is they have faith THAT this particular good action will make them feel good or that it will benefit it them in the future.
  9. I agree. The conversation of woman and modesty isn’t a point of blame on who is responsible for the inappropriate thoughts. It’s a point of (1) being dignified and (2) bearing one another’s burdens (which is very different from being responsible for one another’s burdens) I do think you would be hard pressed to find anyone today who would blame an immodestly dressed woman for the thoughts of men Around them. It happens, sure, but they are a minority. I may be wrong, but so think most of the Saints have progressed beyond this.
  10. The fact you counted the numbers, found it weird, know the alt code for the pi symbol and felt the need to specify base 10 shows just how much of a higher level human you are than me
  11. I often ponder this. I often unjustly get frustrated with people who lament God doesn't love them. It’s such a pointless conversation and concern to have. I equate it to someone lamenting that the sun is not going to rise. If it doesn’t love me, we are all dead and none of this matters. If his love is conditional, than all I have ever been taught is false and I might as well get over my sadness and do what needs to be done to make him love me . If God loves us unconditionally, than great… but his love for me is not going to save me in my sin so I might as well repent of what I am doing that is making me feel the lack of love. All that being said, I recognize my thought process is not like most and this is a serious matter for many so I try to keep my opinions to myself when someone is sad about it.
  12. Just out of curiosity. Did anyone happen to express the fact that this statement is, for all but the Savior Himself, 100%, absolutely, totally wrong? I guess the question is, "Good enough for what?" Good enough to be worth the air you breathe? Sure. Good enough for the rest of eternity? Nope. Sorry, someone here not good enough to be loved by your Father in Heaven? TFP, that's a luciferian lie, not worth your time. I’m just here to add to the quote chain
  13. True. So I guess the answer is just that because woman are encouraged to wear more immodest clothing. The reason for the lesser attention given to other aspects of modesty is due to how it isn’t as important. I don’t remember ever being taught in class that over eating is breaking the word of wisdom, but we do focus on the points of the law that have a larger affect on us. Its a matter of degree
  14. I grew up being taught that modesty was about woman’s shorts, tank tops, and cleavage. It also includes dressing in appropriate clothing for activities. I once wore skinny jeans and a We Came as Romans shirt to a stake youth choir practice and there were no issues. But if a girl shows up with short shorts or an immodest swimsuit to a youth activity, they weren’t allowed in. The modesty restrictions are applied far more heavily on woman than men. I feel like it is not a controversial statement to say modesty is focused on girls
  15. It was more for my own purposes. I don’t necessarily think one should be done. I just didn’t fully understand the connection between modesty, our dress, and why there was so much hoopla about women and their dress and why I feel nothing else was ever really stressed.