BJ64
-
Posts
783 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by BJ64
-
-
5 minutes ago, mordorbund said:
I've solved this dilemma by ordering myself women's tops to go with men's bottoms.
That solution would not work for me. My chest is much too flat to fill the “cups” of a woman’s top.
I solved the sleeve problem by undersizing my top so they are shorter in the sleeve and length. A tall corban top won’t stay tucked in and therefore hangs out about two inches past my t shirt. Buying them shorter makes it so that when they are untucked they do not hang out because they are shorter than my shirt.
-
10 minutes ago, mordorbund said:
Is this specified in the canon?
Perhaps not but as I have demonstrated a prophet has told us that everything we teach should be found in the scriptures. Of course almost all recent revelation is not new commandments but rather changes in church policy and procedure.
I have always wondered why the “oficial interpretation” of the word of wisdom has not been added to the actual word of wisdom in the Doctrine and Covenants. As it is we are commanded to like by an interpretation of the law which itself is not in the scriptures.
-
5 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:
The interesting thing about this thread is that just the other night I dreamed I was in the cafeteria of the Mount Timpanogos Temple, and suddenly realized I had no pants on. Garments, yes, but no pants. And I sure didn’t feel very modest!
It has been my experience that any church related dream does not go well.
- unixknight and Just_A_Guy
-
2
-
In my opinion anything that is considered doctrine and is binding on the members of the church as a commandment should be in the scriptures. If a prophet speaks of a commandment that cannot be found in the scriptures then it should be added to the scriptures. As I quoted Harold B. Lee earlier, if it’s not in the scriptures it is either personal opinion, speculation or false doctrine.
-
mod·es·ty
Dictionary result for modesty
/ˈmädəstē/noun-
the quality or state of being unassuming or moderate in the estimation of one's abilities."with typical modesty he insisted on sharing the credit with others"
synonyms: self-effacement, humility, lack of vanity, lack of pretension, unpretentiousness; More -
the quality of being relatively moderate, limited, or small in amount, rate, or level."the modesty of his political aspirations"
synonyms: limited scope, moderation, fairness, acceptability, smallness "Gandhi's political tactics obscured the modesty of his political aspirations" -
behavior, manner, or appearance intended to avoid impropriety or indecency.plural noun: modesties"modesty forbade her to undress in front of so many people"
synonyms: unpretentiousness, simplicity, plainness, lack of pretension, inexpensiveness, lack of extravagance "it is appropriate to contrast the modesty of his home with those of more affluent politicians"
-
Following the definition of modesty one could easily suggest that wearing a suit and tie can be immodest in many cases because it can be pretentious. -
-
On 2/17/2019 at 8:22 PM, Fether said:
I never understood the hype behind “canonizing” things. Does a canonizes scripture have more weight and authority than a general conference talk?
Of course it does.
Harold B. Lee said;
-
“How do we measure whether or not one’s teachings are true or false? If anyone teaches beyond what the scriptures teach, we may put it down as speculation except one man who has the right to bring forth any new doctrine—that is the one man who holds the keys—the prophet, seer, and revelator who presides in that high place. And no one else. If anyone presumes to bring forth what he claims to be new doctrine you may know that it is purely his own opinion and you label it as such regardless of his position in the Church. If it contradicts something that is in the scriptures, you may label it immediately that it is false. That is why we call the scriptures our four Standard Church Works. They are the standards by which we measure all doctrine and if anything is taught which is contrary to that which is in the scriptures, it is false. It is just that simple” (“Viewpoint of a Giant,” 6).
“All that we teach in this Church ought to be couched in the scriptures. It ought to be found in the scriptures. We ought to choose our texts from the scriptures. If we want to measure truth, we should measure it by the four standard works, regardless of who writes it. If it is not in the standard works, we may well assume that it is speculation, man’s own personal opinion; and if it contradicts what is in the scriptures, it is not true. This is the standard by which we measure all truth” (“Using the Scriptures in Our Church Assignments,” Improvement Era, Jan. 1969, 13).
This how scripture is canonized
-
In the Church, canon refers to the authoritative collection of sacred books of scripture, known as the standard works, formally adopted and accepted by the Church and considered binding upon members in matters of faith and doctrine.
The process is illustrated by the action taken in the April 1976 general conference under the direction of President N. Eldon Tanner, in which two revelations were added to the Pearl of Great Price. Conducting the business of the conference, President Tanner said:
“President Kimball has asked me to read a very important resolution for your sustaining vote.
“‘At a meeting of the Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve held in the Salt Lake Temple on March 25, 1976, approval was given to add to the Pearl of Great Price the following two revelations:
“‘First, a vision of the celestial kingdom given to Joseph Smith … ; and second, a vision given to President Joseph F. Smith … showing the visit of the Lord Jesus Christ in the spirit world. …’
“It is proposed that we sustain and approve this action and adopt these revelations as part of the standard works of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
“All those in favor manifest it. Those opposed, if any, by the same sign” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1976, 29; or Ensign, May 1976, 19). In 1979 these two revelations were moved to the Doctrine and Covenants and became sections 137 and 138.
-
-
On 2/17/2019 at 8:01 PM, Emmanuel Goldstein said:
I could see the Proclamation on the Family and The Living Christ becoming Official Declaration 3 and 4. Perhaps some new revelations added as section 139 and 140 as well.
Only four sections and two declarations have been added to the Doctrine and Covenants since Joseph Smith’s death and one of those was a vision of Joseph Smith. Considering that the standard works are the only official doctrine of the church, what does that say about modern revelation? Did Joseph Smith receive all the doctrines of salvation?
-
On 2/17/2019 at 6:01 PM, Grunt said:
We don't have enough people for all the callings now, so making the ward smaller would really increase the load on the individual members.
My ward has multiple people with the same calling in order to give more people callings. For example so many’s priesthood and relief society instructor that they only teach one lesson a month. Sunday School teachers who trade off weeks a multitude of librarians and nursery workers and two couples trading weeks teaching a single primary class. Even with that there are many people, especially older members who have no callings outside of ministering.
-
12 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:
Disagree. I mean, I know you think you're right, and therefore I'm wrong, but no really, this is a matter of opinion. "Men have modest garments and women have immodest garments" is what you believe is true, not what is objectively true.
I would say that neither one is modest. I mean who would say that anyone is modest dressed only in their underwear. Besides that the corban cloth that I wear is quite sheer as well. It really hides very little.
I will also say that the men’s garment when fully covered does lot allow a man to wear immodest clothing. However, a woman’s can wear clothing that many would consider immodest without the garment showing. So yes, the woman’s garment allows for a degree of immodesty that the men’s garment does not allow.
-
6 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:
It maybe worth noting that the garment as originally revealed extended to the wrist, ankles, and neck for both sexes. The fact that the design has changed at all suggests that “modesty”, if indeed it is part of the impetus for the garment, is somewhat subjective.
Yes, modesty is cultural and changes with time. It’s not a fixed thing. Here’s an example from a statement from Joseph F. Smith. Remember that he died in 1918.
“Immodesty in dress should be frowned down by parents and all decent people. The shameless exhibitions of the human form purposely presented in modern styles of dress, or rather undress, are indications of that sensuous and debasing tendency toward moral laxity and social corruption which have hurried nations into irretrievable ruin. Let not the brilliant prospects of a glorious millennium be clouded with such shadows as are threatened by customs and costumes and diversions of these licentious days.
In my sight the present-day fashions are abominable, suggestive of evil, calculated to arouse base passion and lust, and to engender lasciviousness, in the hearts of those who follow the fashions, and of those who tolerate them. … It is infamous, and I hope the daughters of Zion will not descend to these pernicious ways, customs and fashions, for they are demoralizing and damnable in their effect.
We hear it reported, from time to time, that some … mutilate their garments, rather than to keep them holy and undefiled. … We see some of our good sisters coming here to the temple occasionally decorated in the latest and most ridiculous fashions that ever disgraced the human form divine. They do not seem to realize that they are coming to the house of God.”
-
There have been many more changes in women’s garments than in men’s. My theory is that women complain more than men. If more men would fill out surveys giving their input on garments then maybe more would be done to improve the fit and comfort of men’s garments.
One change that is coming is that they will be making men’s tops with a V neck. Imagine that! How innovative!
-
2 hours ago, Nighttiger said:
I am posing a question to anyone involved in the development of the LDS garment. Why is the women's garment cut so low that a third of a sister's back is revealed? This seems contrary to the modesty we are taught in the doctrine. Secondly, if so accepted among the female garment then why is the men's not made with the same neckline? Many times I cannot where pullover V-necks because the garment shows when these are much higher than what the accepted women's garment neckline is. This doubled standard in the sister's garment vs. the brethren's has really perplexed me. Does anyone else see the double standard here? Where the sister's are instructed in modesty dress the Church allows them to where more skin revealing necklines than the brethren.
I agree with you entirely. I’ve been ranting about this for years. Not only is it the neckline but also the sleeves. Women’s garments have almost no sleeve. They are practically tank tops compared to the sleeves in men’s garments. I have a hard time wearing a short sleeve shirt without my garment sleeve hanging out.
-
5 hours ago, Traveler said:
@Rob Osborn @BJ64 @MormonGator and anyone else.
If someone tells me anything in confidence, I understand and respect what it means to hold something in confidence. I work with many companies and often I am asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement. My point is that if we agree to hold anything in confidence - Honest people of integrity will always keep a confidence. Even when what was asked to be kept confidence is "public" knowledge. But more than keeping a confidence - things that are sacred should be "kept" sacred; especially and most noticeably by those that believe them to be sacred.
The Traveler
Can you point out where I have not kept sacred that which is sacred?
-
41 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:
In reality all of our covenants, and thus, all of tge gospel are sacred. And yet, here we are discussing them. There is a defined line about what we can and cannot speak about regarding the temple and the work we do there. Generally, the basic overview is all made public by the church itself through gospel manuals and lessons, talks, magazine and internet pages and articles, temple open houses, temple visitor centers, etc. Even the things I talk about from time to time are on the public side of the line. We as members should be aware what we can and cant discuss.
It seems to me that the church likes to say that we don’t discuss these things not because they are secret but because they are sacred. However in my view the reason we don’t discuss the specific things that have been mentioned is in fact because they are secret.
The things mentioned about the temple in church literature are sacred but not secret.
-
24 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:
And yet, I also live in the IF temple district and pretty much all my nonmember friends asked about it...But then again, different circumstances may apply.
We must not live too far apart then.
Perhaps there is a difference between the type of friendship. While I have a lot of non member friends they are the type of friends that I only see at club and sports type events, not the type I have a close working relationship with or invite to my house.
-
Back to the ministering topic, I think it’s best done as an individual rather than a companionship. Of course there are times when visiting someone by yourself may be inappropriate but I think ministering needs to be done spontaneously as guided by promptings. Calling a companion and setting up appointments takes away spontaneity and may cause you to miss someone in a time of need.
If you are driving past someone’s house and you feel you should stop and check on them then do it. Don’t wait until next Sunday to talk to your companion and set up a time to make a visit.
-
3 minutes ago, MormonGator said:
Yup, agree on that too. The people on the forum know those names, because virtually all of us have more than a slight interest about our religion. We wouldn't be here otherwise.
I think the only people who are concerned about “apostates” who are excommunicated are members who are walking down that path themselves.
-
1 minute ago, MormonGator said:
Thanks bud, I was pretty confident that was the case for most members.
Except for when I was on my mission I’ve never even been asked about the church.
-
14 minutes ago, MormonGator said:
Whenever a prominent LDS member gets excommunicated (Kate Kelly, John Dehlin, Sam Young), they like to pretend it's a big deal. After all, it was in the New York Times! It feeds their ego, makes them feel important, makes them feel influential, etc. What these people (the excommunicated ones) fail to comprehend is that 97% of people don't read the New York Times, and outside of the LDS world, no one cares who gets excommunicated or not. It's a non-issue.
It's the same for what goes on in the temples. Oh, I'm sure there are exceptions, but in reality 97% of people outside of the west don't care what happens in LDS temples. It's a non issue for them just like who the church has excommunicated.I’d go on to say that 99.9% of church members have never heard of Kate Kelly, John Dehlin or Sam Young, let alone know that they were excommunicated or why they were excommunicated. I think that’s a Utah thing.
-
22 minutes ago, MormonGator said:
I was 99% sure you'd say that. I knew it! I knew it! Of course they do, Rob. You seriously made my day.
And oh yeah, 99% of my non member friends have never asked.
Even amid the highly publicized renovation and open house of the Idaho Falls temple my non member friends did not ask about the temple nor were they interested in attending the open house.
I don’t remember ever being asked about the temple in my entire life.
-
1 minute ago, Rob Osborn said:
We have this problem as LDS where we are afraid to mention anything whatsoever from inside of temples. Much of what goes on inside of temples is public knowledge. What we dont discuss are the sacred parts and details of our covenants with accompanying signs, tokens and rites.
You have pointed out in my view what should not be discussed. There are things in the temple which we covenant not to reveal. Other than those things most of what goes on is taught in temple preparation classes or has otherwise been published by the church. Brigham Young himself said “Let me give you a definition in brief. Your endowment is, to receive all those ordinances in the house of the Lord, which are necessary for you, after you have departed this life, to enable you to walk back to the presence of the Father, passing the angels who stand as sentinels, being enabled to give them the key words, the signs and tokens, pertaining to the holy Priesthood, and gain your eternal exaltation in spite of earth and hell”
This lesson on lds.org reveals much more about the temple than I would speak of. https://www.lds.org/ensign/1995/02/endowed-with-covenants-and-blessings?lang=eng
-
Oh, a member of our stake high council also has a beard.
-
17 minutes ago, wenglund said:
Were they all sitting towards the back?
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
No, there were thirty of us meeting in the high council room, sitting around the table in the middle of the room and lining the walls of the room. Basically a circle within a circle. Ten had beards. There were 23 with beards in sacrament meeting but some go to the primary, some to the young men and then there’s those who just sit in the foyer or leave after sacrament meeting.
A member of our bishopric has a beard, the ward clerk and two assistant clerks have beards. Two members of the elders quorum presidency have beards and a member of the Sunday school presidency has a beard.
Three bearded men teach Sunday school and four teach primary. Our ward family history consultant who is also a school district superintendent also has a beard.
- NeuroTypical and wenglund
-
1
-
1
-
On 1/7/2019 at 10:06 AM, NeuroTypical said:
My ward once had the distinction in our stake as Most Bearded Ward. It's a distinction I try to keep going.
A few weeks back I counted in priesthood meeting. A full 1/3 of those in attendance had beards.
- mrmarklin and NeuroTypical
-
1
-
1
April 2019 Conference Predictions
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
To demonstrate for example, if someone were to teach in Sunday School that Hagoth sailed his ship to the pacific islands, it would be personal opinion, speculation or false doctrine since the Book of Mormon only says that he sailed to the land northward. Of course this is not an example of a commandment. However if someone were to teach that we only need to pay five percent tithing then of course this would be false doctrine because that’s not in the scriptures.