Ken S.

I Cant Wrap My Head Around Men Becoming Gods

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, person0 said:

image.thumb.png.3207edd4e00ea4d65393df9f8804e8b6.png

“We do not draw undue attention to ourselves”. Such as wearing a suit and tie everywhere one goes?

Edited by BJ64

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

I have 

I will go on record again saying I do not think speedos are immodest when worn at locations where swimwear is worn. They are simply the right clothing for the occasion. Especially when actually swimming. I have worn them for the past 37 years including at the athletic club yesterday and today. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, BJ64 said:

I certainly don’t support that look but is it immodest or simply in poor taste? It could be pointed out that all body parts are covered. It’s not like “bare shoulders” or “short shorts” on a woman. 

I’ll add that this isn’t something you really ever see where I’m at. 

The trouser slipping down on the buttocks look is borrowed from male prisons and is meant to signal that the person wearing their trousers that way is available for sex.

https://cladwell.com/blog/pull-your-pants-up-a-brief-history-of-saggy-pants

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, BJ64 said:

“We do not draw undue attention to ourselves”. Such as wearing a suit and tie everywhere one goes?

Why are you being so obtuse?  You do understand what "undue" means, don't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, person0 said:

That is due attention.

Due attention is the proper, reasonable, or deserved amount of it under the circumstances.

 

Undue attention is greater or more extreme than you think is reasonable or appropriate.

I suppose it’s up to the individual to decide how much attention is appropriate. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
12 hours ago, BJ64 said:

“We do not draw undue attention to ourselves”. Such as wearing a suit and tie everywhere one goes?

You omitted the remaining description: "Instead, we seek to glorify God in body and spirit."  Are people dressing to glorify themselves?  Or to glorify the Spirit of the Lord that is within us?

39 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

Due attention is the proper, reasonable, or deserved amount of it under the circumstances.

Undue attention is greater or more extreme than you think is reasonable or appropriate.

I suppose it’s up to the individual to decide how much attention is appropriate. 

As long as you're being consistent.

Wearing a suit and tie is perfectly moral, rightful, proper, and fitting (all of which are criteria for "modesty")for any man in common society in this world. In my younger days every man over 18 without a manual job wore suits and ties unless they specifically had a uniform for their work.

Today, professionals don't dress like that very often.  But we all know that people have uniforms.  They all draw attention.  And all companies give their employees uniforms specifically to communicate the fact that they are employees of the company in question.  The suit, tie, and nametag are the international uniform of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints missionaries.  If you decry the use of that uniform, then decry the use of any uniform in common society.

Be consistent or admit that you're being biased.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spiritual change is not time restricted.

Its just change. Time is an illusion. Progress? Can happen without an instant. 

Do you believe it?

so why talk about past present future? Thats silly. Stop it. There is only.... me.... you.... and infinity(/a mystery). Why even worry about the distinction between me and you (John 17:22)?

we can be one,

hot dog!

synergy? anybody? 

Edited by Behemoth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get naked in the locker room........... i do it all the time, 

but it lasts like 2 seconds. (Or less) ;)

then... when I forget the soap before I shower, with less then fig leaves (i.e. just my hands) to cover my privates. I run through the locker room to the hand soap and use 1 hand (or 2 🙈) hands, then I use the hand soap as if it was regular soap...🙉🙊

God said: “come follow me...” I’ve never seen Jesus in a speedO! He just goes ahead and walks on top of the water... with all of his clothes...why can’t you do that BJ? 

@BJ64

it’s fine I guess. But, mr. BJ. How do you feel about high heels for woman? (Just pretend you’re a woman for a sec)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Behemoth said:

I get naked in the locker room........... i do it all the time, 

but it lasts like 2 seconds. (Or less) ;)

then... when I forget the soap before I shower, with less then fig leaves (i.e. just my hands) to cover my privates. I run through the locker room to the hand soap and use 1 hand (or 2 🙈) hands, then I use the hand soap as if it was regular soap...🙉🙊

God said: “come follow me...” I’ve never seen Jesus in a speedO! He just goes ahead and walks on top of the water... with all of his clothes...why can’t you do that BJ? 

@BJ64

it’s fine I guess. But, mr. BJ. How do you feel about high heels for woman? (Just pretend you’re a woman for a sec)

Personally I think high heels look silly not sexy. They do nothing to attract my attention except to make me think her feet must hurt and she can’t walk right in those heels. However I see nothing wrong with a woman wearing them if that’s what she wants to wear. I don’t think they are sinful. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/17/2018 at 5:40 PM, BJ64 said:

I certainly don’t support that look but is it immodest or simply in poor taste? It could be pointed out that all body parts are covered. It’s not like “bare shoulders” or “short shorts” on a woman. 

I’ll add that this isn’t something you really ever see where I’m at. 

Just look at their intention. They can hardly walk!? How do they do it? It take practices. It is completely unconventional unless having a third and large pocket in the middle of your legs becomes more Effiecent then a backpack, or purse, tool belt, for you purposes. Nah. No good. Instead we can seek order in everything we do. And not make ourselves so much an object as much, as a living, spiritual being.

Edited by Behemoth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

Personally I think high heels look silly not sexy. They do nothing to attract my attention except to make me think her feet must hurt and she can’t walk right in those heels. However I see nothing wrong with a woman wearing them if that’s what she wants to wear. I don’t think they are sinful. 

I said pretend if you’re a woman! Are you sure you don’t find them attractive. Are you only attracted by the spiritual then? obviously we don’t have to talk about temptations, but, in some settings not wearing high heels is considered INFORMAL!

Anyway. Why is it necessary? I don’t see it as ever necessary. A public speedO, I don’t feel I need to justify either, but what ev’s. Maybe if I was competitive. Yeah I would say some things are “straining at the nat” while others are more important. 

While my own girth is impressive, I’m good at straining ;)

Edited by Behemoth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Behemoth said:

I said pretend if you’re a woman! Are you sure you don’t find them attractive. Are you only attracted by the spiritual then? obviously we don’t have to talk about temptations, but, in some settings not wearing high heels is considered INFORMAL!

Anyway. Why is it necessary? I don’t see it as ever necessary. A public speedO, I don’t feel I need to justify either, but what ev’s. Maybe if I was competitive. Yeah I would say some things are “straining at the nat” while others are more important. 

While my own girth is impressive, I’m good at straining ;)

I guess I have a hard  time thinking like a woman as far as clothing is concerned. I can’t predict how women feel in various clothIng. 

As far as formal wear is concerned, there are no formal events ever in my part of the country. I haven’t worn a tuxedo since my wedding thirty years ago. 

I’m not sure what you mean by being attracted to the spiritual. Basically I don’t allow myself to be attracted to women other than my wife. 

As far as the speedo is concerned I really think it’s to even worry about whether or not such a thing is modest or not. It could be said that no swimwear is modest on either men or women. However swimming is a sport and activity that has its own “uniform” so to speak. A speedo is appropriate for swimming just as a football uniform is appropriate for football.   Either would be inappropriate at the mall. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

I guess I have a hard  time thinking like a woman as far as clothing is concerned. I can’t predict how women feel in various clothIng. 

As far as formal wear is concerned, there are no formal events ever in my part of the country. I haven’t worn a tuxedo since my wedding thirty years ago. 

I’m not sure what you mean by being attracted to the spiritual. Basically I don’t allow myself to be attracted to women other than my wife. 

As far as the speedo is concerned I really think it’s to even worry about whether or not such a thing is modest or not. It could be said that no swimwear is modest on either men or women. However swimming is a sport and activity that has its own “uniform” so to speak. A speedo is appropriate for swimming just as a football uniform is appropriate for football.   Either would be inappropriate at the mall. 

 

And sometimes one can be worse then the other too, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/8/2018 at 9:43 PM, Ken S. said:

Supposedly God was once a man in flesh and bone.  So at one time, a God had to create him. But then that God must have been a man at one time then right? Where did he come from? Another God who was once a man also? Somewhere along the line, there had to be a first God. One that wasnt a man ever.  I mean this cant be the Chicken or the egg thing here. There is just no way man has always been around and has no beginning. There is no way man became God first. Logically it had to be a God who was not a man and created the first man.  If that is true, and there was one God who was first among all and he created man, why would he then allow man to ascend to become a God like him? Why would he want others to be his equal? That doesnt seemt o fit with me either.  So there had to be a first God, and I cant see the first God deciding to let simple men that he created to become his equal. So only two possibilities seem to fit here.

1) There is still one True God above all others.

2) I saw someone post the idea that evolution actually did take place, and life forms evolved by accident and became the first men and one of them became the first God. But evolution doesnt fit either IMO, because it has never been observed for any non-living form to become a living form. Never have we observed any non-intelligent non-self aware life form to develop into an intelligent life form. And if evolution happened then where did the entire universe come from? The big bang theory is all but proven now, but they dont have any answer for where that first matter form that exploded or imploded or whatever came from. Science has proven one thing. All energy and matter changes from one form to another, but something cannot come from nothing. Not through science. So there had to be a God who created that first particle that created the big bang that evolved into a universe and developed life and became man for man to become Gods.

So basically, we are back to one initial God before all others.... who created man through evolution.... and let that man ascend to be his equal..... it just doesnt seem logical to me.

Can you see my problem with this?  I just cant seem to get it to add up.No matter how I try to look at it, logically it goes back to one God who had to be first and being of no beginning to him as he was always here.

Now one might say they dont believe there can be something that never had a beginning, but if you can believe in an eternity with no end, then cant you have an eternity with no beginning? But if you had a beginning, then logically dont you have to have an end too?  Again, it just doesnt seem to add up for me.

             A long

               long

              time 

               ago.....

(in an eternity far far away) 

——————————

some of us progress and some of us are deadbeats. Those that progress make elaborate plans, to help the lesser progressing individuals (cause they’re deadbeats). ——A few eternities later——there is a nice organized system to help the us (deadbeats) - the Plan of Salvation!!! 

It all works! you become a God, you’re part of the Dream team and (because everything is spiritual you are one ☝️ with all the others) (John 17:22)

wow! See it works. Just gotta use your noggin! ;)

 

 

Edited by Behemoth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, BJ64 said:

I don’t understand this comment. 

Yeah, it was a complicated statement, I wanted to mention that your school uniform would be more appropriate in the church then your swimming uniform, since it’s a lot closer related. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Behemoth said:

Yeah, it was a complicated statement, I wanted to mention that your school uniform would be more appropriate in the church then your swimming uniform, since it’s a lot closer related. 

Well, I’ve never played football so I don’t have a football uniform. I do however do Taekwondo which has a modest uniform but I wouldn’t wear it to church since the top is open well below my chest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BJ64 said:

I do however do Taekwondo which has a modest uniform but I wouldn’t wear it to church since the top is open well below my chest. 

Well Moroni the angel DID appear with a similar presentation to Joseph... they weren’t at church though ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Behemoth said:

Well Moroni the angel DID appear with a similar presentation to Joseph... they weren’t at church though ;)

However that is an example of the fact that how much skin can show is not a fixed eternal thing and also that garments as we know them are an earthly thing. 

Note also that Moroni was not wearing a white shirt and tie, which has been referred to as the “uniform of the priesthood “. 

The suit, shirt and tie are also an earthly thing. I think that in heaven robes are worn. 

Edited by BJ64

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
8 hours ago, BJ64 said:

Note also that Moroni was not wearing a white shirt and tie, which has been referred to as the “uniform of the priesthood “. 

Yeah, you're right.  Uniforms never change over time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Scott
Quote

 But, mr. BJ. How do you feel about high heels for woman? (Just pretend you’re a woman for a sec)

Quote

However I see nothing wrong with a woman wearing them if that’s what she wants to wear. I don’t think they are sinful. 

This is actually a good question (even if rhetorical), and if a bit off topic.

If drinking coffee is a sin because of health reasons, why wouldn't wearing high heels be too?  Wearing high heels is probably a lot less healthy than drinking coffee.  Wearing high heels can (and often does) cause health problems with spine, back, neck, vocal cords, ankles, and feet. Recent studies show that wearing high heels even increases the risk of cancer.

The W.o.W. doesn't specify high heels, but it doesn't specify things like marijuana either (in the scripture at least; it has been specified in other places).  It also doesn't specifically say you can't spend 12 hours every day in the tanning both either, but that would be really harmful to your health.

Why wouldn't wearing high heels be sinful, especially since we are commanded to take care of our bodies?

For example the Church Handbook says the following:  

 The Lord has commanded members to take care of their minds and bodies....They should shun substances or practices that abuse their bodies..Maintaining the best possible physical health has been a gospel ideal throughout the ages

I don't see how wearing high heels wouldn't be breaking that commandment (and breaking a commandment is sinning).  I'm not suggesting that we judge anyone wearing high heels, or that high heels should be banned, but to me at least, it does seem that they indeed are sinful.   Then again, everyone has their own sins, and there are more serious sins than wearing high heels.

I have never drank coffee and I have never worn high heels, but if my daughter was going to do one or the other, I'd rather her drink the coffee (of course the preferable thing would not to do either!).  The only argument I could see for choosing the high heels over coffee is the addiction factor.  From a health standpoint, high heels are almost certainly worse.  

Edited by Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now