I Cant Wrap My Head Around Men Becoming Gods

[BJ64]

1 minute ago, Maureen said:

OK, so how would an LDS define dressing modestly or immodestly when it comes to men in your church? Let's say in a casual setting, what kind of clothing would be considered immodest for a guy?

M.

Shirtless with ripped jeans and pants down with underwear showing. 

[BJ64]

2 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

No, not better dead than “unclean”.  Better to die than to knowingly, deliberately perpetrate particularly harmful sins.  From Grant’s and Kimball’s perspective it was the act, not the state, that was preferable to death.  Once one was unfortunate enough to have gotten into the state, the remedy was repentance—as Kimball, Grant, and pretty much everyone else made abundantly clear.

You are, of course, welcome to suggest that such an approach diminishes or denies the atonement; just as others are free to conclude that your own position is calculated to be soft on sin.  But I don’t think either view would be accurate.

As for sex abuse victims:  trauma does funky things to the brain that we’re just beginning to understand (I was in a seminar on it just this afternoon).  One result of that is that trauma victims are unfortunately often going to interpret things in ways they were not meant to be interpreted.  The only surefire way to make Mormon rape victims quit feeling culpable or “dirty” would be for the Church to drop this “chastity” business entirely.

However, the statement that was repeated in quorum meetings and told to men going off to war was “better dead than unclean”.

[Just_A_Guy]

4 minutes ago, Maureen said:

OK, so how would an LDS define dressing modestly or immodestly when it comes to men in your church? Let's say in a casual setting, what kind of clothing would be considered immodest for a guy?

M.

For my part, it also includes anything that draws undue attention to the individual.  Wearing a tux to Sunday services.  Gaudy colors.  Provocative slogans on T-shirts.  Dopey hairstyles.  Tattoos, piercings, and ostentatious jewelry.  

[Just_A_Guy]

Just now, BJ64 said:

However, the statement that was repeated in quorum meetings and told to men going off to war was “better dead than unclean”.

Interesting.  Any sources from Church instructional materials of the period?

[BJ64]

2 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Interesting.  Any sources from Church instructional materials of the period?

We Believe in Being Chaste

By President Marion G. Romney

Second Counselor in the First Presidency

 

Some years ago the First Presidency said to the youth of the Church that a person would be better dead clean than alive unclean.

I remember how my father impressed the seriousness of unchastity upon my mind. He and I were standing in the railroad station at Rexburg, Idaho, in the early morning of 12 November 1920. We heard the train whistle. In three minutes I would be on my way to Australia to fill a mission. In that short interval my father said to me, among other things, “My son, you are going a long way from home. Your mother and I, and your brothers and sisters, will be with you constantly in our thoughts and prayers; we shall rejoice with you in your successes, and we shall sorrow with you in your disappointments. When you are released and return, we shall be glad to greet you and welcome you back into the family circle. But remember this, my son: we would rather come to this station and take your body off the train in a casket than to have you come home unclean, having lost your virtue.”

[BJ64]

6 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Interesting.  Any sources from Church instructional materials of the period?

“Also far-reaching is the effect of loss of chastity. Once given or taken or stolen it can never be regained. Even in a forced contact such as rape or incest, the injured one is greatly outraged. If she has not cooperated and contributed to the foul deed, she is of course in a more favorable position. There is no condemnation when there is no voluntary participation. It is better to die in defending one's virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle.”

- Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, LDS Prophet, The Miracle of Forgiveness, p.

[Vort]

21 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

I will say that I don’t teach modesty to boys.

Behold someone who (1) doesn't love his boys (or girls) enough to teach the boys modesty, and/or (2) does not understand what "modesty" means.

[BJ64]

8 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Interesting.  Any sources from Church instructional materials of the period?

“I know what my mother expects. I know what she's saying in her prayers. She'd rather have me come home dead than unclean.”

- Gordon B. Hinckley, Conference Report, April 1967, pp. 51-55

[Just_A_Guy]

@BJ64, Inapoloize; I should have been more clear.

Every instance you cite, in context, is geared towards preventing the act of becoming unchaste.  Do you have a source saying “once you have entered the state of unchastity, that’s it, there’s no repentance and you may as well die”?

[lostinwater]

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

MOF was, I think, useful to the culture in which it was produced; though Kimball himself apparently did later say he wished he had used a softer touch at some spots.  Even now it still isn’t hard to find Mormons who will rave about the book—in a good way.  But in the last few decades, as a society we are less idealistic generally and have sort of gotten away from the idea that some things are worse than death.

(Also, FWIW, the quote you cite actually originated within Heber J. Grant.  And I think it is a useful counterpoint to the sin-now, repent-later attitude many even within Mormonism take towards LoC violations.  I wonder sometimes how many Mormons today actually go to hell and back in their repentance process.  I have/am; and yes, I would rather have died.)

And, @BJ64, I don’t think it’s fair to suggest that Kimball’s rhetoric suggests he was unacquainted with or doubtful of Christ’s atoning power.  The last few chapters of MOF suggest quite the opposite.  Rather, I think he understood the material and psychological and spiritual ramifications of sexual sin in a way that was becoming increasingly rare in his own generation, and that modern society has chosen to completely ignore. 

If we, as Mormons, believe that you can’t pray away the gay, or that victims of rape or child abuse or other trauma will suffer flashbacks or PTSD or other psychological fallout for the rest of their mortal lives in spite of the Atonement; then why do we insist on believing that the effects of porn use or fornication or adultery can be so easily painted over?

Thank-you Sir.  i see where you are coming from, and can respect that.

i won't comment on any of your other points (largely because i'm certain i'd say something wrong about them that would provide a abundance of choice about which rabbit hole of misunderstanding to jump into) - only on the one i originally made.  i view the idea that the loss of a child's life is preferable to the present/perceived absence of that child's chastity as being wrong.  

That's a pretty fundamental idea to me - and since i highly doubt i'd be able to convince anyone who disagrees or justifies something like that that they are wrong and i am right, i won't try.  And that's just a general statement - not any attempt at accusation on my part.

Edited May 17, 2018 by lostinwater

[Grunt]

39 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

Shirtless with ripped jeans and pants down with underwear showing. 

Or a Speedo at a public pool.  

[BJ64]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

@BJ64, Inapoloize; I should have been more clear.

Every instance you cite, in context, is geared towards preventing the act of becoming unchaste.  Do you have a source saying “once you have entered the state of unchastity, that’s it, there’s no repentance and you may as well die”?

No but saying that it’s better to die than to commit a sexual sin implies that it can’t be repented of. I believe this dates back to the concept of blood atonement wherein it was taught that the atonement would not cover all sins and that to receive forgiveness for some sins your own blood must be shed. However the church no longer teaches the doctrine of blood atonement. 

[Lost Boy]

6 hours ago, Maureen said:

But modesty for LDS does not just apply to church. Since you're male (haven't checked your profile, assuming based on your username), how do you teach boys and men in your church to be modest with clothing?

M.

Guidelines are essentially the same for both sexes 

https://www.lds.org/youth/for-the-strength-of-youth/dress-and-appearance?lang=eng&_r=1

[zil]

8 hours ago, BJ64 said:

Do these two statements conflict with each other?

ELDER WICKMAN: One question that might be asked by somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is, “Is this something I’m stuck with forever? What bearing does this have on eternal life? If I can somehow make it through this life, when I appear on the other side, what will I be like?”

Gratefully, the answer is that same-gender attraction did not exist in the pre-earth life and neither will it exist in the next life. It is a circumstance that for whatever reason or reasons seems to apply right now in mortality, in this nano-second of our eternal existence.

 

Alma 34:34 ...Nay, ye cannot say this; for that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world.

Why is this difficult?  Same sex attraction is a consequence of the fallen, mortal body, not a thing of the spirit.  At least, that's the obvious conclusion from Elder Wickman's statement, and said conclusion is consistent with everything else we've been taught about family and eternity.  (It seems more than obvious to me that the physical, mortal body has significant impact on the spirit.)

[BJ64]

9 hours ago, Vort said:

(2) does not understand what "modesty" means.

Unlike most people I understand that modesty means a lot more than just how much of the body is covered with clothes. 

[Grunt]

9 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

Unlike most people I understand that modesty means a lot more than just how much of the body is covered with clothes. 

But it certainly includes how much of a body is covered with clothes and HOW that body is covered with clothes.

[BJ64]

3 hours ago, Lost Boy said:

Guidelines are essentially the same for both sexes 

https://www.lds.org/youth/for-the-strength-of-youth/dress-and-appearance?lang=eng&_r=1

The guidelines for young women are clear cut. The guidelines for young men are rather vague. 

“Young women should avoid short shorts and short skirts, shirts that do not cover the stomach, and clothing that does not cover the shoulders or is low-cut in the front or the back. Young men should also maintain modesty in their appearance.”

While it it is not always appropriate for a young man’s shoulders or stomach to be uncovered, why would it be immodest for a young woman to be showing her shoulders and stomach in the same situation where it would not be inappropriate for a young man to do so?

 

[Grunt]

3 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

The guidelines for young women are clear cut. The guidelines for young men are rather vague. 

“Young women should avoid short shorts and short skirts, shirts that do not cover the stomach, and clothing that does not cover the shoulders or is low-cut in the front or the back. Young men should also maintain modesty in their appearance.”

While it it is not always appropriate for a young man’s shoulders or stomach to be uncovered, why would it be immodest for a young woman to be showing her shoulders and stomach in the same situation where it would not be inappropriate for a young man to do so?

 

Because the female body isn't the same as the male body.  Most people get it.

[BJ64]

1 minute ago, Grunt said:

Because the female body isn't the same as the male body.  Most people get it.

The female shoulders and stomach are essentially the same as the male equivalent. 

[Grunt]

1 minute ago, BJ64 said:

The female shoulders and stomach are essentially the same as the male equivalent. 

A female body is different than a male body.  As I stated above, most people get it.  An exposed stomach on a male is "essentially the same as a female equivalent" if the only feature analyzed is the exposed skin.  Only most people understand they aren't the same.  This applies to many body parts.   

The church has many rules or suggestions that I, particularly as a new member, don't understand.  They are Apostles.  I sustain and follow them and their guidance to the best of my ability.  If they say be modest, I don't wear a speedo to the beach.  I don't push it to see if I can walk the edge because I think I'm smarter than the Apostles.

[BJ64]

6 minutes ago, Grunt said:

A female body is different than a male body.  As I stated above, most people get it.  An exposed stomach on a male is "essentially the same as a female equivalent" if the only feature analyzed is the exposed skin.  Only most people understand they aren't the same.  This applies to many body parts.   

The church has many rules or suggestions that I, particularly as a new member, don't understand.  They are Apostles.  I sustain and follow them and their guidance to the best of my ability.  If they say be modest, I don't wear a speedo to the beach.  I don't push it to see if I can walk the edge because I think I'm smarter than the Apostles.

The point I am making is that the standards of modesty are different for men and women. 

Thats why I said that teaching modesty is mostly something that applies to women. Men are generally more modest in all occasions. 

[zil]

34 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

Unlike most people I understand that modesty means a lot more than just how much of the body is covered with clothes. 

And yet when asked about teaching modesty, your reply was (emphasis mine):

10 hours ago, BJ64 said:

I know this question isn’t for me but I will say that I don’t teach modesty to boys. I can’t remember when I’ve seen a boy or man dresses immodestly. Perhaps dressed inappropriately for the given occasion but not immodestly. In my view it is women and girls who dress immodestly. While men can dress immodestly, immodesty seems to be an almost exclusively female thing. 

As an example look at how men and women dress for the academy awards or for a formal party or dance. The men are almost without exception covered from head to toe while the women are pushing the bounds of decency. 

And all your subsequent discussion and examples have been about how people dress.

[unixknight]

I think we need a Church update on the trend of form-fitting leggings.  

Hoo-boy...

[Lost Boy]

59 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Because the female body isn't the same as the male body.  Most people get it.

I don't think that is it at all.  We as men are programmed to find certain things appealing about women.  Women find different things appealing about men.

Men are more likely to act on physical attraction than women are.  Modesty is an attempt to make the female form less attractive so us knuckle heads can think with our heads on our shoulder and not with other body parts.  And it is an attempt to help women feel more comfortable around men know that the man can make non-lustful decisions. 

Women tend more to look for a guy that is dependable, brave, at least fairly fit...  clothing has little to do with this.  Men on the other hand look for a woman fit to bare children and we instinctively do this based on form.  If we don't see the form, we are more likely to put consideration on other more worthy attributes.

[Grunt]

20 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

I don't think that is it at all.  We as men are programmed to find certain things appealing about women.  Women find different things appealing about men.

Men are more likely to act on physical attraction than women are.  Modesty is an attempt to make the female form less attractive so us knuckle heads can think with our heads on our shoulder and not with other body parts.  And it is an attempt to help women feel more comfortable around men know that the man can make non-lustful decisions. 

Women tend more to look for a guy that is dependable, brave, at least fairly fit...  clothing has little to do with this.  Men on the other hand look for a woman fit to bare children and we instinctively do this based on form.  If we don't see the form, we are more likely to put consideration on other more worthy attributes.

Actually, it is because we take upon the Savior's name and our dress shows our respect for ourselves and Him.  The other is consideration for our brothers and sisters.
 

Quote

“Modesty in dress is a quality of mind and heart, born of respect for oneself, one’s fellowmen, and the Creator of us all. Modesty reflects an attitude of humility, decency and propriety.” (Priesthood Bulletin, September 1970, p. 2.)

1

 

Edited May 17, 2018 by Grunt