There is no adequate or quantifiable way that I can relay how I came across this site, or at least one that would leave me void of potential ridicule. But I stumbled upon something that made me do a double take, and I clicked out of sheer perverse curiosity. LDS Skinny Dipper Connection appears on first glance to be a social networking site designed to attract members of the church (obviously not active ones-regardless of what they may claim) who have a "wholesome interest in social nudity under appropriate circumstances." There is no nude photographs on the site itself but the site is designed to help those who feel that nudist colony types and naturism are LDS acceptable. They even go so far as to take scriptures out of context to help "justify" that their approach to social nudity is actually doctrinally sound!
Perhaps I am missing something in the translation of this poorly designed site that looks like it is from the mid 1990's, but don't we wear garments to cover our nakedness? There is a sacred temple ordinance to ENSURE that we are clothed, covered, and modest. These garments have been described as an outward expression of an inward commitment. So then, does it mean if you chose to act in opposition to garment related principles by being naked in public, that your outward expression is that you have no inward commitment?
In fact there are covenants associated with this practice that would suggest that any practice to the opposite would be a violation of those covenants. I don't know of any more obvious way to open the door to temptation and infidelity than to consider this practice in line with church doctrine. They call it naturist, I call it rationalization to the coo-coo degree.
In any case, I am constantly amazed at the number of individuals who, for some reason or another, go hyper-principled and act as if they have found the secret that is missing from the Mormon puzzle. For these guys it just happens to be socially acceptable nudity. Why didn't the prophets think of this before!? Nude Music and the Spoken Word with a Mormon Tabernacle Choir; youth conferences would be much more well attended; the possibilities are endless! Gives new meaning to "active" LDS.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
98 comments:
Yes, we do make those covenants and are asked in Church interviews whether we observe those covenants and wear the sacred clothing at all times.
I was struck with something as I was reading -- a bit of wordplay, which my brain is wont to do independently of my consciousness.
Naturists you say.... the root of which is "nature" or by extension, "natural"...as in au naturale. Natural men and women, or men and women au naturale.
Now what are we told about the "natural" man (and woman)?
1 Cor. 2:14 -- But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Mosiah 3:19 -- For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.
And perhaps the best one for last:
D&C 67:12 -- Neither can any natural man abide the presence of God, neither after the carnal mind.
That's my answer to the question, plain and simple.
OK, well, maybe not that simple. It was a bit of a convoluted way to get there, wasn't it?
Well put. I should probably not admit this, but I was not intending for such a play on words with naturist. That is what they call themselves.
But you are right. The irony is hard to miss.
James, I don't know you, but by your post I'm assuming you're one of those hypersensitive types who bathe while wearing garments, exercise while wearing garments, swim wearing garments (wetsuit perhaps?), and engage in marital relations in garments. Have you heard of the four S's? It's okay to not wear garments for short periods of time, including Showering, Swimming, Sports and Sex.
Now to the original question of your post. I suppose it's possible that Mormon nudists might be justifying committing a little sin. But IMO it comes down to one question: does nudity = sex? I don't think it does. If it did, how would anyone ever get screened for colon cancer?
Steve,
To answer your inquiry into my personal "garment protocol", I will say the following: Since garments are a personal and sacred issue for each covenant maker I am not sure I appreciate the condescending tone towards those who chose to wear their garments as much as you imply. I don't follow that degree of "worship" but for those individuals that do, it is the degree with which they have respect for them and for what they mean. I would rather be found on that side of correct protocol than the dichotomous example from this website.
For the record, I am aware of the spirit of the law with regard to wearing garments. And also for the record I don't wear them showering, swimming, during sports and most assuredly not during sex. I just respect the covenants I made to the best of my ability the rest of the time I am wearing them. True I don't actively look for ways to NOT wear them.
While I agree that nudity does not equal sex, the teachings of the savior are quite clear on this matter. To even think of another woman to lust after her is adultery. Obviously not as serious a version of adultery as if the sex act was committed, but a sin. When you look at naked women, regardless of how ANY individual thinks they can rationalize being around nudity, it is a lie of the adversary to think that unclean thoughts will NEVER enter the mind. There is a reason for chastity, and there is a reason for maintaining certain things as sacred - including garments. Just because you haven't figured that part of the gospel out doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Additionally, I believe we have all been counseled time and time again to avoid the appearance of evil and to shun temptation. To me there is no difference between pornography, something that is under a clear and repeated warning from the Lord's anointed to avoid, and what this website is advocating. In fact the reality of nudity is all the more powerful an assault on moral boundaries.
Since you have not participated in our blog before and because you seem to be a Mormon nudist apologist, I am assuming that you are from this site or are simply being defensive of your rationalization. Without any reservations I can say with the clearest of spirit, naturism and public nudity outside of the marriage covenant is 100 % against the doctrines of Christ. Temple recommends should go bye-bye for anyone that choses to follow such a practice.
Your colon cancer remark is irrelevant to the discussion since the post talks about this group who advocates socially acceptable public nudity like that at public beaches and in nudist colonies. I am not against a PRIVATE doctors office visit for a valid medical issue. And if you have ever had anything shoved up your butt in a medical procedure, you will know that there is nothing sexual about it. So to apply the principles of this post, anti-public nudity and naturist principles, with a colon screening, seems to grossly miss the point.
I once taught a first discussion in a nudist colony while on my mission. Made for some great pictures, I even came away a little converted to the idea of being nude all the time. I now consider the inside of my house my own personal nudist colony and I require all who enter to dis-robe and be at one with the environment. Some people object but we insist that it is completely natural to do so because we call our house "the garden" it has plants, tame animals and naked people. I think its a pretty accurate depiction of the original.
@James:
Your post above is the most perfect blend of personal and cultural preferences and popular myths masquerading as gospel that I've seen in a long time. I know from personal experience that you really don't comprehend what you so blithely pronounce judgment on, and your imputation of evil thoughts to others is completely off the mark. I don't mean to be insulting or critical, just to state a fact. You claim that this particular thing is 100% against the doctrines of Christ, yet nothing in the Scriptures proscribes it, nothing in the General Handbook proscribes it, and no official Church publication or authority has ever addressed it. You remind me of something I once heard President Hinckley say: temple workers have made up more doctrine about the endowment than the Lord has ever revealed.
If you fear that your own thoughts could not help but be sinful if you were in such a situation, then don't put yourself there. Despite your disclaimers, it is clear you cannot separate nudity from sinful sex. That's unfortunate. But don't ascribe to everyone your own predilections. That is not the sort of humility we are commanded to try to inculcate. I know of more than one active priesthood leader who has not only disagreed with you, but has actually taken their family to clothing optional beaches and "naturist" resorts and even-shocker--taken pictures. They not only hold temple recommends, they issue them. And they see none of the alleged problems you claim to. So a little less judgment and a little more acknowledgment that you may not know everything about this might suit you better.
If you are ever interested in seeing past all this judgment and reading through some rational, calm, thoroughly researched and respectful discussion of all your objections and more besides, check out ldssdf.org.
M Galt, you may be striking at something. Maybe these LDS "naturists" are just trying to live more closely to the garden of eden. Regardless, In this roasting hotter than Hades summers in Phoenix, when I get home I disrobe from my outer garments and lounge in front of the fan for........well most of the day. At least I keep my blinds closed.....and thank you for doing the same.
Jay,
Obviously we disagree on this issue, and probably will till the day you die and burn in hell for it. However I have yet to hear an argument presented FOR your stance. The absence of something against your preferences is not valid reason to believe that it is okay.
Perhaps you have yet to read the scriptures or the handbook of instructions by principle rather than seeing those references as a list of do's and don't's. The church's handbook is not going to come out against nudist practices in public specifically because the principles of chastity, the covenants that are taken in the temple initiatory, and in embracing the example of Christ's life should be sufficient proof for you to make a more principled decision.
God commanded that Adam and Eve be given something to cover their nakedness. If it was not his will to do so he could have very easily not had them wear clothes. Nudity could have very much not been an issue altogether. However, it was not God's will for it to be that way.
Other temple practices speak clearly to the importance and symbolism of clothes as being a part of a holy state. Angels are clothed.
But in case you need further proof that the church is against public nudity read the following articles with the accompanying quotes:
Joe J. Christensen of the Presidency of the 70 "It is very unreasonable to suppose that exposure to profanity, nudity, sex, and violence has no negative effects on us. We can’t roll around in the mud without getting dirty."
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=2c0819b3fe4fb010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=024644f8f206c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD
President Ezra Taft Benson, "“Freedom, a word of noble tradition, is a favorite confuser. Riots, bombings, arson, and killings are committed in the name of freedom. Obscenities test the freedom of speech. Pornography, drugs, and immorality are claimed to be manifestations of personal freedom, along with miniskirts and nudity. License and anarchy are products of these false freedoms."
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=1ea6945bd384b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD
Simply put, you are being duped. Your addiction to public nudity is sad. Your shameless plug for your bulletin board doesn't add legitimacy to your case either. What spiritual law do you feel you are KEEPING in being a nudist?
I have read a couple of posts on your very own forum, http://ldssdf.org/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=325
and I have found several arguments posted by others that continue to slam your practice. There is more than enough proof to show that your love of nudity seems to far surpass any efforts you wish to expend following the teachings of the Lord. What happens between a man and wife is open game as long as it stays between man and wife. When your privates become not so private, there in lies the problem.
Just because someone else has taken their family to a nude beach does not make it okay. In fact you are using your own argument against yourself. If temple workers make up more doctrines about the endowment than the Lord has revealed (as you so quote) how is that any different than you, who claims that the Lord has revealed nothing about nudism, and therefore considers it to be okay? You offer no proof to justify your cause, and in fact you use the weakest argument of all, "everybody else is doing it so it must be okay." I don't care if bishops are nudists and issuing temple recommends. Since when were bishops perfect?
For the record I am not respectful of those who blatantly show disregard for sacred covenants and propagate filth and lies in the name of the Lord's church as you have done with your website. I may not know everything about the gospel but the obvious sins and rationalizations you present are nothing short of Satan inspired poison.
Joking aside; nudism is wrong, plain and simple. Furthermore nudism as a temple attending member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is apostate and to suggest otherwise is to rationalize sin. That said, James I think you're being somewhat of a "born-again" in your zealousness of condemning people to burn in hell. I'm not going on the attack I just think maybe you should tone it back a little bit.
GWH, perhaps you are right in that I went too far. I don't feel that what I was said was incorrect, but a little less Christ-like than I should be. The practice is wrong and my "hell" comment doesn't me any better for saying it.
(it was funny though...)
As a teenager I went skinny dipping on a church camping trip for young women. There was no actual public nudity as it was pitch black we only took off our swimsuits once we were in the water, and replaced them before we got out. That being said, I believe public nudity is wrong and the arguments I am hearing in favor of such remind me of one of my favorite anonymous quotes "Rationalization is like masturbation. You are only screwing yourself."
This just in from Phoenix, Hell has froze over. JWH said James took it too far, this coming from the king of taking things too far.
Crayon Face, you only think public nudity is wrong because you haven't seen me practice it yet. At that point you will say along with the rest of humanity that it is glorious.
M. Galt, I've seen it at the MTC showers and I am still against it... sorry. That is not a personal let down it is simply a matter of principle.
Ah, James, were you aware that for a very long time the old Deseret Gym in Salt Lake (where the Conference Center now stands) had a no swimsuits rule at their pool? Generations of faithful Church members, including many General Authorities and Aaronic Priesthood groups, swam nude there without a second thought. If you are right, then the Church--which owned the gym!--never would have allowed that, and men your ancestors sustained as prophets, seers & revelators wouldn't have engaged in such "scandalous" behavior. Nor would the MTC showers have been built as they are, nor the BYU facilities showers either for that matter.
I think you're defending a personal prejudice here is all.
Here again is supposed to be some proof FOR your cause yet it speaks against it.
Your example goes to show that at some point the bretheren were told not to follow that practice anymore.
Just like Joseph Smith and the early Bretheren used to smoke and drink, there was, at some point when the Lord saw fit to reveal the word of wisdom. Polygamy was also practiced, are you going to use that one next? Guess what times change because the people are capable of living a higher law. The fact that practices and statements from church leaders have spoken clearly against nudity and other issues relating to sexually related acts is a demonstration of what it means to FOLLOW THE PROPHETS.
There is no commandment that says Thou Shalt Be Naked... so where have you received your obviously powerful "witness" that this is okay? All your proof is that of past practices now stopped. That hardly speaks well to your stance.
The recent alterations in the temple initiatory suggest that things are moving away from practices that expose nakedness.
Your example of the MTC and BYU is not substantial as those are not technically public places. These are same gender showers. Hardly the breeding ground for improper thoughts. If it is then you probably shouldn't be at BYU or at the MTC. Even then this technically falls into one of those four "S"s where garments are not appropriate to wear anyway.
Admit it, you know it is wrong, you are just trying to find others to rationalize your obvious need for human contact - intimate contact.
It is childish indeed to impute such motives to someone about whom you know nothing, and I am offended but not surprised. For the record, you are wrong. It is also characteristic of your post and comments here: an unthinking habit of rushing to judgment and condemnation before any honest examination of differing views.
If you were correct, the General Handbook of Instructions would state a policy or at least a Church position on this issue. It does not. On this issue we are left to make our own judgment. As I said before, I personally know of Church leaders who not only disagree with you, but have engaged in this practice themselves without any repercussions. You have ignored this inconvenient point in favor of imputing to me all kinds of beliefs and practices which are laughably incorrect. A standard tactic of the inexperienced: when you can't attack the message effectively, attack the messenger.
Your gymnophobia is clear and obviously sealed off from rational discussion. Your ideas of what constitutes revealed doctrine are quite imaginative, though incorrect. You are free to think what you want, of course. But if you were honest and more mature, you would understand that there are other credible ways of looking at things besides your own, and you would give other opinions due deference before attacking their proponents personally. Honestly, I feel sorry for you, since it's clear your faith and personal prejudices are indistinguishable and neither can withstand too much of a challenge. People who are truly secure in their beliefs don't react as you do. In many ways beyond this particular issue, you don't know what you're missing.
Unless your "church leaders" were the prophet and his councilors (not a pretty picture by the way) it doesn't count as church policy.
Why would it even come up in a worthiness interview seeing as you don't believe it to be a violation of the law of chastity? They would simply answer the question "no!"
Name names Jay. Don't be afraid of your gospel! Tell me the names of those whom you profess to be willing practicer's of public nudity and clothing optional beaches. We could even start with you if you are that confident. I will ask them if they in fact do practice as you have mentioned. If they don't deny it, then I will see that this is addressed by the brethren.
The only outcome will be this, either you are wrong and you and those who agree with your will all suffer the just repercussions of your actions, or I am wrong and I will publicly eat crow and come to one of your camps. If the brethren say that the practice is acceptable LDS behavior you will see me at your next "meeting".
I wouldn't mind going to the meeting either, as long as M Galt isn't there. I've seen him in the nude...... I prefer females.
I've seen James' approach before: "I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it, wherefore give me thine honor." It's the same approach that motivates the Taliban and the Saudi religious police. I thought the Mormons didn't believe in that, but James thinks otherwise.
Pres. Charles W. Penrose: "None are required to tamely and blindly submit to a man because he has a portion of the priesthood. We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark that they would do anything they were told to do by those who presided over them, [even] if they knew it was wrong; but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself should not claim a rank among intelligent beings until he turns from his folly.”
Pres. Brigham Young: "I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken the influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually."
This counsel was meant for you, James.
Meanwhile, I'm sure other readers will understand if I respectfully decline to name names. Last I heard, in THIS Church people had freedom to make their own choices without The Spiritual Secret Police turning them in for private disagreements over something on which the Church has never expressed an opinion. So stop steadying the ark James and focus on your own faithfulness. Let others do the same. That's what a mature person who really understands the gospel would do.
Just so you know Jay, I have exercised righteous judgment in this case. I have followed Brigham Young's council. If my past few remarks have not shown that I have inquired myself into the scriptures in realizing there is nothing in the church that says that I am missing out on in the gospel because I am clothed. (Noticed that I have not used a tired argument that the church hasn't said no so it must be okay). Your choice to follow what you have is of course your choice, however, just because I disagree with you doesn't mean that I "don't get it."
You have acted as "superior" in your way of thinking as I suppose I have come across with mine. Simply put I feel that you are wrong. You obviously feel the same way. Your continued desire to try and make me feel bad or wrong about my position is simply not going to be the outcome of your comments. Does your version of Mormonism teach that guilting people into public nudity is a righteous course of action? Because that is what you have tried to do with your comments.
As far as naming names, if you are unwilling to back up your claims then I find no merit in them. They appear as convenient statements with no value in furthering your position. You are welcome to give your personal particulars and stand up for what you believe in. If not then I will consider you a cowardly nudist. Considering the practice I am surprised that you are so ashamed. I am not acting as secret spiritual police, however I do believe that it is "The teacher’s duty is to watch over the church always, and be with and strengthen them;
54 And see that there is no iniquity in the church" D&C 20:54
So I don't feel I am out of line defending what I know to be the truth and have taken the time to prove it as such.
You have done nothing but try and belittle me as some immature person. I am not trying to force mankind to do anything or believe anything. This is a blog of blatant opinion giving. Because I have a strong opinion that doesn't make me satanic as you have so ineptly attempted to paint me.
Forget the offer, I take it back. I am not sure I am all that interested in coming to one of your "meetings". I would expect to be humiliated and prodded at by misguided zealots for what... to take off my clothes. if you don't feel it is that big a deal then why are you making it so? Perhaps you should be spending your free time being less "free" and more involved in doing as the Lord taught - clothing the poor and needy.
And "axiously engaged in a good cause" as well James, which mormon nudists are not. Jay your arguments ARE lacking substance. It's an apostate practice and rationalizing it on your part is only furthering the chains of bondage. Why not objectively approach it and not be prideful? If repentance is in order, which I believe it is, wouldn't you want to have a testimony that your standing with God and not with men, such as a bishop or other church leaders is what is most important? Pray about it, and see what God tells you regarding nudity.
"Apostate", "duped," "burn in hell for it," "chains of bondage," "prideful," implying violations of the law of chastity and promiscuity, "rationalizing," "blatantly show disregard for sacred covenants and propagate filth and lies in the name of the Lord's church as you have done with your website" (BTW, it's not my Web site, I have nothing to do with it), "Satan's inspired poison," "requires repentance," "I will take it up with the Brethren," etc.
Wow, that's quite a barrage. I'm not the one that started this scrap, but when I voice a different opinion in response, I'm damned to hell for it. But thanks anyway for the chuckles, guys. You're funny because you've jumped to all kinds of totally wrong conclusions about me and other people about whom you know nothing, and it's always comical to see such indignation so misdirected. This is classic Stage 3 thinking. Have you considered that some people actually might have spent significant time studying the Scriptures and pondering and praying about this and reached conclusions different than yours, that maybe there is more in heaven and earth than is dreampt of in your philosophy?
You two are going to be the perfect object lesson for our next Family Home Evening lesson to the kids about the dangers of condemning others. But the centerpiece of that lesson will be this quote from Elder Quentin Cook of the Quorum of the Twelve: "There is so great a need for civility and mutual respect among those of differing beliefs and philosophies. It is equally important that we be loving and kind to members of our own faith, regardless of their level of commitment or activity. The Savior has made it clear that we are not to judge each other."
If the shoe fits, guys . . .
Jay, this must be your first time to the site, because it's been a rare occasion that James and I see eye to eye. On this one however, I do not see how understanding that our nakedness, although admittedly natural, was and is intended to be covered by God. This being the case how is it justified? And you keep saying it's scriptural, post the references... Give some substance to your proposals. This website may from time to time be less than amicable to those sharing a differing opinion, and I am probably the most guilty of that...however, you're not presenting any substance to your counter position. You're just saying I think differently and you should accept that. Well then, back up with substantive proof that your different way of thinking is still in line with God's principles. I get that this church tends to be cookie cutter and the members of it have a bad reputation for ostracizing those with differences from the norm, that said joint public nudity for the sake of being nude is way out in left field.
Jay, you might be right in that my words have not shown the greatest civility at times. However, I see a significant difference between following Elder Cook's council and allowing or endorsing promiscuous practices and chastity violating principles. You have taken something that is sacred and slaughtered it openly.
Perhaps I might miss the boat on being civil but no matter what you say I don't feel that I have missed the boat doctrinally speaking. You have chosen to follow a path that is not in line with Christ's teachings. Your avoidance of any proof to support your claim as well as repeated "pot calling the kettle black" kind of statements shows that you are equally guilty of "judging others" as you claim we are of you and that deep down you know you are wrong.
Just do me one favor, when you have your family home evening on all this - please be naked. I would think that the object lesson would be a powerful way to teach your message. In fact, invite the missionaries and an investigator over. After all if there is nothing wrong with your stance on the subject then your actions will not offend the spirit at all. if it "works" those investigators could even be baptized naked. Sound like a solid idea to you?
Gentlemen:
I welcome rational debate free of adjectives and invective.
Since James is the one who began this topic by characterizing naturism as "koo-koo" and a "violation of covenants," with all due respect it is James who needs to defend his position first. That is how debates work. He has proposed the premise so he needs to start by defending it. I will then respond to his premises and make my own case with defenses. He may respond again if he chooses, and so forth.
Based on both your latest comments, here are what I assume to be your objections, which seem to me as good a set of premises as any to start from, though you should not feel bound by this list:
Nakedness was "intended to be covered by God" so being uncovered is "unjustified"
Naturism is equal to "allowing or endorsing promiscuous practices and violation of chastity"
Naturism is "a path that is not in line with Christ's teachings"
If either of you would care to defend those premises with Scripture, I will be happy to respond.
Kudos on using the thesaurus by the way Jay. Big words make you sound all college and what not...
Speaking of the rules of debate, you don't give me MY points and expect me to defend them. That isn't how it really works. I have made my points clearly and repeated with scriptural proofs to back them up. If you are unable to read the points as presented then perhaps you should put down the Thesaurus and re-read the original post.
I have yet to see a scripture from any of your comments, and your most repeated argument is that the church hasn't said no, so it must be okay. Hardly a rational or supportive argument.
Since I don't want to hear anything back regarding your challenge, here goes point by point:
Nakedness was "intended to be covered by God" so being uncovered is "unjustified" - This was GWH's comment so I will let him tackle that one more fully. However, I believe that in the compilation of all our other comments we have given sufficient proof to show that on repeated occasions God and his prophets have spoken against such practices of nakedness and immodest presentation in public. If you need a good argument go to the forum on LDS nudists that someone posted in comment a few comments back. This link shows a great argument (on the LDS nudist mecha website no less), using scriptures, to fully substantiate their stance against naturism. No need for me to repost the points because that author did a great job and I share their opinion perfectly.
http://ldssdf.org/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=325
James Comment Part 2:
Naturism is equal to "allowing or endorsing promiscuous practices and violation of chastity" - Absolutely correct and I have already given quotes from General Authorities with regard to the public nudity portions of the Naturism doctrine. I will not repeat them as they have already been posted. However if you need further proof read "Of Souls, Symbols, and Sacraments" by Jeffery R. Holland. The book is based on his conference talk of the same name. The talk can be found online. This speaks to all matters of chastity. The biggest point that you need to consider when reading that talk with relation to public nudity is that even if YOU feel that you can control your thoughts and actions around nudity, that doesn't mean other people can. You could be this sexy beast and be the means of creating impure thoughts in others. As a result the quotes in Holland's talk about not being a temptation to others is something that might need to be considered. You might be "master of your domain" Jay, but not everyone is. Since even you don't know everyone's thoughts, you certainly can't deny that your actions in this way could be void of tempting others to break the commandments. Why add to temptation Jay? Why? "You cannot play with fire and not expect to be burned."
Naturism is "a path that is not in line with Christ's teachings" - This would take an essay to prove fully. I feel that if I mentioned one point you would not be satisfied with it and consider me wrong. So I will avoid a complete answer till I can compose a more complete response. However, considering all the other points that have and will be given on the matter, this is a pretty macro proof that is shared within the other comments tied to this posting.
If that doesn't satisfy you, then you can go with this one, Job 26:6 "Hell is naked before him, and destruction hath no covering." I realize that this one is more factitious but it is funny considering the topic. Nudity = Hell....
Ultimately this all comes down to your obvious attitude towards permissive practices in the gospel. Your quest to broaden the road to eternal life stands against these scriptural principles: 2 Nephi 31:19 "And then are ye in this strait and narrow path which leads to eternal life;" 1 Nephi 12:17 - "And the mists of darkness are the temptations of the devil, which blindeth the eyes, and hardeneth the hearts of the children of men, and leadeth them away into broad roads, that they perish and are lost." Any practices that broaden the way towards eternal life seem to be in conflict with the Lords own statements on the subject.
The gospel isn't about discovering things to "get away with" or practices that hold no spiritual value. We should be on the way to eternal life which is a path of obedience and faith in higher laws. We are not even buried naked, why do you supposed that is Jay? Your comments sound like someone who partook of the fruit of the tree of life and was ashamed when they saw what the world was doing and felt that was more important and liberating than staying close to the important principles of the gospel like obedience. I have made my points and given some proofs. You on the other Jay, have done nothing but given quotes and examples how we have been "mean to you", or how we are not behaving correctly in a blog. You feel that public nudity is right, then defend yourself. How is it correct? Because the Lord hasn't commanded us in all things doesn't mean that what he hasn't commanded is automatically correct or acceptable. I want a solid answer that states your position as you have requested from us.
p.s. if you use Genesis 2:25 "And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed." I will have no respect your argument. This scripture is speaking of nakedness between man and wife and is not in public.
Jay here is why I know you are wrong. I found all of this on the church website. As for it not being in the church handbook, well nowhere in the church handbook does it say "do not poke your neighbor in the eye" but you and I both know the Lord does not condone it. He has faith in our ability to read the scriptures and determine for ourselves the sacredness of life and body.
Here are some references for you I encourage you to read them:
“Ye will not suffer your children that they go hungry, or naked; neither will ye suffer that they transgress the laws of God, and fight and quarrel one with another, and serve the devil, who is the master of sin, or who is the evil spirit which hath been spoken of by our fathers, he being an enemy to all righteousness” (Mosiah 4:14).
4 So shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians prisoners, and the Ethiopians captives, young and old, naked and barefoot, even with their buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt. (Isaiah 20:4)
Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame. (Revelation 16:15)
And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. (Genesis 2:25)- Man and wife are one therefore it is right for them to be naked
What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s. (1 Corinthians 6:19,20)- My body is a temple and the only one worthy to hold a recommend to "enter" or see the most sacred parts of my temple is my husband. I would not defile the sacredness of my temple to you, my children or my bishop... even if he does go to nudist beaches and says its ok.
Robert D. Hales, “Modesty: Reverence for the Lord,” Ensign, Aug 2008, 34–39
"Some Latter-day Saints may feel that modesty is a tradition of the Church or that it has evolved from conservative, puritanical behavior. Modesty is not just cultural. Modesty is a gospel principle that applies to people of all cultures and ages. In fact, modesty is fundamental to being worthy of the Spirit.
Of course, modesty is not new. It was taught to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. “Unto Adam … and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them” (Genesis 3:21; see also Moses 4:27). Like Adam and Eve, we have been taught that our bodies are formed in the likeness of God and are therefore sacred.
All should avoid extremes in clothing, hairstyle, and other aspects of appearance. We should always be neat and clean, avoiding sloppiness or inappropriate casualness
Modesty is at the center of being pure and chaste, both in thought and deed. Thus, because it guides and influences our thoughts, behavior, and decisions, modesty is at the core of our character. Our clothing is more than just covering for our bodies; it reflects who we are and what we want to be, both here in mortality and in the eternities that will follow.
Now think of how inappropriate it is to go out into the world or come to church dressed in clothes that do not represent who you really are in spirit. Our outward appearance and behavior give a message. What message are we sending? Does it reflect that we are children of God? When we go to church or the temple, it is important that we dress to demonstrate that we are prepared to worship and to indicate that we are mentally and spiritually ready to invite the Spirit to be with us always.
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. It also demonstrates where our heart and spirit really desire to be."
What I can't understand is your blatant disrespect for those who voluntarily hold themselves to a higher law of chastity and respect for the gift of their bodies than yourself. You have disparaged those who feel the holy garment is so sacred to them that they do their best never to go without its protection and reminders of the covenants- I personally admire their devotion to those most sacred covenants. You say that those who would never expose their body to anyone other than their spouse as foolish and childish. I love them for protecting the sacredness of my body as they protect their own for they would never ask me to sacrifice my morals and covenants with God to prove I fear no man.
Also as a side note, the Brigham Young quote you gave also should apply to you. Just because you know active leaders who have flaunted their nudity, does not make it ok. I personally knew a bishop mired in pornography, had a Elders quorum president a ward away molesting little children and knew a Stake president who swindled many people in the community out of their life savings. By your estimation are these men I should follow simply because of their calling? Only the child molester was excommunicated so I guess that one isn't right, but the others are ok.
In my original post Jay, there was a statement, "There is a sacred temple ordinance to ENSURE that we are clothed, covered, and modest." Do we have an ordinance to teach us not to kill? Do we have an ordinance to teach us not to lie to one another? Do we have an ordinance determining our standing in the eternal worlds just to make sure we are being nice to one another?
No.
The temple initiatory ordinance shows with added emphasis just how important covering our nakedness is to the Lord. The fact that you have been willing to overlook these points shows that we are simply operating on a very fundamental difference from where we stand. This discussion will probably not end in either side changing their opinion. For my part, I am doing what I can to be found as being a defender of truth. Whether you change your ways is up to you and irrelevant to my happiness.
I am disappointed at the continuing onslaught of personal attacks, e.g. sarcastic remarks about resorting to a thesaurus to sound "all college," accusing me of "blatant disrespect for those who [allegedly] hold themselves to a higher standard of chastity" than I allegedly do, and so forth. Are you really incapable of debate without doing that, James? I had hoped so.
It's unfortunate that you didn't spend more time at the ldssdf.org site, because you would have found thoughtful discussions of all points raised in your arguments, complete with references to so many scriptures and conference talks that I can't hope to repeat them all here.
It's obvious that you have some misconceptions. So I will invite you to read this:
http://www.experiencegrace.com/Stone_Thrower_Chronicles.html
This is what I would write to you if someone hadn't already done it for me. It is filled with the scriptural references you say I am avoiding. I ask only that you read it without preconceptions and try your best to give good faith consideration to what it says. If after reading it in that spirit you are interested in further discussion, great. If not, please at least consider what the letter invites you to do.
James:
Please also read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_naturism
I just got finished reading your link. Is the obvious dodge given on this page the Nudists only comeback to those who use scriptures against their practices? "ST" on this site has asked some very real questions and given scriptural support in the course of their dialog. The only response that has been given to "ST" is "why are you not more open minded?" Answer the question Jay!
I ask why should I be open minded to the philosophies of men, not even mingled with scripture?
Put aside whatever it is you see as name calling or personal attacks by us. Give a real answer of your own thought. If you have done so much research and that there are several references, give me just one that says that your practice is okay. So far the debate from your end has been on the merits of debate not the subject at hand. I found the same thing on the link you sent me to. Trying to make others appear close minded is avoidance of the real facts at hand. The same is true with the person giving rebuttal on the Stone Thrower Chronicles. If you want me to be open to your proofs then give me some!
From what I can see this site is simply rationalization central where a group of individuals who wish they were more Christian express their feelings that they wish other people were more accepting of their sins. There is only scriptures saying how we should not rush to judgment. There is NO scripture at all supporting the practice of public nudity.
Jay we are not rushing to judgement ... we are waiting. Give us something solid. The only link you have given says nothing to prove the practice of public nudity. In fact in reading the article I became more and more interested as to why you were sending me to a sight that showed that people of other faiths outside of the LDS faith feel the same way that we do. I seriously was thinking you would actually have something scriptural in the link. Its not there.
So, I will continue to wait and call your bluff until you have something other than, "why are you guys picking on me". You act as if we singled you out and made this a personal attack. This was meant to be a discussion on the subject to which you have constantly sought to move away from.
Why do you feel that public nudity is okay? Prove it. Silence us on this matter with substance.
I recently completed a temple recommend interview. Concerning my point that God intended for us to be covered is from the question in the interview regarding wearing our garments. Anything temple related gets into very sacred subjects so I don't necessarily want to hash this one over the coals on the blog, but why would it be explicitly stated in the temple recommend interview that one is wearing their temple garments, which if nude....clearly one would not. And I know it's already been discussed that there are rational activities that garments are not worn during, but none of which entailed being nude in public for.
Okay, now I just finished wikipedia. The first belief point "Social nudity and Christianity have been practiced together by singles and families for as long as Christianity has been in existence. Being nude is a wholesome way of life, and acceptable state of dress which was never condemned by God in the Bible."
Never condemned in the bible by God? It was condemned by God in the Garden... from the beginning it was condemned. HE CLOTHED ADAM AND EVE PERSONALLY !!! We then learn further that Adam and Eve were further clothed as part of their righteous behavior. The more they were obedient to the Lord the more they were clothed.
Then this phrase, "The devil had chosen the sexual organs as the area of shame because, unlike God, he has no ability to create life." This is a false assumption. When did Satan decide this? Wasn't it God who gave the garment? Did God tell Adam and Eve, along with all the other commandments that he gave them before leaving the garden, "Thou Shalt take off those fig leaves and live naked forever". No he didn't. He could have told them that being naked was a higher way of life and endorsed it. Instead, he has them remain covered and further gave them commandments to be covered.
If these two beliefs lie at the heart of your standings we are never going to agree. The foundations are all off. As a matter of fact, they seem to be against LDS doctrine which leads me to wonder why you wish to serve two masters. How is the conflict in doctrine not more obvious to you?
The scriptures used to prove this philosophy are "filling in blanks" and not taking the scriptures in context. They use David in 2 Samuel 11 who as we all know ended up committing adultery because of the nakedness of women. Hundreds of wives and concubines were not enough. It was the public nudity of another woman that he did not turn away from that got him busted with the Lord.
1 Samuel 19:24 is not a valid scripture because it was not the missing robes that made people think Saul was the prophet, it was his prophesying like a prophet. Plus the scripture said he took off robes, it doesn't say he got naked. Back in the day people wore several layers, robes could have just been one of those outer layers.
I could go on but after reading the section on the LDS naturists I see that there really is no LDS proof that nudity is okay. It is simply that we are functioning under a different set of opinions on doctrine.
If this practice is so fundamental to our spirituality why did the Lord not speak more clearly in favor of it. Even on wikipedia I saw arguments that the absence of a clear statement is being considered approval. What a permissive and cunning lie of the adversary.
I maintain this stance, if there is nothing wrong with the practice according to church standards as you believe, then go to church naked. If nudity is acceptable in public, then it will not offend the spirit in a church meeting. If you feel that there is something spiritual about it then church or the temple is the place for that to happen. If in fact there is nothing against it, then you will suffer no retribution or punishment as a result. Right?
James, if you require that I show you scriptures "supporting the practice of public nudity" then nothing I say will be of any use, because there is no such verse. But there is no divine disapproval either (I know you will disagree with this). This decision is is left up to us. We are not supposed to be "commanded in all things." This is one of the many things we have to reason out for ourselves.
The sites I sent you to contain as good an explanation as any of why, absent any scripture explicitly approving or disapproving chaste social nudity, some Christians believe it is a good and acceptable thing. You keep insinuating that I'm evasive and have given you nothing solid; in fact I have referred you to two different online Forums which, if duly explored, would take literally hours to read through and will give you exhaustive discussions of everything you ask for and more. Yet your response was posted within 30 minutes of my invitation to read through those sites, which tells me you spent little time at either one. I'm disappointed, because I think if you had, and had done so with a truly open mind, you not only would have taken a lot longer, but you would not have continued the hasty mischaracterizations and mocking insinuations that I'm whining and feeling picked on. I'm neither. I'm just disappointed at the unwillingness to give serious consideration and at the taunting, the accusations of willful sinning, etc. Do you really think the Savior would have taken that tone if I needed as much correction as you seem to think?
I have given you everything you asked for and more. It's all there waiting for you, but you have to be willing to take the time to read and consider it. Do you have the ears to hear?
Final thought on wikipedia. I found this argument to be the most possible of all the points found on the page even though in the end I was able to see how in the end it was false.
"By far, the most frequent biblical argument against Christian naturism is that if God approved of people being nude, He would not have clothed Adam and Eve after they sinned, thus making it a reminder to man that we had, in fact, sinned. The counter-argument is since clothes stand for sin, Christians need not wear them. Trying to avoid sin by covering our bodies with the by-product of sin is not a solution." Are you a nudist Jay because you feel you have no sin?
I understand the principle but perhaps this represents a non-lds view of the clothes. We know due to our modern day temple practice that the garments are used to prevent sin and act as a shield against temptation, not as a symbol of sin or in keeping sin in. I agree, keeping reminders of our sins on us is not a very mentally healthy or spiritually valuable practice. However, I don't believe that the LDS garment fits the idea that what God covered Adam and Eve with was not a reminder of sin. He gave them sacrifice for them to remember the redeeming power of sin.
When Adam and Eve were naked in the garden many consider this to the correct way to live because they were in a state of innocence or as the wikipedia page states, "Christian naturists see Adam and Eve being in the blameless state that God had intended them to be." This is misleading because blameless only means that they had not lived and committed and sin up to that point. I get it. However, this is not to say that they were in a perfected or exalted state. In order to progress there needed to be a change. What was that change to, and why is spelled out in the temple ceremony? Because there is a reason for it all.
We disagree Jay because we disagree on some very fundamental ideas behind your way of thinking. It is not a hate, and it is not personal attack. I feel the principle is wrong and in fact could be contributing to the sins of others.
I have searched your forums Jay and I have quoted from them. My search leads me to feel more strongly for my opinion than before as they appear to be nothing more than rationalization. The philosophies of men mingled with scripture. I give no apology for disagreeing with you on this. Only that I wish I had been more kind with my disapproval.
James:
Given the speed of your responses, you'll understand why I think you haven't explored ldssdf.org or figleafforum.com enough. I hope you will spend more time at both.
Clearly neither of us will persuade the other. Each thinks the other is mingling the philosophies of men with scripture. So here's where I stand. I take the temple covenants seriously. I wear the authorized garment "throughout my life" as the endowment instructs. Consistent counsel from the General Authorities is that beyond that, how we choose to wear the garment is a personal matter between each endowed person and the Lord.
Did you know that 24/7 garment wearing was not required before Joseph F. Smith, who imposed totally new rules about the garment and had them posted in all temples, believing the garment was 100% divinely designed. But when Heber J. Grant became president, he ordered those instructions taken down and burned. Yes, burned. He also changed the garment design significantly. The garment of 100 years ago went to wrists and ankles and was considered the standard of modesty then, just I suspect you believe now. Yet today's faithful, modern garment-wearing Relief Society president would have been arrested for public indecency if she'd gone to the beach 100 years ago in today's "modest" one piece swimsuit. What changed? This shows that modesty is purely a cultural construct, a product of time and place and circumstance.
Church publications confirm that modesty is an attitude of humility and propriety , not a dress code (the For the Strength of Youth pamphlet takes this approach). If Church members really believed this, most worries about sleeve and pant lengths etc. would vanish. I know for myself that it's possible to be completely modest without any clothing and that chaste innocent nudity of both genders is possible without any impurity of thought. You probably reject that as impossible, but that would reflect only your perspective and abilities. I promise you it is true. Wouldn't the Lord be pleased if His children could achieve such self-mastery? There is objective evidence suggesting that naturism short-circuits the lure of porn. Why wouldn't that be a good thing? I wonder if the good Christians who rely on your reasons to insist on covering up realize they're perpetuating the mystery and myths and curiosity that keep the porn industry going.
I and a number of my friends have made this a matter of research, scriptural study and prayer and concluded there's a better way. It's to set aside what I believe are the cultural prejudices and myths that perpetuate the shame and the pathologies that flow from it. I find no scriptural prohibition against chaste, innocent, non-sexual social nudity in appropriate situations (in case you wonder, this happens not that often, and in our family we are clothed almost as much as you no doubt are). There have been times in such situations I felt the Spirit as strongly as ever I felt it in the temple. This tells me that for me at least, this is a good thing. Friends say the same. We are active in the Church, hold temple recommends, strive to keep our covenants, and to teach our children the gospel and its standards. In our opinion, non-sexual nudity in appropriate situations, with modest behavior, conflicts with none of this. We see the positive fruits of this approach in our families.
You are in a different place. I respect your freedom to choose what you think is right for you. I hope you will respect mine and how I got here, that you'll reserve judgment and accept that what you think would never work for you may in fact work just fine for others. If I died tomorrow, I could look the Savior in the eye and say I did my best to follow His teachings and the inspiration I received.
Jay, let me ask what you think then since we will seem to atleast agree to disagree. Why?
Why does your spirituality focus so much on nudity? You claim to have made this a life quest in some way which to me means that you have taken a trip to the gospel buffet and loaded up on your favorite meal neglecting the other parts of the menu metaphorically speaking.
I am at a loss when it comes to pleasing you with regards to doing research. I went to the sites, and I even quoted them back to you. I have read articles, scriptures, and yet for some reason this is only insufficient because I didn't agree with you. You claim that my quick response must mean that I am missing something. I will not spend more time in what I consider to be a false doctrine when I have the option of reading revealed and inspired words. In this case I chose the better part "Martha". However, you have not given me enough credit in my original post. I have done some research prior to my initial post. It was from that research that prompted me to express my opinions. Therefore what you see as a quick repsonse is me doing enough research to confirm what I had already researched in relation to the subject.
I'm also not sure why you continue to issue examples where previous practices allowed your lifestyle while also recognizing that modern day revelation has clarified, defined, and prohibited those practices. First the Deseret Gym and now the 24/7 garment wearing thing. Joseph Smith was smoking as he was translating the Book Of Mormon. I am not saying that smoking is okay. Times have changed and we are now held to a higher law. The laws of the Lord are such that we are only held accountable for those laws that have been revealed.
Your examples have shown revelations have come discontinuing practices of public nudity; they have all met with opposition to the lifestyle you are pursuing. Does that part of your own examples not come through?
I don't disagree that there is a great deal of issue in the church with sexual misconduct. This is based in part on some parents avoiding the subject matter and teaching children that sex is wrong. Well sex isn't wrong it just has a place. I ran into several of these issues as I served a mission at LDS family services and saw people dealing with addition to pornography and same sex attraction. I find that being open and honest about sex helps to keep curiosity and experimenting to a minimum. Sex is a natural part of life, but one that God has given strict and clear commandments in protecting and using it. As part of those commandments are revealed principles about the sanctity of our bodies. I feel that you have crossed the line into extremism when you feel that to make your point about sexuality we must naked in order to teach it fully. Perhaps we see the same problem we are just approaching the solution differently. I see my body as a temple that is sacred and best left to she who is worthy to "experience" my temple. No one else.
As much as you have admitted to both making this a matter of research and scriptural study, you also have claimed that you have not found a scripture to support your claims. At what point will you be willing to see the void of your research and decide that you are clinging to a hope of finding proof that doesn't exist?
Consider for a moment that self-mastery is like other parts of the gospel; which it is. Exposing yourself literally and figuratively to the practice of public nudity is like throwing yourself into temptation. I don't waive a gun around and control the urge to not kill someone. I don't go to a strip joint and expect to read my book of mormon in the corner void of impure thoughts. Sure in the end you might not have any occurrences or brushes with sin, but to what end is this exposure to temptation necessary? I don't watch pornography thinking that I can eventually build up some spiritual immunity to it. There is no special sacred right of passage that requires that we be naked in public in order to reach a higher plain. The brethren have warned to stay away from it all. There is a reason in their wise and inspired council. Perhaps you spend as much of your efforts coming to realize those reasons as you do for disproving them.
As far as respecting your freedom to chose, yes I do. As far as respecting your life choices from that freedom, not a chance. I just wonder if the brethren did come out and say something against your practice if you would actually follow it? It seems to me that you have tried very hard to convince yourself that your path to modesty and chastity is somehow paved with everything that those principles oppose. I just don't see why you feel that you hold some special set of rules that only the elite LDS have had revealed to them.
James:
Please show me canonized revelation which "discontinued practices of public nudity." I do not mean this to be confrontational, but you have stated that "revelations have come" to that effect. Please tell me where they are.
We obviously have different starting points. For me, if the Scriptures don't speak clearly to something and don't proscribe it, then I must determine whether that thing is or isn't in harmony with what the Scriptures say, since we are not to be "commanded in all things". As best I can tell, you believe we can only safely do those things which the Scriptures explicitly approve. This is the classic Liahona vs. Iron Rod approaches to the gospel. You asked at what point I would concede that there's no scriptural proof I'm right. James, I don't need any. We're taught correct principles and are expected to govern ourselves. I don't need, and nobody can have, explicit scriptural approval for every choice they make. That's the whole purpose of this mortal probation: to learn how to make those judgments for ourselves.
Would you please tell me your definition of the law of chastity. The endowment says it is to have sexual relations with no one but your spouse. So I am truly puzzled by your apparent belief that nudity in front of someone you're not married to violates the law of chastity. Explain your reasoning please.
You have stated a common LDS objection to social nudity, namely, your body is a temple so sacred that it should be seen only by your wife and no one else. This is a popular cultural belief in the Church and you're free to agree if you want. Yet isn't it inconsistent to say nudism is immodest and leads to impure thoughts while also saying it's immodest because the body is so sacred? Is the body pure and holy, to be kept covered out of respect, or is it dirty and dangerous, to be kept covered out of shame and fear? Our temple buildings are sacred yet we don't cover them so they can't be seen, we put them on hills and near freeways so they can't be missed! We put pictures of them in our homes, we delight in their beauty and the holiness they symbolize. The inside is different, of course; one must qualify to go into the temple because inside they are sacred, meant only for the pure in heart. I think there's a good analogy there. The outside of our bodies are beautiful and, I believe, don't need to be buried under clothing 24/7 in order to remain sacred. In both a literal and spiritual sense, the inside is to be reserved. I think the sanctity comes more from what we are on the inside, by keeping temple covenants, following the Savior's example of charity, and so forth. The ability to be Christlike doesn't depend on clothing.
Let me correct some misconceptions you have. I don't "build my spirituality" around this issue. It's been a nice part of life for our family but is not a large one, a preoccupation or an obsession. I was raised in the church, served an honorable mission, graduated from BYU, have served in ward and stake leadership and in the temple. My Church bona fides are rock solid. This is why I reacted so strongly when you accused me of some extremely unsavory and totally erroneous things. I will not remain quiet when someone calls me an apostate because of a private disagreement over something the Church has never taken a position on.
You seem fixated with the idea that anyone exposing themselves to public nudity is "throwing themselves into temptation." This is why, James I said before that in the most literal sense, and I don't mean this as an insult, you just don't know what you are talking about. I'm not surprised that you may just not be able to comprehend that there is no lustful temptation there. But unbelievable as it may seem, that is the truth. So your warnings about temptation and all that really aren't relevant, because it just doesn't happen.
Please stop the snarky remarks like I "hold some special set of rules that only the elite LDS have had revealed to them." Apart from the fact that it's not true, the fact that you continue to make these incorrect judgments makes me less inclined to trust anything you say. You don't do yourself any favors with remarks like that. Please accept that as friendly advice.
Lastly, you said "why?" That's a fair question. Almost everyone I've ever talked to who has experienced social nudism, regardless of Church membership, has told a remarkably similar story. They were always simply more comfortable without the clothes, usually from childhood. There is a feeling of freedom that can be experienced in no other way. It is not about sex, and it is not about seeing other people naked. It is about feeling that freedom yourself, and enjoying the company of others who "get it" like you do. It's about self-esteem, courage, learning to value people for who they truly are without the deceit of all the outward trappings. In our sex-obsessed (and for Mormons, sexual guilt-obsessed) culture, it may seem impossible to separate nudity from sex. Your posts throughout this whole dialogue are a prime example of that. But I assure you it is possible, and I can't count how many times I've heard of people who try it for the first time full of all the fears and ideas you've expressed, only to discover that literally within a few minutes all of that vanishes permanently and they feel a completely non-sexual exhilaration they never imagined before. I've heard of this a lot. Volumes have been written about "why" so I can't pretend to tell you all the reasons different people have. But in my experience this is the primary one. Repeat: It. Is. NOT. About. Sex.
We're supposed to judge all things by their fruits. I can honestly say James that the fruits of this have been nothing but good for me and my family. There is no "throwing into temptation." There is no lust. There are no impure thoughts. If anything, I'm better able to control my thoughts than ever before. The kids are growing up with healthy self-esteem, no shame or unnecessary guilt, no gnawing embarrassing curiosities that could lead them to trouble later on. My covenants are not with "The Brethren" and I don't need their approval or anyone else's for what I do. My covenants are with God the Father only, and my confidence before Him is strong that for me and my family, I have made the right decisions.
Jay, you said; " You asked at what point I would concede that there's no scriptural proof I'm right. James, I DON'T NEED ANY. We're taught correct principles and are expected to govern ourselves. I don't need, and nobody can have, explicit scriptural approval for every choice they make."
So I get from what you're saying here, that if or when the church comes out with an official stand on public nudity and if perhaps it is in opposition to your position, namely that public nudity should not be practiced by members of the church... then, even then you would still not turn from your practice because you feel that your inspiration is higher than what any church leader may outline. If this is in fact your attitude which is the attitude that I've gathered from reading your posts, then that is indeed the attitude of apostasy.
Jay, cannonized revelation is not the only revelation that is being given by the Lord to his prophets. There are volumes, and I mean VOLUMES upon VOLUMES in the church offices and archives that contain daily revelations regarding certain operations in the church. I guarantee there is one with regard to the closing of the Deseret gym and the wearing of the garment. Every letter from the first presidency is revelation to the saints but is not cannonized. Cannonzied revelation is not the only revelation that counts. If we disagree on this point alone then you and I can have nothing further to say.
Consider this Jay, there is nothing in cannonized scripture about Pornography either. But it is clearly and overwhelmingly against church doctrine and practice. That is why we have modern day prophets to keep clear these things.
Personally, I chose to not discuss this any further with you. I will say this as clearly as I know how to and allow you to continue disagreeing with it should you choose. I don't agree with the practice of public nudity. Until I see something revealing that it is okay (which I never expect to see), the absence of being commanded in this thing does not constitute approval in the eyes of the Lord. I consider there to be overwhelming proof to say that the practice is wrong, and unnecessary to our salvation. Therefore rather than temp fate, or open the door for sexual folly, a sin next to murder, I will avoid it. I will be as the Savior when he fasted for 40 days and was tempted of the devil. I am going to walk away knowing that it doesn't matter if you like me or not, or if you agree with me or not. I know the will of the Lord on this matter and I will follow His commandments, not the "absence of commandments."
I have better things to do with my life than spend it walking around naked. Like home teaching, fulfilling my calling, reading the things that ARE in the scriptures, and true temple worship. As Elder Oaks principled, I will spend my time on the best things and on the things that matter most.
Public nudity serves no purpose beyond personal gratification and submission to the desires of the flesh. It shows no control over self and in fact exposes the individual who practices it to possible other forms of temptation. This places this idea in the same category as masturbation, the viewing of pornography, and the use of addicting drugs. The freedoms and liberations that you claim to feel are (as stated before by a PROPHET Ezra Taft Benson) a flase freedom. “Freedom, a word of noble tradition, is a favorite confuser. Riots, bombings, arson, and killings are committed in the name of freedom. Obscenities test the freedom of speech. Pornography, drugs, and immorality are claimed to be manifestations of personal freedom, along with miniskirts and nudity. License and anarchy are products of these false freedoms."
Public nudity is like being real life pornography. Seeing a naked person in real life is no different from seeing them in pornographic presentations. Your choice to be naked in public is a choice to be pornography yourself. You cannot control the thoughts of others but you can chose to influence them for good, or in the fostering of impure thoughts. You should avoid temptation as much as you should avoid the possibility of being a temptation.
Jay, you will never come to a knowledge of the truth in this matter so long as you seek ways to distance yourself from it through the practice of public nudity. Rather than seek ways to find permission to live a certain way, why not spend your life doing the things the Lord has revealed as righteous behaviors. Missionary work, temple work and the like. Your choice to broaden the path to eternal life will disqualify you for it. Liahona or Iron Rod categorization of the gospel is simply a way for individuals who wish to justify a course of action that they have already decided to take. I refuse to categorize my worship as anything less than consecrated. Obedience, not permissiveness, is the only true freedom.
@ Jay-
1 Nephi 16:2-3.
I would also suggest taking a gander at the First Presidency message from the August 1989 Ensign. But I know your mind is made up and you've hunkered down against anything we "close-minded" people think.
Just make sure that if I visit your house that there are plastic covers on the sofa. Thanks in advance.
@Iguana Montana:
1 Ne. 16:2 is a non sequitur, relevant only if one assumes, as you have, that James has spoken the truth. He has not.
I looked at the Ensign article you referenced and agree with everything it says. There is no conflict between that article and what you & James continue to criticize in obvious ignorance. You guys just don't get it, do you. Can you honestly not imagine that it is possible to separate nudity from sexual sin? Are you both so dependent on clothing to keep your thoughts in line that you can't comprehend how modesty, chastity and purity of thought could still exist without it? If so, then I really feel sorry for you both.
I will respond separately to James' latest philippic separately.
Oh, good. Now I am on the receiving end of the "name-calling" gun.
But it's OK for you, because you're right. I forgot.
Thanks for your sympathy. Not. I prefer my non-naked world.
Apparently you should feel sorry for the Brethren, too. They do not distinguish between good public naked and bad public naked. Why? Perhaps there is no distinction. Nudity is nudity. They do not say "nudity is OK so long as you don't think naughty thoughts." If you have a problem with that, take it up with them, not with us. We are simply repeating what the Lord's prophets have said. Again, please show us where any Church doctrine says "It's OK to spend time naked around people other than your wife." You have been asked for some supporting evidence repeatedly and have consistently failed to provide anything other than fellow "naturists'" beliefs.
And as for 1 Nephi being a non sequitur -- I don't think so. There is so much anger and vitriol coming from your keyboard, there can be no other explanation. Yes, James is a bit caustic and sarcastic. Maybe he doesn't play well with others. But I'm seeing a lot more rationalization from you than from him. A lot more concern over your chosen way of life being attacked.
Truth = truth. Period. Despite what those who worship the "new morality" think, truth is truth, until God reveals more to us.
James is completely correct on one thing: I have much better things to do with my life than try and defend my observance of the Law of Chastity to you. Obviously Chastity means something different to you than to me...or us. I'm done.
Sorry to enter this discussion so late, but Jay's last remark hit my buttons. I no longer feel that I can sit by and "enjoy the show". This is too real a sin to not speak my peace.
Jay, did you not read the article from President Hinckley in the First Presidency Message?
"Nakedness or near-nakedness has become the hallmark of much public entertainment. It reaches beyond this into the realm of sadistic perversion."
Public nudity is sadistic. Clear cut, from the united first presidency it came.
Jay, you shared your feeling that public nudity gave you a feeling of freedom. James gave you a quote from another Prophet Ezra Taft Benson that states, "Pornography, drugs, and immorality are claimed to be manifestations of personal freedom, along with miniskirts and nudity. License and anarchy are products of these false freedoms." There it is, false freedoms that have come from the devil.
You have chosen to IGNORE this council. You have asked for the research and there it is. Forget if you think there is anything sexual about it, or if it contradicts the law of chastity. Your interpretation on that matter is irrelevant when up against these statements. These two statements speak to public nudity specifically as being a false freedom of the devil. Continue the practice if you chose Jay. Just continue it knowing that the prophets are VERY clear that the practice is of the devil. Period. Amen.
@Iguana Montana:
I am amazed at the irony, do you really not see it yourself? I am the one who has repeatedly asked for reasonable dialogue free of adjectives and invectives, and every time I do, I'm broadsided with a new flood of personal attacks. Yet I am apparently the one whose keyboard is spewing vitriol, because I dare to think things that The Brethren haven't explicitly approved? I'm shaking my head here in disbelief.
@Anonymous:
You have betrayed only your own lack of knowledge with your comment. Please investigate the facts before you risk the consequences of such public statements. Your remarks assume many things which are simply not true.
I have betrayed my own lack of knowledge? How can you betray a lack of knowledge unless by obtaining knowledge? Are you then saying that I have obtained knowledge; if so, then your second statement doesn't make sense either. This kind of double talk is exactly what got you into your falsely righteous practices. You keep saying that we are attacking you yet you still keep coming back. So you are either sick in the head, or you are just playing devil's advocate amongst a group of reasoning and faithful individuals who have done obvious research. Just because that research contradicts what you are saying doesn't mean they are close minded. The research is there you continue to deny it. So when you say that the brethren have not explicitly denied the practice, you have chosen to follow your path regardless of what is presented as evidence. Therefore you are found to stand against it. That is the definition of apostate as Great White Hope pointed out.
And what consequences about my public statements? Who are you? What is not true about the words of the prophets on this matter? I simply restated the quotes form the prophets that speak against your practice. Just because you have spent years and now hours on blogs defending your apostate practice does not mean that anyone else is missing the boat.
What am I missing from these statements Jay? Maybe you can enlighten me as to how these two quotes don't contradict your stance. Please don't insult my intelligence as you have the others with turning this into a disagreement about argumentative styles or 'not speaking in Christlike tones'. You just threatened me with some kind of imaginary consequences for speaking my clear conscious on this matter. Come with substance or don't come at all. How are the prophets wrong Jay?
I am a councilor in the Elder's Quorum presidency. I've served as Young Men's president, scout master, executive secretary, ward missionary, Sunday school teacher, and a few other callings as well. I hold an current temple recommend and attend the temple on a near monthly basis with my wife (we don't always make it... life is busy). We hold family home evening every Sunday, say family prays every day, and teach and testify from the scriptures to our children as often as we can.
We have a very open-door family, meaning we don't see a need to hide from each other when doing things like changing clothes or showering. Our kids (ages eight and ten) see their parents naked on a near daily basis and think nothing of it. We live in Minnesota where there are no legal clothing optional beach or resort, but my wife and I plan to make the trek cross-country as soon as time and money will allow so our kids can experience the beauty and freedom and innocence that they offer. My kids know they exist and are excited to try one.
I served my mission in Europe which is where the idea of nude beaches was first introduced to me by a Bishop. The idea has percolated in my head for many years, my wife and I have discussed the idea in depth, and if you care to hear more, I wrote up my thoughts on why I think all of this is not only inline with Church doctrine, but also a good idea:
http://www.ldssdf.org/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=18
I am aware that many here will disagree with me and maybe even tell me I'm going to hell. That's okay. I'm glad we all have the freedom to have our own opinions. I'll ignore flames (of which I am sure there will be many), but if you have honest questions I'll be happy to respond. Feel free to email me privately if you want an off-line discussion: mormonnudists@yahoo.com
Thanks,
Bryan
@Anonymous:
Pres. Hinckley spoke against nudity which is "crude" and "public entertainment." In other words, the kind of nudity for which people pay, which cheapens and degrades the body. Pornography, strip clubs, gratuitous sex in movies, that sort of thing. Context indicates that Pres. Benson spoke of the same thing, the kind of nudity which is deliberately displayed in public for sexual purposes, to incite lust and payment. I completely agree with both of them. Such things disgust me. But they are NOT what I am talking about. I have tried to make this point over and over and over and over and over and over again but it seems to be lost on James & Co.
There is a world of difference between that kind of diabolical exploitation and, say, a faithful Finnish or Dutch LDS family who goes to a sauna in their home country, or a French LDS family who goes to a beach in France, in all of which places "public nudity" is accepted without a second thought. In those settings it is not sexual, it is not suggestive, it is not crude, it is not public entertainment. It is innocent and chaste and respectful. In such places even the slightest indication of sexual activity is rigorously policed and shut down. There is much professional opinion even in the United States which concludes that such environments have positive and healthy benefits for children and adults alike. THAT is the kind of "public nudity" I'm talking about, nothing more. If you can't see the difference between these two types of settings, and you honestly think that a Dutch bishop who takes his family to a sauna on an outing is being "sadistic," then I must lapse into stunned silence at such blindness.
The fact that you people can't get these lurid images of raucuous publicly flaunted promiscuity out of your heads is both funny and sad. Your responses tell me that you've all swallowed a popular myth hook, line and sinker without ever bothering to really investigate the facts. You've all bought the Satanic lie that the body is shameful and that even God thinks they ought to be covered up all the time. Your attitudes are what make the porn industry flourish. I'm sure the Father of Lies is quite pleased with the victories you've given him, because you don't even recognize them. You remind me of the 19th Century Protestants who tried to hound the Church out of existence because of the "debauchery" of polygamy. They didn't want to be bothered with the facts either.
Bryan, we have read the links, and we have looked at the forums. Frankly I don't think that your "credentials" have anything to do with truth no offense. Many people hold callings in the church who practice things contrary to its perfected teachings.
What I don't understand is how you have all come to the conclusion that the words of the prophets don't apply to you? They are clear. Even if at one point in the church at whatever gym the church used to own, public nudity was practiced, it isn't okay anymore. Just like polygamy was discontinued as a practice and those found practicing it today are ex-communicated, why do you feel that this practice which is NOWHERE in the church and has been spoken out against by Prophets since that time is still okay?
Big surprise by the way, a European introducing people to a nude beach. Somehow I don't see the word of a bishop from england being the authority over the whole church like Ezra Taft Benson and President Hinckley. I guess these prophets are not as enlightened as this Bishop. Come on guys.. really? You are proselyting naturist doctrine. Is that what the Lord told us to teach others?
Perhaps you can answer this for me. Why call yourselves LDS nudists or naturists? What is the need to justify the practice in the name of religion? If there is nothing in the church doctrines against it, then why is it a matter of religious practice? Seems to me that the only reason to bring your religion into it is for justification purposes. Why mix naturism and LDS theology if they are not related?
Holy cow, where did all the naked Mormons come from? Are all of you sitting naked in front of the PC just waiting for unsuspecting bloggers to fall upon your pet project where you can then attack?
Here to for I thought I was one of very few members who liked to get naked, swim and enjoy nature in the buff. My scout master was the person that introduced my friends and I to skinny dipping when we where 14, I agree with your points on the Mormon skinny dipping forum (who knew that was out there?) skinny dipping with friends did lead to what I consider a healthy attitude toward my body and others though afterwards I still wanted to see as many naked girls as possible. Keeping that under control and making it to marriage as a virgin was a challenge but one I am proud that I made as well. I often think how in the church today there is no way in hell that kind of activity on a scout outing would ever be tolerated, and I am only 31 so it’s not like it was that long ago. In this respect I get you and jay’s point, nudity doesn’t have to be sexual and actually can be a really healthy development tool that de-mystifies the human body.
I draw the line though at public nudity for me I will keep my naked time with friends and family. I am sure you are not pushing the nudity thing on others either but I have to imagine that going to a nudist colony, stocked with Mormons or not is not something that the leadership of the church is going to smile on. On top of this I think it is some what an indefensible position doctrinally, as shown by other posters, I think there is ample modern day insight that would tend to direct us away from it. Now that I know I am not alone in this I think I will keep my naked time to myself.
[quote]Bryan, we have read the links[/quote]. I don't think you did. You replied to fast. If you take the time to go ready my little write up (should take you about 5 minutes) then we can have a conversation.
Attn: jay
What about the Robert D Hales article that Crayon Face presented with respect to your take on culture. Did you read it?
This is what he said about this very idea of culturism and its effect on LDS standards: Standards do not change because of culture. Going naked in a Carnival Parade in Brazil is not simply okay because you are Brazilian.
"Some Latter-day Saints may feel that modesty is a tradition of the Church or that it has evolved from conservative, puritanical behavior. Modesty is not just cultural. Modesty is a gospel principle that applies to people of all cultures and ages. In fact, modesty is fundamental to being worthy of the Spirit. To be modest is to be humble, and being humble invites the Spirit to be with us.
(then he goes on to talk about what modesty really is-not your version of it that suits your lifestyle - what the Lord thinks.)
Of course, modesty is not new. It was taught to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. “Unto Adam … and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them” (Genesis 3:21; see also Moses 4:27). Like Adam and Eve, we have been taught that our bodies are formed in the likeness of God and are therefore sacred.
“Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
“… The temple of God is holy, which temple ye are” (1 Corinthians 3:16–17).
Our bodies are the temples of our spirits. Additionally, our bodies are the means by which we can bring souls from the presence of God to their mortal state. When we recognize our bodies as the gifts they are and when we understand the missions they help us fulfill, we protect and honor them by how we act and dress.
In everyday living, immodest clothing such as short shorts, miniskirts, tight clothing, shirts that do not cover the stomach, and other revealing attire are not appropriate. Men and women—including young men and young women—should wear clothing that covers the shoulder and avoid clothing that is low cut in the front or back or revealing in any other manner. Tight pants, tight shirts, excessively baggy clothing, wrinkled apparel, and unkempt hair are not appropriate. All should avoid extremes in clothing, hairstyle, and other aspects of appearance. We should always be neat and clean, avoiding sloppiness or inappropriate casualness.1
Modesty is at the center of being pure and chaste, both in thought and deed. Thus, because it guides and influences our thoughts, behavior, and decisions, modesty is at the core of our character. Our clothing is more than just covering for our bodies; it reflects who we are and what we want to be, both here in mortality and in the eternities that will follow."
If you feel that revealing clothes are immodest, how then can you make the jump that no clothes is not modest? More of a bad thing doesn't all of a sudden make it good.
I ask you all this question from Elder Hales same talk:
"Are we determined to be Saints in the kingdom of God, or are we more comfortable in the ways of the world?"
Hmm, my attempt at HTML didn't work. Oh well.
The link I offered was to a specific page within ldssdf.org:
http://www.ldssdf.org/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=18
In it I discuss how so many of our youth are falling prey to sexual temptation, and how I feel that our hyper-fear of the human body is partly to blame.
Stop it Bryan, you are not the first person to post links to the forum. I have read them in the past. I read them before I posted on the site in the first place. That was five days ago now. I have been to Jay's stonethrow link, and the wikipedia page. I have quoted from your very own forums.
Stop it. Please. I am not interested in generating anymore traffic for your site than I already have.
Dear James:
Soft answers like mine obviously don't turn away YOUR wrath, and that is unfortunate. So I will speak bluntly too, but without the personal invective you have used. And in case you wonder, I needed no thesaurus.
James, your attitudes are dangerous. They typify the narrow-minded, self-righteous, misguided zeal Brigham Young warned about, Joseph Smith fought against, and which give Mormons their wacked-out reputation in much of America today. You persist in drawing inaccurate conclusions from incomplete and assumed premises about me and about gospel principles. This speaks poorly of your discernment and judgment. You rush to damn a practice and a person that you know nothing of. I can't imagine the Savior doing that.
It is laughable to think the Deseret Gym was closed by revelation because of the "pernicious practice" of suit-free swimming which countless prophets and apostles enjoyed. If every letter of the First Presidency is "revelation", why did one such letter in 1969 say birth control was "contrary to the teachings of the Church" yet now the Church' says birth control is strictly a private matter for each couple? Who suddenly sanitized that "sin," God or just the mortal men in the First Presidency? Why was oral sex condemned by another letter of Spencer Kimball's First Presidency as grounds for revoking temple recommends yet now bishops are strictly instructed to leave such matters alone, to each couple's judgment? How could such a "sin" suddenly be okay? Could a First Presidency letter actually have been just personal opinion? No doubt you would cry "That's heresy!" yet the prophets themselves would disagree. Harold B. Lee said "It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they write." Joseph Fielding Smith said the Standard Works [NOT letters of the First Presidency] are the "measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine," and again Harold B. Lee said that any "doctrine" stated by anyone (including you, sir), regardless of their position in the Church, which is not explicitly supported by the Standard Works is "merely his private opinion." Yet you reject these words of prophets whom you no doubt claim to sustain.
Nothing in the Scriptures justifies any of your conclusions about me or the topic of this thread. The Church has never made any statement one way or the other about the kind of "public nudity" which I mentioned in my response to Anonymous just above. I'm not talking about publicly flaunted promiscuity, and if you just can't wrap your comprehension around the thought that nudity and illicit sex are the same thing, then I truly pity you. Nothing in the Scriptures justifies your gymnophobia or your insults about "walking pornography." I am sad to see you make such statements since they only confirm a stunted attitude toward the body and an inability to distinguish between actual Scripture and the philosophies of men which your agenda apparently compels you to read into them. Surely God is sad that anyone would feel as you do about His greatest creation while claiming to respect it. It seems clear that you could not control your lustful thoughts if you were placed in a naturist situation, but you are mistaken to assume that no one else could either. Nothing else explains your wild accusations against those who are able to live and think without confusing chaste, innocent nudity with mortal sin. If you find this thing to be a stumbling block for you, then steer clear. But don't presume that your personal weakness is shared by everyone else.
The First Presidency-authorized Encyclopedia of Mormonism says "There are many subjects about which the scriptures are not clear and about the Church has made no official pronouncements." The topic of your post and this thread is just such a subject. "In such matters," says the Encyclopedia with the First Presidency's approval, "one can find differences of opinion among Church members and leaders. Until the truth of these matters is made known by revelation, there is room for different levels of understanding and interpretation of unsettled issues." Yet you presume to speak for the Lord as if the topic of this thread were settled in your favor. It is not. You speak as if your personal opinion about "overwhelming proof" of the alleged evil of this practice were a revealed truth or an inescapable conclusion. It is neither. You abuse and damn to hell anyone who disagrees with you. This is not Christlike behavior.
You cling like a barnacle to the idea that we need Scriptural authorization for everything and that without it, anything we do is risky and probably wrong. This is is the "reckless confidence" Brigham Young said would "thwart the purposes of God in [your own] salvation." It seems to be the attitude of the slothful and unwise servant who must be commanded in all things and who loses his reward as a result. You fear the world too much, James. You judge too harshly, and remember, as you judge you will also be judged. I'm not sure I would want to be in your shoes right now.
I can't say it better than Cromwell did: "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."
Bryan, I am actually a pretty quick little reader and actually did read you’re posting, thanks though for questioning me when I am willing to accept your position without questioning your intentions. I been had been reading from the time I was knee high to a naked mans mushroom and been had trained in the arts of speed readin as taught by my naked master Parley P (you know what that stands for) Pratt.
Define "modesty" please.
Today, "modesty" for LDS women at the beach is popularly thought to consist of a one-piece bathing suit, and for men, swim trunks that go from waist to knee.
One hundred years ago, "modesty" for LDS women at the beach consisted of full-size dresses and being covered up from neck to wrists to ankles. For men (in mixed company) it consisted of wearing a tank top and shorts that barely went past mid-thigh.
Today's LDS women would have been arrested for public indecency and obscenity if they'd ventured onto a beach 100 years ago dressed by today's LDS standards of "modesty."
One hundred years ago, the temple garment was held out as "the standard of modesty". it covered everything from neck to wrists to ankles. Now the women have scoop-back tops that are virtually sleeveless, men and women have two-piecers that normally don't even reach the knee. OMG, they are "immodest!"
But wait. By whose standards? What changed? Why are we "modest" today if we would have been arrested for public indecency a century ago?
So what's the constant, Anonymous? Give me a definition of modesty that applies to everyone all the time. Do you really not see that modesty is completely a cultural construct that fluctuates wildly from time to time and depends entirely on context, setting and intent? In other words, it's an attitude, not a dress code?
Jay, Bryan, I have already said my peace. I don't buy your rationalizations, and I don't think that nudity is the solution to all of the problems you have portrayed.
The quotes you have given don't say that I am wrong Jay. They just warn against General Authority Hero worship. That is all. Those same general authorities also warn against reading too much into the gospel that leads into permissive practices. These quotes don't say your position is right and they don't say that I am wrong in mine. Here again your only defense is to attack my offense.
I don't care who you are. I am not condemning you any further. I already apologized for that and I realize that I was wrong in saying some of what I said. However, I am still condemning the practice. And am suggesting that your dedication to this principle that is not exalting in anyway and is dangerous. Consider it a voice of warning not a voice of personal condemnation. Christ showed anger at those who took lightly sacred things so it is not out of line to consider the taking lightly of sacred garments and our body temples a thing to feel strongly about.
The fact that you continue to take this as a personal attack goes to show how addicted you are to the practice. Maybe Iguana Montana was right. You seem to be taking this awfully hard.
So what if we disagree. What is your continued need to get everyone to agree with you on this issue. We have your links, we have your messages, let those that wish to be exposed to it do so. We have not censored you in anyway even though we have every right to. Are you not able to see a level of respect in that?
Jay and Bryan, what is your standard of modesty then? Teach us... if you sustain the prophets that modesty is the key to being worthy of the spirit , then you must have a standard to keep. What is it and how does public nudity not conflict with it.
Ok, fair enough, I'll stop posting links. Your blog, your rules, and I'm happy to comply.
Here's a snippit of what I was hoping you would read:
Double Whammy: The Porn Industry And My Religion Both Taught Me The Same Thing - Girl's Bodies Are Naughty
The porn industry, Hollywood, the general media, and even advertising executives all use sex to sell. It's a proven formula: show a little human skin when promoting your product and customers fork over the cash. The more skin you show the more the cash flows. And if your product happens to actually be human skin, as in the case of the porn industry, you are set to rake in billions.
By only showing the human body in situations were it is always sexual, the message about the human body taught by the media is clear: It's sexy and lusty! Come And Get It!!
As I became a teenager, both my parents and my youth leaders at church ramped up the anti-lust teachings on morality and chastity. And rightfully so. Yet laced into all their teachings was this very strong message: "Do Not Look at Naked (or Almost Naked) Females. It Is a Sin." The aim of both my parents and my youth leaders was to keep me as far away from female bodies as possible. I was not to look at them unless they were fully (and modestly) clothed. I was not to think about them. I was not to touch them. I was basically to ignore them and pretend they did not exist.
By limiting my exposure to the human body (and the female body especially) to absolute zero, the message about the human body taught to me by my parents and my youth leaders was clear: It's Sexy and Lusty! Stay Away!!
Here's the catch: What was taught to me at home and at church actually confirmed what the media taught: That the human body is sexual and lusty. Their goal was noble. They wanted me to stay pure and chaste. But the method was flawed. By trying to keep as much distance between me and nakedness as possible, the law of unintended consequences came into play, and in my youthful mind they further entrenched the idea that the human body is inherently lustful and always highly sexual.
This presents a very real and serious problem.
Ok now I am offended, the left wing waco nudists don’t laugh at my mushroom joke and the right wing stone thrower just over looks it. You guys are all no fun.
I agree with you Bryan in that we teach the body in the wrong way. It is a beautiful thing and that we should not be ashamed of it.
However I think you have crossed the line in thinking that public nudity is the answer. There is a need to balance modesty and proper education of sex and the human body. I don't feel that there is a conflict in teaching that the body is sacred and beautiful as the temples are sacred and beautiful and therefore the need to keep them covered until they determine that someone is worthy to "enter" so to speak.
Again, I feel that there was a generation that was taught to fear it and that has given the adversary a chance to capitalize with pornographic materials, and to a certain extent it has opened the door to this version of extremeism that you present. Just because sex is taught wrong doesn't mean that public nudity is the answer.
@James:
Fair comments. I have no expectation of getting anyone here to do a 180 based on my say-so. Best I can hope for is to get someone to consider the possibility they may have judged too hastily.
You think "this practice" is wrong. I disagree. Remember Joseph Smith said "That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another." If "this practice" is wrong for you, then fine, I respect that. But that doesn't give you the right to condemn it universally for all.
Don't you think the Church is well aware that in many countries in Europe, some form of "public nudity" which you, obviously, could never accept is there simply a part of life? The Church has never made any statement against it or tried to stop its members from participating in those countries. Pres. Uchtdorf comes from Germany where the modern naturist movement first began, for heaven's sakes. Don't you think he's well aware of it?
Again, I'm not talking about sexually suggestive gyrating in a Brazilian Mardi Gras or some hedonistic swinger's resort. I'm talking about non-sexual family-oriented innocent respectful ability to enjoy being without clothes in appropriate circumstances. That is the "practice" I'm talking about. Nothing more. Actually I think you'd be surprised how many LDS families are a lot more tolerant of it than you'd imagine.
I don't seek to compel you to adopt this or even to agree with it. I just want you to try to understand that it may not be the Satanic nightmare you originally thought. That's all. As far as being "addicted" to it, well, you're not correct, but think what you want. It doesn't matter really. As long as you respect others' opinions and conclusions.
@M.Galt:
I got it. LOL.
Thanks J, that’s the kind of validation I live on. Lets get naked some time and do some swimming.
Jay
Re: I'm talking about non-sexual family-oriented innocent respectful ability to enjoy being without clothes in appropriate circumstances.
I still don't see why you have to be naked to do it? I can have family home evening clothed and wearing my garments. As my home is supposed to be a temple so I should treat it with temple standards.
For me I just don't see the NEED for it. Aside from the fact that I am unable to reconcile even the slightest variation on the words of the prophets, I just don't see why it is such a crucial and important point of discussion. If you want to be naked, be naked by yourself. That is your right.
What is the difference between the sensation of being in your own bedroom naked and being in public? It would seem to me that there is a major difference and there in lies the big problem. If this is about being comfortable with your body and have to share it with everyone.
James, you asked a very, very good question:
"Jay and Bryan, what is your standard of modesty then? Teach us... if you sustain the prophets that modesty is the key to being worthy of the spirit , then you must have a standard to keep. What is it and how does public nudity not conflict with it."
I'm happy to answer :-). This will be a shorter answer then I'd like (I'm very long winded) and won't really do your question justice, but hopefully at least it will help you understand my POV.
First, when dressed, by all means dress modestly. I've yet to see a statement from the First Presidency on modest clothing with which I disagree :-) My kids know which clothes are okay for around the house, and which ones should not be worn outside. They have been taught what modest clothing is and have no problem complying.
Second, clothing is only a very small part of modesty. An important part, yes! But a small part.
Modest language, modest behavior, modest makeup (for sisters), modest cars, modest homes, modest life styles, modest jokes, modest spending, modest taste in entertainment... you get the idea. Even if we focus on modest clothing, we need to not just focus on how much skin is showing. Is coming to church dressed in a a $5,000 dollar suit with a $200 tie and a $50 handkerchief with $900 shoes and a $300 shirt (with an air of superiority) any more or less modest then clothing which shows too much skin (and an air of come-hitherness)?
It is my opinion (note the word opinion) that we hyper-focus on the relationship between how much skin is showing and modest clothing. Yes! I agree that wearing clothing which shows too much skin is not modest and should be avoided. But, when this concept is *all* we teach our kids, the result is this:
Our kids grow up thinking that there is something wrong with their bodies. The issue, "don't show too much skin, it's a sin" is translated in the minds of our youth too, "My skin is naughty and nobody should see it."
Body self esteem issues in girls are rampant. Sexual aggressiveness in boys is equally as rampant. It is as much a problem within the church as without. And our ever increasing answer is, "TEACH MORE MODESTY!", or, translated into the minds of the youth, "MAKE US MORE AFRAID OF OUR BODIES!"
Please understand James, that I am not advocating naked free-for-all in which all modesty is cast aside, and we we go happily prancing our nude bodies for all to see in a hedonistic display of sexual engorging. If one attend an AANR endoursed clothing optional resort (and my wife and I have been to one), you are expected to act modestly, and in fact, if you don't, they kick you out.
If we were to play the Word Association Game, and I said the word "modest" and then we had 100 active church members write down the first word (single, not a phrase) that comes into their mind, I'd be curious to know how many would say "clothing".
Modesty is about so much more then clothing. I prefer to think of it as a state of being then a state of dress. BE a modest person. Be modest when you are dressed and when you are undressed.
In the few times I've been able to participate in settings where chaste, modest nudity was present, everyone, without exception, behaved in a manner that was polite, reserved, non sexual, and very befitting Mormon standards. Some were LDS, some were not.
Ok, I've thrown out a lot of disjointed ideas here. Sorry to be so scatter brained. In a nut shell, here's my reply:
I think of modesty as how one *is* and not how one dresses.
Last of all James, I appreciate your honest question. It was hard to see past the lack of civility and name calling that dominated most of this discussion. Thank you :-)
James,
You brought up some more excellent points that I think deserve an response.
JAMES: "Just because sex is taught wrong doesn't mean that public nudity is the answer."
Good point. And please know that I'm not advocating it as THE answer. Only "an" answer.
But also, I think it's important to define "public nudity" because there is a good change we're not seeing eye to eye on what it means.
If you care to (I won't post the link based on previous requests), go to YouTube and look up the opening scene to the Disney movie Polly Anna. You may recall it. Under the opening credits is a scene of boys skinny dipping in a creek next to a rail road bridge. One of them swings naked from a rope and drops into the water.
When you think of public nudity, you may be thinking of the kind of stuff that goes on at adult nude ranches where sexual undertones are either just under the surface, or very much out in the open. Or, maybe not even that explicit, but at very least, you seem to be picturing a sexually charged atmosphere. If I am wrong, I hope you will correct me.
When I think of public nudity, I picture the innocents of skinny dipping in a setting that is liberating, fun, chaste, and very much non sexual. Picture a Normal Rockwell painting, if you will.
A good friend of mine recently told about a talk in which an older member of the ward mentioned from the pulpit how he used to skinny dip. After the meeting my friend asked about this, and the old-timer's reply was this:
"... he started telling us about his family heritage from a farming community in northern Utah. He said "they would all go down to the river, men, women, kids, everyone would just strip down and go swimming without a care in the world, geesh, try to do that now and you'd get arrested"."
I have theories on why our society has become afraid of innocent skinny dipping, but they are only theories and I won't bore you with them. But I will say that I think it's a sad loss, and I, for one, would like to see us go back to a time where a group of people could innocently swim in the watering whole sans clothing without someone telling them they are committing a serious sin. I think that our fear of nudity is not a healthy thing, and that our assumption that innocent skinny dipping can't possibly be innocent and *must* be sexual is a sign that Satan has too successfully convinced us that the human body, one of God's greatest creations, is sinful and naughty.
James, you also said,
"For me I just don't see the NEED for it"
Another great point, and if you don't mind me saying so, this is a long, long ways from your previous stance that anyone who does it is going to hell. (I think you were joking for shock value, right? I hope so!)
I believe that innocent nudity is not needed any more then, say, a hobby of kite flying. (Ok, really bad analogy, but Marry Poppins is on my mind). Modest, chaste nudity is ONE tool to give kids, and adults, a healthy understanding of the human body, and is the opposite of cloaking it in mystery and shame. But I am fully aware that it is not the ONLY tool, and I don't wish to promote it as the only tool.
What I do wish, however, is to help people underatand that it's not the evil, vile, naughty thing so many Mormons think it is.
:-)
Thanks for listening!
@James:
You asked a very reasonable, fair question. What's the NEED for it?
Others' answers will differ, I can only tell you mine. Strictly speaking, there's no "need" if by "need" you mean something that is essential to life and safety.
But Mozart and Michelangelo and Geary and the MoTab aren't strictly "needs" either. Yet how dull would life be without them. "Reason not the need," said Shakespeare in King Lear; "allow nature no more than nature needs, and man's life's as cheap as beast's."
When I and my hiking buddies (also active LDS too, BTW) are in a remote forest or desert canyon with nothing in between skin and the sun & wind God made, there is a sense of freedom and exhilaration that is like nothing else. You feel like you're a part of all that natural beauty around you. Instead of smothering in itchy, dusty, hot, sweat-soaked clothes, you feel the sun and the wind (and sometimes the rain) all over. There's nothing like it. Same for when the family and I are in a swimming pool free of suits. Once you experience that, a suit feels like an iron shackle.
You know how it feels to finally take a long drink of ice water after being thirsty for hours? How deeply refreshing and fulfilling that is, right down to your core? Well imagine feeling that not only inside but outside too, on every inch of sun-warmed skin. There is nothing remotely sexual about this. It it is magnificent, sublime, even reverent.
More than once in the mountains or desert like this I have spontaneously started a prayer of thanks or started singing the Primary song "I think the world is glorious . . . I sing and sing my thanks to God above." I feel like getting down on my knees like Enos did, just to say thank you over and over again. Do you see why I can't think of this as Satanic or "sadistic"?
There are many things in life that have to be experienced to be comprehended, like parenthood, or a testimony of the Book of Mormon. What I've described above is another one. No, strictly speaking, it's not a "need", but most of what makes our lives more fulfilling isn't either. They're just components of what make life worth it.
@ M.Galt:
OH, I read it and appreciated it. I just couldn't formulate the appropriate words through the tears of laughter. And the imagery. "Man Mushroom." I will plagiarize that, I believe, with your permission. And I'm assuming you don't use plastic sofa covers at your house; I imagine the heat causes some bad peeling and sticking issues.
@ Bryan:
I agree with you that the youth may be stigmatized by how their church leaders treat the issue. But you have to be careful: I'm reminded of a story of a Young Women's leader who took the girls downtown to learn to pick up guys. I know a lot of young brides are terrified on their wedding day--I realize this is taking it to an extreme--but do we have authorizes/sanctioned sex classes so that they have no fear of "the act" as young brides, and can learn NOW that sex is a wonderful, marvelous thing? Yes, that's sarcastic, but I hope you see my point. Their is a point when permissiveness for the sake of comfort crosses a line that no-one really wants crossed. Now, I'm not sure that church is the place for ANY of this discussion. Maybe the fault lies with the parents not talking about it with the kids. But I'm steering WAY off track. Thank you for attempting to set forth your view of modesty. I do appreciate it. Although I must confess to blanching, and then smiling, when I read "chaste, modest nudity."
@ Jay:
First, I'm not sure why you even own an irony. What gets wrinkled? And do you use the permanent press setting?
Secondly, looking back, you threw the stones at James before he threw back. OR do you consider "masquerading as gospel,"you really don't comprehend what you so blithely pronounce judgment on," "
it is clear you cannot separate nudity from sinful sex,"predilections,"a little less judgment and a little more acknowledgment that you may not know everything about this might suit you better," and "If you are ever interested in seeing past all this judgment and reading through some rational, calm, thoroughly researched and respectful discussion" as caring and neutral discourse?
You even acknowledge that you are (ok, potentially) being insulting or critical when you apologize: "I don't mean to be insulting or critical, just to state a fact."
Look. It's like climbing into the hyena cage at the zoo and teasing the animals until they descend upon you and tear you to bits, and THEN you complain about being eaten. You apparently knew -- by your own admission -- what James was when you started typing. You jabbed him in they eye with a sharp stick. When he reacted, then you cry about how rude he is and how he's treating YOU?
And frankly, I think you stuck your stick in most of our eyes with your holier-than-thou attitude. You complain that you're being broadsided by personal attacks. The common denominator here? Hmmm....Starts with a "J."
"Soft answers like mine"? Yeah. There's irony here, but we ain't it, bud.
Sorry if you're taking it too personally. We (some of us) started out by condemning the practice, not the person. If I've condemned you, I apologize. It's the practice, not the person I'm looking at.
In the midst of all this I am suddenly reminded of the man in my ward growing up who was denied a recommend because he tried to parse the Word of Wisdom, because it didn't expressly cover the type of beverage he liked to drink. He then stood up mid-Sacrament meeting and tried to call the Bishop to repentance in front of the Stake President simply because he didn't like the common definition of "wine" or "strong drink."
I believe it's what's called "kicking against the pricks."
And yes, now I'm sure we'll see some clever posting calling us all self-righteous, close-minded, prudish pricks. I'll save you the trouble.
That's just how I am.
You want to parse the meaning of morality and chastity, etc. I know you probably will refuse, but have you ever discussed your (to use your word) prediliction with your bishop? Not in a confessory circumstance--I'm not asking that. But I bounce ideas and subjects off my bishop all the time. Just as small talk, and not seeking advice. Let's expand this: Do other ward members know? Have you ever thought about inviting the neighbors over to discuss "nudism"? Or have you refrained for some reason? And if you've refrained, I would like to know why....
I know that, in the past, when I've expressly avoided talking to someone about something -- not just a bishop -- it's normally because I am embarassed or feel guilty about it. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe your entire neighborhood is in on your "nudism."
But maybe I'm right.
Also: you have consistently pointed to the fact that the scriptures do not address it. My answer to that lies in Mosiah 4:29-30. Also, how about Genesis 9:22-23?
Anyway, I am interested, now that Bryan has spoken up. What IS your definition of "modesty"? Enlighten us. We're obviously living in the dark ages here.
For the record: I, for one, have a picture of my wife on display showing her (gasp) knees, partly because I like knees and start to sweat whenever I see them. Also I do it to scandalize my senior partner. He's the son of a General Authority and all, so I am sure he ascribes to an even more-outdated definition of modesty than I do. Or maybe not. Maybe he swims naked on the weekends.
@James:
Re modesty, I don't think I could do better than Bryan did. Crayon Face and Anonymous were the ones who first started throwing that term around as if it had a universally agreed definition, so I asked Anonymous to say what that definition was. Still waiting.
I have no quarrel with Mosiah 4:29-30, but it's tautological in this discussion. Not compelling unless one already concedes that this "practice" is inherently sinful. Response: James 4:17. If you know to do something good and you don't do it, then to you that's a sin. Implication is that what's sinful for you may not be for someone else.
Re Genesis 9:22-23, I shrug my shoulders at a description of what appears to be a cultural practice of deference to parents. Nothing here tells me that nudity amongst family members is inherently wrong. Haven't you ever been in a gym shower with your dad or a brother or cousin? What's the difference between that and this verse in Genesis? I don't see any. The Bible describes some horrific scenes of rape and nailing people's heads to the ground with spikes too, but the mere mention doesn't sanctify or affix any moral imprimatur to the event.
As for your senior partner, who knows, he might surprise you. His dad's predecessors did it all the time, even on weekdays.
Bryan,
I don't mean to sound un-civil again, (for the record you have been much easier to discuss this with as opposed to Jay who is as antagonistic as he claims we are) but perhaps I need to re-explain myself. My comment to say that I don't see the NEED for it. And with regards to your statement:
"this is a long, long ways from your previous stance that anyone who does it is going to hell. (I think you were joking for shock value, right? I hope so!)"
Yes there was some shock value to that for sure. However, let there be no mistake. I still think this is a sin and that sin does lead down that path. I think we will probably always disagree on that point.
Also, I don't see it as AN answer to spiritual problems, I think it is an answer to getting people to feel more correctly about sexuality and their bodies. However I still don't see it as AN option that fixes the problem while staying in line with church doctrine. There are ways to approach the issues of sexuality without having to be naked in public. Sorry.
You are almost right with your last statement. NUDITY is not evil and vile. Your interpretation of temple covenants regarding the covering of our bodies outside of the marital relationship and in showering is inappropriate and against temple covenants as I see it and from what I have shown, is also against the words of the bretheren. I still don't see how you can hold modest clothing covering nakedness as part of modest definition and still hold that ultimate "not covering our bides" or more of a bad thing can still be in line with modesty.
There again I think this is just another issue that I hope you keep to yourself and those who believe as you do as I don't feel that there is a place in our churches or church meetings to teach such a tenant.
Jay,
I maintain that the freedom you mention was clearly discussed by Ezra Taft Benson because it deals with the gratification of the flesh in a way that is contrary to the covenants associated with the temple garments.
Garments are not comfortable. That doesn't mean I should take them off. That isn't one of the three S's that were mentioned earlier. This is all part of overcoming the natural man. So frankly I am not really interested in hearing the "freedom" argument as it has already been approached or in rebutting it as that has already been done.
@ Jay,
My definition of modesty is simple and allows for individuals to choose their level of commitment.
Modesty is doing all that can be done to maintain sacred things and practices as sacred. Whether those actions effect the mind and actions of the individual or in the influence of others so long as our actions do not infringe on the agency of others.
I realize that this does not contradict your practice in your mind because you don't feel that being naked takes away from anything sacred. However, you have said that you feel that modest dress, the covering of the body, is a good thing and that revealing clothing is against principles of modesty. So I am yet to hear how, if revealing clothing, "showing skin", is a bad thing, how revealing everything, more of a bad thing, can be rationalized as a good thing?
More beer doesn't making drinking okay. More lying doesn't make it being dishonest okay. More murder doesn't make murder okay. So how does more immodest behavior all of a sudden make it okay?
So, basically, if a scripture or teaching goes against what you want to do, it's either tautological or a non sequitur at which you can shrug your shoulders. Got it.Now that we know your method of debate, the issue become a bit more clear. All you are concerned with is an exercise in what a professor once called "self-apologetic exegesis and hermeneutics."
You should understand that what we have been seeing in your argumetn is: "I don't care what the scriptures or the brethren say. It feels good to me, so I'm going to keep doing it."
Yep. It feels good, so I'm gonna just keep doing it. Drinking gives me freedom and I feel good doing it. Masturbation gives me freedom and and I feel good doing it. Drugs give me freedom and I feel good doing them. I'm just gonna keep going. I don't care whether the Church or the brethren think otherwise, I know what's good for me.
Like James, I am not saying that NUDITY is inherently bad. Heaven forbid. You insinuate that we have a problem with nudity between family members. I, for one, don't, to a certain extent. No, otherwise I would have made my son wait, dripping from the font, while I changed and then fled the changing room. I have and do change at the gym. I believe that the rest of us would agree that there is nothing inherently wrong with these circumstances, but there is one difference: these are not co-ed situations. I do not change in front of my daughters, nor does my wife in front of my sons. I do not allow my daughters to change in front of me.
The difference with Noah's circumstance is this: one son decided to go mock his father by spreading around the news of his nakedness. His other two sons had sufficient respect to cover him AND although they could have looked, showed him the respect not to look. Just like I don't gape at others in the locker room and wish not to be gaped at. There's a question of respect there.
Contrary to what you may think, I don't find anything wrong with the GAs swimming naked at the gym. It is gender-specific and situational. There were no women present. I would expect to be firmly escorted out of a women's locker room if I tried to enter--it's gender specific. And while we're here, stop trying to make a big deal out of naked GAs, would you? I understand you believe there's some shock value there, but there isn't really. One wonders whether the Deseret Gym changed its code once it went co-ed? Hmm.... Some research may be necessary on that point.
OK, maybe not. I think I'm done with this argument. No-one is going to be convinced otherwise. Any further hashing or re-hashing is just going to cause more strife and contention. As I said before, I have better things to do; I've lost sight of that today and should re-focus.
Oh, and take a class on sarcasm, would you? Sometimes I hate to see things go over people's head. Especially when I aim at their foreheads.
@James:
You asked "if revealing clothing, "showing skin", is a bad thing, how revealing everything, more of a bad thing, can be rationalized as a good thing? How does more immodest behavior make it [immodesty] okay?" Your question assumes its conclusion ("bad thing" and "immodest"), which is a logical error. It also uses the straw man and reductio ad absurdum logical errors, by ascribing to me an argument I never made, and by trying to disprove something by following its logical implications to an absurd result.
The answer is that it's not a slippery slope at all. It's a function of intent and context. What would be thought modest in a Provo public pool would be scandalously "revealing" in Sacrament Meeting. What would be acceptable in a doctor's office may not be so good on a street corner. Clothing appropriate in the temple would not be proper in the grocery store. Track & field wear is not appropriate in the temple. The black tie & formal gowns at the Kennedy Center Honors would not be appropriate in Sacrament Meeting either, too ostentatious. That too is immodest. It works both ways. The clothing itself doesn't make the difference, it's the place, context and intent with which it's worn. Or not.
The guiding principle of modesty has to be "what is appropriate and respectful and not ostentatious in the circumstances." American Heritage Dictionary on modesty: "Reserve or propriety in speech, dress, or behavior. Lack of pretentiousness; simplicity." Websters: "that lowly temper which accompanies a moderate estimate of one's own worth and importance; absence of self-assertion, arrogance, and presumption; humility respecting one's own merit." These are independent of dress.
By those definitions, which is more modest, a woman sitting quietly and reading while unclothed on a beach in France where mixed gender nudity is accepted as normal and natural, or a woman swiveling up and down a beach in Florida with her breasts and other parts just barely covered by a hot pink thong bikini that practically screams to all passing men "Look at these parts of me!!!" One is certainly more clothed than the other, but who's really immodest? It's all a function of context and intent, you see.
@ Iguana Montana:
Bye.
Since when do LDS get their spiritual definitions from Websters dictionary, or their modesty and behavioral cues from society?
So what if a lady reads a book naked in France. You have neglected the argument from Elder Hales that what is good and right does not change between cultures.
For the record, I was quoting the argument from Bryan about modesty and modest dress. He stated, "I've yet to see a statement from the First Presidency on modest clothing with which I disagree :-) "
The brethren have defined modest dress in that manner, clothing that is revealing and other such standards that you can read about on your own.
So my response was actually well founded. How, if wearing revealing clothing is bad, how is being completely revealing, more of a bad thing, all of sudden jump into the category of being okay. I realize that there is different apparel for different circumstances but there still are standards regardless of where the world sits on the issue.
To this statement, "By those definitions, which is more modest, a woman sitting quietly and reading while unclothed on a beach in France where mixed gender nudity is accepted as normal and natural, or a woman swiveling up and down a beach in Florida with her breasts and other parts just barely covered by a hot pink thong bikini that practically screams to all passing men "Look at these parts of me!!!"
I have to say, both are immodest. It is not a one way or the other in this case. They have both passed the point of immodesty by the standards of the church. That is like saying someone who has had 10 beers is less of a violator of the word of wisdom than the person who drank 18. The answer is both have broken the law. Your example is exactly what we have been saying all along. Thank you for the ammo.
Perhaps the following summarizes how you have come to the conclusion with regard to public nudity (2 Nephi 28:8-12) "And there shall also be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God—he will justify in committing a little sin; yea, lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor; there is no harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God.
9 Yea, and there shall be many which shall teach after this manner, false and vain and foolish doctrines, and shall be puffed up in their hearts, and shall seek deep to hide their counsels from the Lord; and their works shall be in the dark.
10 And the blood of the saints shall cry from the ground against them.
11 Yea, they have all gone out of the away; they have become corrupted.
12 Because of pride, and because of false teachers, and false doctrine,"
You reluctance to bring this up with the proper authorities is an example of you keeping your councils deep from the Lord. I feel you have sought to justify a course of action rather than seek the will of the Lord on this matter. You have chosen what "feels good" over what is erring on the side of restraint.
I am out Jay. These are my final words on the subject. Bryan, I am sorry we disagree, you seem like a nice man. Best of luck with life.
@James:
More false assumptions about me. So ready to condemn. So eager to ignore the repeated commandments not to judge others, especially by appearances.
"It is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward." So step outside the cocoon sometime, guys. God expects us to figure some things out for ourselves, not rely on the Church and The Brethren for everything. And they've said there is room for differences of opinion on lots of things, including this one. I'm just glad my covenants are with someone who's a lot more tolerant and a lot less judgmental of those differences.
"I want the liberty of believing as I please, it feels so good not to be trammelled." Know who said that? Look it up. I agree with him. Guess you don't.
I'm outta here, smiling.
James, thanks for starting this thread, it's been interesting, and I'm glad you are willing to tackle these kinds of issues.
IGUANA: "I do not change in front of my daughters, nor does my wife in front of my sons. I do not allow my daughters to change in front of me."
Iguana, do you mind if I ask why? I don't wish to be argumentative or disagreeable. I'm just wondering what the reasons are behind your actions here.
Possible reasons: Your daughter seeing you naked, or your son seeing your wife naked would... Corrupt them? Cause them to have impure thoughts? Not be modest? Lead to improper behavior?
I'm not coming up with any reason that makes any sense to me, so I'm hoping you can help. For what it's worth, here's my $00.02:
Our bodies are a beautiful, sacred and sublime creation of God, and by themselves (absent of any impure actions) they are harmless. Your daughter seeing you naked or your wife seeing his mother naked could not possibly harm them or you in any way.
If you were to engage in sexual behavior around them, that's a different story all together, but so long as you are behaving in a way that is proper and respectful, then I simply an unable to grasp why it might be a problem.
IGUANA: "Although I must confess to blanching, and then smiling, when I read "chaste, modest nudity."
I agree that this combination of words can be startling for many. Our upbringing tells us that nudity is somehow inherently unchaste and immodest. I challenge you to challenge your traditions and try to see nudity in a new light. A La the great story of cutting the ends off a perfectly good roast (Google it if you are not familiar), I propose that the idea that we can't be nude and chaste and modest at the same time is the result of Victorian Puritan tradition mingled with Gospel, and had no basis in reality.
(continued...)
Consider a typical Sunday morning in our home as we get ready for church:
After the alarm goes off, Mom gets up and puts in a Mormon Tabernacle Choir CD (or some other such LDS music selection) and the music gets piped over the entire house. Together (and still in our pajamas) we go and gently wake up the kids (son 8, daughter 10) by kissing them on the cheek and gently nudging them awake. After a breakfast of cereal and instant oatmeal (if it's not Fast Sunday) the activity center moves to the sole bathroom on the main level. Someone, usually mom or dad, turns on the water in the clear, glass walled shower to get it warm, and then we each take turns getting in and out while the water runs constantly. At some point, dad (me) is shaving at the sink sans clothing, and mom is next to me doing hair or putting on makeup just out of the shower and also sans clothing. Daughter is in and out of the bathroom asking us if her selection of dress matches her selection of ear rings (etc) while wearing nothing or maybe underwear. Son is still in the shower and asking for a towel to dry his eyes after washing his hair. Dad is now in the bedroom (next to bathroom) with the door open getting dressed while mom, maybe still naked, is doing daughter's hair while son is standing at the sink naked drying off or brushing teeth.
As this is going on, gentle Sunday music is still playing, we are all chatting, joking, having fun, and generally enjoying our Sunday morning. Eventually we are all dressed and ready to go, and we say a family prayer before leaving the house and heading to church.
When our kids were still very, very young, my wife and I discussed the "when should we start closing doors" question, and we both agreed.... why should we ever? What is the harm in keeping them open? Why the need to hide from each other?
As our kids get older we notice very real, very tangible results. Most noticeable our kids are at a loss when other kids crack jokes and snicker about certain body parts. They just don't see what so funny or embarrassing. But it goes beyond that. When other kids, LDS kids included, are irreverent or just plain gross about body parts and functions, our kids don't get it, and more often then not end up just walking away from the conversation.
A while back a group of kids all roughly the same age as my kids (all prepubescent) were playing in our back yard. One of the boys from down the street challenged another boy who lives next door to pull his pants down and "show the girls". The challenge was accepted when my wife heard hysterical screams coming from the other kids (not our own). She looked outside just in time to see the neighbor boy histing up his knickers and undies and the girls from around the neighborhood screaming in mock horror (as any proper girl would) but at the same time locking their eyeballs on the kid's goods. There were three kids who seemed to be detached from the situation. Yep, you guessed it. Two were ours, and the third was a girl from a home on the next block over. My wife reported that my daughter simply walked away, that my son said, "This is stupid, why are you doing this." and the third girl just stood there looking confused and awkward, but was blatantly lacking the excited, gleeful hysteria being displayed by the other girls.
The mothers of the two boys, the one who issues the challenge and the one who accepted it, positively FREAKED OUT on their boys and apologized a thousand times to us, stating, "I just don't know what got in to them! Why would they do this?"
The four mothers involved launched into a long discussion about nudity in their respective homes, and it came to light that the third girl (who did not react) also comes from a very open-door home as well. This mother and my wife tried to convince the other two that this open door policy was healthy, and not freaky and bizarre, but they would have none of it.
Ironic.
(continued...)
I recall a conversation that occurred between my wife's little sister (fourteen years old.. good LDS family of 11 kids) and my daughter (ten years old) after my sister in law learned that we keep doors open at home.
SISTER IN LAW: "Andria (not her real name), is is true that you see your dads... um... (giggle) wee-wee (giggle) every day?"
DAUGHTER: (looks confused)
SISTER IN LAW: Do you?
DAUGHTER: (matter of factly) Do you mean his penis?
SISTER IN LAW: (giggle and turns red) Yeah, do you real see... it?
DAUGHTER: (blank expressionless stare)
SISTER IN LAW: 'Cause I saw my dad's once and it was TERRIBLE! I don't EVER want to see it again!!
DAUGHTER: (looks confused and walks away)
I would propose that my daughter's attitude towards the human body (which, remember God created) is the more healthy of the two.
And that is why we choose to keep doors open and to not hide from our kids.
Cheers,
Bryan!
Well, I must say I've had a lot of fun wading through the jousting between James, Jay, and their respective surrogates.
I should probably point something out. I'm guessing just about all of you would disagree with my stance on this subject. I'm neither a Mormon nudist, nor a nudity apologist. I have a lot in common with the LDS naturist movement, but James brought up an interesting point I'd like to address:
QUOTE: By those definitions, which is more modest, a woman sitting quietly and reading while unclothed on a beach in France where mixed gender nudity is accepted as normal and natural, or a woman swiveling up and down a beach in Florida with her breasts and other parts just barely covered by a hot pink thong bikini that practically screams to all passing men "Look at these parts of me!!!" One is certainly more clothed than the other, but who's really immodest?
I go agree that it comes down to intent, but I think the degree of clothing matters also, even if we're talking millimeters. I don't consider the hottie in the pink thong flaunting her assets to be modest. Neither do I consider the totally nude woman reading quietly to be modest either. But put the nude woman in a pink thong and have her quietly reading on the beach and I think that's fine. Where I disagree with the LDS naturists is that, while acting modestly is certainly important (and probably more important than anything else under consideration), any amount of clothing, no matter how skimpy or skintight or revealing, is still more modest than actually revealing the babymakers.
I also wholeheartedly endorse what Bryan said about modesty and men showing up to church in $5000 suits driving $100,000 sports cars. Sadly, I think too many in the church limit modesty to just hemlines, while I believe there is so much more to it than that. I see way too many LDS young women at the swimming pool acting loud, boisterous, and frankly quite haughty and yet they think they're modest because they all have one-piece suits on. To me, modesty is all about blending in quietly and not calling too much attention to one's self. Sure, I'd be lambasted (and rightly so) if I showed up at a ward pool party wearing a speedo, which is why I wear my gym shorts over them in that case. I don't see wearing a speedo as being problematic at all on either the French or Mexican rivieras, where just about everyone is wearing them.
Yes, I realize my views are unorthodox. But if I'm going to hell, it'll be for much more than wearing a speedo on a public beach.
Thank you Steve for your comments. I feel that your points are well said.
I am still waiting to see James' and Iguana Montana's responses to Bryan's latest posts.
Jay,
Both Iguana Montana and myself both stated in our last posts that we were not going to drag out the convesation any further. Both sides have made their final points and perhaps it is time for others, like Steve, to share their thoughts.
If you are waiting for a "gosh I didn't see it that way, you guys were right all along!" it just isn't going to happen, at least not from me. So, to say it again, I am out. Other people are welcome to comment back should they choose. What has been said has been read. That is all that need to be done in response to Bryan's words.
@James:
LOL. Your response is exactly what I expected.
Post a Comment