Last night on the local CBS news affiliate in Salt Lake City, a story about our most favorite subject here at the Spirit of The Law Blog (should comment count be any indicator of favoritism); Mormon Nudists, or Naturists.
Since the local affiliate does not have an embed feature on their video player I will simply share the link to the page with the story here.
A few interesting points were brought out in the story that were either unintentional, or just simply a revealing part of the practice itself. In the story was "featured" a man who claimed to be a high priest and in the bishopric of a ward. His interview was with the usual blacked out silhouette and the voice was altered to protect identity. The irony is that the reporter quotes this individual as one who will challenge anyone who questions his lifestyle. Right, that is why he is hiding and living a secret double life. Does that sound like a challenge? Or does that sound like running away?
The piece also showed, full face, two gentlemen that have left the faith as a result of the conflict between the church and nudism. When push came to shove, these men preferred being naked to their faith. One might argue that these are men that are just following what they believe. I don't deny that, but what is it that they believe? From my perspective these men have demonstrated the true hypocrisy of their position.
It is the claim that being naked does not have to be sexual. They also claim that they can be closer to god by being naked. While I believe neither of these claims to be truth, I simply ask, where is the commandment to do such a thing? Did god ever say, thou shalt be naked? Was not Jesus Christ the way the truth and the life to be brought unto the Father, not nudity? I find their position to be inherently selfish as the act gratifies their own base desires. While Christ "went about doing good" these individuals chose to pollute the fountains of living water by engaging in a practice that to their own admission "did not feel right."
I say to each his own as far as the things of this world. But when it comes to the Church, to our membership, and the sanctity of our temple bodies, there is simply no excuse for such behavior.
James,
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry if I'm coming across as disagreeable, but what about Joseph Smith? He hid his plural marriages and even lied about it. Yet, I believe Joseph Smith to be a prophet of God. Was he wrong about hiding plural marriages and lying about it? If that's the case, why is this guy wrong about hiding his face, this active member? Joseph hid his marriages, which, yes, I do believe were sanctioned by God, to avoid persecution. It's terrible to be persecuted by the outside world, but even more so by members in the Church. I'm sure this guy is just hiding his face to avoid persecution from members in the Church. Either way, both he and Joseph Smith hid. Who knows? Maybe the Spirit told him to be discreet. I can't say for certain, as I am not in his shoes.
As for the Lord commanding someone to go nude, just read Isaiah Chapter 20, verses 2 through 3. Granted, it was a sign of slavery, but Isaiah still walked naked and barefoot. Christ washed his disciples feet, probably nude. He removed his garments, then girded himself with a towel, then washed the feet with the towel. I forget which verse that is, but I'll look it up.
You're right, I do believe the bod is a temple and that it's spiritual. However, there are two tools that I feel Satan uses. He uses sexual immorality, which includes pornography, dress that accentuates sexuality, and sexual sins. But he also uses body shame. There are people who are afraid to go get a physical from a doctor for fear of exposing the body, believe it or not. I do not believe that a naked body in and of itself is sinful or lustful, rather it is divine. Going skinny-dipping I have never had lustful feelings, if you can believe that. I feel a sense of peace and oneness, and sometimes even less judgement that I get at a ward meeting house. So, why do I go to Church if I feel more judgement at Church than at skinny dips? Simply put, I believe in the Gospel. It's perfect, but the people, especially me, are not perfect. In the end, from much prayer, including in the temple, I don't see any conflict from either wearing my temple garment most of the time, and then being naked in nature sometimes.
Thank you for making an actual argument. I don't agree with your conclusions or the interpretation of some of your references, but this is a much more refreshing response.
ReplyDeleteYour Isaiah reference is interesting on a few levels. First of all, God commanded it and he obeyed. Just like Joseph Smith, just like Nephi with Laban, when God commands, it doesn't make it wrong. Also, if you check your cross references (which I think you have) Isaiah was not completely naked. So that is a non-point.
The reference with Christ was John 13:3-5. Two things to point out here. First, just because he put aside a garment doesn't mean he was completely naked. "Garment" could have been translated to being a robe, a scarf, a coat, something that might have been cumbersome to the task at hand. But it doesn't say he was naked. Even if he did get naked, he covered himself with the towel before doing what he was doing. I guarantee that is not the most efficient way to clean feet - with "the towel wherewith he was girded." That means that he was still covered, not naked, when he washed their feet.
I agree, sexual immorality is a tool of the adversary. Body shame is not something that is good either. However, I disagree with the "solution" being that we should be naked all over the place. I am not ashamed of my body, as imperfect as it is, because it is a temple of the Holy Ghost. I didn't come to that conclusion because of nudity. As is the historical case with those in the above video, the choice to be naked in public is not making them feel more comfortable at all. Those that practiced nudity are the ones that hid in shame.
Thank you again for your comments (in this post).
James.
ReplyDeleteI would imagine the Savior took off the towel to wash the feet. I think it would be hard to wear a towel and wash if it was wrapped around. As for the footnote in Isaiah, yes I know about it. But the footnote doesn't feel right when I read it. The Lord actually asked Isaiah to remove the covering around his loins. The loins are the genitels. That said, I am still content that I can be a member and a nudist. In fact, I'm wearing my temple garments as I type this right now. Job said "Naked I was born, naked I will return." When seeing the angel Moroni Joseph Smith talked about how how he could tell that his robe was open, and that he could tell he was wearing nothing underneath his robe. How does Joseph Smith know that the angel Moroni wasn't wearing shorts. My guess is that it was a very light robe, that was fairly see-through-able. I just don't think Heavenly Father is bent out of shape by seeing a naked body. There is even some possible evidence that nudity in Biblical times was not a major issue like it is now.
However, this brings up another interesting topic. You mentioned that when God commands something, it isn't wrong. Does this make God a moral relativist? Or is He a moral universalist?
Thank you for your kind words. I loved reading your response.
I don't believe there is any value in trying to fit God into a man made, or man defined box, especially when it comes to morals. Morals are based on God's law. Since God is the law giver we can safely assume that he is the author of morals and not subject to the mutually exclusive classifications you have presented.
ReplyDeleteI want to know why you WANT Jesus and Isaiah to be nude? Even though the scripture says that he used the towel that was girdled about his loins you chose to not accept in favor of wanting Jesus to be naked. You say that there is a mis conception about sexuality and human nature, but it seems like you are more obsessed with nudity than those who don't practice naturism.
So, God just makes up morals? If man is to be like God, as prophets have talked about, such as Lorenzo Snow when he said, "As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become," wouldn't man have to follow a certain set of standards? I guess you could say that those are God's standards. But it sounds like God had to follow a certain set of standards before he could become God. Obviously, it appears to me, there is some moral truth, that is put into place, and that God, and the other plethora of gods, have to follow. It sounds to me like God is God because he follows the truth. If not he would just be a spoiled self-indulgent tyrant creating rules and laws at his whim. It's like giving a kid keys to a car or a blowtorch and power tools, or anything else dangerous, without any comprehension how to use it. How can man be like God and given immense power when he is too immature to use it? Therefore I don't believe God creates the laws, but merely implements them.
ReplyDeleteAs for me being obsessed with nudism, I believe in it yes. I guess others could say you obsess about the Church. I also believe in the Church. As for being obsessed with nudity, I'm clothed right now as I'm typing this. I guess I could ask you the question why are you so obsessed with clothing? I wear clothes when it's convienent and am naked when it's convienent. But most of the time I'm clothed because of covenants I have made.