This blog is going to have its 3rd birthday next month, October 7th, and since its inception one subject that I have intentionally avoided is the topic of body modesty. From what I’ve read on other Mormon blogs, I’ve always come to the conclusion that Mormons are, essentially, prudes. How, then, could I speak of my understanding of body modesty without offending the sensibilities of my audience? Hence the silence.
Recently, though, I was searching for information on the Maitreya and I came across a different Maitreya whose organization was seeking to change the laws of the land to put the sexes on a more equal standing. I found the legal arguments fascinating and began to write a blog post on just that topic alone. But then I stopped again, realizing that I was mentioning body modesty without going into any depth, as I probably should. It would inevitably come up in the comment section, but without a proper treatment in the post.
So, as is usual for me, after giving it sufficient re-consideration, I made a split-second decision and with a verbal, “oh, what the hell,” I’m now diving head first into this topic.
What I teach my children
I knew that eventually, as my children attended church, they would be taught by their Sunday school teachers and advisers that body modesty is a part of the law of chastity, so I have been especially careful that they are instructed on that law so as to be able to discern truth from error. (I have covered the law of chastity previously on this blog, so I won’t go back into that topic, but I’ll just say here and now that it doesn’t mention how one is supposed to dress.) They understand that body modesty is a man-made societal norm that changes over time to suit the conditions among men, their customs, cultures, climate, biases, preconceived notions and so on and so forth. It has no basis in the gospel of Jesus Christ.
The Wikipedia has an excellent entry on modesty and I don’t want to extensively quote from it, so please click here to read it and learn about how the standards of body modesty have varied and changed over time.
From here on out I will just use the term “modesty” with the understanding that I am referring only to “body modesty,” meaning that modesty which deals with the covering up of the body with clothing. Okay, back to what my kids are taught.
Heavenly Father’s rule of modesty
I teach my children to hold up the pattern of modesty given by their Father in heaven as the ideal standard. Usually, when my kids ask me a question, I’ll answer them with another question and have them figure out the answer themselves. In this case, I’ll do the same to explain the heavenly pattern:
Question: How does heavenly Father clothe us when He sends us here to Earth?
Answer: He sends us here naked, or clothed in flesh.
Question: Is any part of our physical bodies clothed or covered when we get here?
Answer: Yes, the male penis is covered by a foreskin and the female clitoris is covered by a hood.
Question: As the body matures into adulthood, does anything become covered?
Answer: Yes, the genitals and armpits of both sexes becomes covered in hair. The face of males also becomes covered in hair.
This is the standard of modesty I give my children. As long as you still have your pubic hair and clitoral hood and penile foreskin coverings, there is no need for shame, for you are dressed modestly.
Everything above and beyond that standard is man-made.
Moroni the naked angel
Said Joseph of the angel Moroni:
He had on a loose robe of most exquisite whiteness. It was a whiteness beyond anything earthly I had ever seen; nor do I believe that any earthly thing could be made to appear so exceedingly white and brilliant. His hands were naked, and his arms also, a little above the wrist; so, also, were his feet naked, as were his legs, a little above the ankles. His head and neck were also bare. I could discover that he had no other clothing on but this robe, as it was open, so that I could see into his bosom. (Joseph Smith-History 1: 31)
So, Joseph could see that Moroni was totally naked, except for the open robe he was wearing. Why in the world would God allow Moroni to show Joseph his nakedness? Didn’t he know that robes need to be tied closed, so that no one can see the chest and genital area? Why wasn’t Moroni ashamed to show his nakedness to Joseph?
Isaiah, the naked prophet
In the year that Tartan came unto Ashdod, (when Sargon the king of Assyria sent him,) and fought against Ashdod, and took it; at the same time spake the Lord by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, Go and loose the sackcloth from off thy loins, and put off thy shoe from thy foot. And he did so, walking naked and barefoot. And the Lord said, Like as my servant Isaiah hath walked naked and barefoot three years for a sign and wonder upon Egypt and upon Ethiopia; 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: 1-4)
Shouldn’t Isaiah have felt ashamed to show his nakedness for three straight years?
Our first parents naked
Adam and Even “were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.”
“And I, the Lord God, said unto Adam: Who told thee thou wast naked?” (Moses 4: 17)
Let’s answer the question. Who told them that they were naked? Who taught them to be ashamed of their nakedness? Who originated body modesty?
LUCIFER: See–you are naked. Take some fig leaves and make you aprons. Father will see your nakedness. Quick! Hide! (Source: The Garden.)
Satan did.
Why Satan told our first parents to clothe themselves
I think Bette Davis said it best:
“I often think that a slightly exposed shoulder emerging from a long satin nightgown packed more sex than two naked bodies in bed.”
She is right, of course. And Satan knew this from the beginning. It is his intention to have everyone break the law of chastity. If everyone were naked, the law of chastity would be broken less, not more. He needed to first cover our parents up and create the illusion of shame, so that the enticement of sin could allure people into uncovering “the sinful parts,” followed by the guilt of acting shameful.
Satan works by using secrets. Occult knowledge is secret knowledge. Secret combinations can only work in the dark. Devilish logic follows that genital parts must become “secret parts.” Thus, we have the (apparently) strange command of the devil to our first parents to abide by the principle of modesty!
Notice, though, that now the devil has made even the breast a “secret part.” Adam and Eve originally covered up only their genitals with fig leaves. Now, society will have us believe the exposure of the female (not male) breast is immodest.
The Lord looks upon the heart
But the Lord said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart. (1 Samuel 16: 7)
Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. (Hebrews 4: 13)
Such truth, though, is not very useful to the devil. So, clothing is used to entice, to create the illusion of sexiness, to flaunt power and prestige and money, to say I am better than you, more beautiful than you. It is used to create situations of judgment, so that mankind judges each other based upon what they are, or are not, wearing. It is used to despise the poor who cannot afford the better garments, or any garments, at all. Etc.
The Lord, though, uses clothing for other, righteous purposes. Clothing can protect from the elements, hence we find the Lord making coats of skins for Adam and Eve so that when they enter the fallen world they can survive. It can convey spiritual symbolism, hence the priesthood garment. And there are other righteous purposes, as well, that do not necessarily equate to “hiding one’s nakedness”, which was Satan’s deceptive intention for clothing. (Remember, the angel Moroni wore a robe that did not hide his nakedness from Joseph. What, then, was the purpose of the robe?)
Not all Mormons are prudes
For example:
These are LDS who are “interested in chaste, wholesome, recreational nudity.” They have no problem with privately or publicly going completely nude. They are, however, most likely a very small minority.
The rest of the LDS are prudes, pure and simple, who quibble over the length of a sleeve or pant leg or skirt. Who are shocked when there is an exposed shoulder. Who cannot even conceive of a painting of a bare chest, stripling warrior whose nipple hasn’t been airbrushed out.
The audience of all modesty talks
The target of virtually all modesty talks is the female population. She is told how and how not to dress. She is taught this by her mother, by her Sunday school teachers and advisers, and by her priesthood leadership. All of this repression, if ever let out, leads to rampant breaking of the law of chastity (Satan’s plan). And if it isn’t let out, it leads to depression (again, Satan’s plan, the misery of all).
Guys, for the most part, hardly get a mention in modesty talks. I don’t recall ever being told I had to cover up my chest or nipples, or had to wear shorts below a certain length, or keep my shoulders and back covered, etc. Modesty oppression is mainly a girl thing.
Of course, the males get oppressed in other ways, such as the insistence on wearing white shirts, flaxen cords about their necks (ties), being clean-shaven and having short hair.
Legal public nudity is coming soon to a city near you
Now this brings me to that web site I spoke of above, about equalizing the sexes. If you click the below link, be forewarned that you will see pictures of top free men and women.
Here are some quotes from the web site:
Welcome to GoTopless.org! – We are a US organization, claiming that women have the same constitutional right to be bare chested in public places as men.
Maitreya, Rael, spiritual leader and founder of GoTopless.org states: “As long as men can be topless, constitutionally women should have the same right, or men should also be forced to wear something hiding their chest.”
Why a National GoTopless Protest day? Gotopless.org claims constitutional equality between men and women on being topless in public. Currently, women who dare to be topless in public in the US are repeatedly being arrested, fined, humiliated, criminalized. On SUNDAY AUGUST 22nd, 2010, topless women will rally in great numbers across the USA to protest this gross inequality in the law and will demand that their fundamental right to be topless be acknowledged where men already enjoy that right according to the 14th amendment of the Constitution (please see our exact legal argument on the right to be topfree for women under “14th amendment” in news section.)
Why in August? On August 26, 1920, following a 72-year struggle, the U.S. Constitution was amended to grant women the right to vote. And in 1970, as an ongoing reminder of women’s equality, Congress declared August 26 “Women’s Equality Day.” But even in the 21st century, women need to stand up and demand that equality in fact – not just in words. Note that in 2010, GoTopless will have a large rally nationwide in honor of the 90th anniversary of the 19th Amendment and Women’s Equality Day.
Why having GoTopless actions in cities where top-less freedom for women is already legal? Those programmed with puritanical values find it difficult to change. This “mentality hurdle” applies to both women and men.
How are we helping women? GoTopless is committed to helping women perceive their breasts as noble, natural parts of their anatomy (whether they are nursing or not). Breasts shouldn’t have to be “modestly” or shamefully hidden from public view any more than arms, legs or feet.
How are we helping men? GoTopless is also committed to helping men differentiate between nudity and sexuality. If the presence of a topless woman in public triggers a sexual impulse, it can easily be controlled in the same way men control themselves when they see a woman wearing a mini skirt or revealing ample cleavage. Men manage to appreciate these things while still showing respect! Choosing consciousness above hormones leads to a peaceful, respectful society providing additional freedom and beauty.
Why do you talk about femininity rather than feminism? In the past, women often had to act like men when fighting for their rights, so they repressed their femininity. Today, GoTopless women see their femininity as a powerful asset as they struggle for equal rights in a masculine-dominated world.
What happens on National GoTopless day? Across America, topless women and men peacefully rally in the streets, parks, on the beaches of their towns and cities. Topfree performances are given by various artists to honor women’s right to be top free, body painting is be available. Chalk street artists also paint Art works from Old Masters (or new ones) without any nipple censure. The aim is to convey that the sight of a top free women in public is as natural as the sight of top free men. Please write to us if you are an artist (performance or visual) who would like to participate in one of future events.
Participating cities for Go Topless Day 2010 are : Please see our news section to learn the details about the events in each city.
NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK
VENICE BEACH, CALIFORNIA
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
AUSTIN, TEXAS
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
OAHU, HAWAII
DENVER, COLORADO
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
14th Amendment to the US Constitution The 14th amendment guarantees equal protection under law and properly interpreted it guarantees women the right to be top-free where men are allowed to be topfree. Unfortunately, some jurisdictions do not recognize that right, and there is a less stringent test in the courts (called intermediate scrutiny) for gender based differential treatment than for e.g., racial classifications (which are analyzed under what’s called strict scrutiny).
Our rights under the 14th Amendment guarantee and include the one to be top free where men are allowed to – We seek to see legislation (or court decisions where arrests are made for being top free) in all jurisdictions to make explicit what should already be understood as implicit within the meaning of equal rights.
Please see the above web site for information about the states and cities where being top free (or even totally nude, such as Portland, Oregon) in public is legal.
What will the LDS ever do?
In the changing legal environment, I wonder what the LDS will do if suddenly they find themselves living in a city where anyone can legally walk around stark naked or bare-chested. Our arguments about skirt length seem kind of silly faced with legal public nudity, as in the right to be nude. Will we be champions of people’s rights, or shame them all as sinners?
And what I really wonder is this: if this changing legal environment is setting the stage for the appearance of naked prophets and angels, are we going to be among those who reject them because of their immodest appearance?
Eyelids, necks and feet to the rescue
Don’t like what you see? Don’t like how that person is dressed? Don’t like it that a woman is going around topfree? Don’t like that that man or woman is walking around in the nude? Well, have no fear. God gave us eyelids with which to close our eyes, and necks with which to turn our head, and feet with which to walk away. This is the proper response.
Don’t make laws to force people to conform to your standards. Don’t make laws to remove people’s rights. Don’t do the devil’s work for him.
Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist
106 Comments
LDS Anarchy 
I would like to ask anyone who reads this post the following questions:
Do adult men and women have a fundamental, inalienable right to wear what they want to wear?
Do adult men and women have a fundamental, inalienable right to not wear clothing?
I’m just curious how LDS would answer these questions from the perspective of individual rights.
I have been having an ongoing debate over the last few weeks on this exact topic, me being the only one with views similar to you express. It was a little ironic when I opened my email tonight and right next to the email informing me of this post was an email from one of the people in this ongoing debate with a link to this talk along with a note telling me to pay close attention to the parts on modesty. During the debate, and somewhat in jest, I have said that when the young woman is pretty, the church preaches modesty, when she is homely, they tell her the Lord looks upon the heart.
I was raised in one of the prudish of prude homes. My mother was very modest. My dad only wore shorts when he went swimming and never went without a shirt, never. I cannot remember ever seeing my dad without a shirt on. The one time in my teenage years when I walked around one evening without a shirt brought a swift rebuke and a directive to never let it happen again. My wife converted to the gospel in her late 20’s, the home she grew up in was quite a bit different. Since marrying her, I have shed many of the chains of my upbringing and now, quite frankly, I don’t care.
To answer your questions, I don’t care what one wears (or doesn’t wear). I don’t see it as an “individual right” because I don’t think politics needs to be involved.
I clicked on the LDSSDF link and surprised myself by agreeing with their comments regarding nudity. I may bring that site into the next discussion I have in that ongoing debate I was mentioning…
Here is another topfree web site:
Topfree Equal Rights Association (TERA)
From their web site:
Also see their Misunderstandings about Women and Bare Breasts FAQ
You know, this is something that a lot of LDS could be tempted to totally disregard. And they would dismiss it as either silly and funny if they have a “liberal” self image or they would ignore it out of self defense of their “pious” self image and judgmental attitude.
I think it is a very deep and pertinent issue to all mankind. I find it interesting that as “out of the blue” as this topic seems to be, given the focus on prophecy that has dominated the spirit to spirit exchange here as of late, In addition to LDSA, PallasAthena and I am sure others have been in someway led to contemplate related issues.
I want to just articulate the synchronicity I have personally observed, in hopes that it will help others to benefit on a deeper spiritual level as I have from such a refreshingly God-like treatment of the topic of modesty, free of the philosophies of men and their satan inspired roots.
This has everything to do with waking up. Let me explain. Many of us in our struggle to wake up from the illusions of the devil and look to Christ have had to come to terms with the fact that we have been guilty of idol worship, trusting in the arm of flesh and straight up abdication of agency (acceptance of Lucifer’s plan) in regards to our relationship with “The Brethren”. Sadly but gladly the first time I ever heard the “concept” that “THE Prophet” could be just voicing personal opinions in many matters and was not meant to be followed blindly was in a mission prep class. I unfortunately was not ready to understand that truth and took many years after my mission to come to Christ fully in that regard. But the seed of truth was planted. Another out of the ordinary thing I heard from the teacher of that class was sewn into a story the teacher shared about traveling to some remote area with certain GAs and being greeted by smiling, topless converts (male and female). For some reason I found my soul in complete and instant agreement with the teacher’s natural and appropriate take on the situation. I even saw his point about the silly and somewhat prideful reaction of those certain GAs present. Why was it that this point was so instantly apparent to my logic and clear in my heart whereas the false tradition of “The prophet is infallible” was much more of a challenge to let go?
Respect for our bodies and the bodies of others hits as “close to home” as it can get. Since our literal connection to our true home is our spirit and our bodies “clothe” our spirit so to speak. (I am beginning to wonder if it isn’t the other way around due to some of the science/gospel related insights about ether brought up on this very blog) But the point is that this is a very REAL thing. Even to one who is asleep or in the process of waking up as we all are. Our bodies are either the barrier or the gate, depending on how we choose to view them. And how do you expect a son or daughter of God to view his body when his body is literally hidden from view?
I know that many of my brothers and sisters out there and especially within this group have done some serious thinking about the fig leaf aprons we don in the endowment ceremony. This post on modesty helped me to really hear God’s voice to me in regards to those questions I had about that. I hope that others will obtain that for themselves and not let the wonderful truths LDSA shares here by-pass our minds and hearts. Here is discovered the introduction of Lucifer’s ultimate weapon, FEAR. We find that our bodies are the first tool and target of this satanic tactic. I appreciate the focus on preserving the innocence of our children through correct principles. Wow! Do we see how much sense it makes when we adopt the proper, Godly view of our bodies?
One last tie-in. I feel I can safely say that we who are honestly striving to awake and behold God’s face through the literal establishment of His ZION have seen /are seeing the harmful effects of correlation on the “Body” of saints. I have recently been shown the “correlation” between Church Correlation and the GACD’s attacks on Plural Marriage. Once again the devil got us to view the outward, bodily manifestation of ourselves as bad and something to hide (Mormon Underground). The abandonment of correct principles (True Tithing, True Consecration, TRUE Plural Marriage) this will always lead to apostasy, blindness.
We have most of us been seized or at least moved upon by a spirit of action lately. There may be some confusion still as far as how to proceed or what specific actions to carry out. But we know and have thankfully reinforced our faith and testimony in prayer, gifts of the spirit, and priesthood power through our discussions online. So really we will know what to do and when to do it. As I recently saw DyC4557 state on Tom’s uplifting blog: “Let us teach these truths, call upon God to unlearn the false traditions riveted upon our minds and begin to live the Gospel of Christ with heart and body as one. Flee ye from Babylon. If you have left Babylon with your heart you might seriously consider how to flee it with your BODY.” Or as my beautiful wife so eloquently put it to me one night not too long ago: “Priesthood is the language of the heart and mind together. It is pronounced intellectually and physically through word and action.” Another of our brothers in this spiritual war, Alex Jones (I believe LDSA has links to his infowars site) interestingly enough he met his wife or at least took note of her during her topless participation in a political protest. Whether you feel inclined to “get naked” and “get involved” in one of these rallies LDSA stumbled upon is not the point. The point is we must train our bodies as well as our minds to reclaim them as territory for The Kingdom in this war. We need to at some point enlist our bodies as the well constructed temples they are in projecting God’s purposes from our hearts and minds into the earthly plane to build ZION.
Like (want to get the updates)
If God meant for us to go around nude, we would have been born that way!
Do adult men and women have a fundamental, inalienable right to wear what they want to wear?
Yes — I believe the phrase is that if it doesn’t pick my pocket or inflict bodily damage, then you should have free-reign. The topless thing is a big deal for my family because my wife is a breast-feeding advocate and the anti-topless women prudeness leaks over into breast-feeding and it’s why many women are uncomfortable with it. This is another one of Satan’s little victories with his doctrine of body modesty.
Do adult men and women have a fundamental, inalienable right to not wear clothing?
I like your lesson on what is covered up on our bodies naturally. However, you mention foreskin as a covering — what if that was cut off of a person as a baby?
I’m just curious how LDS would answer these questions from the perspective of individual rights.
I think you will have a highly skewed sample of “LDS” just based on the comments from this site.
Interesting topic.
Story: I served my mission in France a number of years ago. France is fairly well known for its topless beaches, but slightly less well known for their advertising schemes (on billboards, bus/metro stops, etc). I saw as many naked women on those billboards and bus advertising posters than naked women on beaches, and I saw a fair amount of each. By the end of my mission it really was just “another” advertisement. There was no allure to it, even though I had/have been conditioned to think that there is an allure (necessary male response system) or must be an allure to such things.
Video (yes, some may describe it as having **graphic** content, especially among your average LDS audience, viewer be forewarned): I saw one of those videos a few weeks back, about the Venice Beach rally. The women were very well spoken and I agreed with what they were saying. In this same video there was a Christian man (preacher?) and other Christian people decrying the display and saying how those women were going to rot in hell for it.
This video (from RussiaTimes – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOkm6dTeBkY) shows the same guy, though I couldn’t find the same video (was originally linked through yahoo.com). Skip forward to 0:40 in the video and watch until about 1:00 or so. That’s the fellow. While holding up a sign that read, “Repent of Your Wicked Heart of Unbelief”, he told one of the topless protesters: “May God bless you with breast cancer. I pray that You bless this woman with breast cancer.”
Justin, circumcision of male infants is unfortunate. Obviously, if the gift of faith to heal was active in the church, this condition could be fully undone, bringing a man back to intact status. I, personally, don’t know of anyone with this gift. There are other options, though, such as foreskin restoration. Foreskin restoration was done from the time of the ancient Olympics to the Jewish men who wished to participate. Greeks had to be naked for the games, but their glans also had to be covered by a foreskin, so Jews would pull what skin they had over their glans and tie it there. The pull upon the cells caused new cells to grow through what is called “tissue expansion,” eventually creating enough new skin to fully cover the glans. This is not the same as an intact penis, with all the missing nerves, etc., but it does end up covering the organ and restoring glans sensitivity. Do an Ixquick search for “Olympics, foreskin” for more information.
For immediate covering of the glans, you could also just use the SenSlip.
My wife’s cousin served his mission in South Africa. There were places in the mission field they were forbidden from going because the indigenous tribes went topless. So I guess we are charged with taking the gospel to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people — unless their women aren’t “civilized” enough to get some shirts on.
LDSA,
I would consider it a great blessing to have the gift of healing manifested to such an extent — but I too have never known anyone with that gift. The Spiritual Healing Center at the EOZ Think Tank has been quite empty unfortunately.
I was reading this article this morning and I noticed this in the section on Mark Twain:
Modesty antedates clothes and will be resumed when clothes are no more.
Modesty died when clothes were born.
Modesty died when false modesty was born.
That about sums it up.
I find it interesting that only men have commented on this post.
I, the Lord God, will send one mighty and strong, holding the scepter of power in his hand, clothed with light for a covering
I suppose this scripture relates to what you were saying with:
This changing legal environment is setting the stage for the appearance of naked prophets and angels, are we going to be among those who reject them because of their immodest appearance
Great post. My wife and I recently discussed this as well. I especially like the part where you said:
Of course, the males get oppressed in other ways, such as the insistence on wearing white shirts, flaxen cords about their necks (ties), being clean-shaven and having short hair.
As a non tie wearing long haired member I can agree with you completely.
TuNeCedeMalis
I linked over to the LDSSDF.org and enjoyed the eye opening experience (pun intended).
I especially found this thread interesting:
http://www.ldssdf.org/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=674&whichpage=1
As an endowed male member that has recently taken to sleeping “topless” (but not naked, not yet) I have to say that I understand the arguments on the thread. Sleeping without the top on is so much easier when it comes to getting a good nights sleep. I am curious what percentage of members choose to do this.
Check out this comment made by a female visitor to this blog named Kelly on March 30, 2010. That would make a strong case to always sleep naked.
Concerning the garment, my understanding is that we are to wear the garment whenever we are covering our nakedness, for that is its purpose, not that we are commanded to always cover our nakedness. So, whenever we are not covering our nakedness, there is no need to wear the garment.
I was thinking about the garment after my wife and I read this post. I thought of two things:
I was told that you should always cover the garment with your other clothes and that the garment had to be kept pure white. I do not remember any of those two things being in the instructions I received when I was authorized to wear it.
In fact, when thinking back to my temple ordinance — I was not told to keep my garment covered or even on at all times. In fact, Adam and Eve walk around in their coats of skin throughout the ceremony.
Also, in regards to keeping the garment white — at most, I was told that inasmuch as I do not defile the garment, it will be a shield and protection. I think it shows how outwardly concerned the Church has become when we assume “defile” means you got a stain on them.
I’ve suddenly become less concerned about my neighbors seeing me in my garments while taking out the trash or moving the spinkler in the backyard. In fact, I doubt they have even noticed — I think most people could care less about what underwear we wear.
The huge concern for me about the modern church and modesty is simply that members are told (over pulpit, in the strength for youth) that the way one dresses sends a message to others. This is basically telling, even encouraging members to judge each other based on what he/she wears. Wow. Permission to judge. And we all know that judging is a sin whereas modesty isn’t. Even Christ himself said, “Judge not lest ye be judged.”
Hey! Thanks for the mention and for the link.
Bryan
– Creator of The LDS Skinny Dipper’s Forum
– Active Mormon with a Current Temple Recommend
Do adult men and women have a fundamental, inalienable right to wear what they want to wear? Yes.
Do adult men and women have a fundamental, inalienable right to not wear clothing? Yes.
Now here is the third question that makes the above two moot. Do adult men and women have the right to own and therefore control property? Yes.
An anarcho-libertarian society where property rights are secure would solve the dilemma of those who want nudity and those who are opposed to viewing it. “Closing your eyes and walking away” is not the only course of action one can take. With that logic you could say that sexual acts in public are OK, just close your eyes if you don’t like it and walk away.
So, how would an anarcho-libertarian society have a public morality without it being coercively enforced by a central government? Through the proliferation of voluntary communities owning private property, each with their own type of covenant restricting or prohibiting what they see as harmful behaviors.
If a particular covenant is disagreeable to you, then you don’t have to live there or visit there. This currently is what occurs with individual homes. If your neighbor is a jerk, then you don’t have to visit there or spend the night. Likewise, you can forbid him from entering your residence.
In time we would see covenants that are drug-free (both religious and secular), pot-smoker communities, Renaissance re-enactment communities, Mormon-only communities headed by a prophet where the Word of Wisdom is enforced and gambling/prostitution/pornography are forbidden, and communities where nudity is freely allowed or strictly forbidden or somewhere in-between.
Every individual would have a choice of many different communities which reflected their personal morals. Each lifestyle community would compete for members. Folks would judge the tree by the fruit, and I suspect that communities embracing harmful behaviors would putrefy and fizzle out. Even if they didn’t, their pathology would remain contained, which is the next best thing.
I just had a conversation with my daughter about the garment. She said that the garment doesn’t cover one’s nakedness, because it’s virtually see-through. You can pretty much see everything anyway. (Depending on the type of cloth used, this can be true.) I told her it does cover one’s nakedness, for it is a physical cloth placed over the body, but it doesn’t necessarily hide one’s nakedness (for the see-through variety). She replied, “So, I guess heavenly Father really doesn’t care about modesty!” We both laughed at that.
Here’s a blog I just now stumbled upon:
LDS Skinny-Dipper Connection
Families Forever, Naked and Not Ashamed
Thanks for your Comments. It is refreshing to see some clear minds talking sense. The gospel of Jesus Christ is True. I just feel bad about all the rhetoric and false doctrines that have crept into the “Church”. We are becoming much more like the Isrealites that were only able to function when driven by all the rules enforced by the law of moses.
Cheers
Ddoger (an avowed LDS Nudist)
I am curious, ddoger and Brian Saturdays, in your opinions, would the practice of skinny dipping among single adult members improve the single adult program? By that I mean do you believe that if LDS single adults were to throw skinny dipping parties for other LDS single adults (and they actually attended), would it speed up the process of single adults finding marriage partners? Or would there be a general spiritual self-destruction among them? Do you believe that in single adult wards and branches, including the young single adult congregations, that such skinny dipping parties would be spoken against by their leadership? I am really curious what the effect a flyer circulated among LDS young single adults or single adults about an upcoming LDS singles skinny dipping party would have on everyone involved, including the individual who is circulating it.
LDS Anarchist,
>>would the practice of skinny dipping among single adult members improve the single adult program?<<
Well, it's a pointless question, of course, because it will never happen. But it's still an interesting question. I think the answer would depend on the mind frame of the participants. Social nudity might not be for everyone, but I think it *can* be for most people, if they are willing to let go of deeply ingrained social conditioning. The sad thing is…. most people can't.
There is so much I could say on this topic… where to begin? Let's try this…
Almost from birth, we are trained to believe that nudity and sex are almost inseparable. By the time we hit puberty, we are already fully trained to think "SEX" every time we see someone with little or no clothing on.
You can blame the media for this, and rightfully so, because they will only show you excess skin when the skin's owner is beautiful and sexy. They know is sells.
But, I also blame the church as well. When I say "the church" I don't mean the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I mean the prevailing mentality of church culture which all too readily creeps into teachings, manuals, magazines, etc. And it's not just ours. Most others are just as mixed up on this topic.
It all boils down to what you have already said in this blog: We in have perverted the word "Modesty" to something unrecognizable, and the result is that we can not think about the nude human body without also thinking about sex. The sad result is that way, way too many church members view the naked human form as living, breathing pornography. They honestly believe that seeing a real, naked human in any setting is no different than visiting a porn web site.
I want to say that again:
They honestly believe that seeing a real, naked human, in any setting, is no different than visiting a porn web site.
Here's the problem with that way of thinking: 1) I hope we all agree that pure porn is evil. 2) God created the human body. 3) God does not create evil.
Getting back to your question…
Arriving at the point where one can break that bond between nudity and sex is an almost impossible feat for too many people. If you try to help them arrive there, they will write you off as an immoral deviant. They want to cling to the comforting notion that all good boys and girls stay fully clothed, that the only time one should be naked is when taking a shower or having sex with your spouse, and if people are naked in mixed company that sex is either about to happen, is happening, or has just happened.
The very idea that it IS possible to be nude in mixed company and not have sexual currents driving behavior is not something most people can fathom. But… IF you can get yourself to that point, then I think the answer to your question is: Yes, I think the practice of skinny dipping among single adult members would improve the single adult program.
What could be learned:
– In truth, nobody really looks like the media version of "beautiful"
– Despite that, we are all still remarkably beautiful people
– A person's worth is not based on the shape of their body
– It IS possible to be in the company of other people, be naked, and not have sex on the mind
That last point is by far the most important. Why? I think it's because we (especially men) have been programmed to believe that we have no choice but to think about sex when we see someone naked. We think it's a base, biological response that we just can't stop. See a naked woman = think about sex. Not my fault! This is why it would be so wrong, in most people's minds, to visit some place like a nude resort. All those naked people would send your sex drive into overkill, and you would have no choice but to commit adultery in your mind. Better to just stay way.
As soon as you begin to grasp the idea that nudity does not *have* to be sexual, it's a profoundly liberating paradigm shift! All of sudden we begin to grasp that we are in control. We are not mere animals who are programmed to mate whenever a nude woman is in our vicinity. We are, in fact, so much more mature, so much more in control! As we begin to allow ourselves to consider this possibility, the whole notion of modesty, nudity, the human body, temple garments, our own divine and eternal nature… it all begins to come into focus.
Ok, I've rambled enough. Curious to hear your reply.
I found this article very thought-provoking and I like the distinction made between being naked, hiding one’s nakedness and covering one’s nakedness.
I do have a couple of thoughts or concerns that I hope to receive more clarity. The point that Satan introduced modesty or shame of one’s nakedness by making clothing of fig leaves for our first parents has me somewhat perplexed. If making clothing was inherently Satanic (covering/hiding one’s nakedness), why then did HF make clothing for them when they left the Garden of Eden. I think an important point is missing from the traditional “Adam and Eve” story; and that is that the reason why Satan was punished wasn’t because he introduced anything “evil” but instead, he did things without authority (permission) and tried to one-up HF. For example, Adam and Eve had progressed as far as the were going to progress in the Garden of Eden. HF knew this and He and Jesus were heading there to give Adam further instructions. You may recall Adam’s reponse to Lucifer that he was waiting for instructions from the Father. So, HF and Jesus were on their way to send Adam and Eve out of the GoE, make them clothing so they could withstand the elements and onto the Earth to populate it. Enter Lucifer and his tempting of both Adam and Eve and the subsequent knowledge that they were naked. Satan did this out-of-order and without permission from HF. Lucifer even told HF that he had done that which has been done on other worlds. So, presumably, Lucifer with his knowledge, was keenly aware of the purpose and meaning of HF and Jesus’ visit to Adam, and being who he is, he wanted the glory for himself
So, the evidence seems to support that wearing clothing or being modest is NOT a Satanic principle, since HF, Jesus and angels all wear robes. If clothing were Satanic, why do they wear robes to cover and/or hide their nakedness? The angel Moroni was not naked, as the article seems to state. His robe may have been loose, ala 1970’s disco style shirts (think John Travolta), but no where did Joseph Smith say that he saw Moroni’s genitalia. He said he saw his bosum (from Merriam Webster online: “the human chest and especially the front part of the chest”) and he WAS wearing a robe, certainly not the definition of being naked. Now, not wearing underwear is something completely different, but even that doesn’t constitute being naked, or not covering/hiding one’s nakedness.
I agree that we LDS and Mormons are quite prudish with regard to the Puritanical and Victorian cultural beliefs. I don’t necessarily share those beliefs, but I am trying to reconcile the thesis of this article with the facts and evidence that seem to be contrary to it.
I appreciate any feedback further expounding on this as I enjoy feasting on this spiritual food for thought!
Daitoryu,
I think your question is answered in the post:
“The Lord, though, uses clothing for other, righteous purposes. Clothing can protect from the elements, hence we find the Lord making coats of skins for Adam and Eve so that when they enter the fallen world they can survive. It can convey spiritual symbolism, hence the priesthood garment. And there are other righteous purposes, as well, that do not necessarily equate to “hiding one’s nakedness”, which was Satan’s deceptive intention for clothing. (Remember, the angel Moroni wore a robe that did not hide his nakedness from Joseph. What, then, was the purpose of the robe?)”
The clothing provided by the Lord is not intended to cover nakedness — though it may do that.
Daitoryu,
I think Justin has a good point. I agree with you, too, that clothing is not satanic. But… being ashamed of one’s nakedness might be.
If we look closely at that whole exchange, we see:
1) It was Satan who instilled shame at being naked and told them to put on fig leaves to cover their nakedness
2) When HF and Jesus came down, they found Adam and Eve hiding, and asked them why. Their response was “Because we were naked.” The thing is, their nakedness never bothered anyone before?
3) After HF and Jesus learned they ate of the fruit, he kicked them out of the garden, but not until first making them coats of skin. We are never told why, but there is no indication that it is because being without clothing is somehow immodest or a sin. The (safe?) conclusion is that it was to protect them from the elements.
What we can learn:
1) Shame or fear of nakedness is not something instilled in us by God. That comes from Satan.
2) The purpose of clothing is not to prevent us from immoral thoughts or actions, or to keep us modest. It’s to protect us from the harsh elements of this mortal, cruel world.
I think Bryan’s comments about the YSA groups within the church pretty much hit it spot on. Most of the people within those groups would be unable to handle it currently.
For Daitoryu, something you might want to investigate is the scriptural references the Topical Guide will give you for modesty. Some of the references given have nothing to do with being clothed at all. At least for me, my visit to the Topical Guide references indicated that their primary intent(at least in terms of the TG) when discussing modesty, is the goal of being humble in BOTH behavior and dress, There are mentions of being chaste as well, but that goes back to being humble.
If you are dressing in an unchaste manner(by being sexually provocative in your dress), you are not being humble in your dress, as you are trying to draw attention to yourself.
Which for our society, as it is, social nudity in most contexts is not acceptable as
1) The act of doing so in many venues would draw undue attention to the person(s) involved.
2) The act of doing so would likely cause very “unchaste reactions” in either the people directly involved in the nudity, or the people witnessing it.
However, if you could find a context where the undue attention, and “unchaste reaction” are minimal issues at best. I would see no reason to view social nudity to be wrong.
Also, to address your comment of “The angel Moroni was not naked, as the article seems to state. His robe may have been loose, ala 1970′s disco style shirts (think John Travolta), but no where did Joseph Smith say that he saw Moroni’s genitalia. He said he saw his bosum (from Merriam Webster online: ‘the human chest and especially the front part of the chest’) and he WAS wearing a robe, certainly not the definition of being naked.”
Something to bear in mind is that the prophets do have to keep in mind what WE are “ready for” revelation on. There are many mentions within Church Doctrines of “higher” and “lower” laws with God’s commandments. Depending on how ready the people were within a given dispensation, they were given laws according to their abilities, or need, to adhere to. It is widely presumed by many within the Church that there are many laws we are adhering to today that are actually in the “lower law” subset because we are not able to handle what the higher law would entail.
Joseph Smith outright proclaiming that he saw Moroni’s genitalia would have created a field day for opponents of the church to further pull his work apart. And would cause many other people to simply shut out the message of the church because “Oh, by the way, Angelic visitors may expose their ‘naughty bits’ to you.” On a tangential note: I find it interesting that in the Official Account of the First Vision, there is no description of what the Father and Son were wearing. o.O
—————
I also think Bryan likely hit on another thing in his discussion of a “paradigm shift” in his Sept 29 post. It’s the “natural man” that is the enemy to god, as per the scriptures. As I’ve always understood that passage, that would be the man who has never learned to operate beyond their base desires. I’d be inclined to say a person who can deal with people in their “natural state” and not react to it like the “natural man” would be inclined to is much further ahead of the game than everyone else, as they are more in control of their body than their body is in control of them.
There are many mentions within Church Doctrines of “higher” and “lower” laws
Good thing such distinctions don’t exist with God.
Good catch, though like others appearing for this topic specifically, courtesy of cross-linking, I’m not a heavy reader of this site specifically. So I went with the vocabulary most LDS Members would pick up on.
Either way, the general meaning of what I said remains largely unchanged. Some laws are not practical for (most) people to live under given circumstances of the time. (Hence modern revelation) In some cases, a less sharply defined guidance may cause more people to fall astray/have issues than would otherwise occur. (Word of Wisdom being “adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints” for example)
I actually think the Word of Wisdom is perhaps one of the more informative ones in nature because of how explicit it is in that above quoted statement. The command is given because for weakest among us, they need it. Not because partaking in what is proscribed is necessarily a sin. Though the person who thinks they don’t need to be wary of ignoring those cautions is the person who probably has the most cause to be wary.
Either way, it still goes back to there are things that have shown to numerous Prophets, ancient and modern, that they have been instructed not to share with anyone else. We are aware that has been revealed so far is incomplete, and we have a lot more to go. Whether it is because the revelation would hinder works currently underway, or cause many people to fall astray due to the inability of people to apply the proper principles.
The end result is still the same, there are laws/principles that we know are being withheld from us currently, though chances are pretty good that oblique references to those principles have already been made and are simply waiting for the right “ciphers” of sorts to be unveiled to make it apparent to all willing to look. (even if the “cipher” is as simple as simply reading things by setting aside preconceptions and not allowing the mind to “fill in the blanks” for us)
Justin,
Thank you for your thoughtful response.
Do you equate “hiding one’s nakedness” as the same thing as “covering one’s nakedness?
Bryan,
Thank you for your thoughtful response.
Regarding point 1. I agree that Satan instilled shame in being naked. I don’t believe that being naked itsefl is shameful at all. How often do we let infants and little children “run around the house naked? (of course, your mileage may vary, as I know not every household does this. But I believe we’ve all seen family baby pictures of naked/unclothed babies.)
Regarding point 2. Good point. But Adam and Eve’s nakedness may not have bothered anyone before because they were viewed as infants. But after partaking of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they no longer were considered infants. Just as we clothe our little childern, HF clothed Adam and Eve.
Regarding point 3. Agreed.
I agree with your concluding point 1.
I am not convinced, yet, on your concluding point 2. Do you have any scriptures or teachings of the prophets to support your assertion that “The purpose of clothing is not to prevent us from immoral thoughts or actions, or to keep us modest. It’s to protect us from the harsh elements of this mortal, cruel world.”?
I’m not yet convinced that modesty is Satanic in nature.
Anon YSA,
Thank you for your thoughtful response.
I don’t think wearing clothing is done solely to “be modest”. I believe that clothing has other purposes as well. I suppose the point to my posting is if wearing clothing is “solely” to hide one’s nakedness due to shame, to be modest or because it has some spiritual significance, then why does HF, Jesus and all the Angels wear robes? If Satan introduced something wicked (wearing clothing to hide one’s nakedness) why, then, would HF et al wear any clothing? Also, it’s said (paraphrasing) that things on Earth are as they are in Heaven, and things in Heaven are as they are on Earth. So, I believe that HF, Jesus and all the Angels are always robed as evidenced in their visitations to us. I don’t believe that they only wear robes in order to make marketing the gospel (Joseph Smith’s visitations from Moroni, HF, Jesus, Peter, James John et al) easier, as was suggested (Joseph Smith outright proclaiming that he saw Moroni’s genitalia would have created a field day for opponents of the church to further pull his work apart. And would cause many other people to simply shut out the message of the church because “Oh, by the way, Angelic visitors may expose their ‘naughty bits’ to you.” On a tangential note: I find it interesting that in the Official Account of the First Vision, there is no description of what the Father and Son were wearing.”
My mental impasse is that HF et al would not be mimmicking something that was fundamentally wicked. Satan, on the other, would try to mimmick something righteous and then try to pervert it. My belief is HF et al all wear robes or other clothing; that they are clothed and do not run around naked in Heaven; and that covering one’s nakedness with clothes is not the same as hiding one’s nakedness.
I welcome further enlightenment and clarification from this group.
Do you equate “hiding one’s nakedness” as the same thing as “covering one’s nakedness?
That nakedness is covered does not imply that it is being hidden. I do not see Father providing leather coats as an attempt to show Adam and Eve how to properly cover-up their nakedness. However, Satan’s aprons were for that purpose. He told them that the “secret parts” are shameful and ought to be covered or hidden.
I’m not yet convinced that modesty is Satanic in nature.
Modesty, in the non-Satanic sense, is not about covering up nakedness. What is Satanic is “body modesty” — the original post makes this distinction at the beginning.
Hi Daitoryu,
“why then did HF make clothing for them when they left the Garden of Eden.”
He states his reasons… “inasmuch as Adam and Eve have discovered their nakedness, make coats of skins as a covering for them.” This means that because we discover our nakedness and when we do we receive coats of skins which are represented by the garment and are for the express purpose of COVERING our nakedness not HIDING it. At the same time we receive this coat of skin we are given a new name. When we are born we get a coat of skin to cover our naked spirit body along with a name. Spirit is matter but more refined than the flesh. The coat of skin that we put on (during gestation) as we enter this fallen world is tougher and less refined than our naked spirit bodies. It represents and helps us in our fallen state. But it mirrors our spirit body so it only covers and does not hide our nakedness.
When The Father and The Son leave them in the garden they say “we shall visit you again and give you further instructions.” – not further instructions and supplies. They do not return bearing coats of skins for Adam and Eve to try on. Elohim commands that they be made in the moment as consequence of their actions.
Why should we assume that Lucifer (the father of all lies) is telling the truth when he says he has “been doing that which has been done on other worlds.” Or why do we assume that those other worlds refer to worlds of light and truth? Why do we forget that his actions result in deception and pull us all down into a “lone and dreary world”.
It is pure truth what Anon YSA has shared with us. Joseph points out that the robe Moroni wears for his visit is so white and bright that no“earthly thing could be made to appear so exceedingly white and brilliant.” So he is clothed in a robe of light. Light being highly refined material. Furthermore how could Joseph “discover that he had no other clothing on” If this heavenly robe were inspired by “Saturday night fever” fashion, then how could Joseph verify that he wore nothing under it? Of course he isn’t going to mention anything more than the words “open” and “breast” in considering his target audience. Why do we automatically lump hiding nakedness (A Luciferian concept) in with the covering of nakedness ( A tradition of the Gods)?
D&C 85: 7 “I, the Lord God, will send one mighty and strong, holding the scepter of power in his hand, clothed with light for a covering”
ONE LOVE Brothers and Sisters
“I’m not yet convinced that modesty is Satanic in nature.”
If I gave the impression that I think modesty is satanic, then I misspoke. That was not at all my intent. Modesty is a good thing. It’s a very good thing.
However, one of the first common reactions by Mormons to the idea of social nudity is, “Oh no! That’s not modest!” Most can’t conceive that it’s possible to be naked in mixed company and modest at the same time, because in their minds, the very definition of modesty is not showing too much skin. Therefore, showing ALL your skin would be the height of immodesty.
“…why, then, would HF et al wear any clothing?”
Again, I don’t think anyone meant to imply that wearing clothing is a bad thing. Just because Satan first introduced the idea of body shame, it does not logically follow that wearing clothing is evil. It also does not logically follow that being naked, in a place where nudity is allowed by law and expected by the people around you, is a bad thing.
“modesty” itself is not Satanic in nature, because there is scripture calling for people to be modest. Heck, 1 Timothy 2:9 calls for:
“In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;”
Though the thing noteworthy there is that while he is calling for women to dress modesty, what he is NOT talking about is body exposure. But rather the extravagance of their experience. He’s instructing them to be humble in their appearance rather than haughty. A point that is made again in D&C 42:40 (which is also a reference from the Topical Guide on Modesty)
“And again, thou shalt not be proud in thy heart; let all thy garments be plain, and their beauty the beauty of the work of thine own hands;”
…the “modesty” message in the scriptures is once again: Don’t be haughty in your dress, keep it plain, keep it simple, remain humble. Where Jacob 2:13 can be cited(again TG for Modesty):
“And the hand of providence hath smiled upon you most pleasingly, that you have obtained many riches; and because some of you have obtained more abundantly than that of your brethren ye are lifted up in the pride of your hearts, and wear stiff necks and high heads because of the costliness of your apparel, and persecute your brethren because ye suppose that ye are better than they.”
They aren’t getting chastised for running around in the nude, they’re getting chastised for being extravagant in their dress, manners, and persecuting those who don’t dress in a comparable way.
1 Peter 3:3 (again from the TG) gets potentially interesting, the Online Version of the Institute Manuals I can find steers clear of the first 14 verses however, so no clarification from there. He is speaking to the wives/women at this point:
“Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;”
Where once against, the instruction is against plaiting(braiding) the hair, and wearing expensive(gold) ornamentation–so it is back to telling people to be humble in their attire. I’m not sure where exactly he was going with “or of putting on of apparel.” Beyond the obvious one some people here may want to jump on top of, but I suspect he might have been discussing something else.
Phillipians 4:5 is perhaps the most “strange” entry in the TG listing under modesty, as it is the one I commented on not being relevant to clothing/attire at all:
“Let your moderation be known unto all men. The Lord is at hand.”
Though going for larger context on that chapter, I think Phillipians 4:8 might be a good include as well, even if it isn’t referenced by the TG:
“Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. ”
For completeness, though I’m not going to quote them here, there also is Genesis 3:7(Moses 4:13) which is Adam and Eve making their Fig aprons. As well as Genesis 3:21(Moses 4:27) where God makes the coats of skins and clothed them. As these two events ARE part of the TG entry on modesty, it is not hard to construe that the brethren at the time of the TG being compiled felt that some degree of covering up was relevant to modesty, or they wouldn’t be mentioned there.. But the TG isn’t doctrine itself it’s a “study help” to guide you towards it.
Which leaves only one more TG entry directly under modesty. Another entry where clothes aren’t mentioned at all, although chastity is… Titus 2:5 (I’m including verse 4 for context):
“4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,
5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.”
…where the instruction is on discretion, chastity, obedience, and blasphemy. No proscriptions on (un)dress in this case.
——————————
So working from the TG, it is rather clear that generally speaking, wearing clothes is something they encourage to some degree. The kind of clothes wearing they do consider it to be a “bad thing” is when people cease being humble/chaste in their attire.
I appreciate all the responses and well thought out points to my questions. Although I can see the LDSA’s point-of-view, I still respectfully disagree with it’s thesis; that we are sent to this earth naked (without external covering of any kind) constituting the model of and for modesty. As I’ve mentioned before, of all the recorded visitations from HF, Jesus and angels, they are always covered with a robe, whether it be a robe of plasma, light, mist or some other material, they are always covered. To my way of thinking, if this is not the model of modesty, then why would they be clothed this way? Jesus wore clothing during his Earthly ministry.
Regarding the Isaiah scripture about being naked and barefoot, I’m left wondering if the word “naked” means something else then ‘without clothing.’ For example, if you’re naked, by default you would NOT be wearing any shoes. Being naked could mean being without supplies, money or equipment. We use this term to describe situations, such as police or military, where someone goes in without weapons or proper gear (“The police officer was naked without his pistol”). I don’t have the Hebrew word that was translated into the English word “naked”, but hopefully someone within this forum can locate it and determine its proper meaning and translation/usage.
The issue that perplexes me the most is that the example that is set by HF, Jesus and all the angels, is that they are clothed. No where have I read that they walk around naked in Heaven or have visited us in the buff. The Moroni visitation states that he was wearing a robe, albiet a very brightly lit robe, but a robe never-the-less. We would need further clarification from J.S. as to what he meant when he said that he could tell that he was naked.
In any event, the overwhelming evidence that we have from the scriptures and the teachings/writings of the prophets is that HF, Jesus and all angels are clothed, not in the buff. I do agree that being ashamed of one’s nakedness is Luciferian in nature, but I don’t equate that to being modest. I have not read anything that convinces me that HF, Jesus or the angels are naked and that we should be naked here on earth. When Noah was drunk and naked, his sons grabbed his garments to cover his nakedness. I don’t believe it was done out of shame, but to keep him modest. Also, why are we clothed in a garment in the Temple, if HF doesn’t want us to emmulate that type of modesty?
I actually spent some time checking scriptural accounts of Angelic appearances to see what descriptive information was given(I’m sure I missed many). The only descriptions I found of their clothing–if it was mentioned at all–was of either “white robes” or robes that are “exceedingly bright” with the account of Moroni’s visit in JSH 1:31 being the most descriptive of all the accounts I could find.
Also, the Old Testament was the most vague as to angelic appearances where they’d mention an angel visiting but few/no details otherwise for the majority of those visitations, while the New Testament was the most likely to mention white/”exceedingly bright” robes of some kind.
There is mention of Christ returning during the Second Coming in Red/Scarlet Colored Robes that are either soaked or splattered in the blood of the slain. But aside from heavenly visitors who are in disguise, that seems to be the only time the scriptures deviate from the (brilliantly bright) white robes… And given that Joseph Smith’s account in JSH 1:31 is the most complete account as to how they’re worn, it’s a reasonable conclusion that the earlier such visitations likely conformed to a similar standard.
There also is some grounds to question the nature of the robes Moroni was wearing. It may be perceived as clothing. But that robe may actually be a manifestation of something else, as the function of those garments may very well be for a purpose other than “being modest.”
For example:
Psalms 132:9 “Let thy priests be clothed with righteousness; and let thy saints shout for joy.”
Suggesting that righteousness itself entails a form of “clothing” or protection rather than the clothing itself entailing righteousness. And it isn’t just in Psalms that we find that:
Isaiah 59:17 “For he put on righteousness as a breastplate, and an helmet of salvation upon his head; and he put on the garments of vengeance for clothing, and was clad with zeal as a cloke.”
2 Nephi 1:23 “Awake, my sons; put on the armor of righteousness. Shake off the chains with which ye are bound, and come forth out of obscurity, and arise from the dust.”
2 Nephi 4:33 “O Lord, wilt thou encircle me around in the robe of thy righteousness!”
2 Nephi 30:11 “And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins.”
D & C 27:15-18 “15 Wherefore, lift up your hearts and rejoice, and gird up your loins, and take upon you my whole armor, that ye may be able to withstand the evil day, having done all, that ye may be able to stand.
16 Stand, therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, having on the breastplate of righteousness, and your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace, which I have sent mine angels to commit unto you;
17 Taking the shield of faith wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked;
18 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of my Spirit, which I will pour out upon you, and my word which I reveal unto you, and be agreed as touching all things whatsoever ye ask of me, and be faithful until I come, and ye shall be caught up, that where I am ye shall be also. Amen.”
And for one entry in the D&C in particular that really stands out on its own in regards to discussing clothing:
D&C 85:7 “And it shall come to pass that I, the Lord God, will send one mighty and strong, holding the scepter of power in his hand, clothed with light for a covering, whose mouth shall utter words, eternal words; while his bowels shall be a fountain of truth, to set in order the house of God, and to arrange by lot the inheritances of the saints whose names are found, and the names of their fathers, and of their children, enrolled in the book of the law of God”
-posted separately in case LDSA deems moderation is warranted due to a brief citation/quotation of (presumably) copyrighted material.
Isaiah 20 is interesting, particularly in light of what the LDS Institute Program has in reference to it in their Old Testament Study Guide, where they cite (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 7:1:372) to address it. Keil and Delitzsch try really hard to go “that’s not what it really means” but their effort falls flat on a couple fronts. The text reads as follows in regards to 20:2 specifically:
“With the great importance attached to the clothing in the East, where the peoples feelings upon this point are peculiarly sensitive and modest, a person was looked upon as stripped and naked if he had only taken off his upper garment. What Isaiah was instructed to do, therefore, was simply opposed to common custom, and not to moral decency. He was to lay aside the dress of a mourner and preacher of repentance, and to have nothing on but a tunic(cetoneth); and in this, as well as barefooted, he was to show himself in public.”
–Ok, first, if he is still in a tunic, would he not have an upper garment still being worn?
–Second item is the REST of chapter 20, where I’m not sure replacing “naked” with “in a tunic” comes up with a more “morally decent” reading for the authors.
“2 At the same time spake the Lord by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, Go and loose the sackcloth from off thy loins, and put off thy shoe from thy foot. And he did so, walking naked(in a tunic) and barefoot.
3 And the Lord said, Like as my servant Isaiah hath walked naked(in a tunic) and barefoot three years for a sign and wonder upon Egypt and upon Ethiopia;
4 So shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians prisoners, and the Ethiopians captives, young and old, naked(in a tunic) and barefoot, even with their buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt.”
I particularly enjoy the revised reading of verse 4 in the light of their attempt to make Isaiah “not naked.” The end result is instead you get Isaiah running around for 3 years barefoot and sporting a tunic that leaves his buttocks uncovered….
Which then goes back to their first point. If he isn’t wearing an upper garment, and his buttocks are exposed, what exactly is he covering? And considering how he’d have to be wearing that garment to accomplish that, wouldn’t that make it not qualify as a tunic?
Daitoryu,
In response to your previous post in general (not quoting anything you said specifically)…
It’s my personal belief that HF and Jesus and the angels don’t give much thought to clothing. I have no idea what they wear when mortal eyes can’t see them, nor do I really care to spend much time wondering or researching. You are correct that they seem to be wearing at least something when they come to visit man in mortality. However, simply because they wear clothing at least some of the time (when they visit us), it does not logically follow that being nude, in places where nudity is legal and expected, is always a bad thing.
If I could consolidate all that’s been said into three points, it would be this:
1) Modesty = Humility in All Things. NOT Modesty = Not Showing Too Much Skin. Lately I fear the church has wrongly bent the meaning of “Modesty” to have sexual undertones. I don’t like this. I think the unintended consequence is that it has made us, and our youth especially, afraid of our own bodies. I wish that modesty could go back to what it seems to be scripturally: Living your life in all ways so that you don’t draw undue attention to yourself.
2) Nudity does not have to equal sex. I do not like that we have become trained to assume sex whenever we see skin. The media pushes this agenda, and the church supports it by contorting modesty to it’s current perceived definition. I wish we would all understand that we are above the base, mammal, “natural man” reaction of thinking sex every time we see human body parts that are usually kept hidden.
3) Nudity and Modesty and not opposites, and can co-exist outside of married couples in the bedroom. I’ve been to nude resorts and I’ve spent time in the buff at places like Diamond Fork Hot Springs with others (both male and female) who were also naked. Neither was even remotely a sexual experience, and everyone was perfectly modest, chaste, well behaved, polite, and even Christian.
To quote the OP”
[My kids] understand that body modesty is a man-made societal norm that changes over time to suit the conditions among men, their customs, cultures, climate, biases, preconceived notions and so on and so forth. It has no basis in the gospel of Jesus Christ.
I guess I’ll throw in my 2 cents.
Daitoryu, my understanding is that one of the reasons that the gods wear clothing is to express their individuality. Heavenly Father and His Brothers all look alike, physically. Their clothing patterns, though, are unique to each individual god. This principle embraces the one (individual and unique clothing pattern) and the all (they all physically look the same).
I would imagine that the same applies to the goddesses.
I have reason to believe that all the angels of God also look the same, but I never noticed whether their clothing patterns were distinct.
My understanding is that none of this clothing is to hide nakedness because God (and any other exalted person) sees all things. Nothing is hid from His sight. So, heavenly clothing serves other purposes.
From this site — thought it might be applicable:
In 1967, psychologist Paul Bindrim introduced the world to naked psychotherapy. Despite the treatment’s somewhat lurid connotations and relative obscurity nowadays, nude psychotherapy did garner its share of press attention, professional consideration, and happy, naked adherents.
Bindrim’s theories were inspired by the famed psychologist Abraham Maslow (you know, the fellow with the hierarchy of needs) and focused on the acceptance of the naked body as a whole.
Nude therapy was based on the idea of the naked body as a metaphor of the “psychological soul.” Uninhibited exhibition of the nude body revealed that which was most fundamental, truthful, and real. In the marathon, Bindrim interrogated this metaphor with a singular determination. Bodies were exposed and scrutinized with a science-like rigor. Particular attention was paid to revealing the most private areas of the body and mind — all with a view to freeing the self from its socially imposed constraints.
“This,” Bindrim asserted gesturing to a participant’s genitalia and anus, “is where it’s at. This is where we are so damned negatively conditioned” […]
Determined to squelch the “exaggerated sense of guilt” in the body, Bindrim devised an exercise called “crotch eyeballing” in which participants were instructed to look at each others genitals and disclose the sexual experiences they felt most guilty about while lying naked in a circle with their legs in the air […] In this position, Bindrim insisted “you soon realize that the head end and the tail end are indispensable parts of the same person, and that one end is about as good as the other.:”
I guess I’m still trying to understand the point of this topic.
LDSA, is it your intention to suggest that HF, Jesus and all other Heavenly beings are nude, without clothing in Heaven?
Or is it your intention to suggest that Lucifer introduced the feelings of shame and guilt about ones nude body?
If it is the former, then I would disagree. If it’s the latter, then I would agree.
Also, absent underwear does not constitute being nude or naked (Moroni’s visit to Joseph Smith).
I find no evidence in any of the scriptures or writings of the prophets that it is approved and permissible by HF and Jesus for us to be nude in public. There are many, many examples to the contrary (Noah when he was drunk and naked, was covered with his garments by his sons; Adam and Eve were made clothing by HF when leaving the Garden of Eden; we are clothed in a garment when do the endowment; all angelic visitors have been clothed in some kind of robe; and on and on.)
The links in your article about the debate on public nudity, women being allowed to go topless and the LDS skinny dippers are diffcult for me to reconcile with the fact that Heavenly beings are clothed. I am not sure for what purpose or why they are clothed, but they are clothed. It may be a modesty issue or it may be a spiritual/righteous issue. We have no evidence to the contrary. And since we are to emulate our HF, then we must also be clothed here on earth – just like all the examples sited above show.
I agee that we should not be ashamed of our naked bodies, so I guess the larger question for me is why is our HF, Jesus and all angels clothed in Heaven? Is it a modesty issue or spiritual/religious. Bottom line for me is that we are not permitted to run around here on earth naked, without clothing, in public.
Do you have evidence that Gods and angels, associating with each other in the celestial kingdom, wear clothing?
Perhaps they use attire for the purpose of ministering to humans, but then remove the clothing upon return to their own community.
I have not ever recieved a vision of the association of angels and Gods — so I do not know what they choose to wear there.
-LDSA, is it your intention to suggest that HF, Jesus and all other Heavenly beings are nude, without clothing in Heaven?-
Lol. “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness”…”So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him.” In other words, He made man with flesh, clothed in a white robe….And Adam awoke and saw God and saw that God looked just like he did, wearing an identical white robe. Yea, he saw that he (Adam) was created in the image of God. As God wore a white robe, covering His nakedness, so Adam wore a white robe, covering his nakedness. The two were like each other, or after each other’s likeness. The image was the same. Lol…
All kidding aside, do you really believe that God created Adam naked and stood there fully clothed before Adam while he gazed upon Him? How could Adam testify that he was created in the likeness and image of God unless Adam saw the naked body of God? If the account of Adam is true, then God was naked before Adam, and also Jesus, otherwise there is no eye-witness testimony. Enoch said, “Behold, our father Adam taught these things,” so we know he testified of them.
The principle is this: “And behold, all things have their likeness, and all things are created and made to bear record of me, both things which are temporal, and things which are spiritual; things which are in the heavens above, and things which are on the earth, and things which are in the earth, and things which are under the earth, both above and beneath: all things bear record of me.”
Just as there is a time and place to be clothed, there is a time and a place to be nude. The gods and angels do not wear clothing all the time and they do not go around nude all of the time, either. When they do wear a covering upon their naked bodies, it does not serve to hide their nakedness from each other, for it is impossible to hide things from gods and angels. They see all, including seeing through clothing. So, all celestrial beings are, essentially, naked, to all other celestial beings, and all beings of a lower kingdom are likewise naked to them. Clothing, then, serves a different purpose than hiding nakedness.
Joseph said, “And that same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there, only it will be coupled with eternal glory, which glory we do not now enjoy.” Mankind begins naked and remains naked until he is taught by others to put clothing on and hide his nakedness. But he still never remains naked all the time. From time to time he gets naked again. So, at times we are nude and at times we are clothed. In like manner, those in heaven at times are nude and clothed.
-Or is it your intention to suggest that Lucifer introduced the feelings of shame and guilt about ones nude body?-
Yes, Lucifer introduced the concept of shame and guilt about one’s nude body and the concept of “hiding one’s nakedness.” God and Jesus, who were obviously naked before the eyes of Adam and Eve, demonstrated that there was no shame in public nudity. So, Satan was trying to counteract that righteous attitude.
Re: Moroni. Joseph knew that Moroni was a man because he saw his male genitalia, for the robe was open. Being able to see one’s genitalia constitutes nakedness. In other words, being open to view constitutes nakedness. Despite wearing a white robe (of light?), Joseph could see the nakedness of Moroni. If the robe was a covering of light, Joseph might have been able to see directly through it. At any rate, regardless of whether he saw Moroni’s nakedness through the open parts of the robe or directly through the material of it (the material being “open” or porous or composed of light, glass-like in transparency, etc.), Joseph testified that he saw Moroni’s nakedness. The statement, “I could discover that he had no other clothing on but this robe” indicates that Joseph saw every part of Moroni’s body.
It is interesting that you mention the garment clothing in the temple. My understanding is that at one time in the past the initiatories were performed on a person while they were naked.
Also, the rites of baptism used to be performed while one was naked.
“All angelic visitors have been clothed in some kind of robe”… That is an assumption on your part. Joseph is the only one who has described an angel’s clothing (Moroni) in any detail, but was quick to add that he was naked to his view. Most of the others have left out any mention of clothing, perhaps because they did not wear clothing. If we are going to assume that angels all wear white robes like the angel Moroni, we ought to follow the same logic and also assume that they all were as naked as Moroni was to Joseph.
As for why the celestials are clothed (when it is proper to be clothed), according to my understanding, it is an aspect of their individuality which they show through their unique clothing. It has nothing to do with modesty. And we are permitted by the laws of God to run around naked if we want. It is the laws of men that make that prohibition.
Lastly, there is obviously more to the story about Noah than the text gives us. Even if we assume the text is totally correct as is and there is no more to the story, the only thing we can take from this was that Shem and Japheth were prudes. Lol.
It is said to witness the alteration of our initatory ordinance to submit to feelings and shame/guilt associated with nudity.
I went thru post-1990, and it is a stale ordinance compared with what it was originally. Now we’re just trying to save time and help worldly people feel “more comfortable” so they’ll come back.
Well, I suppose I can find some solace in your lighthearted response(s) to my sincere inquiry as to the true intention and understanding of your post. I apologize if my line of questioning appears pedestrian, scripturally ignorant, comical, childish or even silly. I likewise apologize for not being at your level of Godly understanding (understanding the ways and things of God). I merely presumed to gain further insight to your understanding and point-of-view. I, unlike the many others here, had never heard of this concept of HF et al being naked in public, and I simply was attempting to gain further enlightenment as to what fueled your belief in this. This concept is completely foreign to me and my perception of what the scriptures and writings of the prophets convey. Once again, I apologize if any of my sincere questions were offensive or were found worthy of ridicule.
I have spent much time reading many of your articles, and those of your guest writers. I have enjoyed the intellectual stimulant of learning that the earth is hollow; another topic that I had never heard of before! Ah! My ignorance rises again! I have also been inspired to read up on plasma and its role in the universe. To whit, I have really enjoyed the many dozens of topics that you have here on your blog/site. Perhaps I will not presume to formulate inquiries in these and future topics, if the response will be treated in such a cavalier manner.
Again, my apologies if I have offended anyone with my questions to a topic that was brand new to me.
Daitryu,
You seem rather apologetic, but I think that is unwarranted. Speaking for myself, I understood your comments to be an honest attempt at understanding the topic — and I haven’t felt cavalier in formulating my responses — nor have I intended them to be rude in any way.
If you have come to understand the hollow earth theory and the plasma model of the universe, then you are not ignorant — but are head-and-sholders above your peers.
By all means, continue to read the posts on this site, and comment where you feel appropriate.
Wow. Well, now I am the one who must apologize. I didn’t realize that my comment came across as ridiculing you. For that i am sorry. No one here is at a higher level of understanding. We are all just trying to understand the gospel. My understanding and yours may be different, but equally valid until the Lord sees fit to set the record straight. My kidding around was not aimed at you, in particular, but was a new thought generated by what you wrote (that HF and everyone else is nude.) It was the thought of applying that principle to the garden of Eden and creation and how the scriptural record would read, in that light. I meant no ridicule and am sorry that you took it the wrong way. The rest of the comment was written in all seriousness.
I have tried to restrain what I write on this blog and keep it as serious as I can because it has always been my experience, as I wrote in the Why I started this blog post, that everyone is offended by what I say (in person). Your comment above may be a clue as to why people take offense: my lightheartedness. I routinely joke about the gospel principles while being dead serious about them (for example, see the John the Baptist on dope post). I thought I was doing okay so far on this blog, but I guess I let my normal way of speaking slip and it ended up offending you. Again, I am sorry.
To show you that I’m not making this up, that I am accustomed to people wanting to throw stones at me, here is the text of the Why I started this blog post:
So, you see that I’m not making this up just now. At any rate, if you decide to comment on this or other (past or future) posts, I will make the attempt to keep the tone of my responses at a more conducive serious tone. And I hope you (and all others) do comment, for I learn as many new things from commenters as I do on my own.
Justin:
I did not interpret your comments to be rude or cavalier, and I appreciate your attempts at furthering my education on this, on other, topics.
LDSA:
Thank you for your sincere response. I can now better understand the intention of your post. Perhaps I was with too thin of skin when I read them the first time. It was just so different a reply-style than what I am used to seeing from you. (funny enough, my very first article I read here was about John the Baptist being on dope. I almost left, never to return again! I instead decided to find out if you were joking or serious by reading several other posts. I’m glad that I did because I have gained a tremendous amount of knowledge/information from those!!). You have demonstrated an almost un-humanly ability to keep a calm demeanor when certain posters have resorted to ad hominem and other unfair and mean-spirited attacks against you. I marvel at your ability to keep your composure and never to leave the intellectual “battlefiled”. It was for this reason that I was perhaps hurt and offended by your comments above. I now can see your response in a clearer light. So, I apologize for apologizing in the first place!
I suppose this might be a good time to officially introduce myself to you and Justin (and any others on this forum that might be interested). I am a STAUNCH libertarian, that fiercely guards my agency. Because of this, my understanding of your explanation of tribal anarchy rings true to me; I can agree with it and see it as being an eternal truth from my mind’s eye perspective.
I live in Michigan; was born and raised in the church; served a 2-year mission in Brazil and have had several church callings before and after.
I have been a “black-sheep” of the ward(s) ever since returning home from my mission. It was during my mission that my religious eyes were first opened. I began to see discrepancies in the church – especially the differences between what is currently taught to that which was taught by Joseph Smith (as found in the D&C and his writings). I used to wonder, all the time, why I (we) needed a mission president, all the White Bible rules and a rigid daily regiment to be a missionary. I used to ask why the first missionaries that went to England and Europe didn’t need any of those things, and they converted (not just baptized) in the THOUSANDS! I used to wonder that if I have the Melchizedek Priesthood and they had the same Priesthood, then why all these changes?
Anyways, I digress. I once held the position of Young Men’s 1st Counselor. I held this position until I gave a Sunday School lesson about why little children should not take the Sacrament. As luck would have it, the 1st Counselor to the Branch President decided to attend my class. After I was done presenting all of my scriptural evidence, that it is wrong to give little children the Sacrament (and i had 5-7 scriptures, all explaining the true nature of the Sacrament and who it is for) the 1st Counselor then decided to speak up and declare that I was wrong and that it IS okay to give little children the Sacrament. I asked him if he had any scriptures to back up that assertion, to which he replied, “No.” (priestcraft?!!!) I then ended by saying, pointing to the chalkboard, that “I am teaching from the scriptures.” I was relieved of my calling shortly thereafter.
I have struggled with activity ever since then. I believe the Gospel as Joseph Smith and the scriptures teach to be true. I have a HUGE problem with the Church leaving the protection of the 1st Amendment and lowing itself to the jurisdiction of the IRS. (501c3) This, by all intents and purposes, has removed Jesus from the Head of our Church. When you and other writers here wrote about Jesus returning to reclaim His Church, I immediately agreed with this assertion. It still is His church; no matter how hard our church leaders try to change that!
Other events that have shaped my view of the church and its leaders are: my childhood Bishop molested young boys (12-16 years old) and tried to molest me (I was his Home Teaching companion); a Second Counselor was gay; I had MTC leaders that decided to blackball me and prevent me from being a District Leader because they were unhappy that I practiced the Martial Arts – the day before I left for Brazil, one of the MTC teachers came to me crying and asking for my forgiveness. I had NO idea what he was talking about. He then explained to me the the MTC District President told them not to vote for me for any promotions because I lied about practicing martial arts and that I was a person of low character. Luckily, one of the MTC teachers also practiced the martial arts, and he could tell by the way my knuckles were that I wasn’t lying. He was the lone standout that supported me.(he told me this also on my last day there). All this was done without me knowing anything!; I had a branch President tell me to shave my facial hair because “the Brethren have stated that clean shaved is the proper way for a priesthood holder to look” – all the while he was sporting a classic Papa Smurf or Amish beard! (Hypocricy!)
I could go on and on, but suffice it to say that I believe we are of like-minds. I feel a kindred spirit here in this forum. I enjoy reading the comments after each posting; it’s refreshing to know that there are others who feel and believe as I do. I do look forward to furthering my education here and in corresponding with you and Justin (and any others who feel compelled!)
I have many topics that trouble me that I would love to be able to ask them here on your blog for sincere consideration (if that would be okay?). For example, I find it offensive when church leaders do the “bare your testimony upon demand” tactic, when they have time to burn in Sacrament Meeting or when they think you’re out-of-line and want to punish you. To me, a testimony of the truthfulness of this Gospel is a very, very personal thing (the fierce libertarian in me). Sacred comes to mind. I believe that one should only bare one’s testimony when moved by the Spirit. I would love to hear your thoughts on this subject. (and if it’s okay, I’d love to present others topics and issues that I have).
Thank you for your sincerity and your patience with me.
Ahh, Daitoryu — I had wondered if your screen name had anything to do with the Japanese martial art. I studied Aikido for about a year and a half in high school, but have not continued on.
Wow, Daitoryu….thank you for sharing that with us. It makes me laugh but in a good way to hear you recount how the very first post you saw here was the “John The Baptist On Pot” post. I am sure I speak for all of the regulars here when I say I am really glad you resisted the urge to turn away and pressed on to find some of the blessings. The way you described those blessings and impressions was very similar to what has been my personal experiences since being led to this site.
This was truly great to read.
I don’t know if you have already read the various posts that touch on the gifts of the spirit and also mourning the fact that the spirit and its manifestations are so lacking in the meetings of the church. Well your opening up your heart kind of reminded me of an experience that came out of those particular posts and the beneficial comments left on them. There were exceptionally few of us in my branch Elder’s Quorum meeting last sunday. I had for a while been thinking each sunday about what we could do to truly experience a meeting led by the spirit. All I could come up with (mostly because once it entered my mind, I felt the spirit would not let me let go of that thought) was that perhaps sitting in a circle would be more conducive to the spirit. Well the lesson started off and it was about the holy ghost and the gift of the holy ghost. The president was tryin to stick to the correlated script as best as he could. But he read a part in the manual that said: Joseph Smith said we believe in the gift of the Holy Ghost being enjoyed now as much as it was enjoyed in the days of the first Apostles. We believe in this gift in all its fulness, power, greatness, and glory. Then the quorum president asked me if I believed that. I said No, that I believed that Joseph believed that and that in the time that he taught that manifestations of the spirit were much more common. But I said I don’t believe that we see them like that today and I don’t think the church today believes that we can. Then I started to talk about the gifts of the spirit and how important they were and I asked everyone if they felt alarmed that we didnt see them manifest among us today. There wasnt too much immediate response. But I kept a prayer in my heart as I spoke and hoped for the best. Well somthing super subtle happened I was almost willing the spirit to take over the meeting and while nothing miraculous happened, I watched the president stop put the manual down for a second and then he asked if we would all form a circle with our chairs. We did and it resulted in a lot of the brethren who wouldnt have normally said anything sharing personal and spiritual experiences. And there was even a touch of apology and reconciliation goin on. It felt the same when you were sharing some background info with us.
As I look back on the comments for this post it looks like you were possibly offended by me as well. I hope not. But I couldnt help but notice how you completely ignored my comments and if it was because you felt offended by them I am truly sorry. I have a way of speaking/writing that is firn and can be taken the wrong way. But I would like for you to know that it (my firm tone) comes from experiences similar to yours. I love and honor your perseverence in the testimony of Truth. Just wanted to let you know you can count me as one of your brothers on this site who is interested in and feels compelled to correspondence with the purpose of uplifting eachother and filling our lamps with oil in preparation for the call to Zion.
One Love!
Justin:
Yes, it is Aikido 🙂 At the time of the MTC fiasco, I was training in Tae Kwan-Do. I’ve studied 4 different martial arts: Tae Kwan-do, Ryu Kyu-kai, Gojo-ryu and Aikido. I prefer Aikido as it is more in harmony with the Lords teaching.
Elder Chantdown:
I apologize for not specifically addressing you in my several earlier responses. I meant no disrespect. My responses earlier in this post were more of a general response to all, encompassing all the replies that my questions had generated. I definitely did and do appreciate your opinion and comments. I did not find them offensive.
I look forward to corresponding more with everyone in this blog.
I’m still having trouble wrapping my mind around this concept that HF et al are naked in Heaven. It seems to me that we are modifying the definition of the word “naked” to mean if we see through an open blouse or robe, then the person is naked. Would this logic apply to “downblouse” or “nipple slips” or having “unzipped fly”? Sure that particular part of the body would be naked to the eye, but the person would still be clothed. My way of thinking is that naked is without any covering or clothing. Check http://www.m-w.com for the definition of naked. So when JS said that he could tell that Moroni was naked, I interpret that to mean he was not wearing under-garments; or JS simply saw exposed body parts. My mind cannot equate wearing a robe and “flashing a body part” as being “naked”.
Regarding being created in the image of HF, Adam could tell that he was created in the same image without HF being naked. (the temple film does not show HF or JC naked, but then again that could be because the makers of the film are/were prudes?) For example, I can state that I was created in the image of my father just by observing that he and I have a head, 2 eyes, a nose, mouth, chest, 2 arms, 2 hands, 10 digits on the hands, 2 legs, 2 feet etc. I don’t have to see my father naked or his genitalia in order to make that assessment.
I welcome further clearness and clarification 🙂
That is what attracted me to Aikido as well — though I practiced it before I joined the Church.
In response to your questions:
I think everyone can agree that Moroni wore an article of clothing during his ministration to Joseph. I think LDSA’s point in the post was that the purpose of the robe was clearly not to “cover his nakedness” as Joseph was able to see it.
the temple film does not show HF or JC naked — just look at the use of coverings for the initiatory ordinance as confirmation that “the makers of the film are/were prudes”
My feeling since reading this post is that the Gods and the angels are nude in the community of the celestial kingdom. Clothing does serve righteous purposes — and apparently ministering to mortals is on of those purposes. Thus, we see them as clothed — most likely in robes of the Holy Priesthood.
However, here on earth, clothing serves the purpose of covering up nakedness as a matter of “modest” society. This purpose for clothing does not exist for Gods — therefore they would not wear clothing under such circumstances.
Elder Chantdown:
I’m glad you enjoy my partial autobiography 🙂 and I’m glad it made sense to you.
I enjoyed reading about your experience in Elder’s Quorum and how one person could make such a change in the dogma and ritual of priesthood class. Being the stand-out (or black sheep in my case 🙂 ) has its own unique challenges, but I think we both enjoy fighting the good fight!
Justin said,
And that was indeed my point.
The Moroni visit in particular is interesting in that Joseph could have simply said that Moroni wore a white robe and left it at that. The fact that he also felt it necessary to say that he could discover that that was all Moroni wore indicates that his eye was drawn to more than just the robe. It was drawn to the actual body of Moroni below the robe. His use of the word “discover” is also interesting as it means, among other things, to uncover or to be viewable. Even the word “bosom,” although it typically means the chest area, can also just mean the inward parts that are normally covered or hidden from view, such as “the bosom of the earth.” Look up these words (bosom, discover and also naked) in the 1828 dictionary (link found at right of page) to see all the various shades of meaning in use during the time of Joseph Smith.
Again, from the text it is obvious that Joseph felt that Moroni not wearing anything except the robe was remarkable, otherwise, why even mention it? Had Joseph said that it appeared to him that Moroni only wore this robe that would have allowed for the interpretation that Joseph didn’t see Moroni’s body inside the robe, but he was exact in his words that he could see (discover) that all Moroni wore was the robe. The implication, then, is that Moroni was naked to Joseph’s view, even though there was some extra-earthly white, open robe upon his person.
One last thing, Joseph’s account about the whiteness of the robe being whiter than anything on Earth might mean that he didn’t know what the heck it was. It wasn’t typical cloth. The obvious answer, of course, is that the “robe” was a plasma manifestation in the shape of a robe. In such a case, it would be moving as if alive, which would of course draw Joseph’s attention to it.
Thanks for the continued patience with me on this topic. I’m starting to see your point (LDSA, Justin, Elder Chantdown et al) about heavenly beings naturally being without clothing or covering. I’m still in the process of wrapping my mind around this idea, but at this point it isn’t incomprehensible as it was at the start.
I guess the other point that I’m trying to clarify from this post is: is the intention to be a cheerleader for public nudity on this earth, by us, HF’s children? In other words, is LDSA suggesting that it’s okay and permissible for LDS to be nudists? To go skinny dipping in public areas/beaches? To walk around town naked?
Pre-emptively responding to a potential , “Yes” response from the questions above, Jesus wore clothing and was covered during his earthly ministry. All OT prophets were clothed. No examples of nudists living are mentioned in the scriptures. Whereas I can accept the concept of nudists/nudism in Heaven, where we don’t need clothing to keep warm and to shield us from the elements, I see no evidence that it’s permissible here on Earth. Starting with Adam’s and Eve’s expulsion from the Garden of Eden, clothing was worn by them all the way down to us. Now, was clothing worn just for covering nakedness? Or was it for spiritual purposes? I believe it’s both, as evidenced from the Temple ordinance of being covered in a garment. Also, were the righteous people of Enoch nudists? I mean, they were so righteous and without sin, that if they were that close to being perfect and living as the Gods live, then they should have shed their clothing.
If the answer is “No”, then we find ourselves in harmony and agreement.
As always, I look forward to your thoughts.
I didn’t mean to suggest that a Yes response would put us in contention or disharmonious. A Yes response would simply continue the intellectual exchange of ideas, which can be harmonious as well. 🙂
LDSA:
Thank you for you well thoughtout response(s).
Okay, as I stated above, I am able to comprehend public nudity in Heaven as being a bit more rational; however, the underlying theme of the response above seems to keep stressing “being ashamed” of the human body and thus covering it with clothing. We are in agreement that we should not be ashamed of the human body. I do not equate shame and modesty as being synonyms. Whereas I agree that there is nothing shamefull of the naked human body, I still disagree that it’s sinful (against the will of God) to be “modest” by wearing clothes.
Your several examples regarding certain prophets being nude in public are interesting, but they don’t explain why those very same prophets then put clothing on afterwards (they covered their nakedness after the event/celebration/preaching mission.)
It just seems to me that if Jesus wore clothing while on the Earth, and he wasn’t ashamed of his naked body, then what example was he teaching us? We are taught that much of his ministry was to be an example for us. If public nudity was what He wanted us to practice, then why was clothed? I’ve mentioned this before and want to bring it up again – is it possible that we have mis-translated the Hebrew word for naked/nude/nudity? Perhaps it was used more as a metaphor or even a parable/analogy? Is it possible that Jesus was teaching us to be modest and not ashamed?
I look forward to learning your reasoning as to why so few prophets shed their clothing in public, and for those who did, why did they put clothing back on afterwards? (was it to be modest?) Why did HF clothe our First Parents once they gained knowledge of their nakedness? Why did Jesus wear clothing?
After reading this and the vast majority of the comments I though well I guess I am not able to separate viewing a woman’s bare body and sexual thoughts. But as I was about to write that I began to have thoughts come to me. I was interrupted and did not enter a comment at that time.
I have had a few days to think more about it. I was given inspiration and truth from God to realize that Satan has stolen a precious truth and perverted it to us so we have been so lied to. What? I should be surprised by this??
But here is what I mean. We are told there is a sin involved in looking upon a woman to lust after her. We are told that when we see a bare woman’s body we react sexually. We do know that we react. And since we have been warned about this sin that it is committing adultery in your heart we try as hard as possible to avoid this.
And Satan laughs his heartless soul silly at us.
But think about what is happening from an objective heavenly viewpoint.
Have you ever seen a fantastic vista of nature? Have you seen a dazzling display of autumn foliage in New England? Have you seen the Yosemite Valley a giant redwood tree an ocean view, great snow covered mountains, a herd of antelope, a beautiful tiger, a galaxy, the rings of Saturn? All of these things and countless more make us have a reaction. We gasp in awe. Our heart beats faster, our eyes widen, our pupils dilate to take in more of this sight. Are we lusting after these things? Of course not.
So how do we think we should react when we are given a view of the most beautiful of all God’s creations the human body?
But it is Satan and Satan inspired people who have accused us of lusting.
They have labeled this wholesome God given reaction as sexual. I know this false accusation very well. I was asked if I found any women that I had seen at the mall (fully clothed) during the day attractive. I said yes I did. I was told, “That’s committing adultery in your heart.”
What a lie. I would tell such people where to go, but they have already arrived.
Let us exit hell by rejecting Satan’s lie that the body is immodest.
My barrier now is that at my age and physical condition I don’t feel I am pleasing to see. Yet I do see this as an accusation against those around me of not accepting me since I think I could accept them as they are.
I think it could further the discussion for members who have attended the temple if a definition for “you should wear it throughout your life” was provided.
Daitoryu, as dyc4557 said, clothing is practical. We are not designed like the animals. We don’t have the protection of thick fur or thick, durable skin. If we fall on any type of ground other than soft grass or moss or soft mud, etc., our skin easily gets scraped or cut. We are designed to exist within a temperature range that is really quite small. Essentially, our bodies are designed to live in paradisiacal gardens, such as Eden. If the temperature gets too cold, we die. To hot, we die. It needs to be just right for us to survive without clothing.
When in an environment which is conducive to our bodies, there is no need to cover up. In fact, it goes agains the spirit of wisdom to cover up if the clothing is making your environment more stuffy. For example, in hot weather, we strip down. If we are in a situation of heat in which we would be more confortable (cooler) if we we were nude but we remain covered because of our sense of modesty, that goes against the spirit of wisdom. Gospel principles are not designed to make us suffer, but to free us from the chains of ignorance and make us happy.
There is no sin in wearing clothing, but body modesty (the wearing of clothing for the sake of modesty) is not inspired of God. When Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, do you believe that He did so clothed? Or do you think He was naked? The practice of baptizing naked people comes from the primitive church, during the time of Christ. Don’t you think they got this practice, later abandoned, from Christ’s example? Jesus’ baptism was a public affair. That’s public nudity. When you think about it, going into water clothed is kind of silly. What is the purpose of the clothing? Clothing just gets in the way of the water rushing over our aerodynamic bodies.
Or how about showing oneself? The brother of Jared said, “Lord, show thyself unto me.” And He did. Said the Lord, “I show myself unto you.” And also, “Seest thou that ye are created after mine own image? Yea, even all men were created in the beginning after mine own image. Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh.”
The Lord is talking about his body, shown to this prophet, not the clothing upon his body. The text indicates that the Lord is obviously naked before the brother of Jared. This demonstrates, yet again, that body modesty is not of God.
I’m going to point you to another article, Christian naturism, an entry in the Wikipedia, as that gives some of the historical and biblical basis for public nudity. Here is an excerpt:
Of particular interest in this Wikipedia entry is the LDS naturists section, which was written by a Latter-day Saint who believes LDS naturism to be sin. Lol.
So, based upon what we know of the historical past, the biblical societies, preachers, prophets, Son of God, etc., were not preachers or practiitioners of body modesty.
I admit that dyx4557, Justing, Elder Chantdown, LDSA and others do make compelling arguments with regard to this topic. Generally speaking, I am more at ease and accepting the nudism that may exist in Heaven; however, I am still unconvinced that it is permissible here on Earth.
First, I can get past the notion that Satan perverted Adam and Eve and taught them to be ashamed of their nudity. This is fine. I agree that there is no shame in being naked. But, HF did in fact clothe them and as DYC pointed out, clothing is a necessity (or practical) for humans to exist in nature. A quick correction I’d like to make is that people will shed their clothing in hotter climates – not true in Arabia. In the most scorching deserts, the nomads wear wool, to help keep them cool. In Brazil, there is more nudity, but this is due the the prevelance of shaded areas. In a desert, there is no shade. But do you not finding it intriguing that they chose to be clothed?
In very cold, very hot and temperate climates, human have the need to be covered. It’s practical. In very hot so they do not sunburn, in very cold so they do not freeze to death, in temperate to keep dry during rain and for other practical purposes.
So lets put behind us the notion of wearing clothing is sinful because it was taught by the Devil. It is true. But we’re past that. I believe that it is part of the practical reason for clothing the Jesus wore clothing and all the prophets from Adam to today have not been nudists. I can concede that modesty may not play a part in this, but there has to be a Godly reason that we are clothed here on Earth. I am slowly comprehending that it may not be a modesty issue (years of brainwashing about modesty being related to the shame of beind nude), but, with both shame and modesty being removed from the equation, we are still left with the examples set by Jesus, Adam, et al.
I can agree that wearing clothing for modesty may be an invalid argument. At the same time, I don’t agree that HF has approved nudism on the Earth as a valid argument. We are clothed in a garment for a reason, whether it be for religious, symbolic or some practical purpose.
Daitoryu and others of like mind I can understand and I don’t have all the answer as to the way things should be here in this sphere of our existence. But after writing my comment and understanding more fully that I am not sinning when I enjoy seeing a woman’s body I also realize something else.
I realize that seeing female flesh is strengthening and healing. Not pictures of nudity because that is nearly always done to stimulate and contains visual lies. It perpetrates Satan’s lie about our bodies.
But when a woman is feeding her baby for example and the majority or all of her breasts is visible there is a very sacred healthy thing which happens to those who view it. Or when we see a pregnant woman with nothing more than a tee shirt and pants so her shape is completely visible. It is so powerful and exudes life and the goodness and glory of God.
In our time we have been subjected to a steady decay of human closeness. The temple ceremony has been changed so we no longer stand close at the veil. We are not allowed to hug without fear of someone feeling it was inappropriate. I went through a divorce and was without human affection for months due to the abuse inflicted upon me by my wife.
A sister in the ward saw me in the hall at church. She was a nice woman with a nice body shape. She came over and said she felt I needed a hug and hugged me close. I can not express how healing and strengthening that was.
I and all of us have no idea how much we are being deprived of because of this horrid tradition of hiding the beauties of our bodies and our physical contact from each other.
I just feel like HF says, “I made them these wonderful bodies and wonderful senses and they shut them up and look at them as bad. They think it is only for sexual use and ignore what they experienced while they sucked from the own mothers. They were not filled with thoughts of sex but they were nourished with the knowledge that they were loved by their mothers and by me. I wish they would remember that.”
I think we will someday see how much we hurt ourselves and each other to think the way we do.
Let me respond to the statement and rational of our being sent to the Earth Butt Naked.
The reason God did that is because if we arrived in the robes we left in before coming here, it would be a DEAD GIVE AWAY to our pre-earth life and the fact that SOMEONE had to clothe us to send us on our way
Thus….It would abruptly interupt our ability to excercise our Free Agency by our robes making it OBVIOUS that God is real…There would be no test of integrity…
So what would YOU have done if you where in God’s shoes ? The fact that He stripped us, means that He also stripped us of an OBVIOUS identity.
Now there are good practical reasons for practicing modesty in dress and teaching that to our children.
What if you had a daughter who was fat & ugly and we ecouraged her to wear a two piece bathing suite ? What would THAT do for self esteem when having to put up with the heckles ?
And that same principle applies to adults. I know you have wittnessed this public nusance of having to hold your cookies from coming up when faced with a couple of hundred pound butt cheeks staring you down…Or hanging from both sides of a bicycle seat.
If it’s not a matter of Spiritual Sacredness, then it should be for the sake of PUBLIC civil sacredness.
In the case of real physical beauty being overly displayed, it’s just not polite toward those who are ugly. It’s like rubbing their jealeous noses in your stunning beauty.
It’s got nothing to do with promoting lust that makes clothing ourselves modestly, an issue.
Lust is just something we should have to deal with by not looking. But if everyone walked around half naked we would all surely be bumping into each other by our ALL turning our heads the other way, right ?
Butt naked just doesn’t make much logistical sense…Especially if you lived in a large city and had to walk and find your way to work…
And some people really stink and a good set of modest overalls does wonders for keeping our air breathable.
Even the ones that don’t normally stink have once in a while not realized they have a piece of tissue that got stuck and went unoticed.
Even the most gourgeous body would be embarassingly defamed when seen in public.
I don’t know about you but I just wouldn’t want to take that chance.
A real down side is sitting down on public seats after the public has been there. Yuck…
And you would only be able to get something to eat at home because some resteraunts actually require you to wear shoes to come inside.
I think Heavenly Father is just trying to offer some friendly advice in order to prevent all these public hassles from arrising.
By the way dyc4557, what you say makes perfect sense concerning our being nieve to understanding the REAL benefits of tight or non existent clothing and our not being in tune with the realities of what it must be like in Heaven.
Could you imagine what Joseph Smith would have thought of Heavenly Father & Jesus showing up in their speedos ? It would have been more than Joseph could bear and he would have probably failed to ask them the question he had.
So I can see why they would dress up for such an occassion….
Getting use to Not getting hot & bothered by a gorgeous babe in tight clothes in public, would seem to me, be causing her to seem rather lack luster when it came time for sex when she had to remove her handkerchief.
It’s kind of like a garbage man having to take out his own garbage…It would lose it’s special quality of fragrance….
My daughter was watching a show about brides choosing wedding dresses and it ocurred to me that we are taught that Adam and Eve were married while in the garden, which means they got married in their birthday suits. As Adam and Eve are the pattern of marriage, shouldn’t we be married in the same way?
It’s also interesting that they got married first (celestial marriage) and baptized second.
They were also married as minors (as little children). They wouldn’t be baptized until they were accountable enough to believe in Jesus Christ.
Read this when I was checking my e-mail this morning:
Why are wedding dresses white?
Queen Victoria chose white not because it symbolized purity, but because she wanted to show her people that she would run the country in an economical way. White was a much less expensive color to make than the colors typically popular for wedding dresses at the time (red, black, and purple). Plus, it gave her the option of using some lace that she already owned, rather than having something specially made.
So basically, the white dress was originally a political move.
Zack,
I know what you mean….but honestly…I dont care about babylonian beauty contests, standards, service or any of that. Even down to the example of a public seat seems stupid to me. Public park benches, waiting room chairs and hell, even toilets can perish with babylon for all I care. I don’t think The Father is doing anything to try and make life in babylon more comfortable or survivable period. I’ll trade all of those perks for even the most rudimentary, “technologically backwards” version of ZION. I guess it is very hard to talk about this principle of nudity or the satanic roots of our misguided concept of modesty without separating from our social conditioning and casting our mind’s eye forward to the literal establishment of ZION.
If a baby were to be born in a tunic, would that convince mankind that GOD is real? Why should I view my newborn son as stripped of anything? Why should I view nakedness as a lack of obvious identity? Truth be told fashion throughout all ages and all societies has never been near as efficient as nakedness in identifying SONS and DAUGHTERS of GOD as such. It only covers up the identifiers and usually with animal skins which further hide our identity as GODS. The practical reasons for clothing are plenty (especially in certain climates) but all of these should only remind us that we are in a fallen state. That is the purpose of the garment as well. As has already been pointed out, the garment does a poor job at covering or hiding our nakedness. As I went through the temple last week I noticed that the garment is only a symbol for our bodies. We receive it at the same time we receive a new name (birth). The marks correspond with the veil (by receiving a body at birth we are veiled from remembrance of pre mortal life). And when we receive our garment/body we are told that it will be a protection and a shield to us inasmuch as we do not defile it. Now that same council goes for our bodies, unless we are so worldly and profane like Bro. Marriott to believe that the symbolic clothing itself will protect us from burns and bullets.
You ask, “So what would YOU have done if you where in God’s shoes?” to which I have to ask….So God wears a robe and SHOES now? haha. Just kidding but seriously, very seriously….If any among us have a daughter who is fat & ugly it is only because of two things FIRST and foremost, our faulty perception. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. And if there is no beauty inside us…well then we wouldnt reccognize beauty if it rose up and slapped us across the face with the force of a 400 lb. hand. SECONDLY, obesity can indeed cover up beauty. Isn’t it interesting that morbidly obese people’s “private parts” are always covered even when they are in the nude, by their bellies. Of course this type of look is not appealing it even has a horrifying effect but it is because of the extreme effects of Lucifer’s suggestions of shame that we shutter when viewing the grotesque disfigurement of the human body. But that being stated only stupid childish brats of babylon would ever think to heckle one who struggled with wieght as a result of the attacks of satan on our body and mind. Why would that even be a problem while we still cope with bondage in the world if we are exercising what little freedom allowed us and home-schooling our kids?
I personally have never been stared down by a pair of butt cheeks. I think you have to be starring to take in those sights. I have seen some awe inspiring backsides before yes. But even when I have witnessed buttocks approaching these “hundred pounders” you speak of, I have never once considered it a public nuisance. Maybe a problem for the bicycle seat…but hey…that would be where I would put my buns if they were getting to big, on a bike to work off some of the excess. So I would in fact applaud such a sight. Civil Sacredness is a new one to me. Las time I checked man’s law considers nothing truly sacred.
You said “But if everyone walked around half naked we would all surely be bumping into each other by our ALL turning our heads the other way, right?” I agree that people are walking around HALF naked all the time out there. Just not in Utah I guess. And people are bumping into eachother, although Im not sure it is always from lookin AWAY from the HALF naked people. When everyone goes around naked as the day we were born we can be deprogrammed and “become as little children” not Babylonian brats mind you. Also in case you were not aware, many men these days have a tendancy to forget due to the crap Babylon subjects us to, making love is employs WAY more than simply visual stimulation. Sight, touch, taste, hearing, AND SMELL all play an important part in the experience that GOD intended us to be having. If people are stinking it is once again due to two things, both with roots in Babylonian culture….ONE Satan has succeded in getting us to hate ourselves so deeply that we detest natural smells and pheromones. TWO waste is supposed to smell bad to us and it does. When we are partaking of a Babylonian diet we will accumulate more waste than our beautiful bodies can get rid of and the result is stanky odors. My lovely wife noted the other day how the custom of wearing so much clothing enables us to hide the harm we do to our bodies. But God knows better. So whether some choose to use nakedness to kickstart the process of bringing the “pure in heart” out, or others prefer to wait until the outside matches up more with their pure hearts underneath their clothes, ZION (meaning projection in ancient Hebrew) is about making the inside congruent/fractal with the outside and visa versa; always starting with the inner vessel. So by all means wear clothes, just be modest and wear them for the right reasons, none of these worldly motivations.
[…] Body modesty is not a principle of the gospel […]
Bouncing back to the Genesis 9:20-27 events. I think the operative thing there is is verse
24 “And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.”
A few questions must be asked:
1) Was Noah told, or did he simply “know” what happened upon waking?
2) What did his youngest son(Ham) do to Noah?
#2 would relate closely to #1.
There is a common view among many groups of people that this account is very discretely talking about Noah being raped by Ham, and he(being Ham) had invited his brothers to likewise do the same in verse 23. (Potentially as a kind of power play against Noah)
It is a pretty safe bet that if you were raped in your sleep, you’d have a pretty good idea you’d been violated upon waking. So you would immediately know the “what” part. And verse 24 seems to suggest that Noah knew what happened to him(if not the who) upon waking without being told.
So if Noah knew about what happened without being told there are only a couple logical explanations:
1) Ham did a fair bit more than simply point out that Noah was passed out and naked in his tent. (Something like rape)
or
2) Noah was “inspired to know” about what happened while he passed out in a drunken stupor.
Likewise, given what verses 26 and 27 entail, I’d say the punishment seems a bit severe for “Hey, Dad’s passed out and drunk(in the buff).”
But it would make a lot more Biblical sense as a punishment for a incestuous rapist who was seeking some kind of power over his father. Basically a “You sought power over your Father, now your entire family line will be servants to your brothers.”
Also, Noah having recently been raped would further explain why his elder sons did what they did in verse 23
“And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness.”
They were respecting their father by being very mindful to NOT bear witness to the misdeeds of their younger brother, and the shame(of being a rape victim) of their father.
@Zack
You seem to have very superficial “at first glance” level responses to the subject matter being discussed here.
Working from the assumption of nudity being “normal” (which it isn’t–but for arguments sake) “fat and ugly” might be more of an exception than a normal thing to encounter. Without the clothes to hide behind, people would be more aware of their own weight gains and loses, as there is nothing to mask it, as a result they would be much more likely to act on it before it gets grossly out of hand. The first step to recovery is to first realize you have a problem, and the sooner you realize it, the easier it is to remedy.
This may seem to go against some of the talk about body acceptance that naturist groups talk about, but it doesn’t when you get down to it. Because what I’m mentioning in this case is body (self-)awareness. It should tend to moderate both extremes of the weight spectrum.
As we venture to the under-weight side. You wouldn’t be seeing as many women aspiring to hit a magical weight number that has no bearing on their actual body type. You wouldn’t see them killing themselves to attain a certain dress size, and you wouldn’t be seeing women be anywhere nearly as inclined to starve themselves to the point that they looked like they just stepped out of a concentration camp in WW2 Germany because a certain outfit “makes them look fat.”
And more seriously addressing the significantly overweight group of people that we do have in this world where nudity is not normal. Many people don’t want to see them even when they do have clothes on. So I’m not inclined to press an “I believe” button saying that a 400 pound man in clothes reaching/bending over for something is going to be any less traumatic for the average guy on the street than a 400 pound man in a theoretical naturist environment where nudity is normal.
If anything, I’d tend to say the experience would be less “traumatic” in the naturist setting because getting the “half-moon” of the guy bending over doesn’t happen because there is nothing “half” about it, and its something you’ve been desensitized toward seeing as everybody’s butt is uncovered and everybody puts on the same kind of display when they undertake the same movements. It’d just be one more (very large) butt out of hundreds you’ve seen in comparable positions over the course of your life.
@Zack continuing with your posts.
As to body odor and clothing. A lot of that can probably be tracked back to personal hygiene and bathing habits. Some people simply don’t do it often enough.
There also is another factor to consider in regards to body odor and clothing. The most common cause of body odor is the growth of bacteria or fungi in damp or moist areas of the body that are poorly ventilated, thus allowing that area to continue to remain damp, and interact with the body’s excretions.
The most common areas suffering from this problem? Armpits, and the crotch. Most common cause for the poor ventilation of those regions and their continuing to remain damp? The clothing worn by the person.
As to your “toilet paper issue” there is a one word solution for that which is amazingly low-tech and more environmentally friendly in the long term: Bidet.
Though in a “nudity is normal” type world, one would have to wonder if many of the larger public restrooms wouldn’t also include a shower facility of some kind for people to use.
As to public seating in this “fallen” world, the naturists of the current era have a simple solution for you: Use a towel. Take the towel with you, when you are ready to sit down, place the towel upon the seat you are about to use, and sit upon the towel.
Assuming society itself considered nudity to be normal, I don’t think “no shirt, no shoes, no service” would be an issue, so your comment about footwear being required in some restaurants would be a likely non-issue.
And as to Joseph Smith and his encounter with Heavenly Father and Jesus. You clearly haven’t read some of the comments in response to this blog. You do realize that the offical account of the First Vision doesn’t describe any clothing at al?
3 Nephi 13: 28-30
And why do you take thought for clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin.
And yet I say unto you, that even Solomon, in all his earthly glory, was not clothed like one of the flowers.
Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which today is here and tomorrow is burned as fuel — even so will he clothe you, if ye are not of little faith.
So does God clothe the lilies with tunics and robes? No — the manner in which he created the flower is beautiful without any extra adornment [like the Gentile kings would add on to themselves to show earthly power and glory].
Even so, the human body is a beautiful creation — without need of covering. Take no thought for such things because God has sufficiently covered your nakedness by your very nature.
Thought you might like this:
http://www.netflix.com/WiMovie/Commune/70075790?strackid=7ce30763c8d7b09b_0_srl&strkid=520363780_0_0&trkid=438381
From a guy who claims to have lived in this community:
“First of all nudity was not an issue at Black bear, during the summer it was hot, people walked around nude, worked in the kitchen and gardens nude as they pleased an no one thought anything about it. Pretty hard to find a nude body in the snowy winter. I think only people who have lived this life would realize that naked bodies are even less titillating than clothed or partially clothed ones.”
Anon YSA’s Noah rape scenario might not be that far-fetched. Here is the scripture:
To us moderns, “uncovering one’s nakedness” means viewing someone nude but in the vernacular of the scriptures it is synonymous with sexual intercourse. Thus, we have the following scriptures:
The rest of that chapter continues with the list of sexual sins. Apparently the people who compiled the chapter headings recognized that “uncovering one’s nakedness” was an idiom meaning sexual intercourse, for they wrote, “Marriages to many close relatives and others forbidden–Homosexuality and other sex perversions are an abomination–Land spues out those nations which practice sexual abominations”. Also, the footnote to verse 6a reads, “TG Sensuality; Sexual Immorality.”
With that in mind, then, when we read in Genesis 9: 21 that Noah “was uncovered within his tent,” it does not mean he was merely naked in his tent, but that he drank wine, got drunk, probably fell asleep drunk, and then someone had sexual intercourse with him while he slept (sodomy). The record doesn’t state who it was that did the raping, but the implication is that it was Canaan (NOT Ham) because Noah curses Canaan, not Ham. Then, when it says, that Ham “saw the nakedness of his father”, (and it was this nakeness that was uncovered in the previous verse) this doesn’t necessarily mean that he raped Noah, for this is not the idiom. “Seeing nakedness” is not the same as “uncovering nakedness.” At this point the record is a bit sketchy. There are a lot of whys. Why did Ham go tell his brothers? Why didn’t he wake up Noah? Why didn’t he do something about Canaan?
The record states that Noah “knew what his younger son had done to him.” I would speculate that what Ham had done was try to protect his son Canaan from Noah, by keeping the information of who had done the deed from his father Noah. The other brothers, not being eyewitnesses and probably not knowing either who had done the deed (Ham probably told them Noah had been raped, but left out the detail of who had actually done it), had covered Noah up without seeing anything, so that they wouldn’t get involved in the sordid affair and embarrass their father even more. Noah, awaking, knew he had been raped and probably learned from the Spirit who the culprit was and that Ham had tried to spare Canaan from the impending curse. And so Noah cursed Canaan.
This scenario, to me, makes much more sense than Ham raping Noah and Canaan paying for it. Also, it would do away with the interpretation that this scripture is about nudity (and not about sexual immorality).
“uncovering one’s nakedness” in Leviticus 18 is also mentioned in the Old Testament Institute Manual. (The institute Manuals are available for free in electronic form as a YanCEyWare Ebook, making it viewable on Windows PC’s through YanceyDesktop; Windows M5/M6, and PocketPC through Yanceyware; as well as Android phones through Reveal)
The Institute Manual also reports that “uncovering nakedness” is a euphemism for sex in the Old Testament.
Although, they use the same source for that report as they use in the previously mentioned source discussing Isaiah 20 where rather than having Isaiah simply be naked(because that would be against “moral decency,” and God would never make someone do something that is against that. Never mind that God, rather than man, is the arbiter of what is “moral decency”), they ultimately end up creating a scenario where Isaiah is dressed in a tunic that leaves both his “upper garment” removed and his buttocks exposed once you put things back into context.
Isaiah 20:2 At the same time spake the Lord by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, Go and loose the sackcloth from off thy loins, and put off thy shoe from thy foot. And he did so, walking naked and barefoot.
IE without an upper garment, — Ah, another flippant use of the IE. Apparently “naked” actually means the opposite, with your shirt off. The other great example is D&C 49:18. Apparently, id est isn’t Latin for “that is” — rather it is Latin for “that actually means the opposite of what it says”.
2 Samuel 6:20 ¶ Then David returned to bless his household. And Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David, and said, How glorious was the king of Israel to day, who cuncovered himself to day in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants, as one of the vain fellows shamelessly uncovereth himself!
IE In his joyful dancing, more of his body was exposed than she believed proper. — Boy, did Bruce R. love to use the IE. It was like his ultimate trump card. Can’t make the text mean what you want it to — just IE that problem away. Never mind that ever interpreter agrees that Noah was found naked in his tent, and the same word used to describe him as “uncovered” is used here for David.
@Justin
In Leviticus 18, it is clearly discussing “uncovering nakedness” of another, and says nothing about uncovering your own nakedness.
In JST Genesis 9:20-27, and even in KJV Genesis 9:20-27 we have Noah “becoming uncovered” and later his “nakedness” is discovered by Ham. (Across two different verses, unlike the single verses for Leviticus 18)
In the case of 2 Samuel 6:20 you simply have David who “uncovered himself”–as far as Michal is concerned. But missing from that passage, and surrounding scripture is any explicit mention of “nakedness” which would have been the other part of the pairing needed to conclude the writers of the scriptures were discussing sex in the same manner as in Leviticus.
However, in 2 Samuel 6:14 it is clear that David was dancing about in a linen Ephod, and no mention is made of it being removed… However, from accounts of what the Ephod consisted of, many people would consider it to be “indecent” to wear on its own(so her comment in 6:20 can easily be taken in that light–“You might as well have been out there naked”).
The other item to consider in that passage would be Michal getting referred to as a “daughter of Saul” rather than the wife of David. Where there are further suggestions(at least in the Old Testament Institute Manual), that she was also upset with David for “lowering himself” to the level he did at celebrating the return of the Ark of the Covenant. So 6:20 becomes simply an example of a person using biting sarcasm and hyperbole bring a person down from their emotional high. Rather than an accurate account of what happened prior to the comment being made.
There even is a wiki article on Ephod’s with a particular focus on David’s encounter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephod
I’m not referring to sexual intercourse, but to nudity.
My point was that Noah was “uncovered” in his tent and most every interpreter understands that to mean he passed out naked.
David is “uncovered” in the sight of the maidservants when we was dancing unto the Lord.
Does “uncovered” mean that nakedness was revealed — or not.
I think in the Book of Jasher it explains that during this time Ham was stealing Noah’s Priesthood garment. Yes he was uncovering his father’s nakedness but he was also trying to take his father’s authority. Or something like that.
I’ve always had a problem with Canaan being cursed for what his father Ham supposedly did.
A lot has been written on this subject — presumably because the verse is either problematic or confusing to most readers.
http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/noahs-nakedness-and-the-curse-of-canaan-gen-918-27/
http://chas.willowrise.com/forgotten-stories-from-the-old-testament-after-the-ark
http://byustudies.byu.edu/showTitle.aspx?title=7582
@Justin regarding King David.
As much as I’d like to consider 2 Samuel 6:20 to be authoritative as to what King David was doing. I simply cannot do so because of the context given in the verses prior to David going in and speaking to his wife in verse 20.
To give better context here:
2 Samuel chapter 6:
“14 And David danced before the Lord with all his might; and David was girded with a linen ephod.
15 So David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of the Lord with shouting, and with the sound of the trumpet.”
David is currently recorded as wearing an Ephod, and quite possibly the Ephod only. For those that haven’t looked at the wiki article on what an ephod looks like, a modern (cloth) approximation would appear to be a kitchen apron that ends around mid-thigh. Something many people would consider immodest if worn in public, but it isn’t being naked.
Contuing:
“16 And as the ark of the Lord came into the city of David, Michal Saul’s daughter looked through a window, and saw king David leaping and dancing before the Lord; and she despised him in her heart.”
This is the lens you have to view Michal’s comments in verse 20 through. As I already posted, note that Michal is being addressed as “Saul’s daughter” (Saul being the fallen king David replaced) rather than as being David’s wife. She considered his behavior to be well below the conduct of someone with the stature of a King should display. Also note, there is no mention of David’s wardrobe changing up to this point, so he’s presumably still running around in the Ephod.
“17 And they brought in the ark of the Lord, and set it in his place, in the midst of the tabernacle that David had pitched for it: and David offered burnt offerings and peace offerings before the Lord.
18 And as soon as David had made an end of offering burnt offerings and peace offerings, he blessed the people in the name of the Lord of hosts.
19 And he dealt among all the people, even among the whole multitude of Israel, as well to the women as men, to every one a cake of bread, and a good piece of flesh, and a flagon of wine. So all the people departed every one to his house.”
Still no mention of his attire changing at any point. The account up to this point, can be considered to be “what really happened” vs what Micah wants to say happened… Which gives us verse 20:
“20 Then David returned to bless his household. And Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David, and said, How glorious was the king of Israel to day, who uncovered himself to day in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants, as one of the vain fellows shamelessly uncovereth himself!”
Now look at verse 20, Samuel makes it very clear that it is Michal speaking this rather than simply part of his narrative describing things. “How glorious was the king of Israel to day, who uncovered himself to day in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants, as one of the vain fellows shamelessly uncovereth himself!” It’s only Michal who claims he was uncovered(naked).
David’s response in verse 21 is obviously referring back to verse 16 where David was “leaping and dancing” before the Lord:
” 21 And David said unto Michal, It was before the Lord, which chose me before thy father, and before all his house, to appoint me ruler over the people of the Lord, over Israel: therefore will I play before the Lord.”
The concluding verses are Michal’s punishment/consequence for her unfaithfulness, she asked for it in verse 20, so she’s going to get it.
“22 And I will yet be more vile than thus, and will be base in mine own sight: and of the maidservants which thou hast spoken of, of them shall I be had in honour.
23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.”
In Genesis 2:25 — where Adam and Eve were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. — the word used for naked is arowm.
However, when in Genesis 3:7, 10-11 — where Adam and Eve have discovered their nakedness — the word used is eyrom.
The word for “naked” used to describe humanity’s original state of innocent nudity is also used in the Old Testament to describe:
Saul, in imitating the prophets of Israel by prophesying nude all day and night. [1 Samuel 19:24]
Isaiah, in going forth as a nude prophet, as he had been called by God to do. [Isaiah 20]
Micah, in answering the prophetic call — again with a naked prophet. [Micah 1:8]
The level of covering that a human baby is born with [Job 1:21 and Eccl 5:15]
Whereas the other “naked” is used in the Old Testament more as a sign of guilt/shame or divine punishment:
Genesis 3:10
Deut 28:48
Ezek 16:22, 39
Ezek 23:29
Concerning David dancing:
It would seem that David was doing some pretty rigorous dancing to the accompaniment of joyous music and ritual singing. The ephod that Anon YSA points out was a type of ornamental apron that would have covered a bit of his chest and his genitals. David was, then, nearly naked.
Presumably, Michal was displeased because his genitals would have been exposed as he danced. Just imagine twirling and kicking your feet up to some music while you are cooking naked in your kitchen — clothed only in your apron.
At best, I’d be willing to admit that the David nudity story is along the lines of the Moroni encounter. Did he have some sort of covering on? Sure. Was it serving the purpose of covering his nakedness — surely not, because any on-lookers could clearly discern that he wore no other clothing. This is what would have led Michal to describe his state as being “uncovered” or nude — because he might as well have been.
Not quite. From what I’m seeing.
The blue letter bible reference provides some of the justification for the entry I commented on being in the Old Testament Institute Manual. Look at the usage for (B) “used of one who, having taken off his mantle, goes only clad in his tunic” Where Isaiah 20:2 is used as one of the contexts for (B) being used, the other example is 1 Samuel 19:24 with it asking you to compare them to John 21:7.
So the “upper garment” they were talking about in the manual was Isiah’s Mantle. Although they still end up with Isaiah running around with his buttocks exposed for several years when you consider the rest of that chapter.
That the Institute’s interpretation for Isaiah 20:2 is that he just took his shirt off — yet later is interpreted as running around with just the back of his underwear removed so as to show his buttocks — should provide enough evidence that these interpreters are just stretching to avoid the obvious fact that God could care less about covering your nakedness, which is the thesis of the original post.
Justin, there are at least 5 different Hebrew words that can be translated as “naked” although one of them(‘eryah’) was normally translated as “bare” instead within the KJV and doesn’t appear until Ezekiel 16. And another one is only used once(‘uwr’) in Habakkuk.
In order of Strong Codes:
‘uwr’ code H5783
‘eyrom’ code H5903
‘ervah’ code H6172
‘arown’ code H6174
‘eryah’ code H6181
And circling back to the concept of “Glory as Clothes” which Christ seems to be openly discussing with his Sermon on the Mount excerpt you already gave. Something struck me about many of the mentions that can be approximated as “clothing the naked” in the Old Testament. They could also very well be talking about missionary work(imparting glory/righteousness/light to the person being helped), which could also explain some of Genesis 3:
————————————–
I remember an Institute instructor once talking about the translation of “naked and not ashamed” and mentioning the Hebrew word used for naked in that passage, and trying to rationalize it by saying that “arown” was some kind of garment of light, so that Adam and Eve weren’t actually(or at least technically) running around naked in the garden of Eden.
So if ‘arown’ could be taken as something close to “clothed (only) in glory(/light)” then it stands to reason that ‘eyrom’ in Genesis 3 could become “without glory.” That would also explain why Adam and Eve were still ashamed to be in God’s presence and claiming to be naked while they’re wearing their fig aprons. It also would explain God’s giving them garments (of the priesthood) to wear. So ‘eyrom’ would be a fallen, but not necessarily sinful state.
While ‘ervah’ (the word that when paired with ‘uncover’ or ‘discover’ in the Old Testament likely implies (impure) Sexual Activity) takes the other extreme from ‘arown’ as something that potentially ‘destroys Glory.’ So it’s connotation is for something that is sinful. To the point where I strongly suspect that Isaiah and Ezekiel are both using it as a stand-in for ‘unrighteousness.’ A practice that thanks to Isaiah, gets carried across to the Book of Mormon as well.
1 Cor. 11: 15 seems to teach the truth that hair is given by God to act as a covering — thus making covering the coverings seem so pointless.
I would say that that verse can be applied to more than just long hair on the top of the head.
Often, body modesty proponents will cite that the gospel calls people to “clothe the naked” — I read in the book of James that:
It is not the “immodesty” and “shame” associated with being naked that concerns the Lord — it is exposure to harsh elements without proper covering. Hence the leather garment He fashioned for Adam and Eve.
The Lord is concerned that the naked might be cold — not that they might be naked.
Yes, I really wonder how great of a need for clothes there will be, when the world is a perfect temperature.
I found this article from a Quaker — where a young woman discusses “plain dress”. I liked it for its treatment of the subject of clothing in general.
Some notable sections from the article:
and
Skimming through the comments on this post, I re-read this by Anarcho-libertarian:
The part about public sex acts caught my eye and I suppose I never responded to it because it wasn’t really on the topic of the post. But since this post and its comments have pretty much run out of gas, I thought I’d express a thought on public sex acts, because as I read it, I thought of all the homeless people and also all the animals.
Neither homeless people nor animals have private property. They both just take up lodging wherever they can, but whereas the animals can have as much public sex as they want, homeless people must get some money to pay for a room for a night in order to have sex, for the laws of men prohibit public sex. If no one allows them onto their private property, or, if they are allowed onto someone’s private property, but are prohibited from having sex on that property, homeless people are screwed, (no pun intended. Perhaps I should say that they are “non-screwed?”)
In other words, because we have made public sex off limits, all sexual relations between humans on this planet must be purchased with money. This is because all private property must be purchased with money and also maintained with money (for property taxes must always be paid.) So, all sex is bought and paid for in the Babylonian system, by someone. If you are a homeowner or renting, you are paying for the privilege to have sex. If you are living in someone else’s house or apartment rent-free, they are paying to allow you to have sex there. But always, someone, somewhere, is paying for the privilege of having sex.
Because someone, somewhere, must spend money in order for a piece of land to become labelled “private,” sex surely cannot be considered a human right. It must be a privilege, for it requires licensing and permission from property owners in order for it to be exercised. If it were a right, we should be able to do it in public and could not legislate against public sex acts.
And yet, what man or woman would concede that sexual relations is not a human right? Adam and Eve surely did not need to pay anyone to have sexual relations. And surely they passed this birthright, this right to have sex, on to their children. Yet Lucifer said, “You can buy anything in this world for money.” And he made it so that this basic human right of man has turned into a mere privilege, only to be used by buying the right to use it with money, through the establishment of Babylon.
Although prostitution comes with the additional sins of adultery and fornication, at its heart is the purchase of the privilege of having sex (with that particular lady.) I wonder if all sexual relations then, (at least those which are done on private property,) have essentially been prostituted by the devil and his Babylonian system. I wonder if the only sexual relations which are truly untouched by Satan’s monetary system, and thus not prostituted, are those which occur on public lands, even though they break the laws that have been set up to prohibit the free exercise of this right.
In other words, “the free exercise of a right to have sex” might be termed “free sex,” and such sex surely must only occur on free lands, or lands that have no ownership and regulation. Everything else might be termed “paid sex” or “sex by permission.”
If there are only private lands, in which the owners dictate the terms, and public lands, in which the owners (the governments of the world) also dictate the terms, then there can only be “paid sex,” for if anyone tries to engage in “free sex” on public lands, they will be thrown in jail.
This might be one of the reasons why the Lord is going to make an end of all these nations, because their Babylonian system has locked up all the land into “private” and “public” designations, so that there is no more “free land” where the Lord’s children can freely exercise their right to sexual relations without paying money to Satan, meaning without prostituting themselves.
With these ideas in mind, perhaps those brave souls who engage in public sex at the risk of getting caught ought to be cheered on, instead of vilified, for asserting their God-given rights and attempting to take back power from Satan one illegal sex act at a time? All these and many other thoughts are mulling around in my brain as I think on Anarcho-libertarian’s comment…
Well I’m sold! I shall commence to walking around naked immediately. Not really, but I do agree with the post for the most part. I’m sure what I have to say/ask has already been addressed in the comments somewhere, but there are so many and they are so long…..
I generally just get dressed. I’m not one to put a lot of thought in my apparel. Sometimes I will get a lot of crap for showing too much cleavage when I seriously had no idea I even was! My experience has been that men never complain. Attractive women never complain. Unattractive or overweight women ALWAYS complain! My husband has gotten on my case a couple times when I was wearing a shirt that opened in the front and some younger guys were getting an eyeful. But he says that was more for them than me as I don’t want to be responsible for them having impure thoughts. Honestly though if they’re having impure thoughts that is their problem Not mine!
We were in Colorado City (FLDS)one time, in the grocery store there. Those people are so sheltered I mean the women pretty much wear tents! I was wearing a low cut dress. Some young guys walked past us in the dairy section and did not make eye contact. Nope, their gaze was square on my chest. Then they circled around and walked past us again, and again. I told my husband I felt like a playboy magazine. I had a breastfeeding baby at the time so the fourth time around I told those young men, “if you come by staring at my boobs one more time I am going to squirt milk in your face.” poor guys were so embarrassed. I thought it was great. Hubby thinks I’m crazy;)
I have a question, if it was already asked/answered I apologize. I don’t know how the garments work, not being in the church. My understanding is that once you get them you’re supposed to always wear them. Is that not correct? If so how can LDS people go skinny dipping?
One more thing I’d like to share. I have been impressed by the spirit a couple of different times to wear skirts/dresses. The reason was that I was starting to take on too much of a manly role. I needed to be reminded that I am a woman and a lady. It worked very well and was only for a short time. Skirts remind me to act more feminine.
Elder Chantdown wrote above:
In authoring two posts on the garment of the holy priesthood — my personal opinion has become that, given the context of Adam and Eve receiving the coats of skin — which was in response to entering a lone and dreary world of briars and thorns [*ouch*] and of harsh UV radiation [*ouch*] — a garment was fashioned by YHVH to cover their bodies as “a shield and a protection against the power of the destroyer until you have finished your work on the earth.”
Meaning — after you’ve been initiated in the temple — anytime you are wearing clothing from that point on, it must be clothing with the marks of the holy priesthood in them [priesthood clothing or priesthood garments]. You can comply with that by wearing only priesthood clothing whenever you are wearing clothing — or by wearing two layers of clothing [regular clothing on top of priesthood clothing] — but either way, you must wear priesthood-marked garments whenever you are wearing clothing.
Now — what that does not mean is that you must always wear clothing. I am not always doing “work on the earth“. In fact — at least one whole day every week, I am proscribed from doing any labor on the earth. Therefore, clothing is not necessary. Sleeping is not labor or work [but is rest] — therefore one would not need to wear clothing then either. You are not forbidden from wearing clothing 24 hours a day/7 days a week — but the garment is only given for you as you are laboring on the earth — therefore, you are free [have the liberty] to be nude at any other time you choose.
I am a heretic for sure. I look at the temple ceremony and I read the temple book which is a great explanation of what we should be learning in the endowment ceremony. I say that because all of the good fruit which believing its precepts has borne.
And then i read first hand accounts of people that died and were attacked by followers of satan and left helpless. The man had never believed in God or Jesus. In fact he had ridiculed for years anyone who did. he was mean and cruel. And when he died it was only evil spirits which he could associate with at first. They basically destroyed him. I did not know a psirit could be disabled like that. but it makes sense since it is a physical body just more refined than the flesh body. Anyway as he lay there completely helpless he had a thought come from inside of his mind, “Pray” it said. He protested I don;t know how I never have. but it persisted, “Pray”. After the 3rd time he started saying something churchy. God bless America. This caused the evil spirit that were around him to scream with anger. He then got better at it and said God is love and Jesus Loves me. They howled in pain and anger and soon left him as he continued to use the Lord’s name.
But then he was left all alone (so it seemed to him) not even evil spirits around. But he was helpless his spirit body was in pieces and he had no ability to move. In his despair he cried out, “Jesus Save me!” He saw a light appear over head. it grew larger and brighter till suddenly Jesus Christ was there with him. And in the presence of Jesus he was instantly healed and whole again. Jesus began taking him upward. As the traveled it became obvious to him that he was being taken directly to the presence of God the place where God lived. He asked Jesus to stop felling that he was not worthy. Jesus said, “But you belong here with us.” The man said he wasn’t ready. Jesus said are you sure? The man said yes. So Jesus complied with the faith of the man and stopped short of the glorious orb of heaven. but from the orb came several beings of light who taught the man many things.
This man’s experience was a literal application of Paul saying “who so ever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
I see the LDS administration of the endowment ceremony and the garment as a way to put as much pressure as possible upon a person to stay true to what they put in the ceremony. It is like some of the rites of the law of Moses. And it is real effective in keeping you scared into staying with the church. And in that I see it as a bad thing.
I do not believe the motivation via fear comes from God. In fact if there is any degree of fear in our motivation it is keeping us away from God’s blessings.
So I don’t wear the garments and I don’t worry about my salvation. I trust that the rice has been paid and my wearing of clothing meant to keep me in a certain mindset is not required for my salvation.
And liv435 when ever I see a woman’s cleavage I thank her in my heart and thank God deeply for the blessing of such beauty. I do not turn away except to prevent the woman from feeling self conscious. Why should I decline to drink deeply of the most beautiful sight in all creation? I only wish that there were woman who viewed it that way also. I go around most of the day without a shirt. And the women here do not complain. I think they kind of like it because they know I am a kind warm at heart man. Yes in town I wear a shirt since there are so many modesty conscious people there. But around the neighborhood and the house on a hot day I am bare chested. I only wish i was younger or better physique so that the women would really enjoy it.
I just read through 1 Peter — and this scripture made me think of this post.
1 Peter 3:3-4
I don’t think this means that you can’t be spiritually meek and quiet of spirit and still wear clothing — but I think it gets at the Satanic notion that you can’t be spiritually meek and holy while you are nude.
I always err on the side of less “musts“. I don’t think that you must wear clothes to be “modest” — and I don’t think this post is saying that you must start going nude to be “modest”. Satan is all about the “musts” — and he doesn’t care which way you go — as long as you demand and enforce your respective, close-minded “must” of choice.
“Body modesty” is about making the generally good moral of being a modest person into something judged externally. We slut-shame with clothing, saying things like — “Well, she was dressed like a whore” — but such a thing as “dressing like a whore” exists in the first place because Satan introduced the whole concept of “dressing like [anything]” in the first place.
With clothing, we learn to distinguish ourselves with the outward appearance: I’m wealthy, I’m important, He’s poor, She’s a whore — whatever. If we all went around nude — no one could “dress like a whore”, or dress like anything at all. We’d have only the “hidden person of the heart” to judge them by.
We’ve taught our daughters that clothing has nothing to do with their respect for God or for their-self. Rather — “modest” has to do with being simple, plain, inexpensive, humble, and unpretentious — not with how much of the skin of their thighs or shoulders are showing. Bodily-speaking — we were all made modestly by God.
Now — we explain that the reason we wear clothes is for the sake of others. We teach them that when you are with those who are weak, you should share their weakness because you have a desire to bring the weak to Christ. It is best to try and find common ground with people, doing everything you can that you might save them.
We put clothing into its proper perspective. Religion has, unfortunately, lumped “modesty” in with sexuality [like we do with being “pure” or having “high standards”] — when modesty is really about living life in such a way as to not draw undue attention to yourself [and has nothing to do with clothing or sex, necessarily-speaking].
Nudity and modesty are not opposites, and can co-exist even beyond the context of married persons in the bedroom with their door closed.
I agree that using clothing to entice, to create the illusion of sexiness, to flaunt power and prestige and money, to say I am better than you, more beautiful than you, etc. — is Satanic.
So — like I say — I’m just against any “musts” [as a sort of “hither thou shalt come and no further” fence post used to define “righteousness” by some outward metric]. By all means — wear clothes if you feel more comfortable clothed. And then just don’t toss the immodest-stone at anyone going nude because they feel more comfortable nude.
Justin,
Thanks for your response. I’m sorry I was too lazy to read through the comments here. I haven’t yet read your posts on the garments but I will get their eventually and I look forward to them. I liked what Chantdown wrote! So much truth there…I have been slightly concerned myself with not having access to the temple garments and have often wondered how it will all play out. I’ve even considered how difficult it might be to join the church and get a temple recommend just for the experience. However, after asking my church member siblings what kinds of questions are asked in the interview I realized I would have to lie in order to get one. Questions like,
“Are you affiliated with any apostate groups?” (define “apostate”)
“Do you sustain the president and 12 as prophets, seers, and revelators?” (wellll)
“Are you living the Word of Wisdom?”(the real one? or the no tobacco, coffee or alcohol one?”
How would I get around those? I guess I won’t be getting garments
I think the main point is we should allow people the freedom to wear what they want without fear of condemnation. If we had the pure love of Christ we wouldn’t even notice what a person was wearing. I am so much more comfortable(regardless of what I myself am wearing)around my friends who dress “immodestly” than the prudes who are just looking for my shirt to dip too low so they can let me know how offended they are by it. You can make people just as uncomfortable by wearing pants and t-shirts to a public pool (yes I know people who do this) as you can by wearing a bikini to a pot luck. I mean it is all about the situation you are in…”When in Rome”.….. I was in a situation once where I was sitting in a car with a friend. A mutual friend of ours walked past in tight jeans. She is one of the most beautiful (inside and out), virtuous, kind, awesome ladies I know. The friend in the car-not so much. So she makes the comment (about the other lady) “She borrowed my sewing machine so she could make her pants tighter, can you believe that? As if they weren’t tight enough!” I distinctly remember the spirit coming on me and whispering, “The Lord is more pleased with a virtuous woman, regardless how she is clothed, than a hateful backbiter.”
Dyc,
My friend read that very same part from the book she was reading in Sunday meeting. Very interesting and quite a coincidence…
So I guess I should have been happy to oblige those poor, sheltered, plig boys? Lol. I can’t be a hypocrite either. I most definitely appreciate a good looking man. I saw one of the most amazingly beautiful men I had ever seen recently and I couldn’t stop staring at him! And I too thanked him in my heart. I wish I would have said to him,
”Thank you sir for being born such a fine specimen of humanity!” He probably would have appreciated it, I think he was French;)
The near death experience I mentioned can be found here
http://www.near-death.com/storm.html
This man Howard Storm was also given information about the millennial state of the earth. It says this :
Howard’s light being friends told him more about the new world to come. According to them, God wished to usher in the kingdom within the next two hundred years. In order to do so, God had rescinded some of the free will given to creatures, in favor of more divine control over human events. This new world order, according to Howard, will resemble some near-death descriptions of heaven. People will live in such peace and harmony and love that communication will be telepathic, travel instantaneous and the need for clothing and shelter eliminated. The lion will indeed lie down with the lamb.
And I think this is in the post or a comment but here it is again from the gospel of Thomas
37 His disciples said, “When will you appear to us, and when will we see
you?”
Jesus said, “When you strip without being ashamed, and you take your
clothes and put them under your feet like little children and trample them,
then [you] will see the son of the living one and you will not be afraid.”
I find it interesting that both Howard Storm’s information and Thomas says clothing optional is the state of the earth after Christ returns.
the discussion continues and gets worse. 4 year olds can now be considered immodest