Calm

Can you explain how you get the pattern that was first used to make garments, a shirt with arms that went down to the wrists and a high neck attached to pants that went down to the ankle out of the description of a loose robe with a low bosom (and possibly lower if Joseph could the angel had no pants on below the robe). Serious question as I don’t understand how you got from A to G when A (angel attire) seems fundamentally different from G (original garment attire) except for color. (Though wasn’t there some red thread involved there as well?) added: Found a reference… https://books.google.com/books?id=8X4FAAAAQAAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&printsec=frontcover&hl=en&source=gb_mobile_entity&ovdme=1#v=onepage&q&f=false

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/inspiration/modesty-its-about-more-than-clothes?lang=eng More scripture pointing towards lack of modesty/humility being shown by expensive clothing. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/8?lang=eng&id=p27#p27 https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/1-pet/3?lang=eng https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/alma/32?lang=eng Proverbs 31 even has a description of a righteous woman in quality clothing, what matters is her heart being towards God and her family and community.

Where in the scriptures is modesty taught to be less or more by the number of inches skin shows or condemns the exposure of shoulders? When I was a kid, we attended Primary in the afternoon with sleeveless tops and dresses, BYU allowed women to go to dances in shoulderless dresses if the photos of the campus beauty queens were any indication (they were displayed in the administration building when I attended, I heard at least the older ones got taken down). My mom was a very modest woman, but we had quite a few pictures of her in sleeveless tops and shorts prior to her marriage…and if it’s decent attire before marriage, it’s decent afterwards. This was in the 1950s which is often presented as the ideal time for the ideal family (that 50s culture is often described as very family oriented, including promoting the mother to stay at home and raise their children herself) Wearing clothing that does not expose garments is showing respect for the garment, imo; it shouldn’t be viewed as a measure of “physical modesty” because there is nothing eternal about the cultural standards both in and out of the Church that are constantly in flux, varying from culture to culture. How strange is it that a woman can be accused of being immodest when she never had a lustful thought in her head or heart nor had any intent to cause such in others while the people accusing her who had that had the evil thoughts as they were looking at her, framing her as a sexual object, etc. God didn’t have a problem with nakedness until fallen humanity made it an issue since he apparently walked and talked with Adam and Eve while they were naked according to scripture. I don’t have a problem with having a standard of dress in the Church, my issue is taking it past what known revelation teaches and making modesty about how much arms are covered or the knees or any skin above them showing. There is nothing inherently sexual about arms so why would modesty get connected with that by God? Or need to be connected by culture? What is being revealed by unclothed arms? Modesty is primarily contrasted with vanity in scripture, wearing costly clothing and hairstyles that require the assistance of others, most likely servants or slaves in that time period, such as in 1 Timothy:

Sounds like he’s talking about the full garment, not just tops but bottoms…possibly thinking we should only have one piece even as it was originally? Not sure if that would be required to be consistent with the original design as long as down to ankles and wrists if I understand JLHPROF correctly. I understand and empathize with wanting the older style, fuller ritual; the practical side of me, the side that doesn’t believe that God thinks a woman’s health is a necessary sacrifice for obedience, is applauding the new styles, which is not just about sleevelessness.

That doesn’t look like any temple garment I am aware of. More like a caftan robe (which are so comfortable btw, one of my favorites; makes sense why angels would wear them imo). I would never use the term “loose robe” for any temple garment. Now for one of the robes one places on top during the ritual, sure, but it doesn’t provide full coverage and requires clothing underneath. It doesn’t fit the description here either beyond “loose”.

I suspect it is more the feeling of being listened to that the change in garments demonstrates for many since a lot of women were willing and committed to abiding by that standard. I never wear sleeveless and usually long sleeved to avoid sun exposure, but I am very, very happy for the changes because I have experienced health issues triggered by garments before and had to stop wearing them (with permission of my bishop) at night and quite a bit of the day (I have always worn them when I leave home except for swimming and the occasional doctor’s appt where they would be exposed as I was taught to do it that way and it just doesn’t feel comfortable to do it differently, not as respectful (not saying it wouldn’t be fine for others, just that early attitudes can stick around even when the reason—avoid mocking—are gone). And I live in an area where I could (and have) changed garments multiple times a day to try and avoid issues and experimented with quite a few varieties in an attempt to find the ones that worked best. There are many women who cannot afford to experiment or to have drawers full of garments to change several times a day as they get soaked with sweat or to take the time and effort to wash them daily….and still end up with infections or rashes that won’t go away as long as the garment stays on most of the 24/7, women who want to be obedient and therefore suffer very uncomfortably and in some cases dangerously. For me it was a choice of continuing wearing garments and being uncomfortable and not being able to get pregnant again or take them off. I very much wish there had been a better option among garments at that time so I didn’t have to feel shamed because I wanted to be a mother again. Women aren’t the only ones I have known who have had health issues. Our neighbors were a lovely senior couple with the husband being a traditionalist wearing the older style down to ankles and wrists. One summer afternoon (and this was in Calgary, Canada, so probably mid 70s) his grandson came up in a panic. Grandpa couldn’t talk and was just staring blankly at him. I rushed down of course (we were at the top of slight hill, so it was up and down even if only a four house distance) and once I confirmed it, called 911 and then tried to get a response to see what was wrong. Freaked me out. Paramedics came very quickly and started loosening clothing, couldn’t understand why he was wearing long johns under his street wear. I explained it was religious clothing. They ended cutting some off him to cool him down. Diagnosis once they got to the hospital was a heat stroke, dangerous at his age. I don’t know how long it took for him to start to be able to talk again. I don’t think he was ever quite the same after that. It was insane it happened on what was a relatively cool day when he wasn’t doing anything strenuous. I am surprised it didn’t happen more often when that style was more commonly worn.

Would you be okay with the fabric being different than originally used if the shape/design and colors were the same?

First article….they had scores of women who were witnesses to depraved behaviour, yet only one woman claimed anything satanic went on. As far as her sister’s claims in the second link, there is no collaboration of the sister’s claims and given her mental and emotional history, caution should be used. I am not skeptical of the claim of abuse, just the type and target of her claim. Sex workers often have a history of abuse, so I don’t see that as unlikely, though nothing indicating the actual predator and how and when it occurred in the info I have seen. I suspect there are mentally ill people who abuse kids using satanic images, I see it as highly unlikely it’s organized at all. I base this on I don’t see any benefit for highly functioning intelligent adults to be slaughtering kids in the name of Satan. What’s the payoff in committing such risky behaviour? It’s inconsistent with actual known behaviour of competent power people, imo. Now mentally ill people, sure, but I don’t see them as capable of keeping such behaviour under wraps for very long or being able to function that well in a group (think Charles Manson and his followers).

Online child sexual exploitation and abuse can be reported to Law enforcement and is by many***. If the victim is identified in the material, there will much more likely be an investigation done. You mentioned these videos have been around for awhile and I assume they are readily accessible since you were able to see them, but perhaps you have skills I do not know about finding hidden sites for some reason. If so, it seems like there is a high likelihood they were reported and investigated. If all there is available to see about it is the accusations and there is no mention of an investigation and what was found, it seems reasonable to assume it’s unlikely to be real based on the number of claims that have been shown to be false. That doesn’t exclude all possibility of it being real, but it lowers probability a great deal imo. In these cases default mode should be skepticism rather than acceptance (in other cases of abuse where that stats unfortunately favor the likelihood such as abuse by relatives, the default should be acceptance imo… though of course the claims need to be verified before acted upon with legal methods. If they are fakes, the purpose of their existence is likely personal gain. Advertising them, pointing people towards them rewards that behavioir, which increases the likelihood that more will do it, again taking away very needed resources from real cases of actual abuse. That is why I think we should be cautious about viewing materials that claim satanic abuse is involved. It may not seem like much, just one more hit on their site, but if we then share our shock and disgust and concern, how many more are likely to be also curious and concerned and go looking…so the numbers grow, encouraging more efforts to bring more money or attention. I hope I am not conveying I think you are doing something wrong by being interested in the possibility that someone has been abused in a horrific way. That shows you have compassion and is a good thing. The person doing wrong imo is the one lying about abuse (both knowingly claiming what is fake or denying actual abuse). Sometimes good actions have unintended negative consequences, sometimes these trivial consequences can become significant if there are enough people contributing. Anything online that depicts or claims knowledge of ongoing abuse that looks credible to people needs to be reported imo. Therefore it’s important if one comes across claims for whatever reason (I know some make it a mission to try and find online victims in order to report them to help stop abuse) to educate oneself in what is credible and what is not. If it isn’t credible, if it’s vague or unverifiable, you can at least report it to the platform you see it on to be reviewed by them for criminal activity, etc. If you are unsure, you can call RAINN (1-800-656-4673) or nonemergency numbers of police to get guidance. ***https://www.dhs.gov/know2protect/how-to-report report.cybertipline.org

But in the Book of Mormon they are exposed time and time again.

How do you know they are not fakes? Not mocking, but serious question.

She has always had that vibe for me.

Do you mean Satanic child abuse, because one of the reasons I come down on SRA and recovered memories is because it discredits actual child abuse because at times when people find out such things are false, they stop trusting stories of real abuse as well. Plus it diverts resources. Given all the hours and attention spent, there has been a lot of money wasted finding little to no result (it’s possible they came across some real abuse cases—not SRA, other kinds of abuse). The McMartin case alone cost 15 million. It was supposedly the most expensive criminal case ever because of its length (7 years) and endless charges if I understand correctly. The insistence that there had to be substance there…. https://www.upi.com/Archives/1990/01/18/Theories-on-why-McMartin-trial-took-so-long/3379632638800/ I find it hard to believe anyone mocks people who believe in actual child abuse, there is a good chance most of us have loved ones or friends who have experienced it, so I am thinking you left out Satanic.

If I ever manage to regain my ability to sit for a long time, I am going to crash my grandson’s game sometime. I bought a set back in 76 iirc and still have it, but never found anyone who wanted to play with me because I was too shy to actually ask, lol.

For Utah? I thought Snow was the primary therapist who promoted it here. Are you talking about the book? Something Michelle iirc, Remembering Michelle maybe.

I never had such a perception and it didn’t occur to me that others might as what seemed conveyed to me was that she withdrew from public life as much as possible and didn’t want to get involved in religious leadership having seen the high cost to her family. I am wondering about others who grew up in the Church as well as those who converted. I expect my upbringing was somewhat different than the typical Saint, though I don’t think I was that familiar with events that occurred and others besides Joseph’s beliefs (my mother deep dove into tue JoD and Joseph’s teachings and studied Swedenborg and others…and then she talked to me and my siblings about the teachings and her own ideas because there wasn’t any adults interested around her). Would like to compare perceptions about Emma in this case. I am already familiar with how she was seen as not enduring to the end and practically an enemy to the Church in my Primary days, but got ‘rehabilitated’ starting sometime in my MIA (YW) days iirc when Joseph and Emma’s love story started to get emphasized, in part because one of their descendants converted and was published in the Ensign, iirc. Have heard quite a bit of discussion about that aspect before, but not that much about the succession and Emma’s role in the RLDS beyond supporting her son.

Hocus Pocus is great, you should really try and see that. Practical Magic…I remember that as entertaining, but don’t have much desire to see it again, but then I am not a Sandra Bullock fan (there is just something about her performances that triggers angsty feelings for me, maybe because they almost always set up very awkward situations for her). I like both Aidan Quinn and Nicole Kidman and Stockard Channing is always fun to watch in my experience (which is probably pretty limited as I limit movies to a few genres and tend to avoid others).

Church employees retire at the usual age, so if TB restricts the corruption to “middle management”, then the high profile decades long secret doesn’t really apply. But I don’t see it as realistic for middle management either given the oversight that occurs. At the very least even if one restricts the ‘pure’ corruption to a limited, but powerful number, those surrounding them would have to be at least corrupt enough to look away. The so called secret combinations in the Book of Mormon were known to the public it seems and the identities of some individuals involved were known to faithful church leaders and they did all they could to root them out, including public denunciations. Appealing to scripture to ‘prove’ the likely existence of current secret combinations while ignoring the response of church leaders and others seems highly inconsistent to me.

It seemed to be something of a thing back in the 80s. I also knew of a political group that attempted setting up a community somewhere in Utah (my memory says south Utah county) based on the United Order. I don’t know if I am just out of that loop now (and was never really in it, I just knew people through the ward) and such things are still happening or those particular forms of preparing for the end times has died out. (There is the getting ready to get called out version, but last I heard Julie Rowe’s attempt to buy land and set up a community failed miserably pretty quickly plus I don’t remember if they were modeling on the United Order or just some idea of Rowe’s.)

The judge does not say as TB claims iirc (will doublecheck later) that the documents had nothing bad in them. He said they were irrelevant to her case, but published to make TB look bad. That implies the judge saw inappropriate behavior in the materials. He didn’t give TB a clean bill of moral health as implied by TB. So not a win for either based on merit (or lack there of) of the defendant, but a dismissal because of illegal information gathering. Smac and any other lawyers or qualified commentators on legal matters, is this a case of the fruit of the poisonous tree…or rather would be if the judge had allowed them? He is avoiding the possibility by banning the letters.

Thanks! And good to see you.

Given how strongly the Lord came out about taking care of the poor and needy, mourning with those who mourn, etc, I don’t think one has dig deep for exotic, devilish rituals or beliefs to find what the Lord considers as abominations.

Since there is no such evidence found so far beyond personal anecdotes that have not been able to be verified even though many, many have investigated, I think there is no such thing as “too many times”. The Satanic Panic caused a tremendous amount of harm, including distracting people from actual abuse, and it needs to be stepped on, imo.

If you want to edit, I can try and remember to replace your old quote with the new version.

And what made Satan lustful?