bluebell

Agreed. I think the podcasters would agree as well that when teaching the gospel it’s usually good to find common ground and built from that. The podcast is really more about personal reflection about our relationship with God than anything else. It’s definitely not about judging other people’s relationship with God.

Sounds like you aren’t a fan of the podcast. Fair enough!

Good catch!

No they didn’t.

Yes, that is a familiar sentiment. I can appreciate the need for nuance when discussing or teaching John 17:3-- And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. --But I'm not comfortable conceding the verse to those who would use it to condemn us. Since it is a scriptural teaching, why can't we discuss the negative consequences of not knowing God? I can see what you are saying about familiar language, and we probably just disagree on this topic, which is completely fine of course. For myself, I am comfortable with the dichotomy that comes with almost all gospel principles and doctrines: how they can be used for both good and evil. Just because some in the EV community use that verse to condemn us doesn't mean, from my perspective, that we have to tippy toe around the gospel principle the verse is teaching. I'm not certain of that, and I've listened to the full podcast. I think their purpose in focusing on the 'no false gods' part of the ten commandments is to help their institute students (and the rest of us), understand some ways it can apply to us in this day and age when worshipping pagan deities is not relevant anymore. I don't think God is worried about you and me praying to wooden statues, but He is still worried about us worshipping false gods. I think it's smart to ask ourselves why? I like how they the podcasters have come up with one possible way by tying it back to John 17:3 and also Pres. Nelson's plea for us to be intentional with our relationship with God and Christ, because not knowing them has consequences. But, I get that your mileage on the best way to approach this topic is different and I've enjoyed the discussion about our differing perspectives.

Unless a correct view of God can help us be more moral, have better relationships, and do more good in the world.

Sure, if you believe that the reason that God cares about what we think of Him has anything to do with Him or His ego. But what if the reason that God cares if you understand His character is because when we don’t understand His love and His mercy we feel really bad about ourselves because of our sins, and we experience a lot of shame, and we cut ourselves off from being able to experience His peace, and we can’t feel His love for us, and we don’t seek forgiveness for our sins and instead carry the weight of them around with us for a lifetime?

what is the different way you would put it? I find it interesting, the idea that it would be at all connected to an idea of damnation. That was not something that the presenters touched on or that came to my mind.

I think I understand what you are saying. How does it work with the talks and lessons given in the past about how smoking, TV, drugs, our phones, other relationships, can be an example of us worshipping a false god? None of those examples imply an actual deity or even a true theological substitution, yet we hear them all the time at church. Do you dislike those examples as well, or is it just the idea that an incorrect interpretation of God the Father can constitute worshipping a false god that you disagree with? I see what you mean about the different Jesus idea. Rather than apply it against our own members (or other people), is it ever reasonable to apply it to ourselves? I disagree that the concept has anything to do with the underlined part, probably because I listened to the podcast and heard the discussion in context. These church CES workers (or whatever they are called now), were not at all implying that incorrect understandings of Jesus mean someone has left the faith. Nor did they even come close to the idea that we should be applying this concept to anyone else other than ourselves, as an exercise to help us always be moving closer to worshipping Him in truth.

Can you clarify? I'm not sure what you are trying to say. How is the idea that we can worship a false God when we make God in our own image, for example, adopting the language of an oppressor?

As it relates to the covering of our bodies, it is very much so a cultural construct. One that I believe God works within for our best interests, but still not an eternal standard as far as mortality goes. It used to be the height of scandalous for a woman to show her ankles. It used to be considered immodest for a woman to have short hair ("banging your hair" or cutting bangs was also viewed as a rebellious act in the past, even by some church leaders). It was also immodest for a woman to go out in public without a hat or gloves. It's interesting how women are usually the ones getting the short end of the stick with this topic.

I was listening to a podcast called Gospel Chats (which is a couple of institute directors/teachers in St. George Utah. They have an excellent series on the temple and now are going through the ten commandments. I like their stuff because it's fairly short. Like 30 minutes to an hour in total. In one of their latest podcasts they discussed the concept of having no gods before God the Father. They did the usual take on it, which was taking it in context with the pagan and polytheistic gods that existed in the OT and also talking about all the ways that we worship other gods now like our phones or sports or whatever. But then they took it in a direction that I had never thought about before, where they discussed that when we have an incorrect understanding or view of who God and Christ are, then we are essentially worshipping a false God. They used the parable of the talents as an example, where the slothful servant explains that the reason he buried his talent was because he knew that his Master was a hard and demanding master. But if the Master is Christ, He is none of those things. So in that sense, the slothful servant didn't actually know his master at all, he just thought he did. And that misconception about who his master was is what caused him all the problems later. One of the presenters says that "maybe one of the false gods that most of us worship is our own interpretation of God" and asks the other presenter what some of his incorrect understandings of God had he worshipped over the years. He lists a few, one of which is "a god of perfectionism rather than a God that perfects." I think there are probably many of us in the church who have worshipped that false god while believing we were worshipping Christ. With that perspective as a background, the scriptures talking about us knowing God, and Pres. Nelson's constant pleas for us to really learn who God is, stand out. The need to be intentional in actually spending time and effort getting to know the God you worship, and the reason for the first commandment in the ten commandments, makes so much more sense to me. Thoughts? Is this a new perspective on this commandment for you or is it something you've already been considering? Is it useful to apply the worshipping of false gods to the different ways we worship God the Father and Jesus Christ?

Humans are kind of a mess when you think about it.

We tend to be bad at mourning with people who mourn if we don’t see a reason for their mourning.

Can you explain what you mean by the idea that a type of underwear would make someone feel less modest, when their top clothing still goes up to the neck and down to the ankles and wrists? That's a sentiment I hadn't heard expressed before.

That could happen. I don't think they offer the one piece garments anymore, for example, even though those were pretty popular with older generations. I think you can still buy long sleeved and pants garments, but for warmth and not really to placate the 'one true garment style' crowd. If capped sleeve garments eventually disappear, I think it will happen slowly enough that most people who wouldn't be comfortable without them will be dead by then. For the upcoming generations, sleeveless won't be any more noteworthy to them than two piece garments are currently for us. So they probably would care as much about the loss of that option as most of us do today about the loss of the one piece garment option. Which is to say, they won't care at all. (if that has in fact been discontinued. I'm not sure it has. If after all these years you can still buy one piece garments, then I think we can be secure in not worrying about losing the capped sleeve option ever either).

Women could wear spaghetti straps and strapless fashion at BYU until they were banned in 1967. It seems like the idea that modest meant covering everything the garment covered is a relatively modern thing in the church.

To be clear, these changes aren't tank tops. They are sleeveless. Most tank tops will still not work over the new sleeveless garments because tank tops tend to be cut different than sleeveless shirts or dresses. But yes, the sleeveless design is available for men as well.

I'm really thankful they have finally gone back to the real meaning of modesty and not just made it about covering body parts and sexual feelings anymore. It was refreshing to see that link go to an article that talks about modesty in language and behavior, and how modesty is an attitude of decency and humility and not bringing attention to ourselves. There are a lot of affluent members of the church who are fully clothed but not dressed modestly, but that is never really brought up. My biggest issue with the garment change and the teachings around modesty is the silence on it actually being a change. I didn't come of age in an era where it was really a problem but it got crazy in the 2000s (and sounds like it was crazy before my era as well). I don't see the purpose in pretending like those eras didn't exist. I think so much healing could be accomplished if leadership could acknowledge that at times modesty was taught and enforced badly, that such a focus hurt women and girls (and boys and men too, just in different ways), and that the new 'correct' understanding needs to be shouted from the rooftops so everyone gets the new message. I completely see why some women feel gaslit.

That debacle was so embarrassing.

So much of it seems to be where someone was raised or how their parents interpreted stuff. And I think age as well. I don't know how old your wife is but I'm 49 and was raised in northern wyoming (in a place that was settled by BY ironically so has a large latter-day saint population given the size of the towns, but that is otherwise nothing like Utah) and in high school we would wear tank tops and sleeveless tops all the time with no one ever saying a word. My BFF and I even wore them to a temple trip (which required a 5 hour road trip and overnight stay in Idaho Falls). She was the very obedient daughter of a bishop and stalwart mother and our clothing was a non issue. This was in the mid 90s, before 'modest is hottest' really took over in the Christian culture in general so I think we got lucky.

That makes sense. I'm not sure what JLH was referring to when he spoke of angels wearing garments. Maybe he will share that reference.

Yes, that description is why I’m asking, as JS said his chest was visible and he could tell he had no garment on underneath the robe.

JS's description of Moroni doesn't works with the long sleeved, high collared, temple garment that was first created though. Why would he not be wearing the garment? (It's an interesting topic that I haven't delved into much, so I'm asking a lot of questions).

I didn't know you did (couldn't remember if we'd ever had the conversation or not) but thanks for explaining. I appreciate that Pres. JFS mentions unauthorized changes. I think that's very pertinent to the discussion. Do we have access to the revelation that provided the pattern of the garment? I can't find anything about it online but I didn't look very hard.