Women's Dress and Men's Thoughts

[Bernard Gui]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

This happened on my mission. You laugh it off and move on. It did not turn us into lust crazed rapists or anything.

That really doesn’t address the questions. No one said it turned them into rapists.

Edited October 29, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

That really doesn’t address the questions. No one said it turned them into rapists.

Will it influence their thoughts? In the direct moment, sure. In the following moments, probably. Long term only if they let it.

[Bernard Gui]

44 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Will it influence their thoughts? In the direct moment, sure. In the following moments, probably. Long term only if they let it.

Thanks. So in your opinion, while it can have temporary adverse results, the onus is all on the elders? Do you believe LDS coeds would do something like this and think it was funny? Come to think of it, why would anyone think it is funny?

Edited October 29, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[SeekingUnderstanding]

41 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I mentioned earlier my son Persistissimo’s experience as a missionary in Colorado. In one university city, some coeds thought it was funny to flash the missionaries when they came to their doors. This happened more than once.
 

This raises some questions.
 

How does this work with the bolded statement above? Did the young ladies bear any responsibility, or was it all on the elders to keep their thoughts in check? Would getting flashed prompt the same reaction as coming to the door in a cloth bag? Do intentions affect the balance of the equation? Would it be the same if some guys thought it would be funny to flash the sister missionaries?

If you can point to some example of young women in the church flashing the young men, then I would grant relevance to the thread. As it is, your point is completely orthogonal. It stupefies me that this is your response. In your mind is not wearing a t-shirt over a bathing suit similar in any way to flashing missionaries?

[Bernard Gui]

15 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

If you can point to some example of young women in the church flashing the young men, then I would grant relevance to the thread. As it is, your point is completely orthogonal. It stupefies me that this is your response. In your mind is not wearing a t-shirt over a bathing suit similar in any way to flashing missionaries?

Orthogonal? Nope. Seems to me this falls directly in line with this discussion...that men are responsible for their thoughts and women have no control over them. Do intentions have any impact on the equation?

I’m more interested in your answers to the questions I asked than questions you think I should ask. If you don’t care to address them, that’s ok.

Edited October 29, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Jake Starkey]

The discussion is about LDS women, LDS institutional and culturally imposed modesty, and what roles and assumptions males and females should take from that paradigm.

Non-LDS girls flashing missionaries is immaterial, imo.  What is material, as Henry Adams taught at Harvard when he began graduate level courses in medieval history, were how to ask the correct questions.  Some of the questions here are being determined by a psychological ideation independent of gospel principles, imo.

 

 

[Bernard Gui]

16 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said:

The discussion is about LDS women, LDS institutional and culturally imposed modesty, and what roles and assumptions males and females should take from that paradigm.

Non-LDS girls flashing missionaries is immaterial, imo.  What is material, as Henry Adams taught at Harvard when he began graduate level courses in medieval history, were how to ask the correct questions.  Some of the questions here are being determined by a psychological ideation independent of gospel principles, imo.

Thanks. Much of the discussion has also revolved around LDS men being responsible for their thoughts.  I’m more interested in answers to the questions I asked, rather than the ones you think I should have asked. If you think they are irrelevant, that’s fine with me.

Edited October 29, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[alter idem]

The topic 27 pages ago,  was about a Mission Prs. who was insisting the sisters wear sweaters and coats when around the Elders and then the op discussed Elder Oaks' talk where he suggested that women's dress or lack there of put responsibility on the woman for creating impure thoughts in men around them (this is in essence, not his exact words).  

First the Mission Pres.  I think if this happened to my daughter, I'd contact the Mission headquarters and let them know what this Mission Pres. was doing because basically, his stricter dress standards go beyond the mark and suggest he thinks that the standard missionary dress for women set by the church is immodest.  I think that would get someone's attention who is responsible for this mission pres that something is wrong or 'off'.  Either he himself has problems struggling with impure thoughts, or he's got a number of Elders who have problems and this is his over compensation for how to deal with it.  Either way, this mission needs to be looked into, because something is wrong, IMO.  A mission Pres. should not be dictating additional requirements for what he thinks is 'modest dress' when the Church mission dept. sets these standards, unless this is in a strict Muslim country and then, likely, the Pres. would have told the Sisters to wear baggy coats and sweaters outside the Chapel as well, and the request would have been justified for the Sisters' own safety.  Cinepro never said what mission this is, but I suspect that's not the case.

As for Women being responsible for arousing lust in others;  Demanding that LDS women cover up in order to protect the men and boys is useless.  If the men can't control their thoughts around LDS women, they sure aren't going to be able to do it around the rest of the world; they'd have to be hermits, never leave the house, never go on the internet or watch tv, movies etc and that's not possible.  Men and boys are naturally attracted to women (heterosexual men) and will have to take responsibility and accept that they are the only ones who can discipline their own thoughts.  In fact, we each are responsible for disciplining and controlling our own thoughts, it's an excuse to try to blame others.  While it's likely natural to have an initial reaction of arousal when seeing a scantily clad attractive person, it is the responsibility of the viewer to choose NOT to objectify the person and continue with thoughts of fantasy or lust.  That's on them.   What's on us (those who have the money to choose what we wear and how much we spend on clothes) is to be responsible for the way we dress and the messages it sends to those around us.  That's both men and women and it's not just whether clothing is modest or immodest.  

As for whether or not women are more spiritual than men;  I think both men and women can have and develop the same great spiritual capacity and the gospel of Jesus Christs expects and encourages both sexes to use and develop it spiritual gifts.  I personally believe some things that often appeal to men such as sports, competition, business success, worldly pursuits, money, power etc. sometimes become a distraction that can keep good men from truly developing their spiritual natures.  But, I think women can have distractions that will do the same, and I think we're seeing it more today than maybe in earlier generations.  I'm reminded of what Pres. Kimball once said decades ago;

 

Quote

“Finally, my dear sisters, may I suggest to you something that has not been said before or at least in quite this way. Much of the major growth that is coming to the Church in the last days will come because many of the good women of the world … will be drawn to the Church in large numbers. This will happen to the degree that the women of the Church reflect righteousness and articulateness in their lives and to the degree that the women of the Church are seen as distinct and different—in happy ways—from the women of the world.

“Among the real heroines in the world who will come into the Church are women who are more concerned with being righteous than with being selfish. These real heroines have true humility, which places a higher value on integrity than on visibility. …

“… It will be … female exemplars of the Church [who] will be a significant force in both the numerical and the spiritual growth of the Church in the last days.”³

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2017/11/general-womens-session/turn-on-your-light?lang=eng

 

I think from Pres. Kimball's prophetic words that he was emphasizing that women have a special mission in the last days and IMO, he's putting a lot of responsibility on the women of the church to help the spiritual growth--not only in themselves but in how they raise their sons, how they teach young men, and even their expectations of their husbands to help them be a spiritual force in their homes.

[Bernard Gui]

4 minutes ago, alter idem said:

The topic 27 pages ago,  was about a Mission Prs. who was insisting the sisters wear sweaters and coats when around the Elders and then the op discussed Elder Oaks' talk where he suggested that women's dress or lack there of put responsibility on the woman for creating impure thoughts in men around them (this is in essence, not his exact words).  

First the Mission Pres.  I think if this happened to my daughter, I'd contact the Mission headquarters and let them know what this Mission Pres. was doing because basically, his stricter dress standards go beyond the mark and suggest he thinks that the standard missionary dress for women set by the church is immodest.  I think that would get someone's attention who is responsible for this mission pres that something is wrong or 'off'.  Either he himself has problems struggling with impure thoughts, or he's got a number of Elders who have problems and this is his over compensation for how to deal with it.  Either way, this mission needs to be looked into, because something is wrong, IMO.  A mission Pres. should not be dictating additional requirements for what he thinks is 'modest dress' when the Church mission dept. sets these standards, unless this is in a strict Muslim country and then, likely, the Pres. would have told the Sisters to wear baggy coats and sweaters outside the Chapel as well, and the request would have been justified for the Sisters' own safety.  Cinepro never said what mission this is, but I suspect that's not the case.

As for Women being responsible for arousing lust in others;  Demanding that LDS women cover up in order to protect the men and boys is useless.  If the men can't control their thoughts around LDS women, they sure aren't going to be able to do it around the rest of the world; they'd have to be hermits, never leave the house, never go on the internet or watch tv, movies etc and that's not possible.  Men and boys are naturally attracted to women (heterosexual men) and will have to take responsibility and accept that they are the only ones who can discipline their own thoughts.  In fact, we each are responsible for disciplining and controlling our own thoughts, it's an excuse to try to blame others.  While it's likely natural to have an initial reaction of arousal when seeing a scantily clad attractive person, it is the responsibility of the viewer to choose NOT to objectify the person and continue with thoughts of fantasy or lust.  That's on them.   What's on us (those who have the money to choose what we wear and how much we spend on clothes) is to be responsible for the way we dress and the messages it sends to those around us.  That's both men and women and it's not just whether clothing is modest or immodest.  

As for whether or not women are more spiritual than men;  I think both men and women can have and develop the same great spiritual capacity and the gospel of Jesus Christs expects and encourages both sexes to use and develop it spiritual gifts.  I personally believe some things that often appeal to men such as sports, competition, business success, worldly pursuits, money, power etc. sometimes become a distraction that can keep good men from truly developing their spiritual natures.  But, I think women can have distractions that will do the same, and I think we're seeing it more today than maybe in earlier generations.  I'm reminded of what Pres. Kimball once said decades ago;

 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2017/11/general-womens-session/turn-on-your-light?lang=eng

 

I think from Pres. Kimball's prophetic words that he was emphasizing that women have a special mission in the last days and IMO, he's putting a lot of responsibility on the women of the church to help the spiritual growth--not only in themselves but in how they raise their sons, how they teach young men, and even their expectations of their husbands to help them be a spiritual force in their homes.

You touched all the bases.

[Jake Starkey]

9 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thanks. Much of the discussion has also revolved around LDS men being responsible for their thoughts.  I’m more interested in answers to the questions I asked, rather than the ones you think I should have asked. If you think they are irrelevant, that’s fine with me.

Thank you.

[smac97]

40 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Orthogonal? Nope. Seems to me this falls directly in line with this discussion...that men are responsible for their thoughts and women have no control over them.

"Control?"  No.  Influence?  Well...

40 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Do intentions have any impact on the equation?

I think so.  There's a legal maxim that comes to mind: "Affectio tua nomen imponit operi tuo."  It generally translates to "Your motive gives the name to your act."

What we do matters.  Why we do it also matters.

Thanks,

-Smac

[mfbukowski]

25 minutes ago, alter idem said:

The topic 27 pages ago,  was about a Mission Prs. who was insisting the sisters wear sweaters and coats when around the Elders and then the op discussed Elder Oaks' talk where he suggested that women's dress or lack there of put responsibility on the woman for creating impure thoughts in men around them (this is in essence, not his exact words).  

First the Mission Pres.  I think if this happened to my daughter, I'd contact the Mission headquarters and let them know what this Mission Pres. was doing because basically, his stricter dress standards go beyond the mark and suggest he thinks that the standard missionary dress for women set by the church is immodest.  I think that would get someone's attention who is responsible for this mission pres that something is wrong or 'off'.  Either he himself has problems struggling with impure thoughts, or he's got a number of Elders who have problems and this is his over compensation for how to deal with it.  Either way, this mission needs to be looked into, because something is wrong, IMO.  A mission Pres. should not be dictating additional requirements for what he thinks is 'modest dress' when the Church mission dept. sets these standards, unless this is in a strict Muslim country and then, likely, the Pres. would have told the Sisters to wear baggy coats and sweaters outside the Chapel as well, and the request would have been justified for the Sisters' own safety.  Cinepro never said what mission this is, but I suspect that's not the case.

As for Women being responsible for arousing lust in others;  Demanding that LDS women cover up in order to protect the men and boys is useless.  If the men can't control their thoughts around LDS women, they sure aren't going to be able to do it around the rest of the world; they'd have to be hermits, never leave the house, never go on the internet or watch tv, movies etc and that's not possible.  Men and boys are naturally attracted to women (heterosexual men) and will have to take responsibility and accept that they are the only ones who can discipline their own thoughts.  In fact, we each are responsible for disciplining and controlling our own thoughts, it's an excuse to try to blame others.  While it's likely natural to have an initial reaction of arousal when seeing a scantily clad attractive person, it is the responsibility of the viewer to choose NOT to objectify the person and continue with thoughts of fantasy or lust.  That's on them.   What's on us (those who have the money to choose what we wear and how much we spend on clothes) is to be responsible for the way we dress and the messages it sends to those around us.  That's both men and women and it's not just whether clothing is modest or immodest.  

As for whether or not women are more spiritual than men;  I think both men and women can have and develop the same great spiritual capacity and the gospel of Jesus Christs expects and encourages both sexes to use and develop it spiritual gifts.  I personally believe some things that often appeal to men such as sports, competition, business success, worldly pursuits, money, power etc. sometimes become a distraction that can keep good men from truly developing their spiritual natures.  But, I think women can have distractions that will do the same, and I think we're seeing it more today than maybe in earlier generations.  I'm reminded of what Pres. Kimball once said decades ago;

 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2017/11/general-womens-session/turn-on-your-light?lang=eng

 

I think from Pres. Kimball's prophetic words that he was emphasizing that women have a special mission in the last days and IMO, he's putting a lot of responsibility on the women of the church to help the spiritual growth--not only in themselves but in how they raise their sons, how they teach young men, and even their expectations of their husbands to help them be a spiritual force in their homes.

Great point, which well illustrates the great calling women have in our church and in the world.

Many men I know count on their wives AS the great spiritual force in the home, and try to emulate their goodness.

The more you search among some of the older conference talks the more you find gems like this one. Today of course general authorities must walk a tightrope

Edited October 29, 2019 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thanks. So in your opinion, while it can have temporary adverse results, the onus is all on the elders? Do you believe LDS coeds would do something like this and think it was funny? Come to think of it, why would anyone think it is funny?

I have bee waiting for an opportunity to say "the onus is on us".

Thanks.

 

[mfbukowski]

16 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

From my vantage point, no one has twisted your words. Your statement above is clear on its face. A number of us strongly disagree with it and, in fact, find it deeply troubling. In my case, it both flies in the face of what I know academically/intellectually as one who holds a PhD in history and does harm to basic gospel principles that I hold dear. I think some of us -- and you can include me in this number -- recognise that your 'testimony' has the real potential to damage and mislead both women and men. If you taught such a thing to my children at church, I would be upset and raise the issue with leadership. Perhaps that gives you a sense of how ugly and damning I think such statements are?

In another place you said this:

Quote

 

I have lived numerous places where the Church is heavily male. In my mission, we baptised two men for every woman. Most of the part-member families in the wards I served in consisted of a member husband and a non-member wife. In one ward, our ward mission leader and every ward missionary had a non-member wife. And they were all quite nasty (depraved?). Our poor ward mission leader got home from ward council one evening to find his wife fuming. The Church, she said, was worse than a mistress, and he had to make a choice: her or the Church. He chose the Church, and she threw him out of the house.

When I was studying for my master's degree in America, active YSAs in our stake were 75 per cent male. The second-last branch I lived in before moving to where I am now at one point had no adult females in it. It had been like that for years and years, but finally two of the 'stubborn' wives, including the branch president's wife, were baptised. When I moved here, we used to jokingly refer to our YSA Sunday school class as 'first elders quorum', though some weeks we did have one or two females attend......

And I have lived places where it is blindingly clear to everyone, including Church members, that men are far more spiritual than women, the latter being characterised in the local culture as both intellectually and spiritually dull, stubborn, prone to cling to ridiculous superstition, more bound by tradition, inclined to be dishonest and petty, temptresses, etc. You are projecting your personal apprehension of a singular and culturally bound phenomenon onto the rest of the world, and it simply doesn't fit.

Edited yesterday at 12:05 AM by Hamba Tuhan

 

It appears in the first post that you are holding my personal testimony to be ugly and damning, dangerous, and misleading and yet in the second post you find similar positions as "cultural" variations and therefore I assume, acceptable, some of them being the exact positions I hold, calling women "all quite nasty (depraved?)"?

In fact you seem to laud the idea that it was a common belief that men are more spiritual than women, and that women are "depraved".

So my question is, how can the same belief on one hand be regarded as "ugly and damning" when I say it but when you say it, suddenly they simply become cultural nonsense, worthy of ridicule but of course not to be taken seriously.

My reply to both posts is quoted here and I would appreciate it if you replied

Quote

 

You mean it doesn't fit YOUR present cultural paradigm?

Just to clarify then, what you now believe about the relationship between men and women, since it appears to agree with most others on this board, is NOT culturally determined but is the last and final non cultural absolutely certain Paradigm for the ages?  In fact such a concept would not even be a paradigm but the final TRUTH

So we have finally discovered the TRVTH written in stone and have now at last surpassed culture?

Is that what you're saying?

And your superior qualifications in history of culture have shown you that finally we have reached the TRUTH?

I look at moral paradigms as open to choice since none of them can be determined scientifically.

I think we have a duty to determine our own testimonies through prayer and study and come up with our own model of God and our relationship with him.

Perhaps I'm mistaken but it seems to me that you are saying that you have found the final Truth For All Mankind and these issues are no longer culturally determined but YOU have the TRUTH. 

Incidentally if that is what you believe it would be fine with me I would just disagree with it.

And let me extend that question to the rest of the board. Is what you all apparently believe now the absolute final truth about men and women?

As I have said before what I believe about men and women is based upon my testimony and my own understanding which I have found works for me to bring me closer to God. The idea that someone would disagree with someone's testimony and tell them that their path does not lead to God is not for them to determine.

That kind of slavish obedience to "Authority" leads to Jim Jones and drinking the Kool-Aid.

I am beginning to understand the problems now forming about freedom of religion better and better by the minute.

Differ from the cultural beliefs of the moment and you will be shouted down.

Sorry folks I will never do that and will never obey the common will.  I do what I feel will bring me closer to the savior no matter what anyone else tells me. 

What beliefs I need to maintain in order to become closer to the savior are my own business and no one else's. Perhaps I need those beliefs to surpass things that have happened to me in my childhood, but to attack someone for the constructs they have needed to make in their life is pure savagery.

 

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/72357-womens-dress-and-mens-thoughts/?do=findComment&comment=1209939791

 

Edited October 29, 2019 by mfbukowski
Under construction

[Bernard Gui]

36 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Control?"  No.  Influence?  Well...

I think so.  There's a legal maxim that comes to mind: "Affectio tua nomen imponit operi tuo."  It generally translates to "Your motive gives the name to your act."

What we do matters.  Why we do it also matters.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thank you for this.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, alter idem said:

As for Women being responsible for arousing lust in others;  Demanding that LDS women cover up in order to protect the men and boys is useless. If the men can't control their thoughts around LDS women, they sure aren't going to be able to do it around the rest of the world; they'd have to be hermits, never leave the house, never go on the internet or watch tv, movies etc and that's not possible.

I liked your post overall, but disagree with the sentiment here.  We live among the world it is true, but that doesn't give us spiritual licence to join them in worldly things and add to distraction from spiritual things. 

How should we answer the following?

It is true that temptation and loose standards are everywhere and inescapable, therefore... a) we shouldn't care, b) it is a hopeless and useless exercise to be a peculiar people from the world,  or c) I have a responsibility to be an example to the world and do my best to not cause my brothers/sisters to stumble.   "It is good not to...do anything that causes your brother to stumble (Rom 14:21)."

"Let your light so shine before men."

"Take upon you the name of Christ"

"...and to be called his people, and are willing to bear one another’s burdens, that they may be light; Yea, and are willing to mourn with those that mourn; yea, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort, and to stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in, even until death."

People will undoubtedly respond (as they already have) - but we can't read men's minds and some men will lust after us no matter how hard we try.  How should we answer that in light of gospel principles?

a) I therefore have zero responsibility in trying to influence how others perceive me, b) If I can't prevent all lustful thoughts, I shouldn't even try to prevent some, or c) While I can't help all men, as a covenant daughter of Christ I should use my best judgment in helping those I can reach within my power.     

I should clarify that I agree, I don't think we should "demand" women to do anything.  I think we should teach correct principles and let them govern themselves. 

Quote

Men and boys are naturally attracted to women (heterosexual men) and will have to take responsibility and accept that they are the only ones who can discipline their own thoughts.  In fact, we each are responsible for disciplining and controlling our own thoughts, it's an excuse to try to blame others. 

Because people are accountable for their own thoughts...

a) I have no spiritual responsibility or obligation in how I try to influence others, b) I can do or say whatever I want with no thought or consideration for others - I have no accountability for my role/influence because they are ultimately accountable for their own thoughts, or c) while people are accountable for their own thoughts, as a covenant child of God I have a responsibility to try and enlighten the minds and thoughts of others and influence them for good.   

Quote

  While it's likely natural to have an initial reaction of arousal when seeing a scantily clad attractive person, it is the responsibility of the viewer to choose NOT to objectify the person and continue with thoughts of fantasy or lust.  That's on them.   What's on us (those who have the money to choose what we wear and how much we spend on clothes) is to be responsible for the way we dress and the messages it sends to those around us.  That's both men and women and it's not just whether clothing is modest or immodest.  

I completely agree with this!

Edited October 29, 2019 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

21 hours ago, rchorse said:

Those are my thoughts on why the myth that women are more spiritual than men persists in the church.

Thanks for the acknowledgement that it persists and is not some sinister doctrine I made up.

One man's "myth" is another man's doctrine.   We do not have a magisterium for a reason.

[Thinking]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Come to think of it, why would anyone think it is funny?

It's funny to those who are flashing if the missionaries give shocked reactions. If the missionaries ignore the flashing, it will most likely stop.

In high school I would sometimes open my P.E. locker and find a centerfold taped to the inside. I reacted the first time, and there was a lot of laughter. I decided to stop reacting and eventually I didn't open my locker to any more centerfolds.

[Bernard Gui]

28 minutes ago, Thinking said:

It's funny to those who are flashing if the missionaries give shocked reactions. If the missionaries ignore the flashing, it will most likely stop.

In high school I would sometimes open my P.E. locker and find a centerfold taped to the inside. I reacted the first time, and there was a lot of laughter. I decided to stop reacting and eventually I didn't open my locker to any more centerfolds.

Yes, that’s a common practical joke. I suppose that might be funny to many people. Some of Sister Gui’s non-LDS HS friends spiked her drink at a drive-in restaurant just to see her reaction. She didn’t think it was funny.

Did they do it because you were LDS?

Some guys in the high school I attended occasionally put one of those in the band teacher’s score before a concert so they could watch his reaction when he turned that page in the music. The same trick was played on the director of the school where I taught before retiring. Must be a band thing.

Would you consider that sexual harassment? Would it be harassment if it were done to a female director? 

Edited October 29, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

This happened on my mission. You laugh it off and move on. It did not turn us into lust crazed rapists or anything.

It happened in my mission too.  One such girl actually eventually got baptized, and then felt horrible about her previous actions.  Hopefully the men in the church are robust enough that a flash of nipple doesn't send anyone over the edge.

[Bernard Gui]

29 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It happened in my mission too.  One such girl actually eventually got baptized, and then felt horrible about her previous actions.  Hopefully the men in the church are robust enough that a flash of nipple doesn't send anyone over the edge.

I’m not talking about sending men over the edge.
As Nehor advised, one just laughs it off and goes on about his business. No harm, no foul. Why did she feel bad about it?

Edited October 29, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Kevin Christensen]

Abraham 3 describes a society of intelligences, a council, decisions, and leadership.  D&C 122 describes priesthood power as operating without compulsion, but with persuasion, long suffering, gentleness, meekness, love unfeigned, by kindness and pure knowledge that greatly enlarges the soul without hypocrisy and without guile (all qualities that mark the best leaders, and which also says something about those leaders who lack all of those qualities).

Even if we lived in a universe without Gods in which nothing matters, anyone who has any empathy and awareness whatsoever should recognize through experience that what we do matters.  Native American Coyote and the Norse Loki represent figures who represent the ambition to make personal freedom the first and great commandment before which all other considerations are compromised.  Both start out as likable and appealing, but both bring down a lot of pain.  That is why their stories are still important.

Jesus, recognizing that what we do matters, asks us to sacrifice our personal freedoms on the altar of the recognition that we are all in this together and that what we do matters.

Some things matter more to particular individuals and in specific circumstances.  But everything ultimately matters because we are all in this together.  And time can both multiply the effects of our mistakes and also the effects of our inspired choices in ways that we rarely consider when making those choices.

If ye love me, he says...

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited October 30, 2019 by Kevin Christensen

[Thinking]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Did they do it because you were LDS?

Yes.

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Would you consider that sexual harassment?

That's a good question. I'm going to say no. If I was restrained and forced to stare at it, then I would consider it harassment.

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Would it be harassment if it were done to a female director? 

Another good question. Even though there is this idea that men and women are to be treated equally in all things, men and women aren't equal in the physical sense. A female director who found pornographic images that were left anonymously would almost certainly be afraid, so I would consider that sexual harassment. I was never afraid in my situation. I knew it was a joke and it stopped when I ignored it. Inappropriate? Perhaps. Harassment? Probably not.

[Meadowchik]

18 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Abraham 3 describes a society of intelligences, a council, decisions, and leadership.  D&C 122 describes priesthood power as operating without compulsion, but with persuasion, long suffering, gentleness, meekness, love unfeigned, by kindness and pure knowledge that greatly enlarges the soul without hypocrisy and without guile (all qualities that mark the best leaders, and which out to say something about those leaders who lack all of those qualities).

Even if we lived in a universe without Gods in which nothing matters, anyone who has any empathy and awareness whatsoever should recognize through experience that what we do matters.  Native American Coyote and the Norse Loki represent figures who represent the ambition to make personal freedom the first and great commandment before which all other considerations are compromised.  Both start out as likable and appealing, but both bring down a lot of pain.  That is why their stories are still important.

Jesus, recognizing that what we do matters, asks us to sacrifice our personal freedoms on the altar of the recognition that we are all in this together and that what we do matters.

Some things matter more to particular individuals and in specific circumstances.  But everything ultimately matters because we are all in this together.  And time can both multiply the effects of our mistakes and also the effects of our inspired choices in ways that we rarely consider when making those choices.

If ye love me, he says...

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Yes, the way we speak about females can certainly multiply in effects for them and their lives, temporal and spiritual. I suspect you were implying some other type of multiplication, though?

(And btw, my life has meaning and choices matter even without a belief in God. Maybe, if there is a God, we'd be expected to find meaning even facing the possibility of no God.)

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

I’m not talking about sending men over the edge.
As Nehor advised, one just laughs it off and goes on about his business. No harm, no foul. Why did she feel bad about it?

I don’t want to put words in her mouth but if I had to guess it was because her intent had been to cause discomfort and make fun of the elders. 
 

At the time she thought it was funny but as she matured spiritually she began to change and felt bad that she had ever thought doing something like that was acceptable. 

The harm wasn’t to the elders, it was to herself. It was unbecoming of who she wanted to be and when she realized that she repented.