Blixa wrote:But what do you all think about the way the issue was resolved?
When I first saw the "offending avatar" (or avatars since there were two with garments) I was curious how this could be handled on a board with no censoring or banning, but instead a policy segregating "offensive" content. The use of an avatar to contain "offensive" content found a potential weak spot in this practice since it couldn't be relegated to only one discussion area. I wondered what the outcome would be and was surprised that it was handled relatively painlessly with a private request to B&L and his acceding to it.
What think ye?
I was thrilled, and a little shocked, that PP was able to dig down deep and find one last remaining spark of civility to change the offensive material on his own.
Kudos, PP!!
If there's one thing I've learned from this board, it's that consensual sex with multiple partners is okay unless God commands it. - Abman
I find this place to be hostile toward all brands of stupidity. That's why I like it. - Some Schmo
liz3564 wrote:Yes, he had the temple garments as his pic. But he repented.
Didn't see the picture, but I'm not sure why just seeing the underwear is that big a deal. (Is it just me? Everywhere I've lived, guys were as likely to be wandering around the house in their 'G' tops as not.) Go into any locker room in Utah and you'll see lots of it on display (as well as on plenty of clotheslines before dryers gained widespread use). Nobody is hiding it from Gentile eyes there. And unless you are close enough to examine the symbols, they just look like a T-shirt and funny shorts.
But I suppose that's beside the point. If people think you are mocking something they hold sacred, it's counterproductive to the conversation and should be avoided.
p.s. Is there any point in the temple ceremony where they tell you not to let anyone see the garment? It's been too long ago for me to remember.
Blixa wrote:But what do you all think about the way the issue was resolved?
When I first saw the "offending avatar" (or avatars since there were two with garments) I was curious how this could be handled on a board with no censoring or banning, but instead a policy segregating "offensive" content. The use of an avatar to contain "offensive" content found a potential weak spot in this practice since it couldn't be relegated to only one discussion area. I wondered what the outcome would be and was surprised that it was handled relatively painlessly with a private request to B&L and his acceding to it.
What think ye?
I was thrilled, and a little shocked, that PP was able to dig down deep and find one last remaining spark of civility to change the offensive material on his own.
Kudos, PP!!
He did it for me. What can I say? I have a magic touch. LOL
Blixa wrote:Yes but all this is beside the point---I need an in real life ignore button. Lil' help?
It has been mentioned several times...no dice says the administration.
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07
liz3564 wrote:Yes, he had the temple garments as his pic. But he repented.
Didn't see the picture, but I'm not sure why just seeing the underwear is that big a deal. (Is it just me? Everywhere I've lived, guys were as likely to be wandering around the house in their 'G' tops as not.) Go into any locker room in Utah and you'll see lots of it on display (as well as on plenty of clotheslines before dryers gained widespread use). Nobody is hiding it from Gentile eyes there. And unless you are close enough to examine the symbols, they just look like a T-shirt and funny shorts.
But I suppose that's beside the point. If people think you are mocking something they hold sacred, it's counterproductive to the conversation and should be avoided.
p.s. Is there any point in the temple ceremony where they tell you not to let anyone see the garment? It's been too long ago for me to remember.
You're exactly right. The point was that it was disrespectful to the religion. If someone had put an avatar up that was disrespectful to another religion, I would have made the same request.
As far as letting others see the garment, when I first went through the temple for my own endowments, I was instructed that the garment was sacred and should not be in a place of public view. Therefore, men who wear garment tops as outside t-shirts are actually going against that instruction. I was specifically told that I should not wear garments when going to the doctor or going to a gym. That I should keep a store bought set of underwear for those occasions. This was in the Provo temple when I took out my own endowments in 1986. This kind of instruction is not given anywhere in the actual endowment ceremony.
liz3564 wrote:I was specifically told that I should not wear garments when going to the doctor or going to a gym. That I should keep a store bought set of underwear for those occasions. This was in the Provo temple when I took out my own endowments in 1986. This kind of instruction is not given anywhere in the actual endowment ceremony.
That's a new one. When I went through in 1971 in Idaho Falls, that was not mentioned at all. I've never heard of either of those.
liz3564 wrote:I was specifically told that I should not wear garments when going to the doctor or going to a gym. That I should keep a store bought set of underwear for those occasions. This was in the Provo temple when I took out my own endowments in 1986. This kind of instruction is not given anywhere in the actual endowment ceremony.
That's a new one. When I went through in 1971 in Idaho Falls, that was not mentioned at all. I've never heard of either of those.
I actually thought it was a little odd, myself. And, who knows? Maybe the temple matron was just speaking of her own accord, but several other people who went through around the same time I did were told the same thing. We talked about it later.