Ann Romney, still not wearing the Lord's pants...

[_zeezrom]

I'm just wondering why women have to feel like every millimeter of garment needs to be covered while men seem to be okay showing inches of them.

Maybe, just maybe, LDS could make women's garments look beautiful so they would want to show them off.

[_sock puppet]

I'm just wondering why women have to feel like every millimeter of garment needs to be covered while men seem to be okay showing inches of them.

Maybe, just maybe, LDS could make women's garments look beautiful so they would want to show them off.

My wife's garments are particularly beautiful when she shows them--they are entirely invisible.

[_why me]

I am digging the Why me brand of Mormonism! It is about self expression and giving the finger to the "man".

Actually, it is just being a human being. Many critics on this board must have been taliban Mormons and had no room for a guy like me in the ward. In fact, they would have judged me harshly because they judge me as exmormons. Talibanism in any form is not good. And many members are not talibans. But on this board, it seems that most exmormons were very talibanish. I had the same experience on the postmo when they first came on the scene. They must have also been talibans because they had no tolerance for my inactivity. And that would have been the case also when they were members.

[_Darth J]

I am digging the Why me brand of Mormonism! It is about self expression and giving the finger to the "man".

Actually, it is just being a human being. Many critics on this board must have been taliban Mormons and had no room for a guy like me in the ward. In fact, they would have judged me harshly because they judge me as exmormons. Talibanism in any form is not good. And many members are not talibans. But on this board, it seems that most exmormons were very talibanish. I had the same experience on the postmo when they first came on the scene. They must have also been talibans because they had no tolerance for my inactivity. And that would have been the case also when they were members.

Why Me, in your next post, please provide your favorite quote from an LDS lesson manual or General Authority stating that it's perfectly fine for women to leave their garments off so they can wear shorter skirts in public.

[_why me]

Why Me, in your next post, please provide your favorite quote from an LDS lesson manual or General Authority stating that it's perfectly fine for women to leave their garments off so they can wear shorter skirts in public.

Here is the problem: what Ann wears is not against the modest code. Whatever she does is between her and god. But since her garments are a public interest and many would love to get a picture of her garments when she crosses her legs or catch a glimpse of them when she sits down I think that she is smart not to wear them in public on the campaign trail because the garments would be mocked on the internet if seen in a picture. However, we have no idea if she is wearing them or not.

[Guest]

Why Me, in your next post, please provide your favorite quote from an LDS lesson manual or General Authority stating that it's perfectly fine for women to leave their garments off so they can wear shorter skirts in public.

Here is the problem: what Ann wears is not against the modest code. Whatever she does is between her and god. But since her garments are a public interest and many would love to get a picture of her garments when she crosses her legs or catch a glimpse of them when she sits down I think that she is smart not to wear them in public on the campaign trail because the garments would be mocked on the internet if seen in a picture. However, we have no idea if she is wearing them or not.

Why Me, the problem you have on this board is not that ex-Mormons were "Taliban Mormons" (an expression that is at best redundant). Your problem is that you demonstrate specific ignorance of LDS teachings and culture, you consistently contradict LDS teachings, you make ludicrous assertions about LDS cultural norms and doctrinal standards, and yet you still want to portray yourself as this knight who has presented himself as the Church's champion in this tournament against the infidels.

What Ann Romney is wearing in that picture already shown on this thread IS against what the Church has said is acceptable to wear for a temple-endowed member, because it cannot be worn with garments going down to the kneecap as they are intended.

From the Handbook of Instructions, 21.1.42:

Church members who have been clothed with the garment in a temple have taken upon themselves a covenant obligation to wear it according to the instructions given in the endowment. The garment provides a constant reminder of the covenants made in a temple. When properly worn, it provides protection against temptation and evil. Wearing the garment is also an outward expression of an inward commitment to follow the Savior.

Endowed members should wear the temple garment both day and night. They should not remove it, either entirely or partially, to work in the yard or for other activities that can reasonably be done with the garment worn properly beneath the clothing. Nor should they remove it to lounge around the home in swimwear or immodest clothing. When they must remove the garment, such as for swimming, they should put it back on as soon as possible.

Members should not adjust the garment or wear it contrary to instructions in order to accommodate different styles of clothing. Nor should they alter the garment from its authorized design. When two-piece garments are used, both pieces should always be worn.

The person who has made this an issue beyond simply herself and God is Ann Romney. She and her husband continually tout themselves as faithful Latter-day Saints. Ann Romney is the one who has invited all and sundry to consider how well her behavior comports with her purported commitment to her religion. "A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid."

(That's 3 Nephi 12 quoting the Sermon on the Mount, Why Me. You have no demonstrable familiarity with what the LDS Church or its scriptures actually say, so I am doing you the courtesy of pointing that out to you.)

And you can't quite make up your mind whether Ann Romney is not wearing garments because she wants to wear skirts that are shorter than a temple-endowed member should be wearing, or whether she is letting go of the iron rod because of the scorn from the occupants of the great and spacious building (a problem that would not happen if she were wearing clothing consistent with the covenant to wear temple garments). If you have decided that Ann Romney should abandon that which is sacred so the world won't mock her faith, then why arbitrarily stop at temple garments? Plenty of people have made fun of the Romneys just for being LDS. Why shouldn't Sister Romney abandon the Church altogether so she won't be mocked?

[_Darth J]

However, we have no idea if she is wearing them or not.

Yes, we sure as hell do.



There is no way Ann Romney was wearing temple garments when this picture was taken.

[_ludwigm]

But what if you see a woman's garments? Even a little tiny speck of 'em? Disaster!

...
I don't want to see women's garments.

+1
+100

Especially my wife's one.

I don't care the Mall, I don't care the 10% (only my wife pays it, and her pension is only the half of mine - You know, the equality...), I don't care stupid scriptures, I don't care lawyers called prophets.

But that I have to watch my wife robed in that disgusting assassinatinon against gusto, taste and women's beauty, day by day (and night by night) - that is unacceptable.

[_Drifting]

Why Me, in your next post, please provide your favorite quote from an LDS lesson manual or General Authority stating that it's perfectly fine for women to leave their garments off so they can wear shorter skirts in public.

Here is the problem: what Ann wears is not against the modest code.

You are, and not for the first time, completely wrong.
What Ann is wearing in the photo IS against the modest code.

You have been CFR'd to show something official from the Church that supports your position. You won't do so, because you can't do so - and again, this isn't the first time that's happened...

[_Darth J]

Here is the problem: what Ann wears is not against the modest code.

You are, and not for the first time, completely wrong.

Gee, you think so?

One more thing about a Mormon lay. When the man touches a woman with her clothes on, depending on the material, (it should be light cotton) it produces a good sensation on the woman's skin. She becomes excited and sexually heated. The man too shares in the excitement. But again, one must not lose control.

Such was Mormon life in NYC in the 70's.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=16212&p=398407&hilit=petting#p398407

Examples of LDS teachings on petting from the 70's:

Ezra Taft Benson, October 1977 General Conference

The Church has no double standard of morality. The moral code of heaven for both men and women is complete chastity before marriage and full fidelity after marriage.

For you young men and women not yet married, this uniform standard for men and women has been clearly defined by President Kimball:

“Among the most common sexual sins our young people commit are necking and petting. Not only do these improper relations often lead to fornication, pregnancy, and abortions—all ugly sins—but in and of themselves they are pernicious evils, and it is often difficult for youth to distinguish where one ends and another begins. They awaken lust and stir evil thoughts and sex desires. They are but parts of the whole family of related sins and indiscretions.” (Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, Bookcraft, 1969, p. 65.)

Neal A. Maxwell, June 1979 New Era

The other day on national television I heard a psychologist pushing the notion that, since the old ethics of our American society are no longer reconcilable with our behavior, we ought to adjust our ethics downward. My mind at once recalled another age and another advocate who pushed the carnally convenient notion that “whatsoever a man did was no crime” (Alma 30:17).

This psychologist was saying, in effect, that because young people mature today at 12, on the average, and don’t marry, on the average, until they are 22, the idea of abstaining from fornication and associated wrongs is unrealistic. With the avoidance of pregnancy seemingly being the only real challenge for this psychologist, very heavy petting was encouraged and all the things associated with it as a safe substitute.

Once they are driven off the high ground of principle, so many people then settle for being “practical.” But immorality is so impractical! Provisional morality always emerges once people desert a basic truth. Such individuals are for ever falling back trying to develop substitute rationales, drawing new lines beyond which they vow they will not be driven, only to abandon these also under the pressure of growing evils. It is like providing people with methadone instead of heroin—the addiction remains, but is transferred to something that is seen as less bad. There will always be those who will think themselves quite clever for suggesting such ways out of dilemmas that, of course, are not “ways out” at all but, rather, “ways in”—into more cul-de-sacs.

Robert D. Hales, October 1976 General Conference

Allegedly quoting a young woman's story: “Probably the first dent in the armor of faith which my parents had built up around me was the realization that some ‘good returned missionaries’ were not always so good and really did indulge in necking and petting episodes. I began to think that a certain amount of physical relations were natural and included them in the closer relationships I had with young men.

Satan is insidious. He leads a person away from the righteous way of living and little by little tempts them into greater and greater wrongs."

Example of current LDS teachings about the "Mormon lay:"

“Chastity,” True to the Faith, (2004), 29–33

If you are single and dating, always treat your date with respect. Never treat him or her as an object to be used for lustful desires. Carefully plan positive and constructive activities so that you and your date are not left alone without anything to do. Stay in areas of safety where you can easily control yourself. Do not participate in conversations or activities that arouse sexual feelings. Do not participate in passionate kissing, lie with or on top of another person, or touch the private, sacred parts of another person’s body, with or without clothing. Do not allow anyone to do such things with you.