LDS Freedom Forum

rewcox wrote:

marc wrote:Let's not forget about the proper use of grains and eating meat sparingly in times of winter, cold or famine, walking in obedience to the commandments. We have too many overweight gluttons in the church, too.

You're getting feisty marc. You know this isn't about the WOW. It's about people veering off and trying to justify.

Tim Malone, Denver Snuffer, Rock Waterman, Kate Kelly, John Dehlin, and others on LDSFF.

Do you believe the church leaders are in apostasy?

Just having fun I've already expressed my position on our church and leaders in previous posts.

rewcox wrote:

marc wrote:Let's not forget about the proper use of grains and eating meat sparingly in times of winter, cold or famine, walking in obedience to the commandments. We have too many overweight gluttons in the church, too.

You're getting feisty marc. You know this isn't about the WOW. It's about people veering off and trying to justify.

Tim Malone, Denver Snuffer, Rock Waterman, Kate Kelly, John Dehlin, and others on LDSFF.

Do you believe the church leaders are in apostasy?

Wrong.

buffalo_girl wrote:Apparently, coffee has a very close chemical structure to that of sugar - as does Ritalin prescribed for children and adults who struggle with ADD and ADHD.

We all must acknowledge the harm done by overindulgence in refined sugar. It IS addictive and it DOES cause metabolic harm.

It's pretty silly for us to justify the use of certain substances because they aren't listed in Section 89. I knew a couple of young Priests in the 1960's who justified the use of LSD - even when blessing the Sacrament - because it wasn't itemized as harmful in the Word of Wisdom!!!

Do your own research in order to discover the harmful outcomes of many foods we 'trust' industry to provide for us.

As far as I'm concerned, the following 2 verses from Section 89 are the most important to comprehend...

4 Behold, verily, thus saith the Lord unto you: In consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days, I have warned you, and forewarn you, by giving unto you this word of wisdom by revelation—

21 And I, the Lord, give unto them a promise, that the destroying angel shall pass by them, as the children of Israel, and not slay them.

I agree, and I also think the conspiring men has really messed up the food chain.

For those promoting "do grains, do grains", they have made all sorts of stuff out of grains, taken out good fat, and inserted sugar/HFCS and our society is paying a terrible price.

I really do admire the way you eat and live buffalo_girl!

rewcox wrote:

jwharton wrote:

rewcox wrote:

jwharton wrote:Yes, those who shun the respectful process of raising up a controversy against the church leaders are indeed veering.
This trial proves that such a process has a respectful place in the functions of church governance.

JW, this isn't the place to complain about church leaders. Take it up with your bishop or stake president.

The people I listed keep complaining until they ended up out of the church. Just like Laman and Lemuel.

In case you haven't noticed, what I'm complaining about is the mindset that our leaders are infallible.
I'm complaining about members, such as yourself, who perpetuate this false and dangerous attitude.
I am talking to and with the very people who I have a grievance with so please start listening up.

Why would I want to listen to complainers, many outside the church?

No one is infallible. But I listen to them every 6 months, I feel the spirit, so I can determine for myself.

Get over your grievance and be the best member you can Bee. Stop complaining.

You are who calls what I am doing complaining, not me.
From my point of view I am pointing out some pretty obvious things that have a very important bearing on the salvation of people.
Laman and Lemuel said similar things to Lehi that you are saying to me.
And, I have had nearly exactly the same experience Lehi had and is why I say what I say.
So, if anyone should cease their murmuring, look at how you murmur at nearly every righteous principle I attempt to draw attention to.

What is incorrect in the principles I am advocating? If you cannot address this then how about you just bite your lip?

jwharton wrote:

rewcox wrote:

jwharton wrote:

rewcox wrote:
JW, this isn't the place to complain about church leaders. Take it up with your bishop or stake president.

The people I listed keep complaining until they ended up out of the church. Just like Laman and Lemuel.

In case you haven't noticed, what I'm complaining about is the mindset that our leaders are infallible.
I'm complaining about members, such as yourself, who perpetuate this false and dangerous attitude.
I am talking to and with the very people who I have a grievance with so please start listening up.

Why would I want to listen to complainers, many outside the church?

No one is infallible. But I listen to them every 6 months, I feel the spirit, so I can determine for myself.

Get over your grievance and be the best member you can Bee. Stop complaining.

You are who calls what I am doing complaining, not me.
From my point of view I am pointing out some pretty obvious things that have a very important bearing on the salvation of people.
Laman and Lemuel said similar things to Lehi that you are saying to me.
And, I have had nearly exactly the same experience Lehi had and is why I say what I say.
So, if anyone should cease their murmuring, look at how you murmur at nearly every righteous principle I attempt to draw attention to.

What is incorrect in the principles I am advocating? If you cannot address this then how about you just bite your lip?

JW, eat some nettles, you need something healthy.

It is not your position to call leaders or members to repentance. Repent, maybe you'll have the opportunity someday. Nephi did!

rewcox wrote:

jwharton wrote:You are who calls what I am doing complaining, not me.
From my point of view I am pointing out some pretty obvious things that have a very important bearing on the salvation of people.
Laman and Lemuel said similar things to Lehi that you are saying to me.
And, I have had nearly exactly the same experience Lehi had and is why I say what I say.
So, if anyone should cease their murmuring, look at how you murmur at nearly every righteous principle I attempt to draw attention to.

What is incorrect in the principles I am advocating? If you cannot address this then how about you just bite your lip?

JW, eat some nettles, you need something healthy.

It is not your position to call leaders or members to repentance.
Repent, maybe you'll have the opportunity someday. Nephi did!

Are you saying I am not qualified to perform the duty of a teacher in the Aaronic Priesthood?
Do you even know what those duties are?
How else do you propose I am to see to it that iniquity doesn't enter the church?
You are simply trying to place a gag over my mouth, so to speak.
Yet, you never show how anything I say isn't properly grounded in truth.
Time and time again I show how your principles are wrong.
Time and time again you try and attack me personally instead of focusing on principles.

I'll ask you again, and this time I'd like something other than subtle dismissive slur attempting to denigrate me.

Is it healthy for the members to police one another with the expectation that we should be shunned as veering apostates if any should wish to raise up a controversy about the worthiness of our church officers to stand?
Are you trying to tell me there are no provisions for controversies to be raised up and respectfully heard in a trial before the common counsel?

If so, then you are completely bungling the fact that such was the case over something as insignificant as tea, coffee and tobacco use.
If it can and was done over the use of coffee, tea and tobacco, then surely there are many other things that could be points of concern.
However, you have and promote the attitude that anyone speaking about such controversies is a veering apostate.
The truth is, it is quite the opposite. It is our duty to make sure our officers are worthy to stand.

jwharton wrote:It is our duty to make sure our officers are worthy to stand.

Not to get in the middle of a spectacular spitting match, but isn't it God's job to make sure church officers are worthy to stand? Or do you disagree that leaders are chosen by inspiration? If it was man's church, I figure your statement would be a bit more accurate.

It is not my duty to perform personal worthiness interviews on my bishop/stake president/whatever. It is, however, quite within their prerogative to do the same for me. We report up through a chain of authority which starts with God, who expects his stewards to do the same on down, not the other way around. Is Michael commanding Christ to report to him now? Whoever heard of a deacon telling a bishop to return and report?

Just curious. :-\

I think I'll duck now, lest I get splattered with spittle.

jwharton wrote:Are you saying I am not qualified to perform the duty of a teacher in the Aaronic Priesthood?
Do you even know what those duties are?
How else do you propose I am to see to it that iniquity doesn't enter the church?
You are simply trying to place a gag over my mouth, so to speak.
Yet, you never show how anything I say isn't properly grounded in truth.
Time and time again I show how your principles are wrong.
Time and time again you try and attack me personally instead of focusing on principles.

I'll ask you again, and this time I'd like something other than subtle dismissive slur attempting to denigrate me.

Is it healthy for the members to police one another with the expectation that we should be shunned as veering apostates if any should wish to raise up a controversy about the worthiness of our church officers to stand?
Are you trying to tell me there are no provisions for controversies to be raised up and respectfully heard in a trial before the common counsel?

If so, then you are completely bungling the fact that such was the case over something as insignificant as tea, coffee and tobacco use.
If it can and was done over the use of coffee, tea and tobacco, then surely there are many other things that could be points of concern.
However, you have and promote the attitude that anyone speaking about such controversies is a veering apostate.
The truth is, it is quite the opposite. It is our duty to make sure our officers are worthy to stand.

Does the teacher tell the bishop what to do? No.
Does the teacher go to a website and promote variant philosophies? No.

Members from a ward can go to a stake president about their bishop if they like.

Do you drink beer, coffee, tea, wine or alcohol? Do you smoke tobacco or pot? Do you take illegal drugs?

As members, we don't police each other. You can tell the bishop if you like. If you have a grievance with a person, talk to them personally.

But this business in these threads are people trying to justify what they think. As I said, if you want to lose their power, go ahead.

iWriteStuff wrote:

jwharton wrote:It is our duty to make sure our officers are worthy to stand.

Not to get in the middle of a spectacular spitting match, but isn't it God's job to make sure church officers are worthy to stand? Or do you disagree that leaders are chosen by inspiration?

Just curious.

I ask you, how is it God's job to make sure officers are worthy to stand?
Strike them with lightening if they falter in some way?

Just because God calls someone doesn't mean they will always be worthy to maintain their standing.

Section 107 of the D&C clearly states that the President of the Church is "chosen by the body" (v22) and that they are "upheld by the faith, prayers and confidence" of the church. If there is anything that could undermine the faith and confidence of the church membership, does this mean the people are to be told to suck it up and just have faith and confidence anyway, even if they have a sincere and credible grievance? Of course not! Any who have a grievance that is sincere and based upon good and wise principles should be respectfully heard out. And, this is precisely so that all such matters are handled in a way to be worthy of the faith and confidence of the members, not the pretense of such by way of the threat of losing your membership.

The most simple way to answer your question is to call you attention to the opportunity you have to object to any of the officers continuing to stand in their callings. We are asked in sincerity if there is anything that is injuring our faith and confidence in our leaders. If we have such then these should be respectfully addressed instead of shunned and scuttled with the threat of being ex'd.

rewcox wrote:Does the teacher tell the bishop what to do? No.

Did I claim a bishop should do something that I say because I say so?
Here goes your famous absurdity injection campaign.
Why do you make such ludicrous assertions against me?

rewcox wrote:Does the teacher go to a website and promote variant philosophies? No.

The teacher has the duty to learn his calling and to stand fast in advocating the keeping of our covenants.
This can be done in any setting, including going into the homes of the saints.
If they can go there, certainly there is no reason they cannot also participate in an open forum welcoming all who are sincere and seeking truth.
And, you assert what I present for consideration is variant, but you have not as of yet ever shown where I veer from what is in holy writ.

rewcox wrote:Members from a ward can go to a stake president about their bishop if they like.

Of course they can, they can also talk among each other and raise up a controversy if there is a need for such to be raised.
They don't need permission from any level of leadership to vent out what is grieving their consciences and seek redress.

rewcox wrote:Do you drink beer, coffee, tea, wine or alcohol? Do you smoke tobacco or pot? Do you take illegal drugs?

As members, we don't police each other. You can tell the bishop if you like.

We are our brother's keeper, or are you of Cain's persuasion?

rewcox wrote:If you have a grievance with a person, talk to them personally.

I am attempting to do so with you here and others who share your "lets all be minions" mentality.

rewcox wrote:But this business in these threads are people trying to justify what they think. As I said, if you want to lose their power, go ahead.

The OP of this thread perfectly demonstrates how leaders are accountable to the general body of members.
If you cannot see this then you are being willfully blind to this provision of church government the Lord gave us.
This means that you have some other plan in mind, a plan that you think is superior to individual agency and accountability.

http://www.myfoxphilly.com/story/29607133/florida-mom

Florida mom ditches kids at Waffle House to go to a bar
Posted: Jul 22, 2015 11:17 AM CDT
Updated: Jul 22, 2015 11:37 AM CDT
A Florida mom is under arrest after ditching her kids at a Waffle House in Georgia while she went drinking, according to police.

Rhiannon Gentry, 38, gave her two children and their friend some money and left to go to the Wild Wing Cafe, the Augusta Chronicle reported.

The kids, 11 and 12, were left alone for hours without enough money to even pay for their meals. The kids became upset and started to wandered into the parking lot around midnight when another customer stopped them from going across the road to the bar.

The Good Samaritan found the mom inside the bar drinking with two men, authorities said.

By the time she returned to the Waffle House, the Richmond county Sheriff’s deputies were with the kids.

She claimed she only left them for a little bit so she could pay her tab from earlier, authorities said.

Gentry, who is from Dade City, Florida, was put into the county jail on three counts of deprivation of a minor.

Her two kids were turned over to their grandmother while the children’s friend was returned to her mother at Clarion Suites.

The girl’s mother told authorities they’d met Gentry at the hotel pool, and she agreed to let her daughter go with them for dinner, assuming Gentry would watch them.

iWriteStuff wrote:Not to get in the middle of a spectacular spitting match, but isn't it God's job to make sure church officers are worthy to stand?

D & C 107 speaks of the common council of the church judging the Presiding HP in case of transgression.

BY said,

"What a pity it would be if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path that the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually." (JD 9:150)

In other words, it is our duty to be familiar with the revelations of Jesus, and the spirit, so as to be a positive influence on leaders. Otherwise our influence is weakened, and we turn into yes men.

Separatist wrote:

iWriteStuff wrote:Not to get in the middle of a spectacular spitting match, but isn't it God's job to make sure church officers are worthy to stand?

D & C 107 speaks of the common council of the church judging the Presiding HP in case of transgression.

BY said,

"What a pity it would be if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path that the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually." (JD 9:150)

In other words, it is our duty to be familiar with the revelations of Jesus, and the spirit, so as to be a positive influence on leaders. Otherwise our influence is weakened, and we turn into yes men.

Glad you shared this quote from BY because it very accurately describes what I am trying to convey.

The part enlarged and in red color is exactly what I am hoping to draw people's attention to.
This is for whatever reason what rewcox is taking issue with instead of agreeing with.

This spirit of wreckless confidence and blind self-security among the saints makes it a walk in the part for Lucifer to usurp things to his bidding.

Separatist wrote:

iWriteStuff wrote:Not to get in the middle of a spectacular spitting match, but isn't it God's job to make sure church officers are worthy to stand?

D & C 107 speaks of the common council of the church judging the Presiding HP in case of transgression.

BY said,

"What a pity it would be if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path that the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually." (JD 9:150)

In other words, it is our duty to be familiar with the revelations of Jesus, and the spirit, so as to be a positive influence on leaders. Otherwise our influence is weakened, and we turn into yes men.

The only problem is some say Lo here, and others say Lo there.
Christ warned us about false prophets.

rewcox wrote:

Separatist wrote:

iWriteStuff wrote:Not to get in the middle of a spectacular spitting match, but isn't it God's job to make sure church officers are worthy to stand?

D & C 107 speaks of the common council of the church judging the Presiding HP in case of transgression.

BY said,

"What a pity it would be if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path that the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually." (JD 9:150)

In other words, it is our duty to be familiar with the revelations of Jesus, and the spirit, so as to be a positive influence on leaders. Otherwise our influence is weakened, and we turn into yes men.

The only problem is some say Lo here, and others say Lo there.
Christ warned us about false prophets.

He also warned us about the tares who fight against and choke the wheat.
You were preaching the virtues of shutting up and being a yes man.
How about you admit you have been busted by Brigham Young's quote?
Do you have the humility to admit when you have been shown to be in error?

Tony's excerpt from The History of the Church is evidence of one thing. It appears that there was sufficient cultural opposition to coffee, tea, and tobacco in 1838 in the church that it was possible to use a person's use of same as ammunition with which to malign their character. If any of us believes that the Saints of that era were freely and openly consuming these beverages without repercussion, this is evidence to the contrary.

But I don't think this account carries any doctrinal weight. I could see something similar today happening with tattoos. Anyone standing up in a committee and listing tattoos or piercings among a person's "wrong-doings" would likely get unanimous agreement from those in attendance. But even though these things are almost universally rejected in our culture, there is very little in the way of actual doctrine prohibiting them.

A young man in his twenties, been on a mission, spoke in our sacrament meeting this last Sunday about the Word of Wisdom.

Growing up in Texas, many of his good friends were not members. As time went on, his friends wanted him to drink some beer. When he said he didn't drink, they were quite mean to him. It was very hard for him, yet he knew Mormons don't drink.

Imagine if his dad would have said, "Family, I read section 89 and determined it was just a suggestion. I want a beer every now and again, and I'm going to have a coffee in the morning."

I don't think the young man would have served a mission.

You that are misguided can make your own choices. Like I said, you will lose your power.

captainfearnot wrote:Tony's excerpt from The History of the Church is evidence of one thing. It appears that there was sufficient cultural opposition to coffee, tea, and tobacco in 1838 in the church that it was possible to use a person's use of same as ammunition with which to malign their character. If any of us believes that the Saints of that era were freely and openly consuming these beverages without repercussion, this is evidence to the contrary.

But I don't think this account carries any doctrinal weight. I could see something similar today happening with tattoos. Anyone standing up in a committee and listing tattoos or piercings among a person's "wrong-doings" would likely get unanimous agreement from those in attendance. But even though these things are almost universally rejected in our culture, there is very little in the way of actual doctrine prohibiting them.

Funny, the wife and I were actually discussing this thread last night and the interesting comments and anecdotal pieces of evidence popping up in this and other threads about WoW adherence.

It left me wondering whether there were faithful saints back in the day who would fail the temple recommend questions posed to them today. I think the answer was a big YES, which of course makes me wonder how we got where we are today in terms of laws/commandments/recommendations.

But I kept reading Section 89 over and over, trying to take it piece by piece. What drew my attention and helped answer my question was verse 18:

"And all saints who remember to keep and do these sayings, walking in obedience to the commandments, shall receive health in their navel and marrow to their bones"

Given the significance of the underlined statement, it seems to me maybe that's why it was incorporated into the recommend questions. As per the "walking in obedience to the commandments" portion, I have to assume that it's not referencing the WoW as a commandment since verse 2 specifically says it's not. However, it is a higher principle, one which we are asked to live to receive higher ordinances.

And I'm ok with that.

rewcox wrote:A young man in his twenties, been on a mission, spoke in our sacrament meeting this last Sunday about the Word of Wisdom.

Growing up in Texas, many of his good friends were not members. As time went on, his friends wanted him to drink some beer. When he said he didn't drink, they were quite mean to him. It was very hard for him, yet he knew Mormons don't drink.

Imagine if his dad would have said, "Family, I read section 89 and determined it was just a suggestion. I want a beer every now and again, and I'm going to have a coffee in the morning."

I don't think the young man would have served a mission.

You that are misguided can make your own choices. Like I said, you will lose your power.

Nobody here is saying what you are insinuating.
Who here said the WoW was just a suggestion and is taking it lightly?
Why say such nonsense when there are far more weighty matters laid before you to comment about?

Did the young boy go out on his mission as a brainwashed and peer pressured "yes man" because of parental pressure?

Or, did the young boy actually gain an understanding of the truth and a testimony for himself about what is right and wrong?

The church culture used to foster people to understand and know truth for themselves and then to respect their choices in such matters.
Nowadays there is more of a mentality to conform to standards that are governed more by the precepts of men than of the truth.
For example, some men are looked down upon unless they wear a full suit and tie and look just like a lawyer or a professional businessman.
And, God forbid a man actually have his hair down past his neckline and he grow his beard out.
Looking like Jesus today in the LDS culture is social suicide.

Why are such things taken so seriously that there is absolutely nothing said about in the scriptures?

rewcox wrote:Why would I want to listen to complainers, many outside the church?

For one thing, listening to people works a special kind of magic that accomplishes good.
When people have been listened to genuinely and they know they have been understood, it warms their heart and dispels their grief.

The only reason you wouldn't is if you are too arrogant and/or weak-minded and you fear they may say something to pop your little bubble.

When newly wed and going to school, I worked for a company that had a man, from a good Mormon family, as my boss. He was probably in his early thirties.

One morning he said to a couple of us, let's go down to Village Pancakes. His hands were shaking a lot. He needed some coffee to get settled down.

I have some good friends who smoke. They can't stop because they are addicted.

I am so glad God gave the revelation we know as Section 89. I appreciate our leaders who ask us not to drink coffee, tea, beer, wine, alcohol; to not smoke; to not take illegal drugs or abuse prescriptions.

You don't lose anything by not taking of those substances. And there is a lot to gain!

The WoW was given by God. It is true that it was not given as a commandment. However, it is clear what His will is in the revelation. In my opinion, once the Lord has made His will clear you should do it. I find it strange to argue whether or not it is a commandment. If the Lord speaks, we should listen. Are we little children who only listen to our parents when there is threat of punishment?

I find it legitimate to discuss what the WoW actually constitutes. The current interpretation by our Church Leaders is not clear. It is interpreted differently by various Bishops and Stake Presidents. Some items are enforced and some are not.

What I would like to see is a clear, written statement of what is currently interpreted to be the WoW and the revelations that got us to that point. Perhaps that revelation is as simple as I give the First Presidency authority to modify the WoW as necessary for changing times and cultures.

Some will say that the First Presidency is led by God, so whatever they do is God's will. However, we know this is not true as is evidenced by the issue w/ Blacks and the Priesthood. The Church leadership today states that the previous policy to withhold priesthood from blacks was not based on any revelations they can find, therefore it is not doctrine. yet it was preached as doctrine for 100+ years by multiple prophets of God. Applying this same reasoning to the WoW issues, the current interpretations would not be considered doctrine without some revelation to support them.

I currently keep the WoW as I understand Church Leadership to interpret it because I want to continue to attend the temple and I don't feel that anything that is being required of me is out of harmony with what Christ would want. But I do understand those who live the WoW according to what was revealed in the D&C instead of the current interpretation as we have no revelation to support it. And i don't think either group should be kept out of the temple.

Where is Zion? We are all liars and hypocrites.

SmallFarm wrote:Where is Zion? We are all liars and hypocrites.

I so agree and the sooner we come to terms with that collective reality and get on with redeeming Zion, which is what really matters, the better.

I don't keep the Word of Wisdom, nor do I hide it or could I if I wanted too. I'm 5'8" and just shy of 250 lbs. Have been up to almost 300. So no way in heck I am keeping the Word of Wisdom. In fact, I suspect if I weighed 100 lbs. less and had 1 beer per evening I would be living the Word of Wisdom much better than I currently am.

Every time I go in for a temple recommend interview and hit the Wow question, I gesture at my body and say "What do you think?" We laugh, he asks if I smoke, drink, etc. and I verify truthfully that I do not.

It kills me what a letter of the law people we are: When I was in college back in ancient times, a lot of kids were asking their bishops about such things as various types of sex and what was OK within the bounds of marriage. Depending on their bishop, I heard of answers ranging from only the missionary position was OK, to anything was OK that both people felt OK with and beyond that it was between them and God.

I think this is at least part of the condemnation we are under. We want everything spelled out in minute detail, and we don;t seek God's answer, we want a strong man in a position of authority to approve or disapprove every gnat to be strained and every camel to be swallowed. SMH. And per usual it is clear to see who in the discussion falls into that category. "Oh look, look! 150 years ago the body of the church condemned such and such!" Of course, the body of the church would assuredly have condemned a woman being seen in public in any of the current swimwear fashions, including ones that "the world" would consider outlandishly conservative.