Thank you so much! I was wanting to contact Jennifer before teaching my YW about the Come Follow Me lesson on our bodies being a temple, and the Faith Matters just dropped everything I needed into my lap. Thank you!!
If I set up 1000 bear traps in the path that I know you have to walk and you step on one can I throw my hand up and say, "you are ultimately responsible for where you put your feet"? No, you would say that I am at least in part culpable for the damage done. But women can dress however they want, regardless of how immodestly, and it's still 100% men's responsibility, or fault for improper thoughts. I'd love for them to do a podcast on the double standards within the church for men and women. That would be a kick to listen to.
I sometimes wish there would also be a discussion of how to view/deal with your sexuality when it becomes apparent you're not going to find your man/woman this side of the grave.
Even in this expansive discussion, the focus was still narrowed in on how girls dress and boys' reactions. I know there were other brief references to variable situations, but we're still perpetuating the idea of a boy's inability to control himself as a church and therefore into society - which is not God's view of modesty, sexuality, and Their daughters - or sons. This adds to conversations about abortion, sexual safety, and other situations where women carry the burden... often for a lifetime. We need to teach our boys appropriate and godly sexuality as well as our girls. We need to teach the truest meanings of modesty to and for both genders. We need to teach our sons that their sexuality and sexual behaviors and consequences are their godly responsibilities, not to be passed off to someone else. Both genders have sexual power and need to use it appropriately, safely, in a way honoring covenants and those around us. Thank you for pointing out that fact. And... we need to teach our boys about themselves and their behaviors as well as our daughters - not just alongside, but with as much carefulness and prayers and eternal truth.
Only a female could write this. Men are taught that they are responsible for everything: their income, their physical safety, family guidance, moral leadership, church organization, and even the outcome of the marriage, and men accept it all. Women are offered responsibility for one thing - their chastity - and she drops it like a hot coal.
Church Handbook: "You should wear the garment day and night throughout your life. When it must be removed for activities that cannot reasonably be done while wearing the garment, seek to restore it as soon as possible." It's really not as complicated as it's sometimes made out to be.
Maybe someone can help me out. I'm new to Faith Matters. I assume they aim to put forth content that is in harmony with revealed truth and with the restored gospel, and in my opinion the entire discussion about modesty and sexuality hit that target. However, 5 minutes into the podcast I was put on alert to where the target might be aiming when a google search by the host revealed that homo sapiens didn't discover clothing for the first two hundred thousand years of their existence, and the guest seemed to accept that idea, speculating that with developing their self awareness clothing then became a way to manage shame and private vs public exposure. Basic Christian gospel doctrine teaches that Adam and Eve, while in Eden became aware of their nakedness, felt shame, and so God clothed them prior to casting them out of the garden and into the world of evolutionary processes. This doesn't detract from any of the rest of their discussion, so I am perhaps a bit reactive here, but this doctrinal faux-pas was enought to raise my eyebrow and had me wondering for awhile.
In very simple terms, the church does not take any stance on the discussion between evolution and creation as taught in the Bible. You can find church leaders adamantly declare that evolution is contradictory to the gospel, and while that remains in our culture, it is no longer taught. You can actually trace the development of the church's views on the matter. From Joseph Smith (who postulated the earth to be between 3 and 5 billion years old) to around the 1930s, the church was very accepting of scientific evidence and tried to work that into gospel teaching. Sometime in the 1930s, the church took a hard course correction and rebutted science and refused to accept any scientific research. Only in more recent years have we turned back to realizing that the church has a purpose, and it is not to declare what is scientifically correct or accurate. As far as the creation account... as long as we force that account into literalism, we have to answer theological holes and are left unable to account for the scientific evidence that suggests another scenario. Now, it is perfectly understood that my opinion is not the general church stance, and that is acceptable. My opinion is in line with the scholarly consensus, and many church members believe what I do, namely, that the creation is an allegory that gives us some amazing and profound insights into our life here in earth. You can absolutely believe, like Joseph Fielding Smith did, that the earth was created in 7 24 hour periods, and like Bruce McConkie taught, that there was no death (so no dinosaurs) before the fall. That's absolutely fine. But you also have to be willing to accept other's opinions and theology as well... To be clear, it is not questioning doctrine or apostasy. It is trying to find truth and understanding on the journey.
I've always thought of Adam and Eve as a parable, a story we can learn from. There are a lot of these in the Bible from Jonah and the whale, to The prodigal son. Is believing in Adam and Eve as an actual historical event a requirement to being LDS. Given the creation record (that is the Earth itself), how can you believe in the story of Adam and Eve as historically accurate and not believe that God is a liar in the manner in which he created the Earth to deceive mankind into believing in an evolutionary process. He didn't lie when he wrote the story of Adam and Eve because God didn't write that Moses did, but he would be a liar in the creation itself.
So what about the second half of my comment. Did God intentionally lie to us by creating a world that tells a completely different creation story.? Also in episode 172, just a few episodes ago, it seemed to me that the guest speaker did insinuate that many many LDS members from Brigham Young on considered the story of Adam and Eve to be a parable.
@@shaengutzman2929 now I'm really confused? I think your current prophet is President Nelson correct? Did he seriously receive Revelation from God that the Adam and Eve story is not a parable? Has he said you must believe the factual historicity of Genesis or you can't be LDS? Have you ever heard of the logical fallacy of appealing to authority? At some point instead of "having a reason for the faith that is within you" as Paul suggested you should have, you are abdicating your responsibility to reason to a figurehead. I don't think blanketly believing what some leader says is what you're saying "follow the prophet" is suggesting.
@shaengutzman2929 What NedStratton is referring to is that the teachings could be seen as symbolic. That should sound familiar. The story is allegory... a talking snake, a tree that disperses wisdom, a tree that gives eternal life, contradicting commandments... the purpose isn't to say that there is a tree somewhere with knowledge or another with eternal life. The story is much deeper than that. Also, Ned's statement matches with the Book of Mormon verses that say that the earth and all creation testify of a God ... but it does not testify of a short earth creation. It does testify of evolution. Did God create an earth that would produce evidence contrary to what he has done? The answer is, of course, no. So, of what does it testify? Science has that answer. Even Joseph Smith, ahead of his time, predicted the earth to be billions of years old. We don't have to refute science or evolution, and we don't have to say that Adam and Eve were the exact storyline. We do need to understand how those things fit into our theology.
Thank you so much! I was wanting to contact Jennifer before teaching my YW about the Come Follow Me lesson on our bodies being a temple, and the Faith Matters just dropped everything I needed into my lap. Thank you!!
I NEEDED THIS FOR MY MOTHERING OF MY BEAUTIFUL AMAZING DAUGHTERS AND SONS! THANK YOU!!!!
If I set up 1000 bear traps in the path that I know you have to walk and you step on one can I throw my hand up and say, "you are ultimately responsible for where you put your feet"? No, you would say that I am at least in part culpable for the damage done. But women can dress however they want, regardless of how immodestly, and it's still 100% men's responsibility, or fault for improper thoughts.
I'd love for them to do a podcast on the double standards within the church for men and women. That would be a kick to listen to.
I love Jennifer. My dream would be for her to be called as General Young Women's President.
Loved this conversation. Been listening on Spotify. Thank you so much
I sometimes wish there would also be a discussion of how to view/deal with your sexuality when it becomes apparent you're not going to find your man/woman this side of the grave.
This was amazing! Thank you for this.
Amazing insights. She’s got some blind spots to the needs of men, but she’s leading our culture into better fields, no doubt.
Important topic that seems to be misunderstood by so many.
Even in this expansive discussion, the focus was still narrowed in on how girls dress and boys' reactions. I know there were other brief references to variable situations, but we're still perpetuating the idea of a boy's inability to control himself as a church and therefore into society - which is not God's view of modesty, sexuality, and Their daughters - or sons. This adds to conversations about abortion, sexual safety, and other situations where women carry the burden... often for a lifetime.
We need to teach our boys appropriate and godly sexuality as well as our girls. We need to teach the truest meanings of modesty to and for both genders. We need to teach our sons that their sexuality and sexual behaviors and consequences are their godly responsibilities, not to be passed off to someone else.
Both genders have sexual power and need to use it appropriately, safely, in a way honoring covenants and those around us. Thank you for pointing out that fact.
And... we need to teach our boys about themselves and their behaviors as well as our daughters - not just alongside, but with as much carefulness and prayers and eternal truth.
Only a female could write this. Men are taught that they are responsible for everything: their income, their physical safety, family guidance, moral leadership, church organization, and even the outcome of the marriage, and men accept it all. Women are offered responsibility for one thing - their chastity - and she drops it like a hot coal.
Church Handbook: "You should wear the garment day and night throughout your life. When it must be removed for activities that cannot reasonably be done while wearing the garment, seek to restore it as soon as possible." It's really not as complicated as it's sometimes made out to be.
Maybe someone can help me out. I'm new to Faith Matters. I assume they aim to put forth content that is in harmony with revealed truth and with the restored gospel, and in my opinion the entire discussion about modesty and sexuality hit that target. However, 5 minutes into the podcast I was put on alert to where the target might be aiming when a google search by the host revealed that homo sapiens didn't discover clothing for the first two hundred thousand years of their existence, and the guest seemed to accept that idea, speculating that with developing their self awareness clothing then became a way to manage shame and private vs public exposure.
Basic Christian gospel doctrine teaches that Adam and Eve, while in Eden became aware of their nakedness, felt shame, and so God clothed them prior to casting them out of the garden and into the world of evolutionary processes. This doesn't detract from any of the rest of their discussion, so I am perhaps a bit reactive here, but this doctrinal faux-pas was enought to raise my eyebrow and had me wondering for awhile.
In very simple terms, the church does not take any stance on the discussion between evolution and creation as taught in the Bible. You can find church leaders adamantly declare that evolution is contradictory to the gospel, and while that remains in our culture, it is no longer taught.
You can actually trace the development of the church's views on the matter. From Joseph Smith (who postulated the earth to be between 3 and 5 billion years old) to around the 1930s, the church was very accepting of scientific evidence and tried to work that into gospel teaching. Sometime in the 1930s, the church took a hard course correction and rebutted science and refused to accept any scientific research. Only in more recent years have we turned back to realizing that the church has a purpose, and it is not to declare what is scientifically correct or accurate.
As far as the creation account... as long as we force that account into literalism, we have to answer theological holes and are left unable to account for the scientific evidence that suggests another scenario. Now, it is perfectly understood that my opinion is not the general church stance, and that is acceptable. My opinion is in line with the scholarly consensus, and many church members believe what I do, namely, that the creation is an allegory that gives us some amazing and profound insights into our life here in earth. You can absolutely believe, like Joseph Fielding Smith did, that the earth was created in 7 24 hour periods, and like Bruce McConkie taught, that there was no death (so no dinosaurs) before the fall. That's absolutely fine. But you also have to be willing to accept other's opinions and theology as well...
To be clear, it is not questioning doctrine or apostasy. It is trying to find truth and understanding on the journey.
I've always thought of Adam and Eve as a parable, a story we can learn from. There are a lot of these in the Bible from Jonah and the whale, to The prodigal son. Is believing in Adam and Eve as an actual historical event a requirement to being LDS. Given the creation record (that is the Earth itself), how can you believe in the story of Adam and Eve as historically accurate and not believe that God is a liar in the manner in which he created the Earth to deceive mankind into believing in an evolutionary process. He didn't lie when he wrote the story of Adam and Eve because God didn't write that Moses did, but he would be a liar in the creation itself.
So what about the second half of my comment. Did God intentionally lie to us by creating a world that tells a completely different creation story.? Also in episode 172, just a few episodes ago, it seemed to me that the guest speaker did insinuate that many many LDS members from Brigham Young on considered the story of Adam and Eve to be a parable.
@@shaengutzman2929 now I'm really confused? I think your current prophet is President Nelson correct? Did he seriously receive Revelation from God that the Adam and Eve story is not a parable? Has he said you must believe the factual historicity of Genesis or you can't be LDS? Have you ever heard of the logical fallacy of appealing to authority? At some point instead of "having a reason for the faith that is within you" as Paul suggested you should have, you are abdicating your responsibility to reason to a figurehead. I don't think blanketly believing what some leader says is what you're saying "follow the prophet" is suggesting.
@shaengutzman2929 What NedStratton is referring to is that the teachings could be seen as symbolic. That should sound familiar. The story is allegory... a talking snake, a tree that disperses wisdom, a tree that gives eternal life, contradicting commandments... the purpose isn't to say that there is a tree somewhere with knowledge or another with eternal life. The story is much deeper than that.
Also, Ned's statement matches with the Book of Mormon verses that say that the earth and all creation testify of a God ... but it does not testify of a short earth creation. It does testify of evolution. Did God create an earth that would produce evidence contrary to what he has done? The answer is, of course, no. So, of what does it testify? Science has that answer. Even Joseph Smith, ahead of his time, predicted the earth to be billions of years old. We don't have to refute science or evolution, and we don't have to say that Adam and Eve were the exact storyline. We do need to understand how those things fit into our theology.