Latter-day Saints Skinny Dipper's Forum
Welcome to the New LDS Skinny Dipper's Forum!
(View six year's of archives here.)

While this website is primarily for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or Mormons, who are interested in chaste, wholesome, recreational nudity, everyone is welcome to participate.
Welcome Guest! To enable all features please try to register or login.
4 Pages123>»
Seeking truth, not justification on nudism/naturism.....
SansTan100 Offline
#1 Posted : Saturday, October 12, 2013 8:24:31 AM(UTC)
Rank: Telestial Member
Joined: 10/10/2013(UTC)
Posts: 11
Location: Arizona
Thanks: 2 times
Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
I came to this site seeking truth not justification (perhaps some justification). Like most others on the forum, I have a very powerful passion for nudity, but I do believe there are boundaries.Those of us who have been through the temple made a covenant to keep our desires, appetites, and passions within the bounds the Lord has set. I want to discuss those boundaries with others who share both my passion for nudity and my love of the gospel. I have to say that after reading through the forum, I do not agree with many of the issues that have been discussed. It will take many posts for me to address the issues and the feelings I have. I will address my posts to you MD because you have done a great job in your posts at addressing issues (sometimes a little wordy) and you seem to share the same opinions of most others on the site, of course everyone has the right to pipe in and I am open to all input.
My wife and I love being nude together!!!
GBSmith Offline
#2 Posted : Saturday, October 12, 2013 11:34:00 AM(UTC)
Rank: Exalted Millennial Member
Joined: 8/8/2013(UTC)
Posts: 329
Location: Lynden WA
Thanks: 76 times
Was thanked: 65 time(s) in 56 post(s)
SansTan100 wrote:
I came to this site seeking truth not justification (perhaps some justification). Like most others on the forum, I have a very powerful passion for nudity, but I do believe there are boundaries.Those of us who have been through the temple made a covenant to keep our desires, appetites, and passions within the bounds the Lord has set. I want to discuss those boundaries with others who share both my passion for nudity and my love of the gospel. I have to say that after reading through the forum, I do not agree with many of the issues that have been discussed. It will take many posts for me to address the issues and the feelings I have. I will address my posts to you MD because you have done a great job in your posts at addressing issues (sometimes a little wordy) and you seem to share the same opinions of most others on the site, of course everyone has the right to pipe in and I am open to all input.


I guess I'm not sure the boundaries are much different clothed or nude. If you're talking moral, then no difference and if societal it depends on the context, i.e. beach, home, at a club, etc.. I've never had an issue with keeping my desires, appetites, and passions withing the bounds the Lord has set when it involves just enjoying chaste social nudity. You're going to have to be a specific on what your concerns are vis a vis temple covenants and nudity. I was instructed in the temple to wear my garments throughout my life and not defile them so that for me is not an issue. Anyway, welcome to the forum and it will be interesting to read what you have on your mind.
SansTan100 Offline
#3 Posted : Saturday, October 12, 2013 12:37:41 PM(UTC)
Rank: Telestial Member
Joined: 10/10/2013(UTC)
Posts: 11
Location: Arizona
Thanks: 2 times
Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
Thanks for responding. My intention is to not have a debate but a discussion, even though my views may differ, I will not judge others for theirs.
First a little bit about myself. Unlike MD who found his way to nudity without really even seeking it, I have had strong desires for being nude all my life. As a teenager I would sneak out at night and go skinny dipping in the different pools around the neighborhood including a YMCA. I would fantasize about having one or more girls come with me, not to have sex but to skinny dip together. When I got married my wife and I immediately spent as much time being nude together as possible. It was truly heaven to me and still is. We never did include the kids in our nude together time but we certainly did not shut them out of our lives. We had time with the kids (clothed) and time with each other (nude). We have had lots of outdoor naked time by ourselves and several times been to a nude resort or beach.
I am an active member of the church and have been all my life. I have always held a current temple recommend but I have been reprimanded several times. I served an honorable full time mission. I have always held callings in the church including many leadership callings. I have one daughter married in the temple, a son and daughter who recently returned from their missions, another son getting ready to leave on a mission, and two daughters in high school.
My wife and I love being nude together!!!
Mormondad Offline
#4 Posted : Saturday, October 12, 2013 1:15:48 PM(UTC)

Rank: Exalted Millennial Member
Joined: 11/20/2012(UTC)
Posts: 877
Location: Utah
Thanks: 17 times
Was thanked: 270 time(s) in 166 post(s)
Sans,
I am curious to see exactly what your views and opinions are on the matter. As for me and my family I have constantly stated the following when it comes to nudity: "What is inappropriate nude is inappropriate dressed, what is inappropriate dressed is inappropriate nude." I thoroughly believe that all should keep this in mind in their behavior whether clothed or not.

Hey, I kept it short! Dancing Wink
"Modesty died when clothes were born."
---Mark Twain
SansTan100 Offline
#5 Posted : Saturday, October 12, 2013 6:24:32 PM(UTC)
Rank: Telestial Member
Joined: 10/10/2013(UTC)
Posts: 11
Location: Arizona
Thanks: 2 times
Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
What a great place to start. Both MD and GB have implied something that I see common in the nudist community and I do not agree with. The idea that being nude and being clothed should be treated as equal and may I add the erroneous idea that the primary purpose for clothing is protection. In my opinion they are not equal. No one should attend sacrament meeting with a swimsuit let alone nude no matter what the weather is. Not because a swimsuit or being nude is bad. We worship in our Sunday best. The Aaronic priesthood wears white shirts and ties, missionaries wear name tags and all the world now recognize who the missionaries are and what they represent. Boy Scouts wear a uniform to attend a court of honor to receive the eagle rank out of respect for the organization, the bride comes out of the temple in a beautiful white dress, armed forces wear uniforms out of respect for our country and for a sense of unity and fighting for a common cause. I could go on and on. There are many purposes for wearing clothing that are both desirable and honorable and provide beauty. As beautiful as a woman is with her clothes off, she also is beautiful in modest clothing appropriate for the occasion. In the clothing world there are boundaries, rules, and protocols for all these occasions and though annoying at times the rules are pertinent. Being nude is not equal and thank goodness it is not because hopefully for those of us that love to be nude there are appropriate opportunities to be so and these boundaries will and should differ because of the nature of what is being worn - nothing. I will explain more later.
(Now I'm the one getting wordy.)

Note: you guys may not want me to continue because after 52 years and a passion for nudity and the gospel and trying to reconcile the two we may be opening a floodgate.
My wife and I love being nude together!!!
GBSmith Offline
#6 Posted : Saturday, October 12, 2013 9:20:44 PM(UTC)
Rank: Exalted Millennial Member
Joined: 8/8/2013(UTC)
Posts: 329
Location: Lynden WA
Thanks: 76 times
Was thanked: 65 time(s) in 56 post(s)
SansTan100 wrote:
What a great place to start. Both MD and GB have implied something that I see common in the nudist community and I do not agree with. The idea that being nude and being clothed should be treated as equal and may I add the erroneous idea that the primary purpose for clothing is protection. In my opinion they are not equal...

Note: you guys may not want me to continue because after 52 years and a passion for nudity and the gospel and trying to reconcile the two we may be opening a floodgate.


What I said is that what is moral and appropriate is the same whether nude or clothed. Nudity has to be placed in the context of the time and place. I'm nude a home or at a club or resort but not in a place that would bring offense or be unsafe. As to clothing it serves all sorts of purposes in addition to protection. Decoration, indication of status, courtship, recreation, etc.. Nudity all depends on the context, time and place. We were invited to a club on the weekend of the skinny dip record sponsored by AANR and the Naturist Society and my wife commented on how uncomfortable and out of place she felt until she disrobed.

Also, I'm 68 and don't see any problem reconciling the two. Nudism/naturism is about body acceptance and equality and the Gospel is about Jesus Christ and Him crucified and that He will come again. No conflict at all.
Roamer Offline
#7 Posted : Sunday, October 13, 2013 12:40:51 PM(UTC)
Rank: Terrestrial Member
Joined: 12/27/2012(UTC)
Posts: 426
Thanks: 41 times
Was thanked: 82 time(s) in 65 post(s)
First off, welcome to the forum. Do keep in mind, the positions you'll find people taking regarding nudity in general, and in their personal lives is as widely varied as you'd find in the church population at large regarding any number of topics, including scriptural matters. As so much of what we learn in the Church is a combination of the instructions we've received by various means within the Church, life experiences, and even personal revelation, everyone takes it from a slightly different angle.

SansTan100 wrote:
What a great place to start. Both MD and GB have implied something that I see common in the nudist community and I do not agree with. The idea that being nude and being clothed should be treated as equal and may I add the erroneous idea that the primary purpose for clothing is protection.


You're missing part of the construct that was implied in the statement of "What is inappropriate nude is inappropriate dressed, what is inappropriate dressed is inappropriate nude." You also gave it a far wider scope than MD intended the statement to have, I don't think anyone here is ready to proclaim that the world is ready for people to go about their daily life without clothing and be treated just the same as they would if they were wearing clothes. Although some in here may dream of a day when they could do so if they so desired. The nuances of that discussion are best handled either later, or later.

What MD was conveying in that sentence was the sentiment that if you wouldn't perform a particular act if one of more of the participants were naked(in a situation where nudity isn't an issue by itself), than it isn't appropriate to be performing that act when both parties are wearing clothes. The reverse situation would likewise apply, although I can't think of any situations off-hand where that would be particularly applicable. The statement is generally intended as a rule of thumb for people new to naturism in regards to "What is acceptable behavior?" in a naturist setting.

As for "the erroneous idea that the primary purpose for clothing is protection." There has been speculation as to the role of clothing in this world, and the spiritual one, and I think most here are in the "inconclusive" camp rather than advocating one side over the other. There is a VERY strong scriptural basis for clothing as protection, we have it when Adam and Eve are cast out of the Garden of Eden, with the protection from the elements aspect of clothing brought up several more times in the Old and New Testaments, as well as some more obtuse references in the BoM.

Quote:
In my opinion they are not equal. No one should attend sacrament meeting with a swimsuit let alone nude no matter what the weather is. Not because a swimsuit or being nude is bad. We worship in our Sunday best. The Aaronic priesthood wears white shirts and ties, missionaries wear name tags and all the world now recognize who the missionaries are and what they represent. Boy Scouts wear a uniform to attend a court of honor to receive the eagle rank out of respect for the organization, the bride comes out of the temple in a beautiful white dress, armed forces wear uniforms out of respect for our country and for a sense of unity and fighting for a common cause. I could go on and on. There are many purposes for wearing clothing that are both desirable and honorable and provide beauty. As beautiful as a woman is with her clothes off, she also is beautiful in modest clothing appropriate for the occasion. In the clothing world there are boundaries, rules, and protocols for all these occasions and though annoying at times the rules are pertinent.


This is where you tread into different territory, and this where most in the forum will begin to draw distinctions. Do not confuse the "traditions of man" with the Scriptures. They are not the same thing. There is no scripture that says that the Aaronic priesthood is to wear black slacks, white shirts, and ties(as well as a suit jacket when possible) to Sacrament meetings. There is no scriptures that says missionaries are to wear name tags. The Boy Scouts are never mentioned in the scriptures at all, bridal wedding dresses also have no scriptural basis that I'm aware of.

Also, I seem to recall Alma having some rather strong words to say in condemnation of some church-goers about their conduct regarding other would-be attendees who wished to attend, but failed to be "properly attired" for services.

So from a scriptural view the vestments worn, or not worn as it is, are irrelevant. What matters is the intent of the person(s) involved.

From the standpoint of traditions, maintaining "good order" and other various things, yes many of the above mentioned practices have good and desirable outcomes, and some things are directly and openly encouraged by the General Authorities and President of the Church. But that doesn't change that matter that even they will acknowledge that those practices are not DOCTRINAL in nature, if anything, they're far more likely to be instructional with the end goal being that the person will pick up on the PRINCIPLES that underlie the activities taking place.

The biggest problem a lot of people have is separating the doctrines from the traditions and culture that surrounds the Church. Once you start to realize that they are not one and the same, things tend to shift around a bit.

Quote:
Note: you guys may not want me to continue because after 52 years and a passion for nudity and the gospel and trying to reconcile the two we may be opening a floodgate.


Open them up, there are more than a few of us around here that can get quite verbose when it suits us, and we're able to wade through it... although we could take awhile to do so. :) (or in my case, take awhile to even coming back onto the forum to look at it in the first place) Unsure
SansTan100 Offline
#8 Posted : Sunday, October 13, 2013 10:52:53 PM(UTC)
Rank: Telestial Member
Joined: 10/10/2013(UTC)
Posts: 11
Location: Arizona
Thanks: 2 times
Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
Great comments! Even if I don't agree with all of them. I look forward to lively discussion. I believe most of us on this forum have the same goal of enjoying our passion of both the gospel and nudity. And I do apologize especially to you GB if I make a general statement about what you believe that is incorrect.
Roamer is stating the premise that there is a distinction between doctrine and traditions of men. I don't disagree, yet just because the scripture do not state it does not mean it is not doctrine and even if it is not doctrine does not mean the practice is not according to the will of God. If we believe otherwise then we start to sound like Bible Belt Christians and discount the whole purpose of the restoration with prophets and apostles and on going revelation. The scriptures may not state that aaronic priesthood holders are encouraged to wear white shirts and ties, nor does it say that a 12 year old young man should be ordained, nor for 18 year old young men to go on missions, but there is no doubt in my mind that this is the will of the Lord and just as he foresaw it to be.
Let's talk about the body. Because of the restored gospel we know the body to be a gift from God and essential to the plan of happiness. Elder Nelson stated that God planted in the body powerful appetites in last weeks conference. The nude body generates powerful emotions inside us. Some treat the emotions with lust, others shun nudity and quickly cover, it can facilitate loving sexual relations. For those of us that love nudity it gives us a great auxiliarating sense of freedom, escape, beauty, adventure, and/or relaxation. So in my opinion, wearing clothes and not wearing clothes is not equal and never will be. If it was equal then nudity would not be so important to us.
This brings up my next point, the idea that nudity is not sexual. I totally disagree with this and will expound on it in my next post.
My wife and I love being nude together!!!
Roamer Offline
#9 Posted : Monday, October 14, 2013 8:19:21 PM(UTC)
Rank: Terrestrial Member
Joined: 12/27/2012(UTC)
Posts: 426
Thanks: 41 times
Was thanked: 82 time(s) in 65 post(s)
SansTan100 wrote:
I don't disagree, yet just because the scripture do not state it does not mean it is not doctrine and even if it is not doctrine does not mean the practice is not according to the will of God.


Well, it gets a bit complicated citing scripture on this one because scripture is considered to be such for a reason. However, given your identified age, you probably remember a lot of what started happening under President Kimball(from what I've heard, I was born about halfway through his Presidency, so I don't remember much of it first hand) and pretty much culminated under President Hinckley although President Monson continues the effort, just with less heavy lifting required. Where the General Authorities and the Presidency of the Church have been going through a lot of Church practices and policies and heavily revising, excising, and otherwise reworking many of them. With some comments being made that upon further evaluation, there was no actual doctrinal basis for ______. It also is why many of the newer Church Publications and guidebooks contain active disclaimers for those who would cite them as if they were quoting from scripture(doctrinal) based directives.

The Scriptures and the Doctrines that they contain are constant and do not change. The practices, policies, interpretations and even culture that evolve around the Scriptures and Doctrines of the Church can and do change in very demonstrable ways. But we can get into that later.

Quote:
If we believe otherwise then we start to sound like Bible Belt Christians and discount the whole purpose of the restoration with prophets and apostles and on going revelation.


Well, the other "problem" with many Bible Belt Christians is they can tell you all sorts of things that "are in the scriptures" which they won't be able to actually find in the scriptures, because those things aren't in there. This also happens with Mormons too.

And even then, the Doctrine and Covenants, and even the General Authorities if you ask them, will be quite clear on what is to be considered Scripture. If it isn't in scripture, it isn't a doctrine. The last addition we made to our scriptures, as an actual Scripture, was Official Declaration #2 last time I checked.

That being said, yes, Local and General Authorities do have the authority and ability to receive revelation regarding what it best for those under their care. But as it stands, the General Authorities have remained out of the public nudity issue in respect to either doctrinal matters or church policy. Local authorities have been more mixed, ranging from accepting it, to excommunicating members over it based on comments made by other past and present members on here.

Quote:
The scriptures may not state that aaronic priesthood holders are encouraged to wear white shirts and ties, nor does it say that a 12 year old young man should be ordained, nor for 18 year old young men to go on missions, but there is no doubt in my mind that this is the will of the Lord and just as he foresaw it to be.


Someone with a little more time on their hands needs to check the v1 forums, I think somebody found a talk by one of the GA's on this topic. Otherwise, I'm staying out of this one other than to say this: The purpose of the sacrament is to honor Christ and to renew our covenants with the Lord. Its purpose is not to either pay homage to the guys in suits and ties, or the suits and ties themselves. Also, the operative part of the above quote would be the word "encouraged."

Quote:
Let's talk about the body. Because of the restored gospel we know the body to be a gift from God and essential to the plan of happiness. Elder Nelson stated that God planted in the body powerful appetites in last weeks conference. The nude body generates powerful emotions inside us. Some treat the emotions with lust, others shun nudity and quickly cover, it can facilitate loving sexual relations. For those of us that love nudity it gives us a great exhilarating sense of freedom, escape, beauty, adventure, and/or relaxation. So in my opinion, wearing clothes and not wearing clothes is not equal and never will be. If it was equal then nudity would not be so important to us.
This brings up my next point, the idea that nudity is not sexual. I totally disagree with this and will expound on it in my next post.


Let's start with the last part first: Nudity can be, and IS sexual. Of course, wearing clothes can be, and IS sexual as well, and I'm not just talking about swim suits. I'm talking about everything from Burkhas to Hoopskirts and everything in between. It doesn't matter what a person is wearing, if the viewer is so inclined, sexual thoughts and connotations will follow. My personal standard is this: "Does this present a humble image?" for the venue I am going to. If the answer is that image isn't humble, then what I'm wearing(or not wearing in the case of nudity) is immodest. Which means wearing an Armani Suit while doing volunteer work at a local soup kitchen can potentially be as immodest as someone walking around in a bathing suit(or even naked) in a less than appropriate venue.

Also remember my earlier comment in this post about practices, policies, interpretations, and customs changing? In the New Testament, we have an Apostle declaring that women who braid their hair or simply wear pearls(among some other things) are immodest. Too lazy to look up the verse right now(It has been quoted in the v1 forums a number of times, and is listed in the Topical Guide under modesty as I recall), but using that scriptural standard. I'd challenge you to the mental exercise(don't actually do it) of walking into a Relief Society or Young Women's meeting on Sunday, find the women who are in violation of that scripture, read it to them, and call them out on their immodesty--in church no less!

For a more recent example, attire that would be considered perfectly acceptable for Women to wear to Church today would have had them run out of the building as some kind of harlot if you slipped them into a time machine and dropped them off just in time for Sunday Services in the 1850's.

Then we also have the events in the Garden of Eden. The first thing the serpent does after Adam and Eve partake of the fruit is to point out their nakedness.... Or that up until that point Adam and Eve had spent an unknown amount of time regularly going on walks with God through the Garden of Eden... While Naked. Now given that the Church does hold to the doctrinal belief that God cannot tolerate sin in his presence, that tends to make one thing quite clear as to God's take on nudity. (We could also get into all kinds of discussions regarding Christ as well on that front, given that contrary to most artistic renditions of his crucifixion, the Romans crucified their victims in the nude, and the scriptures say nothing to indicate Christ was an exception beyond his being "gifted" a crown of thorns and a sign being added to his cross. Which would mean he walked naked through the streets of Jerusalem and additionally remained naked and on display upon the cross for a few days thereafter, and died without sin. About the only rationalization people can have on that front is that he was forced to do that so he can't be held accountable for it, except for the matter of him being the Son of God and him having command of the hosts of heaven even while he walked the Earth, nobody could force him to do anything. Of course that leaves open "but it was God's Plan" except we've been taught that God will never make a person sin(although he may make you come close to doing so, as he did with Abraham))
Frontiersman Offline
#10 Posted : Monday, October 14, 2013 9:33:03 PM(UTC)

Rank: Terrestrial Member
Joined: 11/20/2012(UTC)
Posts: 359
Location: Jefferson/California
Thanks: 136 times
Was thanked: 47 time(s) in 39 post(s)
To emphasis my agreement with Roamer I'm going to make one change to all that was said:
Quote:
and on display upon the cross for a few days thereafter
Actually it was only a few hours.
That is all, everything else looks solid.
De oppresso liber
Roamer Offline
#11 Posted : Monday, October 14, 2013 11:14:58 PM(UTC)
Rank: Terrestrial Member
Joined: 12/27/2012(UTC)
Posts: 426
Thanks: 41 times
Was thanked: 82 time(s) in 65 post(s)
Frontiersman wrote:
To emphasis my agreement with Roamer I'm going to make one change to all that was said:
Quote:
and on display upon the cross for a few days thereafter
Actually it was only a few hours.
That is all, everything else looks solid.


6 hours or thereabouts according to Mark 15. Not quite sure how I turned hours into days, but I stand corrected.
SansTan100 Offline
#12 Posted : Tuesday, October 15, 2013 12:38:03 AM(UTC)
Rank: Telestial Member
Joined: 10/10/2013(UTC)
Posts: 11
Location: Arizona
Thanks: 2 times
Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
Roamer, I'm not trying to suggest that nudity is a sin. I'm just trying to make the point that it cannot be treated as equal with wearing clothes. Regardless of what church policy is or should be or what the current cultural norms are, the naked body creates a whole array of feelings and emotions. For me, simple pleasures of life are greatly intensified when nude, whether eating food, going for a walk, or having sex and everything in between. Because of this I do believe we have to be careful especially while in a fallen world and that God expects a higher standard.
Now concerning nudity being sexual. I know that clothing can be sexual too, but once again those feelings are intensified when nude. I have been a person that has been drawn to nudity all my life and I enjoy it for all the same reasons everyone talks about - freedom, relaxation, acceptance, enjoyment, etc., and I add beauty to the list. But when nudist try to say that nudity is not sexual I have to disagree. It is very sexual for me and I would believe many others. Just myself being nude heightens all the feelings in my body including my own sexuality. To look at a beautiful woman does cause a reaction inside of me whether she has clothes on or not, but if she is nude the sexual feelings are intensified no matter who the woman is - I'm not talking lust here which can be a problem for us guys if we are not careful. My wife and I have spent tens of thousands of hours together in the nude and seeing her naked today is just as pleasing to me if not more so then 27 years ago when we were first married. As much as I love and am committed to my wife, other woman are still very beautiful and can be stimulating. I don't believe sexual feelings are a negative, part of what makes life and nudity so sweet is the attraction between the sexes. This attraction is a gift from God and is very powerful and we need to be good stewards of this gift so we don't lose it.
I next want to share some thoughts on pornography and nudity.
My wife and I love being nude together!!!
Ravenwarbird Offline
#13 Posted : Tuesday, October 15, 2013 5:02:50 PM(UTC)

Rank: Exalted Millennial Member
Joined: 11/20/2012(UTC)
Posts: 358
Location: Canada
Thanks: 34 times
Was thanked: 126 time(s) in 69 post(s)
Very nice post Roamer, very informative and thought provoking. I was going to point out the "on the cross for days" mistake but Frontiersman beat me too it. It was normal for people to be left crucified for days on display but an exception was granted to the Jew's as it would have violated some of their religious laws. The Romans were nice that way, instead of destroying a culture after overpowering a nation they allowed the culture to progress under Roman rule. Alexander the Great pointed out that subjugated people like you more if you grant them a semblance of normality to their regular way of life. So no one is the Israelite territories would have been left hanging during the Sabbath hence the hast in finding Christ a tome and the rush job on his body preservation. The women who saw the risen Lord come the day after the Sabbath to finish the job the started the day before the Sabbath.

Anyway good job everyone for your comments and keep them coming.
Remember the simple things are the fundamentals of life. Choose ye your path this day. Si prima non succederet usus duct tape.
Mormondad Offline
#14 Posted : Tuesday, October 15, 2013 6:03:39 PM(UTC)

Rank: Exalted Millennial Member
Joined: 11/20/2012(UTC)
Posts: 877
Location: Utah
Thanks: 17 times
Was thanked: 270 time(s) in 166 post(s)
Take a couple of days off and suddenly everything explodes. Eh?

SansTan100 wrote:
Both MD and GB have implied something that I see common in the nudist community and I do not agree with. The idea that being nude and being clothed should be treated as equal and may I add the erroneous idea that the primary purpose for clothing is protection.



Sans, I did not intend to imply they were equal. What I was specifically addressing in my statement was dealing directly with behavior. I completely agree that there are times and places where clothing is appropriate and proper and nudity wrong and inappropriate.
"Modesty died when clothes were born."
---Mark Twain
GBSmith Offline
#15 Posted : Tuesday, October 15, 2013 9:44:44 PM(UTC)
Rank: Exalted Millennial Member
Joined: 8/8/2013(UTC)
Posts: 329
Location: Lynden WA
Thanks: 76 times
Was thanked: 65 time(s) in 56 post(s)
SansTan100 wrote:
Roamer, I'm not trying to suggest that nudity is a sin. I'm just trying to make the point that it cannot be treated as equal with wearing clothes. Regardless of what church policy is or should be or what the current cultural norms are, the naked body creates a whole array of feelings and emotions. For me, simple pleasures of life are greatly intensified when nude, whether eating food, going for a walk, or having sex and everything in between. Because of this I do believe we have to be careful especially while in a fallen world and that God expects a higher standard.
Now concerning nudity being sexual. I know that clothing can be sexual too, but once again those feelings are intensified when nude. I have been a person that has been drawn to nudity all my life and I enjoy it for all the same reasons everyone talks about - freedom, relaxation, acceptance, enjoyment, etc., and I add beauty to the list. But when nudist try to say that nudity is not sexual I have to disagree. It is very sexual for me and I would believe many others. Just myself being nude heightens all the feelings in my body including my own sexuality. To look at a beautiful woman does cause a reaction inside of me whether she has clothes on or not, but if she is nude the sexual feelings are intensified no matter who the woman is - I'm not talking lust here which can be a problem for us guys if we are not careful. My wife and I have spent tens of thousands of hours together in the nude and seeing her naked today is just as pleasing to me if not more so then 27 years ago when we were first married. As much as I love and am committed to my wife, other woman are still very beautiful and can be stimulating. I don't believe sexual feelings are a negative, part of what makes life and nudity so sweet is the attraction between the sexes. This attraction is a gift from God and is very powerful and we need to be good stewards of this gift so we don't lose it.
I next want to share some thoughts on pornography and nudity.


As Roamer said, nudity is sexual but but that really isn't the point. You need to understand that the whole idea of separating nudity from sexuality started in the 30's with the rise of nudist clubs and organizations in America. Nudism/naturism needed to emphasize the non sexual nature of the movement in order to reassure neighbors and the law that there wasn't anything bad or illegal going on. It translated into clubs that for years wouldn't admit singles, male or female, or a person whose spouse didn't belong. A common rule was that there could be no physical contact between members that were not related, nothing more than a hand shake. As recent as about 12 years ago the AANR's website advice for first time visitors to a club was, if single, call first and see it they'd let you in. About eleven years ago I had to go to a meeting in Palm Springs and tried to book a room at the Terra Cotta in but was turned down because they only rented to couples. In the early days of the free beach movement organized groups would go to a beach but would only allow couples and families.

I don't think any one will argue that nudity is sexual in spite of the absence of erections at clubs but it's an individual thing. Swingers in the 60s and 70s were the bane of clubs and there was a lot of effort in keeping them out. Organized naturism/nudism will always try and separate itself from any sexual inference because that would be the end of the idea of family oriented chaste social nudity.
nude_explorer Offline
#16 Posted : Friday, October 18, 2013 5:13:16 AM(UTC)

Rank: Celestial Member
Joined: 11/26/2012(UTC)
Posts: 75
Location: Vernal UT
Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 18 time(s) in 17 post(s)
When quoting scripture as it applies to clothing a lot of care, prayer and pondering must be used other wise the scriptures can seem to be very contradictory.

The first scriptures concerning nudity begin with Adam & Eve in the Garden of Eden. They were naked and not ashamed.
Then When the Lord discovered them hiding with fig leaves he asked in a tone of disappointment "Who told thee thou wast naked"
The whole thing about shame of being naked came from Satan.
The scripture when Adam and Eve were cast from the garden of Eden that states that he gave them "coats of skins" does not elaborate as to why he did so, simply that he did. There is a lot of conjecture as to the reason, some say it was to shame Adam & Eve because all of the animals were their friends in the garden and they were being given the coats made from their friends, others say they were given to afford protection from the elements. In that particular scripture there is no explanation.

There are a lot of references concerning clothing and nakedness. Many of the references have nothing to do with physically wearing clothing or being naked.
For example.
Clothed in the light of Christ. Clothed in Darkness.
To expose a person's nakedness is often used to show the shame for a persons evil actions. When a person does some thing which is
a crime or immoral and that person is found out there is usually feelings of "shame", their actions have been "exposed"

As time goes on and people became accustomed to wearing clothing rather than being naked there came other boundaries and scriptural references. Some as in Isaiah where he was commanded to go on a 3 year mission "naked and with out purse or script". Or in the case of Solomon when he went to hear the prophets, he removed his clothes and witnesses asked "is Solomon a prophet?"

Then there are the scriptures that state we are to clothe the naked and feed the hungry. There again those statements can be either literal or spiritual analogies.
It is common for speakers in the church meeting (even in the recent conference President Monson) saying we have been fed in this meeting. There was no food offered at the meeting. Were the members who attended conference naked when they arrived then given clothing while at conference, or were they clothed with the Holy Spirit?

There are scriptures that do literally instruct clothing for various reasons.

So this is a question that could be debated with out end.
The best solution is to do as we have always been instructed, study the scriptures, ponder, pray for understanding and the still small voice. Open your mind to the prompting and be willing to accept the truth whether it is what you wanted to hear or not.

Once I saw a new car I liked, I went to the dealership and check it out, find out the price, even the payments. In excitement I wanted to sign the contract. I prayed whether I should buy the car or not. I allowed my excitement to cloud my ability to hear the still small voice, I bought the car, only to regret it a few weeks later, I couldn't really afford it and it became a great burden, the longer I had the car the more dissatisfied I became and the more resentment I had toward it.

When we search and pray about the appropriateness of nudity we need to be sure that our desires or excitement don' get in the way of the true answer simply because we just want to be naked or of the guilt placed upon us by society.
As for me, I wrestled with this question, especially as pertaining to the garment for quite some time, one day as I was driving (clothed) when the simple thought came to me "clothing including garments will not get me into heaven or keep me out of heaven". For what that may be worth to some of you.
If my comments didn't answer your questions I hope they gave you some thing to ponder.
Mormondad Offline
#17 Posted : Friday, October 18, 2013 8:48:14 AM(UTC)

Rank: Exalted Millennial Member
Joined: 11/20/2012(UTC)
Posts: 877
Location: Utah
Thanks: 17 times
Was thanked: 270 time(s) in 166 post(s)
Nude_Explorer,
You make some excellent points. I really like how you explain it all. Although I thought it was Saul and not Solomon who had the experience.

I might add one point to your last part, which I completely agree with. I find that, at least for me, that I at times need to refresh my understanding of nudity and why I personally might be nude. It is quite possible, I think especially for those of us brought up in rather strict textile environments, to periodically degenerate in our thoughts and thus we need to relook the reason for being nude at times. While we might be in the right frame of mind most of the time there may still be times that we can look to be nude for the wrong reasons. Until we can become perfect in our hearts on the matter we should never relax our hold on trying to keep to the right spirit or we risk succumbing to the wrong spirit. I still think there may be times and places where it is right to be nude or even wrong to be nude, even in locations/times where it is very much appropriate.
"Modesty died when clothes were born."
---Mark Twain
1 user thanked Mormondad for this useful post.
Hopkington Kalazan on 12/1/2013(UTC)
Frontiersman Offline
#18 Posted : Friday, October 18, 2013 11:15:03 AM(UTC)

Rank: Terrestrial Member
Joined: 11/20/2012(UTC)
Posts: 359
Location: Jefferson/California
Thanks: 136 times
Was thanked: 47 time(s) in 39 post(s)
Nude_Explorer, I'm not trying to disagree or argue what you say, but when you say to be careful quoting scripture and then say that God's tone of voice to Adam and Eve was a tone of disappointment, I'm not sure where it says a tone of disappointment and I was also under the impression this was for taking the fruit, not the fig leaves.
De oppresso liber
SansTan100 Offline
#19 Posted : Saturday, October 19, 2013 6:09:21 PM(UTC)
Rank: Telestial Member
Joined: 10/10/2013(UTC)
Posts: 11
Location: Arizona
Thanks: 2 times
Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
I like to be nude because I have a strong appetite, desire, and passion for it. The temple does not state that our appetites, passions, and desires are wrong but that they must be kept within the bounds the Lord has set. I don't believe any of us on this form will disagree with this statement. The question is what are those bounds. I believe even among us on this form there is disagreement on what those boundaries are. Has the Lord set different boundaries for each of us? I don't think so. Because of the nature of the nude body creating powerful feelings, emotions, and reactions in ourselves and others, there has to be boundaries. Why do we want to stay within the boundaries? Because the boundaries are for our protection, safety, and eternal happiness and none of us want to jeopardize that for ourselves, our families, and for others. It's like teenagers and young single adults want to know how far they can go before they are married. If they cross the boundaries, the emotional, physical, and spiritual consequences can be severe. I believe that for myself as a person who loves nudity, I push the boundary if not cross it from time to time.
I do believe there are behaviors that all, including the rank and file of the church, agree are within the proper bounds and other behaviors that all including the most ardent nudist agree are outside the bounds. Let me start with one I believe all agree is ok. Nudity between a husband and wife both for making love, showing love, being close, strengthening the relationship, enjoying each other, relaxing together, and keeping things sweet. I believe that everyone in the whole church would agree that this is a proper use of nudity.
My wife and I love being nude together!!!
Mormondad Offline
#20 Posted : Saturday, October 19, 2013 11:13:16 PM(UTC)

Rank: Exalted Millennial Member
Joined: 11/20/2012(UTC)
Posts: 877
Location: Utah
Thanks: 17 times
Was thanked: 270 time(s) in 166 post(s)
SansTan100 wrote:
Nudity between a husband and wife both for making love, showing love, being close, strengthening the relationship, enjoying each other, relaxing together, and keeping things sweet. I believe that everyone in the whole church would agree that this is a proper use of nudity.


Actually there are those in the church who have issues with this even. Far too many think nudity even in marriage is forbidden and evil. A book was written a few years ago addressing exactly this (And They Were Not Ashamed: Strengthening Marriage through Sexual Fulfillment).
"Modesty died when clothes were born."
---Mark Twain
Users browsing this topic
Guest
4 Pages123>»
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

SoClean Theme By Jaben Cargman (Tiny Gecko)
Powered by YAF 1.9.5 RC1 | YAF © 2003-2010, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 0.129 seconds.