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 Pages<1234>
Seeking truth, not justification on nudism/naturism.....
GBSmith Offline
#21 Posted : Sunday, October 20, 2013 10:20:17 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)
Mormondad wrote:
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).


I can remember talking to people in the 60s and 70s that had been advised in the temple about not removing the garment for sex. One elderly man who'd remarried was told to wear the old wrists to ankles garments with ties in the front in order to make having sex easier. I suspect this was all done by aging temple workers who took it upon themselves to interpret the phrase about keeping ones actions within the bounds the Lord has set.

Earlier I'd commented that nudity was sexual but what I should have said was that it may be according to motivation and circumstance but not necessarily and that is one of the points of social nudity. It's a philosophy that includes body acceptance, the belief that there is nothing evil, sinful or immoral about the naked body, and the benefits both physical and psychological about naked especially in nature. For me it's one of the few things that I can do that bring pure enjoyment. Conflating nudism/naturism with sexual immorality is something that will likely happen if you decide to discuss it with a bishop or SP and put yourself on their radar. You have to be willing to trust your own judgement about what's right and wrong and what's your business and not someone elses.
SansTan100 Offline
#22 Posted : Monday, October 21, 2013 6:18:55 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)
There may be some members who believe that nudity between a husband and wife is wrong but I don’t know anyone personally who feels that way. People who feel this way would certainly be considered extreme in their beliefs and are not part of the rank and file of the church membership. In my opinion, these people are outside the bounds. I am confident that no priesthood leader in the church would censor a husband and wife for being naked together either for sex or for enjoyment even if it is in nature. In this context, the church absolutely believes that there is nothing evil, sinful or immoral about the naked body and that it is good and beautiful and a gift from God. I don’t know of any other mainstream religion that believes in the eternal nature, goodness and beauty of the physical body and its key to our happiness (thank goodness for the restored gospel). The key is to teach our spirits to control these bodies so we can enjoy all they have to offer us like breaking a horse to follow our command so we can ride the mountain tops.
The opinions in the church do vary sharply from those of us on this forum when it comes to social nudity and at least in my case an obsession for nudity. Are we stepping outside the bounds or is it merely a fact that 99% of the church is wrong on this point and us 1% are right?
My wife and I love being nude together!!!
GBSmith Offline
#23 Posted : Monday, October 21, 2013 7:21:23 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:

The opinions in the church do vary sharply from those of us on this forum when it comes to social nudity and at least in my case an obsession for nudity. Are we stepping outside the bounds or is it merely a fact that 99% of the church is wrong on this point and us 1% are right?


No right or wrong. I expect social nudity has never occurred to the other 99%. Plus nudity is a spectrum from a committed naturist to scouts that go skinny dipping in an alpine lake. And I'm not sure the word "bounds" applies since it's something not specified anywhere that I know of. If it were to come up it would be a case by case thing and not an edict or a paragraph in the Handbook of Instructions. As we said about my mission president, Elder Packer, back in the day, he didn't tell me, I didn't ask.
Mormondad Offline
#24 Posted : Monday, October 21, 2013 8:20:13 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:
There may be some members who believe that nudity between a husband and wife is wrong but I don’t know anyone personally who feels that way. People who feel this way would certainly be considered extreme in their beliefs and are not part of the rank and file of the church membership. In my opinion, these people are outside the bounds. I am confident that no priesthood leader in the church would censor a husband and wife for being naked together either for sex or for enjoyment even if it is in nature. In this context, the church absolutely believes that there is nothing evil, sinful or immoral about the naked body and that it is good and beautiful and a gift from God. I don’t know of any other mainstream religion that believes in the eternal nature, goodness and beauty of the physical body and its key to our happiness (thank goodness for the restored gospel). The key is to teach our spirits to control these bodies so we can enjoy all they have to offer us like breaking a horse to follow our command so we can ride the mountain tops.
The opinions in the church do vary sharply from those of us on this forum when it comes to social nudity and at least in my case an obsession for nudity. Are we stepping outside the bounds or is it merely a fact that 99% of the church is wrong on this point and us 1% are right?



I agree that the bulk of the members of the church accept nudity within marriage as acceptable. However, there are still a significant number that have issues with nudity even within the confines of marriage and in the bedroom. I am aware of some who will not shower together and/or will keep the lights off during intercourse. It is still enough of an issue that it causes difficulties in marriages and eventually leads to an excuse to divorce. Another related problem is the notion that many women still have in the church that sex is to be endured and is a "nasty" thing. Again this is enough of a problem that is often unrecognized by the church leaders because no one "dares" talk of sexuality as it is "sinful." With these concepts floating around the church the notion of nudity outside of the bedroom, especially with anyone that isn't your spouse is tantamount to blasphemy and is attacked viciously. Yes it's still a significant problem, and while the official church doctrine is that our bodies are wonderful gifts from God and beautiful, etc. etc. there are still a very large numbers of members (especially here in the US) that really don't understand this concept fully and still carry over many concepts of the world when it comes to notions of the body, especially the nude body.

As GBSmith stated, I believe that the majority who have opinions against nudity are due to the continued teachings of the Victorian era that have permeated the Anglo-western culture for the past 150 years.
"Modesty died when clothes were born."
---Mark Twain
rjmma Offline
#25 Posted : Tuesday, October 22, 2013 8:26:03 AM(UTC)

Rank: Celestial Member
Joined: 11/20/2012(UTC)
Posts: 257
Location: Utah
Thanks: 18 times
Was thanked: 79 time(s) in 63 post(s)
And of those that keep the lights off, or don't let their partner see them nude, some of those are body image issues, or a whole range of problems that may not be related to thinking nudity is bad, just something they don't want to expose to the world.

Mormondad Offline
#26 Posted : Tuesday, October 22, 2013 12:18:56 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)
rjmma,
I guess I might be generalizing a bit, but in my book most if not all of the "body image" issues are related to the notion that nudity is bad, either in the front end or the back end. It either drives the notion that nudity is bad thus my body is evil, thus I can't show it to anyone so that I don't cause lust, even in my spouse. On the other end due to the false notions from media and the world people think their body is not perfect thus "I'm afraid to show it as I'm embarrassed by my imperfections" thus they hide their bodies and then blame it on it being bad to justify it.
"Modesty died when clothes were born."
---Mark Twain
nude_explorer Offline
#27 Posted : Thursday, October 24, 2013 3:10:11 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)
I stand corrected, I think it was Saul.

When the Lord came down to visit Adam & Eve he discovered that they were hiding, when he asked them why they said it was because they were naked so they hid them selves, when he instructed them to come out from hiding they were wearing fig leaves. He asked them who told them they were naked. In the scriptures it does not say he had a tone of disappointment, it just seems that he naturally would, the same as any parent would be disappointed when they find their child has done something they shouldn't have done. To my recollection this conversation took place before the disclosure of eating the forbidden fruit. Of course I am going from my recollection, it wouldn't be the first time I was mistaken.
nude_explorer Offline
#28 Posted : Thursday, October 24, 2013 3:19:02 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)
Mormondad wrote:
rjmma,
I guess I might be generalizing a bit, but in my book most if not all of the "body image" issues are related to the notion that nudity is bad, either in the front end or the back end. It either drives the notion that nudity is bad thus my body is evil, thus I can't show it to anyone so that I don't cause lust, even in my spouse. On the other end due to the false notions from media and the world people think their body is not perfect thus "I'm afraid to show it as I'm embarrassed by my imperfections" thus they hide their bodies and then blame it on it being bad to justify it.


The main reason that has been given to me on this question is "certain parts of the body is sacred and should not be visible to any other person save it be your legally and lawfully wedded spouse".

Of course this statement brings up more questions. Why then is it appropriate to have other persons (same gender) see you in a locker room when changing or showering, or at the doctor, in the Military, etc.?
nude_explorer Offline
#29 Posted : Thursday, October 24, 2013 3:27:17 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)
Some one posted in the old forum a comment about President Benson that is applicable to this subject, that person gave his resource but my memory is too vague to remember what it was.

The post stated that Pres. Benson when bathing would sit on the edge of the tub, remove his garment halfway, wash the exposed half then place clean garments on the clean half, then turn, remove the soiled garment, wash the other half, then complete getting dressed.

I have great respect for President Benson, especially concerning some of his talks and warnings, however that way of bathing seems a bit eccentric to me.
Guest
#30 Posted : Thursday, October 24, 2013 6:48:58 AM(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Joined: 11/19/2012(UTC)
Posts: 24
Just going back to nude_explorer's comment about Saul, yes he did take off his clothes and was naked, but him being naked is NOT why the people asked if he was "among the prophets". They asked if he was a prophet because he was prophesying (1 Sam 10:9-13 & 1 Sam 19:24). Sorry, this is a bit of a pet peeve to me. The definition of a prophet is someone with the gift of prophecy. They or may not also be naked at times, but that has no relevance to if they are a prophet.
Roamer Offline
#31 Posted : Thursday, October 24, 2013 7:37:22 PM(UTC)
Rank: Terrestrial Member
Joined: 12/27/2012(UTC)
Posts: 426
Thanks: 41 times
Was thanked: 82 time(s) in 65 post(s)
Yukikaji wrote:
Just going back to nude_explorer's comment about Saul, yes he did take off his clothes and was naked, but him being naked is NOT why the people asked if he was "among the prophets". They asked if he was a prophet because he was prophesying (1 Sam 10:9-13 & 1 Sam 19:24). Sorry, this is a bit of a pet peeve to me. The definition of a prophet is someone with the gift of prophecy. They or may not also be naked at times, but that has no relevance to if they are a prophet.


Yes, but the being naked "also" part was kind of integral there. He removed his clothing and began to prophesy, and the people's response was "is Saul now among the prophets?" Which still strikes pretty high on the strange meter for people to be asking about a naked guy if people being naked was something they found to be unusual or even sinful.
Roamer Offline
#32 Posted : Thursday, October 24, 2013 8:07:31 PM(UTC)
Rank: Terrestrial Member
Joined: 12/27/2012(UTC)
Posts: 426
Thanks: 41 times
Was thanked: 82 time(s) in 65 post(s)
nude_explorer wrote:
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.


Well, we also have the 8th Article of Faith regarding the Bible and it being translated correctly. We also have (free internet) access to Strong's Concordance through various sites, or you could shell out $20+ for a physical copy. Which will give you "Strong Codes" for various hebrew words and the corresponding possible english translations of that word.

Quote:
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"


And I'm going to use this spot as a good point to cross post a very large segment of a posting I made in the v1 forums a while back, just so it is also here on the v2 boards as well. (http://ldssdf.org/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1424 is the topic it came from)

Roamer in the v1 forums wrote:
Although logically to some extent, particularly when you get into Strong's Concordance and what the original(well, as close as we can get) Hebrew texts have for the account within the Garden of Eden, and you run into two types of "naked" coming into play. You have:

Quote:
Genesis 2:25 And they were both naked(arowm), the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.


Compare:

Quote:
Genesis 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked(eyrom); and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

Quote:
Genesis 3:10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked(eyrom); and I hid myself.

11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked(eyrom)? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?


While I'm not trained in hebrew, I am curious about what else changed between Genesis 2 and Genesis 3 beyond their gaining knowledge of good and evil, as the text clearly indicates that they went from 'arowm' to 'eyrom' after eating the fruit.

It wasn't that 'arowm' become impossible to achieve after that point either, as 1 Samuel 19:24, Job 1:21, Job 22:6, Job 24:7 & 10, Job 26:6, Ecclesiastes 5:15, Isaiah 20:2-4, Isaiah 58:7, Hosea 2:3, Amos 2:16, and Micah 1:8 are all references to 'arowm' that have been rendered simply as "naked" in our scriptures. The two most memorable for people in here are probably 1 Samuel 19:24 (King Saul spending a night and a day naked with David and Samuel), and Isaiah 20:2-4 which has Isaiah naked for 3 years.

'eyrom' itself is interesting in how sparingly that word is used in the Old Testament, you don't see it mentioned again until Deuteronomy 28:48 where it then disappears again until Ezekiel 16:7, 22 and 39, Ezekiel 18:7 and 16, and finally in Ezekiel 23:29. I am completely convinced that 'eyrom' as used in the old testament carries a connotation far beyond simply being physically naked, and the garments that Adam and Eve were given served a (symbolic) purpose in helping them "restore" what they lost in the course of their fall by being disobedient and partaking of the fruit.

There are an additional 2 Hebrew words for "naked" in the Old Testament that I've run across with Strong's Concordance, there is technically a 5th word 'uwr' I've encountered which gets used once and the translator definition I see says it means "to be exposed, to lay bare" and in that particular verse(Habakkuk 3:9), they're discussing a bow, not people.

'ervah' seems to be the BIG one that gets a LOT of use in the Old Testament, and is the biggest contributing factor in a lot of people equating nakedness with sinfulness(when the translators didn't render it as "nakedness" it was typically some other variation of "shame(fulness)" it even appears in Isaiah 20:4 as 'shame'). Practically every single usage of this word has a negative connotation associated with it, although Ezekiel has some more comparatively mild uses for it(in a redemptive context). This is the "naked" in Genesis 9:22&23, the nakedness of relatives you are not to uncover in Leviticus 18 and 20. Ezekiel who was previously mentioned for using 'eyrom' also uses 'ervah' in 16:8, 36, 37; 22:10; 23:10, 18 and 29;

Ezekiel 23:28-30 is particularly noteworthy depending on how you want to render his usages:
Quote:
28 For thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will deliver thee into the hand of them whom thou hatest, into the hand of them from whom thy mind is alienated:

29 And they shall deal with thee hatefully, and shall take away all thy labour, and shall leave thee naked('eyrom') and bare('eryah'): and the nakedness('ervah') of thy whoredoms shall be discovered, both thy lewdness and thy whoredoms.

30 I will do these things unto thee, because thou hast gone a whoring after the heathen, and because thou art polluted with their idols.


'eryah' is the fourth hebrew word which denotes a form of nudity. So Ezekiel's expression "naked and bare" (which he used in a few other places) could potentially be literally rendered as "naked and nude."


Another one to bring forward in that grouping:

Quote:
Originally posted by Roamer
MD would probably be particularly interested in Isaiah 58:7 in regards to "and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh?" as according to Strong, the 'flesh' being discussed there can be interpreted as "kindred, blood-relations" among some other possible things.
GBSmith Offline
#33 Posted : Thursday, October 24, 2013 9:46:10 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)
nude_explorer wrote:


The main reason that has been given to me on this question is "certain parts of the body is sacred and should not be visible to any other person save it be your legally and lawfully wedded spouse".

Of course this statement brings up more questions. Why then is it appropriate to have other persons (same gender) see you in a locker room when changing or showering, or at the doctor, in the Military, etc.?


I don't believe that breasts and genitals are sacred and shouldn't be visible to anyone other than your spouse. They're certainly important and have all sorts of meaning associated with them but any specialness in a religious sense, to me, is just a belief we attach to them. I wouldn't try to convince someone otherwise if their belief is different than mine but seeing all parts of the body as normal and not forbidden opens up whole new ways of living. What's appropriate either in the case of same or mixed gender nudity comes down to trust and mutual agreement and if it serves a function that's reasonable and useful. Women in China used to be examined by a physician by indicated on a figurine where the symptoms were. Some patients now avoid any exam at the risk of their health. But again it comes back to trust and mutual agreement about what's ok. For me chaste social nudity is ok not only in our modern society but in the context of the church.
SansTan100 Offline
#34 Posted : Saturday, October 26, 2013 7:27:29 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'm not ready to concede that social nudity is good for society and for the church. I would like to first examine the fruit. From my observation, the societies of the past that practiced social nudity were very indigenous. Not until these societies were civilized including wearing clothes did they ever start to progress and improve their standard of living. In modern societies where nudity is becoming more common place (Europe), there is a breakdown of the family and a notable decline in religion and spirituality.
When I have participated in social nudity, I have found it very relaxing, open, and stimulating, there is a strong sense of freedom, and I have to admit great pleasure. This does not necessarily mean it is right. I also find it can be very addicting and I can easily become obsessed with it. I believe all this is because of the powerful feelings and emotions I have discussed earlier that are generated by the nude body. These feelings are not taught to us by society but implanted in our bodies from God and thank goodness. I wonder sometimes if regularly practicing nudist become desensitized of those powerful feelings and emotions which I think is unfortunate because they can be very sweet.
I have also noticed that people who get into social nudity start to do a lot of things that for me are distasteful. They paint there bodies and often wear obnoxious clothing. Try visiting a family nude resort and attend the evening dance or kerioki. For me this is a gross hypocrisy in the nudist community. They talk how the world sexualizes our bodies and body parts and how clothing can be more sexual then being nude, and then they show up wearing the most revealing attire that one would never see at a worldly night club.
I have also noticed that a very high majority of nudist don't take care of their bodies. A simple observation of most nudist groups will verify this statement. When my wife and I have been at a nude resort we are always alone when we workout at the gym.
We all know and believe that the nude body is not evil but very beautiful and as I have said a gift from God, but I'm afraid that in a fallen world it can to easily be defiled.
My wife and I love being nude together!!!
1 user thanked SansTan100 for this useful post.
Im0nlyme on 9/4/2020(UTC)
GBSmith Offline
#35 Posted : Saturday, October 26, 2013 11:30:49 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:
I'm not ready to concede that social nudity is good for society and for the church. I would like to first examine the fruit. From my observation, the societies of the past that practiced social nudity were very indigenous. Not until these societies were civilized including wearing clothes did they ever start to progress and improve their standard of living. In modern societies where nudity is becoming more common place (Europe), there is a breakdown of the family and a notable decline in religion and spirituality.


I think you're conflating civilization with industrialization that occurred as a result of colonization. Wearing clothes came as part of the package and along with the effect of Christianity being introduced with it's belief in original sin and the inherit evil of the physical body. Saying that indigenous peoples didn't start to progress until they wore clothes is a logical leap that doesn't hold up. If the dominant society that's colonizing wears clothes then you'd have to wear clothes to blend in and advance. And whereas nudity is more common in Europe it's not logical to say that where there is a breakdown of family and decline in religion therefore nudity is go blame. A movement away from religion occurred long before social or public nudity became common.

You mention "powerful feelings and emotions" that are implanted in us by God and that you wonder if regularly practicing nudists become desensitized to them. I'm afraid you've lost me there. Seeing people as they are in all their variety makes me appreciate our specialness and diversity. And feeling joy in nature with all it's sensations and it's feeling of freedom to me is evidence that it is good and at the same time right.
Frontiersman Offline
#36 Posted : Sunday, October 27, 2013 3:02:52 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)
SansTan100 wrote:
In modern societies where nudity is becoming more common place (Europe), there is a breakdown of the family and a notable decline in religion and spirituality.

I don't hear much about Europe, but here in the good young U.S. of A. it sure seems like we are loosing focus on the family, not to mention religion and spirituality, and I have not seen as much of a nudist movement or body free culture here as Europe is purported to have.
De oppresso liber
Ravenwarbird Offline
#37 Posted : Sunday, October 27, 2013 5:40:06 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)
SansTan100 wrote:
From my observation, the societies of the past that practiced social nudity were very indigenous. Not until these societies were civilized including wearing clothes did they ever start to progress and improve their standard of living.

I feel that I must disagree with this. It has been my understanding that most civilizations became more advanced and endeavored to improve there lives as a whole when they became indigenous and stopped being so nomadic. Fashion would not have been so important or accessible while on the more. Forming settlements would have made it easier to produce higher quality goods and the promotion and development of ones own culture and identity. To me you make it sound like people went from a clothed nomadic civilized life to a naked indigenous uncivilized life. That is the opposite of what I have learned my me studies.

SansTan100 wrote:
They paint there bodies and often wear obnoxious clothing.
Just out of curiosity what is obnoxious clothing to you? To me it is clothing that has not been washed in a long time or clothing that is overly coloured like in in the neon spectrum or Hawaiian shirts, and any clothing that contains vulgar content.
Remember the simple things are the fundamentals of life. Choose ye your path this day. Si prima non succederet usus duct tape.
RetiredOkie Offline
#38 Posted : Sunday, October 27, 2013 11:25:12 PM(UTC)
Rank: Celestial Member
Joined: 11/20/2012(UTC)
Posts: 723
Thanks: 11 times
Was thanked: 57 time(s) in 53 post(s)
Connecting the breakdown of the family with nudity I think is a stretch. Lots of families in the jungle have no clothes to speak of.
Early Hawaiian families had no clothes until explorers shamed them into wearing them. Japanese families have no problem bathing together I believe even ...with the neighbors I think
Many LDS families have showered together with their children ...so they have told me.

I think family nudity would actually reduce impure thoughts and lessen trying to get a perverted peak.
retiredokie

1 user thanked RetiredOkie for this useful post.
Im0nlyme on 9/4/2020(UTC)
nude_explorer Offline
#39 Posted : Monday, October 28, 2013 12:39:08 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)
Yukikaji wrote:
Just going back to nude_explorer's comment about Saul, yes he did take off his clothes and was naked, but him being naked is NOT why the people asked if he was "among the prophets". They asked if he was a prophet because he was prophesying (1 Sam 10:9-13 & 1 Sam 19:24). Sorry, this is a bit of a pet peeve to me. The definition of a prophet is someone with the gift of prophecy. They or may not also be naked at times, but that has no relevance to if they are a prophet.


During this time in history it was common for the Prophets to remove their clothes while they prophesied. It was like a sign of ultimate submission.

There are other times when this was done as well. Noah was prophesying and administering the Sacrament all day, when he went back to his tent he was tired and a bit tipsy. when his son, (I forget which one) came in and found him lying on his bed naked (he freaked out) went to his brothers, they came to the tent, went in backwards with a cover and covered Noah. Of course that didn't bode well for the boy.
nude_explorer Offline
#40 Posted : Monday, October 28, 2013 12:54:49 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)
Nudity was quite common in certain circumstances prior to Queen Victoria. She seemed to have a clothes fetish.
Before bath rooms were invented people used what ever resources they had which was usually a stream or lake or any place they could find water that was suitable. It was common for the entire family to go bathing. What we now days call skinny dipping was the way people who didn't have facilities in the home. (which in the early America was most people)

In some countries community bath houses are still quite common.

During the time of King David (Old Testament) there were community bath areas. This was where David looking from the balcony saw Bathsheba along with other people, men and women bathing in the palace tub which was outside in the open visible to anyone.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
4 Pages<1234>
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 0.187 seconds.