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.....
Roamer Offline
#41 Posted : Wednesday, October 30, 2013 6:44:36 AM(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'm not ready to concede that social nudity is good for society and for the church.


First off, if you dig around on the v1 forum, you will find a wide spread consensus among the people on this forum that in the current society we live in, the Church endorsing social nudity would be a unmitigated disaster for the Church. Which is why this topic is one where they're staying conspicuously neutral at the highest levels. Simply put, the membership of the church at large certainly is not ready for it(as many would likely apostatize and denounce the church on the spot), and society in general would react to it in such a way as to be anything but beneficial for the church as a whole.

Leaving it a matter to likely either un-addressed until after the second coming, or until such a time that nudity is so prevalent in society at large that harm by other factors isn't going to be much of an issue anymore. (Which presumably also would have also given leadership in the church time to adjust the official teachings regarding modesty to such an extent that an endorsement of the practice of social nudity wouldn't be as likely to lead to a large scale apostasy)

Quote:
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.


The Minoan Civilization called, they'd like to let you know that they are currently considered the leading contender for being the origin for the myth of Atlantis(as the explosive eruption of Santorini wiped them out some 3600 years ago--in line with the stories involving the sudden fall of Atlantis, and there is evidence that they did have hot and cold running water with indoor plumbing at their settlement on Santorini). And BTW, virtually all of the murals unearthed show everybody(that would be men and women) running around topless. So while you still get some points for their having something covering their lower half, it doesn't completely hold to your theory either.

Quote:
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'd like to see evidence that they're doing worse than we're doing here in North America, particularly in the US. From my recollection of the statistics available, the incidence rate for things like rape and a number of other violent crimes(even factoring out gun crimes, as guns are strictly regulated and controlled over there) is much lower than we have in the United States. I haven't looked at numbers regarding "the breakdown of the family" in Europe.

...that also isn't to mention that studies involving naturist families/households vs their "textile" counterparts finds that the naturist children are doing far better in terms of age when they first engage in sexual activity, teen pregnancy rates, and so forth.

Although I am aware of the decline in religion in Europe(and the US is following suit too, we're just several steps behind, the decline seen in the US has more to do with the advance of Scientific thinking and/or aggressive atheism more than anything else). I can also comfortably say that the driving factor on the European front has little or nothing to do with social nudity. It has more to do with their education system, and their history regarding many of the wars fought over religion in their region of the world, or the matter of how much the Roman Catholic church controlled(and still does in some cases) in many regions of many countries. World War 2 just happened to be one of the final straws for many who had previously identified as Roman Catholic in particular.

That and lets be honest, there are some generally outright bad(if not blatantly evil) interpretations of Christianity out there which doesn't do a whole lot to further the cause of Christianity in general. As there are groups that actually DO preach hate and intolerance in the name of Christ, rather than simply being accused of doing so. Remember, one of the best tools Lucifer has at his disposal is to take something that is truthful, and twist it to serve a more evil design.
Roamer Offline
#42 Posted : Wednesday, October 30, 2013 7:27:03 AM(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:
Nudity was quite common in certain circumstances prior to Queen Victoria. She seemed to have a clothes fetish.


I don't think it is quite that simple. I'm suspecting this was partially an early attempt at industrial scale social engineering as well. Remember, the industrial revolution was still ramping up, and around the time that Queen Victoria assumed the throne, industrialization was proceeding quite quickly with the comparatively recent advent of the Cotton Gin in the United States(making cotton more widely available for industrial textile use), and the rapidly increasing capabilities of the Steam Engine to power industrial activities(and later power transportation).

As such, it would profit the men and women of wealth(and high social standing) to "encourage" people to either purchase their mass produced goods, or partake of their services in regards to obtaining access to said mass produced goods. For all of the major sectors of an industrial society, Agriculture(cotton/flax has to be grown somewhere) and Mining (as you had to power those steam powered factories somehow), Manufacturing(someone has to make the fabric, and then turn that fabric into a finished product), transportation(someone has to move all this material around), and sales/services(someone is going to play middleman between the various stages of consumption). There is a very compelling self-interest for them(the nobility in high society, and that would include the Queen) to get people to consume as much fabric as they possibly could get them to consume. So now women need fancy gloves, they need a parasol, they need to wear elaborate hoopskirts(which also consume some metal) that consume yards of fabric per layer, and there are many layers to be had, and so forth. The men likewise need to start wearing multiple layers of clothing and elaborate hats as well, undergarments underneath even that. And then those dastardly tables also need to be covered under yards of fabric as well, lest a man become aroused by the sight of a table leg!

While the more obviously benign interpretation is that at least the early adopters were simply operating on the old model of cloth being more of a luxury item/rare(or expensive) commodity rather than being a common commodity. As such, the more cloth you could get your hands on, the more well off you had to be. So that meant you would find ways to display as much cloth as you could in order to advertise how wealthy you were(kind of like jewelry still remains to this day). Which would then explain a LOT of 19th century fashion.

Which also would have been the real reason to have a tablecloth that went all the way to the floor rather than just enough to comfortably cover the table. You were advertising "I'm well enough off that not only can I afford to 'waste' cloth on covering the top of my table, I can afford enough cloth to hide the entire table from view." Which of course would not be a "polite" thing to say, so another explanation must be found, and if some rube actually believes the justification I provide, well the jokes on them.

...but it still cynically circles back to basically turning into social engineering. They knew what their real reasons were for doing what they did, but as those reasons would be uncouth to speak of openly. They created other justifications for doing so instead. Which then lead to a cottage industry of 19th century historians and other intellectuals who went to great lengths to sing the praises of "modesty" (wearing clothes) and the societies that adhered to that ideal and to decry any that didn't(as their funding came from the wealthy and the (so-called) nobility engaging in said activity), as that is what the people with money wanted to hear, so that they could continue to justify their displays.
Roamer Offline
#43 Posted : Wednesday, October 30, 2013 7:41:21 AM(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:
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.


On the flip side, we also have more direct reports of the pool at the Deseret Gym in SLC not allowing swimsuits possibly as late as the 1960's. In addition to church (scouting) activities in the same time period that involved going to the local YMCA, where the scouts would then go about getting their swimming lessons, in the nude.
Mormondad Offline
#44 Posted : Monday, November 4, 2013 2:52:21 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)
I don't see any "clarification" coming anytime soon as so much is going down hill when it comes to the morals of the world. What I do see more of is the leadership of the church pushing for more individuals to "study it out, ponder and pray" a lot more. There will likely be a day when the church leadership won't be able to weight in on every issue or even some of the big issue and thus members will have to be able to find out for themselves the specifics. This is why having a solid testimony and faith in the Gospel plan is so critical and to have your faith based upon true principles instead of what others (even or especially those in the church) may say or think.
"Modesty died when clothes were born."
---Mark Twain
Roamer Offline
#45 Posted : Saturday, November 9, 2013 1:27:51 PM(UTC)
Rank: Terrestrial Member
Joined: 12/27/2012(UTC)
Posts: 426
Thanks: 41 times
Was thanked: 82 time(s) in 65 post(s)
Considering a recent stunt by "Lady Gaga" over in the UK(she removed all of her clothes on stage part way through her performance and did the rest of it nude IIRC) a couple weeks ago... I'm inclined to bump up the timeline for nudity becoming very common in the popular media over the coming years. My guess is that it may get to a point in the next 20 years or so that the Church will be unable to not take an official stand on the issue of nude art/performances if nothing else.
GBSmith Offline
#46 Posted : Sunday, November 10, 2013 9:00:33 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)
observer BOSUDA wrote:
Today I find myself asking the question I asked before I joined this forum years back: Why would active members of the Church want to be naturists? Are there actual benefits to nude recreation (i.e. can it improve relationships with God), or it is just a legal-enough attempt to justify running around without clothes?

Not trying to be a pessimist, I just really want to know why faithful Mormons would consider implementing naturism as part of their lives.


Actually being a mormon and I think a pretty faithful one doesn't have anything to do with my being a naturist. I've made naturism a part of my life because of the enjoyment it gives me, pure and simple. The benefit for me of nude recreation is the relaxation and feeling of freedom and the pleasure it gives me to be in the sun and open air unclothed. And since I don't think it has anything to do with my membership in the church or my temple worthiness, it's just not an issue and I've not talked with my bishop about it because I've already decided for myself that it's not a problem.
1 user thanked GBSmith for this useful post.
Chameleon104 on 11/14/2013(UTC)
Chameleon104 Offline
#47 Posted : Thursday, November 14, 2013 4:31:01 PM(UTC)
Rank: Terrestrial Member
Joined: 11/22/2012(UTC)
Posts: 419
Thanks: 68 times
Was thanked: 71 time(s) in 61 post(s)
GBSmith, you took the words right out of my mouth. The question posed is irrelevant as we see no inherent contradiction between being members of the Church and being nudists.


Nudist Families are Forever!
Hopkington Kalazan Offline
#48 Posted : Saturday, November 16, 2013 5:27:47 PM(UTC)
Rank: Telestial Member
Joined: 1/23/2013(UTC)
Posts: 36
Thanks: 14 times
Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 7 post(s)
observer BOSUDA wrote:
it is just a legal-enough attempt to justify running around without clothes?


We are not meant to run around naked. We are meant to saunter.
1 user thanked Hopkington Kalazan for this useful post.
Ordinary Joseph on 12/11/2013(UTC)
Hopkington Kalazan Offline
#49 Posted : Saturday, November 16, 2013 5:50:58 PM(UTC)
Rank: Telestial Member
Joined: 1/23/2013(UTC)
Posts: 36
Thanks: 14 times
Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 7 post(s)
Seriously, though. When being naked was exceptional, and I thought everyone had to minimize it at all times, my self-image included clothes. Not as a big important feature, just when I thought of myself I thought of myself with clothes on. But at the same time, I usually talked and thought about "my body," "having a body" as if it were something separate from my soul. In other words I mistakenly thought of clothes as a part of my self, and I mistakenly thought of a part of my self as if it were clothing.

My naked time is teaching me that I am still a complete person without clothes. That has wonderful meaning in itself: It means that we are born whole. It means that we can be enough. Symbolically it testifies that truth, whatever it is, is OK.[1] But also, quite unexpectedly, as that part of my thinking has turned right-side up, the other part has too. I have a deeper appreciation of the truth that the spirit and body are the soul of man. I don't have a body. I am a body, and a spirit. While I was learning that clothes are just cloth, I was also learning that bodies are much more. It is a treasure to understand it.

[1] This is not a good reason to entirely stop wearing garments. In context of the garment, the symbolic meaning of nakedness is different. Symbols are like that.
2 users thanked Hopkington Kalazan for this useful post.
observer BOSUDA on 11/16/2013(UTC), GBSmith on 11/17/2013(UTC)
Hopkington Kalazan Offline
#50 Posted : Saturday, November 16, 2013 6:00:46 PM(UTC)
Rank: Telestial Member
Joined: 1/23/2013(UTC)
Posts: 36
Thanks: 14 times
Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 7 post(s)
I also think there is huge damage being done throughout the world by this pack of falsehoods: that a woman is significant mostly because she has a woman's body; that a body is significant mostly for sexual reasons; that sexuality is significant insofar as it has mass appeal; and that sexual attractiveness exists to serve money and commerce. The advertising-entertainment complex is the main pusher of these lies, but often some of them are reinforced accidentally by the way religions talk about modesty. Wholesome casual nudity opposes them in powerful ways.
Hopkington Kalazan Offline
#51 Posted : Saturday, November 16, 2013 6:22:13 PM(UTC)
Rank: Telestial Member
Joined: 1/23/2013(UTC)
Posts: 36
Thanks: 14 times
Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 7 post(s)
You're welcome.

I really like your tag-line. I'm a Mormon by tradition, but it's much more important to me that I'm a Mormon by choice. And the orthodoxy, well ... if all or most of us have anything in common other than the revelations, we're sharing the Gospel wrong. Keep Mormonism weird!
1 user thanked Hopkington Kalazan for this useful post.
observer BOSUDA on 11/19/2013(UTC)
Mormondad Offline
#52 Posted : Monday, November 18, 2013 10:17:00 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)
I don't ask my bishop which clothes I should wear or what styles I should wear, why should I ask him about whether I choose to wear clothes or not?
"Modesty died when clothes were born."
---Mark Twain
GBSmith Offline
#53 Posted : Wednesday, November 20, 2013 6:49:20 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)
observer BOSUDA wrote:
To GB, Chameleon, and MD:

So what I'm getting out of your responses is that being a naturist is a non-issue with being a faithful member of the Church. It would be equivalent to an active member who happens to like martial arts or anime or something else non-traditionally associated with Mormonism. It all boils down to personal accountability.

Am I remotely anywhere near right in my reading of your posts?


Let the church say amen. I finally realized I'd spent too many years letting others tell me what was ok. Good council is always welcome but when it comes down to it it's my call and my responsibility. Come Judgement you can't get away with just saying "I did what I was told."
Mormondad Offline
#54 Posted : Wednesday, November 20, 2013 11:24:01 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)
observer BOSUDA wrote:
To GB, Chameleon, and MD:

So what I'm getting out of your responses is that being a naturist is a non-issue with being a faithful member of the Church. It would be equivalent to an active member who happens to like martial arts or anime or something else non-traditionally associated with Mormonism. It all boils down to personal accountability.

Am I remotely anywhere near right in my reading of your posts?


One thing I have learned over the years is that there is a lot of 'information' in the church that members consider "doctrine." Yes there is a lot of "false" doctrine even amongst some of the most "elect" members of the church. What I fall back upon is the constant guidance of the Prophet and Apostles which is this: Go back to the basics. What do the scriptures say?

Essentially when it comes to doctrine, I first study it out in the scriptures. They are first and foremost in my studies. I then look to the Prophet and search out what he has said on the matter, which often includes guidance but not necessarily commandment. My next source is the Quorum of the Twelve, as they are also "Prophets, Seers and Revelators" These individuals are the doctrinal sources for the church. Now the other General Authorities I take as wise counsel but not doctrine unless they are repeating one of the previous individuals. If the primary sources have not touched upon the matter or clarified the matter at any time then I consider it to be up to me to search out, study, ponder and pray about it for my own revelation which I am completely entitled to. I don't have to talk to my bishop or stake president over each and every bit of doctrine or question as to how I should live my life or what I should do or say. The prophets have constantly counseled us against seeking for someone else to dictate our every move and decision. I believe the scriptures refer to this as a lazy and slothful servant.

Don't get me wrong I whole heartedly support all of my church leaders and respect them greatly. I just see no reason to go to them over every little detail. The Lord has shown us the correct way of learning and discerning for ourselves. The church leaders are there to ensure that we don't start getting off on some wild tangents or start spouting false doctrine and to help those who are not willing or yet capable to figure it out on their own. This doesn't make me any better than anyone else as I still have many, many faults of my own which still require me to have church leaders to help me with.

I believe that if we are to achieve the blessings of a Celestial life we are going to have to become capable of learning and studying things out for ourselves and coming to the proper and right decisions without going each and every time to a mortal person for help.

Additionally I don't judge others as to what they are instructed to do or not do and I would anticipate the same for me. I have come to realize that there are some things that are not wise or prudent for me to do which for others may be just fine. If I'm commanded not to buy a car doesn't mean it's bad for someone else to buy it.

Keep in mind that it is possible to become so caught up in ourselves and so disillusioned of the church leaders and their faults that we separate ourselves from the church. This is a very real risk when discussing issues that are not often accepted by the "main stream" members. While I see no doctrinal conflict I also see naturism as a non-issue and thus if it ever comes down to a decision between actively participating in naturism and my core church doctrinal issues you can bet naturism will take a distinct back seat. I simply will not loose my church membership over naturism.

I hope this helps some.
"Modesty died when clothes were born."
---Mark Twain
1 user thanked Mormondad for this useful post.
Hopkington Kalazan on 12/1/2013(UTC)
nude_explorer Offline
#55 Posted : Tuesday, December 10, 2013 4:23:20 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)
A good example is the statement the Church leaders just issued about the Blacks and the priesthood, ever since Brigham Young the belief has been that the black folks have dark skin was because they were descendants of Kane who killed his brother Able and was cursed with dark skin.

I was watching the news this evening (12/10/2013) and they reported that the Church had just released a statement that, that was incorrect doctrine and the non White folks should have been included in the priesthood all along.

They also reported that the Church leaders said there would be other corrections to the Church's doctrinal beliefs.
Bryan_Saturday Offline
#56 Posted : Wednesday, December 11, 2013 8:40:41 AM(UTC)

Rank: Exalted Millennial Member
Joined: 11/19/2012(UTC)
Posts: 47
Location: Michigan
Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 14 time(s) in 7 post(s)
Cool. Link?
Frontiersman Offline
#57 Posted : Wednesday, December 11, 2013 1:40:26 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)
This is the link I found. Race and the Priesthood It goes straight to the topics page on lds.org and there is no way I know to see when it was last updated. I would be interested in a link to the news stations article as well.
De oppresso liber
Guest
#58 Posted : Thursday, April 3, 2014 6:39:44 PM(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Message was deleted by Moderator.
mane Offline
#59 Posted : Monday, September 29, 2014 11:06:07 AM(UTC)
Rank: Telestial Member
Joined: 9/16/2014(UTC)
Posts: 10
Location: Folsom,ca
Thanks: 2 times
Quote: "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..."and

"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....."

SansTan100, I applaud your deep thought and "negative polar advocacy (just avoiding the d---- word). To me your thoughts bring up my question "Why be nude at all...to just be social...it boils down to an addiction...(but an addiction that doesn't hurt me, others, etc)". I have asked my Skinnydippers foreman chairman as we walked nude in a Federal Reserve: If nudity is not wrong in this environment, just social, platonic, etc, why can't our same group find time to be social together clothed? He said he had no answer for that. I say it is an addiction to be nude. Is a nudity addiction bad in-and-of the fact that Neuroscience shows on an MRI that the response in the human brain to nudity is the same as a shot of opium-like substances in our brains? Just asking
I am enough/I do enough/I have enough
Mormondad Offline
#60 Posted : Monday, September 29, 2014 1:32:57 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)
Mane,
I would disagree with Elder Nelson that nude body generates powerful emotions in people. Can it be? Yes, it can as many are 'trained' to be that way. It is not a normal response and not one that God implanted in us. The powerful responses to others of the opposite gender that God implanted in us happens regardless of how we may or may not be dressed. Much like Pavlov's dogs people are often trained to think of nudity as equating to sex.
"Modesty died when clothes were born."
---Mark Twain
2 users thanked Mormondad for this useful post.
LazerusLong on 9/29/2014(UTC), mane on 10/5/2014(UTC)
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 0.126 seconds.