Is nudity against the Mormon religion? Do we sin when we bathe?

It depends.

It was ok to be naked (literally) in the temple for the washing ritual, but sun-bathing in the privacy of your backyard was not.

You can get nekid in the tub or shower (i.e. in the "Mormon religion").

God and angels are watching all the time, so it seems futile to be modest. ;-)

they are a bunch of pervs.

It's a new story today. Her step kids walked in on her and now she's being told she'll likely have to register as a child molester.

I'm glad I'm out of Utah for good. Hope I never have to go there again.

That's not exactly right. Kinda far from it. This has been in the news for a while. The wife and her husband were cutting and installing insulation and drywall in the garage. They were wearing protective clothing that got dirty and dusty. They decided to strip down before going in the house to shower. The husband stripped down to his underwear. So did his wife.Then she took off her bra. The 2 boys 9 & 13, and their 10 year old sister came into the garage. The kids were her husband's. They are her step kids. She told them that if men are allowed to go topless so should women. Well, the kids told their Mom, the ex-wife. Not sure when. And she called the cops. They arrested her in September 2019. The incident happened in 2016 according to the Dad and Step Mom. Prosecutors say it happened in 2017 or early 2018. Don't know when the Step Mom reported it. I don't see how they have a case. Was the ex wife jealous and made a stink? How come the prosecutors can't figure out what year this happened? Is one of the kids PO'd at his Dad or Step Mom? All kinds of ifs. They also said she was "under the influence of alcohol". She could've been having a cold beer after working. In Utah that means she must've been drunk. Nobody has any proof of that. Another black eye for Utah.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/21/2019 07:52PM by stillanon.

Is this for real? Police make an arrest three years after a woman went topless in her own home? Presumably there must have been some significant suspicion of child abuse. Otherwise incomprehensible.

Although I think I have heard that police forces in the US are run by county governments, rather than by state governments? In which case I guess it might be possible that local religious prejudices could infect police management and decision-making?

Yes, for real, sadly. In Utah, most PD's are also influenced by "the" church and PD leaders are often LDS.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2019/11/20/utah-judge-will-decide/


https://www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/utah-stepmom-went-topless-in-front-of-stepkids-now-facing-charges-authorities-say

She, with the ACLU are attacking the law regarding nudity. This is not her criminal court case, where I'm sure will be full of holes on the prosecutors side.

oldpobot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Although I think I have heard that police forces
> in the US are run by county governments, rather
> than by state governments?

In the US, there are state police forces, county police forces (usually an elected sheriff with a force of sheriff's deputies), and municipal (city) police forces. Sometimes smaller cities contract with county sheriff's offices to provide local policing (my brother is a King County sheriff, but worked for several years in Woodinville, a Seattle suburb, and now works in the Seattle metro under a contract with the Seattle police department).

Thank you.

Still, it seems a strange way for a police force to fill in its time. Would they have been obliged to make an arrest in response to the complaint from the biological Mum? They must have decided that there was a chance of successful prosecution.

Judge will have to decide at what age a child should be protected against the sight of a breast, and also whether a stepmum will have different nudity rights to a biological Mum, or to any other female member of the household!

what a strange can of worms.

I think it was Dr. Spock that recommended parents to occasionally be naked in front of their children.

Probably on the Banned Book List. I don't think Spock advocated having more kids than you could afford, educate and nurture either.

Is that logical ?

This is worse than I thought since it happened so long ago.

Sure Cheryl. It's in the news now, due to her (and the ACLU) lawsuit to have the nudity laws overturned. That's what got the attention of the global news outlets. Once again, making Utah look like a puritanical backwater.

Cheryl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's a new story today. Her step kids walked in on
> her and now she's being told she'll likely have to
> register as a child molester.
>
> I'm glad I'm out of Utah for good. Hope I never
> have to go there again.
This borders on the totally stupid. It is an example of theological mind control in its most blatent form.
My sympathy goes out to this lady.
That is another reason why I will NEVER,of my own agency,live in that state.

(Boy, does this date me!) Their take on nudity:

Hinduism: Nudity is acceptable, except in front of a cow.
Buddhism: A true Buddhist knows that underneath our clothes we are all naked.
Catholicism. No. Never. You just don't.
Picket-fence Protestant: Why would anybody be naked? Aren't there charities or government programs to take care of these things?
Trailer-camp Protestant: For men, it depends upon how much beer they've drunk. For women, she can get naked, but must wear a shower cap at least.

Lol...please finish:

For Mormons?

I was reconstructing it from memory. They also did Reform & Orthodox Judaism (sorry, Tevai, can't remember that).

Also, I'm a never-mo. I came of age in a Christian Science home when girls ("pre-women," I believe?) wore hems that covered their knees, were sure to keep their knees together ("cross your legs at the ankle, not the knee!") and two-piece bathing suits had about 5 or 6 inches between the top and the full-panty bottom.

So I invite you, Ted & others, to come up with LDS standards of coverage for females in the CoJCoLdS. Consideration of the garment is required, of course. How much can the garment sleeve be pinned or scrunched up to the shoulder? How high over the navel can the bottom be worn to allow a higher hemline? And are their different standards for:

Utah Mormons
Non-Utah Mormons
Jack Mormons
Convert Mormons
Progressive Mormons living in great Boston and Washington DC

Two piece bathing suit? HUSSIES! Don't they know it is their responsibility not to put impure thoughts in the heads of men?

I think my tbm wife believes people should be born fully clothed.

I'm the Resident Expert on nudity, nudism, & naturism.

No, it's not;

besides, 'sin' is just a contrived term to have people feeling guilty or shame.

Some people make MISTAKES, which often harm others, but 'sin' is imaginary, just like Stan is.

Nudity has only been mentioned 6 times during GC. Several talks used it to describe how the media bombards the viewer with filth, obscenity and profanity. Once it was used in conjunction with mini-skirts (ETB no less). Kind of interesting that it has not been mentioned in the last 20 odd years.

Oct 71 Benson
Apr 84 Bangerter
Apr 87 Wirthlin
Oct 92 Ballard
Oct 93 Peterson
Oct 96 Christenson

My mother bought us mini skirts and sewed us mini skirts. I started high school in 1971. Definitely had mini skirts.

And nudity, what about not removing all of your garments to take a bath or shower? Isn't that saying nudity is bad?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/21/2019 04:41PM by cl2.

Recently the 10th circuit (according to reports I haven't read) ruled that women may legally expose their breasts in public;

the 'Free The Nipples' group is celebrating.

Washington state has a state ERA; a long time ago some women who were sunbathing top-free in a public park were cited & convicted of 'indecent exposure' in a municipal court (Seattle). They appealed but lost, the state supreme court 'reasoned' (HA HA) that women's breasts are connected with sexuality, so they apheld the conviction(s).

me: This should be run thru the courts again. Some other changes in public needs, perceptions, and 'morals' (lawyers HATE THAT) develop over time, SSM is probably the best recent example; that case would have been lost (racial inter-marriage as well) easily 75 years ago.

Nudity would interfere with soaking.

Or...nudity would prevent soaking!

What kind of "soaking" are you referring to...the traditional meaning or the Happy Valley (Provo) meaning?

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Provo%20Soak

I erred. I should have said ‘Levi-loving’.

My bad... Soaking requires penetration, whereas Levi-loving avoids that yucky, silly stuff.

Bwahahahahaha...you crack me up Elder. Very funny man you are!

I've read that back in the old days, an endowed Mormon was never to be completely naked but must have the garments touching his or her body at all times. If one was taking a bath in a bathtub, for instance, the garment was to be draped over one foot during the entire time one was in the tub.

I’m 73. I went to the temple at 19. Let’s see... 54 years ago, give or take. I had grandparents who went thru probably 100 years ago. Maybe that’s not quite “the old days”, I don’t know, however.....I never was told by them or anyone, or ever read anything that said you had to wear garments when you took a bath or shower or had sex. You hear that occasionally ( twice on this thread, thus my comment) but I think some may have been striving to create their own “letter of the law” and expecting others to follow, but I don’t believe it was ever a common requirement. I’d be interested if anyone has any references or quotes on the subject.

As for me, I didn’t need to have anyone tell me when to wear or not wear them...I just quit when I wanted to....long ago.

Years ago, a missionary in my MTC district (from Utah, but an OK dude anyway) related to me that his grandmother (who probably would have been born c. 1910-20) never took a shower because she would have to be fully naked. Instead, she always took sponge baths, one side at a time, with the other side covered in her garments.

He rolled his eyes as he told me how much she stank.

ziller can corfirm this thred ~



ziller am nekkid now ~



brb ~ sinning ~

Cover your shoulders, you’ll be fine.

I am 78, went through the temple age 19. Garments were one piece in those days. I learned it was okay to take them off when bathing, swimming, some sports, having sex. My father always took his off at night and wore pajamas. (top and bottom). I was told not to wear them when there might be exposure that would cause ridicule.

I was in Europe 74 to 78. In the summer a lot of public beaches were topless. Most of the people, men and women on those beaches would have looked a lot better with some clothes on.

I heard about wearing garments on the foot when bathing, but always thought it was just some over-religous soul. Never heard it was promoted by the Church.

Lots of MoMism derives from & with 'the unwritten order of things', garment protocol is one of those.

Are the 'temple workers' (usually Olders) still instructing ppl to wear them 'night and day'? I think that was it when I went thru in '67.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/2019 12:03AM by GNPE.

nudity is not a sin, but grocery shopping while nude may be a sin. can you imagine see that in the fruit and vegetable isle

Is that a cucumber or are you just happy to see me?

-You've been warned


Two men and woman find themselves standing outside of heaven. Peter is standing guard in front of the pearly gates.

Peter says "In order to gain entry into heaven, you must answer a question correctly."

First question, "Who was the first man on Earth?"

One man shouts out, "That's easy, Adam!"

And the gates open and in walks the man.

Second question, "Who was the first woman on Earth?"

The woman answers, "Obviously Eve."

And the gates open and in walks the woman.

Third question, "What was the first thing Eve said to Adam?"

The last guy looked down at his feet and began to sweat. He thought for a long time. Finally he shook his head, "Boy that's a hard one."

And the gates open and in walks the man.

Follow-up to the previous joke....”And finally; What’s Adams reply to Eve?”...”Stand back honey, I don’t know how big this thing gets!”

Nudity can either be sublime or in extremely bad taste.

Sin? I don't buy into religious concepts that promote relinquishing control.

It depends upon which control freak is currently in power

It looks like somebody was on a crusade. There is NOTHING do dangerous as a dedicated crusader. I give you the Spanish inquisition as an example.
Therefore let me say this I do not care what you do period!!
SO LONG AS you do not try to forcibly interfere with the rights of another human being.
If something that you do forces your will onto another unwilling human being then I believe that you do not have that right

Guy I knew in the Sandy area was a dedicated photographer. A ton of Nudes. Always telling models "you can do anything". Used his wife a lot as well - chubby and sloppy and unnihibited.
One time was at a 'body paint' demonstration at the house of a mutual friend who did high end nudes. The Sandy guys wife came and when she saw it she went into the bathroom, got naked and came out and splayed out flat on the carpet and said "have at it".

Was embarassing as hell - both of them LDS and he a scouting type. One thing we learned was never, ever invite him to anything involving nudes as his wife would show up with him and it wasn't pretty...

Humans are naked naked, i.e., no fur to cover us up. So all sorts of body anomalies are amplified, uglier. Most people need to be covered.

I suppose the majority of people under 30 could go naked. On second thought, things like menstruation, erections (I'm male so I don't care to see that), bodily leaks/discharges/below the waste odors, etc., make it generally infeasible.

Although having no fur does make sex more enjoyable.

waist

if it is a 'sin', 99.9% of people who bathe, shower, and / or have sex are GUILTY.

another Shame Trip on the ChurchCo Railway, methinks.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/26/2019 05:51PM by GNPE.

>> Is nudity a sin?

Only if you enjoy it.

aestheticism.

When I was mission age, we were told that nudity was sinful, and our wife should not be nude in front of us even when having sex. I was told by many that I was expected to have sex in my garments. We actually did a few times, but only when we were so aroused that we didn't take the ti to time to take everything off.

Summertime, and the living is easy...

Oh Boy were those times FUN!

I was an RM when I married, wife hadn't been thru the House of Handshakes yet....

SHE DIDN'T LIKE THEM ON FOR SEX, NOT AT ALL :)

(too late to edit)

the first time we went skinny-dipping together - at the UW arboretum - my DW spontaneously remarked how great it felt not to have a swimsuit on, feeling the water on her skin @ 100%



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/13/2019 12:29PM by GNPE.

My TBM wife and I went to the bath houses in Europe (fully nude males and females) a few times and she didn't care. It was actually quite liberating and felt unbelievably relaxing. We took our young kids to top-optional beaches in Europe and they never said anything. Mormons get so obsessed with nudity they become weirdos and cannot adjust to society outside of Utard area.

I would doubt it becasue sin is an action label defined by the user.
Therefore the word sin would have to have a cognitive defination in order to actually have meaning.

Nudity however is the absence of clothing. So without definitive labeling it could not possibly be labeled as "sin"

It is if you do it right.

Anything worth doing is worth doing well.

Some people should never be nude.

Yes if you're in a Starbucks getting demon coffee?

The Starbucks logo contains nudity.