Regarding Satan having power over the waters and swimming:
D&C 61 the preface talks of W.W. Phelps seeing a vision of the destroyer riding
in power on the face of the waters. Satan has power over the elements.
Many missionaries have rules against swimming and boating. But it is mainly a
safety thing. If you’re not in the lake, your chances of drowning are less.
Just because a person drowns does not mean that Satan did it. There are
missions where the elders need to travel by boat and the only bathing facility
is in the ocean, not to mention the number of General Authorities that go fishing. Most missionaires are forbidden to do anything that might be considered dangerous while they are on their missions such as horseback riding, snowskiing, etc.
As far as swimming being forbidden for missionaries because of “Satan” that is an oft repeated urban legend that was debunked in several sites: http://php.indiana.edu/~dostlund/mission.htm and http://www.ldsworld.com/gems/ul/
Now that most LDS web sites are no longer available, the urls I listed are now forwarded to LDS.org or listed as a 404.
Most LDS sites are no longer available because the President said that people shouldn’t create sites and everybody who is interested should just go to lds.org.
Allow me to :rolleyes:
I was angry when he made this announcement because my sister was the webmaster of the Ward’s webpage, and she worked damn hard on it and it looked great and as soon as he made the new policy, she shut it down. Which annoyed me.
Unfortunately I don’t have access to the article I read. So it COULD have been wrong. My guess is that a few misguided over-zealous individuals went overboard, that’s all.
pepperlandgirl, the First Presidency (not the President alone) specifically referred to ward and stake sites, not LDS-related sites in general. I actually expected the lds.org site to provide a regularized method to have a ward/stake site at some time later. Turns out, that is now the case.
This makes sense for a few reasons:
[ul] []An official site is presenting the “face of the church” online. Hence it should be regulated to some extent. []Tech-savvy ward members could spend a lot of effort setting up a site, then move to a different ward and have the site be in disrepair/etc. An normalized method for setting up websites makes a lot of sense in an organization where calling/boundary changes can suddenly leave a ward without a webmaster. One of the most useful things about a LDS unit site is to have the ward/stake directory online and up to date. Security issues are obviously important, and having the church as a whole deal with those issues makes sense. [/ul] Also, the owner of mormons.org appears to have given/transferred the domain to the church, but moved to http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/. No big deal IMO.
I looked up Kevin Rahm–apparently it’s true! Says he served a mission in Switzerland. I just mentioned this to my sister, and she gasped and said, “Is he married?” Cute guy, no? (I haven’t appreciated the recent “messy hair” look on Judging Amy, though!)
A president, but no 1st ammendment.
Typical of most religions, though. pepperlandgirl
If she hadn’t shut it down, would she be “In Trouble”?
Peace,
mangeorge
My hard drive died awhile back which of course meant I lost my bookmarks, but after getting another computer, I started looking for some of my favorite LDS sites. They were gone!
One site that stands out in my mind as being particularly outstanding was one where someone had gone to great effort to create and maintain information about each temple from the first one up through the announcements of each new temple.
He included the history surrounding the temples that had historical significance, the official pictures of different rooms within each temple that the Church released before the dedication, and the dedicatory prayer for each temple.
If there was more on the site, I don’t remember. I can’t remember his name or any part of the url, but for the life of me I haven’t been able to find it.
I never saw anything wrong with the site since he included information which has been provided by the First Presidency and in a very respectful manner, word by word as the First Presidency had presented it.
Does anyone recognize what site I’m thinking of? It’d be really hard for me to believe he’s just dump the site after putting so much trouble into it…Unless I’m misunderstanding what y’all are saying and that I missed an announcement from the First Presidency asking everyone to delete their unauthorized LDS sites.
I remember that temple site, cadolphin! That was a good site!
mangeorge, I don’t believe I’ve ever heard anyone express an opinion on messy hair in the church. It’s certainly not a sin. I do think Cousin Kyle looks better with his hair combed.
Members are encouraged to keep themselves “well kept”.
There is a dress code at Church owned schools such as BYU and for Missionaries that doesn’t allow men to wear “messy hair”, but it’s not a sin for a member.
Hey Pathros_1983
What if your bishop sends you to, hmmm, let’s say to Berkeley CA for your mission? I won’t convert, but I’ll buy you a Dr Pepper.
Really though, do you have any choice in the matter?
As I remember when turning in your papers stating your request and affirming your good standing in the Church to be called to a mission, one of the things you do is to go through a physical exam and to take a language aptitude test.
Depending on your ability to learn a foreign language or the lack thereof, or possible health restrictions, the First Presidency would issue a call to some place meeting those needs/abilities you possess, but unless things have changed, they don’t even ask if you have a preference where you’d like to go.
Kathy
I know I didn’t take a language aptitude test when I went on my mission. My husband went several years before I did, but he doesn’t remember taking anything like that either.
I remember grooming being a pretty big thing with my friend. They were expected to be well groomed, and to dress neatly. No stylishly torn jeans.
He may have been messing with me, but he said women were expected to wear make-up. And to not get too fat. They were supposed to remain “attractive to their husbands”, basically.
Just like Catholics.
Sorry 'bout these silly posts. I’ve got a couple hours to kill.
That site is similiar genie, but it’s owned/operated by the Church and the site I’m thinking of wasn’t.
Also his site included the pictures of the inside of the temples that were released to the public before the temple was dedicated. I only see pictures of the outsides on this site. I don’t see the dedidcatory prayers either.
BTW, what ward/stake were you in in Bakersfield? Not sure I would recognize it, but I remember where my Aunt/Uncle’s wardhouse was.
First, could anyone answer me why the font on this page suddenly became huge?
Second, excuse my lack of coherent thought in this post
Mmmm… I used to love Dr. Pepper until I gave caffeine up. I was quite addicted to the stuff and figured I needed it out of my system, and no I don’t get a choice about where I go. I’ve never in my life heard of a langauge aptitude test, though.
I had a hard time believing some of the people on that site are LDS. I say this in the least pretentious manner, but Kelly Packard is LDS? If she is, she probably doesn’t care about the church standards on dress. (from what I’ve seen on TV, atleast) Well, it’s their choice how they live, but something I see at work that drives me insane, and is the base for why I said that: “What do you mean LDS don’t drink or are supposed dress modestly? I know such and such and they wear short skirts, and her brother drinks tons and he’s a member too.” Something of that nature.
Silly… I actually fell in love with this girl (yes I know what some of you are going to say about my mission) and she never wears a drop of makeup, and it’s one of the things I love so much about her.
I don’t see them as being silly mangeorge but then again I’ve been known to be silly myself
What you are describing sounds very much like the dress code for a student at BYU, a missionary, or the appropriate dress for Church attendance, or maybe even his personal take on it.
Church members are encouraged to “not let themselves go” as that leads to low self esteem which can lead to giving into other temptations that might not be good for you. Also, we’re encouraged to take care of ourselves since our “bodies are temples of God” so to speak.
When attending Church a man is expected to wear a suit or dress slacks, not jeans whether stylishly torn or not A woman is expected to wear a modest dress or skirt.
Make up is supposed to be minimal and tasteful, however I’ve never been told I had to wear make up.
We are supposed to take care of our bodies to the best of our abilities, i.e. The Word of Wisdom that has already been discussed, but I’ve never heard anything said about being overweight (or underweight).
I won’t convert, but I’ll buy you a Dr Pepper.