Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to NewsvineYou know, the ones who dressed like they were living in the 19th century. And they are getting quite a bit of interest. I can't even access their website.
"We don't know what to expect on demand but we have a flood of interest," Maggie Jessop, a member of the sect, told the Salt Lake Tribune newspaper.I think the look would really only work on a compound. It's really not something that you would want to wear in public unless you want to attract attention. And you certainly wouldn't want to dress your kids like that and send them off to school (oh man, I hope no parent is thinking about doing something like that).At the website, www.fldsdress.com, the women propose clothing for children and teenagers that "meets the FLDS standards for modesty and neatness" and assert that "each piece is made with joy and care."
Subscribe
Comments
How sensible of you, Michele. Perhaps your belief that some values and behaviors are based on a subjective standard of current norms and that "any . . . exhortation found in the Bible is based on the wisdom of the Christian to know what to do based on the word of God" will help you understand why, when I look at two people who obviously love each other, who wish to pledge lifelong fidelity and mutual support "for better or for worse," I cannot condemn them or their desire to be united simply because they happen to be members of the same sex.* Wisdom tells me to do otherwise, just as it tells you in regard to your daughter's clothing, and like you, I have wrestled with the pertinent verses in scripture on the subject. That's also why I don't cover my head in church, and I certainly don't remain silent, and why I am only too happy to listen to a woman in the pulpit and to receive Holy Communion from a woman celebrating the Eucharist. And it is also why you will never catch me in a prairie dress or a burka.
(For people who are only attracted to members of the same sex by virtue of their God-given biological wiring, this is very important.)
Posted by: yelladawgNC | July 3, 2008 11:53 AM
St. Clement of Alexandria was once chastised for spending too much time with the women of his congregation and his response was, "The Lord was not ashamed to make them and I am not ashamed to look at them."
Posted by: Charles Cosimano | July 3, 2008 12:00 PM
St. Clement knew which side of his bread the butter was on. Where would the Christian church be without women?
From the Theotokos (God-bearer) to the first witnesses of the Resurrection to the virgin martyrs and the great teachers (Teresa of Avila, to name but one), abbesses and mystics like Julian of Norwich, who, out of intimate knowledge of Christ's sacrifice and tender love, called him "our mother"; to valiant Jeanne d'Arc who led an army and endured the fire rather than recant; to the millions whose names are known only to God who toiled and tended, who nursed and exhorted and encouraged and served, who spoke truth to power, who faced danger and death for the sake of the Gospel, often with little thanks or recognition, regarded as of little account, abused and despised, reviled and belittled and condescended to and overlooked, even by their brethren in Christ.
No, God was not ashamed to make women.
Posted by: yelladawgNC | July 3, 2008 1:01 PM
"How sensible of you, Michele. Perhaps your belief that some values and behaviors are based on a subjective standard of current norms and that "any . . . exhortation found in the Bible is based on the wisdom of the Christian to know what to do based on the word of God" will help you understand why, when I look at two people who obviously love each other, who wish to pledge lifelong fidelity and mutual support "for better or for worse," I cannot condemn them or their desire to be united simply because they happen to be members of the same sex.*"
Where did I say that "some values and behaviors are based on a subjective standard of current norms?" All I said was "modesty is based on a subjective standard of current fashion norms." That goes without saying, don't you think? What's considered modest in the 21st century wouldn't be considered modest in the 19th century.
But as to same sex marriages, I understand why you don't want to condemn them but God has stated in his word his position:
ESV Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
Now, if Californians vote against the gay marriage amendment, we can say that society's morals are changing in California and it's now part of the norm there. But that doesn't make it the norm in other states that have banned it.
And that doesn't make it moral in the eyes of God. No matter how acceptable the behavior in our society, God has pronounced his judgment on it and it has not changed even in NT times:
BTW, thanks for the compliment, I think it's a first from you. I certainly won't let it go to my head :-)
Posted by: Michele McGinty | July 6, 2008 1:06 AM
"How sensible of you, Michele. Perhaps your belief that some values and behaviors are based on a subjective standard of current norms and that "any . . . exhortation found in the Bible is based on the wisdom of the Christian to know what to do based on the word of God" will help you understand why, when I look at two people who obviously love each other, who wish to pledge lifelong fidelity and mutual support "for better or for worse,"I cannot condemn them or their desire to be united simply because they happen to be members of the same sex.*"
But as to same sex marriages, I understand why you don't want to condemn them but God has stated in his word his position:
ESV Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
=======================================================================
Posted By:Andrew William
">http://www.alcoholaddiction.org/texas"> Texas Alcohol Addiction Treatment
Posted by: andrewwilliam | August 29, 2008 12:55 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?