What is the relationship between modesty and clothing?
mormon...@yahoo.com
dance recital. All year she had worked hard in an after school class
and this recital was a chance for us, and all of the other parents, to
witness the fruits of our children's labor.
It was a splendid and inspiring recital which I enjoyed immensely.
Dancers of all ages performed, some so young they barely knew how to
walk, some in their late teens, and every age in-between. For our
daughter, it was her first chance to perform on stage in front of
several hundred people.
On the drive home we were all abuzz with excitement. Amidst the
energized comments and observations, however, a female member of our
group (extended family member) remarked how uncomfortable she had felt
during a few of the performances. Some of the older, teenage dancers,
almost all of whom were female, wore costumes which included tight
black pants and tops which showed bellybuttons and much of the their
backs. She wondered out loud about how "inappropriate and immodest"
some of the costumes had been, and questioned why the dance school
would ask their girls to wear them.
This got me thinking... what, exactly, is the relationship between
clothing and modesty? Were the outfits really immodest? What about my
own daughter... when she is older and if she is still in dance, how
would I feel about her wearing such an outfit?
My thoughts boil down to this: I fear that as a society and as a
religion, we place too much emphasis on clothing and clothing alone
when teaching modesty to our youth and children. I worry that we
don't place enough emphasis on being a modest person.
What is modesty, anyway? If we walked into any average teenage Sunday
school class and asked the kids to give a definition of modesty, most
of them would start by saying it means to choose clothing which does
not show too much leg, arm, or mid-riff.
Let's take it a step further. Play the word association game with
yourself. Say the word "Modesty" and then note the first word that
pops into your head. Be honest. Was it "clothing" or something like
it?
Is this all there is to modesty? Does it, or does it not include the
following as well: not drawing undue attention to yourself; avoiding
loud laughter; treating everyone with respect; having good manors,
saying 'Please' and 'Thank you'; living within your means, not
wearing too much jewelry, not wearing too much makeup; avoiding
excessive tattoos; using clean and proper language, good personal
hygiene, conducting yourself in a quiet, dignified, respectable manner?
It seems to me that if a person has or is approaching mastery of being
a modest person, that modest dress will follow by nature. A modest
person would have no desire to dress immodestly as a habit.
Should not the emphasis when teaching our youth, then, be on modesty as
a personal trait, rather then mainly on modest dress?
Now, here's the real kicker. When someone is a modest person, does it
detract from their modesty to wear a revealing outfit at a dance
recital? Granted, it would not be appropriate to wear to church on
Sunday tight black pants and a sparkly shirt which shows back and
tummy. But is wearing this outfit at a dance recital immodest?
The female which made the comment that began all of this would say,
"Yes!". As the conversation progressed she said that if her
daughter was involved, she would have a conversation with the costume
designers and ask them to design something more modest. If they
refused, she would pull her daughter out.
My point of view is quit different. I think the level of modesty can
not be determined simply by what the dancers are wearing. That is one
ingredient, but certainly not the only. How are they dancing? Are there
moves at all suggestive or sexual, or are they simply artistic? What is
the music? Is it laced with inappropriate undertones, or is it
wholesome and suitable for a true family environment? But most
importantly, who is the person doing the dancing? Is he or she a modest
person?
If all the ingredients are positive, then from my point of view, tight
black pants and a sparkly shirt which shows back and tummy does not in
and of itself constitute immodesty.
What do you think?
Gerald Fuller
<mormon...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:12r0kkr...@news.supernews.com...
> Recently our seven year old daughter performed in her end-of-the season
> dance recital. All year she had worked hard in an after school class
> and this recital was a chance for us, and all of the other parents, to
> witness the fruits of our children's labor.
Snip
> It was a splendid and inspiring recital which I enjoyed immensely.
> Dancers of all ages performed, some so young they barely knew how to
> walk, some in their late teens, and every age in-between. For our
> daughter, it was her first chance to perform on stage in front of
> several hundred people.
Ah, yes. "... perform on stage in front of several hundred people". This
earns substantial incomes for many people in the acting professions, and in
a similar way in athletics. It draws attetnion to self, maybe saying "look
at me and envy" (or worse)
> On the drive home we were all abuzz with excitement. Amidst the
> energized comments and observations, however, a female member of our
> group (extended family member) remarked how uncomfortable she had felt
> during a few of the performances.
Of course this tells us something, maybe good, maybe not so good, about her,
doesn't it? We cannot know what it tells us about her without more
information, but it might tell us about her "hang-ups" or about her fears
for what might happen to others, or many other things.
> Some of the older, teenage dancers,
> almost all of whom were female, wore costumes which included tight
> black pants and tops which showed bellybuttons and much of the their
> backs. She wondered out loud about how "inappropriate and immodest"
> some of the costumes had been, and questioned why the dance school
> would ask their girls to wear them.
Every time I see the word "modest" or its relatives, as used by many church
members, I wonder why they use that word when I think the better word for
what they are trying to say would be "chaste". I recognize that for many
people they are near synonyms, but they are not exactly equal in meaning.
The dance schools probably "ask" the girls to wear what the girls really
want to wear in the first place -- what professional dancers on stage wear.
> This got me thinking... what, exactly, is the relationship between
> clothing and modesty? Were the outfits really immodest? What about my
> own daughter... when she is older and if she is still in dance, how
> would I feel about her wearing such an outfit?
Frame the question as "what is the relation between clothing and chastity.".
It is almost the same question to many people, I guess but I will wager that
it sounds different. Were the outfits intended (by anyone) to call attention
to the girls? Well, weren't the dances intended for that?
> My thoughts boil down to this: I fear that as a society and as a
> religion, we place too much emphasis on clothing and clothing alone
> when teaching modesty to our youth and children. I worry that we
> don't place enough emphasis on being a modest person.
Do you really think our "society" teaches anything at all (at least anything
positive and supportive) about "modesty" or chastity for that matter?
> What is modesty, anyway? If we walked into any average teenage Sunday
> school class and asked the kids to give a definition of modesty, most
> of them would start by saying it means to choose clothing which does
> not show too much leg, arm, or mid-riff.
And I think they are using modesty as a synonym for chastity, or perhaps
purity.
> Let's take it a step further. Play the word association game with
> yourself. Say the word "Modesty" and then note the first word that
> pops into your head. Be honest. Was it "clothing" or something like
> it?
No, for me "modesty" means lack of ostentation. But if the question were,
"What word do you think most people associate most often with "modensty", it
might be style of dress."
> Is this all there is to modesty?
This has almost nothing to do with modesty unless we are talking about
$1,000 dresses to be worn once, etc.
> Does it, or does it not include the
> following as well: not drawing undue attention to yourself; avoiding
> loud laughter; treating everyone with respect; having good manors,
> saying 'Please' and 'Thank you'; living within your means, not
> wearing too much jewelry, not wearing too much makeup; avoiding
> excessive tattoos; using clean and proper language, good personal
> hygiene, conducting yourself in a quiet, dignified, respectable manner?
Some of that has much more to do with modesty than the mere attire does. The
"immodest clothing" as we hear it mentioned is simply poor taste, poor
judgement and poor trainig from the parents.
> It seems to me that if a person has or is approaching mastery of being
> a modest person, that modest dress will follow by nature. A modest
> person would have no desire to dress immodestly as a habit.
Of course A modest person would not usually wear a dress suit to mow the
lawn.
> Should not the emphasis when teaching our youth, then, be on modesty as
> a personal trait, rather then mainly on modest dress?
Well, hwat is easier? To get to the root of things or to dwell on the
superficial?
> Now, here's the real kicker. When someone is a modest person, does it
> detract from their modesty to wear a revealing outfit at a dance
> recital?
If that person is truly a modest person, will they not refuse to draw
attention to them selves in that way?
> Granted, it would not be appropriate to wear to church on
> Sunday tight black pants and a sparkly shirt which shows back and
> tummy. But is wearing this outfit at a dance recital immodest?
Would wearing a diamond tiara an immodest act for most of us? It is not
unchast, or impure, but is it not immodest>
Snip
> If all the ingredients are positive, then from my point of view, tight
> black pants and a sparkly shirt which shows back and tummy does not in
> and of itself constitute immodesty.
>
> What do you think?
I think that is a mighty big "if".
The resident curmudgeon.
David Bowie
<snip>
> This got me thinking... what, exactly, is the relationship between
> clothing and modesty? Were the outfits really immodest? What about my
> own daughter... when she is older and if she is still in dance, how
> would I feel about her wearing such an outfit?
<snip>
> What is modesty, anyway? If we walked into any average teenage Sunday
> school class and asked the kids to give a definition of modesty, most
> of them would start by saying it means to choose clothing which does
> not show too much leg, arm, or mid-riff.
Well, it's worth pointing out that Mormons are nearly (though not
entirely) alone among English-speakers in using the word "modesty" to
refer to covering up skin--the meaning, as most people use it, deals
with the relative simplicity or ostentatiousness of something.
Further, it's pretty clear that all of the references in the scriptures
to modesty refer to simplicity in clothing, not how much skin was
showing. (The definition has existed for a good while now, but it's
unclear whether it already existed when Joseph Smith was translating the
Book of Mormon, in fact.)
It rather annoys me, TBH--it's hard to cut through the clutter (both
from Mormons giving IMO false readings of references to modesty in the
scriptures, as well as all the advertising they're exposed to in daily
life) to my own daughters and get them to realize that the most
important thing, according to the scriptures, is not to be conspicuous
consumers. If covering up skin occurs as a side effect of that, then
cool--but it's actually not my primary worry.
<snip>
David, a linguist who usually doesn't get worked up over definitions
--
David Bowie University of Central Florida
Jeanne's Two Laws of Chocolate: If there is no chocolate in the
house, there is too little; some must be purchased. If there is
chocolate in the house, there is too much; it must be consumed.
Father of Peace
> Some of the older, teenage dancers,
> almost all of whom were female, wore costumes which included tight
> black pants and tops which showed bellybuttons and much of the their
> backs.
I didn't realize that bellybuttons and/or backs are immodest.
Is that a commonly held belief among mormons?
> She wondered out loud about how "inappropriate and immodest"
> some of the costumes had been, and questioned why the dance school
> would ask their girls to wear them.
A few months ago I attended a similar dance recital in
Mormonville, Utah. The costumes were astonishing to
me: Essentially turtlenecks, and long sleeve shirts, and
pants down to the ankles.
The clothing was so inappropriate that it interfered with
the dancers ability to dance, and it interfered with
the audiences ability to enjoy the performance.
The literature of the dance studio claimed that the
performers would never be asked to wear immodest
clothing... They sure took it to an extreme!
Even the belly dancing troupe was wearing clothing
over their belly buttons. I didn't appreciate it at all.
What is the point of doing a belly dance in the first
place if not to provide a visual treat to the audience?
> This got me thinking... what, exactly, is the relationship between
> clothing and modesty?
They are unrelated.
Modesty is an attitude not a costume.
> As the conversation progressed she said that if her
> daughter was involved, she would have a conversation with the costume
> designers and ask them to design something more modest. If they
> refused, she would pull her daughter out.
And yet that same daughter could go swimming, and
expose her arms, and her back, and her thighs, and I
bet that mother would say that it was a modest swim
suit....
> What do you think?
One day the LdS relief society dropped off a pamphlet
at my home denouncing the sinfulness of not covering
one's belly button. My girlfriend that day was wearing a
shirt that exposed about an inch of her belly skin. There
was nothing sinful about the way she was dressed.
If I had ever felt like attacking members of the LdS
church for the harm that the church does to the
community, it would have been that day for that
pamphlet.
Love,
Absalom
Gerald Fuller
"David Bowie" <db....@pmpkn.net> wrote in message
news:12r23vl...@news.supernews.com...
> mormon...@yahoo.com wrote:
Snip
> Well, it's worth pointing out that Mormons are nearly (though not
> entirely) alone among English-speakers in using the word "modesty" to
> refer to covering up skin--the meaning, as most people use it, deals
> with the relative simplicity or ostentatiousness of something.
Thank you very much, David. Since I was 54 yeares old when I became a
"Mormon" (well, at least that is what some insist on calling me, and believe
me I have been called worse <G>) I still have trouble belieiving that
"modesty" really has much to do with the amoung of skin exposed.
Snip
> It rather annoys me, TBH--it's hard to cut through the clutter (both
> from Mormons giving IMO false readings of references to modesty in the
> scriptures, as well as all the advertising they're exposed to in daily
> life) to my own daughters and get them to realize that the most
> important thing, according to the scriptures, is not to be conspicuous
> consumers. If covering up skin occurs as a side effect of that, then
> cool--but it's actually not my primary worry.
Once again, David, as far as I can see you and I are in complet harmony and
agreement.
> David, a linguist who usually doesn't get worked up over definitions
Gene, am Agriculture major and somewhat mathematician who probably too often
does.
joseph_dan...@yahoo.com
David Bowie のメッセージ:
> [...]
> Well, it's worth pointing out that Mormons are nearly (though not
> entirely) alone among English-speakers in using the word "modesty" to
> refer to covering up skin--the meaning, as most people use it, deals
> with the relative simplicity or ostentatiousness of something.
I don't think I can agree with that.
While my wife's Pocket Oxford doesn't mention it, m-w.com does have
"observing proprieties of dress and behavior" as the third definition
of four, and lists "chaste" as a synonym. And the Pocket Oxford does
list "shameless, indecent" as a definition under "immodest".
Moreover, ...
> [...]
> It rather annoys me, TBH--it's hard to cut through the clutter (both
> from Mormons giving IMO false readings of references to modesty in the
> scriptures, as well as all the advertising they're exposed to in daily
> life) to my own daughters and get them to realize that the most
> important thing, according to the scriptures, is not to be conspicuous
> consumers.
"Consumers" is an interesting word to use there. Consumers of what?
> If covering up skin occurs as a side effect of that, then
> cool--but it's actually not my primary worry.
I'm thinking that it will, in fact tend to do just that.
Quoting the Pocket Oxford:
1 having or expressing a humble or moderate estimate of one's
own merits.
2 diffident, bashful.
3 decorous.
4 moderate or restrained in amount, extent, severity, etc.
5 unpretentious, not extravagant.
Decorum has at least a little relevance to decency, doesn't it? And, of
course, while one might wear an immoderately large amount of clothing,
one might also show an immoderately large amount of skin.
Now, I do recognize that expressing or maintaining an over-estimate of
one's personal merits is generally a symptom of a hidden lack of self
confidence. (And, in fact, that is probably relevent.)
But it seems to me that showing too much skin can be classed three
ways:
(1) Trying too hard to show self-confidence (for instance,
overcompensating with confidence in appearance as a substitute for
confidence in self);
(2) "Selling it", whether (as the body in prostitution) to everyone, or
(as self to the boy/girlfriend or skills to the job interviewer) to
someone in particular;
(3) Setting priority on other things than the amount of skin revealed,
such things as a hot, humic climate, reactions to fabrics, and
activities (sports and such) for which ordinary clothing tends to be in
the way.
Of course, reasons are generally complex, and might often include all
of the above, but if we split the reasons we can see that the first two
classes are very much related to issues of modesty.
Yeah, modesty (as morality) has been painted too much with the brush of
sexuality by the flow of rumor and gossip, especially in the church,
where that Whispering Adversary might expect advantage in causing some
to believe that sexuality is all there is to it, and in causing others
to believe that since there's more to sin than sexuality the church
standards are wrong.
> <snip>
>
> David, a linguist who usually doesn't get worked up over definitions
Joudanzuki, a computer scientist who sometimes seems to have an
avaricious interest in definitions
Gerald Fuller
<joseph_dan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:12r4hk1...@news.supernews.com...
Snip
> Decorum has at least a little relevance to decency, doesn't it? And, of
> course, while one might wear an immoderately large amount of clothing,
> one might also show an immoderately large amount of skin.
Now we have drug another non-synonymous althought related word into the mis.
Modesty is not equivarlent to decorum. Modesty and chastity might both
contribute to decorum. But decorum is not exactly equivalent to either.
Snip
David Bowie
> David Bowie のメッセージ:
What does that attribution line mean, exactly? "David Bowie swore:" or
somesuch? :-)
>> Well, it's worth pointing out that Mormons are nearly (though not
>> entirely) alone among English-speakers in using the word "modesty" to
>> refer to covering up skin--the meaning, as most people use it, deals
>> with the relative simplicity or ostentatiousness of something.
> I don't think I can agree with that.
> While my wife's Pocket Oxford doesn't mention it, m-w.com does have
> "observing proprieties of dress and behavior" as the third definition
> of four, and lists "chaste" as a synonym. And the Pocket Oxford does
> list "shameless, indecent" as a definition under "immodest".
Merriam Webster takes great pains to (try to--it's not always possible)
order its definitions by frequency of use. Third in a list of
definitions isn't a terribly common usage, really.
> Moreover, ...
>> It rather annoys me, TBH--it's hard to cut through the clutter (both
>> from Mormons giving IMO false readings of references to modesty in the
>> scriptures, as well as all the advertising they're exposed to in daily
>> life) to my own daughters and get them to realize that the most
>> important thing, according to the scriptures, is not to be conspicuous
>> consumers.
> "Consumers" is an interesting word to use there. Consumers of what?
Not sure--but i couldn't think of a better word to go with
"conspicuous", which is the more important part of the phrasing. Maybe
consumers of that which the surrounding culture believes to be important
for demonstrating material success? Not perfect, but (from my reading of
the scriptures) close.
<snip a point that Gene dealt with succinctly>
> But it seems to me that showing too much skin can be classed three
> ways:
> (1) Trying too hard to show self-confidence (for instance,
> overcompensating with confidence in appearance as a substitute for
> confidence in self);
> (2) "Selling it", whether (as the body in prostitution) to everyone, or
> (as self to the boy/girlfriend or skills to the job interviewer) to
> someone in particular;
> (3) Setting priority on other things than the amount of skin revealed,
> such things as a hot, humic climate, reactions to fabrics, and
> activities (sports and such) for which ordinary clothing tends to be in
> the way.
You missed a very, *very* important fourth classification:
(4) 'Cause that's just what the person involved does.
There's more reasons, as well, that have nothing at all to do with
issues of decorum, or chastity (as commonly defined by Mormons), or
whatever else. Your list oversimplifies (as you admit, but only
somewhat, in what i snipped below), and it also assumes motives that i
don't believe one can really make about one's fellow humans.
<snip>
David, suddenly thinking of the German words for these things
dianaiad
mormon...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Recently our seven year old daughter performed in her end-of-the season
> dance recital. All year she had worked hard in an after school class
> and this recital was a chance for us, and all of the other parents, to
> witness the fruits of our children's labor.
> If all the ingredients are positive, then from my point of view, tight
> black pants and a sparkly shirt which shows back and tummy does not in
> and of itself constitute immodesty.
>
> What do you think?
It's about social cues. I'll be willing to bet that most of the dancers
on that stage wore more fabric on their bodies than an olympic swimmer
does, and nobody, no church official, no mother of children, would
criticise those swimsuits. The social cues given by these athletes
consist of "ok, i'm paring down to swim, where's the timer...." and
that's it.
But when young women (and men) wear clothing that reveal certain areas
of skin, why are they doing it? To entice. To bring attention to
themselves, to say 'look at me, I'm desirable." In this case, belly
baring short skirts are anything BUT modest.
...but the same skirt worn on stage for the purpose of freeing the body
for dancing? Not so much. It's about the purpose behind the display,
not the display itself. So I think you are correct; "tight black pants
and a sparkly shirt which shows back and tummy [do] not in and of
[themselves] constitute immodesty."
On stage. But does that mean that in all times, and all cases, they
don't? Sometimes, depending upon where and when, they definately do
constitute immodesty, even if you equate the word to 'chaste behavior,'
rather than 'unpreposesing' and 'simple.'
There are few things simpler than a hip hugging pareo. It can even be
seen as a bow to modesty---on the other hand, there are few articles of
clothing more immodest, either, depending on where, when, and by whom
it is worn.
David Bowie
> mormon...@yahoo.com wrote:
<snip>
>> If all the ingredients are positive, then from my point of view, tight
>> black pants and a sparkly shirt which shows back and tummy does not in
>> and of itself constitute immodesty.
>> What do you think?
> It's about social cues. I'll be willing to bet that most of the dancers
> on that stage wore more fabric on their bodies than an olympic swimmer
> does, and nobody, no church official, no mother of children, would
> criticise those swimsuits. The social cues given by these athletes
> consist of "ok, i'm paring down to swim, where's the timer...." and
> that's it.
Complete agreement.
> But when young women (and men) wear clothing that reveal certain areas
> of skin, why are they doing it? To entice. To bring attention to
> themselves, to say 'look at me, I'm desirable." In this case, belly
> baring short skirts are anything BUT modest.
Probable disagreement.
What i find really fascinating in a lot of the comments on this thread
is an unstated but huge assumption that people who wear relatively
little in the way of clothing are *necessarily* doing it to be enticing.
How in the world can one make that claim? I mean, even leaving aside
non-Western societies, has anyone thought that a man might go shirtless,
or a woman might wear low-rider jeans, for no other reason than that
they find it more physically comfortable to do so (or something equally
innocuous)?
<snip>
David, defending people whose practices differ from his own
dianaiad
On Jan 24, 11:01 am, David Bowie <db.n...@pmpkn.net> wrote:
> dianaiad wrote:
<snip to here>
> > But when young women (and men) wear clothing that reveal certain areas
> > of skin, why are they doing it? To entice. To bring attention to
> > themselves, to say 'look at me, I'm desirable." In this case, belly
> > baring short skirts are anything BUT modest.Probable disagreement.
I should have been more careful. By that statement, I meant that when
young men and women IN THIS CULTURE (our western ones) do this, it is
in order to garner attention, to entice.
True, low rider jeans may well be more comfortable than the high cut
ones, and that may well be the only reason a girl might wear them--and
that's fine. What's her excuse, though, for wearing the top that only
comes to the middle of her ribcage? Is there any reason, that has to do
with comfort alone, for her to bare her entire midsection to the view
of all and sundry?
I don't think so. A top that covers her, er, 'top' is probably more
comfortable. Certainly it can be every inch as cool in hot weather, and
is far more likely to protect her from sunburn and skin cancer later.
There are certain cultures where a woman going entirely bare breasted
is not immodest. There are cultures where a man running around with
nothing on but a very long gourd perched in a strategic manner is
modest. Those cultures are not ours. In THOSE cultures, it could
actually be considered immodest to cover one's breasts. Who knows?
But in this culture, and most of the ones that we, as Mormons, interact
with, clothing and how we wear it is a very large part of who we are,
and how we signal our 'selves' to others. Whether we actually like that
idea or not---and also, whether we like it or not, it is what the other
guy thinks about what we wear that matters a great deal more than what
WE think about it, because he's who is getting and interpreting the
signals we are sending. That's one of the drawbacks of having a
culture.
Gerald Fuller
"dianaiad" <dian...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:12rfva4...@news.supernews.com...
>
>
> On Jan 24, 11:01 am, David Bowie <db.n...@pmpkn.net> wrote:
>> dianaiad wrote:
> <snip to here>
>
>> > But when young women (and men) wear clothing that reveal certain areas
>> > of skin, why are they doing it? To entice. To bring attention to
>> > themselves, to say 'look at me, I'm desirable." In this case, belly
>> > baring short skirts are anything BUT modest.Probable disagreement.
>
> I should have been more careful. By that statement, I meant that when
> young men and women IN THIS CULTURE (our western ones) do this, it is
> in order to garner attention, to entice.
I think this gives unwarranted credit to people for really thinking about
what signals their clothing may or may not send to others. It may also be
giving unwarranted cr dit for caring one way or the other.
> True, low rider jeans may well be more comfortable than the high cut
> ones, and that may well be the only reason a girl might wear them--and
> that's fine. What's her excuse, though, for wearing the top that only
> comes to the middle of her ribcage? Is there any reason, that has to do
> with comfort alone, for her to bare her entire midsection to the view
> of all and sundry?
Does it arouse lust in males for a "chubby" girl to wear short "tops" and
"low rise" bottoms, when it mostly emphazes rolls of bat (flab) in that
area? My own assumption is that probably it does arouse lust in some men,
and disgust in others.
> I don't think so. A top that covers her, er, 'top' is probably more
> comfortable. Certainly it can be every inch as cool in hot weather, and
> is far more likely to protect her from sunburn and skin cancer later.
That is like the argument that "garments" are too hot to wear in hot
climates. I agree with you if you are saying that we can be almost equally
cool and comfortable regradless of what it is that we customarily wear.
> There are certain cultures where a woman going entirely bare breasted
> is not immodest. There are cultures where a man running around with
> nothing on but a very long gourd perched in a strategic manner is
> modest. Those cultures are not ours. In THOSE cultures, it could
> actually be considered immodest to cover one's breasts. Who knows?
Are those "savages" we see once in a while on documentaries about South
America and some other areas of the world, where said "savages run around
almost naked in almost all of their activities, being "immodest"? Not just
be being naked.
> But in this culture, and most of the ones that we, as Mormons, interact
> with, clothing and how we wear it is a very large part of who we are,
> and how we signal our 'selves' to others.
Yes! Suits and ties for some are a very large part of "who we are" and for
others the refusal to weat them willingly (rebellious spirit ?) is an equal
part of "who we are".
> Whether we actually like that
> idea or not---and also, whether we like it or not, it is what the other
> guy thinks about what we wear that matters a great deal more than what
And our leaders counsel us very often not to be led by what others think.
> WE think about it, because he's who is getting and interpreting the
> signals we are sending. That's one of the drawbacks of having a
> culture.
Is there any place on earth with more than two inhabitants which does not
have a culture?
Gene
joseph_dan...@yahoo.com
On Jan 21, 1:56 pm, "Gerald Fuller" <gfuller1...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> <joseph_daniel_zuki...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:12r4hk1...@news.supernews.com...
Which is at least a little relevance, is it not?
Where is the need to see equivalences?
Father of Peace
The bigger drawback is defining your religious beliefs
based on cultural biases rather than on gospel principles.
No matter how hard I try, I just can't envision a God that
cares one way or another about how someone dresses.
And I especially can't imagine any mormon God that
would care.
The Poster Formerly Known as Craig Olson
>
> That's one of the drawbacks of having a culture.
From which I can conclude that there is an advantage in having none.
Whew! I was hoping things would work out for me after all.
Craig, finding a relationship between people and pearls
Father of Peace
> How in the world can one make that claim? I mean, even leaving aside
> non-Western societies, has anyone thought that a man might go shirtless,
> or a woman might wear low-rider jeans, for no other reason than that
> they find it more physically comfortable to do so (or something equally
> innocuous)?
My skin is often exposed between my pants and my shirt
because:
1- I do not have a narrow waistline, so my pants slide down until
caught by my gluts, and I am not willing to wear suspenders, and
my significant others have mostly banned me from wearing coveralls,
and I don't want to wear dresses (at least I don't dare regardless
of what I want...)
2- I have extra broad shoulders and a long torso, so it is exceedingly
vexing to get a shirt that is long enough and that fits without looking
like a tent. So if I have to choose between having the shirt look
nice or having it be long enough I often choose to have it look good
on my upper body.
3- It would look dorky to make my own clothing, and add an
extra foot onto the shirts just so that I would never ever
expose some skin when bending over. I was teased enough
about being dorky when I was a kid, I don't need that now
that I have grown up.
oblds: I think those LdS members are wrong who teach that the
way a person dresses could be responsible for causing
sinful thoughts in another person. Sinful thoughts can only
come from inside a person, they cannot be generated from
any outside source.
Andrew R
"Father of Peace" <srm...@absalom.org> wrote in message
news:12rhisv...@news.supernews.com...
: No matter how hard I try, I just can't envision a God that
: cares one way or another about how someone dresses.
Really?
Why then did He care that Moses was shod?
Why did He find clothing for Adam and Eve?
Andrew R.
hlil...@juno.com
Father of Peace wrote:
> No matter how hard I try, I just can't envision a God that
> cares one way or another about how someone dresses.
He apparently cared enough to provide Adam and Eve with clothing better
than the fig leaves they made. That is described in Genesis which most
of us accept as Scripture.
Gerald Fuller
"Andrew R" <a...@rossers.net> wrote in message
news:12rhr40...@news.supernews.com...
I don't think He "found" clothing for Adam and Eve. (At least in the common
modern sense of the word "found") They had discovered that they were
unclothed, and had taken some leaves and covered themselves. He noticed that
and had clothing provided for them, but I am not sure that He cared one way
or the other, else He might have provided clothing for them in the first
place. The Scriptures don't seem to me to give much explanation on why Adam
and Eve decided they needed to "hide their nakedness", and the Temple gives
some indication that it was not God's suggestion, I think, but of course
rules inhibit the discussion of this idea much farther.
I would also wonder why God cared that Moses was shod. We seem to wear shoes
in our culture and climate most of the time whether or not we are on Holy
Ground. Don't we? We are shod most of the time in the Temple even!
I find myself more in agreement with Father of Peace than otherwise that God
probably does not care much PER SE, abut how anyone dresses, but He well may
care a great deal about what the way one dresses may reveal (no not about
his body) about his frame of mind -- his willingness to be obedient and
teachable.
Father of Peace
> Why then did He care that Moses was shod?
> Why did He find clothing for Adam and Eve?
That old testament type God is long gone. As
humans we have progressed beyond such
primitive ideas.
Love,
Absalom
Gerald Fuller
<joseph_dan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:12rhise...@news.supernews.com...
Does Donald Trump's hair have any effect on decorum in any conceivable
circumstance? Does George W. Bush's Texas way of speaking have any effect on
decorum in any conceivable circumstance? Of course. Do either of these have
much noticeable relevance to decency? About the only relevance I see is if
anyone is so affected by these things as to act indecently (not necessarily
immodestly) toward either Trump or Bush.
In other words, I think the already muddied water of this discussion is
becoming extremely roiled. <G> I really see little "practical" relation that
decorum has to decency. But of course there are shades of meaning to the
word "decency" as well, some of which I probably would reject. <G>
Gene
David Bowie
But how we are to interpret that is delightfully ambiguous. Consider the
following lines we can think of God saying to Adam and Eve:
Possibility 1: You need clothing, and should cover yourselves. Those fig
leaves simply aren't gonna do it--here's better clothes for you.
Possibility 2: Dang, why didn't *i* think of clothing! Good on you--and
here's some stuff that covers a bit more.
Possibility 3: You want clothing? Well, i guess you fallen types'll
think of anything these days. If you insist, here's something you might
find easier to use and longer lasting. I still can't figure out why
you're gonna insist on covering beauty, though.
And there's an uncountably finite number of other possibilities, of course.
David, whose radio is amusingly enough playing Shatner's "Ideal woman"
dianaiad
David Bowie wrote:
<snip to>
> But how we are to interpret that is delightfully ambiguous. Consider the
> following lines we can think of God saying to Adam and Eve:
>
> Possibility 1: You need clothing, and should cover yourselves. Those fig
> leaves simply aren't gonna do it--here's better clothes for you.
>
> Possibility 2: Dang, why didn't *i* think of clothing! Good on you--and
> here's some stuff that covers a bit more.
>
> Possibility 3: You want clothing? Well, i guess you fallen types'll
> think of anything these days. If you insist, here's something you might
> find easier to use and longer lasting. I still can't figure out why
> you're gonna insist on covering beauty, though.
Indeed, including two very obvious ones:
Possibility 4: I'm about to kick you out of here, and where you are
going it is going to be too cold, too hot, too hard and too full of
pointy sharp things to wander around with your skin hanging out. Here,
something to protect you in your furlessness....
Possibility 5: You're probably all right, but if this bugs YOU all that
much, then for the sake of your daughters' piece of mind, and your
sons' ability to concentrate on things other than your daughters, here.
Cover yourselves with something.
....and people, being inventive, quickly figured out how to arrange
that clothing to attract attention to things they wanted attention
attracted to. Now, why does a woman (or a man) want someone to pay
attention to something about their persons?
Perhaps I'm just too old.
Or too crotchety.
Or gleaning the harvest of experience, having raised five teenagers.
But believe me on this one; nobody, and I mean NOBODY, bares the belly
button because it's "more comfortable." Nobody wears thong underwear
for that purpose, either, or three inch heels, or really pointy toes,
or Speedos rather than boxer shorts.
...when I see a college student walk down the hall in very tight jeans,
a crop top that bares the belly button (which has a ring in it) and a
lace 'shrug that sorta covers her arms--and it's 40 degrees farenheit,
believe me, it's NOT about 'comfort.' What's more important to the
conversation, however, is that those who see her are quite aware that
it's not about comfort; she is tacitly giving them permission, not just
to LOOK, but to desire and to fantasize, and those who fantasize and
desire are the ones who are going to act. Now true, nothing she wears
or does not wear gives anybody permission to act against her wishes,
and if they do, it is their fault and not hers--but she is putting
herself in an untenable position, if 'action' isn't actually something
she wants. The least she will be faced with is having to turn down
invitations she doesn't want to accept.
As an LDS mother, I told my kids from the beginning that our culture is
such that what we wear sends signals; signals of who we are and what we
want to happen. this not only applies to our clothing, but also our
jewelry and how we act. After all, why don't Mormons (as a rule) wear
crosses, and why do a bunch of kids wear CTR rings? Aren't these things
symbols and signals? As Temple goers, doesn't what WE wear, even over
what other virtuous Christians wear, mean something very important?
Aren't our garments a signal and a symbol, if only to us? Doesn't the
fact that they are made in such a way that we MUST dress modestly in
order to keep them from view mean something?
Other cultures have other signals that are valid for their cultures; I
can't see, for instance, my Bishop coming to church in a lava-lava or
pareu, but these are perfectly acceptable in Samoa. Our culture has
these particular ones...and whether we like it or not, if you send a
signal, someone else is going to read it. It is true, I could rebel
against societal norms and decide that, for me, extending my middle
finger in a vertical direction REALLY means 'how nice to see you, don't
you look nice.." but my intent isn't going to make the guy I just
flipped off any happier.
Nor is wearing clothing that the culture around us sees as enticing and
provocative going to be seen as anything BUT provocative just because
you are having a rebellion of your own and have decided that what one
wears has nothing at all to do with modesty or virtue, because it sure
as shootin' does. Especially when the entire point of baring the midrif
is to call attention to a slim and toned one---to entice, to gather
notice. It's the whole point.
Now, I know that it's nice to see beauty all around you, brethren, and
I'm quite certain that no salacious thoughts have ever entered your
heads when you see a lovely young thing who dresses to display her
assets to advantage. However, not every man is as spiritually mature as
you are, and quite frankly, the lovely young thing would probably be
disappointed at your level of maturity anyway.
One last note, that might seem off topic but really isn't; most of the
clothing we see worn today was modeled by impossibly beautiful and
impossibly skinny people. Most of the rest of us do not display to
advantage in it, and are thus doomed to disappointment; both the wearer
and the viewer. We've come to expect perfect bodies under that stuff,
and we none of us have those. So our self esteem goes though the
basement, and that's not good either.
Seems to me that if we are modest in our dress and demeanor (and that
means 'cover most stuff' as well as 'be simple' ) then when we do
choose to allow ourselves to be appreciated by our eternal partner, we
can enjoy the view simply, with great joy, and without comparing each
other to the people on the cover of Vogue and GQ.
But that's just me, and I am now officially through ranting.
Gerald Fuller
> hlil...@juno.com wrote:
Snip Genesis reference etc.
> But how we are to interpret that is delightfully ambiguous. Consider the
> following lines we can think of God saying to Adam and Eve:
>
> Possibility 1: You need clothing, and should cover yourselves. Those fig
> leaves simply aren't gonna do it--here's better clothes for you.
>
> Possibility 2: Dang, why didn't *i* think of clothing! Good on you--and
> here's some stuff that covers a bit more.
>
> Possibility 3: You want clothing? Well, i guess you fallen types'll
> think of anything these days. If you insist, here's something you might
> find easier to use and longer lasting. I still can't figure out why
> you're gonna insist on covering beauty, though.
>
> And there's an uncountably finite number of other possibilities, of
> course.
I love it, David!
Gene
Father of Peace
> button because it's "more comfortable." Nobody wears thong underwear
> for that purpose, either, or three inch heels, or really pointy toes,
> or Speedos rather than boxer shorts.
In my opinion, and experience, having worn both, a speedo
is much more modest and more comfortable than boxer
shorts could ever be. I have never inadvertently flashed
someone while wearing a speedo, but it seems like boxers
just won't behave themselves.
> The least she will be faced with is having to turn down
> invitations she doesn't want to accept.
In my opinion, an invitation is always a pleasant
thing, even if it is ultimately turned down.
> Nor is wearing clothing that the culture around us sees as enticing and
> provocative going to be seen as anything BUT provocative
Plenty of people in America do not share the opinion of
some mormons that belly skin is enticing or provocative.
To many Americans showing belly skin is no more
provocative or enticing than showing finger skin or
facial skin. Many active temple recommend holding
mormons do not consider belly skin to be provocative
or enticing.
> just because
> you are having a rebellion of your own a
There are plenty of mormons who dress differently just
because they dress differently, no rebellion or
disobedience intended.
> Especially when the entire point of baring the midrif
> is to call attention to a slim and toned one---to entice, to gather
> notice. It's the whole point.
That might be the point for some people at some times, but
many people wear clothing that shows belly skin for the same
reason that they wear clothing that shows facial skin, it's
available, or it looks good, or its commonly worn in American
culture. No rebellion, or disobedience, or enticement, or
vanity needs to be associated with showing facial skin
or belly skin.
> Seems to me that if we are modest in our dress and demeanor (and that
> means 'cover most stuff'
<begin sarcasm> I am so offended by women
who uncover their faces, or hands, or ankles. They are only
doing it to entice men <end sarcasm>
Love,
Absalom
Gerald Fuller
>
> David Bowie wrote:
> <snip to>
Snip possible reasons that God may have supplied "coats of skins" for Adam
and Eve.
> Indeed, including two very obvious ones:
>
> Possibility 4: I'm about to kick you out of here, and where you are
> going it is going to be too cold, too hot, too hard and too full of
> pointy sharp things to wander around with your skin hanging out. Here,
> something to protect you in your furlessness....
That, of course, presupposes that Adam and Eve were kicked out in a location
different from the Amazon forest/jungle, at least as I am led to understand
that area from travelogs on Television. In fact when God supposedly told
Adam about how hard it was going to be to obtain food, He must not have been
thinking about the tropics where fruit usually grows abundantly.
> Possibility 5: You're probably all right, but if this bugs YOU all that
> much, then for the sake of your daughters' piece of mind, and your
> sons' ability to concentrate on things other than your daughters, here.
> Cover yourselves with something.
I sure hope you meant "peace" of mind (I know. Pointing out typos or
careless errors is considered rude. My bad.)
Snip
> But believe me on this one; nobody, and I mean NOBODY, bares the belly
> button because it's "more comfortable." Nobody wears thong underwear
> for that purpose, either, or three inch heels, or really pointy toes,
> or Speedos rather than boxer shorts.
Nobody? I tend to agree, yet I cannot say that for certain since there are
some really strange people whom I have met and I suspect even stranger ones
whom I have not yet met!
Snip -- good points!
> Nor is wearing clothing that the culture around us sees as enticing and
> provocative going to be seen as anything BUT provocative just because
> you are having a rebellion of your own and have decided that what one
> wears has nothing at all to do with modesty or virtue, because it sure
> as shootin' does. Especially when the entire point of baring the midrif
> is to call attention to a slim and toned one---to entice, to gather
> notice. It's the whole point.
In my part of the US, that could be true, that the point of a bare midriff
may be to draw attention to a slim and toned one. But alas, too often the
"barer" thereof must not have looked into a mirror recently!
> Now, I know that it's nice to see beauty all around you, brethren,
That is "when there's love at home," Sister!.
and
> I'm quite certain that no salacious thoughts have ever entered your
> heads when you see a lovely young thing who dresses to display her
> assets to advantage. However, not every man is as spiritually mature as
> you are, and quite frankly, the lovely young thing would probably be
> disappointed at your level of maturity anyway.
That is all very true, but I am pretty sure that I can remember a thought or
so emanating from a glimpse of knee back around 1949 when mid calf skirts
were in vogue. I also can recall some thoughts that came from flowing skirts
that sort of hugged the legs. Even if the legs were not exposed, and were
not even quite "modeled". BTW, bareness is not the whole issue is it? How
about the skin tight jeans, etc.?
Snip
joseph_dan...@yahoo.com
On Jan 27, 12:15 pm, "dianaiad" <diana...@msn.com> wrote:
> [<snipping content="a bunch of stuff that was well said" reason="for the bot, and for focus"> ...]
> What's more important to the
> conversation, however, is that those who see her are quite aware that
> it's not about comfort; she is tacitly giving them permission, not just
> to LOOK, but to desire and to fantasize, and those who fantasize and
> desire are the ones who are going to act.
And one of the problems is that the girl either doesn't realize it or
is subconsciously ignoring it.
Getting fashion tangled up in things doesn't help, either, since most
of the fashion industries deliberately whitewash those particular
issues and anything related (including others which you mention).
> Now true, nothing she wears
> or does not wear gives anybody permission to act against her wishes,
> and if they do, it is their fault and not hers--but she is putting
> herself in an untenable position, if 'action' isn't actually something
> she wants. The least she will be faced with is having to turn down
> invitations she doesn't want to accept.
> [...]
> Other cultures have other signals that are valid for their cultures;
For what it's worth, oriental culture is sometimes brought up in this
context.
My wife has mentioned certain things about Japanese traditional dress
that indicate that, for all that many people saw certain things
(especially involving how certain areas of the body were or were not
covered) as innocent, what they were defining as innocent was not
really compatible with the gospel, nor with the idea that women should
be respected as individuals.
(I'm not talking about lava-lava, although, if that turns out to be
relevant, it does bring up other issues.)
> [...]
> One last note, that might seem off topic but really isn't; most of the
> clothing we see worn today was modeled by impossibly beautiful and
> impossibly skinny people. Most of the rest of us do not display to
> advantage in it, and are thus doomed to disappointment; both the wearer
> and the viewer. We've come to expect perfect bodies under that stuff,
> and we none of us have those. So our self esteem goes though the
> basement, and that's not good either.
This is something I wanted to say and wasn't managing to get at very
well. When fashion dictates that we have no place to hide our
differences, it seems to require us to efface them, and those
differences are precisely what make us interesting to the people we
should be most interesting to.
> Seems to me that if we are modest in our dress and demeanor (and that
> means 'cover most stuff' as well as 'be simple' ) then when we do
> choose to allow ourselves to be appreciated by our eternal partner, we
> can enjoy the view simply, with great joy, and without comparing each
> other to the people on the cover of Vogue and GQ.
>
> But that's just me, and I am now officially through ranting.
Thanks for saying what I was having trouble expressing.
I will acknowledge that, in that perfect world, the issues being
raised here will mostly not matter. Those who qualify for the
celestial kingdom won't really be looking for mates, nor will they be
inclined to take prurient pleasure in such things. (So clothing, if
necessary, will be for other purposes. (Perhaps something akin to
asbestos suits when igniting stars?)
joudanzuki, refraining, for the moment, from public speculation about
the other kingdoms
joseph_dan...@yahoo.com
On Jan 26, 1:07 pm, "Gerald Fuller" <gfuller1...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> [...]
> In other words, I think the already muddied water of this discussion is
> becoming extremely roiled. <G> I really see little "practical" relation that
> decorum has to decency. But of course there are shades of meaning to the
> word "decency" as well, some of which I probably would reject. <G>
Well, for instance, it's definitely a breach of decorum when young
women show up to church dances dressed like street walkers. Ditto for
the guys who show off there boxer shorts in class. Don't you think?
joseph_dan...@yahoo.com
On Jan 26, 12:25 am, "Father of Peace" <srm2...@absalom.org> wrote:
> [...]
> 3- It would look dorky to make my own clothing, and add an
> extra foot onto the shirts just so that I would never ever
> expose some skin when bending over. I was teased enough
> about being dorky when I was a kid, I don't need that now
> that I have grown up.
Funny, I just learned to put up with looking dorky and not being
bothered by it.
Of course, looking dorky has meant at times that my midriff has been
exposed, especially when bending over or reaching for luggage up on
the overhead luggage rack. But that's not the midriff exposure in
question here.
> oblds: I think those LdS members are wrong who teach that the
> way a person dresses could be responsible for causing
> sinful thoughts in another person. Sinful thoughts can only
> come from inside a person, they cannot be generated from
> any outside source.
... which, pardon me for saying so, is one of those half-truths that
the father of lies likes to use to mess with our minds (Another,
officially currently out of favor, being that all sinful thoughts come
from outside, which provides the targeted confusion.)
joudanzuki
Gerald Fuller
"Jason King" <jaso...@usa.com> wrote in message
news:12rni2p...@news.supernews.com...
Snip
> I think LDS culture permits men can show more of their skin, but must
> see and vocalize less than the females can. I doubt Dallin Oaks would
> say to those muscular, shirtless men, Brethren, you are pornography,
> but he did say it to the sisters.
Why do you doubt it? I don't doubt at all that he would say that to men who
dressed that way for just no reason other than that they wanted to. Or from
rebelliousness. Even from simple ignornance.
> It's nothing to lose my testimony over of course. I have a nice chuckle
> thinking about that incident, and all this fuss about clothes and
> lusting.
I agree for the most part with your last paragraph. I think this fuss etc is
mostly indicative that we either don't have much of any importance to think
about or just wish not to think about it.
Gerald Fuller
<joseph_dan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:12rnihv...@news.supernews.com...
I cautiously agree, but protest that this is not really related to "modesty"
at all.
You know, I was in Nagoya for a month about 1952 and took several slide
photos. I remember that when I saw a couple of Japanese young women in
"western"attire, I annotated the borders of those slides that these were
probably prostitutes. Even then I was pretty judgmental, wasn't I? I think,
although that is long enough ago that I really can't be sure, that I was
basing this on an assumption that they were wearing this type of clothing to
please the American Soldiers who may have been "supporting" them.
I spent the better part of a year in Korea at that time, and if I recall
correctly I saw "old" women (old beyond their time, I think, maybe around 35
or 40?) who wore nothing above the waste except maybe a hat. I did not know
anyone who really had prurient thoughts about them, while I seem to have had
prurient thoughts about those young Japanese women who were perfectly
"modestly" dressed by the Western Standards of the time,just not from the
standards that I for some reason projected as being the ones they should
have held.
I spent about 15 months in Thailand in 1968-69. I knew several GIs who had
live in Thai girl friends. These girls liked to look nice. Take "nice"
literally. It sure is not my place to "judge" these young women.
dianaiad
Jason King wrote:
<snip all the way to here>..., and all this fuss about clothes and
> lusting.
Actually, it's just about 'lusting' and not about clothes, at all.
What we have here is one group that is wistfully thinking that clothes
(whether, where and how we wear them) don't matter.
The other group, including me, is agreeing. They *shouldn't* matter.
But they do. Oh, not because anything we expose or not is
intrinsically immodest in and of itself; I think we all have that
figured out. However, nothing we wear, nothing we say and nothing we
do has an intrinsic meaning all its own, does it? All of it is a give
and take of communication, of signal swapping. Call it a democracy of
fashion; if (for instance..) the majority of people think that a white
kerchief in your hair signals sexual promiscuity, then that's what it
signals. We may not see WHY it would, but if it does, it does. It may
not be fair. Shoot, it's NOT fair.
It doesn't make any real physical sense that the scar one carries
through life as a result of the healing of an umbilical cord is
considered sexy..but it is what it is. So whatever it is we wear or
do, it's because we have decided to make some sort of statement about
ourselves, and our clothing is part of a signal system that we
understand quite well that most of the people who see us understand.
As for me? I'll cover what I wish to, (and only my neighborhood
mortician will EVER see my knees outside a swimming pool, and now that
I have one of those in my backyard, perhaps not even there) and wear
my face proudly bare. (shrug)
Not that I'd much MIND recieving a pass from a nice Mormon widower
with dinner and a trip to the museum in mind, but at this point, I
think I'm out of luck for that, too. ;-)
Father of Peace
> it's definitely a breach of decorum when young
> women show up to church dances dressed like street walkers. Ditto for
> the guys who show off there boxer shorts in class. Don't you think?
I think that if half the guys who attend class are showing off
their boxer shorts then it is not a breach of decorum,
it is just the cultural fad of the day. I think that mormonism
shouldn't be involved in badmouthing the cultural fads of the
day just because they are different than the last generation's
fads. It's just clothing.
<sarcasm on> If a woman, attending a church dance
is exposing her hands, and her face, and her ankles
isn't she dressing like a street walker? Isn't she begging
to be taken advantage of? <sarcasm off>
Why would exposing belly skin be any more sacreligious
than exposing facial skin. As far as I can tell, skin is skin,
and if we are going to cover anything in the name of modesty
then we aught to cover everything including face, and hands,
and ankles.
dianaiad
Father of Peace wrote:
> > it's definitely a breach of decorum when young
> > women show up to church dances dressed like street walkers. Ditto for
> > the guys who show off there boxer shorts in class. Don't you think?
>
> I think that if half the guys who attend class are showing off
> their boxer shorts then it is not a breach of decorum,
> it is just the cultural fad of the day.
Actually, it is a gang symbol. It is a beautiful illustration of what
I was trying to say; that our clothing choices are made for
communicating; they are symbols. In the case of showing the boxer
shorts over the top of their jeans, they know that they are
celebrating something specific. In this case, the gang that started
it. The same thing goes for the super big blue jeans and the shirts of
specific colors, not to mention headware. There is a reason the high
schools around here absolutely forbid the wearing of hats or
headscarves, unless you can prove that you wear either one for
religious reasons.
> I think that mormonism
> shouldn't be involved in badmouthing the cultural fads of the
> day just because they are different than the last generation's
> fads. It's just clothing.
Ah, but that's just it. It's not 'just clothing." Wearing a plaid
shirt in red, purple and green rather than a different shirt in blue
and black is 'just clothing..." Unless of course you wear the first
choice to a MacDonald gathering. Then you could be in some
difficulties.
Let's try again...Wearing Levi's rather than Calvin Kline's is 'just
clothing." Unless of course your 'set' has decided that Levi's are too
'yesterday' to be acceptable.
>
> <sarcasm on> If a woman, attending a church dance
> is exposing her hands, and her face, and her ankles
> isn't she dressing like a street walker? Isn't she begging
> to be taken advantage of? <sarcasm off>
Red herring, sir.(Or is that a 'slippery slope?") The point is, in
today's society, there is no church dance that an LDS woman can attend
where she would be criticised for exposing her hands, face or ankles.
Exposing those items of her body is not considered 'dressing like a
street walker' in today's society.
However, back in Joseph Smith's time, exposing her ankles might well
be taken as precisely that. It's not that her ankles are any less sexy
these days than they were a hundred and seventy-five years ago, it's
that society said that exposing them back then, at a dance, was a wee
bit like having a 'wardrobe malfunction' today.
> Why would exposing belly skin be any more sacreligious
> than exposing facial skin.
Because society says it is, sir. Because those who DO 'expose belly
skin' in places where it isn't needful to do so for the
project...like, for instance, a performance dance--do so to attract
attention to that area, because THEY know that others think that good
looking 'abs' and a belly button are sexually attractive.
> As far as I can tell, skin is skin,
> and if we are going to cover anything in the name of modesty
> then we aught to cover everything including face, and hands,
> and ankles.
Well, it's not about what you think, quite literally. It's about what
everyone around you thinks, and the messages you want them to
recieve.
Is it fair?
No.
Is it even very logical?
No.
but it is what it is. So when my children, male or female, wanted to
wear something that exposed the 'garment area' to public view, I asked
them to consider why they were doing it. If the answer was 'because
everybody else does," then I ask them why they think everybody else
does, and if that message is one they want to be sending themselves.
Usually it was sufficient to get them to change their minds.
When it didn't work, I could always go the 'because I said no, that's
why not!" route.
That worked the rest of the time. ;-)
joseph_dan...@yahoo.com
Gerald Fuller のメッセージ:
> [...] We are shod most of the time in the Temple even!
> [...]
I'm wondering if it would be against rules to discuss whether there
might have been a time when we were not.
Anyway, I have the impression that, in many communities, there are
hygiene rules in place specifically forbidding going barefoot in
certain public places, such as schools and churches, where tapeworm
and other parasites might spread.
It's not as big a deal now as when most communities had farms nearby
and many farms used natural, unpasteurized fertilizer, perhaps.
joudanzuki
Paula
news:12rga67...@news.supernews.com:
> Does it arouse lust in males for a "chubby" girl to wear short "tops"
> and "low rise" bottoms, when it mostly emphazes rolls of bat (flab) in
> that area? My own assumption is that probably it does arouse lust in
> some men, and disgust in others.
Great, so fat people can wear whatever they want and still be "modest" or
chaste or whatever because rolls of fat certainly negate any sexual
interest that the skin covering it might engender. I think you could have
discussed that concept a bit more helpfully and less offensively. And
without seeming to approve of different dress codes depending on physical
size.
Paula
Paula
> This got me thinking... what, exactly, is the relationship between
> clothing and modesty? Were the outfits really immodest? What about my
> own daughter... when she is older and if she is still in dance, how
> would I feel about her wearing such an outfit?
One of my daughters is going to be doing a booty shake in a dance she
will perform for several competitions. She'll be wearing loose sweat
pants and a hoodie, though, so it must be okay. Seriously, though, I
think it all depends. If, in context, I thought the costumes or the
movements were more sexually suggestive than I was comfortable with, I
would bring it up with her teacher/choreographer and discuss it
rationally and without accusations or judgments. There are different
views on what is or is not over the line. The older girls' group who has
the same choreographer is doing a dance that has a part where they pull
their jackets off rather suggestively. The tank tops underneath are not
what makes it suggestive. One of the fathers was discussing it with the
choreographer and the head of the dance studio after the first time
parents were invited to watch a rehearsal. They ended up toning it down
because the studio respects the parents and the students more than it
cares about exactly what moves are in the dances.
There was a particular dance I saw in competition last year that made me
cringe. Oddly enough, the costumes showed less skin than many others, no
bare midriff or back and not really short on the legs or low on the
chest. But very very suggestive. I would not have allowed my daughter
to wear it and perform the dance they were performing in public, even
though the moves were not so much overtly sexual. It was how the whole
thing went together that creeped me out. It was like a pedophile's
dream. Maybe being a counselor and having to worry about pedophiles has
made me too quick to see that kind of thing, but it did send off big
warning bells. I asked the guy sitting next to me what he thought of it
because I thought I might be overreacting and he said he was appalled.
But the whole company was girls, choreographed by a woman and probably
approved by only women, so I am not going to assume those are a bunch of
temptresses out to lull men to their demise. You have to take
responsibility for your own reactions even though I think it is smart to
worry about your actions from the other end. I don't want to send the
wrong messages or have my daughters sending them, even inadvertently.
Not that it would then be their fault if something happened, but that it
isn't helpful to send a message that might be misinterpreted.
Paula
David Bowie
> "dianaiad" <dian...@msn.com> wrote...
<snip>
>> Possibility 5: You're probably all right, but if this bugs YOU all that
>> much, then for the sake of your daughters' piece of mind, and your
>> sons' ability to concentrate on things other than your daughters, here.
>> Cover yourselves with something.
> I sure hope you meant "peace" of mind (I know. Pointing out typos or
> careless errors is considered rude. My bad.)
A typo? And here i thought it was intended quite the way it originally
meant, except with "mind" being a bit of a euphemism...:-)
David, who figures the smiley may have been necessary this time
David Bowie
> Jason King wrote:
>> ..., and all this fuss about clothes and
>> lusting.
> Actually, it's just about 'lusting' and not about clothes, at all.
> What we have here is one group that is wistfully thinking that clothes
> (whether, where and how we wear them) don't matter.
Strawman!
Or at least, that might (and i stress only *might*) be FoP's position,
but it's certainly not mine, and it doesn't appear to me to be Gene's or
Jason's, either.
It would be more accurate to say, at least about me, that i find current
Mormon culture's[1] fixation on how much skin is covered by clothing to
be unhealthy, and actually a possible source of lustful thoughts.
(There's more nuances, of course, but i'm trying to fit it into a
bumpersticker-length idea.)
[1] Limited to North American Mormon culture, perhaps--i don't have
enough recent experience outside of NA to have any idea about elsewhere.
<snip>
David, who realizes that it would make lousy bumpersticker text
David Bowie
<snip>
> There was a particular dance I saw in competition last year that made me
> cringe. Oddly enough, the costumes showed less skin than many others, no
> bare midriff or back and not really short on the legs or low on the
> chest. But very very suggestive. I would not have allowed my daughter
> to wear it and perform the dance they were performing in public, even
> though the moves were not so much overtly sexual. It was how the whole
> thing went together that creeped me out. It was like a pedophile's
> dream...
Well, this is the point i've been trying to make, yes? Clothing
revealing certain bits of skin is only an accident of the matter, and
Mormons' attempts to make the primary definition of "modesty" the one
that involves covering lots of skin aren't getting *anywhere* near the
root of the issue.
<snip>
David, who remembers the OPS's question
David Bowie
> Father of Peace wrote:
>> I think that if half the guys who attend class are showing off
>> their boxer shorts then it is not a breach of decorum,
>> it is just the cultural fad of the day.
> Actually, it is a gang symbol. It is a beautiful illustration of what
> I was trying to say; that our clothing choices are made for
> communicating; they are symbols...
Actually, it's a better support for what *i*'ve been trying to say--that
in different contexts symbols like clothing can mean different things.
After all, showing boxers isn't *consistently* a gang symbol (and
actually, in a number of communities it's moved into the mainstream
enough that it would be useless as a gang symbol). Similarly, showing
one's bellybutton isn't consistently an attempt to entice sexually.
<snip>
>> <sarcasm on> If a woman, attending a church dance
>> is exposing her hands, and her face, and her ankles
>> isn't she dressing like a street walker? Isn't she begging
>> to be taken advantage of? <sarcasm off>
> Red herring, sir.(Or is that a 'slippery slope?") The point is, in
> today's society, there is no church dance that an LDS woman can attend
> where she would be criticised for exposing her hands, face or ankles.
> Exposing those items of her body is not considered 'dressing like a
> street walker' in today's society.
True--but i'd argue that you're slippery-sloping in the opposite
direction. After all, it's certainly the case that exposing lots of skin
can be used to entice others sexually--but that certainly doesn't mean
that it's *always* done for that purpose, even though i've yet to see
you allow that, in Western culture, it ever isn't.
<snip>
David, listening to an obscure band of married folk from New Jersey
David Bowie
> "Gerald Fuller" <gfull...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Does it arouse lust in males for a "chubby" girl to wear short "tops"
>> and "low rise" bottoms, when it mostly emphazes rolls of bat (flab) in
>> that area? My own assumption is that probably it does arouse lust in
>> some men, and disgust in others.
> Great, so fat people can wear whatever they want and still be "modest" or
> chaste or whatever because rolls of fat certainly negate any sexual
> interest that the skin covering it might engender. I think you could have
> discussed that concept a bit more helpfully and less offensively. And
> without seeming to approve of different dress codes depending on physical
> size.
If Diana's point is accepted, (which as far as i can figure it is) that
everything of this sort has to be based on the majority norms of the
surrounding culture, though, then Gene's point would have to stand.
David, realizing that the readers of BBB are still drooling
dianaiad
On Jan 29, 8:24 am, David Bowie <db.n...@pmpkn.net> wrote:
> Paula wrote:<snip>
>
> > There was a particular dance I saw in competition last year that made me
> > cringe. Oddly enough, the costumes showed less skin than many others, no
> > bare midriff or back and not really short on the legs or low on the
> > chest. But very very suggestive. I would not have allowed my daughter
> > to wear it and perform the dance they were performing in public, even
> > though the moves were not so much overtly sexual. It was how the whole
> > thing went together that creeped me out. It was like a pedophile's
> > dream...Well, this is the point i've been trying to make, yes? Clothing
> revealing certain bits of skin is only an accident of the matter, and
> Mormons' attempts to make the primary definition of "modesty" the one
> that involves covering lots of skin aren't getting *anywhere* near the
> root of the issue.
>
> <snip>
>
> David, who remembers the OPS's question
I think that we are getting into generalities here, when we talk about
'Mormons' attempts to make the primary definition of 'modesty' the
wond that involves covering lots of skin..' especially since,
dictionaries notwithstanding, that's usually the first thing people
think of when they talk about 'modest dress.' Oh, not the ONLY thing,
by any means, but the first. Brigham Young was rather upset at the
women of his time for being immodest...not because they uncovered bits
of skin, but because they covered themselves too elaborately. So it is
true that an item of dress that covers everything can still be
immodest, depending on how it covers and what with
On the other hand, a skimpy item of clothing, worn in public, that
does not cover very much is never modest, no matter what it's made of.
Why isn't it modest? Because its entire purpose is to deliberately
call attention to something that the wearer wants to proudly display.
THAT is the soul of immodesty, when it comes down to facts.
When the item you are displaying is something like jewelry, you are
proclaiming to the world how rich you are, or how tasteful you are.
When that item is your skin, you are proclaiming your availability;
your desirability as a bed partner. If that's the message you want to
send, fine...but I don't think that most LDS young people really want
to send quite that message out, do you?
Bryan
On Jan 19, 10:25 am, "Gerald Fuller" <gfuller1...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> Ah, yes. "... perform on stage in front of several hundred people". This
> earns substantial incomes for many people in the acting professions, and in
> a similar way in athletics. It draws attetnion to self, maybe saying "look
> at me and envy" (or worse)
I don't understand.... do you think that ALL stage performing is bad?
Do you think my wife and I are wrong to have our daughter participate
in dance, or our son in sports? Are church sponsored road-shows bad?
How about the Manti Pagent? How about school productions? Is it also
then wrong to attend theatrical productions? And movies?
Please explain this comment... I don't understand.
Bryan
Bruce in Alaska
"Gerald Fuller" <gfull...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> I spent about 15 months in Thailand in 1968-69. I knew several GIs who had
> live in Thai girl friends. These girls liked to look nice. Take "nice"
> literally. It sure is not my place to "judge" these young women.
wouldn't it be "Nice", if we all, as members of Christ's Church, could
LEARN, to not JUDGE others actions, intentions, or motives, and leave
the Judging, to Father and his Appointed Servents...... Hmmmmmm, what
a Novel Idea.... It is a shame, that some of our Leadership, seem
to have forgotten, this Holy Principal.......
Bruce in alaska
--
add a <2> before @
Bryan
On Jan 19, 7:28 pm, "Father of Peace" <srm2...@absalom.org> wrote:
> I didn't realize that bellybuttons and/or backs are immodest.
> Is that a commonly held belief among mormons?
Sadly, yes it is. I think some people who have commented here said it
well - it all depends on the context. If a girl were to wear tight
jeans and a short t-shirt that showed belly button and back, and if
she wore too much heavy make up, and if she walked with a swing in her
hips, I would find that immodest.
But I did not, in ANY way, find the dancers at the recital I mentioned
(in my original post which started this thread) even remotely
immodest.
> A few months ago I attended a similar dance recital in
> Mormonville, Utah. The costumes were astonishing to
> me: Essentially turtlenecks, and long sleeve shirts, and
> pants down to the ankles. The clothing was so inappropriate that it interfered with
> the dancers ability to dance
That is typical. It's also sad. Why are they so ashamed of or
embarrassed by the human body? Or on the other side of the coin, is
it really showing a lack respect for the sanctity of the human body to
show belly button and back during a dance recital? This is a classic
example of taking a good principle and then carrying to ridiculous
lengths. It's like saying "If one aspirin is good, then 10 must be
better."
> Modesty is an attitude not a costume.
Perfect. Agree 100%
> One day the LdS relief society dropped off a pamphlet
> at my home denouncing the sinfulness of not covering
> one's belly button.
Oh come on! That is not a true story. I refuse to believe the church
ever published such nonsense.
Bryan
Bryan
On Jan 19, 12:37 pm, David Bowie <db.n...@pmpkn.net> wrote:
> Well, it's worth pointing out that Mormons are nearly (though not
> entirely) alone among English-speakers in using the word "modesty" to
> refer to covering up skin--the meaning, as most people use it, deals
> with the relative simplicity or ostentatiousness of something.
>
> It rather annoys me, TBH--it's hard to cut through the clutter (both
> from Mormons giving IMO false readings of references to modesty in the
> scriptures, as well as all the advertising they're exposed to in daily
> life) to my own daughters and get them to realize that the most
> important thing, according to the scriptures, is not to be conspicuous
> consumers. If covering up skin occurs as a side effect of that, then
> cool--but it's actually not my primary worry.
Culture has soooo much to do with how we view the world, and all too
often we don't even realize it. The Mormon sub-culture is so powerful
that, as Mormons, we often have a very hard time separating what is
culture from what is Gospel truth.
I think you hit on one such example. And I agree 1,000%
Bryan
Bryan
On Jan 20, 10:42 am, joseph_daniel_zuki...@yahoo.com wrote:
> But it seems to me that showing too much skin can be classed three
> ways:
>
> (1) Trying too hard to show self-confidence (for instance,
> overcompensating with confidence in appearance as a substitute for
> confidence in self);
>
> (2) "Selling it", whether (as the body in prostitution) to everyone, or
> (as self to the boy/girlfriend or skills to the job interviewer) to
> someone in particular;
>
> (3) Setting priority on other things than the amount of skin revealed,
> such things as a hot, humic climate, reactions to fabrics, and
> activities (sports and such) for which ordinary clothing tends to be in
> the way.
Wow. Where did you come up with these? First of all, who is to
determine just what "too much skin" means? Would this not vary widely
based on the situation and on the culture of the location? What one
person views as too much skin may be normal dress. If most North
American woman went to Saudi Arabia and dressed as they do here, they
would be arrested in thrown in jail. If women went topless at most
U.S. beaches as they do in every beach in Europe, they would be given
a ticket for indecent exposure.
I guess I just don't see it as black and white as you do, and I don't
think it's possible to put three tidy little "reasons" on why someone
might show "too much skin".
Bryan
Gerald Fuller
"Paula" <mmmtob...@earthlink.ent> wrote in message
news:12rrtbf...@news.supernews.com...
> "Gerald Fuller" <gfull...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:12rga67...@news.supernews.com:
>
>> Does it arouse lust in males for a "chubby" girl to wear short "tops"
>> and "low rise" bottoms, when it mostly emphazes rolls of bat (flab) in
>> that area? My own assumption is that probably it does arouse lust in
>> some men, and disgust in others.
>
> Great, so fat people can wear whatever they want and still be "modest" or
> chaste or whatever because rolls of fat certainly negate any sexual
> interest that the skin covering it might engender.
I did not say that. I said it may well arouse lust in some men. Fat and flab
are cyclical aren't they so far as being considered "atractive" in either
gender?
> I think you could have
> discussed that concept a bit more helpfully and less offensively. And
> without seeming to approve of different dress codes depending on physical
> size.
What seems to be what I approve etc, "seems" to me to tell more about the
reader than me. I certainly don't approve of that which arouses disgust in
me. <G>
>
Bryan
On Jan 25, 11:44 am, "Andrew R" <a...@rossers.net> wrote:
> Why did He find clothing for Adam and Eve?
That's a GREAT question! I started a new thread to talk about just
this.
Bryan
Gerald Fuller
"David Bowie" <db....@pmpkn.net> wrote in message
news:12rs85c...@news.supernews.com...
> Paula wrote:
>> "Gerald Fuller" <gfull...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>> Does it arouse lust in males for a "chubby" girl to wear short "tops"
>>> and "low rise" bottoms, when it mostly emphazes rolls of bat (flab) in
>>> that area? My own assumption is that probably it does arouse lust in
>>> some men, and disgust in others.
>
>> Great, so fat people can wear whatever they want and still be "modest" or
>> chaste or whatever because rolls of fat certainly negate any sexual
>> interest that the skin covering it might engender. I think you could
>> have
>> discussed that concept a bit more helpfully and less offensively. And
>> without seeming to approve of different dress codes depending on physical
>> size.
>
> If Diana's point is accepted, (which as far as i can figure it is) that
> everything of this sort has to be based on the majority norms of the
> surrounding culture, though, then Gene's point would have to stand.
Actually I do not accept the idea that chastity is decided by majority rule,
if that is what you were saying. "Everything of this sort" would, I think
apply to whatever the conduct that got Sodom destroyed accepted as approved.
No, that probably was not just bare midriffs, but it apparently was accepted
by the culture of the time and place. For that matter, the idol worship of
the Children of Israel at various times should have been "OK" since it was
approved by the "culture" of the time.
But are we not called to "come out from among them and be ye separate"? (2
Cor 6:11-18 -- especially verse 17)
As for discussing something more helpfully and less offensively, there is
something about this whole discussion that seems offensive to me. But I had
thought that might be a weakness of my own. I also notice that I made a typo
when I mentioned "rolls of bat". Of course I meant fat. But perhaps there
are fat bats. <G>
Father of Peace
> > One day the LdS relief society dropped off a pamphlet
> > at my home denouncing the sinfulness of not covering
> > one's belly button.
> Oh come on! That is not a true story. I refuse to believe the church
> ever published such nonsense.
It was an unauthorized pamphlet put together by the
relief society in the ward (in Provo). It's the only time in
my life that I remember seriously contemplating picketing
an LdS church building.
Father of Peace
> direction. After all, it's certainly the case that exposing lots of skin
> can be used to entice others sexually--but that certainly doesn't mean
> that it's *always* done for that purpose, even though i've yet to see
> you allow that, in Western culture, it ever isn't.
For example: When I was living in Ohio I attended a picnic at
my son's school in August. Nearly every man, woman, and
child at the party was wearing shorts, a tank top, and sandals,
except for the mormons, who were all wearing long pants, and
shirtsleeves, and enclosed shoes...
Nobody at the party was dressed provocatively, even though
tons of skin was showing it wasn't showing to titillate sexual
lust, or to express rebellion. Comfortable clothes were worn by
the non-members because it was hot and they choose clothing
appropriate for the event and the environment.
David Bowie
> On Jan 29, 8:24 am, David Bowie <db.n...@pmpkn.net> wrote:
>> Well, this is the point i've been trying to make, yes? Clothing
>> revealing certain bits of skin is only an accident of the matter, and
>> Mormons' attempts to make the primary definition of "modesty" the one
>> that involves covering lots of skin aren't getting *anywhere* near the
>> root of the issue.
> I think that we are getting into generalities here, when we talk about
> 'Mormons' attempts to make the primary definition of 'modesty' the
> wond that involves covering lots of skin..' especially since,
> dictionaries notwithstanding, that's usually the first thing people
> think of when they talk about 'modest dress.'...
CFR. I have presented evidence otherwise in a previous thread a while
back (from the OED, primarily, but also referencing more current
sources); please present your competing evidence.
<snip repetition of an underlying assumption i disagree with>
David, who coined it
David Bowie
<snip>
>> I think you could have
>> discussed that concept a bit more helpfully and less offensively. And
>> without seeming to approve of different dress codes depending on physical
>> size.
> What seems to be what I approve etc, "seems" to me to tell more about the
> reader than me. I certainly don't approve of that which arouses disgust in
> me. <G>
<g> acknowledged, but it occurs to me that that's what this entire
thread (and the other related threads) all boil down to--people claiming
that what they're comfortable or uncomfortable with is based entirely
and 100% on gospel truth, So There!
David, ending with a stamp of his foot and a toss of his head
dianaiad
Father of Peace wrote:
<snip>.... When I was living in Ohio I attended a picnic at
> my son's school in August. Nearly every man, woman, and
> child at the party was wearing shorts, a tank top, and sandals,
> except for the mormons, who were all wearing long pants, and
> shirtsleeves, and enclosed shoes...
>
> Nobody at the party was dressed provocatively, even though
> tons of skin was showing it wasn't showing to titillate sexual
> lust, or to express rebellion. Comfortable clothes were worn by
> the non-members because it was hot and they choose clothing
> appropriate for the event and the environment.
I have never heard that tank tops, shorts and sandals were considered
'provocative wear' in any appropriate setting. That Mormons wouldn't
wear them in any gathering doesn't mean that they are intrinsically
immodest in and of themselves...but what Temple endowed LDS could wear
a tank top and shorts, anywhere?
The question, of course, is, in and among all those tank tops and
shorts, how many bared bellies and buttocks? Not too many, I would
imagine; pretty much everybody there was showing bare arms and bare
legs below mid-thigh; and everybody was covering pretty much the same
areas. In other words, they were sending the same signals.."we're
wearing this because it's standard attire in the heat," not 'look at
me, ain't I hot..."
Would you have prefered all those Temple going Mormons to wear tank
tops and shorts, with all that extra fabric underneath waving in the
breezes? I don't know about you, but to me that would be the epitome
of, well, perhaps not 'immodest,' exactly, but certainly it would have
a large dose of 'eww' about it.
dianaiad
David Bowie wrote:
> dianaiad wrote:
> > On Jan 29, 8:24 am, David Bowie <db.n...@pmpkn.net> wrote:
>
> >> Well, this is the point i've been trying to make, yes? Clothing
> >> revealing certain bits of skin is only an accident of the matter, and
> >> Mormons' attempts to make the primary definition of "modesty" the one
> >> that involves covering lots of skin aren't getting *anywhere* near the
> >> root of the issue.
>
> > I think that we are getting into generalities here, when we talk about
> > 'Mormons' attempts to make the primary definition of 'modesty' the
> > wond that involves covering lots of skin..' especially since,
> > dictionaries notwithstanding, that's usually the first thing people
> > think of when they talk about 'modest dress.'...
>
> CFR. I have presented evidence otherwise in a previous thread a while
> back (from the OED, primarily, but also referencing more current
> sources); please present your competing evidence.
>
> <snip repetition of an underlying assumption i disagree with>
Shall we then have battling OED definitions? (grin) OK, I'm game...
In the OED, when we look at the definitions of 'modesty' *as it
pertains to dress* (which is what is under discussion here) we find
this: b. Of a woman's dress: seemly, not ostentatious; sober in
colour and style, esp. so as to avoid revealing the figure of the
wearer. (Occas. also applied to men.)
All the other definitions of 'modesty' apply to decorum or style.
However, when we are speaking of the actual clothing we wear, we see:
'seemly, and not ostentatious,' and 'sober in colour and style," but
pay attention; the next word is ESPECIALLY. As in, "pay attention
here, the most important point is the last one.". that reads "esp. so
as to avoid revealing the figure of the wearer"
As I have said before in this thread, it seems quite possible for
something that covers you completely to be immodest; that is, to be
ostentatious or gaudy. However, it doesn't much matter how simple and
plain the fabric is, if it doesn't cover you, (and there is no good
reason of comfort or freedom of movement or purpose other than display
to be uncovered) then it is immodest.
But hey, I'm just in this for the argument. ;-)
Gerald Fuller
Snip
>> I think that we are getting into generalities here, when we talk about
>> 'Mormons' attempts to make the primary definition of 'modesty' the
>> wond that involves covering lots of skin..' especially since,
>> dictionaries notwithstanding, that's usually the first thing people
>> think of when they talk about 'modest dress.'...
>
> CFR. I have presented evidence otherwise in a previous thread a while
> back (from the OED, primarily, but also referencing more current
> sources); please present your competing evidence.
David, she said "dictionries notwithstanding". Shouldn't that tell you no
longer to rely on the OED or other dictionaries in the argument?
Rob Perkins
> Well, this is the point i've been trying to make, yes? Clothing
> revealing certain bits of skin is only an accident of the matter, and
> Mormons' attempts to make the primary definition of "modesty" the one
> that involves covering lots of skin aren't getting *anywhere* near the
> root of the issue.
You may be utterly correct that many (most?) Mormons appear to equate
modesty with clothing, thus missing larger issues.
But, leaving fetishes aside for the moment, it's still safe, in my
opinion, to at least *include* it as the most obvious facet of modest
behavior, as a beginning point in living modestly, with the goal being
to not provoke most people.
The rest of that is culturally determined, of course. But it seems to me
that it's possible to take a mean and mode measurement of the cultural
spectrum, pin "modest dress" to some point on that, and be able to
dictate it in at least 20 year cycles. Maybe even 40 year cycles.
And it seems to me as well that, in reading publications like "For the
Strength of Youth", that Church leaders don't pin "modest" to just dress
style; they include language, choice of entertainment, friends, the
whole lifestyle enchilada.
Rob, who likes a good enchilada
Gerald Fuller
> Gerald Fuller wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> I think you could have
>>> discussed that concept a bit more helpfully and less offensively. And
>>> without seeming to approve of different dress codes depending on
>>> physical
>>> size.
>
>> What seems to be what I approve etc, "seems" to me to tell more about the
>> reader than me. I certainly don't approve of that which arouses disgust
>> in
>> me. <G>
>
> <g> acknowledged, but it occurs to me that that's what this entire
> thread (and the other related threads) all boil down to--people claiming
> that what they're comfortable or uncomfortable with is based entirely
> and 100% on gospel truth, So There!
Well, "Edith Ann", the entire thread is based on what "seems to" people to
be gospel truth.
I have mentioned before I have a cousin (third in age among twelve of us
grandchildren of my paternal grandparents) who is a Conservative Baptist
minister who is now a retired hospital chaplain (He will be 76 in August of
this year) I heard him preach one sermon and that has been nearer 60 years
than 50 so I remember little of it, but his text was "There is a way that
seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death."
That text (which appears twice in the Book of Proverbs) has always given me
pause. How can we be sure that what we believe is "right"? Certainly not
just because it seems right to our natural faculties.
David Bowie
> David Bowie wrote:
>> dianaiad wrote:
>>> On Jan 29, 8:24 am, David Bowie <db.n...@pmpkn.net> wrote:
>>>> Well, this is the point i've been trying to make, yes? Clothing
>>>> revealing certain bits of skin is only an accident of the matter, and
>>>> Mormons' attempts to make the primary definition of "modesty" the one
>>>> that involves covering lots of skin aren't getting *anywhere* near the
>>>> root of the issue.
>>> I think that we are getting into generalities here, when we talk about
>>> 'Mormons' attempts to make the primary definition of 'modesty' the
>>> wond that involves covering lots of skin..' especially since,
>>> dictionaries notwithstanding, that's usually the first thing people
>>> think of when they talk about 'modest dress.'...
>> CFR. I have presented evidence otherwise in a previous thread a while
>> back (from the OED, primarily, but also referencing more current
>> sources); please present your competing evidence.
> Shall we then have battling OED definitions? (grin) OK, I'm game...
I'm always game...
> In the OED, when we look at the definitions of 'modesty' *as it
> pertains to dress* (which is what is under discussion here) we find
> this: b. Of a woman's dress: seemly, not ostentatious; sober in
> colour and style, esp. so as to avoid revealing the figure of the
> wearer. (Occas. also applied to men.)
> All the other definitions of 'modesty' apply to decorum or style.
> However, when we are speaking of the actual clothing we wear, we see:
> 'seemly, and not ostentatious,' and 'sober in colour and style," but
> pay attention; the next word is ESPECIALLY. As in, "pay attention
> here, the most important point is the last one.". that reads "esp. so
> as to avoid revealing the figure of the wearer"
Focusing on the adjectival sense, i see, and completely ignoring the
nominal "modesty", which is less friendly to your POV. Fine.
However, the earliest citation that the OED gives that has *anything* to
do with covering the shape of the wearer is from 1920, well after the
Book of Mormon was translated. Admittedly, the 1858 citation is
ambiguous in this regard, but the 1801 and 1700 citations contrast
modesty with directly with gaudiness, and the 1630 citation contrasts
modesty with with colorful clothing. (The 1611 citation doesn't give any
clue one way or the other, but given what follows it it seems unlikely
that it relates to covering the shape of the wearer.) Incidentally, the
1993 citation is somewhat ambiguous, but seems to connect modest
clothing with a lack of colors, not exposure of lots of skin.
I've had a discussion with a few lexicographers on this one, and they
generally agree that the OED's "esp[eccially]" on this one would better,
given the evidence out there, be "occ[asionally]".
> As I have said before in this thread, it seems quite possible for
> something that covers you completely to be immodest; that is, to be
> ostentatious or gaudy. However, it doesn't much matter how simple and
> plain the fabric is, if it doesn't cover you, (and there is no good
> reason of comfort or freedom of movement or purpose other than display
> to be uncovered) then it is immodest.
So where we take issue with each other may be on how in the world we can
tell whether there is "no good reason of comfort or freedom of movement
or purpose other than display to be uncovered". I argue that there are
lots of reasons that are good reasons, you argue that there are few.
> But hey, I'm just in this for the argument. ;-)
Is that not the nature of USENET?
David, a citizen of a world gone mad
David Bowie
> David Bowie wrote:
>> Well, this is the point i've been trying to make, yes? Clothing
>> revealing certain bits of skin is only an accident of the matter, and
>> Mormons' attempts to make the primary definition of "modesty" the one
>> that involves covering lots of skin aren't getting *anywhere* near the
>> root of the issue.
> You may be utterly correct that many (most?) Mormons appear to equate
> modesty with clothing, thus missing larger issues.
> But, leaving fetishes aside for the moment, it's still safe, in my
> opinion, to at least *include* it as the most obvious facet of modest
> behavior, as a beginning point in living modestly, with the goal being
> to not provoke most people.
See, i disagree vehemently. I see the core of modesty as being internal,
not external--the external may well reflect the internal, but, after
all, it may not.
<snip>
> And it seems to me as well that, in reading publications like "For the
> Strength of Youth", that Church leaders don't pin "modest" to just dress
> style; they include language, choice of entertainment, friends, the
> whole lifestyle enchilada.
But, by focusing on lifestyle, they're simply reinforcing the checklist
Mormonism thing, which IMO does a disservice to the whole issue.
Of course, if i'm right that for the past several decades the Mormon
church has been moving (IMO problematically) from being primarily
worried about orthodoxy to being primarily worried about orthopraxis,
then it only makes sense that we'd focus so much on the outward.
<pause>
I think that you may have triggered the core of my problem with Mormon
discussions of modesty, Rob--thanks. I have no desire to run around
naked or nearly so, after all--but focusing on such behavior to the
exclusion of mental states (or, IMO worse, focusing on such behavior as
prima facie evidence of mental states) strikes me as ver, very deeply wrong.
David, noting that Donald Trump is by Mormon definitions modest
Gerald Fuller
"Bryan" <caseycr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:12rthlm...@news.supernews.com...
You said someone was performing on stage in front of several hundred people.
Well such performances do indeed earn substantial incomes for many people in
the acting professions. It also earns substantial incomes for many others
who may not be acting, such as evangelists, even politicians. Something
similar earns substantial incomes for professional athletes. Now some of
these may be truly drawing attention to themselves and in a sense selling
themselves, their beauty, their skills, their talents, or whatever for
money. I leave it to you to determine what you think about that.
Unfortunately in this telestial world we all seem to sell part of ourselves
for money. So which one of us can say what is done by which others of us is
really good or bad? And why should we? We are each responsible for our own
acts.
I said that people doing this are not only saying "look at me" but also "and
envy (or worse)". I should not have said that. I cannot know the motives
that they had. But I am sure that many times it is that. Certainly they are
drawing attention to self. Is that always bad? I cannot say. Probably not,
but I am not sure.
Now I have already answered that I cannot say all stage performance (or
movies or athletics for money, or evangelistic efforts, or ---) are bad.
Fortunately I do not have to. There is one Who knows the hearts of men, who
can do that very well. (Say what is bad and what is not) I have no
stewardship over you, your wife or your children.
the rest of your post is just becoming more specific. Each of us must decide
for ourselves what our Father is telling us.
Gene
mormon...@yahoo.com
>
> I have mentioned before I have a cousin (third in age among twelve of us
> grandchildren of my paternal grandparents) who is a Conservative Baptist
> minister who is now a retired hospital chaplain (He will be 76 in August of
> this year) I heard him preach one sermon and that has been nearer 60 years
> than 50 so I remember little of it, but his text was "There is a way that
> seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death."
>
> That text (which appears twice in the Book of Proverbs) has always given me
> pause. How can we be sure that what we believe is "right"? Certainly not
> just because it seems right to our natural faculties.
Well said, Gerald.
David, while I might agree with many of the things you have said, I do
not agree at all with the sarcastic, argumentative tone in which it
has been said. Things like "So There!" and ending with a stamp of the
foot do nothing whatsoever to win people over to your point of view,
as we can't get past the immature attitude in which you are saying
it. You would me much better served to offer your views with polite,
logical, emotionless statements.
My entire purpose in starting this thread was to challenge the belief
that many Mormons seem to hold that modesty is defined solely by the
clothing we wear (or don't wear). I have been pleased and surprised by
the overall response.... over on www.ldschat.com I presented the same
post and got lambasted by conservative LDS'ers for being so radical.
It seems this group is a bit more open minded.
:-)
Bryan
Gerald Fuller
>
>
> On Jan 20, 10:42 am, joseph_daniel_zuki...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> But it seems to me that showing too much skin can be classed three
>> ways:
>>
>> (1) Trying too hard to show self-confidence (for instance,
>> overcompensating with confidence in appearance as a substitute for
>> confidence in self);
>>
>> (2) "Selling it", whether (as the body in prostitution) to everyone, or
>> (as self to the boy/girlfriend or skills to the job interviewer) to
>> someone in particular;
>>
>> (3) Setting priority on other things than the amount of skin revealed,
>> such things as a hot, humic climate, reactions to fabrics, and
>> activities (sports and such) for which ordinary clothing tends to be in
>> the way.
>
> Wow. Where did you come up with these? First of all, who is to
> determine just what "too much skin" means?
Snip remainder of Jo Dan's post.
I think he was trying to define precisely how people seem to him to
determine what "too much skin" means. I read this to mean that at least some
people think too much skin is being shown if they read it as the person
trying to hard to show self-confidence by overcompensating with confidence
in appearance for confidence in self, abilities etc. If this assessment is
correct, then probably the person is "showing too much skin" for the
situation (Situational ethics anyone?)
I think he was also saying that if the person seems to be trying to "sell"
something, no matter what, by showing off skin or form or whatever, that
this is inappropriate and therefore "too much skin"
And finally I think he was saying that it is not likely to be thought by too
many people to be "too much skin" if some circumstance such as a hot, humid
climate, reactions to fabric, or sports activities which are best performed
as near as possible unclothed, (certain kinds of running swimming etc) do
not represent "too much skin".
I still think there is as great a relationship between wearing "formal
clothing" for a wedding, for example, and modesty, as there is between
wearing a one piece or a bikini bathing suit and modesty. But the same does
not hold with regard to "chaste" conduct. So for me it is a lack of
precision in definition of what "modest" means.
Speaking of "modest means". That used to mean that you might have
"sufficient for our needs" as to money, but none left over to waste. That
would seem to rule out wearing "fine raiment" etc. I have not bought any
neckties for some time. I have some old ones, and some newer ones our son
has given me. The ones he has given me more or less scare me! They are
pretty, but they are purely non-utilitarian and cost more than the shirts I
wear, and more than a suit of clothes used to cost. Of course I truly do
understand that we have been in a period of inflation for many years. The
supply of money is way out of control. But that is another subject.
Maybe we could spin of a topic, "What is the relationship between modesty
and conspicuous spending?"
Rob Perkins
On 2/1/07 10:52 AM, in article 12s4dmk...@news.supernews.com, "David
Bowie" <db....@pmpkn.net> wrote:
> Rob Perkins wrote:
>> David Bowie wrote:
>
>>> Well, this is the point i've been trying to make, yes? Clothing
>>> revealing certain bits of skin is only an accident of the matter, and
>>> Mormons' attempts to make the primary definition of "modesty" the one
>>> that involves covering lots of skin aren't getting *anywhere* near the
>>> root of the issue.
>
>> You may be utterly correct that many (most?) Mormons appear to equate
>> modesty with clothing, thus missing larger issues.
>
>> But, leaving fetishes aside for the moment, it's still safe, in my
>> opinion, to at least *include* it as the most obvious facet of modest
>> behavior, as a beginning point in living modestly, with the goal being
>> to not provoke most people.
>
> See, i disagree vehemently. I see the core of modesty as being internal,
> not external--the external may well reflect the internal, but, after
> all, it may not.
Now I'm confused. If someone is dressed modestly according to society norms,
you won't be able to tell what the motivating core is.
And a reading of "For the Strength of Youth" does not at *all* telegraph a
focus on orthopraxy to me. It seems to be more of a very pragmatic document.
So I'll also make the claim that pragmatism != orthopraxy, and that
orthodoxy is not incompatible with pragmatism.
>> And it seems to me as well that, in reading publications like "For the
>> Strength of Youth", that Church leaders don't pin "modest" to just dress
>> style; they include language, choice of entertainment, friends, the
>> whole lifestyle enchilada.
>
> But, by focusing on lifestyle, they're simply reinforcing the checklist
> Mormonism thing, which IMO does a disservice to the whole issue.
It will reinforce where people already have a checklist, for example, in the
mind of one of my daughters, who is desperate lately to pin everything down
to something she can do easily. She feels safer that way.
For those who don't have the checklist any longer, such as most of the
people I work with inside the Temple, it won't reinforce that at all.
> David, noting that Donald Trump is by Mormon definitions modest
No, he's not. If he were, he'd be living in a modest home fit for his own
needs, married to his first non-trophy wife, and not chasing gadfly fame on
NBC. Among many, many other things.
Rob, recognizing the peril of tagline commentating
Gerald Fuller
> Rob Perkins wrote:
>> David Bowie wrote:
Snip
>> But, leaving fetishes aside for the moment, it's still safe, in my
>> opinion, to at least *include* it as the most obvious facet of modest
>> behavior, as a beginning point in living modestly, with the goal being
>> to not provoke most people.
>
> See, i disagree vehemently. I see the core of modesty as being internal,
> not external--the external may well reflect the internal, but, after
> all, it may not.
I agree with David, of course. In fact I think that what is recorded in
Matthew 23 as being said by Jesus emphasizes the importance of inernal
matters over external show.
Snip
> I think that you may have triggered the core of my problem with Mormon
> discussions of modesty, Rob--thanks. I have no desire to run around
> naked or nearly so, after all--but focusing on such behavior to the
> exclusion of mental states (or, IMO worse, focusing on such behavior as
> prima facie evidence of mental states) strikes me as ver, very deeply
> wrong.
Yes, indeed!
> David, noting that Donald Trump is by Mormon definitions modest
Big guffaw, and approving nod! (As long as we say "Some Mormon definitions"
Gerald Fuller
<mormon...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:12s4nnt...@news.supernews.com...
>> > Gerald Fuller wrote:
Snip
>> That text (which appears twice in the Book of Proverbs) has always given
>> me
>> pause. How can we be sure that what we believe is "right"? Certainly not
>> just because it seems right to our natural faculties.
>
> Well said, Gerald.
Thank you, Bryan.
> David, while I might agree with many of the things you have said, I do
> not agree at all with the sarcastic, argumentative tone in which it
> has been said. Things like "So There!" and ending with a stamp of the
> foot do nothing whatsoever to win people over to your point of view,
> as we can't get past the immature attitude in which you are saying
> it. You would me much better served to offer your views with polite,
> logical, emotionless statements.
Are you old enough to remember the old Rowan and Maring "Laugh In"? I think
it was that show that I first knew of Lily Tomlin and her character, "Edith
Ann", as I recall, a little snotty girl. She frequently ended whatever she
said with "So there!" and made a Moue' (If I know what one of those is") It
struck me that David was not being immature at all, but showing a sense of
humor and realizing he might be taking an unpopular stand.
> My entire purpose in starting this thread was to challenge the belief
> that many Mormons seem to hold that modesty is defined solely by the
> clothing we wear (or don't wear).
And I am sure that David is as bothered by that seeming position as you are.
> I have been pleased and surprised by
> the overall response.... over on www.ldschat.com I presented the same
> post and got lambasted by conservative LDS'ers for being so radical.
> It seems this group is a bit more open minded.
Oh, I think we are an open minded group. Our minds are so open that almost
anything can get into them without problems and many things can fall out
almost as easily! {8-(>
Gene
David Bowie
> <mormon...@yahoo.com> wrote...
<snip>
>> David, while I might agree with many of the things you have said, I do
>> not agree at all with the sarcastic, argumentative tone in which it
>> has been said. Things like "So There!" and ending with a stamp of the
>> foot do nothing whatsoever to win people over to your point of view,
>> as we can't get past the immature attitude in which you are saying
>> it. You would me much better served to offer your views with polite,
>> logical, emotionless statements.
> Are you old enough to remember the old Rowan and Maring "Laugh In"? I think
> it was that show that I first knew of Lily Tomlin and her character, "Edith
> Ann", as I recall, a little snotty girl. She frequently ended whatever she
> said with "So there!" and made a Moue' (If I know what one of those is") It
> struck me that David was not being immature at all, but showing a sense of
> humor and realizing he might be taking an unpopular stand.
True, Gene, all true--but if someone can't completely miss the point of
a joke on USENET, well, can we say there's *anywhere* that someone can
safely completely miss the point of a joke anymore?
<snip>
David, who enjoyed Laugh-In in syndication
Gerald Fuller
Snip
>> Are you old enough to remember the old Rowan and Maring "Laugh In"? I
>> think
>> it was that show that I first knew of Lily Tomlin and her character,
>> "Edith
>> Ann", as I recall, a little snotty girl. She frequently ended whatever
>> she
>> said with "So there!" and made a Moue' (If I know what one of those is")
>> It
>> struck me that David was not being immature at all, but showing a sense
>> of
>> humor and realizing he might be taking an unpopular stand.
I believe I mis-spelled "Martin" and my spell checker thought I meant
Maring. At least that is my excuse. I am sure that Laugh In was Rowan and
Martin. Enogh totally serious stuff here.
> True, Gene, all true--but if someone can't completely miss the point of
> a joke on USENET, well, can we say there's *anywhere* that someone can
> safely completely miss the point of a joke anymore?
Fully knowing this question is off the wall, but asking anyway you aren't
serious are you? Of course USENET is not safe for such activity. So it is
true, sadly, that there is now no place on earth, nay in the entire universe
or any of the multiverses with which I pretend to be aware, in which it is
safe for anyone, even the most "comedically challenged" to miss the point of
a joke completely.
Gene (Keeping an utterly straight face--- well, except for a slight scowl at
the apparent light-heartedness in evidence among some on this news group.)
David Bowie
>>> You may be utterly correct that many (most?) Mormons appear to equate
>>> modesty with clothing, thus missing larger issues.
>>> But, leaving fetishes aside for the moment, it's still safe, in my
>>> opinion, to at least *include* it as the most obvious facet of modest
>>> behavior, as a beginning point in living modestly, with the goal being
>>> to not provoke most people.
>> See, i disagree vehemently. I see the core of modesty as being internal,
>> not external--the external may well reflect the internal, but, after
>> all, it may not.
> Now I'm confused. If someone is dressed modestly according to society norms,
> you won't be able to tell what the motivating core is.
True--but the reverse is true, as well. That is, if someone is dressed
in a way that shows more skin that is normally accepted by society's
norms, you *also* can't tell what their motivating core is.
That's precisely what i said, too--i said that the external may reflect
the internal, but it might not. So i guess that i'm confused at your
confusion.
> And a reading of "For the Strength of Youth" does not at *all* telegraph a
> focus on orthopraxy to me. It seems to be more of a very pragmatic document.
> So I'll also make the claim that pragmatism != orthopraxy, and that
> orthodoxy is not incompatible with pragmatism.
Never claimed either of those, myself.
I also think that FTSOY is a poor basis to use for this discussion, at
least when you're looking at the part of things that i'm looking at. I'm
interested in Mormon culture--more or less, the church in the
"embodiment of the church" sense. Yes, i quite agree with what i expect
you're thinking, which is that the church is more than its members, but
the way real life happens in the church is filtered through the members'
(and, in our church, that include our church leaders') cultural
expectations. That's why i don't ever make the claim that we have all
truth right now, 'cause we can't, we can only be vectoring toward
it--but that's a larger discussion better suited for another time.
Even if we consider FTSOY as a reasonably normative document, though,
just start by taking a look at the list of topics it covers--mostly
related toward outward expressions. Yeah, these are hopefully
reflections of inward attitudes, but when you're faced with something
like "[t]he way you dress is a reflection of what you are on the
inside", it seems to be claiming that outward expressions are
*definitely* a reflection of the inner self--IOW, orthopraxy.
(In fact, the entire "Dress and appearance" section is a bunch of tips
on orthopraxy, with a couple sentences focusing on internal
attitudes--that is, on internal attitudes themselves, not as evidenced
by outward appearances--thrown in for leavening.)
>>> And it seems to me as well that, in reading publications like "For the
>>> Strength of Youth", that Church leaders don't pin "modest" to just dress
>>> style; they include language, choice of entertainment, friends, the
>>> whole lifestyle enchilada.
>> But, by focusing on lifestyle, they're simply reinforcing the checklist
>> Mormonism thing, which IMO does a disservice to the whole issue.
> It will reinforce where people already have a checklist, for example, in the
> mind of one of my daughters, who is desperate lately to pin everything down
> to something she can do easily. She feels safer that way.
> For those who don't have the checklist any longer, such as most of the
> people I work with inside the Temple, it won't reinforce that at all.
So does FTSOY say to get body piercings or not? If one avoids body
piercings, no matter their internal spiritual state, have they fulfilled
the checklist in FTSOY or not?
FWIW, i've known some intensely righteous people with body piercings,
and i've known some amazingly wicked people who didn't have body
piercings (at least as far as i checked:).
>> David, noting that Donald Trump is by Mormon definitions modest
> No, he's not. If he were, he'd be living in a modest home fit for his own
> needs, married to his first non-trophy wife, and not chasing gadfly fame on
> NBC. Among many, many other things.
> Rob, recognizing the peril of tagline commentating
Yes, it is a peril, since i limit my taglines to one line (and i came
pretty close to the limit with this one). Basically, i was pointing out
that Donald Trump dresses very modestly, given normative Mormon
definitions of the term.
Do i think that Mr. Trump is a modest individual? No. In fact, i don't
know that i'd say that he dresses modestly (though it's that i can't
decide on that one, not saying he dresses immodestly). But he certainly
does keep skin covered up in public, you know.
David, listening to Shel Silverstein
Rob Perkins
> interested in Mormon culture--more or less, the church in the
> "embodiment of the church" sense. Yes, i quite agree with what i expect
> you're thinking, which is that the church is more than its members, but
> the way real life happens in the church is filtered through the members'
> (and, in our church, that include our church leaders') cultural
> expectations. That's why i don't ever make the claim that we have all
> truth right now, 'cause we can't, we can only be vectoring toward
> it--but that's a larger discussion better suited for another time.
I actually made that claim to a friend of mine yesterday, so I think I know
what you mean.
> Even if we consider FTSOY as a reasonably normative document, though,
> just start by taking a look at the list of topics it covers--mostly
> related toward outward expressions. Yeah, these are hopefully
> reflections of inward attitudes, but when you're faced with something
> like "[t]he way you dress is a reflection of what you are on the
> inside", it seems to be claiming that outward expressions are
> *definitely* a reflection of the inner self--IOW, orthopraxy.
I'm reminded here a bit of Alma 32, with the basis of the idea there being
that if one wants to see if a less unfaithful lifestyle carries any benefit,
one tries to live it for a while, all the while measuring its consequences.
That is, orthopraxy leads to orthodox thinking, and from there to something
more closely approaching what I'd call a "relaxed faithfulness", where there
is a faithful person conforming to Mormon cultural norms for different
reasons than just checklist obedience.
In that relaxed state, a newly called Temple worker would, for example,
simply do as asked and be clean shaven, knowing that the reason for that has
more to do with being a good host toward the average Temple patron than
being knee-jerk obedient to Priesthood authority, and that primarily because
the Priesthood authority in question explained it that way.
> (In fact, the entire "Dress and appearance" section is a bunch of tips
> on orthopraxy, with a couple sentences focusing on internal
> attitudes--that is, on internal attitudes themselves, not as evidenced
> by outward appearances--thrown in for leavening.)
Not leavening. Rather, I'd say it's simply easier to express a basic thought
in two sentences than it is to cover the wildly creative interpretations
possible from children asking refining questions. As a Primary teacher of
the nine year olds, I know that questioning can get interesting.
> So does FTSOY say to get body piercings or not? If one avoids body
> piercings, no matter their internal spiritual state, have they fulfilled
> the checklist in FTSOY or not?
Leaving aside the possibility of composition or distraction fallacy, here...
> FWIW, i've known some intensely righteous people with body piercings,
> and i've known some amazingly wicked people who didn't have body
> piercings (at least as far as i checked:).
Not to put too fine a point on it, but when I actually had the
counterculture meaning of a tongue piercing explained to me, I understood
exactly why Church leaders frown on it.
Further, when Pres. Hinckley explains body piercings and why not to do them,
he lumps them in with tatoos: don't do optional things with the body which
cannot be easily reversed in later, more mature years.
But yes, I know those people, too. I also know that they're remarkably small
in number in the active Church.
> Yes, it is a peril, since i limit my taglines to one line (and i came
> pretty close to the limit with this one). Basically, i was pointing out
> that Donald Trump dresses very modestly, given normative Mormon
> definitions of the term.
He does not, primarily because I still disagree that the normative Mormon
definition of "modest" encompasses only dress, even if modest dress is still
a definitive cultural signal. Trump's suits are universally ostentatious and
expensive, getting back to the wider definition of modesty, rather than just
the naïve teenage definition.
Finally, I have to ask: Is there really that much invalidity in maxims which
express the idea that dress and grooming communicate things about people's
preferences?
Rob, who may have lost his place in the counterargument...
Gerald Fuller
> Rob Perkins wrote:
>> "David Bowie" <db....@pmpkn.net> wrote:
>>> Rob Perkins wrote:
>
>>>> You may be utterly correct that many (most?) Mormons appear to equate
>>>> modesty with clothing, thus missing larger issues.
>>>> But, leaving fetishes aside for the moment, it's still safe, in my
>>>> opinion, to at least *include* it as the most obvious facet of modest
>>>> behavior, as a beginning point in living modestly, with the goal being
>>>> to not provoke most people.
>
>>> See, i disagree vehemently. I see the core of modesty as being internal,
>>> not external--the external may well reflect the internal, but, after
>>> all, it may not.
>
>> Now I'm confused. If someone is dressed modestly according to society
>> norms,
>> you won't be able to tell what the motivating core is.
If someone goes out and buys, using credit, an expensive outfit and wears it
to impress somone, and that outfit is covering all appropriate parts of the
body, I suppose society's norms, if such there are, would say that person is
dressing modestly. I claim that is not modest at all. A $50 suit of clothes
may not be modest if the person is struggling for food and shelter.
Snip
> Yes, it is a peril, since i limit my taglines to one line (and i came
> pretty close to the limit with this one). Basically, i was pointing out
> that Donald Trump dresses very modestly, given normative Mormon
> definitions of the term.
He may not even spend thousands of dollars for a suit, as I think needs to
be included in modesty. <G> I noticed a picture of Steve Jobs addressing
some group about Apple's agreement with Apple Corps to allow Apple Computer
to be Apple, and he was wearing what appeared to be blue jeans. How modest
of him!
> Do i think that Mr. Trump is a modest individual? No. In fact, i don't
> know that i'd say that he dresses modestly (though it's that i can't
> decide on that one, not saying he dresses immodestly). But he certainly
> does keep skin covered up in public, you know.
Is anyone else as happy as I am that I am not called to judge the standards
of modesty exhibited by others? Is anyone else as happy as I am that they
are not called to agree with even the definition of the word "modesty" as it
is used by others?
Gerald Fuller
"Rob Perkins" <rper...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:12smskd...@news.supernews.com...
Snip
> In that relaxed state, a newly called Temple worker would, for example,
> simply do as asked and be clean shaven, knowing that the reason for that
> has
> more to do with being a good host toward the average Temple patron than
> being knee-jerk obedient to Priesthood authority, and that primarily
> because
> the Priesthood authority in question explained it that way.
I am no that all sure that I am a better host to a temple patron who has a
beard, and maybe a pony tail, just by having a clean shaven face. I am not
sure that I care much about being a better host to a temple patron that is
hung up on being clean shaven and short haired.
I served as a Veil Worker for a year or more, it seems, while I was still a
coundselor in our bishopric and my wife was an ordinance worker. I had a
mustach which I had worn for more than 30 years. After I was release from my
bishopric alling and called as an Ordinance Worker, a few weeks passed, then
a member of the Temple Presidency called me aside and apologeticaly told me
that he had not noticed my mustache before, including when he set me apart,
but he was going to have to ask me to shave it unless I had a skin
condition or something to allow me to have it. He asked how I felt about it.
I told him I did not like it. He asked that I pray about it. I shaved it
that night when I got home. I know another man who showed me a picture of
himself with a full beard, while I was a Veil Worker. I asked him why he had
shaved it, since it looked good and he had worn it for several years. His
answer was simple. "I wanted to be a Temple Ordinance Worker". A coupld of
years ago my health was poor and I was released as an Ordinance Worker. My
mustache came back immediately and stayed off until this past fall. At that
time I was better and was invited again to visit with the Temple Presidency.
I did so, wearing my mustache. One of the last things said before they set
me apart again was something like "We will want you to be clean shaven". My
reply was "I still don't like that much, but I was expecting it."
I go home teaching in jeans. The people I home teach expect that of me. They
would think I was putting on airs if I wore my suit. It is not any
disrespect for them, not do they consider it to be. In a way I suppose I
would feel "ostentations" as opposed to modest, if I were to wear my suit
(Yes, I own only one that I can wear, not countin my white Temple Suit) to
go home teaching. And if there were to be something to carry or to clean or
whatever, which I am not in physical condition any more to do extensively, I
would not have to go home and change or fear damaging my suit.
Why can't we just all relax? Why do we have to put on a show?
Oh yes. We have a man who is a shift coordinator in our Temple who wears a
full beard. He keeps is pretty close trimmed, but it is certainly
noticiable. No one complains that I know of. He is said to have a skin
condition. I could have lied. I don't think he has lied. Were our early
Church Presidents irreverent or not hospitable to those who visited the
Themples?
If that is the rule, that is the rule. I comply with it or don't get to do
something I find important for me to do. So let's not try to dream up
reasons.
> the naīve teenage definition.
Paul in Carson City
One other very good reason for this is that, if everyone actually
adheres to this policy, then when we get to the Celestial Kingdom it
will be easy to recognise the Savior - He'll be the One with the
beard.
Paul [Who would like to see certain priesthood leaders learn to
"lighten up" and allow members to use the Spirit to arrive at their
own conclusions regarding things that shouldn't have to be legislated
- does the term "Pharisee" come to mind?]
Paul in Carson City
> the Priesthood authority in question explained it that way.
How does that comport with Brigham Young's declaration that "... those
men, or those women, who know no more about the power of God, and the
influences of the Holy Spirit, than to be led entirely by another
person, suspending their own understanding, and pinning their faith
upon another's sleeve, will never be capable of entering into the
celestial glory to be crowned as they anticipate;"
Paul [who honors his priesthood leaders by seeking spiritual
confirmation of what they say]
Paul in Carson City
> > naked or nearly so, after all--but focusing on such behavior to the
> > exclusion of mental states (or, IMO worse, focusing on such behavior as
> > prima facie evidence of mental states)
"Judge not, that ye be not judged" - What a concept! Too bad so many
of our good LDS members are incapable of putting it into practice.
Paul [who tries not to be judgemental, but realises that every
interaction with another person includes an element of judgement]
Bruce in Alaska
"Gerald Fuller" <gfull...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Is anyone else as happy as I am that I am not called to judge the standards
> of modesty exhibited by others? Is anyone else as happy as I am that they
> are not called to agree with even the definition of the word "modesty" as it
> is used by others?
Isn't it "interesting" that "No One", not even those Called to be
"Judges in Isreal" in the Church, are called to "Judge" others
"Modesty". They are called to "Judge" members ACTIONS, but not
their "Modesty". That is left, between the Person and His God.
Maybe we could all, get behind the adage, and leave the LORD GOD
to worry about such things........
Bruce in alaska
--
add a <2> before @
Gerald Fuller
"Paul in Carson City" <ccbi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:12sp8m9...@news.supernews.com...
Snip
> "Judge not, that ye be not judged" - What a concept! Too bad so many
> of our good LDS members are incapable of putting it into practice.
>
> Paul [who tries not to be judgemental, but realises that every
> interaction with another person includes an element of judgement]
Paul for me judgment included a bit of condemnation or approval of others.
Not every appraisal of conduct necessarily includes these, in my opinion.
Gerald Fuller
"Bruce in Alaska" <bru...@btpost.net> wrote in message
news:12sq0hg...@news.supernews.com...
Yep. I guess those who are judges in Israel are called to make an appraisal
of the standards of modesty (so called) exhibited by others. See, that is
not judging their real modesty, or lewdness or lasciviousness or wantonness,
but what appears to be exhibited of such.
Gene
Helen
<mormon...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:12r0kkr...@news.supernews.com...
> Recently our seven year old daughter performed in her end-of-the season
> dance recital. All year she had worked hard in an after school class
> and this recital was a chance for us, and all of the other parents, to
> witness the fruits of our children's labor.
>
> It was a splendid and inspiring recital which I enjoyed immensely.
> Dancers of all ages performed, some so young they barely knew how to
> walk, some in their late teens, and every age in-between. For our
> daughter, it was her first chance to perform on stage in front of
> several hundred people.
>
> On the drive home we were all abuzz with excitement. Amidst the
> energized comments and observations, however, a female member of our
> group (extended family member) remarked how uncomfortable she had felt
> during a few of the performances. Some of the older, teenage dancers,
> almost all of whom were female, wore costumes which included tight
> black pants and tops which showed bellybuttons and much of the their
> backs. She wondered out loud about how "inappropriate and immodest"
> some of the costumes had been, and questioned why the dance school
> would ask their girls to wear them.
>
>
It is kind of difficult to dance freely and with out building up much of a
sweat if one is dressed in a head to toe "modest" apparel. What of
competitive divers? Swimmer? Athletes? There are times when one has to wear
clothing that allows you to perform your sport (or perfrom) without being
weighed down with layers of clothing just b/c it is "a bit immodest"
hlil...@juno.com
Bruce in Alaska wrote:
> is used by others?
>
> Isn't it "interesting" that "No One", not even those Called to be
> "Judges in Isreal" in the Church, are called to "Judge" others
> "Modesty". They are called to "Judge" members ACTIONS, but not
> their "Modesty". That is left, between the Person and His God.
> Maybe we could all, get behind the adage, and leave the LORD GOD
> to worry about such things........
I have to think that D&C 58:26 applies to this thread: For behold, it
is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is
compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise
servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward
Maybe instead of hair-splitting and trying to define exactly how far
we can go, we ought to look beyond the commandment and try to be true
disciples of the Lord in modesty as well as in other areas of our
lives. The question, "What would Jesus do?" comes to mind.
Gerald Fuller
>> simply do as asked and be clean shaven ... primarily because
>> the Priesthood authority in question explained it that way.
Well, I cannot say my "Priesthood authority" really explained to me any
reason that I could reasonably accept to shave my mustache, or even the
beard I word for about 5 years some 25 years ago. It was simply that it
seemed more important to follow the leading of the Lord and take the
opportunity to be a Temple Ordinance Worker than to put about not being able
to have a lttle facial hair.
> How does that comport with Brigham Young's declaration that "... those
> men, or those women, who know no more about the power of God, and the
> influences of the Holy Spirit, than to be led entirely by another
> person, suspending their own understanding, and pinning their faith
> upon another's sleeve, will never be capable of entering into the
> celestial glory to be crowned as they anticipate;"
In my own situation I see no conflict. I evaluate what I am told, if I find
a need I ask Father about it, and I do what the leadeship tells me if I want
to benefit from what they can withhold from me for lack of compliance _AND_
if I have no strong sense that compliance would be wrong. I don't drink
coffee and tea, even iced, since someone has declared them to be "hot
drinks". I do not personally believe that. But it is not worth a fight.
There are other situations very much the same.
As foir the facial hair thing, it is more like uniform grooming to me.
Remember I was in the USAF for 20 years, so I undestand that it is much
easier to be sure that people are "presentable" if we don't have to decide
on hair length, or size of beard, etc, on an indiviudal basis. To do so
would probably, even among Temple Worthy Latter-day Saints, lead to petty
jealousies and complaints about favoritism.
I believe in that great council in the pre-mortal existence, we realized
that we were giving up some personal freedom in coming to earth, but we were
going to gain infinitely more in the long run if we were true and faithful.
I still believe that.
Rob Perkins
> beard, and maybe a pony tail, just by having a clean shaven face. I am not
> sure that I care much about being a better host to a temple patron that is
> hung up on being clean shaven and short haired.
Now, don't be unfair, Gene. The fact that one does not care very much about
whether or not a Temple worker has a beard is part of relaxed faithfulness,
in my opinion. One permits the Lord to judge the heart of others.
But, the Temple isn't really *for* people who have completely overcome their
prejudices, now, is it?
> Why can't we just all relax? Why do we have to put on a show?
Part of it, I think, is to specifically obviate certain prejudices,
preventing them from being a distraction for Temple patrons. Not everyone's
faithfulness is that relaxed.
> Oh yes. We have a man who is a shift coordinator in our Temple who wears a
> full beard. He keeps is pretty close trimmed, but it is certainly
> noticiable. No one complains that I know of. He is said to have a skin
> condition. I could have lied. I don't think he has lied. Were our early
> Church Presidents irreverent or not hospitable to those who visited the
> Themples?
Come to think of it, I could probably plead "skin condition" and keep my
place at the Temple, but for now at my young age a bit of cortisone once a
week isn't going to harm me.
> If that is the rule, that is the rule. I comply with it or don't get to do
> something I find important for me to do. So let's not try to dream up
> reasons.
The answer was communicated to me by a Temple President, who attributed it
to one of the Twelve: "In this generation, clean shavenness is seen as a
symbol of respect to others." Implicit in that was a desire to show respect
to beard-haters in the Church.
I didn't dream it up. It's certainly true, based on anecdotes present in my
extended family's attitude towards it while I was growing up. And on the
unusual compliments I received from Greatest-Generation-aged ward members,
after removing the beard.
I imagine the formal suit jacket is a similar symbol, losing its specific
meaning because most people your age have not taught it to any people my
age.
Rob
Rob Perkins
Carson City" <ccbi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> simply do as asked and be clean shaven ... primarily because
>> the Priesthood authority in question explained it that way.
>
> How does that comport with Brigham Young's declaration that "... those
> men, or those women, who know no more about the power of God, and the
> influences of the Holy Spirit, than to be led entirely by another
> person, suspending their own understanding, and pinning their faith
> upon another's sleeve, will never be capable of entering into the
> celestial glory to be crowned as they anticipate;"
It doesn't intersect or comport at all.
Rob
Gerald Fuller
>> I am no that all sure that I am a better host to a temple patron who has
>> a
>> beard, and maybe a pony tail, just by having a clean shaven face. I am
>> not
>> sure that I care much about being a better host to a temple patron that
>> is
>> hung up on being clean shaven and short haired.
>
> Now, don't be unfair, Gene. The fact that one does not care very much
> about
> whether or not a Temple worker has a beard is part of relaxed
> faithfulness,
> in my opinion. One permits the Lord to judge the heart of others.
>
> But, the Temple isn't really *for* people who have completely overcome
> their
> prejudices, now, is it?
I hope not. Else I don't belong there. But I thought I was talking about not
being too anxious to be a better host to someone who was prejudiced against
facial hair. Wasn't I?
>> Why can't we just all relax? Why do we have to put on a show?
>
> Part of it, I think, is to specifically obviate certain prejudices,
> preventing them from being a distraction for Temple patrons. Not
> everyone's
> faithfulness is that relaxed.
Yes. But does that work in practice? I am pretty sure that I remember
receiving my own endowment while weaing a full beard and fairly long hair.
Wass I a dsitraction to those who had prejudices? I have never worn a shaved
head, but we have at least one very fine man who is an Ordinance Worker in
our local temple (about 130 miles away) who has a shaved head. What has this
to do with anything? I cannot wear facial hair? Women with naturally dark
hair are welcomed with bleached hair. Or dyed dark hair much beyond the
natural shade. Here we are bowing to "popular standards" I think, since
women can wear liptick and nail polish and other make up. Am I jealous? I
think not since I don't want to wear these things, but do I see some cause
for claiming an inconsistency? You bet.
Snip
> Come to think of it, I could probably plead "skin condition" and keep my
> place at the Temple, but for now at my young age a bit of cortisone once a
> week isn't going to harm me.
Are you sure? Would you be using that medication if you did not want to be
an Ordinance Worker?
Snip
> The answer was communicated to me by a Temple President, who attributed it
> to one of the Twelve: "In this generation, clean shavenness is seen as a
> symbol of respect to others." Implicit in that was a desire to show
> respect
> to beard-haters in the Church.
I have heard that as well. Unfortunately it shows disrespect for those who
wear beards and the like. Maybe it indicates that even some members of the
Twelve may at times bow to the "precepts of men" and teach them as doctrine.
> I didn't dream it up. It's certainly true, based on anecdotes present in
> my
> extended family's attitude towards it while I was growing up. And on the
> unusual compliments I received from Greatest-Generation-aged ward members,
> after removing the beard.
Which proves --- well, I would say basically nothing except that many people
seem to approve some aspects of semi current fashion.
> I imagine the formal suit jacket is a similar symbol, losing its specific
> meaning because most people your age have not taught it to any people my
> age.
Assuming that a "formal suit jacket" in your wording means the jacket of
what I was always taught was a "business suit", and what is usually part of
"Sunday Best" in many people's mind, what was I supposed to understand that
my generating failed to pass on?
My Father was part of what I think may have been called "The Greatest
Generation". He was born in December of 1907. He was a laborer and factory
worker for his lifetime. He was never what I have been taught to think of as
a "skilled laborer". I have a memory that every time he interviewed for a
new job, he wore his Sunday Suit to the interview. Usually it was his only
suit. But when he went to buy a suit he bought what he called a "business
suit"
In the Air Force I owned a Service Uniform that was every bit as formal as
my civilian business suit and finally, since it was my understanding that
they were occasionally required on Strategic Air Command basis I also owned
a "Formal Dress Uniform" Sort of like a trained monkey. <G>
None of these clothing outfits and none of my hair styles dealt at all with
modesty. Did they?
Does bleaching brown hair to blond deal with modesty? Perhaps. If it is done
to draw attention to self. How about the black nail polish and black
lipstick etc. that goes with some current "cultural" fads? Modest? Immodest?
Neutral?
Helen
> dianaiad wrote:
>> mormon...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
.
> snip<<
>
> What i find really fascinating in a lot of the comments on this thread
> is an unstated but huge assumption that people who wear relatively
> little in the way of clothing are *necessarily* doing it to be enticing.
> How in the world can one make that claim? I mean, even leaving aside
> non-Western societies, has anyone thought that a man might go shirtless,
> or a woman might wear low-rider jeans, for no other reason than that
> they find it more physically comfortable to do so (or something equally
> innocuous)?
>
Exactly, some clothes are worn b/c they are simply comfortable...or b/c the
weather is insanely warm.
A female or male gymnast can not perform their amazing skills if they are
covered in head to toe modest attire? Should they Jeopardize their sport
for the sake of modesty? I don't think so..same with any athlete or
dancer,the "revealing" clothes may not be worn to "entice" but simply b/c
they allow freedom to be flexible and comofortable.. Not to flaunt, but to
perform .....
>
> David, defending people whose practices differ from his own
Helen
"Paula" <mmmtob...@earthlink.ent> wrote in message
news:12rrtbf...@news.supernews.com...
> "Gerald Fuller" <gfull...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:12rga67...@news.supernews.com:
>
>> Does it arouse lust in males for a "chubby" girl to wear short "tops"
>> and "low rise" bottoms, when it mostly emphazes rolls of bat (flab) in
>> that area? My own assumption is that probably it does arouse lust in
>> some men, and disgust in others.
>
> Great, so fat people can wear whatever they want and still be "modest" or
> chaste or whatever because rolls of fat certainly negate any sexual
> interest that the skin covering it might engender. I think you could have
> discussed that concept a bit more helpfully and less offensively. And
> without seeming to approve of different dress codes depending on physical
> size.
>
> Paula
>
LOL,well, it did come across that way didn't it? But he has a point in one
sense, why do "fat" girls dress like their slimmer peers? It makes me sad to
see a very large teen age girl baring her midriff b/c she does not look
good and it is not dignified. Neither is it dignified for really skinny
girls to wear such attire b/c the sight of bony hips and ribs poking out
makes me quite repulsed.But is seems to work on the cat walk.( I guess
designers need walking coat hangers, after all, a courtier gown hang better
without interference of breast and buttock, hence the penchant for freakily
thin models)
I don't really mind how a person dresses....well, I do have an intense
dislike for frills and bows on grown women...
I think it is ironic, there was a time in my youth and young adult years
when I had a preference for the Gothic look, dark hair, black or purple
clothes and a pale face with very dark eye make up and a nose piercing.
Some members were critical, the Bishop asked me if I thought what I was
wearing was becoming of an LDS woman. I looked him in the eye and said "And
what of your 16 year old daughter's minis skirts?" That made him reconsider
his comment....
Clothing is a way we express our selves,. In the case of dancing, gymnastics
and sport, the clothing has to be a tad scantier than some would like b/c it
is practical...they can not be trussed up to appease the easily offended..
. A woman or a man who wears very revealing clothes while at a social
gathering or down the street possibly is very conceited or maybe they feel
that their shapely bodies, pleasing to they eye, are all they have to offer.
They lack self esteem and think that the physical appearance is what will
make them more likable?.
It is also cultural? Remember the days when women would bind their waists in
uncomfortable corsets to make their hour glass figure more striking? ( and
practically crushed their organs in the process the poor dears) Was that
immodest? (Stupid? Hell yes!) But Not really immodest.., times have
changed...fashion changes and so do our notions of what is acceptable and
what is not.I for one am so glad that we have moved away from the long,
stifling bathers worn in the 1920's, rendering one almost powerless to
swim...
It is okay to show that you have a nice figure, it is the way you behave
and interact that really can be interpreted as modesty or lack there of....
joseph_dan...@yahoo.com
> It is kind of difficult to dance freely and with out building up much of a
You got something against sweat?
Is sweating in public against somebody's definition of modesty?
;-)
joudanzuki, who would, if it were so, find it impossible to modest in
the nude
joseph_dan...@yahoo.com
Rob Perkins のメッセージ:
> [...]
> But, the Temple isn't really *for* people who have completely overcome their
> prejudices, now, is it?
Is it not for them, or is it not _just_ for them?
> [...]
> Come to think of it, I could probably plead "skin condition" and keep my
> place at the Temple, but for now at my young age a bit of cortisone once a
> week isn't going to harm me.
> [...]
Cortizone is not necessarily something to play with, even at a "young"
age. I'd suggest you keep an eye on it.
(I myself have some skin issues which have been complicated by a bad
decision to conform to social norms about beards several years back. I
will note that my intent in conformance at the time did not have
anything to do with the Church, however.)
joudanzuki
hlil...@juno.com
Helen wrote:
> Exactly, some clothes are worn b/c they are simply comfortable...or b/c the
> weather is insanely warm.
Actually it appears to me that more clothes are *not* worn because the
weather is insanely warm instead of being worn. :-)
Seriously, many people actually would be cooler in hot weather if they
wore more clothing, assuming it is the right clothing. Loose-fitting
cotton, especially in light colors, can reflect the sun and provide a
chimney effect that encourages air circulation and evaporative
cooling.
That may seem counterintuitive but I've found from experience that it
is true. In fact, look at the loose robes (often white) the Arabs
wear. Perfectly suited to their climate.
OBLDS: The long sleeves, long pants or dresses, and wide brimmed hats
the early saints wore did more than provide modesty, they reflected
the sun and in many cases probably actually helped keep them cooler
while working in the hot sun. Of course how effective that is depends
on the type and color of clothing and the weather conditions.
Helen
"Andrew R" <a...@rossers.net> wrote in message
news:12rhr40...@news.supernews.com...
>
> "Father of Peace" <srm...@absalom.org> wrote in message
> news:12rhisv...@news.supernews.com...
>
> : No matter how hard I try, I just can't envision a God that
> : cares one way or another about how someone dresses.
>
>
>snip<<
>
> Why did He find clothing for Adam and Eve?
Didn't they find them?
>
> Andrew R.
>
>
Rob Perkins
> being too anxious to be a better host to someone who was prejudiced against
> facial hair. Wasn't I?
You were. And my counterargument is that one should, if one is a Temple
worker, be anxious to be the best sort of host to whomever crosses the
recommend desk, on the logic that the Lord has already vetted him for
worthiness.
> Yes. But does that work in practice? I am pretty sure that I remember
> receiving my own endowment while weaing a full beard and fairly long hair.
> Wass I a dsitraction to those who had prejudices?
You would have stood out anyway, with the blue nametag on you reading "Own
Endowment". And, the standard of quiet whispering and deferent respect for
others in the Temple would have kept other patrons from becoming a
distraction to you. In other words, a Temple patron is not held to the same
standard as a Temple ordinance worker.
I imagine a clumsy comparison would be that a civilian is not held to the
same grooming standard as a police officer.
> do I see some cause
> for claiming an inconsistency? You bet.
I could offer counterarguments, but in the spirit of relaxed faithfulness
I'd much rather just make sure your recommend is in order and let you alone
with those thoughts.
>> Come to think of it, I could probably plead "skin condition" and keep my
>> place at the Temple, but for now at my young age a bit of cortisone once a
>> week isn't going to harm me.
>
> Are you sure? Would you be using that medication if you did not want to be
> an Ordinance Worker?
Without getting into too much personal info, yes, I would. And it's much
easier to apply on a shorn face than otherwise.
> I have heard that as well. Unfortunately it shows disrespect for those who
> wear beards and the like. Maybe it indicates that even some members of the
> Twelve may at times bow to the "precepts of men" and teach them as doctrine.
I don't choose to regard the Twelve in quite that sort of light. Every
single encounter I've had with those men has left me with a very good
opinion of them.
>> I imagine the formal suit jacket is a similar symbol, losing its specific
>> meaning because most people your age have not taught it to any people my
>> age.
>
> Assuming that a "formal suit jacket" in your wording means the jacket of
> what I was always taught was a "business suit", and what is usually part of
> "Sunday Best" in many people's mind, what was I supposed to understand that
> my generating failed to pass on?
The tradition of wearing a suit jacket came from British hegemony, I think,
worn by what eventually became white-collar professionals and clergymen, and
signifying their office and authority to act as skilled professionals,
rather than laborers.
> [...]None of these clothing outfits and none of my hair styles dealt at all
with
> modesty. Did they?
No idea. I made the comment about clean-shaven Temple workers in a context
of trying to describe relaxed faithfulness, not in the context of modesty.
The point I'm trying to make is that someone in such a state of faithfulness
isn't going to put much stock in another's style of dress, but will be
equally relaxed about his own, taking advice from inspired leadership about
how to arrange his outward appearance.
After all, what counts is in the heart.
Rob, confident it's only a matter of time before beards are allowed again
Gerald Fuller
"Paul in Carson City" <ccbi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:12sp8k1...@news.supernews.com...
>> simply do as asked and be clean shaven
>
> One other very good reason for this is that, if everyone actually
> adheres to this policy, then when we get to the Celestial Kingdom it
> will be easy to recognise the Savior - He'll be the One with the
> beard.
ROFLOL!!
Gerald Fuller
>> I hope not. Else I don't belong there. But I thought I was talking about
>> not
>> being too anxious to be a better host to someone who was prejudiced
>> against
>> facial hair. Wasn't I?
>
> You were. And my counterargument is that one should, if one is a Temple
> worker, be anxious to be the best sort of host to whomever crosses the
> recommend desk, on the logic that the Lord has already vetted him for
> worthiness.
I agree with that. But as I undestood (probablyindorrectly) what you had
said, I was responding to an idea that it was more important to be a good
host to those with clean shaven faces than to those whith mustaches, beards,
long hair, etc. I am not _TOO ANXIOUS_ to be a _BETTER HOST_ to someone
prejudiced against facial hair than I am to someone who has facial hair.
Probably we agree and are just emphasizing different aspects.
Snip
> You would have stood out anyway, with the blue nametag on you reading "Own
> Endowment". And, the standard of quiet whispering and deferent respect for
> others in the Temple would have kept other patrons from becoming a
> distraction to you. In other words, a Temple patron is not held to the
> same
> standard as a Temple ordinance worker.
Is there a valid reason for this? I agree to a certain degree. Neither is a
person who is a candidate for baptism held to the same standard as one who
is being made an Apostle. But is it a matter of kind or of degree?
> I imagine a clumsy comparison would be that a civilian is not held to the
> same grooming standard as a police officer.
Yes, I agree that this is clumsy. I also make comparisons of that type
sometimes when I use the regimentation such as it was that I experienced
during my 20 years in the US Air Force, with the "bureaucracy" for want of a
better word, that I sometimes detect in the Church. But
>> do I see some cause for claiming an inconsistency? You bet.
> I could offer counterarguments, but in the spirit of relaxed faithfulness
> I'd much rather just make sure your recommend is in order and let you
> alone
> with those thoughts.
Good. <G>
>>> Come to think of it, I could probably plead "skin condition" and keep my
>>> place at the Temple, but for now at my young age a bit of cortisone once
>>> a
>>> week isn't going to harm me.
>>
>> Are you sure? Would you be using that medication if you did not want to
>> be
>> an Ordinance Worker?
>
> Without getting into too much personal info, yes, I would. And it's much
> easier to apply on a shorn face than otherwise.
I thought you had meant that if you were not an Ordinance worker you would
have the beard and not need the Cortisone.
>> I have heard that as well. Unfortunately it shows disrespect for those
>> who
>> wear beards and the like. Maybe it indicates that even some members of
>> the
>> Twelve may at times bow to the "precepts of men" and teach them as
>> doctrine.
>
> I don't choose to regard the Twelve in quite that sort of light. Every
> single encounter I've had with those men has left me with a very good
> opinion of them.
I have never had a personal encounter with a member of the Tweve. I do have
trememdous respect for them but they are men, not some other form of life.
As far as I know, none have been percected as yet. They appear to be still
susceptible to receiving more light and truth.
Snip
> The tradition of wearing a suit jacket came from British hegemony, I
> think,
> worn by what eventually became white-collar professionals and clergymen,
> and
> signifying their office and authority to act as skilled professionals,
> rather than laborers.
Perhaps. Is that how we got it in the colonies as well? So Temple Ordinance
Workers wear a jacket when on duty to show that they are not quite in the
same class as mere patrons?
>> [...]None of these clothing outfits and none of my hair styles dealt at
>> all
> with
>> modesty. Did they?
>
> No idea. I made the comment about clean-shaven Temple workers in a context
> of trying to describe relaxed faithfulness, not in the context of modesty.
Well, I accept that. But notice that I wrote the original post in this
thread with a point of comparing or rather questioning the point any
comparison between modesty and clothing (which is not really the same as
grooming, but very related, I think)
> The point I'm trying to make is that someone in such a state of
> faithfulness
> isn't going to put much stock in another's style of dress, but will be
> equally relaxed about his own, taking advice from inspired leadership
> about
> how to arrange his outward appearance.
So you are saying that he is not going to be terribly impressed by grooming
that appeals to those with clean shaven faces? If so, we agree.
> After all, what counts is in the heart.
>
> Rob, confident it's only a matter of time before beards are allowed again
And so am I. So that is what is disturbing to me. A particular fashion,
which will change eventually, is being enforced to a degree, as if it were
unchanging principle. I take it you so not see it that way.
Rob Perkins
>
> I agree with that. But as I undestood (probablyindorrectly) what you had
> said, I was responding to an idea that it was more important to be a good
> host to those with clean shaven faces than to those whith mustaches, beards,
> long hair, etc.
No no, quite the opposite. It is possible to be a better host to someone if
a superficiality which triggers prejudice is not present. In a milieu where
such people are helping others to attain higher levels of tolerance and
faithfulness, that kind of thing is, in my opinion, desirable.
It's also patently less American, on average to embrace that sort of idea,
since the American ideal is very much to expect others to show respect no
matter how one presents himself.
> Probably we agree and are just emphasizing different aspects.
Yup.
> Is there a valid reason for this? I agree to a certain degree. Neither is a
> person who is a candidate for baptism held to the same standard as one who
> is being made an Apostle. But is it a matter of kind or of degree?
I don't know.
> I thought you had meant that if you were not an Ordinance worker you would
> have the beard and not need the Cortisone.
No. I had a prescription strength tube of medicine to treat a skin condition
before my call to the Temple. That tube is gone; now I make occasional use
of over-the-counter strength stuff now with much less frequency.
And yes (For JoDanZuki) I'm well aware of the pitfalls of that class of
medicine.
> Perhaps. Is that how we got it in the colonies as well? So Temple Ordinance
> Workers wear a jacket when on duty to show that they are not quite in the
> same class as mere patrons?
Without putting too fine a point on it, yes. One is set apart for the Temple
calling, and there is a suit of clothes and a standard of dress and grooming
with that calling.
>> The point I'm trying to make is that someone in such a state of
>> faithfulness
>> isn't going to put much stock in another's style of dress, but will be
>> equally relaxed about his own, taking advice from inspired leadership
>> about
>> how to arrange his outward appearance.
>
> So you are saying that he is not going to be terribly impressed by grooming
> that appeals to those with clean shaven faces? If so, we agree.
I'm saying a specific kind of grooming won't matter much to that person, so
he's willing to take instruction on it from Priesthood authority. In other
words he will have invested no personal identity in a beard.
> And so am I. So that is what is disturbing to me. A particular fashion,
> which will change eventually, is being enforced to a degree, as if it were
> unchanging principle. I take it you so not see it that way.
I can remember a time when the standard was not enforced. Therefore it's
obviously not an unchanging principle.
Rob
Paul in Carson City
> > Why did He find clothing for Adam and Eve?
The answer is simple. He loved them, and in sending them out into the
'lone and dreary world' provided them with protection from the
elements. They were the only humans on earth. They were husband and
wife. There was no reason they should not see each other's
nakedness. Even using the "Molly Mormon" and "Peter Priesthood"
standard of "Only husbands and wives should see each other naked."
there was no modesty-related reason they should be covered. It was
all about protection from the elements.
Note that in Genesis, and in latter-day scriptures, there is no
mention whatsoever of shame in connection with A&E's nakedness, even
after the fall. In contrast, we are told they were NOT ashamed. It
was Satan who introduced shame into the world, and more particularly
into the Garden, and into the hearts of our first parents. Since
then, his success at introducing shame into the hearts of men [and
women] has been much greater. Shame now is the principal instrument
of the pornographer, in enticing people to partake of his wares in
what has become a multi-billion dollar industry. Shame is the
principal means whereby sexual predators obtain and maintain control
over their victims, and keep them from reporting the abuse. Shame of
the human body is an affront to the Creator, and one of the greatest
victories we could hand to the Adversary. Respect and reverence for
the body, God's greatest creation, need to be restored into our lives,
and Satan's counterfeit, shame, needs to be abolished.
Paul [who respects, loves, and under appropriate circumstances,
admires God's finest creation]
Paul in Carson City
> covered in head to toe modest attire? Should they Jeopardize their sport
> for the sake of modesty? I don't think so..same with any athlete or
> dancer,the "revealing" clothes may not be worn to "entice" but simply b/c
> they allow freedom to be flexible and comofortable.. Not to flaunt, but to
> perform .....
It's more than that. Dance and gymnastics are a celebration of the
human body, God's finest creation. How could we celebrate something
by covering it up? We celebrate God's hand in its creation by seeing
it and appreciating it.
Paul [who wonders how those can expect to see His face, who never have
seen His hand]
Paul in Carson City
> joudanzuki, who would, if it were so, find it impossible to modest in
> the nude
Does this mean that Adam & Eve, when they were "naked and not ashamed"
were immodest? I believe they were totally modest, and that modesty
is a lot more about behavior than it is about how much or what
portions of God's work we choose to hide from each other. Remember,
it was Satan [who, we are told in scripture, will never command us to
do a righteous thing] that told them to cover up and hide.
Paul [who is striving to be like Jesus, and who sincerely believes
that Jesus could view Adam and Eve - and anyone else - in their
nakedness without entertaining any impure thoughts whatsoever]