Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Modesty standards


Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

In terms of stated Church counsel or instruction on the subject of modesty, is the Mormon lady pictured in this Deseret News article considered to be attired modestly or not?

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865691212/Lindsey-Stirling-steps-out-of-her-comfort-zone-and-opts-for-a-classic-foxtrot-on-Dancing-With-The.html

 

Inevitable that this would come up. Celebrities, performers, and athletes are exempt.

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment
5 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't think we should characterize Person A as being "responsible for" the "thoughts" of Person B.

If Person A intentionally provokes Person B into improper conduct, the Person B is responsible for that improper conduct, and Person A is culpable for incitement to that improper conduct.

As for inciting "thoughts," I'm rather reluctant to parse out responsibility/blame for such things.  Thoughts precipitate deeds, and we should be mindful of that.  So a person who engages in speech or conduct (intentionally or recklessly) that could reasonably be construed as "provocative," then I think that person bears some culpability for that conduct.

I think we need to acknowledge that we can be held accountable for the influence we have on other people.  Consider the various scriptures we have on this concept (emphases added):

  • "Now the sons of Mosiah were numbered among the unbelievers; and also one of the sons of Alma was numbered among them, he being called Alma, after his father; nevertheless, he became a very wicked and an idolatrous man. And he was a man of many words, and did speak much flattery to the people; therefore he led many of the people to do after the manner of his iniquities." (Alma 27:8)
  • "And now the Spirit of the Lord doth say unto me: Command thy children to do good, lest they lead away the hearts of many people to destruction; therefore I command you, my son, in the fear of God, that ye refrain from your iniquities."  (Alma 39:12)
  • "And it is those who have sought to take away the judgment-seat from me that have been the cause of this great iniquity; for they have used great flattery, and they have led away the hearts of many people..." (Alma 61:4)
  • "And there was also a cause of much sorrow among the Lamanites; for behold, they had many children who did grow up and began to wax strong in years, that they became for themselves, and were led away by some who were Zoramites, by their lyings and their flattering words, to join those Gadianton robbers."  (3 Nephi 1:29)
  • "Behold, ye have done greater iniquities than the Lamanites, our brethren. Ye have broken the hearts of your tender wives, and lost the confidence of your children, because of your bad examples before them; and the sobbings of their hearts ascend up to God against you." (Jacob 2:35)

So it seems that we will be held accountable if we adversely influence our fellow man.  I think this is particularly so when that influence is intentional.  When we provoke or incite others.  However, there also seems to be some measure of accountability for our negative influence on others that arises from negligence or recklessness.  Consider, for example, Alma's words to his son, Corianton, in Alma 39:

This is interesting.  Alma allocates "blame" to Corianton for the negative (though probably more reckless/negligent than intentional) effect his personal behavior had on other people ("Behold, O my son, how great iniquity ye brought upon the Zoramites...").  Did Corianton intend to adversely affect the Zoramites?  Probably not.  But was he blamed, to some extent, for the unintended influence he had on them?  Well . . . yes.  Yes he was.  

That said, the analogy starts to break down a bit when we are talking about clothing.  But without getting into hairsplitting about what is "too revealing" and what is not, about what is "provocative" and what is not, I think the general sentiment should be that modesty in dress and grooming and behavior are good and healthy standards to be aspired to by Latter-day Saints, and that one of the positive aspects of such measures is that we are less likely to adversely influence others.

I am reminded of Alma 12:14:

If we, through our words or actions, entice or induce or provoke others into improper behavior (and, to some extent, thoughts), then it seems like we may be held accountable to some extend for that.  Even if the enticement/inducement/provocation was not fully intentional (see Corianton's effect on the Zoramites).  

Thanks,

-Smac

P.S. In the interests of living up to our aspirations, I formally apologize for my harsh/intemperate/brusque remarks over the past few days.  I apologize without reservation or equivocation.  I will work to do better.

I have been thinking about your position on this Smac.  And I understand your point of view.  But as I read through page after page of women on this board that have sexually harassed, it really gives me pause.  I am guessing that these women on this board are not the ones wearing thongs, and skirts up to the middle of their thighs and plunging necklines with push up bras.  I am guessing that the majority of them dress in modest attire that is in keeping with church standards.  Yet so many of them have multiple stories of being sexually harassed to different degrees.  Maybe it is just me, but I can see how THESE women would be offended by your remarks.  Just something to consider.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, california boy said:

I have been thinking about your position on this Smac.  And I understand your point of view.  But as I read through page after page of women on this board that have sexually harassed, it really gives me pause.  I am guessing that these women on this board are not the ones wearing thongs, and skirts up to the middle of their thighs and plunging necklines with push up bras.  

I agree.  I have said nothing accusatory about the women on this board.

3 hours ago, california boy said:

I am guessing that the majority of them dress in modest attire that is in keeping with church standards.  

That is my guess, too.

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Yet so many of them have multiple stories of being sexually harassed to different degrees.  

Which harassment I condemn as disgusting and abhorrent.  Nothing I have said rationalizes or excuses or justifies sexual harassment.  

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Maybe it is just me, but I can see how THESE women would be offended by your remarks.  Just something to consider.

I have said nothing against them, nor have I attempted to rationalize or excuse harassing behavior.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Inevitable that this would come up. Celebrities, performers, and athletes are exempt.

I understand that in terms of what our opinion on the matter might be.

But I was asking where that celebrity’s attire stood in comparison with stated Church counsel. Has the Church stated that Celebrities are exempt?

Link to comment
9 hours ago, Yirgacheffe said:

I would like to see a study that shows just how covered up a woman must be before men don't objectify her. 

Oh, I think that'll be hard. Humanity has always found away to express themselves sexually. Think of the rather "modest" Victorian attire. Generally the ladies were very covered (with some exceptions) but we have the corset to accentuate the hip to waist ratio (a rather sexual cue).

Communicating one's physical and/or sexual health through dress and attire isn't, in of itself, a bad thing. Quite the contrary. The Church, for example, has long asked our courting ready youth and almost courting ready youth to dress nicely, to groom appropriately, etc. This, in part, to help our youth towards finding a mate. But, I believe, when those choices are designed to overly emphasize and put too much emphasis on things that is "immodest" (this criteria is rather subjective, situational, and culturally relevant). We want our youth to find partners that are much more than much more than just physically/sexually healthy. Our clothing communication should also express other desirable traits (reverence towards God, fun, responsible are just some examples). And our adults should model, maintain, and exemplify those modest traits for our youth (though modesty in adults is for more than just that).

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said:

I understand that in terms of what our opinion on the matter might be.

But I was asking where that celebrity’s attire stood in comparison with stated Church counsel. Has the Church stated that Celebrities are exempt?

It’s  a defecto exemption....although I’m being somewhat facetious, it appears that modesty standards are situational. Context seems to be a factor.

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment
7 hours ago, Calm said:

Or maybe we all can follow the same standards for what amounts to athletic clothing.

What standard would that be?

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

It’s  a defecto exemption....although I’m being somewhat facetious, it appears that modesty standards are situational. Context matters.

Isn’t the context that individuals should be looking for ways to ensure they wear the Church defined standard of ‘modest’ clothing, rather than finding excuses not to?

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Isn’t the context that individuals should be looking for ways to ensure they wear the Church defined standard of ‘modest’ clothing, rather than finding excuses not to?

Compare BYU women and men sports uniforms. Men’s uniforms are more modest. Same situation, same context, different standards. There is no practical reason for the disparity, so perhaps it’s aesthetic. 

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment
11 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't think we should characterize Person A as being "responsible for" the "thoughts" of Person B.

If Person A intentionally provokes Person B into improper conduct, the Person B is responsible for that improper conduct, and Person A is culpable for incitement to that improper conduct.

As for inciting "thoughts," I'm rather reluctant to parse out responsibility/blame for such things.  Thoughts precipitate deeds, and we should be mindful of that.  So a person who engages in speech or conduct (intentionally or recklessly) that could reasonably be construed as "provocative," then I think that person bears some culpability for that conduct.

I think we need to acknowledge that we can be held accountable for the influence we have on other people.  Consider the various scriptures we have on this concept (emphases added):

  • "Now the sons of Mosiah were numbered among the unbelievers; and also one of the sons of Alma was numbered among them, he being called Alma, after his father; nevertheless, he became a very wicked and an idolatrous man. And he was a man of many words, and did speak much flattery to the people; therefore he led many of the people to do after the manner of his iniquities." (Alma 27:8)
  • "And now the Spirit of the Lord doth say unto me: Command thy children to do good, lest they lead away the hearts of many people to destruction; therefore I command you, my son, in the fear of God, that ye refrain from your iniquities."  (Alma 39:12)
  • "And it is those who have sought to take away the judgment-seat from me that have been the cause of this great iniquity; for they have used great flattery, and they have led away the hearts of many people..." (Alma 61:4)
  • "And there was also a cause of much sorrow among the Lamanites; for behold, they had many children who did grow up and began to wax strong in years, that they became for themselves, and were led away by some who were Zoramites, by their lyings and their flattering words, to join those Gadianton robbers."  (3 Nephi 1:29)
  • "Behold, ye have done greater iniquities than the Lamanites, our brethren. Ye have broken the hearts of your tender wives, and lost the confidence of your children, because of your bad examples before them; and the sobbings of their hearts ascend up to God against you." (Jacob 2:35)

So it seems that we will be held accountable if we adversely influence our fellow man.  I think this is particularly so when that influence is intentional.  When we provoke or incite others.  However, there also seems to be some measure of accountability for our negative influence on others that arises from negligence or recklessness.  Consider, for example, Alma's words to his son, Corianton, in Alma 39:

This is interesting.  Alma allocates "blame" to Corianton for the negative (though probably more reckless/negligent than intentional) effect his personal behavior had on other people ("Behold, O my son, how great iniquity ye brought upon the Zoramites...").  Did Corianton intend to adversely affect the Zoramites?  Probably not.  But was he blamed, to some extent, for the unintended influence he had on them?  Well . . . yes.  Yes he was.  

That said, the analogy starts to break down a bit when we are talking about clothing.  But without getting into hairsplitting about what is "too revealing" and what is not, about what is "provocative" and what is not, I think the general sentiment should be that modesty in dress and grooming and behavior are good and healthy standards to be aspired to by Latter-day Saints, and that one of the positive aspects of such measures is that we are less likely to adversely influence others.

I am reminded of Alma 12:14:

If we, through our words or actions, entice or induce or provoke others into improper behavior (and, to some extent, thoughts), then it seems like we may be held accountable to some extend for that.  Even if the enticement/inducement/provocation was not fully intentional (see Corianton's effect on the Zoramites).  

Thanks,

-Smac

P.S. In the interests of living up to our aspirations, I formally apologize for my harsh/intemperate/brusque remarks over the past few days.  I apologize without reservation or equivocation.  I will work to do better.

Ok.  So it sounds like you are saying (and please correct me if i'm wrong), that a woman is never responsible for the immoral thoughts of another no matter what she's wearing or what her intentions are.  A woman is only responsible for intentionally inciting someone to act immorally.

If I'm understanding you correctly, doesn't that mean that the clothes a woman chooses to wear is beside the issue because clothing cannot incite actions.  The person wearing the clothing can, but the clothing itself does not have the ability to cause someone else to sin.

Link to comment
19 hours ago, bluebell said:

Ok.  So it sounds like you are saying (and please correct me if i'm wrong), that a woman is never responsible for the immoral thoughts of another

I think Person A may influence Person B's thoughts (I'd prefer to keep this gender-neutral).  That influence may be intentional (Korihor) or inadvertent (Corianton).  Person B is responsible for his/her own thoughts.  That said, Person A may also bear some culpability (see, e.g., Korihor and Corianton).

Quote

no matter what she's wearing or what her intentions are.  

I don't follow.  If Person A is intending to provoke Person B to anger, and if Person A succeeds at that, then Person A appears to have some culpability for that provocation (Person B remains responsible for his/her own thoughts).  So clearly our intentions matter.  

I'm not particularly interested in parsing out what a person should or should not wear, or what is "inappropriately revealing" and what is not, or in allocating percentages of fault between Persons A and B.  Again, the general sentiment should be that modesty in dress and grooming and behavior are good and healthy standards to be aspired to by Latter-day Saints, and that one of the positive aspects of such measures is that we are less likely to adversely influence others.

Quote

A woman is only responsible for intentionally inciting someone to act immorally.

person can bear some responsibility for intentionally or negligently or recklessly inciting another person to act inappropriately/wrongfully, yes.

A person can, I think, also bear some responsibility for intentionally or negligently or recklessly inciting another person into thoughts of anger.  Or hatred.  Or lust.  Or infidelity.  And so on.

Korihor apparently did not coerce or threaten anyone.  All he did was . . . talk.  And in talking, he influenced others.  He provoked immoral thoughts in others, which in turn precipitated immoral actions.

Korihor was labeled an Anti-Christ.  For talkingFor provoking and inciting and persuading other people into sinful thoughts and sinful behavior:

Quote

7 Now there was no law against a man’s belief; for it was strictly contrary to the commands of God that there should be a law which should bring men on to unequal grounds.

...

9 Now if a man desired to serve God, it was his privilege; or rather, if he believed in God it was his privilege to serve him; but if he did not believe in him there was no law to punish him.

10 But if he murdered he was punished unto death; and if he robbed he was also punished; and if he stole he was also punished; and if he committed adultery he was also punished; yea, for all this wickedness they were punished.

11 For there was a law that men should be judged according to their crimes. Nevertheless, there was no law against a man’s belief; therefore, a man was punished only for the crimes which he had done; therefore all men were on equal grounds.

I think this is important.  The law here distinguishes between belief and actions.  That is, the "law" only punished wrongful conduct, not wrongful belief (or "thoughts").

Later on, we see that Korihor did end up being punished for his thoughts/belief.  But by God, directly.

Quote

12 And this Anti-Christ, whose name was Korihor, (and the law could have no hold upon him) began to preach unto the people that there should be no Christ. And after this manner did he preach, saying:

13 O ye that are bound down under a foolish and a vain hope, why do ye yoke yourselves with such foolish things? Why do ye look for a Christ? For no man can know of anything which is to come.

14 Behold, these things which ye call prophecies, which ye say are handed down by holy prophets, behold, they are foolish traditions of your fathers.

15 How do ye know of their surety? Behold, ye cannot know of things which ye do not see; therefore ye cannot know that there shall be a Christ.

16 Ye look forward and say that ye see a remission of your sins. But behold, it is the effect of a frenzied mind; and this derangement of your minds comes because of the traditions of your fathers, which lead you away into a belief of things which are not so.

17 And many more such things did he say unto them, telling them that there could be no atonement made for the sins of men, but every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime.

18 And thus he did preach unto them, leading away the hearts of many, causing them to lift up their heads in their wickedness, yea, leading away many women, and also men, to commit whoredoms—telling them that when a man was dead, that was the end thereof.

...

23 ... And Korihor said unto  {the high priest}: Because I do not teach the foolish traditions of your fathers, and because I do not teach this people to bind themselves down under the foolish ordinances and performances which are laid down by ancient priests, to usurp power and authority over them, to keep them in ignorance, that they may not lift up their heads, but be brought down according to thy words.

24 Ye say that this people is a free people. Behold, I say they are in bondage. Ye say that those ancient prophecies are true. Behold, I say that ye do not know that they are true.

25 Ye say that this people is a guilty and a fallen people, because of the transgression of a parent. Behold, I say that a child is not guilty because of its parents.

26 And ye also say that Christ shall come. But behold, I say that ye do not know that there shall be a Christ. And ye say also that he shall be slain for the sins of the world—

27 And thus ye lead away this people after the foolish traditions of your fathers, and according to your own desires; and ye keep them down, even as it were in bondage, that ye may glut yourselves with the labors of their hands, that they durst not look up with boldness, and that they durst not enjoy their rights and privileges.

28 Yea, they durst not make use of that which is their own lest they should offend their priests, who do yoke them according to their desires, and have brought them to believe, by their traditions and their dreams and their whims and their visions and their pretended mysteries, that they should, if they did not do according to their words, offend some unknown being, who they say is God—a being who never has been seen or known, who never was nor ever will be.

Note that there is no suggestion of threats or coercion here.  And yet Korihor's conduct nevertheless earned them perhaps the most terrible designation in scripture: Anti-Christ.

And his conduct was . . . talking.  Persuading other people to behave wrongly.  And since culpable behavior is always precipitated by thought...

Here's the bit where Korihor argues with Alma:

Quote

30 And it came to pass that when he was brought before Alma and the chief judge, he did go on in the same manner as he did in the land of Gideon; yea, he went on to blaspheme.

31 And he did rise up in great swelling words before Alma, and did revile against the priests and teachers, accusing them of leading away the people after the silly traditions of their fathers, for the sake of glutting on the labors of the people.

32 Now Alma said unto him: Thou knowest that we do not glut ourselves upon the labors of this people; for behold I have labored even from the commencement of the reign of the judges until now, with mine own hands for my support, notwithstanding my many travels round about the land to declare the word of God unto my people.

33 And notwithstanding the many labors which I have performed in the church, I have never received so much as even one senine for my labor; neither has any of my brethren, save it were in the judgment-seat; and then we have received only according to law for our time.

34 And now, if we do not receive anything for our labors in the church, what doth it profit us to labor in the church save it were to declare the truth, that we may have rejoicings in the joy of our brethren?

35 Then why sayest thou that we preach unto this people to get gain, when thou, of thyself, knowest that we receive no gain? And now, believest thou that we deceive this people, that causes such joy in their hearts?

36 And Korihor answered him, Yea.

37 And then Alma said unto him: Believest thou that there is a God?

38 And he answered, Nay.

39 Now Alma said unto him: Will ye deny again that there is a God, and also deny the Christ? For behold, I say unto you, I know there is a God, and also that Christ shall come.

40 And now what evidence have ye that there is no God, or that Christ cometh not? I say unto you that ye have none, save it be your word only.

41 But, behold, I have all things as a testimony that these things are true; and ye also have all things as a testimony unto you that they are true; and will ye deny them? Believest thou that these things are true?

42 Behold, I know that thou believest, but thou art possessed with a lying spirit, and ye have put off the Spirit of God that it may have no place in you; but the devil has power over you, and he doth carry you about, working devices that he may destroy the children of God.

43 And now Korihor said unto Alma: If thou wilt show me a sign, that I may be convinced that there is a God, yea, show unto me that he hath power, and then will I be convinced of the truth of thy words.

44 But Alma said unto him: Thou hast had signs enough; will ye tempt your God? Will ye say, Show unto me a sign, when ye have the testimony of all these thy brethren, and also all the holy prophets? The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator.

45 And yet do ye go about, leading away the hearts of this people, testifying unto them there is no God? And yet will ye deny against all these witnesses? And he said: Yea, I will deny, except ye shall show me a sign.

46 And now it came to pass that Alma said unto him: Behold, I am grieved because of the hardness of your heart, yea, that ye will still resist the spirit of the truth, that thy soul may be destroyed.

47 But behold, it is better that thy soul should be lost than that thou shouldst be the means of bringing many souls down to destruction, by thy lying and by thy flattering words; therefore if thou shalt deny again, behold God shall smite thee, that thou shalt become dumb, that thou shalt never open thy mouth any more, that thou shalt not deceive this people any more.

48 Now Korihor said unto him: I do not deny the existence of a God, but I do not believe that there is a God; and I say also, that ye do not know that there is a God; and except ye show me a sign, I will not believe.

So nowhere does Alma accuse Korihor is misconduct in terms of violence, or threats, or coercion.  Just . . . talking.  Alma accuses Korihor (correctly, it turns out) of lying, of sign-seeking, of "leading away the hearts of this people, testifying unto them there is no God," and so on.

So was Alma justified in taking Korihor to task for talking?  Apparently so:

Quote

49 Now Alma said unto him: This will I give unto thee for a sign, that thou shalt be struck dumb, according to my words; and I say, that in the name of God, ye shall be struck dumb, that ye shall no more have utterance.

50 Now when Alma had said these words, Korihor was struck dumb, that he could not have utterance, according to the words of Alma.

51 And now when the chief judge saw this, he put forth his hand and wrote unto Korihor, saying: Art thou convinced of the power of God? In whom did ye desire that Alma should show forth his sign? Would ye that he should afflict others, to show unto thee a sign? Behold, he has showed unto you a sign; and now will ye dispute more?

52 And Korihor put forth his hand and wrote, saying: I know that I am dumb, for I cannot speak; and I know that nothing save it were the power of God could bring this upon me; yea, and I always knew that there was a God.

53 But behold, the devil hath deceived me; for he appeared unto me in the form of an angel, and said unto me: Go and reclaim this people, for they have all gone astray after an unknown God. And he said unto me: There is no God; yea, and he taught me that which I should say. And I have taught his words; and I taught them because they were pleasing unto the carnal mind; and I taught them, even until I had much success, insomuch that I verily believed that they were true; and for this cause I withstood the truth, even until I have brought this great curse upon me.

So Alma apparently found Korihor culpable of great wrong, even though the only thing Korihor did was . . . talk to other people.

And not only that, God Himself struck Korihor dumb for talking to other people.

Korihor states that he has "brought this great curse upon {himself}."  And he brought this curse by . . . talking.

Quote

54 Now when he had said this, he besought that Alma should pray unto God, that the curse might be taken from him.

55 But Alma said unto him: If this curse should be taken from thee thou wouldst again lead away the hearts of this people; therefore, it shall be unto thee even as the Lord will.

56 And it came to pass that the curse was not taken off of Korihor; but he was cast out, and went about from house to house begging for his food.

57 Now the knowledge of what had happened unto Korihor was immediately published throughout all the land; yea, the proclamation was sent forth by the chief judge to all the people in the land, declaring unto those who had believed in the words of Korihor that they must speedily repent, lest the same judgments would come unto them.

58 And it came to pass that they were all convinced of the wickedness of Korihor; therefore they were all converted again unto the Lord; and this put an end to the iniquity after the manner of Korihor. And Korihor did go about from house to house, begging food for his support.

Alma refuses to life the curse on Korihor because . . . he perceived that Korihor would return to . . . talking to other people ("If this curse should be taken from thee thou wouldst again lead away the hearts of this people...").

Korihor is characterized as having committed "wickedness" because he . . . talked to other people.  He incited and provoked them into wicked thoughts and wicked deeds.

To be sure, Korihor is something of an extreme example, but the underlying principle seems to be that a person can, I think, also bear some responsibility for intentionally or negligently or recklessly inciting another person into thoughts of anger.  Or hatred.  Or lust.  Or infidelity.  And so on.

Quote

If I'm understanding you correctly, doesn't that mean that the clothes a woman chooses to wear is beside the issue because clothing cannot incite actions.  

I'm not sure that's altogether correct.  Clothing is a form of speech, after all.  See Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).  This U.S. Supreme Court case dealt with freedom of speech where the "speech" is a form of clothing.

Our laws protect all sorts of symbolic "speech," such as the wearing of clothing, or wearing a protest button, or burning a flag, or marching in a parade.  These can all be nonverbal and nonwritten, but still "speech."

Symbolic speech, like verbal or written speech, can incite others into wrongful conduct.  Let me provide an illustration.  A 1995 Bruce Willis movie, Die Hard with a Vengeance, includes a scene where an NYPD cop ("McClane," played by Willis) is coerced by a terrorist into standing on a street corner in Harlem wearing a sandwich board which reads "I Hate N****rs."  Here is a link to that scene (there is some language, so be warned).  The scene also involves an imminent threat of violence against McClane by a nearby group of young black men.

The threat in this scene is not set up through exposition.  It is readily understood by the audience that a white guy wearing a "I Hate N*****s" sandwich board in the middle of Harlem is intending to provoke or incite others to anger or violence (that, I think, was the intention of the terrorist who set up the whole thing).  

Symbolic speech is still speech.  Symbolic speech can, in some circumstances, "incite actions" just as easily as actual speech.

Quote

The person wearing the clothing can, but the clothing itself does not have the ability to cause someone else to sin.

Clothing = speech.

Speech = attempt to influence others in their thoughts and actions.

Speech which intentionally or negligently or recklessly influences others to engage in wrongful thoughts and actions = possibly some sort of culpability (just as Korihor).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Clothing = speech.

Speech = attempt to influence others in their thoughts and actions.

Speech which intentionally or negligently or recklessly influences others to engage in wrongful thoughts and actions = possibly some sort of culpability (just as Korihor).

Swastikas on a shirt at a political event provokes two reactions...one expected, one not.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/nazi-man-punched-richard-spencer-speech-swastika-shirt-a8011646.html

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/poignant-moment-black-protester-hugs-11376817

Link to comment
8 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think Person A may influence Person B's thoughts (I'd prefer to keep this gender-neutral).  That influence may be intentional (Korihor) or inadvertent (Corianton).  Person B is responsible for his/her own thoughts.  That said, Person A may also bear some culpability (see, e.g., Korihor and Corianton).

I don't follow.  If Person A is intending to provoke Person B to anger, and if Person A succeeds at that, then Person A appears to have some culpability for that provocation (Person B remains responsible for his/her own thoughts).  So clearly our intentions matter.  

I'm not particularly interested in parsing out what a person should or should not wear, or what is "inappropriately revealing" and what is not, or in allocating percentages of fault between Persons A and B.  Again, the general sentiment should be that modesty in dress and grooming and behavior are good and healthy standards to be aspired to by Latter-day Saints, and that one of the positive aspects of such measures is that we are less likely to adversely influence others.

person can bear some responsibility for intentionally or negligently or recklessly inciting another person to act inappropriately/wrongfully, yes.

A person can, I think, also bear some responsibility for intentionally or negligently or recklessly inciting another person into thoughts of anger.  Or hatred.  Or lust.  Or infidelity.  And so on.

Korihor apparently did not coerce or threaten anyone.  All he did was . . . talk.  And in talking, he influenced others.  He provoked immoral thoughts in others, which in turn precipitated immoral actions.

Korihor was labeled an Anti-Christ.  For talkingFor provoking and inciting and persuading other people into sinful thoughts and sinful behavior:

I think this is important.  The law here distinguishes between belief and actions.  That is, the "law" only punished wrongful conduct, not wrongful belief (or "thoughts").

Later on, we see that Korihor did end up being punished for his thoughts/belief.  But by God, directly.

Note that there is no suggestion of threats or coercion here.  And yet Korihor's conduct nevertheless earned them perhaps the most terrible designation in scripture: Anti-Christ.

And his conduct was . . . talking.  Persuading other people to behave wrongly.  And since culpable behavior is always precipitated by thought...

Here's the bit where Korihor argues with Alma:

So nowhere does Alma accuse Korihor is misconduct in terms of violence, or threats, or coercion.  Just . . . talking.  Alma accuses Korihor (correctly, it turns out) of lying, of sign-seeking, of "leading away the hearts of this people, testifying unto them there is no God," and so on.

So was Alma justified in taking Korihor to task for talking?  Apparently so:

So Alma apparently found Korihor culpable of great wrong, even though the only think Korihor did was . . . talk to other people.

And not only that, God Himself struck Korihor dumb for talking to other people.

Korihor states that he has "brought this great curse upon {himself}."  And he brought this curse by . . . talking.

Alma refuses to life the curse on Korihor because . . . he perceived that Korihor would return to . . . talking to other people ("If this curse should be taken from thee thou wouldst again lead away the hearts of this people...").

Korihor is characterized as having committed "wickedness" because he . . . talked to other people.  He incited and provoked them into wicked thoughts and wicked deeds.

To be sure, Korihor is something of an extreme example, but the underlying principle seems to be that a person can, I think, also bear some responsibility for intentionally or negligently or recklessly inciting another person into thoughts of anger.  Or hatred.  Or lust.  Or infidelity.  And so on.

I'm not sure that's altogether correct.  Clothing is a form of speech, after all.  See Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).  This U.S. Supreme Court case dealt with freedom of speech where the "speech" is a form of clothing.

Our laws protect all sorts of symbolic "speech," such as the wearing of clothing, or wearing a protest button, or burning a flag, or marching in a parade.  These can all be nonverbal and nonwritten, but still "speech."

Symbolic speech, like verbal or written speech, can incite others into wrongful conduct.  Let me provide an illustration.  A 1995 Bruce Willis movie, Die Hard with a Vengeance, includes a scene where an NYPD cop ("McClane," played by Willis) is coerced by a terrorist into standing on a street corner in Harlem wearing a sandwich board which reads "I Hate N****rs."  Here is a link to that scene (there is some language, so be warned).  The scene also involves an imminent threat of violence against McClane by a nearby group of young black men.

The threat in this scene is not set up through exposition.  It is readily understood by the audience that a white guy wearing a "I Hate N*****s" sandwich board in the middle of Harlem is intending to provoke or incite others to anger or violence (that, I think, was the intention of the terrorist who set up the whole thing).  

Symbolic speech is still speech.  Symbolic speech can, in some circumstances, "incite actions" just as easily as actual speech.

Clothing = speech.

Speech = attempt to influence others in their thoughts and actions.

Speech which intentionally or negligently or recklessly influences others to engage in wrongful thoughts and actions = possibly some sort of culpability (just as Korihor).

Thanks,

-Smac

Ok, thanks for explaining your thoughts on it.

Link to comment
21 hours ago, Yirgacheffe said:

I would like to see a study that shows just how covered up a woman must be before men don't objectify her. 

I think that probably misses the point.

If a man is determined enough to objectify a woman, I rather expect that he will manage to do so, even if she's not even in sight. The issue before us is something different: namely, that clothing choices can be a form of communication, and what we choose to communicate about ourselves, matters.

Let's consider an analogy that takes sexuality (and feminist hypersensitivity) out of the equation: suppose a construction company CEO visits one of his building sites. (We'll call him "Boss A." ) He wears a 3-piece suit, shiny shoes, and a nice new hard hat as an afterthought. Now suppose the CEO of a different construction company (we'll call him "Boss B") goes to visit one of his sites. He wears old overalls, steel-cap boots, leather work gloves and a well-worn hard hat.

What do those clothing choices communicate?

(Yes, I know that both of the bosses are guys. That's not about "male privilege" or anything, it's to level the playing field.)

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

I think that probably misses the point.

If a man is determined enough to objectify a woman, I rather expect that he will manage to do so, even if she's not even in sight. The issue before us is something different: namely, that clothing choices can be a form of communication, and what we choose to communicate about ourselves, matters.

Let's consider an analogy that takes sexuality (and feminist hypersensitivity) out of the equation: suppose a construction company CEO visits one of his building sites. (We'll call him "Boss A." ) He wears a 3-piece suit, shiny shoes, and a nice new hard hat as an afterthought. Now suppose the CEO of a different construction company (we'll call him "Boss B") goes to visit one of his sites. He wears old overalls, steel-cap boots, leather work gloves and a well-worn hard hat.

What do those clothing choices communicate?

(Yes, I know that both of the bosses are guys. That's not about "male privilege" or anything, it's to level the playing field.)

That one is the CEO and the other the superintendent? Because, factually, that’s is how it is.

Link to comment
Just now, kiwi57 said:

No, in my example (purely hypothetical) both are CEO's of different companies.

I just don’t know what you’re trying to say with your scenario. I would find it odd for a ceo to be in overalls on a job site. So, the suit wearing CEO is a big wig with a large company and the other is a with a small company?

I agree we judge people based on clothing...but there is no universal standard for modesty. So,  according to some,  modesty is based on the intent of the wearer. 

So, now we are supposed to gauge the intent someone is thinking when choosing their outfits. 

I’m sure there is no way anyone will get that judgement wrong. 

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I just don’t know what you’re trying to say with your scenario. I would find it odd for a ceo to be in overalls on a job site. So, the suit wearing CEO is a big wig with a large company and the other is a with a small company?

I agree we judge people based on clothing...but there is no universal standard for modesty. So,  according to some,  modesty is based on the intent of the wearer. 

So, now we are supposed to gauge the intent someone is thinking when choosing their outfits. 

I’m sure there is no way anyone will get that judgement wrong. 

No, I'm simply trying to show that clothing choices communicate. The CEO's choice to wear a suit to the job site communicates the idea that he's a bit too good to get his hands dirty, while the CEO in overalls is showing that he's "one of the guys."

The reality might be a lot more nuanced than that, of course. It might be that the CEO in overalls is just playing a part, while the one in the suit is one who regularly spends a few hours a week with a hammer in his hand, but today he's on the way to a meeting with his banker. But the point is, simply and only, that clothing choices communicate.

 

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

No, I'm simply trying to show that clothing choices communicate. The CEO's choice to wear a suit to the job site communicates the idea that he's a bit too good to get his hands dirty, while the CEO in overalls is showing that he's "one of the guys."

The reality might be a lot more nuanced than that, of course. It might be that the CEO in overalls is just playing a part, while the one in the suit is one who regularly spends a few hours a week with a hammer in his hand, but today he's on the way to a meeting with his banker. But the point is, simply and only, that clothing choices communicate.

 

I think this shows that it is hard to make accurate assumptions based on clothing choices. I’m very familiar with the industry and I would assume the one in overalls is not the CEO. That too could be a faulty assumption.

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I think this shows that it is hard to make accurate assumptions based on clothing choices. I’m very familiar with the industry and I would assume the one in overalls is not the CEO. That too could be a faulty assumption.

Sigh.

Please don't get bogged down in the minutiae of the details.

The point is simply that clothing choices communicate.

Do you disagree?

For instance, when you write, "I would assume the one in overalls is not the CEO," you seem to be agreeing that, to you, that clothing choice communicates something.

Am I wrong?

Link to comment
2 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

I think that probably misses the point.

I don't think it misses the point, the study did not say that the men were determined (meaning they applied their will) to objectifying the women but that the parts of their brains for tool use and goal achieving were active while viewing them in bikinis.  So where does this involuntary objectification end how much clothing has to be applied to get other parts of men's brains involved? 

Link to comment

Just one question that needs an answer...why do we worry about modesty?

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...