A Scientific Argument Why The Problem of "Immodesty" Will Never Be Fixed

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, Thinking said:

Because I'm Mr. Vain.

 

[Thinking]

7 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

 

Yeah, I was thinking of this one too.

[Stargazer]

On 7/1/2018 at 11:58 PM, Maidservant said:

That's how we get to Coriantumr chopping off the head of Shiz.  If we are willing to have a category called "enemy" at all, then we will find something to fill it.

Hmmm.  Is it possible to NOT have such a category?  I should think that the existence of one or more persons who are seeking desperately to end your life is more than adequate justification for having a category called "enemy".  Unless one is looking for an early exit from life.

[Stargazer]

On 7/2/2018 at 9:53 PM, Exiled said:

By claiming that some here oversell alma 32 as some big inspirational concept, I am somehow making it into something more than it claims to be? I say it is a common sales technique that probably existed since the dawn of man and that there isn't anything special or inspired about telling someone to try something.

I think you make a good point.  But even Jesus thought it was a good way to determine suitability.

16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.

17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

John 7:16,17.

But this may be different, in that Jesus seemed to be saying that following it would cause it to be revealed as divine, not merely that it felt good.

[Stargazer]

On 7/2/2018 at 11:05 PM, Eek! said:

I'm the one who brought up Alma 32.  Do you think I oversold it?  Here's what I said:

"Imo it's too bad the Bible doesn't have anything like Alma Chapter 32.  I think something like that would have done Christianity a lot of good."

I answered this on Exiled, but it was more suitable here.  The Bible does have something similar: John 7:16,17:

16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.

17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

It seems in the same spirit as Alma 32.

[california boy]

Many forget that a generation ago, (depending on your age), boys were not allowed to wear swimming suits in a lot of public pools throughout the country.  They participated in swim meets where the public was invited completely naked.  No one thought anything of it.  Their pictures were even printed in the local papers showing them naked on the medal stand.  Today we would probably call it pornography.

We also should not forget that when Christ returned to the apostles after his resurrection, Peter was fishing naked.  

I am not saying that the church should not have modesty standards it expects it's members to follow,  But I am saying that what one generation considers to be immodest, another generation would be shocked at the exact same outfit.  It is all about who is currently in charge of the church and what they personally think the definition of modesty should be.  And it is not a question of each generation becoming less modest, as I point out with boys swimming nude being the accepted standard in public pools.  The definition of modesty has been a moving target from the beginning of time.

[Bernard Gui]

33 minutes ago, california boy said:

Many forget that a generation ago, (depending on your age), boys were not allowed to wear swimming suits in a lot of public pools throughout the country.  They participated in swim meets where the public was invited completely naked.  No one thought anything of it.  Their pictures were even printed in the local papers showing them naked on the medal stand.  Today we would probably call it pornography.

We also should not forget that when Christ returned to the apostles after his resurrection, Peter was fishing naked.  

I am not saying that the church should not have modesty standards it expects it's members to follow,  But I am saying that what one generation considers to be immodest, another generation would be shocked at the exact same outfit.  It is all about who is currently in charge of the church and what they personally think the definition of modesty should be.  And it is not a question of each generation becoming less modest, as I point out with boys swimming nude being the accepted standard in public pools.  The definition of modesty has been a moving target from the beginning of time.

Not where I lived. And a lot of people thought something about it. That’s why it was abandoned. Most boys who went through that were uncomfortable with the practice. The Church definition is based on the temple garment, not on the opinions of some leaders. Of course that has been modified over time, but it has remained the same during my lifetime.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said:

Not where I lived. And a lot of people thought something about it. That’s why it was abandoned. Most boys who went through that were uncomfortable with the practice. The Church definition is based on the temple garment, not on the opinions of some leaders. Of course that has been modified over time, but it has remained the same during my lifetime.

It's interesting that the temple garment covers less than it used to, and modesty standards have changed to reflect that. 

[california boy]

3 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Not where I lived. And a lot of people thought something about it. That’s why it was abandoned. Most boys who went through that were uncomfortable with the practice. The Church definition is based on the temple garment, not on the opinions of some leaders. Of course that has been modified over time, but it has remained the same during my lifetime.

The practice of requiring boys to swim nude in public pools was common for almost 100 years.  Hardly an experiment.  

And the whole no shoulder thing actually did happen during your life time.  It was common to have  shoulders bare at BYU in the 50's.

[jkwilliams]

11 minutes ago, california boy said:

The practice of requiring boys to swim nude in public pools was common for almost 100 years.  Hardly an experiment.  

And the whole no shoulder thing actually did happen during your life time.  It was common to have  shoulders bare at BYU in the 50's.

Yep. Here's the official photo of BYU's Homecoming Queen for 1964:

This goes along with the 1965 For the Strength of Youth standards on dress:

Quote

“Strapless dresses and spaghetti straps are not acceptable either on sun dresses or evening dresses. Few girls or women ever look well in backless or strapless dresses. Such styles often make the figure look ungainly and large, or they show the bony structures of the body.”

 

[USU78]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Not where I lived. And a lot of people thought something about it. That’s why it was abandoned. Most boys who went through that were uncomfortable with the practice. The Church definition is based on the temple garment, not on the opinions of some leaders. Of course that has been modified over time, but it has remained the same during my lifetime.

The practice was in the process of being abandoned in the late '60s when I went through Box Elder Jr High.  7th grade there were no suits; 8th grade there were.  The pool was a 20 yard indoor competition pool with 1 meter diving board.

It was a bit uncomfortable, as I recall, but mostly because we had to have pretty strict security when it was time for the swimming section of PE.  This had held for the girls as well, though I don't know if they were permitted suits earlier than we were.

My father, who was involved in the PE and athletics in the school district and the city for many years, told me it was a public health concern:  everybody had to shower before entering the pool, and you couldn't be sure of the cleanliness of everybody's suits.  On the swim team, we were required to rinse out our suits in the shower while we were rinsing off.

Edited July 10, 2018 by USU78

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, USU78 said:

The practice was in the process of being abandoned in the late '60s when I went through Box Elder Jr High.  7th grade there were no suits; 8th grade there were.  The pool was a 20 yard indoor competition pool with 1 meter diving board.

It was a bit uncomfortable, as I recall, but mostly because we had to have pretty strict security when it was time for the swimming section of PE.  This had held for the girls as well, though I don't know if they were permitted suits earlier than we were.

My father, who was involved in the PE and athletics in the school district and the city for many years, told me it was a public health concern:  everybody had to shower before entering the pool, and you couldn't be sure of the cleanliness of everybody's suits.  On the swim team, we were required to rinse out our suits in the shower while we were rinsing off.

We had separate boy/girl classes in New Mexico, but everyone was clothed. 1958-64. We were required to shower and go through a foot bath before entering the pool. Suits were required. 

[Bernard Gui]

9 hours ago, california boy said:

The practice of requiring boys to swim nude in public pools was common for almost 100 years.  Hardly an experiment.  

And the whole no shoulder thing actually did happen during your life time.  It was common to have  shoulders bare at BYU in the 50's.

Depends on your definition of common. Who said it was an experiment?

BYU shoulders....so what? What’s the big deal? Why on earth does it matter if it was changed? President McKay’s first For the Strength of Youth Pamphlet advised against strapless and spaghetti strap. Things change. Big deal. The standard is the temple garment. My grampa’s garments were wrist to neck to ankle. Mine aren’t. We move along.

Edited July 11, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Maidservant]

17 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Hmmm.  Is it possible to NOT have such a category?  I should think that the existence of one or more persons who are seeking desperately to end your life is more than adequate justification for having a category called "enemy".  Unless one is looking for an early exit from life.

Yes, it's possible.  I live it every day.    I have no enemies and I will not have them.  And I would not define someone who is trying to end my life as an enemy.  They may believe that I am their enemy, but that's a personal problem.  My category for the kind of person willing to harm, assault, or kill is human being, child of God, brother or sister--same as everyone else.

If someone tried to kill me, I would limit them from doing so to the best of my skill and ability.  If my ability allowed it, when binding them from acting to kill me, and mean while also leave them living, I would do that.  I would only kill them if I was too weak to stop them in another way that allowed them to continue living.  But none of this activity requires me to maintain a category of 'enemy'.  I can choose my frame or hold none at all (except human being).

[california boy]

7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Depends on your definition of common. Who said it was an experiment?

BYU shoulders....so what? What’s the big deal? Why on earth does it matter if it was changed? President McKay’s first For the Strength of Youth Pamphlet advised against strapless and spaghetti strap. Things change. Big deal. The standard is the temple garment. My grampa’s garments were wrist to neck to ankle. Mine aren’t. We move along.

I was only pointing out that you were wrong when you said that the standards for modesty for the church have not changed in your lifetime.

I was also only pointing out that at one time boys swimming naked, even at public events was not considered immodest.  Another example on how societies views on modesty changes.  I hope you don't take offense for the correction.

Edited July 11, 2018 by california boy

[Bernard Gui]

11 hours ago, california boy said:

I was only pointing out that you were wrong when you said that the standards for modesty for the church have not changed in your lifetime.

I was also only pointing out that at one time boys swimming naked, even at public events was not considered immodest.  Another example on how societies views on modesty changes.  I hope you don't take offense for the correction.

I know quite well what has happened in my lifetime...probably a little better than you know what has happened in my lifetime. There is nothing to correct. I have repeatedly said standards have changed somewhat, but I don’t believe that is important. Bare shoulders to covered shoulders at BYU? No biggie. I have consistently stated that the standard is the temple garment and that has also changed. No offense taken.

Edited July 11, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

18 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

It's interesting that the temple garment covers less than it used to, and modesty standards have changed to reflect that. 

Thanks. I have pointed that out several times in this discussion.

[Bernard Gui]

Well, it appears that there is more to the story....

 https://www.lds.org/new-era/1971/10/fads-and-faith?lang=eng

Quote

The following is a letter pertaining to a resolution that was published by various Church organizations under the direction of the sixth president of the Church, Joseph F. Smith:

“The first part of the resolution applies to our sisters who have been through the Temple. These sisters have received special instructions from those in authority; therefore they know their duty in regard to the proper wearing of their clothes.

“The last clause of the resolution applies to those of our girls and women who have not been through the Temple, many of whom feel that they are under no restrictions in the matter of dress. They thoughtlessly follow the ‘fads’ of fashion. Many of them wear sleeveless gowns and such extremely low-cut bodices and short skirts at evening parties as to bring the blush of embarrassment to the cheek of the truly modest man. While the custom of wearing such gowns may be thought proper in some circles, it is unfitting that the daughters of the Latter-day Saints should be thus attired.

“An evening dress may be beautiful and becoming to the wearer and yet be free from objectionable features. The dress should be made to cover the shoulder and upper arm; the round or V neck should not be extreme and the skirt not immodestly short. Very sheer material, while beautiful in itself, is not in good taste unless worn with underclothing which properly covers the body.

Also, regarding swimsuits...seems like Mormon boys were expected to wear them...according to Pres McKay...

Quote

Any bathing suit which immodestly exposes the body, such as bikinis or those with bare midriffs, etc., should not be worn. Swim suits are fashioned for a particular purpose and should not be worn as casual dress for summer, but should be worn only for swimming. While traveling to and from the beach or swimming pools, young men and women should be fully dressed, or at least their swimming suits should be covered with outer clothing.”

 

Edited July 11, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Stargazer]

.

[bluebell]

I haven't read this thread for a while, but I had an experience last week at youth conference that drove me nuts (hopefully i haven't already shared it and just forgotten).

Youth conference was overnight at a church camp near Morgan (camp zarahemla) and one of the rules for the kids going was no swimsuits.  There would be two water activities (a giant slip-n-slide and tubing the river) but they were emphatic that no swimsuits were to be worn.

So, it's the day of the water stuff and every girl is in shorts and a t-shirt.  Almost every boy, without exception, was shirtless and in his swimsuit.  I was not impressed that they embraced such an obvious double standard, and the girls obviously noticed as well.  I'm still really annoyed thinking about it.

Also, today my friend told me that her daughter is leave for girls camp up at Heber Valley and there rules are absolutely no swimsuits, shorts, or capris.  And no tight jeans, all pants must be loose (they even included pictures of appropriate pants in their rules).  They said that girls who did not have appropriate clothing would be forced to call their parents and have them bring up different clothes.  That also makes my head want to explode.

I get modesty, and I think it's an important teaching.  I have no problem asking for standards of dress  But I don't get making it as difficult as possible for some of the youth that need it the most to feel wanted and loved at these kinds of functions.  I don't get implying that capris (pants that hit mid calf) are immodest.  I don't get teaching that being in a swimsuit while swimming is immodest.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I haven't read this thread for a while, but I had an experience last week at youth conference that drove me nuts (hopefully i haven't already shared it and just forgotten).

Youth conference was overnight at a church camp near Morgan (camp zarahemla) and one of the rules for the kids going was no swimsuits.  There would be two water activities (a giant slip-n-slide and tubing the river) but they were emphatic that no swimsuits were to be worn.

So, it's the day of the water stuff and every girl is in shorts and a t-shirt.  Almost every boy, without exception, was shirtless and in his swimsuit.  I was not impressed that they embraced such an obvious double standard, and the girls obviously noticed as well.  I'm still really annoyed thinking about it.

Also, today my friend told me that her daughter is leave for girls camp up at Heber Valley and there rules are absolutely no swimsuits, shorts, or capris.  And no tight jeans, all pants must be loose (they even included pictures of appropriate pants in their rules).  They said that girls who did not have appropriate clothing would be forced to call their parents and have them bring up different clothes.  That also makes my head want to explode.

I get modesty, and I think it's an important teaching.  I have no problem asking for standards of dress  But I don't get making it as difficult as possible for some of the youth that need it the most to feel wanted and loved at these kinds of functions.  I don't get implying that capris (pants that hit mid calf) are immodest.  I don't get teaching that being in a swimsuit while swimming is immodest.

That is just weird. Was that something dictated by the stake? It seems to me that notions of modesty have assumed an importance that is completely out of proportion. Capris are immodest? Swimsuits? And the double standard. 

So strange on so many levels. 

[bluebell]

40 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

That is just weird. Was that something dictated by the stake? It seems to me that notions of modesty have assumed an importance that is completely out of proportion. Capris are immodest? Swimsuits? And the double standard. 

So strange on so many levels. 

The one at Camp Zarahemla was a stake policy.  The Heber Valley camp stuff are camp rules that all stakes must follow.

[jkwilliams]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The one at Camp Zarahemla was a stake policy.  The Heber Valley camp stuff are camp rules that all stakes must follow.

So odd. I never would have imagined things would become more restrictive than they were in my youth. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

16 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Also, regarding swimsuits...seems like Mormon boys were expected to wear them...according to Pres McKay...

In public, yes. I can't post any links since I'm at work, but if you Google it, you will find verification that single-sex swimming at the Deseret Gym was traditionally without bathing suits.

When I was serving as an elders quorum president in America, one of the apostles, now deceased, presided over and spoke at a priesthood leadership training meeting. During the course of the meeting, he shared with us an anecdote that related to his testimony and in which he casually mentioned an occurrence of skinny dipping with his priests quorum (including the president of the quorum and the quorum adivser).

The developed world has changed dramatically in the course of just a few decades, and I personally don't like it. It seems that the more licentious people become, the more uptight they become too. I fear that it's making us all a bit crazy, especially our kids.

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

One of the rules for the kids going was no swimsuits.  There would be two water activities (a giant slip-n-slide and tubing the river) but they were emphatic that no swimsuits were to be worn.

There are very good reasons why we remove as much clothing as possible when in water, and many of them are safety related. Putting girls in a river in clothing that will be heavy when wet and cause significant drag is stupid, in my opinion.

Quote

Almost every boy, without exception, was shirtless and in his swimsuit.  I was not impressed that they embraced such an obvious double standard, and the girls obviously noticed as well.  I'm still really annoyed thinking about it.

Ridiculous! We have a few 'modesty Nazis' in our stake who insist that both boys and girls have to wear knee-length shorts and T-shirts when in water (which is, again, unsafe), but at least they're consistent in their madness.

Quote

 I don't get teaching that being in a swimsuit while swimming is immodest.

Yep. We're in deep trouble, it would seem.

Edited July 12, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan