Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
cinepro

Women's Dress and Men's Thoughts

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Jake Starkey said:

My source is everything he needs to be.  You have not shown at any qualifications for your concerns other than what your Dad and Granddad told you about Southern Colorado, several hundred miles away and decades later.  I met CFR, you have only their opinions?  You don't have a qualified citation.

I am asking you for a readable version of your source so that I can determine its accuracy and context. That should not be too hard to provide if you have the source information. If you are just copying and pasting from another website, that might be difficult to do. I was not able to find the original through a Google search. Asking for the source is not an insult.

Edited by Bernard Gui

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I believe you are ignoring it when you said--"I think we are getting way off track with this. There is no comparison here.  Is buying a new car or watch a violation of some church standard?  As we all agree - we are not accountable for other peoples thoughts and choices. We are accountable for our influence through living the principles and standards of the gospel.  If we are violating those standards and they are negatively influencing others, than we are accountable for that influence.  It also needs to be pointed out that this issue is not only about the influence it has on young men, it is about living the standards of modesty, and it is also about empowering women against the corrosive effects of the media.  I am honest to goodness more concerned about the young women than the young men.  In other words, this is not simply about how others choose to see us (we have all acknowledged we can't control that), it is about our influence we have by living or not living the standards and the corrosive effect that not living the standards can have on us and others. "

  • I believe you are ignoring it when you said that Calm's off examples were off track.  I provided examples which showed that her questions are on track.  
  • I believe you are ignoring it when you said that there is no comparison.  I provided comparable examples where girls who were following the standards of the church were still being taught they needed to cover up to protect the men around them.  
  • I believe you are ignoring it when you speak as if everyone in the church "all agree" on this topic.  We have examples of leaders (and posters in this thread) who do not agree.  
  • Quote

    I believe you are ignoring it when you said that Calm's off examples were off track.  I provided examples which showed that her questions are on track.  

    I suggest you go back and re-read the exchange about the car and watch example it had nothing to do with bad examples of enforcing modesty.  You made it about that only later. 

  • Quote

    I believe you are ignoring it when you said that there is no comparison.  I provided comparable examples where girls who were following the standards of the church were still being taught they needed to cover up to protect the men around them.  

    Once again, I was not comparing it to the bad examples.  We were talking about the influence our behavior can have on others thoughts through not living the standards.  You/Calm asked if there were any examples of leaders not allowing people to buy cars/watches etc. because it might influence others negatively.  I said it doesn't compare because buying a car/watch is not against church standards, and MY position has ALWAYS been that one should only address the issue if a standard is undeniably being violated.  So, you bringing in examples of leaders talking to women even when they are following church standards as if I somehow condone that or am somehow ignoring the issue in some way is WAY not fair.   I have no clue where you are taking this discussion with that.  Why even bring it up if you acknowledge that I don't condone it?  If you know I don't condone it, how can you possibly suggest that I am ignoring it?  If I was ignoring it, then you couldn't possibly know if I condone it or not, but it is clear that you do know that I don't condone it.  

Quote

 I believe you are ignoring it when you speak as if everyone in the church "all agree" on this topic.  We have examples of leaders (and posters in this thread) who do not agree.  

Taking things out of context a little?  Here is what I REALLY said:

Quote

As we all agree - we are not accountable for other peoples thoughts and choices.

Once again, not the same topic.  I am yet to see any one who disagrees with that. That is totally contrary to the doctrine of agency and accountability.  NO leader could ever say such a thing and get through correlation.  If you think they have, you are reading them wrong.  I am yet to see one example to where it is even slightly clear that they said such a thing. 

This is my last post.  I am tired of having to defend myself even after clarifying what I said and mean.  If you want to continue telling me that I am ignoring the issue go ahead.  I won't be here to defend myself.  But let it be known that I have without question condemned the actions of any leader who ever shamed a girl, created their own outrageous standard above and beyond what already exists, or told a girl that they need to change their clothes even if they are within the standards as outlined.   I have said such over and over again.  If anyone still wants to try and pin down as someone who is ignoring the issue...whatever.  I clearly am not communicating well, so I give up. 

Edited by pogi
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, pogi said:

MY position has ALWAYS been that one should only address the issue if a standard is undeniably being violated

Can you give an example? Not to be obtuse, but how do you know shorts are “short”, clothing is “tight”, or a shirt doesn’t cover the stomach? Are yoga pants tight? Because every mom in my LDS neighborhood wears them. How long exactly are “short shorts”. Aren’t all shorts short by definition? The T-shirt I’m wearing exposes my stomach if I lift my arms up, is it immodest (if it helps you decide, I’m a dude)?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Can you give an example? Not to be obtuse, but how do you know shorts are “short”, clothing is “tight”, or a shirt doesn’t cover the stomach? Are yoga pants tight? Because every mom in my LDS neighborhood wears them. How long exactly are “short shorts”. Aren’t all shorts short by definition? The T-shirt I’m wearing exposes my stomach if I lift my arms up, is it immodest (if it helps you decide, I’m a dude)?

Do you think Sister McConkie’s definition of our standard of modesty is helpful?

Quote

As we have covenanted to follow the Savior and desire to receive the fulness of the blessings of His Atonement in our lives, there is really only one outfit that matters. Moroni records, “Awake, and arise from the dust, … yea, and put on thy beautiful garments, O daughter of Zion; … that the covenants of the Eternal Father … may be fulfilled” (Moroni 10:31; emphasis added).
The beautiful garments are the robes of righteousness, worn by those who have kept their covenants. Are we preparing our children to put on these beautiful garments?

And is Douglas Stewart out of step when he asks in The Madness of Crowds, can we put efforts into be sexy and then demand not to be sexualized? That’s a hard question to answer, IMO.

Edited by Bernard Gui

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Do you think Sister McConkie’s definition of our standard of modesty is helpful?

No. Not at all. Just one persons opinion. 

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

The violence was caused by dress standards?

You can read and interpret that when you can go back and read the Annals.

I think you are making interpretations to meet an internal agenda I don't understand.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

I am asking you for a readable version of your source so that I can determine its accuracy and context. That should not be too hard to provide if you have the source information. If you are just copying and pasting from another website, that might be difficult to do. I was not able to find the original through a Google search. Asking for the source is not an insult.

I gave you a readable transcript.  I told you where to look.  Once again you are involved in an agenda that is known only to you.

Try https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/record?id=7bbd56a7-5fb5-4048-a527-5a995fcc5b25&view=browse and https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/record?id=900d1668-7782-44e9-9c75-80f80c6cc505&compId=bf2fe6ff-632f-4bc7-8b35-5612a55e55c1&view=browse and https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/record?id=f3f97ab8-6acb-4304-855b-18b6a4cf39bb&view=summary

Your Dad and Granddad's comments are about a location other than St. George and the time and several decades later.  Thus, they don't apply.

Edited by Jake Starkey

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, bsjkki said:

Is this even possible? I would add the word 'purposely.' I think we all know, through puberty sexual feelings can be aroused easily (while sleeping) and even when you are not seeking them.

*you may scoff at this as being ridiculous...everyone knows what they mean with this statement but that is not a safe assumption. This book is given to 11-year-olds. They will not have the maturity to 'read intent' and could end up feeling really guilty through middle school for how their changing bodies react to stimuli. 

Why would anyone marry if they had no sexual feelings?

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Why would anyone marry if they had no sexual feelings?

Good question. We’re telling youth to not do anything to arouse sexual feelings but we really still want them to be attracted to each other and get married. 

 

 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Why would anyone marry if they had no sexual feelings?

Well according to the church, you aren’t supposed to do anything that “that arouses sexual feelings.” So if you have sexual feelings, you must be doing something wrong?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Supposing a young lady (Or young man) comes to the dance not meeting the published standard? What would be an appropriate response by the leaders?

We Washingtonians tend to be ahead of the game in so many ways. 🤓

Like the standards in the FSOY pamphlet, is that what you mean?

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, alter idem said:

I know some adults feel that when they see young women dressed immodestly, someone needs to be told, either directly to the young woman or to the parents.  In my experience, this has never had a positive outcome.  I agree that leaders need to teach modesty but the best course of action is to teach it to a group, never, never single out one individual--only parents should do that and if they fall down on the job, then no one else is going to be able to do it without harm being done, IMO.  That always ends badly, they get their feelings hurt, they are embarrassed or offended, it has never been a positive when I've seen a youth singled out.  I've seen young women stop attending because someone embarrassed them about their clothing and it is such a stupid thing because that is the exact opposite of what we want.  If you want to reach them and you have a responsibility to Youth, teach modesty standards without singling out girls alone, and don't get into specifics of how long a skirt should be etc., but teach respect for oneself, and an emphasis on our value as heavenly beings given a wonderful gift of their body and for the kind of person Heavenly Father wants them to be.  Point out that Heavenly Father wants us to be respectful of ourselves and how we dress can also encourage a  respect from others to remember that we are Children of a Heavenly Father. Then let them govern themselves; and if they continue to dress in a manner you don't approve of, then pray for them that the spirit might teach them.  That is how I think our Heavenly Father wants us to teach correct principles, by always being governed by a spirit of Charity for each other and avoid doing harm.

Exactly.  Couldn't have said it better.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, pogi said:
  • I suggest you go back and re-read the exchange about the car and watch example it had nothing to do with bad examples of enforcing modesty.  You made it about that only later. 

  • Once again, I was not comparing it to the bad examples.  We were talking about the influence our behavior can have on others thoughts through not living the standards.  You/Calm asked if there were any examples of leaders not allowing people to buy cars/watches etc. because it might influence others negatively.  I said it doesn't compare because buying a car/watch is not against church standards, and MY position has ALWAYS been that one should only address the issue if a standard is undeniably being violated.  So, you bringing in examples of leaders talking to women even when they are following church standards as if I somehow condone that or am somehow ignoring the issue in some way is WAY not fair.   I have no clue where you are taking this discussion with that.  Why even bring it up if you acknowledge that I don't condone it?  If you know I don't condone it, how can you possibly suggest that I am ignoring it?  If I was ignoring it, then you couldn't possibly know if I condone it or not, but it is clear that you do know that I don't condone it.  

Taking things out of context a little?  Here is what I REALLY said:

Once again, not the same topic.  I am yet to see any one who disagrees with that. That is totally contrary to the doctrine of agency and accountability.  NO leader could ever say such a thing and get through correlation.  If you think they have, you are reading them wrong.  I am yet to see one example to where it is even slightly clear that they said such a thing. 

This is my last post.  I am tired of having to defend myself even after clarifying what I said and mean.  If you want to continue telling me that I am ignoring the issue go ahead.  I won't be here to defend myself.  But let it be known that I have without question condemned the actions of any leader who ever shamed a girl, created their own outrageous standard above and beyond what already exists, or told a girl that they need to change their clothes even if they are within the standards as outlined.   I have said such over and over again.  If anyone still wants to try and pin down as someone who is ignoring the issue...whatever.  I clearly am not communicating well, so I give up. 

That's probably a good idea.  Sometimes it's best to agree to disagree and move on.  Especially if you are starting to take the disagreement with your posts personally.  

Share this post


Link to post

For those few who believe that what a girl is wearing impacts her likelihood of being raped, this might be helpful.  

"What Were You Wearing?" Exhibit

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Plan on coming back for more extended responses, but need to wait until I can focus better...probably tonight. 

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Well according to the church, you aren’t supposed to do anything that “that arouses sexual feelings.” So if you have sexual feelings, you must be doing something wrong?

Now, now, let's not wax extreme here.  This is from For the Strength of Youth, and there is a context: "Before marriage, do not participate in passionate kissing, lie on top of another person, or touch the private, sacred parts of another person’s body, with or without clothing. Do not do anything else that arouses sexual feelings. Do not arouse those emotions in your own body. Pay attention to the promptings of the Spirit so that you can be clean and virtuous."

Sexual feelings can be aroused autonomically, and there is no sin in this as taught by the Prophets -- as with any emotion that the Spirit can help us with.

The counsel above applies to married people as well (participating in these activities or behaviors without on'es spouse).

This is a telestial world with telestial laws. Obeying them brings blessings. Satan entices us to misuse and abuse these telestial laws against our conscience (the light of Christ)..

The Gospel brings terrestrial and celestial laws into our lives, which Satan also entices us to break after we are accountable for keeping them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Why would anyone marry if they had no sexual feelings?

Sexual feelings are good, and fundamentally autonomic. We needn't be so co--dependent as to actually require someone else to make it happen for us.

Sexual feelings are a good and healthy part of telestial living and telestial law, which is also good and obedience brings blessings. (Note that better is terrestrial and best is celestial law if happly we find them in this life).

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Now, now, let's not wax extreme here. 

Great idea. Let's not be extreme: if you dress immodestly, you are magnifying this problem by becoming pornography to some of the men who see you.

22 minutes ago, CV75 said:

This is from For the Strength of Youth, and there is a context: "Before marriage, do not participate in passionate kissing, lie on top of another person, or touch the private, sacred parts of another person’s body, with or without clothing. Do not do anything else that arouses sexual feelings. Do not arouse those emotions in your own body. Pay attention to the promptings of the Spirit so that you can be clean and virtuous."

Sexual feelings can be aroused autonomically, and there is no sin in this as taught by the Prophets -- as with any emotion that the Spirit can help us with.

You are so correct in this. So we really out to stop blaming young women and women for this automatic arousal. 

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
36 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Now, now, let's not wax extreme here.  This is from For the Strength of Youth, and there is a context: "Before marriage, do not participate in passionate kissing, lie on top of another person, or touch the private, sacred parts of another person’s body, with or without clothing. Do not do anything else that arouses sexual feelings. Do not arouse those emotions in your own body. Pay attention to the promptings of the Spirit so that you can be clean and virtuous."

Sexual feelings can be aroused autonomically, and there is no sin in this as taught by the Prophets -- as with any emotion that the Spirit can help us with.

The counsel above applies to married people as well (participating in these activities or behaviors without on'es spouse).

This is a telestial world with telestial laws. Obeying them brings blessings. Satan entices us to misuse and abuse these telestial laws against our conscience (the light of Christ)..

The Gospel brings terrestrial and celestial laws into our lives, which Satan also entices us to break after we are accountable for keeping them.

Let’s say the act of being near your boyfriend or girlfriend arouses those feelings. This is a choice and an act (being near and hanging out with them). Are you saying the guidelines are wrong and this isn’t a sin?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
45 minutes ago, CV75 said:

This is from For the Strength of Youth, and there is a context:

We are talking about youth. Taking things out of context is a common past-time for youth in my experience.

This means to me we as teachers need to be extra careful when crafting instructions and standards. Try to look at each line, phrase, and even word and think ‘what are the ways this could be interpreted badly?’.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...