Eternal Significance Of Grooming Choices

[bluebell]

My point was that Mormon women are expected to wear their obedience on their bodies, whereas Mormon men are expected to carry their obedience internally. This represents the body/spirit duality that so many feminists have written about.

I don't agree with that.

LDS men are counselled not to have earrings or get tattoos, or wear crazy hair styles/colors, or dress immodestly.

What can an LDS man do that an LDS woman can't, in regards to their bodies?

[LDSToronto]

Seems to me that when we trot out obedience as the reason for modesty, what we are really saying is that we'll do any ol' thing that we are asked to do, no matter how contrary to common sense it sounds.

Not saying that's a bad thing, but maybe obedience *isn't* the reason?

H.

[Sky]

You are using two contradictory paradigms: On the one hand, you are saying "stick with the Brethren," meaning that God's will as to your grooming choices will be mediated through a committee of conservative men. On the other hand, you are saying, "if it feels right, go with it," meaning that God is to be your personal, unmediated grooming coordinator.

Well, what the Brethren are saying feels right to me. Sorry you don't seem to feel that way. And IMHO, people are much more attractive without tattoos and body piercings anyway. The Brethren have given us a few basic guidelines, but there is also a great deal of latitude. I also believe in going by the Spirit. I don't think God is too concerned if I prefer jeans or khakis or solid color shirts or striped shirts, for example. We all have different personal tastes in clothing styles, and I have no issue with that. The nice thing is that it is very possible to be both modest and fashionable.

[Cobalt-70]

I just noticed this comment. I remember my science teacher saying this in the 70's. Modern Anthropologists are more likely to say that it is to look youthful and desirable.

I guess you could say there is a list of different contributing factors, including imitation of youth, imitation of sexual arousal, and (according to https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:ZdeDOmf6p8MJ:public.gettysburg.edu/~rrussell/Russell_SocialVision_cosmetics_chapter.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESieAF5dIf5d0c6JEvDbbZUbSOiih4TOt2ifKK6L-wid3ImNU3diL06B3NDdeBkGCI5V18a9V4u81bJlymZMyLAJY9xJ6HmtPZ8WqSPSOi5EQ-tbzjHfqcd4CbiQXcW63Msdcxu4&sig=AHIEtbTBEwpj2FjrvfeN2HojYPbp_nqOiw), exaggeration of sexual dimorphism.

[Stargazer]

But don't you think it's a little strange that the indicator of a woman's suitability as a mate is linked to her "obedience" in matters of outward appearance, whereas the suitability of a man is linked to his "obedience" in more intangible matters like going in a mission? Also, why is it that all these grooming-related indicia of worthiness are primarily directed at women rather than men? Maybe there is a feminist criticism here: is this just another example of the fact that femininity is written on the body, whereas masculinity is written on the spirit?

"Strange"? No. Serving a mission is also a measure of obedience that while it is not exactly visible to a casual inspection, is upon examination an indicator.

I've been married for quite a while now, but back "in the day", as it were, one of my "indicators" of wife-suitability was modesty. Among the many indicators, but one that was important to me. My prospective wife didn't wear revealing clothing, even though she definitely had the figure for it. As it turned out, she didn't wear earrings at all, but the custom of the world at the time was for only one per ear anyway. I observed that she treated the sabbath with respect, and was in all ways a good Latter-day Saint, and was temple worthy as well (she had a recommend already). She wanted to have lots of children, too. All my little indicator boxes had checks in them. So, having determined that she was suitable, I began courting her, we came to love each other, and we got married.

Of course, she had a bunch of llttle indicator boxes, too, and I guess I managed to get good scores in most of them as well. I never inquired closely as to which boxes were checked in my favor, but she was not into buying a pig in a poke either.

[Stargazer]

Of course it's contrived. I have absolutely no evidence to support it. There is also no evidence to support Elder Bednar's story other than what the young man told him from a very specific point of view. In all fairness, I'm looking at the situation from the woman's perspective because contrary to conventional male wisdom, women are not necessarily just waiting around for men to make all the moves in a relationship. For all we know, she could have decided that she no longer wanted to date the young man either. They were not a good match.

As I agreed.

The thing is here, it is apparent that the young man was being observant of qualities he considered important. It sounds very much like he did what I did, looked for a woman with the qualities he considered important, and then and only then circled in for the win. It's likely that she was doing similar legwork, and he didn't measure up. Or because he chose to go slow perhaps she decided he was not particularly interested. It didn't sound like in Elder Bednar's story that they had been in an exclusive dating arrangement at any time -- but perhaps they were. It doesn't matter.

I think the thing to take away from Elder Bednar's story is that if you are looking for a spouse you really ought to be careful in your selection, because you're going to have to live with it for better or for worse. Marry in haste, repent at leisure, as they say.

[Stargazer]

Seems to me that when we trot out obedience as the reason for modesty, what we are really saying is that we'll do any ol' thing that we are asked to do, no matter how contrary to common sense it sounds.

Not saying that's a bad thing, but maybe obedience *isn't* the reason?

H.

This actually puts me to mind of the Old Testament story where the leader has a good sized military force to perform a mission assigned by the Lord, but the Lord tells him he has too many, and to send home all those who are afraid. They leave, and the Lord still thinks there are too many. He tells the leader to take his troops to a body of water and have everyone drink. Those who put their faces into the water to drink are to be sent home, and those who stay alert and drink by cupping the water to their mouths with the hands are to stay. When he's done he has 300 soldiers and they go on to win the battle.

You're going to get some second-guessers who first of all gasp at the notion that they have too many soldiers because, clearly, the more you have the easier your victory will be. "That's ridiculous!" they cry! After the first bunch are sent home the next set of second-guessers are horrified that the force is to reduced still further, and are completely boggled by the method of determining who gets sent home next. "That's nuts! Picking the ones who lapped like dogs to go home is utter madness! This doesn't help determine whether or not they know how to fight! Have some physical contests! Intelligence tests! Lapping water or cupping it proves nothing about fighting prowess!"

This is exactly what is happening here. An apostle of the Lord relates a story of a young man who chooses an arguably valid method of determining whether or not a young woman might be obedient to the Lord, and out come the second guessers crying about how that doesn't prove this or that, or how crass and mindless the method is, or you name it. Well maybe to them obedience isn't at all important, or its importance is rather far down the list. This says a lot about the mindset of the second-guesser. No foul, that's just how it is. Maybe if the second-guesser had different selection criteria, they might come up with some measure that the young man in the story might consider strange or ill-considered. Maybe your most important criterium is if your prospective spouse has a degree in physics and a minor in mathematics -- because to you it is important to have someone smart to talk with. That's up to you.

And, as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. Maybe you will, too, but possibly in a different way.

[Cobalt-70]

They aren't?? I think I see what you are saying, but don't agree from my persepective... i.e., we LDS women dress "modestly" in the sense that the principle, or our standard, for skirts for instance are at the knee. Who cares that mini skirts came into fad. Our definition of modesty is skirts to the knees. The "mini" lasted several years and then went on to "maxi" IIRC... our standard remained skirts to the knees unless we chose to wear a maxi which was okay by our standards or principles of modesty.

Today it is the knee. Around 1900, it was the ankle, which is why, during the intervening period, temple garments rose from the ankle to above the knee. So this is, once again, a "standard" that changes with the fads of society.

As for earrings, our standard was a modest pair in good taste vs more elaborate (feathers, too long and dangly) etc. Who cares that multi-piercings for additional earrings going up the ears came into fad, our standard was modest and in good taste.

"Taste" is a factor of changing social preferences. Renaissance "tastes" were different from those of the 1800s, and Western "tastes" were different from Aztec "tastes."

Our standard for hair is well groomed, and neat, whether short or a pony tail, bangs or no bangs... who cares if spiked purple hair comes into fad. Our standard was and still is neat and well groomed...

"Well groomed" and "neat" are not standards. A well-groomed Renaissance woman showed lots of cleavage, and a well-groomed Renaissance man wore an earring. A well-groomed Minoan woman was topless.

[Cobalt-70]

I don't agree with that.

LDS men are counselled not to have earrings or get tattoos, or wear crazy hair styles/colors, or dress immodestly.

As an afterthought, yes. But when was the last time someone mentioned this in the General Conference Priesthood session? Yet how often is counsel directed toward the bodies of girls and women? It is a matter of relative emphasis.

[bluebell]

As an afterthought, yes. But when was the last time someone mentioned this in the General Conference Priesthood session? Yet how often is counsel directed toward the bodies of girls and women? It is a matter of relative emphasis.

I don't believe its as an afterthought at all. I don't personally attend the priesthood session of GC though so hopefully someone who does can speak up.

Having been to several RS conferences, i don't remember there being an emphasis on anything other than modesty (and that emphasis wasn't big, just bigger than the other 'body issues' you have mentioned), which makes sense since that's an issue that a lot of women struggle with.

[frankenstein]

Elder Haight gave a talk in the late 1990s inwhich he stated missionary grooming standards applied to RMs.

As for "indicators" I think almost every one uses them; however I do not think that every remembers that they will be judge according to how they judged others.

As for the girl and her earrings is there any proof that she even heard or knew what was said? Did the "boyfriend" every talk to her about it? I agree with who every already said it that those two.are better off without each other.

[CV75]

It seems only appropriate that counsel and policy change according to the need. One’s faithful obedience to counsel not only blesses him, but strengthens the weak around him as well. Once the thing counseled against no longer carries any appeal, the counsel against it no longer applies and the infraction may even become an acceptable standard.

Changing fashions only point to the inability of people to find lasting happiness in things of their own invention, and especially those things that appeal to pride and exploit the carnal, sensual and devilish nature. So unstable and transitory are these ego crutches that they quickly cease to satisfy the worldly appetite, and mocking resistance to them gives way to mocking the fads themselves.

Lehi’s dream can be used to explain this in terms of those with exceedingly fine clothing mocking and scorning the more humbly dressed. The “falling away” of the ashamed denotes instability, as does the building’s exceedingly great fall, along with those that “fight against the twelve apostles.”

Edited December 21, 2011 by CV75

[CV75]

double post

Edited December 21, 2011 by CV75

[Sky]

For anybody interested...

Dress and Appearance

[thesometimesaint]

If you ain't selling don't advertize.

[LeSellers]

When I was a small child, only whores wore earrings. My mother never owned a pair.

Things have changed, but one wonders if that change has improved anything. Are women (or men, for that matter) happier or better off in any way because the fashion ("... a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months." — Oscar Wilde) has now made most women look like the whores of my youth?

Neither of our daughters, now married and each with seven children of her own, wears earrings. They are attractive without being decorated like Christmas trees, nor have they been ostracized by desirable men (among whom the two who married them). They do not wear much make up, either, and, by their own admissions, they wouldn't wear it at all if other women didn't make them feel uncomfortable about it.

There seems to be no measurable advantage to wearing earrings, having tattoos, or doing other things that adorn the body. So, we must decide why there are so much time, money, and other resources wasted on conforming to the current ugliness.

Lehi

Edited December 21, 2011 by LeSellers

[frankenstein]

For anybody interested...

Dress and Appearance

Would I feel comfortable with my appearance if I were in the Lord’s presence?”

Right now I am wearing blue jeans a polo shirt and flip-ops (no socks) would I feel comfortable wearing this in Christ presence... No I would not . Do I have anything other than temple clothes that I would feel comfortable wearing in Christa presence ...No I do not. In Christ presence is not a good measure as it is overly and unnecessarily restrictive.

-----------------

Lehi do your duaghters not have earrings because you raised them to believe only whores have earings?

[frankenstein]

derp

Edited December 21, 2011 by frankenstein

[Senator]

When I was a small child, only whores wore earrings. My mother never owned a pair.

My mother did, and does, as did her mother; the daughter of pure pioneer stock. They are the most saintly women I have ever known, let alone, not whores.

[LeSellers]

Lehi do your duaghters not have earrings because you raised them to believe only whores have earings?

Possibly, but that has nothing to do with my premise, i.e., that earrings (tattoos, bangs, neck stretching, lip disks, ear disks, bouffant hairdos, toe rings, wimples, etc.) have no measurable value. They're fashion—by definition, transient and wasteful.

Lehi

[bluebell]

Possibly, but that has nothing to do with my premise, i.e., that earrings (tattoos, bangs, neck stretching, lip disks, ear disks, bouffant hairdos, toe rings, wimples, etc.) have no measurable value. They're fashion—by definition, transient and wasteful.

Lehi

Donuts have no measurable value either, but does that mean that there are no valid reasons to make or eat donuts? Sometimes people do things, or wear things, because it makes them happy. Just because something has no value to us, doesn't mean it can't have any value to anyone.

[thesometimesaint]

We return to God with the same clothes we were born with.

[LeSellers]

Donuts have no measurable value either, but does that mean that there are no valid reasons to make or eat donuts? Sometimes people do things, or wear things, because it makes them happy. Just because something has no value to us, doesn't mean it can't have any value to anyone.

True, and that is my point.

Just because the current fashion requires women to wear earrings, and men too, by many standards, is no reason that she or he should do so. It's a waste of resources that could be used to much better effect elsewhere. But this raises the point of what the individual values: earrings v. education, $600 prom dress v. mission fund. I neither claim nor desire to force anyone to set his values by my standards, but the fact is that every choice requires the person to give up other things. That opportunity cost may be a serious disadvantage because the person facing the decision does not realize what the cost really is.

Is current fashion so important that the eternal is foregone in its service?

Lehi

[Sky]

When I was a small child, only whores wore earrings.

Wow! That's a little too harsh, don't you think? Thank goodness this has changed.

[LeSellers]

That's a little too harsh, don't you think?

No. It is just an observation. Observations are neither harsh nor benign, they simply are accurate or not.

Thank goodness this has changed.

Why?

Does a woman with earrings have greater value than one without them?

Lehi

Edited December 21, 2011 by LeSellers