Eternal Significance Of Grooming Choices

[Silver Girl]

While the original statement was not modified, I made it clear later that it was my observation.

Whether it was false, it was my observation; based, it seems, on too small a sample.

I did not observe your mothers.

Lehi

I have raised 3 sons to adulthood... I have served in Primary for many years... I have also served in Cub Scouts... I have dealt with MANY 10 year old boys...

I can honestly say that I have never, in all of my travels, met a 10 year old boy who was even remotely knowledgable about women's fashion and whether a woman is, or is not, a "women of ill repute" (I personally don't care for the word W*****)...

I have an opinion, that perhaps the "memory" of such things has been tainted a bit over the many years by predjudice and stereotypes... Just my opionion... Could be wrong, but I doubt it!!

Silver Girl

[Rock_N_Roll]

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

I would add that neckties are also "transient and wasteful", yet I feel obligated to wear one every Sunday.

[LeSellers]

I would add that neckties are also "transient and wasteful", yet I feel obligated to wear one every Sunday.

There have been times when I have not worn a tie. I was, in fact, wearing a scout or Army fatigue uniform, hardly "Sunday best". I doubt not that there will be times in the future that I will not wear a tie, either.

The difference is that a tie does not have, as its purpose, to entice others to look at me, as earrings do.

Lehi

[Rock_N_Roll]

There have been times when I have not worn a tie. I was, in fact, wearing a scout or Army fatigue uniform, hardly "Sunday best". I doubt not that there will be times in the future that I will not wear a tie, either.

The difference is that a tie does not have, as its purpose, to entice others to look at me, as earrings do.

Lehi

What exactly is a tie's purpose? I've yet to figure that one out.

[LeSellers]

What exactly is a tie's purpose? I've yet to figure that one out.

Originally, it was a napkin. It is now a symbol of conformity.

At Church, the conformity represents high morals.

Lehi

[Silver Girl]

There have been times when I have not worn a tie. I was, in fact, wearing a scout or Army fatigue uniform, hardly "Sunday best". I doubt not that there will be times in the future that I will not wear a tie, either.

The difference is that a tie does not have, as its purpose, to entice others to look at me, as earrings do.

Lehi

I think a tie does entice others to look at a man... As ZZ Top says, "Every girl's crazy 'bout a sharp dressed man!!"

A tie does not have any other purpose than to make a man look nice and sharp dressed...

Silver Girl

[Cobalt-70]

I disagree, both masculinity and femininity are written on body and spirit, they are fundamental to us, written on the whole person.

Femininity is written on the body. We know this because that's where it is "read." A woman can simply erase the immodesty on her body, and the "problem" goes away.

Masculine immodesty, however, is always written deeper in the soul. What appears on the body is only a reflection of an internal disorder. This is why, when Mormon men began wearing earrings, the first instinct of LDS leaders was to suggest that wearing an earring is a reflection if a lack of internal masculinity. If the man took the earring out, the problem didn't automatically go away. The real issue was whether the man was manly enough. The earring was seen as a symptom, rather than the problem itself.

[LeSellers]

I think a tie does entice others to look at a man... As ZZ Top says, "Every girl's crazy 'bout a sharp dressed man!!"

A tie does not have any other purpose than to make a man look nice and sharp dressed...

I don't get my doctrine from ZZTop.

Besides, as I have said elsewhere (not in this topic), women dress for other women, and men dress for themselves.

Lehi

[Cobalt-70]

By the way, I found another church publication denouncing hair bangs. See this article (http://contentdm.lib...du/u?/YWJ,11340) in Women's Exponent, 1894, which says, "Then to that silly ignorant fashion, bangs! Did God give us a seat of intelligence to cover up? 'Let your light shine!' But we are ashamed of the little light we do possess! Ashamed of the small intelligence we do enjoy and so must animalize ourselves by concealing the only intelligent part of our physical being!"

Interestingly, this was actually a liberal argument against bangs. Not so much about modesty as about feminism. Yet it still reflects the idea that a woman's intelligence is written on her body, rather than in the spirit, as it would be for a male.

Edited December 21, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[Cobalt-70]

Here's another old LDS publication (http://contentdm.lib...du/u?/YWJ,18859), which gives a rather different take on the eternal consequences of "immodesty" in which Elder George F. Richards counsels young women in 1916:

"The lustful eye caused by immodest dress condemns one as an adulterer at heart which means a loss of spirituality, and in some instances a loss of virtue. Consider here, where does the responsibility primarily belong?

"What would one of our girls think or how would she feel if after marriage she should learn from her husband that before marriage by reason of her immodest dress and exposed person he had been so overcome by lust as to resort to haunts of vice for gratification and there formed the habits and possibly contracted the disease which is henceforth to be her greatest trial, her greatest curse. This picture I do not believe to be overdrawn. If her husband has escaped, some one else's husband or son may be the victim."

So this tells us a few things. First, under Mormon doctrine (as under Western thought in general), a woman's immodesty is the cause of the rottenness of her soul, not the other way around. Thus, her righteousness is written on her body. Second, the vice of men is internal, and in fact may be caused by what is written on the feminine body. What is written on the woman's body infects the soul not just of her own spirit, but the spirit of any hapless men within visual distance, thus causing the souls of these "victims" to be infected from the inside. Once the male soul is infected, that infection is then reflected on the male body, in the form of an STD.

Edited December 21, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[Silver Girl]

I don't get my doctrine from ZZTop.

Besides, as I have said elsewhere (not in this topic), women dress for other women, and men dress for themselves.

Lehi

I don't get my "doctrine" from ZZ Top either....

I get my Doctrine from a Prophet of the Lord... A Prophet who, by the way, I do not ever recall saying that women who wear earrings are W****... I do recall the whole "one pair of earrings" counsel ... I have a feeling that if Gordon B. Hinckley felt the way you appear to, he would not have said that women should only wear one pair... He would have said they should not wear any at all...

And, I don't think the idea that a woman likes to admire a man who is nicely dressed is doctrine... It is just a fact!!

Silver Girl

[Senator]

At Church, the conformity represents high morals.

Oh, please....

It represents conformity by tradition with a dash a regard for the venue.

The halls of Congress and boardrooms of Corportate America also don the tie and suit. Would you consider these bastions of morality?

Edited December 21, 2011 by Senator

[volgadon]

By only showing certain details, Lehi seems to have misrepresented the Norman Rockwell paintings, especially the one with the sailor. http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2011/02/04/art-literature/norman-rockwell-flirt.html

[juliann]

By the way, I found another church publication denouncing hair bangs. See this article (http://contentdm.lib...du/u?/YWJ,11340) in Women's Exponent, 1894, which says, "Then to that silly ignorant fashion, bangs! Did God give us a seat of intelligence to cover up? 'Let your light shine!' But we are ashamed of the little light we do possess! Ashamed of the small intelligence we do enjoy and so must animalize ourselves by concealing the only intelligent part of our physical being!"

Interestingly, this was actually a liberal argument against bangs. Not so much about modesty as about feminism. Yet it still reflects the idea that a woman's intelligence is written on her body, rather than in the spirit, as it would be for a male.

And you find that surprising in that era? This is presentism at its worst. Please give the historical background, including when bangs became popular.... and most of all tell us what "bangs" were in that era and why following the latest style might have been seen as problematic.

[Calm]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bess_Truman

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/71/Beth_Truman_cropped.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamie_Eisenhower

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mamie_Eisenhower_color_photo_portrait,_White_House,_May_1954.jpg

1954 with earrings

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_First_Ladies_of_the_United_States

See for yourself how many First Ladies are wearing earrings.

Edited December 21, 2011 by calmoriah

[juliann]

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Bess_Truman

http://upload.wikime...man_cropped.jpg

The "bang" fad he is referring to was in the later 1800s.

[toon]

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.

In my mind, I've never been dumped.

I'm trying to grasp the relationship between counsel and obedience. I've always looked at counsel as something to be heeded or followed (or not). Obedience has been something I instead associated with a commandment or directive.

[LDSToronto]

It comes from my fascination with the 50s. Then, in the mid-to-late 60s, I served a mission in France. Whores were omnipresent. I had to "replay" my memories of childhood to place them, but a hooker is ahooker in any city.

Lehi

Mamie Eishenhower, First Lady from 1953-1961, wore earrings:

[Calm]

The "bang" fad he is referring to was in the later 1800s.

I'm addressing the earrings in the 50s worn by whores comment, not bangs.

[juliann]

I'm addressing the earrings in the 50s worn by whores comment, not bangs.

Well, if there ever was an argument against bangs, that picture is it. I missed the whore comment but that is a real head scratcher. Whoever made it should be forced to watch successive episodes of Pan Am and Mad Men. It still amazes me that women ever clamped a vise on their ears, those things hurt like heck.

[Cobalt-70]

And you find that surprising in that era? This is presentism at its worst. Please give the historical background, including when bangs became popular.... and most of all tell us what "bangs" were in that era and why following the latest style might have been seen as problematic.

Not surprising, and not presentism, either. My point in citing this anti-bangs phase within Mormonism is to show the relativism inherent in Mormon "counsel" about modesty.

[bluebell]

Not surprising, and not presentism, either. My point in citing this anti-bangs phase within Mormonism is to show the relativism inherent in Mormon "counsel" about modesty.

The issue with hair or jewelry has never been that something was inherintly modest or immodest. The arguement is attached to what the item represents in any given era.

As such, it would be odd if the standards of the church didn't change. The counsel is meant to be relative-relative to the culture invovled and what the issue represents in that culture.

[volgadon]

Here's a photo.

I don't see an earring in the bunch (but my eyes are not great).

Thepicture isn't such that you could really tell, but it looks like the lady on the far left does indeed have earrings.

[Calm]

Button earrings were quite popular, but if light in colour can be hard to see in black and white. Look for what appears an abnormally shaped earlobe, either extra long or round.

[Yirgacheffe]

Femininity is written on the body. We know this because that's where it is "read." A woman can simply erase the immodesty on her body, and the "problem" goes away.

Masculine immodesty, however, is always written deeper in the soul. What appears on the body is only a reflection of an internal disorder. This is why, when Mormon men began wearing earrings, the first instinct of LDS leaders was to suggest that wearing an earring is a reflection if a lack of internal masculinity. If the man took the earring out, the problem didn't automatically go away. The real issue was whether the man was manly enough. The earring was seen as a symptom, rather than the problem itself.

I suppose this makes sense if you see masculinity and femininity as something not part of the fundamental make up of a person. I don't see it that way I see spirit as being masculine or feminine.