Breast Feeding In Church?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I am sorry but I do not consider Europe the center of my culture.

Amen brother.

[ERayR]

Earliest recollections of seeing women (mom, aunt, their friends) breast feeding: I felt incapable of noticing anything else in the room until I stopped looking and/or left the room. Even while not looking, the vision of the breast (often a gorgeous "thing" in itself) remained on my inner eye. I can recall some of them to this moment. So to tell a male that breasts being used to feed babies are not at the same time attractive in themselves is poppycock. Anyone who refers to them as "feeding tools" or "sweat glands" or other dismissive references is being unrealistic. Sure, some men/boys don't care, but plenty of us do. The world is filled with individuals and each of us will react to what we see, and nothing can allay that reaction....

It is how we deal with our reactions that counts.

[Yep]

A recent controversy over whether LDS women may/should breast feed in church covered or uncovered has made me reflect on the changing mores of Western society, and the influence we have (for good or ill) on non-Western societies.

http://fox13now.com/...es-controversy/

http://www.feministm...r-feeding-baby/

I can recall a time back in the early 1940s when I was a little tyke with a pull-toy following my mother down the center aisle of a train (everyone traveled by train in those days), and women with babies were breast feeding in public just like my own mother did for all of her five children. The female breast had not yet become fully sexualized, an object of prurient interest and of consequent shame.

What do you think of the spread of this notion of prurience and porn throughout the non-Western world? Is it merely one more artifact of unhealthy Western cultural imperialism? Is it just one more vacuous feature of "Hollywood"? Or is it meaningless and innocuous?

What happens to LDS missionaries from the West who find themselves in parts of the world where bare-breasted women are not at all unusual (and I'm not talking about the cote d'azur or the beaches in Rio). Do they still have to look up or down, but not straight ahead? Does it matter?

First, I must confess that I did not read through all of this thread before responding, so I apologize if I repeat previously stated comments. I am bad about this as I don't like to read through more than 20-30 posts and if the first few don't state anything close to my view I generally just respond without reading the thread.

As LDS, we believe that the garment originated with Adam and Eve. Given this, any modesty that is less than fitting the garment is not appropriate for the LDS. IMO we as LDS do not always seem to understand this and we often disregard the guidance of the garment. Due to this, It is my opinion that a man should not be bare chested either. I believe that modesty that does not require the attempt to cover oneself in such situations is not adequate modesty. I do however believe that a woman should be able to breastfeed in public with as adequate cover as possible..

[Buzzard]

The articles referenced in the OP were about a woman who was told to stop or be released from her calling. It didn't specify what that calling was. More information might have been helpful. For example, if I was a bishop, and the Sunday School teacher of 14 year olds was breastfeeding in class, no matter how wholesome and pure breastfeeding may be-and my spouse breastfed our kids-no way does a 14 year old boy absorb either the lesson being taught or the principle that breastfeeding isn't sexual. They will spend the whole time just trying to get a peek. That's what 14 year old boys do. So a discussion with the teacher is in order. OTOH, if she is teaching in Relief Society, or in Sunbeams, what's the big deal?

It's easy to second guess a bishop and make broad generalizations, when the issue may come down to a specific situation.

Edit: The second link said the calling was in Young Womens, though it did not specify which calling. And let's remember, we are only getting one side of the story. While I would have zero issue with my teenage daughter seeing her leader discreetly breastfeed, was the sister in question exercising a modicum of modesty, or just pulling it out (excuse the term). I would have an issue with that. There are many ways to breastfeed, some but not all appropriate around non family members.

Edited February 27, 2013 by Buzzard

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I can't fully endorse your sentiments. Granted there are some who are not qualified to but any man who has children whose wife breast fed them should have developed enough experience to offer an opinion. But then you know the old saying about opinions.

Based on your. 12, 34 and 4...you are a card carrying expert.

[ERayR]

Based on your. 12, 34 and 4...you are a card carrying expert.

The definition of an expert:

An ex is a has been and spurt is a big drip under pressure. Yup that's me alright.

[Wanderer7]

CFR.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/lifestyle/scientific-proof-that-men-look-at-womens-breasts-first-and-their-face-is-almost-last/story-e6frf00i-1225770286482

http://www.medicaldaily.com/articles/12349/20120926/male-researchers-reveal-real-reason-men.htm

[Buckeye]

As LDS, we believe that the garment originated with Adam and Eve. Given this, any modesty that is less than fitting the garment is not appropriate for the LDS. IMO we as LDS do not always seem to understand this and we often disregard the guidance of the garment. Due to this, It is my opinion that a man should not be bare chested either. I believe that modesty that does not require the attempt to cover oneself in such situations is not adequate modesty. I do however believe that a woman should be able to breastfeed in public with as adequate cover as possible..

Sorry, red herring. Garments have nothing to do with the issue of public breastfeeding. The TR interview specifically instructs that garments may be removed or adjusted for activities that cannot be reasonably done with them in place. Breastfeeding is one such exception. Whether it is done in public or in a private mother's lounge, the garmet will be removed (or adjusted) to allow the child to feed.

Moreover, garments are not a very good indicator of which body parts may be publicly displayed. Just look at the BYU swimming team. Obviously the church thinks it appropriate for endowed members to publicly display parts of their bodies that are normally covered by garments (shoulders, thighs, etc). Not to mention Moroni, who when commissioned to begin the restoration of the gospel, chose to show up with NO garments on, but only a loose robe that fully exposed his chest (See https://www.lds.org/...js-h/1?lang=eng).

Garments simply are not a good guide for modesty in all circumstances. Recall that early versions of garments went down to the calf and wrist. We have zero idea how much body coverage was provided by Adam and Eve's garments. They purpose of garments are the covenant they help you remember.

Edited February 27, 2013 by Buckeye

[ERayR]

Sorry, red herring. Garments have nothing to do with the issue of public breastfeeding. The TR interview specifically instructs that garments may be removed or adjusted for activities that cannot be reasonably done with them in place. Breastfeeding is one such exception. Whether it is done in public or in a private mother's lounge, the garmet will be removed (or adjusted) to allow the child to feed.

Moreover, garments are not a very good indicator of which body parts may be publicly displayed. Just look at the BYU swimming team. Obviously the church thinks it appropriate for endowed members to publicly display parts of their bodies that are normally covered by garments (shoulders, thighs, etc). Not to mention Moroni, who when commissioned to begin the restoration of the gospel, chose to show up with NO garments on, but only a loose robe that fully exposed his chest (See https://www.lds.org/...js-h/1?lang=eng).

Garments simply are not a good guide for modesty in all circumstances. Recall that early versions of garments went down to the calf and wrist. We have zero idea how much body coverage was provided by Adam and Eve's garments. They purpose of garments are the covenant they help you remember.

..

I agree with what you wrote but would say that I wouldn't look to what goes on at BYU, especially with sports teams, as an indicator of anything.

[Maidservant]

This can be solved with nursing rooms at church. One can find these in many chapels in Europe where there are a significant number of babies in the ward.

Solved for who and in what way? Solved so that a breastfeeding mother is excluded from community worship?

The Fall was a good thing, part of which entailed God giving us sacred clothing that's purpose isn't to just cover up, but bind us to higher covenants.

Yes; and which sacred clothing IS our body, or as I understand. The garment item is simply the token of that.

Our former stake YM president had this same issue and required our boys to wear T-shirts whilst at the beach, which becomes an issue of safety. (There are very, very good reasons why people remove clothing when swimming.) Thankfully, at the stake standards night one year, one of the boys raised his hand during the Q&A and asked the stake president why boys had to wear shirts whilst swimming. The stake president was stunned, then he laughed and said he'd never heard of such a thing and couldn't imagine why anyone would say that. End of problem.

But not for women, of course, right? So . . . .

Perhaps there are some men who are so purified that naked women don't affect them, and there are others who may have different orientations. If one of these applies to you, I apologize if my statement offended you. However, I know from experience that I am representing men accurately. For instance, the prevalence of pornography use in the church suggests that many, if not most, men are affected by nudity. Also as ERayR suggested, attraction to the opposite gender is not a bad thing. I don't think I'm evil for being sexually attracted to women. I think it is part of God's plan for this life and the next. What I do about that attraction is what determines my morality.

While I don't disagree with you in a lot of ways, there are some cultures who worry about inciting sexuality by the sight of a woman's eyes, nose, wrist, leg even below the knee. And it would be true to say that ALL of a woman's body is attractive to a man. So where does the fabric end? More fabric? Less fabric? How much fabric do I have to wear in order to keep another person (=men) out of hell (so to speak)? As an LDS female, I have been trained to wear clothing that covers my shoulders, for example, (and I wear the garment, so a shouldered sleeve covers that, of course). I follow that training. But I went to college and I saw lots of girls wearing sundresses with spaghetti straps and well above the knee and I wondered if I was supposed to cast them as unrighteous in my mind; and I realized no. The guys in the classes may have noticed them, and as you say, certainly our bodies attract one another generally speaking. But is the notice a bad thing? No. All in the classes talked about the subject matter of the class and continued with the purpose at hand without getting sexually sidetracked. What about women who are sexually oriented to other women? Should we stop breastfeeding in case there is a lady like that around? I'm not just asking these questions to you or others, these are the questions I ask myself. And the answers I get when I ponder and pray on it is a lot different than what I was raised with or thought I was raised on.

I have to say I am happily surprised by so many positive posts on this issue, especially from the gentlemen in our lives--fathers, husbands, brothers, ward members. Thanks for 'letting' me feed my baby whenever I need to without requiring me to retire from society!

Edited February 28, 2013 by Maidservant

[Hamba Tuhan]

I am sorry but I do not consider Europe the center of my culture.

Then perhaps you do not understand that the 'West' in Western culture is specifically Europe? From the OED: 'West: The western part of the world, esp. Europe (later also North America) as distinguished from Asia; the culture and civilization of these regions'.

[Hamba Tuhan]

http://www.dailytele...i-1225770286482

http://www.medicalda...-reason-men.htm

Research carried out in NZ and America -- all of which implies you are merely universalising Western culture again, and then only a particularly ascendant strain of it.* (As a Latter-day Saint whose parents created a home life and expectations solidly grounded in gospel culture, I grew up in the West geographically but not culturally.) Did you read the article I linked to in #61 above?

*It may be worthwhile here to recall that Kinsey, the architect of the Sexual Revolution, 'scientifically' proved, for example, that children enjoy and are not harmed by sexual contact with adults...

Edited February 27, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

Thanks for 'letting' me feed my baby whenever I need to without requiring me to retire from society!

And thanks for helping me understand why some women (even in the Church) may still feel oppressed by male-imposed limitations on their biological roles.

[Cobalt-70]

Earliest recollections of seeing women (mom, aunt, their friends) breast feeding: I felt incapable of noticing anything else in the room until I stopped looking and/or left the room. Even while not looking, the vision of the breast (often a gorgeous "thing" in itself) remained on my inner eye. I can recall some of them to this moment. So to tell a male that breasts being used to feed babies are not at the same time attractive in themselves is poppycock. Anyone who refers to them as "feeding tools" or "sweat glands" or other dismissive references is being unrealistic. Sure, some men/boys don't care, but plenty of us do. The world is filled with individuals and each of us will react to what we see, and nothing can allay that reaction....

The problem is, we are fighting an attitude that "because men cannot control themselves, the best solution is to control women." If anyone thinks that LDS culture does not center on the needs of men over the needs of women and children, they should think again.

[Hamba Tuhan]

The problem is, we are fighting an attitude that "because men cannot control themselves, the best solution is to control women."

Spot on.

If anyone thinks that LDS culture does not center on the needs of men over the needs of women and children, they should think again.

I don't think this. At all. And I therefore reject your attempt to universalise the opinions of some LDS men and project them onto the Church as a whole ... which is just as erroneous as individuals who struggle not to sexualise the sight of a nursing mother universalising and projecting their personal issues onto men as a whole. What you have hit on here, however, is a tendency from the World which we most definitely must be vigilant against in the Church as it can easily sneak in. Nevertheless, I can assure you that neither I nor the two men with whom I serve in the bishopric of our ward are in the least bit interested in controlling women ... or becoming figures from whom they must seek permission to do anything as biologically necessary as feeding their infants.

[halconero]

Yes; and which sacred clothing IS our body, or as I understand. The garment item is simply the token of that.

Umm...can I get a CFR that the garment is just a token and not sacred clothing?

Not of malice, but curiosity.

Also...even if it is the case that the body is the sacred clothing...and the garment is a token...then God them a token piece of clothing to cover up their sacred clothing.

And so are we commanded to cover up our sacred clothing with token clothing.

[MorningStar]

Years ago my mom ranted about how it made her feel that women could sit in sacrament meeting feeding their babies formula, but breastfeeding mothers couldn't, which discourages women from choosing what is healthiest. She didn't feel like she should have to go hide herself and didn't feel like God designed us to have to hide ourselves. It's so annoying to be at any social event and have to leave the room while everyone else continues to enjoy themselves.

[Cobalt-70]

I don't think this. At all. And I therefore reject your attempt to universalise the opinions of some LDS men and project them onto the Church as a whole ... which is just as erroneous as individuals who struggle not to sexualise the sight of a nursing mother universalising and projecting their personal issues onto men as a whole. What you have hit on here, however, is a tendency from the World which we most definitely must be vigilant against in the Church as it can easily sneak in. Nevertheless, I can assure you that neither I nor the two men with whom I serve in the bishopric of our ward are in the least bit interested in controlling women ... or becoming figures from whom they must seek permission to do anything as biologically necessary as feeding their infants.

I'm talking about the culture as a whole, and not any particular individuals within that culture. Consider our culture of modesty: control women because men cannot control themselves and need an environment free of temptation. Our culture teaches boys to honor their priesthood, and teaches girls to honor the priesthood of boys and men. Our culture honors womanhood because women are nurturers (of men's children), and because women subordinate their own needs to the needs of men and men's children. We teach that the priesthood is for men, and any benefit the priesthood has on women is supposedly only through men and at men's discretion. We call men as general authorities and mission presidents based on the qualifications and needs of the man, and expect his wife to just follow along. In our culture, the career of the husband always takes precedence to the career of the wife, as reinforced by the Proclamation on the Family and statements essentially saying that "a woman's place is in the home" from the President of the Church that are little more than two decades old. The prevalent male-centric attitude about breastfeeding is just one more example.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I'm talking about the culture as a whole, and not any particular individuals within that culture.

I know. And I disagree. I find the culture that the Restored Gospel engenders to be liberating for both women and men ... especially in contrast to the cultures of the world. Overwhelmingly the women in my life also agreed/agree. I'm sure we can improve, both personally and institutionally, but I personally know of no better implement for such improvement than the Church of Jesus Christ, its doctrines, and the instruction of the Holy Ghost. Where we fall short is specifically where we let the World in.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Then perhaps you do not understand that the 'West' in Western culture is specifically Europe? From the OED: 'West: The western part of the world, esp. Europe (later also North America) as distinguished from Asia; the culture and civilization of these regions'.

I lived in Europe...West, but nothing like Georgia, the promised land.

BTW, there for four years...visited many countries. Got my first new car in Holland. Sealed in Swiss Temple...went for a week to do a marathon Temple trip in England. Now you can drive under the English Channel. Of course no more East Germany to guard against when I did. Lived in Bad Hersfeld.

Edited February 27, 2013 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[canard78]

Yes. But, for strong things like this, sometimes that is the best path to take. After all, when it's difficult to block the triggers, the best case is avoidance.

Here's a clue... McD DO sell carrot sticks. People are still obese. Problem not solved.

I don't think you understand how hard it is for some people NOT to look. It took me several years of practice to hone my control my inner desires. It's not something you can just pick up due to the way our society is sexualized.

That's the problem of the 'looker' not the mother. It bothers me that women are told to not be "walking porn" for the young men. Wrong message. Boys, don't look, problem solved.

But you saw it once. And you can never get that out of your head again.

I once saw a breastfeeding mother? Oh dear... I shall go and hand in my TR. Entirely not an issue.

In some ways, having breastfeeding in plain site is a good way of reminding these poor helpless teenage hornbags that there are other uses for such parts of the anatomy. Being prudish and making the female body 'sinful' only makes it more intriguing.

I'm glad, for example, that my children have grown up in a house with an 'open bathroom door' policy. They are very familiar with the adult body which, I hope, will mean as they progress into teens it will be less of a 'forbidden fruit' and not feel a need to gawp at some poor breastfeeding mother trying to do one of the most natural things in the world.

[Cobalt-70]

I know. And I disagree. I find the culture that the Restored Gospel engenders to be liberating for both women and men ... especially in contrast to the cultures of the world. Overwhelmingly the women in my life also agreed/agree. I'm sure we can improve, both personally and institutionally, but I personally know of no better implement for such improvement than the Church of Jesus Christ, its doctrines, and the instruction of the Holy Ghost. Where we fall short is specifically where we let the World in.

I think you are talking about the doctrine, and I'm talking about the culture. I agree that the doctrines of Mormonism have the potential to throw off male centrism. We teach there is a Heavenly Mother, for example, and in the temple we endow women with just as much priesthood power as men. We teach that between Adam and Eve, Eve was the smart and enlightened one. The problem is, we muzzle the Heavenly Mother and discipline anyone who wants to have a personal relationship with her that does not pass through the Father. Though we endow women with priesthood power in the temple, we don't ordain them to any priesthood office. And even though we think that Eve was the smart one for eating the fruit, we still teach that she was punished for eating the fruit first with subservience and subordination to men.

[Bernard Gui]

What is there to "solve?" What needs solving is the attitudes of members who stare and tut when someone breastfeeds in sacrament or the lessons. The European 'nursing rooms' are also the place where dirty nappies are changed and disposed of, so while it's nice to give mothers the option of privacy (and some prefer it), many prefer to not sit in a room with the wafts secreting from the bin next to them.

Very good OP. I would say that one of the most natural acts of nurturing and love should be welcomed in any meeting at church. Truth is that most women who do it will also do so very discreetly with a scarf or blanket anyway, aware of other sensibilities.

Our building has a mother's room complete with comfy arm chairs and a speaker from the chapel. Nappies are changed

in the bathrooms where there are facilities to deal with the smell and residue. Any building has a room

that could be retrofitted to accommodate nursing mothers.

Our modesty standards are set by the temple covenants.

[Yep]

Sorry, red herring. Garments have nothing to do with the issue of public breastfeeding. The TR interview specifically instructs that garments may be removed or adjusted for activities that cannot be reasonably done with them in place. Breastfeeding is one such exception. Whether it is done in public or in a private mother's lounge, the garmet will be removed (or adjusted) to allow the child to feed.

Moreover, garments are not a very good indicator of which body parts may be publicly displayed. Just look at the BYU swimming team. Obviously the church thinks it appropriate for endowed members to publicly display parts of their bodies that are normally covered by garments (shoulders, thighs, etc). Not to mention Moroni, who when commissioned to begin the restoration of the gospel, chose to show up with NO garments on, but only a loose robe that fully exposed his chest (See https://www.lds.org/...js-h/1?lang=eng).

Garments simply are not a good guide for modesty in all circumstances. Recall that early versions of garments went down to the calf and wrist. We have zero idea how much body coverage was provided by Adam and Eve's garments. They purpose of garments are the covenant they help you remember.

You are correct. However a woman who is LDS should not be lackadaisical in covering her breast during breastfeeding. Also, the guidance is not a simple you can remove it for these things, the guidance is to be hesitant to remove the garment and to remove it only when necessary. I do not believe that you would find any member of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve that would believe it would be fine to just pop it out without some attempt at covering. Also, as an endowed male, I believe that I should minimize the removal of my shirt even in the activity of swimming. I do believe it is against our beliefs to ever behave in a nonchalant manner with regards to the areas covered by garments being uncovered.

Also, on a non-doctrinal personal side note, I find it hypocritical to allow the male torso to be uncovered while requiring the female to be covered. The male torso is a sexual part of the male as well, and the media has made great attempts at peeking the female sexual interest by displaying it as such. Given the attention that the male torso receives in the media and the reasoning behind this attention I feel that the male torso as often shown in television, movies and other media is most frequently equivalent to porn.

[canard78]

Our building has a mother's room complete with comfy arm chairs and a speaker from the chapel. Nappies are changed

in the bathrooms where there are facilities to deal with the smell and residue. Any building has a room

that could be retrofitted to accommodate nursing mothers.

Our modesty standards are set by the temple covenants.

If a woman is parading a bare breast around the chapel then I guess the Bishop might need to have a word. The truth is that a woman can easily breastfeed where she's sat in the pew with next to nothing on display.

I'm glad a nursing room is an option, but it's by no means a requirement. There is no violation of temple covenants by breastfeeding. Just like there's no violation of covenants at the beach or pool.