Most Women Get The Type Of Man They Dress For - March 2014 Ensign

[Senator]

 

 

Here's another quote that leaves me shaking my head.

 

 

Yah, I constantly run up against the seemingly grand gospel paradox:

 

God >  Thou shalt not sin.

 

Eve > It is better for us to have sinned/transgressed/fallen that we may know good from evil, sickness from health, pleasure from pain....etc

 

 

Here we have Elder Callister playing the role of God.  "Don't ever sin".  It was the same message I picked up from Elder Bednar's video. (you know, the one with the rug)  Don't ever do anything that draws you away from the Lord.

 

The problem is, we do and will.

 

But I suppose the ideal has to be made know, regardless of its futility.

Edited February 17, 2014 by Senator

[mercyngrace]

 

So in other words, if the author had included the words, "through repentance and obedience", the statement would be more acceptable?

 

"The blessings of living a clean and moral life [through repentance and obedience] are overwhelming. Such a life will bring self­ confidence and self­ esteem. It will result in a clear conscience. It will make us eligible
for a spouse of like purity..." 

 

If so, I think you might be making an assumption that the author didn't have those words in mind.

 

Senator,

It isn't the first half of the sentence which is troubling. It's the implication that the blessings of a clean and moral life will make us eligible for a spouse of like purity.

 

While it may be true that blessings are predicated upon obedience to certain laws, it's also true that obedience to those laws is not a guarantee of those blessings - certainly not in mortality. People who pay tithing stay poor. People who hold FHE have children who stray. Women who remain chaste and wear capped sleeves have husbands who cheat. It happens. These kinds of false promises and faulty correlations set people up for a whole lot of unnecessary heartbreak and self-doubt. There are genuine blessings for clean living* that don't require us to promise 72 1 virgins. 

 

 

*My opinion is that the best blessings we have are peace of mind and a clean conscience. Our ability to see others as Christ does rather than as tools for self-gratification is another. The world is just more beautiful when you are in control of your appetites and passions rather than the inverse. 

Edited February 17, 2014 by mercyngrace

[EllenMaksoud]

In March 2014 Ensign we have the following statement:

http://media.ldscdn.org/pdf/magazines/ensign-march-2014/2014-03-00-ensign-eng.pdf

As the father of an 11-year-old girl I of course encourage her to dress modestly. But I'm disturbed by the message that: "...most women get the type of man they dress for."

So if a woman who wears a short dress or low top ends up in an abusive relationship, is it her fault? Did she get the man she dressed for?

I wanted to read the article, but this link does not go to it.

[Senator]

 

 

 

Senator,

It isn't the first half of the sentence which is troubling. It's the implication that the blessings of a clean and moral life will make us eligible for a spouse of like purity.

rather than as tools for self-gratification is another. The world is just more beautiful when you are in control of your appetites and passions rather than the inverse. 

 

I see.

 

I thought you were having issue with what constituted "a clean and moral life".  Someone having not sinned vs. someone who has and repented.

Edited February 17, 2014 by Senator

[Yirgacheffe]

I guess I don't see anything wrong with what he said. In the relevant thread currently going on, I outed myself as a recovering porn addict. Perhaps, some of the problem is that we attribute the word pornographic with the type of hard core smut that is viewable on the www. If that is how we are defining pornographic in this thread then I agree with you. However, I think what the author (not to mention myself) meant by pornographic is an inciting of the carnal and natural man. I think that is a fair definition and it seems appropriate in this context.

 

I said earlier in this threat that I believe we will be judged for our own sins. My thoughts and actions are my own and no single other person should be held responsible for them. However, I added that I believe we will also be held to account for words, actions, and our manner of dress and how they each encouraged those we interact with to draw nearer to the Lord...or pull us further away from him. We don't live our lives in a vacuum and we can't view any of our actions as having no effect on others even if we can't be held responsible for the way those folks use their agency.

 

As a recovering pornaholic, there was a period of my life where I was attempting one of many, many permanent breaks from my sexual addictions. I had gone weeks without looking at porn or masturbating (why are people so afraid to use that word here?) and my sexual frustrations were incredibly high. I went to school with a lot of folks who weren't members of the Church, many of whom were very, very, very, very attractive girls. It seems on one particularly frustrating day they all decided to where cute outfits that unfortunately (or fortunately?) left very little to the imagination. This only served to weaken my resolve and I gave into temptations that I faced. Now, that is not their fault. Especially considering each of their backgrounds and I consider many of them to be some of my closest friends. I didn't yield to temptation because of what they wore, I yielded to temptation because I was weak. That doesn't mean what they wore didn't have an effect either. In fact it did incite the carnal and natural man within me, and by my definition and what I think Elder Callister is saying, that made them pornographic to me. That may have been totally my fault as I had taken steps on my own to inappropriately over sexualize myself with a fairly regular dose of smut, but it was pornographic nonetheless. Had I been a stronger man who lived by the Spirit I could have ignored those thoughts and dealt with my frustrations in ways that are more in line with the Lord's will. As it was, I didn't.

 

If we can't live our lives in a vacuum, and I maintain that we can't, it seems fair to suggest then that a girl should be conscious of what she wears and how that may effect those around her. In fact, I would say it seems like a very Christian thing to do. Even if it is not her fault that a guy who was like I used to be, was incited to look at pornography after seeing a little bit of cleavage, it stands to reason in my mind that if she has any sort of compassion for those afflicted with such a terrible plague as porn addiction that she would think twice before putting on the push up bra AND the low cut halter top. Again, we don't live our lives in a vacuum and I believe we will be held to account to the extent we made it harder for people to draw nearer to God even if they are still accountable for their individual actions.

 

For the ladies, imagine you came home after a long day to find Hugh Jackman in your kitchen scrubbing your dishes, having just finished preparing you a gourmet meal. After eating he tells you, in his Australian accent no less, that he has drawn you a hot bath and to take your time while he changes your kid's poopy diaper and puts them down for the night.

 

Yeah, it's kinda like that.     

And to tens of thousands of men through out the world the sister missionaries do exactly that and are considered to be very immodestly dressed.

[mercyngrace]

Yah, I constantly run up against the seemingly grand gospel paradox:

 

God >  Thou shalt not sin.

 

Eve > It is better for us to have sinned/transgressed/fallen that we may know good from evil, sickness from health, pleasure from pain....etc

 

 

Here we have Elder Callister playing the role of God.  "Don't ever sin".  It was the same message I picked up from Elder Bednar's video. (you know, the one with the rug)  Don't ever do anything that draws you away from the Lord.

 

The problem is, we do and will.

 

But I suppose the ideal has to be made know, regardless of its futility.

Just my opinion, but I believe it only seems like a paradox. 

[JLHPROF]

Yah, I constantly run up against the seemingly grand gospel paradox:

 

God >  Thou shalt not sin.

 

Eve > It is better for us to have sinned/transgressed/fallen that we may know good from evil, sickness from health, pleasure from pain....etc

 

 

I think this all depends on the definition of sin because I don't see this as paradox, but that is a subject for another thread.  What Adam and Eve did was not really sin, and perhaps one day we will understand why the law they transgressed was even put in place in the first place since it had to be broken.

[mercyngrace]

I see.

 

I thought you were having issue with what constituted "a clean and moral life".  Someone having not sinned vs. someone who has and repented.

 

I'll have to go back and reread my original comment. It's entirely possible that's how it sounded. Like Canard, I own not being the best communicator. My thoughts pour out and only occasionally organize themselves for a wider audience than my own mind.

 

These concepts do go hand in hand though. The suggestion is that there are gradations of purity, else how could you have "like" purity? If the atonement makes you clean and whole then how do you distinguish between living a "clean and moral life" and being made clean through repentance? If there is no difference then why focus on eligibility for a spouse of "like purity" as a reward for living a "clean and moral life"? I gave a few examples in my initial comment of how I've seen this kind of thinking play out with friends. 

[canard78]

I wanted to read the article, but this link does not go to it.

 

It will open as a PDF, you'll need to then scroll down to page 45. Title of the talk is "The Lord’s Standard of morality" (do CTRL S and then search for that phrase).

[bluebell]

 

 

Here's another quote that leaves me shaking my head.

 

Even in invoking the atonement, Elder Callister refers to adverse consequences of sin. Like a child. By all means put that into the minds of a child who was accidentally conceived. You, little one, were mommy's adverse consequence.

 

Diseases can be prevented by other means besides obedience to the law of chastity. Do they not carry condoms at his local CVS?

 

And damage to reputation is an indictment of the judgmental not the sinner. If someone sins and repents but you persist in seeing their reputation as damaged... that stone's in your hand. I hope you are without sin. 

 

I'm not trying to nitpick here but we really need to be thinking through what we say and teach at church. My 15 year old could pick this talk apart in a second if he were assigned the task of critically reading it. We don't need to scare our children to choose well. We need to inspire them by engaging their hearts, their souls, and their minds.

 

 

As a child that was conceived out of wedlock, those kinds of statements don't bother me and never have.  I think they are important for our kids to hear and understand.  The Atonement does not erase all of the consequences or our choices, and it doesn't remove the injustice of this mortal experience.  Our kids have to be aware of that truth.

 

I know that other people might view it differently, and struggle with understanding how they can be a blessing to their families and also a negative consequence of sin, but that has never been a problem for me.  Perhaps because of the family i was raised in.

 

The fact is that having a child out of wedlock is one consequence of sin.  There is no changing that as it is what it is.  It can be harsh if said badly, but it is also reality.  

 

Even with the amazing family that i have grown up with, i have still suffered some of the negative consequences of my mother's choice.  I would never want a different mother, or a different 'father' (who is not my biological father), and i can say that my childhood was simply amazing and pretty much picture perfect in every way, but still i have had to deal with negative consequences that still affect me as an adult.  My mother has completely repented, and no one has EVER made me feel less than because of my birth, yet those consequences remain.

 

This is the mortal life we live in.  It doesn't do us any good to pretend that it's different than it is.  It doesn't matter if we deserve the consequence or not-in fact, that's completely besides the point.   

 

Whether or not a person with a bad reputation deserves that for example, or it's a product of sinful people judging them, doesn't matter, because if the bad reputation exist, that person will HAVE to deal with that consequence regardless.

 

That is an adverse consequence of sin that can remain whether we have repented or not, and whether we want it to or not, and I think it's good to let our kids know that that's how the real world (that they will have to live and function in) exists.  

 

Having said all of that, i also believe that helping our kids to understand the world they must live in must be tempered with teachings about how we strive, thru the Atonement, to transcend that 'real' world, so that their understanding of life is based on true gospel principles along with realistic notions of how to navigate becoming an adult.

 

Edited February 17, 2014 by bluebell

[Buzzard]

I see.

 

I thought you were having issue with what constituted "a clean and moral life".  Someone having not sinned vs. someone who has and repented.

Well, having sinned aplenty in my life, and done my imperfect best to repent of said sins, I think I can state unequivocally that my life would have been better if I would have sinned less. Yes, I would have had fewer opportunities to access the infinite Atonement, but I should have taken the trade.  

That neither lessens the depth of my repentance nor my sense of gratitude towards my Savior for providing the way out and back to him and the Father. 

I am also very glad that my daughter pretty much grew up with an innate sense of modesty, thus eliminating the need for awkward parent/daughter conversations. 

[cinepro]

Here's an interesting take on the article:

 

Morality? We can do much better than this…

 

Between this article and his talk on the New Testament "Template" last January, Elder Callister is not exactly presenting himself as one of the deepest thinkers at the COB.

Edited February 17, 2014 by cinepro

[Buckeye]

Here's an interesting take on the article:

 

Morality? We can do much better than this…

 

Between this article and his talk on the New Testament "Template" last January, Elder Callister is not exactly presenting himself as one of the deepest thinkers at the COB.

 

... when did deep thinking become a requirement for the Ensign? 

[The Nehor]

... when did deep thinking become a requirement for the Ensign? 

Either for the writers or the readers.

I remember Orson Scott Card relating a story about an article he was involved in about reactivating spouses and/or parents who were less active. They wanted to convey that in the photo for the story so they had a photograph of a man in his home with a pipe on the table. He admits it was not very subtle. Cue a deluge of letters from members complaining about sin in "the Lord's magazine". I guess it was too subtle a point for some.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Man, I wish Nibley was still alive and kickin' and publishing in the Church magazines. /fanboy

 

In Israel today, there are great contests in which young people and old from all parts of the world display their knowledge of scripture and skill at music, science, or mathematics, in grueling competitions. This sort of thing tends to breed a race of insufferably arrogant, conceited little show-offs—and magnificent performers. They tend to be like the Jews of old, who "sought for things that they could not understand," ever "looking beyond the mark," and hence falling on their faces: "they must needs fall" (Jacob 4:14). Yet Joseph Smith commends their intellectual efforts as a corrective to the Latter-day Saints, who lean too far in the other direction, giving their young people and old awards for zeal alone, zeal without knowledge—for sitting in endless meetings, for dedicated conformity and unlimited capacity for suffering boredom. We think it more commendable to get up at five A.M. to write a bad book than to get up at nine o'clock to write a good one—that is pure zeal that tends to breed a race of insufferable, self-righteous prigs and barren minds. One has only to consider the present outpouring of "inspirational" books in the Church that bring little new in the way of knowledge: truisms and platitudes, kitsch, and cliches have become our everyday diet. 

 

Quite literally, "heaven is our destination." This idea is clearly brought forward in our new home evening manual with its theme "A Bit of Heaven." That is more than a sentimental Irish tag (though we in the Church today do seem to have an incurable appetite for trite and sentimental "kitsch").

 

"There is nothing wrong with America," cries the leader, and he proves it by showing us Currier and Ives prints, and especially the heart-warming calendars and magazine covers of Mr. Norman Rockwell. There we find our utopia, as Mr. Wright Morris points out:

 

In soaring into the past rather than the future, Mr. Rockwell is true to himself and his public, since that is where the true Territory Ahead actually lies. In knowing this he illustrates, with admirable fidelity, the American Land of Heart's Desire. . . . It was in the past—just yesterday—that there were giants in the earth, dreams in our hearts, love in our homes, religion in our churches, honor in our markets, and a future of such promise that the very thought of it brings an ache to the throat and eyes grow dim.

 

This is the art and the world that meets us on the covers and pages of our lesson manuals and in the sentimental talks at conference that take us back to a life on the farm which few of us today have ever known.

 

In my youth I heard of nothing but "unlimited opportunities" and "inexhaustible resources"; ours was a Manchester utopia with smoke-blackened skies and a labor market willing to settle for starvation wages in return for employment. Some still call pre-Depression America "the Greatest Civilization the world has ever seen."

 

Apostasy never came by renouncing the gospel but always by corrupting it. No one renounces it today, and so we have the strange paradox of people stoutly proclaiming beliefs and ideals that they have no intention of putting into practice.

 

1. Every Sunday we thank God for our beautiful surroundings, which in many neighborhoods are being systematically destroyed by developers all around us.

 

2. We seek knowledge as our greatest treasure, while the poverty of most of our manuals and handbooks defies description.

 

3. As a Church authority commented to me after the last Conference, the President's keynote address on the Book of Mormon was hardly mentioned during the rest of the Conference.

 

4. For years we hailed the Welfare Plan as a living demonstration of continued revelation—and then phased it out in deference to the private sector.

 

5. Since the days of Joseph Smith, presidents of the Church have made resounding pronouncements against the wicked practice of needlessly killing animals and birds for pleasure, and have been unheeded; we have just passed a law permitting fourteen-year-olds the pleasure of killing big game.

 

6. A great and inspired bicentennial message by one we called our prophet was instantly swept under the rug.

 

7. The oldest and best testimony to Joseph Smith's first vision has received no attention whatever by the Latter-day Saints since its discovery in 1969, and so it goes.

 

8. The prophet Joseph studied biblical languages with dedicated zeal to help him understand the scriptures, but such studies are frowned upon by too many in our religious institutions.

[Mystery Meat]

 

Man, I wish Nibley was still alive and kickin' and publishing in the Church magazines. /fanboy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am of the firm belief that members of the Church get the same level of result as the effort they put into it. While I don't disagree with what Nibley is saying in the least bit, I do think we get the seemingly trite and over simplified gospel messages in our publications because that is what the church body as a whole is ready for. 

[rpn]

Please consider teaching this as an alternative.    http://natepyle.com/seeing-a-woman/

 

No matter the intention, what the ensign article teaches is that "prostitutes can't be raped" and other such stupid things.   It is true that when one dresses provocatively,  many people will never look past what you are wearing to who you are.   But that doesn't mean that they aren't the ones with the problem.

Edited February 17, 2014 by rpn

[cinepro]

Either for the writers or the readers.

I remember Orson Scott Card relating a story about an article he was involved in about reactivating spouses and/or parents who were less active. They wanted to convey that in the photo for the story so they had a photograph of a man in his home with a pipe on the table. He admits it was not very subtle. Cue a deluge of letters from members complaining about sin in "the Lord's magazine". I guess it was too subtle a point for some.

 

A Mormon Writer Looks at the Problem of Evil in Fiction

 

In January 1977, the Ensign magazine ran an article designed to encourage inactive Latter-day Saints to prepare themselves to seal their marriages in the temple. It was a struggle to come up with an eye-catching photograph to lead off the article, but what we decided to do was show an inactive father reading that very article, so that he held a picture of himself holding a picture of himself holding a picture of himself. The only problem was how to show that he was inactive. Since we at the Ensign had not yet earned any fame for our subtlety, we decided on the most obvious symbol-right in the dead center of the picture was an unlit pipe sitting in an ash tray. If that didn't suggest an inactive Mormon, we would despair of our audience's powers of reasoning. 

 

Alas, we had underestimated the ability of some people to misunderstand. A certain small percentage of our readership wrote letters protesting that illustration. They fell into three categories:

 

"Aha! You thought you could put one over on us, didn't you, running that picture of a pipe in theEnsign, but we caught you!"

 

"We thought there was one place that we could count on never to show evil, but there it was, right where our children could see it, an actual pipe, and in the Ensign, no less, our modern-day scripture!"

 

"Don't you people check this stuff before you print it? Right there in the middle of a picture on page 60, there was a pipe! You really ought to screen your pictures more carefully, if mistakes like that are getting through!"

 

These few letter-writers had got part of our message-they noticed the pipe, and they knew that for a Latter-day Saint, pipe-smoking is evil. What they completely missed was our purpose in showing that evil-to attract the attention of people who might have that problem so we could help them solve it.

[mercyngrace]

Having said all of that, i also believe that helping our kids to understand the world they must live in must be tempered with teachings about how we strive, thru the Atonement, to transcend that 'real' world, so that their understanding of life is based on true gospel principles along with realistic notions of how to navigate becoming an adult.

 

Well, according to our theology, we're all here because of someone's disobedience. 

 

That illicit beginning seemingly forgotten, we have created social norms to define acceptability. It's almost funny when you think about the millions of births that must have occurred prior to formal ceremonies, marriage licenses, and church records. But, I digress.

 

I believe we need to teach our children what the world ought to be. So they can help create it. 

[mercyngrace]

Please consider teaching this as an alternative.    http://natepyle.com/seeing-a-woman/

 

No matter the intention, what that teaches is that prostitutes can't be raped and other such stupid things.   It is true that when one dresses provocatively,  many people will never look past what you are wearing to who you are.   But that doesn't mean that they aren't the ones with the problem.

 

Exceptional. 

[Tacenda]

I thought I'd keep the OP as neutral as possible to at least allow people to make their own minds up.

But yes, the second post above is how I really feel.

It makes me, and I would imagine many others, question whether this is the kind of environment I want to raise my daughter in. I shudder at the thought of this being used as material in YW classes she will start attending next year.

Elder Callister isn't "being brave" and "telling it how it is." He's imposing his personal view of the world on the church, amplified via one of the organisation's official mouthpieces. It's wrong and it's damaging.

Much agreed!

[Tacenda]

Sorry folks... while there are many valid points made from the various POVs and posts here, we do live in what has become a super-sexualized (as somone pointed out) world... if you wear the right shade of lipstick, you'll be sexy... if you do or wear something, you'll be sexy... etc etc. Madison Ave has gone nuts promoting this concept to younger and younger women, and men... my sis worked in the fashion industry and in meeting after meeting the push was on for molding pubic opinion and tastes in order to sell merchandise... and the trend became that "sexiness" equaled success, romance, wealth... and particularly in relationships and attracting the opposite sex... ever pay attention to the ads and commercials and listen to the words?

You can throw out most of the arguments that go beyond this basic point (again, as someone pointed out) that a woman or man will attract the type of person they project themselves for... in today's world of fashion and the narrative that goes along with it... a woman or man, girl or boy, knows exactly what message or image they want to present every time they choose a garment or style... no one is so naive that they don't make a specific choice as to that message or image when they present themselves either modestly or immodestly... it's actually as simple as that.

GG

Great points...and I'll add mine...boobies were meant to feed babies!! People who look at women's bodies sexually have a problem within themselves!! It's all in how we present the human body. Sadly, people exploit it for their own purposes.

[bluebell]

Well, according to our theology, we're all here because of someone's disobedience. 

 

That illicit beginning seemingly forgotten, we have created social norms to define acceptability. It's almost funny when you think about the millions of births that must have occurred prior to formal ceremonies, marriage licenses, and church records. But, I digress.

I'm not sure if i understand what you are saying...

 

It sounds like you are saying that whether or not a child is born out of wedlock is defined by the social norms at the time and therefore having babies while not being married is not a sin that is condemned of God, even though that's what our current church culture teaches.

 

But I don't think that's what you actually believe which is why i think i'm reading you wrong.  

 

I believe we need to teach our children what the world ought to be. So they can help create it.

Like i said in my last paragraph, i very much believe that as well.  I just think we also need to teach them how the world is, so they can be as successful as possible navigating within it.  There is certainly room for good parents to disagree about that though.  

[mercyngrace]

I'm not sure if i understand what you are saying...

 

It sounds like you are saying that whether or not a child is born out of wedlock is defined by the social norms at the time and therefore having babies while not being married is not a sin that is condemned of God, even though that's what our current church culture teaches.

 

But I don't think that's what you actually believe which is why i think i'm reading you wrong.  

 

I simply noted that social norms determine what we consider illicit, and that's not always been the same as "out of wedlock". In some cultures, it's not the same today. I didn't add a "therefore". Nor did I infer anything about sinfulness.

[The Nehor]

Well, according to our theology, we're all here because of someone's disobedience. 

 

That illicit beginning seemingly forgotten, we have created social norms to define acceptability. It's almost funny when you think about the millions of births that must have occurred prior to formal ceremonies, marriage licenses, and church records. But, I digress.

 

I believe we need to teach our children what the world ought to be. So they can help create it. 

 

If a nuclear apocalypse touches off and government collapses and I fall in love with a survivor and we are alone and want to marry I will just set up some kind of ceremony and expect God to accept it (for life anyways).