Mormons being distracted by body/perfectionism issues?

[bluebell]

8 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

The Church doesn’t just influence what members wear, it conditions, and from an early age. Youth have numerous lessons about how dress standards influence other behaviours and in particular young women are cautioned about various things (including bare shoulders or form fitting clothing) because young men just can’t control themselves. I think it’s different for an adult convert coming into the Church than it is for someone who has been through the conditioning process of primary and youth. The Church air brushed shoulders onto a dress of a six year old pictured in Church media, publishes dress standards for youth and has Prophets spending time and energy thinking about ladies ear rings in a talk about worthiness and drugs and tattoos and pornography, how can it possibly be suggested that the Church doesn’t influence how its members dress? 

Church should influence all of our decisions.  That's the whole purpose of church.   If we belong to a church and/or having sincere religious beliefs, and those things aren't influencing us, then something is broken.

But there is a difference between righteous influence and unrighteous influence.  I don't think the the church, in general, asserts an unrighteous or negative influence in the lives of it's members.  

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

My body is working against me.  It just does not approve of having holes it and works tirelessly to that end.  After re-piercing my ears three times (the last time, a year ago, I left the studs in for 6 months because they told me that the holes would never close again-they are already closed), i'm surrendering. 

 

Bluebell, I never thought of re-piercing mine, but that's something to consider maybe. Kind of wondering why you did if a prophet has specified that women only have one set. Is it that he has passed on and now a new prophet hasn't said anything about it? Or you're just moving on? I just want an understanding, I'm not passing judgement just wondered what's going on. If you took the second pair out and let the holes close, why re-pierce a year ago? What has changed for you? If you care to answer, ignore the question otherwise. I really appreciate your opening up this topic in the first place!  

[Marginal Gains]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Church should influence all of our decisions.  That's the whole purpose of church.   If we belong to a church and/or having sincere religious beliefs, and those things aren't influencing us, then something is broken.

But there is a difference between righteous influence and unrighteous influence.  I don't think the the church, in general, asserts an unrighteous or negative influence in the lives of it's members.  

What about young, gay members?

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Bluebell, I never thought of re-piercing mine, but that's something to consider maybe. Kind of wondering why you did if a prophet has specified that women only have one set. Is it that he has passed on and now a new prophet hasn't said anything about it? Or you're just moving on? I just want an understanding, I'm not passing judgement just wondered what's going on. If you took the second pair out and let the holes close, why re-pierce a year ago? What has changed for you? If you care to answer, ignore the question otherwise. I really appreciate your opening up this topic in the first place!  

I was talking about getting my first set re-pierced three times.  I let my second piercings and my cartilage piercing close in my 20s.

[bluebell]

Just now, Marginal Gains said:

What about young, gay members?

I don't believe that the church, in general, has an unrighteous or negative influence on young, gay members.

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I was talking about getting my first set re-pierced three times.  I let my second piercings and my cartilage piercing close in my 20s.

Oh, thanks for clearing that up, or sorry for misreading. I do that alot!

[bluebell]

28 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Oh, thanks for clearing that up, or sorry for misreading. I do that alot!

No problem, I probably wasn't very clear.   

[Johnnie Cake]

18 hours ago, bluebell said:

Is it really that hard to believe that a strong independent woman would take out a set of earrings because a prophet of God told her to?

 

Oh I have no doubt that that played into your decision...

[HappyJackWagon]

The metaphor of our bodies being a temple is often taken too far. In this week's Teachings of the Prophets 3rd hour lesson Pres. Hinkley is on record about treating our body as a temple. "Virtue" is of utmost importance. If someone loses their virtue it is as if that temple has been imploded into a pile of rubble.

So while body-image and virtue are not exactly the same thing, I see that they can be closely related. In both cases the metaphor of the temple and the implied perfection leads to an all or nothing dichotomy. Either the temple is beautiful and holy or it is imploded to rubble. I don't think this is a helpful way to view the body or our spirituality.

[Johnnie Cake]

10 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

The Church doesn’t just influence what members wear, it conditions, and from an early age. Youth have numerous lessons about how dress standards influence other behaviours and in particular young women are cautioned about various things (including bare shoulders or form fitting clothing) because young men just can’t control themselves. I think it’s different for an adult convert coming into the Church than it is for someone who has been through the conditioning process of primary and youth. The Church air brushed shoulders onto a dress of a six year old pictured in Church media, publishes dress standards for youth and has Prophets spending time and energy thinking about ladies ear rings in a talk about worthiness and drugs and tattoos and pornography, how can it possibly be suggested that the Church doesn’t influence how its members dress? 

But from the responses I've received from the believing posters in this thread one would conclude that church culture play's absolutely no part what so ever in influencing members decisions and the choices they make in what they wear, what they eat, what they drink, how they speak, what words they use, how they behave or adorn their bodies, their choice to get a tattoos or not...there is absolutely no Mormon cultural pressure to conform and assimilate with what the church dictates what so ever.  And frankly I don't believe a single one of them...

Edited September 14, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[juliann]

8 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Oh I have no doubt that that played into your decision...

But it is much worse. Her body has taken over her mind to keep those holes in her ears closed. 

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

The Church doesn’t just influence what members wear, it conditions, and from an early age. Youth have numerous lessons about how dress standards influence other behaviours and in particular young women are cautioned about various things (including bare shoulders or form fitting clothing) because young men just can’t control themselves. I think it’s different for an adult convert coming into the Church than it is for someone who has been through the conditioning process of primary and youth. The Church air brushed shoulders onto a dress of a six year old pictured in Church media, publishes dress standards for youth and has Prophets spending time and energy thinking about ladies ear rings in a talk about worthiness and drugs and tattoos and pornography, how can it possibly be suggested that the Church doesn’t influence how its members dress? 

And of course you are not influenced by societal standards of dress at all.  You have NOT been conditioned from an early age or had lessons in how to tie a colored piece of silk around your neck to show that you have power.  You seldom wear pants because they are tokens of the worthless value of modesty.

Wearing a suit jacket when it is not cold?  Of course not!  In fact if it's hot, why not go shirtless??

You wear whatever you please to job interviews, dirty jeans and a T shirt are just fine, if you decide to put on clothes at all.

In the military?  After all one must fight for freedom!  But a uniform?  That is clear oppression of one's unalienable right to dress as one wants.

No sirree you have not been conditioned by society from an early age what to wear!!   Not you!!

[juliann]

42 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

But from the responses I've received from the believing posters in this thread one would conclude that church culture play's absolutely no part what so ever in influencing members decisions and choices they make in they wear, what they eat, what they drink, how they speak, behave or adorn their bodies with tattoos or not...there is absolutely no Mormon cultural pressure to conform and assimilate with what the church dictates what so ever.  And frankly I don't believe a single one of them...

Nice dodge. And not one of us believe a single bit of your speaking for women, you feminist ally, you.  (Would you prefer the title of woman whisperer?)

Edited September 14, 2017 by juliann

[Calm]

10 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

The Church doesn’t just influence what members wear, it conditions, and from an early age. Youth have numerous lessons about how dress standards influence other behaviours and in particular young women are cautioned about various things (including bare shoulders or form fitting clothing) because young men just can’t control themselves. I think it’s different for an adult convert coming into the Church than it is for someone who has been through the conditioning process of primary and youth. The Church air brushed shoulders onto a dress of a six year old pictured in Church media, publishes dress standards for youth and has Prophets spending time and energy thinking about ladies ear rings in a talk about worthiness and drugs and tattoos and pornography, how can it possibly be suggested that the Church doesn’t influence how its members dress? 

Not everyone grew up in the airbrushed era.  I grew up with a picture of my devout Mormon mother in a shoulderless dress for prom prominently and proudly displayed by my born and raised in small town Utah grandmother, who was the most appearance conscious person I have ever known (she cut a curl from a wig and attached it to my mother's baby bonnet so Mom would look like she had a head full of curls when she was a typically bald baby).  Not everyone cares to pay much attention to dress standard or makeup lessons (I certainly had them, but since I was wearing neither dresses nor makeup at the time, I would generally zone out and think about the latest book I was reading or on Sunday read the Old Testament).  3/4 of my youth I was the only Mormon in my grade at school, my sister the only other Mormon at the school.  I saw Church kids only at Primary and Sunday.  Primary we wore school clothes and looked like every other kid at my school I could see.  Summers were hot and sleeveless tops and dresses for the unendowed were everywhere.  I didn't stop having sleeveless shirts until I went to the temple and started buying my own clothes and then it was as much a comfort thing as a cover the garments.  

My kids grew up in nonMormon dense areas for most of their youth.  Their standard is pretty much mine and their dad's...comfort first, cost second, looks third (not saying looks isn't important, it just has to pass the first two standards to be considered).  My grandkids wear sundresses in the summer, btw, even though their mother grew up in deepest, darkest Utah all of her life with one parent who worked at BYU.  My daughter is agnostic, but is also hyperaware of people looking at her because of severe social anxiety, and yet here in Utah she goes out in purple hair and tank tops and feels no awkwardness.  Doesn't occur to her people care....and yet she is supposed surrounded by some of the most judgmental people on earth, Utah Mormons, as soon as she walks outside or attends any family gettogether (husband grew up in Orem).

Sure, there is a lot of influence from the Church, but it isn't the only influence a child is exposed to and a lot of Mormons from what I see in the Pews and around the streets have managed a healthy mix of comfort and class.  I see a lot of exposed shoulders and shorts running/walking down the street or working in their gardens or playing in the backyard.  Don't see shoulderless these days, probably the only difference from my youth when tubetops were popular.

-------

Should it really matter to anyone here if a person rejects sleeveless or wears longer shorts and skirts?  Is the choice of sleeveless and short shorts because one is influenced by other fashion standards somehow inherently superior?  Is having pierced ears and tattoos inherently superior?  Ink is not a natural substance and small particles of it collects in the lymph nodes, after all.  It may not be poisonous (or it may, apparently not a lot of studies out there because tattoos have never been mainstream before now), but that can't be healthy.  Many of those who protest dress standards also judge Mormons for eating too much sugar and damaging their body that way.  Piercings and tattoos open the body to infection and dieting isn't going to purge the body of that ink.  Navel piercings are apparently notoriously long to heal, up to a year at times. That second ear piercing is often in cartilage with greater attending risk due to slower healing. Piercings elsewhere can potentially cause longterm damage to teeth, tongue, and gums, also scar, interfere with sex and a woman's ability to breastfeed.  Infections can be life threatening if it goes systemic.  

This type of potential body damage is apparently okay with these critics of how the Church teaches the WoW as long as the Church is unhappy with it.

https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2017/sep/12/tattoo-ink-contaminants-lymph-nodes

http://www.webmd.com/skin-problems-and-treatments/tc/body-piercing-problems-topic-overview#1

I see more obsessing about dress standards of Mormons by those who no longer see themselves as such than by any Mormon I have ever known.

Edited September 14, 2017 by Calm

[juliann]

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The metaphor of our bodies being a temple is often taken too far. In this week's Teachings of the Prophets 3rd hour lesson Pres. Hinkley is on record about treating our body as a temple. "Virtue" is of utmost importance. If someone loses their virtue it is as if that temple has been imploded into a pile of rubble.

So while body-image and virtue are not exactly the same thing, I see that they can be closely related. In both cases the metaphor of the temple and the implied perfection leads to an all or nothing dichotomy. Either the temple is beautiful and holy or it is imploded to rubble. I don't think this is a helpful way to view the body or our spirituality.

Eh, you left out the part when he said a new and beautiful building would replace it. Now, I don't like using virtue as a synonym for chastity when it means so much more, but try telling a single young woman or the young father facing the realization he also has to step up to the responsibility of a pregnancy that her life doesn't feel like a pile of rubble. 

The problems with these manuals is that they teach discarded metaphors/thinking at the expense of additional enlightenment as each decade passes. I'd be very surprised to see this metaphor used now. But Pres. Hinckley advanced the nail in the hole thinking by emphasizing the atonement and restoration. Step by step....

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

But from the responses I've received from the believing posters in this thread one would conclude that church culture play's absolutely no part what so ever in influencing members decisions and the choices they make in what they wear, what they eat, what they drink, how they speak, what words they use, how they behave or adorn their bodies, their choice to get a tattoos or not...there is absolutely no Mormon cultural pressure to conform and assimilate with what the church dictates what so ever.  And frankly I don't believe a single one of them...

Don't be ridiculous.  Acknowledging that there are other influences that can be stronger for many is not denying there is influence.

Edited September 14, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

My body is working against me.  It just does not approve of having holes it and works tirelessly to that end.  After re-piercing my ears three times (the last time, a year ago, I left the studs in for 6 months because they told me that the holes would never close again-they are already closed), i'm surrendering. 

 

Wow, the Church has really perfected the art of brainwashing...all the way down to the cellular level.  Next thing you know people will be getting sick with their first puff of tobacco or puking their guts out while enjoying generous amounts of alcohol.  How evil can it get!?!

Edited September 14, 2017 by Calm

[Johnnie Cake]

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

Church should influence all of our decisions.  That's the whole purpose of church.   If we belong to a church and/or having sincere religious beliefs, and those things aren't influencing us, then something is broken.

But there is a difference between righteous influence and unrighteous influence.  I don't think the the church, in general, asserts an unrighteous or negative influence in the lives of it's members.  

Thank you for vindicating me Bluebell...I was being to think I had entered the Twilight Zone

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Thank you for vindicating me Bluebell...I was being to think I had entered the Twilight Zone

I can see why you have managed to believe you are a "feminist ally".

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Thank you for vindicating me Bluebell...I was being to think I had entered the Twilight Zone

I didn't vindicate you.  

[juliann]

28 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I didn't vindicate you.  

If the Woman Whisperer says you vindicated him, you vindicated him.  Now sit down.

[Johnnie Cake]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I didn't vindicate you.  

You've confirmed what I was asserting...that the church influences all of the choices of its members....but if you didn't mean that then you'd be correct and I misspoke 

Edited September 15, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[juliann]

44 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

You've confirmed what I was asserting...that the church influences all of the choices of its members....but if you didn't mean that then you'd be correct and I misspoke 

But we women are depending on you to tell us what she meant. 

[MorningStar]

2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

You've confirmed what I was asserting...that the church influences all of the choices of its members....but if you didn't mean that then you'd be correct and I misspoke 

Charmin or Cottonelle?  I need someone to tell me!

[Rain]

8 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

You've confirmed what I was asserting...that the church influences all of the choices of its members....but if you didn't mean that then you'd be correct and I misspoke 

What you have said a number of times was that it was "shame" that influences the choices. This is not the same as the prophet, the Spirit or even the church influencing choices. 

And no, none of them influences "all" of the choices of the members.