Bernard Gui Posted May 18, 2018 Posted May 18, 2018 (edited) 12 hours ago, Marginal Gains said: So don’t wear them (and work on those triceps) My triceps are fine. How are yours? We can disagree on what is and is not good style. The bags under the arms was the critique that my DIL Fassionista (a professional stylist) gave of the awful peekaboo style. It’s a legitimate criticism and has nothing to do with modest dress. Edited May 18, 2018 by Bernard Gui 2
Bernard Gui Posted May 18, 2018 Posted May 18, 2018 (edited) 11 hours ago, Maidservant said: Ha ha. ☺️ Right. But this is not the definition of modesty. It's a different issue. Modesty is not the covering of temple garments. It's the covering of the body. The reasons for each are different. We do not wear the garments to cover the body (except perhaps symbolically), at least not covering for the purpose of preventing sexual expression (or the unwise or perverted use of such). We wear them to remind ourselves of our covenants. It's between ourselves and God, and not the public. But, for example, we take garments off to wear swimsuits, and all get in the pool together, so this is not a 100 percent thing and NOT an issue of modesty because there is not a problem to wear a swimsuit in the right setting; not to mention removing the garments for an appropriate reason. BUT then we get into wars and policing and shaming and on and on about what kind of swimsuit is too much or too little and THAT *is* an issue of modesty and body covering and NOT A FAN. Bottom line, 'covering garments' and 'modesty spectrum' are not to be conflated (in my opinion) and both understandings (or misunderstandings) suffer, especially for women, when they are conflated (in my opinion). I’m not sure I understand what you are trying to say. Who is talking about shaming? Here is pertinent information about modest dress and garments. It speaks for itself. Quote The garment represents sacred covenants. It fosters modesty and becomes a shield and protection to the wearer. The wearing of such a garment does not prevent members from dressing in the fashionable clothing generally worn in the nations of the world. Only clothing that is immodest or extreme in style would be incompatible with wearing the garment. Any member of the Church, whether he or she has been to the temple or not, would in proper spirit want to avoid extreme or revealing fashions.... The garment, covering the body, is a visual and tactile reminder of [covenants made in the temple]. For many Church members the garment has formed a barrier of protection when the wearer has been faced with temptation. Among other things it symbolizes our deep respect for the laws of God--among them the moral standard” (Preparing to Enter the Holy Temple, 20, 23). Quote “Practices frequently observed among the members of the Church suggest that some members do not fully understand the covenant they make in the temple to wear the garment in accordance with the spirit of the holy endowment. “Church members who have been clothed with the garment in the temple have made a covenant to wear it throughout their lives. This has been interpreted to mean that it is worn as underclothing both day and night. … The promise of protection and blessings is conditioned upon worthiness and faithfulness in keeping the covenant. “The fundamental principle ought to be to wear the garment and not to find occasions to remove it. Thus, members should not remove either all or part of the garment to work in the yard or to lounge around the home in swimwear or immodest clothing. Nor should they remove it to participate in recreational activities that can reasonably be done with the garment worn properly beneath regular clothing. When the garment must be removed, such as for swimming, it should be restored as soon as possible. “The principles of modesty and keeping the body appropriately covered are implicit in the covenant and should govern the nature of all clothing worn. Endowed members of the Church wear the garment as a reminder of the sacred covenants they have made with the Lord and also as a protection against temptation and evil. How it is worn is an outward expression of an inward commitment to follow the Savior.“ (First Presidency letter, 10 Oct. 1988). This is an excellent discussion...https://www.lds.org/ensign/1997/08/the-temple-garment-an-outward-expression-of-an-inward-commitment?lang=eng Such a grievous burden. Who can bear it? Edited May 18, 2018 by Bernard Gui 1
strappinglad Posted May 18, 2018 Posted May 18, 2018 I like the Amish compliment ," You are looking very plain, sister/brother " I have seen a few " Walmart people " youtube videos , where dress rules are optional. My eyes! my eyes ! . 1
Bernard Gui Posted May 18, 2018 Posted May 18, 2018 (edited) For what it’s worth, it is possible to swim, be modestly dressed according to the garment, and still be very cool...there are none cooler than Australian lifeguards. https://lifeguards.com.au/ESS/lifeguards-gear-up-for-new-season/ https://fadielhaje.wordpress.com/tag/surf-life-saving-australia/ By the way, I have to be covered at the beach like these folks for skin cancer related reasons. Edited May 18, 2018 by Bernard Gui
mnn727 Posted May 18, 2018 Posted May 18, 2018 On 5/17/2018 at 1:13 PM, cinepro said: On my mission, we had an older member who would mow the lawn at the meetinghouse, and in the summer he would sometimes just wear his garment top! Nothing on the bottom? 4
rpn Posted May 18, 2018 Posted May 18, 2018 (edited) 6 hours ago, MiserereNobis said: What are the natural consequences of wearing a tank top? Tan lines on your shoulders? In my neck of the woods, they have strange tan lines, their church leaders and peers make them a topic of conversation, some parents won't let their kids date teens who do that (mind you I'm not suggesting that is appropriate in any way, or that it is the natural consequences in the sense of it follows scientifically), they get sunburned, they are cold and cannot get warm, they have to have two wardrobes one for their friends who are uncomfortable with more scantily dressed (male or female) and one for those who don't, people may assume they are not fully faithful (again, I'm not approving of this), they get burned when they get into a hot car, when they fall over on their bike they sustain much more severe damage that if they'd been more fully clothed, they have a harder time getting someone to hire them. Edited May 18, 2018 by rpn 1
Hamba Tuhan Posted May 19, 2018 Posted May 19, 2018 9 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: For what it’s worth, it is possible to swim, be modestly dressed according to the garment, and still be very cool...there are none cooler than Australian lifeguards. They don't actually enter the water for a rescue dressed like that...
Josh Khinder Posted May 19, 2018 Posted May 19, 2018 (edited) On 5/17/2018 at 9:15 AM, bluebell said: Most of which are mainly ignored when we teach modesty to the youth. We act like showing shoulders is worse than buying a $1000 purse or $400 headphones or a brand new iPhone every few months that must be shown off for all to see. It's not and we need to get better at helping youth understand that. Edited May 19, 2018 by Josh Khinder
Bernard Gui Posted May 19, 2018 Posted May 19, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said: They don't actually enter the water for a rescue dressed like that... Maybe, but they look cool on the beach and riding on their excellent water chariots. Don’t folks swim in wet suits? How about the Muslim lifesavers? Quote The group’s trainer, Tony Coffey, says the burqini makes swimming more difficult compared with being dressed in a bikini or swimsuit. “It’s the biggest hurdle the girls face. But we can’t do anything about it, it’s part of the deal. They just need more intensive training.” Edited May 19, 2018 by Bernard Gui
Marginal Gains Posted May 19, 2018 Posted May 19, 2018 I suggest the First Presidency send a letter round informing members that Stake and Ward swimming galas and events are no longer to take place, for modesty reasons. Instead local leaders should find activities that can be done without the women baring their shoulders. 2
california boy Posted May 20, 2018 Posted May 20, 2018 There is nothing more Pharisee like than how church leaders micro manage this kind of thing. I see little difference between telling members to not having tattoos, how many earrings are allowed, how much shoulder to cover. And telling members how many steps are allowed on the sabbath. 1
cacheman Posted May 20, 2018 Posted May 20, 2018 (edited) "Only clothing that is immodest or extreme in style would be incompatible with wearing the garment." It's interesting to me that what is considered immodest or extreme in the LDS faith varies over time, but is consistent across cultures and environments. I feel blessed to be able to choose to dress comfortably whatever the season. I spend most of the summer working outside (southeastern US). According to this quote, and some on this thread, I am immodest or extreme on a daily basis! 😲 Edited May 20, 2018 by cacheman
mrmarklin Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 On 5/16/2018 at 7:52 PM, Thinking said: The peek a boo shoulder is very popular right now. I'm curious what the posters on this board think of the peek a boo shoulder. Would/do you allow your daughters to wear a shirt with peek a boo shoulders? Would/do you discourage your sons from hanging out with girls who wear tops with peek a boo shoulders? In General, hot chicks should wear this style.
Recommended Posts