Woman Denied Temple Recommend for ...

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, juliann said:

As if you aren't relying on reports. 🙄

It was posted in a mother's group. Like, in print. Now go ahead and call these women liars, or me,  but I see no reason to champion this woman over them because little about what was claimed makes sense.  If you want to put your fingers in your ears and sing lalala go for it. 

How in the world does this make sense:

Quote

She was in the foyer. She was exposing her full chest. That is why this shouldn't be considered a problem about nursing.  It was also said that she chose to do this during the passing of the sacrament which would mean deacons had no choice but to walk right up to this. It was not a matter of sitting in a pew. She does a lot of excuse making as to why she can't be in the chapel or the nursing room. I will support women who completely bare a nursing breast.  I will not support what this woman does, according to those who did speak out, albeit in a closed group.  I am certain that no women will be intentionally doing what she actually did to make a point, however.

I am angry with the feminists who are creating a false narrative because they are condemning the women in the ward who rightfully objected and censoring any mention that things might not be as presented. They are not representing women at all. They have merely picked an unsophisticated woman to create a convenient problem while throwing those who object to nudity in chapels under the bus. I have backed feminists in most things and will continue to do so. This has really shaken my confidence in them, however.  They will succeed, because as I see here, everyone is talking about it as if the phony narrative is true or shouldn't be questioned. That pretty much guarantees accused women in the ward won't be speaking up. 

She did claim, BTW, that this went up a step higher and she named the leader who allegedly supported the SP. 

So you are saying other women in the ward are claiming she would get to Church, head out into the foyer and expose her full chest to pre-teen boys, for some reason, under the guise of breastfeeding, and that her story is a "phony narrative" being used by "feminists", or the "feminists" created her story, all in order to throw those who "object to nudity in chapels under the bus"?  

Fewf!  and HappyJack in the one putting his fingers in his ears singing lalalala?  

I find the story put out by these unknown ladies incredible.  Are they the same ones who went to the bishop to complain about her int he first place?  Did they refuse to approach her as an adult and ask her to not show young boys her breasts while pretending to breastfeed?  

[mnn727]

23 hours ago, JAHS said:

 but with her kind of defiant attitude towards not sustaining her church leaders I think it was right not to give her the temple recommend, especially after going to the media about it.

Here you go, this is it right here.

[Tacenda]

I saw this posted on the KUTV link, it's a statue in downtown Salt Lake City, Utah. This is how I picture the lady breastfeeding in her ward, just like this, but some people we are so tied to the breast being sexual only and probably balked when seeing this. 

I probably would cover up much more than the woman in the photo or the woman in the article, but that's just me. So maybe what this woman is doing is needed I guess, don't know for sure. I just know that women's bodies need to stop being sexualized and articles like this aren't helping... http://www.mormonwomenstand.com/modesty-everyones-responsibility/

Edited July 27, 2018 by Tacenda

[smac97]

1 minute ago, juliann said:

Quote

6. I can think of a few TR questions that could be implicated in this story.  Question #4 about sustaining local leaders comes to mind.  The bishop is responsible for what goes on during the three-hour block.  It's the Church's facility, the Church's services, and the Church's members.  Disruptive behavior affecting the Church's members, in the Church's building, during the Church's services, is undeniably within the bishop's purview to address.  In the end, the parameters of appropriate behavior in these circumstances is for the bishop, not some random self-selected individual, to decide.  Reasonable minds can disagree about the particulars of how and where a woman can nurse her baby in the church building, but in the end it's the bishop's call.  And absent some clear abuse of discretion, the ward members pretty much have an obligation to follow the instructions of the bishop.  I think it's patently reasonable to ask/expect a nursing mother to utilize the mother's lounge, or otherwise use some common sense and decorum.  If she refuses, and if she persists in refusing, and if she's creating a disruptive and disharmonious atmosphere during church services, then question #4 can be implicated.  This is not a gendered thing, either.  If a man came to church wearing swim shorts and an "Impeach Trump Now!" hat, the bishop would clearly be within his authority to ask him to go home and change into more appropriate attire.  And if that man refused, then question #4 could become implicated.

Sustaining does not mean following every whim of a leader.

Why would you think I would disagree with that?  Please read what I wrote again, particularly these parts:

"The bishop is responsible for what goes on during the three-hour block.  It's the Church's facility, the Church's services, and the Church's members.  Disruptive behavior affecting the Church's members, in the Church's building, during the Church's services, is undeniably within the bishop's purview to address."

"Reasonable minds can disagree about the particulars of how and where a woman can nurse her baby in the church building, but in the end it's the bishop's call.  And absent some clear abuse of discretion, the ward members pretty much have an obligation to follow the instructions of the bishop."

"If the interview process did not involve any discretionary decision-making by the bishop and stake president, the Church could simply have members renew their recommends by reviewing the questions online and then clicking a 'Yes' box at the end.  Instead, local leaders are expected to use reasoning, wisdom, common sense, and soundly-exercised discretion when issuing temple recommends."

I am not speaking of "whimsical" decisions.  I am speaking of decisions that are A) "undeniably within the bishop's purview to address," B) based on "reasoning, wisdom, common sense, and soundly-exercised discretion," and C) not an "abuse of discretion."

1 minute ago, juliann said:

There have been way too many accounts of leaders using unrighteous dominion for this to fly anymore. We lose too many members because of it.

Nobody is condoning or excusing or rationalizing "unrighteous dominion."  And nobody is saying that members of the Church simply have to suck up arbitrary/capricious/whimsical decisions by local leaders.

Nobody.

1 minute ago, juliann said:

That doesn't make life easy for bishops but at some point we really are going to have to take scripture seriously and accomplish things through persuasion rather than imperial decrees.

The door swings both ways, though.  The scriptures also speak of submitting to the authority of those who hold it (and are exercising it with wisdom and common sense and propriety).  That needs to be taken seriously, too.  The scriptures (and many general authorities) have also strongly cautioned us about publicly speaking against the leaders of the Church.  

And again, this is not a gendered thing.

I don't see an "imperial decree" in this situation.  I see a bishop trying to do his (unpaid) job, only to be publicly disparaged for it.  

If the bishop erred, it's up to the SP to address that.  If the SP erred, its up to the Area Seventy to address it.

Elder Oaks addressed this:

Quote

There are at least five different procedures a Church member can follow in addressing differences with Church leaders—general or local, male or female.

The first—and most benign—of the procedures is to overlook the difference. President Brigham Young described his own application of this method in a circumstance in which he felt “a want of confidence” in the Prophet Joseph Smith’s financial management. After entertaining such thoughts for a short time, President Young saw that they could cause him to lose confidence in the Prophet and ultimately to question God as well. President Young concluded:

“Though I admitted in my feelings and knew all the time that Joseph was a human being and subject to err, still it was none of my business to look after his faults. … He was called of God; God dictated him, and if He had a mind to leave him to himself and let him commit an error, that was no business of mine. … He was God’s servant, and not mine.” (Journal of Discourses, 4:297.)

...

A second option is to reserve judgment and postpone any action on the difference. In many instances, the actions we are tempted to criticize may be based on confidences that preclude the leader from explaining his or her actions publicly. In such instances there is wisdom in a strategy of patience and trust.

The third procedure, which should be familiar to every student of the Bible, is to take up our differences privately with the leader involved. The Savior taught: “If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.” (Matt. 18:15.)

...

A fourth option is to communicate with the Church officer who has the power to correct or release the person thought to be in error or transgression. The Bible calls this “tell[ing] it unto the church.” (Matt. 18:17.) Modern scripture, in the revelation we call “the law of the Church,” describes this procedure:

“And if he or she confess not thou shalt deliver him or her up unto the church, not to the members, but to the elders. And it shall be done in a meeting, and that not before the world.” (D&C 42:89.)

Note the caution that this remedy is to be private—“not before the world.” This is not done in order to hide the facts, but rather to increase the chance that the correction will improve the life of a brother or sister.

...

There is a fifth remedy. We can pray for the resolution of the problem. We should pray for the leader whom we think to be in error, asking the Lord to correct the circumstance if it needs correction. At the same time, we should pray for ourselves, asking the Lord to correct us if we are in error.

A person who approaches a difference with a Church leader by praying about it keeps himself or herself in tune with the Spirit of the Lord. That person also goes directly to the One who can resolve the problem. It may be resolved by inspiration to the leader or by communication of added understanding, strength, or patience to the person who prays.

All five of these are appropriate options for Church members who differ with their leaders. The preferred course depends upon the circumstances and the inspiration that guides those who prayerfully seek.

I think these are more appropriate responses than . . . what we are seeing coming out of this story.

1 minute ago, juliann said:

Women are particularly prone to getting caught up in this because they do not have equal access in decision making.

I don't really see this as a gendered thing.  The vast majority of men in the Church are not involved in "decision making" relative to admission to the temple.  There's the bishop, the stake president, and possibly the relevant area authority and general authorities.

1 minute ago, juliann said:

Again, this has nothing to do with the particular instance which was not about nursing.

And yet you responded to my comments about this story (this "particular instance") with "Sustaining does not mean following every whim of a leader" and referencing "unrighteous dominion."

I'm not interested in tilting at windmills.  Again, nobody is condoning or excusing or rationalizing "unrighteous dominion."  And nobody is saying that members of the Church simply have to suck up arbitrary/capricious/whimsical decisions by local leaders.

1 minute ago, juliann said:

And I'm betting that if this woman had been doing what she claimed, she would have had significant support from the women in the ward. I know our RS Prez has no problem setting a bishop straight when it comes to women's needs. 

I'd rather stick to the particular subject of this thread, and not get into Gender Wars stuff.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

Love the well thought out and ordered responses.

I see what you’re saying and agree that a bishop would have some responsibility to keep some order during church services.

And while we don’t know nearly enough to make a judgement call in this case, I am often concerned at even the slightest hints of a temple recommend being used as a stick to control behavior, rather than an invitation to commune with Christ in the Holy of Holies.

I'm not sure I understand.  Attendance at the temple is very much a privilege, the conditions for which involve very high standards of behavior and conduct.  As much as it may be unopopular to say in this day and age, that includes submission to the authority of those who have been ordained to it.

I'm not sure framing this issue as a power struggle is accurate or helpful.  We are all supposed to be on the same side, after all.  But as you say, we don't know nearly enough to be making pronouncements about the bishop and the SP.  And even if we did have more information, publicly critiquing such things is not, I think, within our stewardship.

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

But - let me be clear and perhaps redundant - I don’t know enough to make a judgment in this case, and agree that some latitude should be given to leaders to work with the laity to determine whether someone is in the right place to worship in the temple.

I agree.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Zero.

You're acting like I should have the benefit of your personal knowledge and interaction when in fact I haven't had access to see anything from the "witnesses".

Out of curiosity, have you had direct contact with these witnesses? Or are you relying on reports from others who have had direct contact from members? It sounds like the latter. Why in the world would I privilege an account by someone who heard from someone who spoke to a ward member? I'm really not ignoring the other women because I don't have access to anything they have seen. I'm only hearing reports of reports. We've all played telephone and know how that works out. When it's impossible to verify claims or even see the first hand (or even 2nd hand) claims, then it's even less credible than an anonymous poster making the claims themselves.

This is why courts of law generally don't allow hearsay evidence.  This is why percipient witness testimony is so important.  It's also important to establish "foundation" for testimonial evidence.  Was the witness there?  Did he/she personally witness the events in question?  Is the witness biased for or against anyone involved in the contoversy?  Is the witness credible (anonymity weighs against credibility, IMO)?  And so on.

Hearsay statements have very little evidentiary value, particularly about controversies such as this.  They are basically just gussied-up gossip.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

The SL Tribune ended their partnership with KUTV and made a deal with Fox 13. I suspect that killed a lot of content. Also ratings for local news are half of what they were a decade ago and are still declining. Last year KUTV was #1 in the market, in part because they manage to get sensational stories like this one even though I think the KSL news was #1 at 10:00. So I suspect it's a technique, becoming all too common in news, to try and salvage the business in the current market. 

 

Totally an aside, but do you have a link where I can read more about the Tribune ending its partnership with KUTV and forging a new one with Fox 13? Just for my own curiosity's sake. I don't want to derail the thread over this.

[clarkgoble]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Totally an aside, but do you have a link where I can read more about the Tribune ending its partnership with KUTV and forging a new one with Fox 13? Just for my own curiosity's sake. I don't want to derail the thread over this.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900021326/tribune-nixes-kutv-partnership-strikes-deal-with-fox-13.html

 

[ttribe]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This is why courts of law generally don't allow hearsay evidence.  This is why percipient witness testimony is so important.  It's also important to establish "foundation" for testimonial evidence.  Was the witness there?  Did he/she personally witness the events in question?  Is the witness biased for or against anyone involved in the contoversy?  Is the witness credible (anonymity weighs against credibility, IMO)?  And so on.

Hearsay statements have very little evidentiary value, particularly about controversies such as this.  They are basically just gussied-up gossip.

Thanks,

-Smac

The notable exception being expert witnesses...but I digress.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900021326/tribune-nixes-kutv-partnership-strikes-deal-with-fox-13.html

 

Thanks!

 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I saw this posted on the KUTV link, it's a statue in downtown Salt Lake City, Utah. This is how I picture the lady breastfeeding in her ward, just like this, but some people we are so tied to the breast being sexual only and probably balked when seeing this. 

I think the "breastfeeding isn't about sex!" thing is a red herring.  I don't think anyone is suggesting that breastfeeding is about "sex."  Rather, I think the issue more about basic notions of modesty, decorum, and common sense.

Let me provide an example that may clarify my perspective: A few years back I was an adjunct professor at a local university.  Each semester I had a class taught in a computer lab.  I am somewhat tall (6'2), and most the students were seated just in front of me as I stood and lectured at the front (using either a laptop or writing on whiteboards).  One semester I had about 25 students, two of which were women who sat in the front-and-center seats.  Both of these women regularly wore clothing that was quite revealing in the chest area, particularly for someone with a vantage point from "above."

Now, was this a "sexual" thing for me?  Well, no.  I liked and respected both of these women as people.  I got along well with both of them.  And yet their choice in clothing created a difficulty for me.  I simply did not feel comfortable standing in a place where I could see . . . more of them than I really wanted to see.  It wasn't about "sex" (these women always acted with professionalism).  It was about propriety and decorum.  I resolved the issue by finding the remote control thingy for the computer, and then standing to one side at the front of the classroom so as to eliminate or reduce line-of-sight problems.  I never spoke to these women about their choice in clothing, as I did not feel it was my place to do so.  

Fortunately, I had a means of resolving this issue.  I'm not sure the bishop in this story had the options I did.  And the bishop was likely considering "propriety and decorum" not only for himself, but also everyone else passing through the foyer.

Quote

I probably would cover up much more than the woman in the photo or the woman in the article, but that's just me. So maybe what this woman is doing is needed I guess, don't know for sure. I just know that women's bodies need to stop being sexualized and articles like this aren't helping... http://www.mormonwomenstand.com/modesty-everyones-responsibility/

I am curious as to your thoughts about my experience as described above.  Do you think I was wrong?  Did I overreact?  Should I have stayed at the center of the room and maintained a vantage point where I could, on most days, glance downward and catch and eyeful?  What do you think I should have done in that circumstance?  Something else?  Nothing?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 27, 2018 by smac97

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, ttribe said:

The notable exception being expert witnesses...but I digress.

Expert witnesses are generally not percipient witnesses.  They aren't being asked to testify about something they "witnessed."  Rather, expert witnesses usually testify as to a particular subject matter (an accused person's mental capacity or status, a medical "standard of care," etc.).

Thanks,

-Smac

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Expert witnesses are generally not percipient witnesses.  They aren't being asked to testify about something they "witnessed."  Rather, expert witnesses usually testify as to a particular subject matter (an accused person's mental capacity or status, a medical "standard of care," etc.).

Thanks,

-Smac

Since I am one, I realize that. I was referring to the hearsay element. 

[rongo]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

And while we don’t know nearly enough to make a judgement call in this case, I am often concerned at even the slightest hints of a temple recommend being used as a stick to control behavior, rather than an invitation to commune with Christ in the Holy of Holies.

You're setting yourself up to be dashed against the rocks over and over, because there is more than the slightest hint of a temple recommend being used as a stick to control behavior baked right into it. At least specifically regarding 1) criticism of leaders, 2) apostate behavior, 3) domestic abuse, 4) church attendance, 5) the Word of Wisdom, 6) tithing (sorry, Bill Reel!)  , and 7) wearing temple garments appropriately. 

One of its primary purposes is to control behavior in these areas.

As far as bishops and stake presidents specifying beyond ambiguity, I believe they are largely fully authorized to do that. A stake president I had once talked to men about their home teaching (based on reports), and withheld TRs for men who hadn't been doing it. I think some people here would shriek to high heaven about that ("That's not in the questions! You're not the boss of me! Atrocity!"), but they could also . . . repent and start doing their home teaching. He asked me in a TR recommend interview if I read the scriptures every day, and I answered, "Pretty much. Usually." He seriously asked me if I would commit to reading them every day, and I said yes. And I have, from that point 20 years ago. I think the "unrighteous dominion" crowd would cry foul at this as an egregious breach of TR interview legalism, but I am eternally grateful to him for using the TR interview as an opportunity to remind me to better live my covenants. I and my family have been greatly blessed over the last 20 years because he "exceeded his authority." (Tongue-in-cheek, because I think he was well within his authority). 

Edited July 27, 2018 by rongo

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think the "breastfeeding isn't about sex!" thing is a red herring.  Rather, I think the issue more about basic notions of modesty, decorum, and common sense.

Let me provide an example that may clarify my perspective: A few years back I was an adjunct professor at a local university.  Each semester I had a class taught in a computer lab.  I am somewhat tall (6'2), and most the students were seated just in front of me as I stood and lectured at the front (using either a laptop or writing on whiteboards).  One semester I had about 25 students, two of which were women who sat in the front-and-center seats.  Both of these women regularly wore clothing that was quite revealing in the chest area, particularly for someone with a vantage point from "above."

Now, was this a "sexual" thing for me?  Well, no.  I liked and respected both of these women as people.  I got along well with both of them.  And yet their choice in clothing created a difficulty for me.  I simply did not feel comfortable standing in a place where I could see . . . more of them than I really wanted to see.  It wasn't about "sex" (these women always acted with professionalism).  It was about propriety and decorum.  I resolved the issue by finding the remote control thingy for the computer, and then standing to one side at the front of the classroom so as to eliminate or reduce line-of-sight problems.  I never spoke to these women about their choice in clothing, as I did not feel it was my place to do so.  

Fortunately, I had a means of resolving this issue.  I'm not sure the bishop in this story had the options I did.  And the bishop was likely considering "propriety and decorum" not only for himself, but also everyone else passing through the foyer.

I am curious as to your thoughts about my experience as described above.  Do you think I was wrong?  Did I overreact?  Should I have stayed at the center of the room and maintained a vantage point where I could, on most days, glance downward and catch and eyeful?  What do you think I should have done in that circumstance?  Something else?  Nothing?

Thanks,

-Smac

No Smac, I think it's our conditioning. If you grew up in Africa you wouldn't have these feelings as much, but totally understand being uncomfortable and don't think you had any inkling of a sexual thought.

What if an arm or leg was sexual? What is it about a boob? But what I am saying probably has no merit really, just talking out my thoughts and really have no authority on the matter. 

One thing I do know, is that the world is bat&#!t crazy when it comes to sex. I wish so much it wasn't. I'm so tired of how everything has evolved, and I'm even starting to think things that I used to abhor before, such as the thinking that the world is evil and it has to end soon. And I am disappointed in a lot of men that my husband works with, they only have one thing on their minds and discuss their marital relationships all the time, wish he wouldn't tell me what they say. Maybe I should have been a nun.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

No Smac, I think it's our conditioning.

To some extent, yes.  I am not saying that "basic notions of modesty, decorum, and common sense" are uniformly the same in every culture everywhere.

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

If you grew up in Africa you wouldn't have these feelings as much, but totally understand being uncomfortable and don't think you had any inkling of a sexual thought.

Probably so.  But we aren't talking about Africa.  In America, and in Utah, "basic notions of modesty, decorum, and common sense" do not include women insisting on public bare-breasted nursing of babies.

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

What if an arm or leg was sexual? What is it about a boob?

I'm not particularly interested in delving into the intricacies of what body parts are "sexual."  Again, I don't think this is about "sex."  In the context of LDS church services in Utah, bare-breasted nursing of a baby in the foyer, in full view of any and all passersby, pretty much exceeds the parameters of "basic notions of modesty, decorum, and common sense."

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

But what I am saying probably has no merit really, just talking out my thoughts and really have no authority on the matter.

But a bishop indisputably does have authority to address the goings-on in an church-owned building during church-sanctioned meetings involving members of the Church.

"Hey, women in Africa aren't skittish about bare-breasted nursing" just doesn't seem persuasive.  The woman referenced in the OP wasn't African (I suspect), and she wasn't in Africa.  And there's no reason to privilege cultural norms of Africa in the place of cultural norms of Utah when the events under discussion and persons involved are in Utah.

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

One thing I do know, is that the world is bat&#!t crazy when it comes to sex.

Not everything involving the public baring of our "private parts" is about "sex."

My discomfort at my students' revealing attire was not about "sex."  It was more about "basic notions of modesty, decorum, and common sense."

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I wish so much it wasn't. I'm so tired of how everything has evolved, and I'm even starting to think things that I used to abhor before, such as the thinking that the world is evil and it has to end soon. And I am disappointed in a lot of men that my husband works with, they only have one thing on their minds and discuss their marital relationships all the time, wish he wouldn't tell me what they say. Maybe I should have been a nun.

I'm sorry to hear that.  I am fortunate in that I work in a law firm where the majority of the employees are women (men are very much the minority).  These women dress and act professionately and appropriately for a workplace.  Similarly, I frequently attend hearings in court, which involves interacting with female law enforcement officers, clerks, attorneys, judges, and so on.  Again, these women all dress and act professionately and appropriately for the venue.  All the men with whom I interact also dress appropriately.

"Revealing" clothing seems to be more of an option for women than for men.  This seems to be a function of greatly-expanded fashion options.  Consider, for example, this article published by the American Bar Association (hardly a bastion of overly-prudish Mormons):

Quote

Female lawyers, it seems, have forever been pushing the boundaries of what is considered appropriate courtroom attire for their sex. They long ago threw out the floppy bow ties once deemed necessary to blend in with the guys and be taken seriously. And whereas many female lawyers gripe that they must still sometimes abide by antiquated conventions and fusty judges who favor women in skirts over pants (even the lawyer portrayed by Julianna Margulies on the television series The Good Wife was reprimanded by a judge in a recent episode for wearing pants), generally speaking, the wardrobe attire of today’s female lawyers reflects more style, color, and individualism than ever before.

At the same time, some female (and male) lawyers have demonstrated a fashion derring-do that does not always draw admiring glances from the bench, as suggested by judges at a Seventh Circuit Bar Association panel discussion that took place last year.  Judge Joan H. Lefkow of the Northern District of Illinois, for instance, described how one lawyer showed up for a jury trial in a velour outfit that looked like she was “on her way home from the gym.”

Chief Judge Michael P. McCuskey of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois said that he’d observed female participants at moot court competitions at law schools wearing “skirts so short there’s no way they can sit down, and blouses so short there’s no way the judges wouldn’t look.” And Judge A. Benjamin Goldgar of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois piped up from the audience to say he also found some women lawyers’ attire to be a distraction and “a huge problem.”

Do you think Judge McCuskey, a sitting federal judge, is framing this issue as being about "sex?"  Nope.  It's about . . . "basic notions of modesty, decorum, and common sense."

The entire article is worth a read, as it addresses the issue of propriety in a particular venue (court).  How participants dress and behave matter.  A lot.

So if our society can impose standards of dress and behavior for court, why not for church?

Thanks,

-Smac

[clarkgoble]

55 minutes ago, rongo said:

As far as bishops and stake presidents specifying beyond ambiguity, I believe they are largely fully authorized to do that. A stake president I had once talked to men about their home teaching (based on reports), and withheld TRs for men who hadn't been doing it. I think some people here would shriek to high heaven about that ("That's not in the questions! You're not the boss of me! Atrocity!"), but they could also . . . repent and start doing their home teaching. 

Honestly sometimes I think that might be a good thing to ask about - except that now it's the far more nebulous ministering. 

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Do you think Judge McCuskey, a sitting federal judge, is framing this issue as being about "sex?"  Nope.  It's about . . . "basic notions of modesty, decorum, and common sense."

I'm not sure why McCuskey being a judge entails it's not about sex. As I've said I think both sides in the debate appeal to sex too much. But it seems pretty clear that there are a lot of people on both sides. It's not like there aren't many stories of federal judges being sexist or adopting those older cultural norms. Maybe there's some background knowledge of McCuskey you have that the rest of us don't. However I'd certainly not be shocked to find out they thought it about sex.

So I agree with you that modesty typically isn't about sex. Otherwise norms against things like shirtless or barefoot men wouldn't be in place. It's simply far more complex. However simultaneously it's hard not to notice that many people who get most upset about norm breaking do tend to defend them in terms of sex just like those who get most upset at norms do as well.

 

51 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

What if an arm or leg was sexual? What is it about a boob? But what I am saying probably has no merit really, just talking out my thoughts and really have no authority on the matter. 

This seems odd to me. We don't want to say all physical attributes somehow are merely cultural. After all there's a lot of evidence there's strong genetic instincts here for both men and women. Of course we're not determined by our genes so instincts can be overridden. Yet even if there is either a cultural or instinctual aspect to some of this, so what? It's never clear to me where the endpoint on this is. 

Take court decorum. The dress is pretty arbitrary. There's no intrinsic reason why dirty jeans and a t-shirt can't be worn by a Counselor. Yet most would get pretty upset at that. We wouldn't say that the norm against dirty jeans is sexual. Likewise if a man exposed his genitals we'd say that was sexual and would go so far as to say it constituted sexual harassment. But what counts are the rules and whether they're burdensome I'd think. Not whether the norms are tied to sex. Certainly feminists are correct that certain sexual expectations and norms were unfair. It's not quite clear to me that since some were all are. Nor does it seem like whether something is or isn't tied to sex ought matter. The argument about nursing makes since because it's a ridiculous burden to tell women they have to leave to nurse. Likewise the line about where sexual provocative rests seems somewhat problematic and often unrelated to intent. But surely we don't want to say no norms ought exist. (Not that you are saying that - but it gets back to the issue of what norms are reasonable)

 

 

Edited July 27, 2018 by clarkgoble

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm not sure why McCuskey being a judge entails it's not about sex.

I'm inclined to think it's "not about sex" for judges.  Revealing / provocative clothing just is not appropriate attire for appearing in court.  It is distracting.  It detracts from the solemnity of the proceedings.

3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

As I've said I think both sides in the debate appeal to sex too much. But it seems pretty clear that there are a lot of people on both sides. It's not like there aren't many stories of federal judges being sexist or adopting those older cultural norms. Maybe there's some background knowledge of McCuskey you have that the rest of us don't. However I'd certainly not be shocked to find out they thought it about sex.

I have appeared in court hundreds of times, all but one of which involved me wearing a suit.  As for that one time, my paralegal had failed to calendar a hearing in federal court (in Salt Lake, about 40 miles from my office in Orem at the time).  The court clerk called me and told me to get to court immediately.  I was wearing slacks and a white shirt with a blazer, but no tie (I hadn't anticipated being in court).  I arrived in court, breathless.  The court clerk looked me over, then went into her office and brought me back a tie to put on.  I put it on and we proceeded with the hearing.

The judge was not thinking about "sex" in that instance.  He was thinking about decorum.  He was thinking about maintaining high standards of dress and deportment.  I think most judges fall into this category.

3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

So I agree with you that modesty typically isn't about sex. Otherwise norms against things like shirtless or barefoot men wouldn't be in place. It's simply far more complex. However simultaneously it's hard not to notice that many people who get most upset about norm breaking do tend to defend them in terms of sex just like those who get most upset at norms do as well.

Yep.  That's why I observed in the OP that "I think it might have been better [for the bishop] to not [have] frame[d] this issue as a 'don't tempt men.'"  Perhaps had he had more time to be circumspect, he could have framed the issue as being more about basic notions of modesty, decorum/deportment, and common sense.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Bernard Gui]

If we lived in a society like the Marshall Islands or Nicaragua, Panama, and Honduras where I served, then maybe it wouldn’t be a big deal. However in Central America, the more educated or professional women did not openly breastfeed. The men still sexualized the female body. Perhaps that’s part of human nature. I think we should be cognizant of our cultural norms and the social settings in which we do things and respect the fact that many people have a strong sense of modesty and may be uncomfortable with some of our actions. What may be appropriate in private, at home or with intimate friends and family may not be appropriate in a church foyer. We do not know the inner struggles some of our brothers and sisters may be having. Out of respect for the feelings of others, perhaps we can apply a bit of restraint, respect for others, selflessness, and common sense. 

[Bernard Gui]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm inclined to think it's "not about sex" for judges.  Revealing / provocative clothing just is not appropriate attire for appearing in court.  It is distracting.  It detracts from the solemnity of the proceedings.

How can it be distracting?

[SouthernMo]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

You're setting yourself up to be dashed against the rocks over and over, because there is more than the slightest hint of a temple recommend being used as a stick to control behavior baked right into it. At least specifically regarding 1) criticism of leaders, 2) apostate behavior, 3) domestic abuse, 4) church attendance, 5) the Word of Wisdom, 6) tithing (sorry, Bill Reel!)  , and 7) wearing temple garments appropriately. 

One of its primary purposes is to control behavior in these areas.

As far as bishops and stake presidents specifying beyond ambiguity, I believe they are largely fully authorized to do that. A stake president I had once talked to men about their home teaching (based on reports), and withheld TRs for men who hadn't been doing it. I think some people here would shriek to high heaven about that ("That's not in the questions! You're not the boss of me! Atrocity!"), but they could also . . . repent and start doing their home teaching. He asked me in a TR recommend interview if I read the scriptures every day, and I answered, "Pretty much. Usually." He seriously asked me if I would commit to reading them every day, and I said yes. And I have, from that point 20 years ago. I think the "unrighteous dominion" crowd would cry foul at this as an egregious breach of TR interview legalism, but I am eternally grateful to him for using the TR interview as an opportunity to remind me to better live my covenants. I and my family have been greatly blessed over the last 20 years because he "exceeded his authority." (Tongue-in-cheek, because I think he was well within his authority). 

I get it. There are some people who thrive under more controlling authority. It sounds like you have - I think that’s great.

When leaders exercise that kind of control over me, it pushes me away from the leadership, and makes me less inclined to obey the commandments.  I guess I find I’m motivated to be like Christ because of love, and not because a man in authority will punish me if I don’t.

[USU78]

Anybody encountered the more radical arm of La Leche League?  One of my stepson's mother-in-law falls into this category, arising out of her work as a neo-natal/lactation nurse.  She is one of those advocates of unfettered public nursing.  But she goes even farther:  she taught her daughter that she should nurse her newborn every two hours each 24-hour period.  This means you wake up at 8:00, nurse, burp, change, then catch a few zz's until 10:00, whereupon you wake yourself and baby up, nurse, burp change, then catch a few zz's until 12:00  ...  The poor girl nearly killed herself waking up herself and that sleeping baby all the time.  It took the poor child about three years before she overcame her sense of danger.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, USU78 said:

Anybody encountered the more radical arm of La Leche League?  One of my stepson's mother-in-law falls into this category, arising out of her work as a neo-natal/lactation nurse.  She is one of those advocates of unfettered public nursing.  But she goes even farther:  she taught her daughter that she should nurse her newborn every two hours each 24-hour period.  This means you wake up at 8:00, nurse, burp, change, then catch a few zz's until 10:00, whereupon you wake yourself and baby up, nurse, burp change, then catch a few zz's until 12:00  ...  The poor girl nearly killed herself waking up herself and that sleeping baby all the time.  It took the poor child about three years before she overcame her sense of danger.

Most people deal with that kind of schedule a few times or more, usually when the baby is ill or perhaps going through a growth spurt, but to say you should do that all the time is nuts. The thing about most babies and mothers is that they manage to work out their own schedule that isn't going to kill either one of them. I'm glad this young woman finally figured out she didn't have to do that.

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

How can it be distracting?

Well, inappropriate attire can be "distracting" in the sense of giving others in the courtroom an inappropriate looksee (from the article I quoted earlier😞

Quote

Jurors, who are spending their time in court intently watching and listening, can be affected by countless details. And they often share their impressions with the other jurors.  “They make comments about lawyers all the time,” says Judge Lynn, recalling the time she received a note from a jury complaining that a female lawyer wasn’t sitting with her legs properly closed. Another time, a female lawyer wore a gauzy blouse that the jurors could see through. “It was distracting,” she notes.

Inappropriately revealing attire isn't a "sexual" issue per se.  It can just be inappropriate.  Distracting.

Consider this bit from a sidebar in the article:

Quote

BEFORE YOU SASHAY INTO COURT . . .

In 2008 and 2009, the American Bar Association recognized this website as one of the “Top 100 Blawgs.” Here are excerpts from one post:
...
›› Make sure your undergarments are not distracting. Avoid lacy bras beneath silk blouses, the quad-boob look, etc. Stock up on simple camisoles.

I had to look up "the quad-boob look."  Um, yeah.  Not really appropriate for court.

Other times clothing can be "distracting" in terms of color or style.  Again from the sidebar in the article:

Quote

›› Limit yourself to three or four dark suits—one black, one navy, and maybe one in brown and/or gray.
›› If you’re prickly about having matching accessories, go with all black accessories and choose the gray suit.
...
›› Your goal in dress should be vanilla—you don’t want the jury to notice your clothes in either a good or bad way.
›› Avoid logo bags and anything with sparkles, including jewelry.
›› Also avoid noticeable accessories such as red-soled shoes.

Logos, sparkles, jewelry, red-soled shoes, etc. are not "sexual," but they can be "distracting."

Thanks,

-Smac

[juliann]

Not that it matters at this point, but it is the SP who is said to have pulled the TR. not the bishop. 

As to witnesses, it seems a little silly to dispute they saw anything when the woman herself accused members of complaining because they saw things.