Woman Denied Temple Recommend for ...

[Exiled]

2 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I knew it would come to this. I find this comment insulting. Can’t we discuss something without casting undeserved oprobrium?

How is the comment insulting?  You seem to take issue with foyer breastfeeding.  Why don't you just explain why the foyer should be off-limits to this sort of thing, explain where it should occur and why.  I don't think it is that big of a deal.  In Brazil it was common to see in the church.  My aunt did it openly.  I think it is done openly in other cultures.  Maybe it is a cultural thing?

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This seems to be endemic. I endured the same thing from ALarson earlier in the thread, immediately after I had explicitly stated I believe society needs to be more tolerant of breastfeeding in public! 

Endured?    

Not true. I simply asked you a question as a matter of clarifying what you meant.  I never made any accusations against you 

I asked you this:

Quote

 Is it offensive to you when you see a Mother nursing her child in public?

I know for some, it is offensive.  Thus the question....

Then I agreed with your example posted after this (of the Mother nursing in the restaurant).  And, I still agree with you on that.

Edited July 29, 2018 by ALarson

[Exiled]

9 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I believe it was Exiled who brought brought up the pulpit. 

It’s an issue for me because it is used in the media and here on this board as just another club to unfairly bludgeon the Church and its leaders.

I think it is the price the church pays for dominating Utah like it does.  This wouldn't even be a story anywhere else. 

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I think it is the price the church pays for dominating Utah like it does.  This wouldn't even be a story anywhere else. 

It should not be a story here. 

[Bernard Gui]

33 minutes ago, Exiled said:

How is the comment insulting?  You seem to take issue with foyer breastfeeding.  Why don't you just explain why the foyer should be off-limits to this sort of thing, explain where it should occur and why.  I don't think it is that big of a deal.  In Brazil it was common to see in the church.  My aunt did it openly.  I think it is done openly in other cultures.  Maybe it is a cultural thing?

It’s offensive because of its obvious implications about me personally. We should be able to discuss modesty without questioning motives.

Of course it’s a culture thing. I don’t think I could make my position clearer. The behavior that started this discussion and got the bishop and stake president involved was open, exposed, uncovered nursing in the church foyer, not the discrete covered nursing that is fairly common and accepted in church or elsewhere.

Edited July 29, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Endured?    

Not true. I simply asked you a question as a matter of clarifying what you meant.  I never made any accusations against you 

I asked you this:

I know for some, it is offensive.  Thus the question....

Then I agreed with your example posted after this (of the Mother nursing in the restaurant).  And, I still agree with you on that.

The question was unnecessary after the explicit statement I had just made. Later, after I shared the example, you seemed to draw in your horns a bit (though it was a long time coming) but there has not been anything from you approaching an apology for the unnecesssry and accusatory question which, as Bernard aptly put it, amounts to an insult. 

[Bernard Gui]

17 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I think it is the price the church pays for dominating Utah like it does.  This wouldn't even be a story anywhere else. 

I disagree. There are modest people everywhere, not just Utah and not just Mormons. Laying this at the feet of the Church is unfair.

[juliann]

Exiled, I can’t take you seriously when you dismiss accounts of witnesses when you have no more information than newspapers or blogs that merely regurgitate what an unidentifed woman claimed about what scores of people allegedly did. And you you not require a shred of evidence to believe the story you like. 

ALarsen, the more I hear from multiple sources, the more I have to question all of her tale. I’m willing to bet that I have followed this more closely than anyone here. The woman’s story started to become inconsistent within the first day. If you remember, she initially claimed that the bishop threatened to throw her out of the building. That has disappeared. It was her excessive and even silly set of involved excuses as to why she couldn’t comply to even one request that began to set off red flags even before I began to hear witness accounts. 

After the latest witness account, I’m even feeling sorry for this bishop. No congregation should have had to witness what she was actually doing every Sunday. And unlike her stories, those accounts have remained consistent. I am hoping they can feel secure to speak out anonymously as well and that may happen. Normally, this would be a wait it out thing, but I have already had to allay a nursing mother’s fear in another group. 

So where I would normally be fully on board with this story, and was, I do feel obligated to give equal credence to all the women who have a story. Then I have to weigh the likelihood that an entire ward would gang up on an innocent nursing mother. 

The other issues this now brings up to me are what happens when advocacy groups are more entranced with a good storyline for the short haul than finding a sustainable storyline? What happens when they over invest in that storyline to the point they begin censoring the full story? (I am now seeing blogs that obliquely attack the full story, the last couched in “what if this happened....it wouldn’t matter” which is close enough to signal that they really are starting to hear but will not admit that it is not being reported as a “ what if” at all, they just can’t come any closer without admitting there is a very robust counter to the narrative they have created using this woman as a prop. 

In other words, using this manufactured tale to shine needed light on controlling leaders, isn’t any smart for anyone. Which is why I am no longer going to do that. There are plenty of other real stories that can carry the weight. 

(And I have been mostly using my phone lately so there are going to be the usual phone typing glitches in my posts  )

 

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The question was unnecessary after the explicit statement I had just made. 

You stated:

Quote

 I think the mother is being unreasonable. 

That's why I was asking you to clarify.  I meant nothing by the question and no accusation was ever made by me.  Many do find it offensive for women to nurse at church (even if they are ok with them nursing elsewhere in public).  You're being way too overly sensitive right now just as you were earlier regarding this, Scott (and even others pointed that out to you). 

I was not accusing you of anything but simply asking a question to clarify what you felt the mother was "being unreasonable" about....that could have meant that she was "unreasonable" to refuse to nurse in the mother's room, "unreasonable" to nurse in the foyer, "unreasonable" to nurse uncovered, "unreasonable" to not follow the directions from her leaders, "unreasonable" to speak to the press....and possibly other options that you were referring to.  I did not accuse you of anything, but your statement was vague.

Edited July 29, 2018 by ALarson

[Bernard Gui]

32 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This seems to be endemic. I endured the same thing from ALarson earlier in the thread, immediately after I had explicitly stated I believe society needs to be more tolerant of breastfeeding in public! 

There must be some sort of Godwin’s Rule for discussing modesty on the internet. “At some point, the probability becomes 1 that the person defending modesty is accused of being a pervert.” Perhaps we can come up with a name so we can invoke it for future discussions here.

[ALarson]

17 minutes ago, juliann said:

ALarsen, the more I hear from multiple sources, the more I have to question all of her tale. I’m willing to bet that I have followed this more closely than anyone here. The woman’s story started to become inconsistent within the first day. If you remember, she initially claimed that the bishop threatened to throw her out of the building. That has disappeared. It was her excessive and even silly set of involved excuses as to why she couldn’t comply to even one request that began to set off red flags even before I began to hear witness accounts. 

After the latest witness account, I’m even feeling sorry for this bishop. No congregation should have had to witness what she was actually doing every Sunday. And unlike her stories, those accounts have remained consistent. I am hoping they can feel secure to speak out anonymously as well and that may happen. Normally, this would be a wait it out thing, but I have already had to allay a nursing mother’s fear in another group. 

So where I would normally be fully on board with this story, and was, I do feel obligated to give equal credence to all the women who have a story. Then I have to weigh the likelihood that an entire ward would gang up on an innocent nursing mother. 

The other issues this now brings up to me are what happens when advocacy groups are more entranced with a good storyline for the short haul than finding a sustainable storyline? What happens when they over invest in that storyline to the point they begin censoring the full story? (I am now seeing blogs that obliquely attack the full story, the last couched in “what if this happened....it wouldn’t matter” which is close enough to signal that they really are starting to hear but will not admit that it is not being reported as a “ what if” at all, they just can’t come any closer without admitting there is a very robust counter to the narrative they have created using this woman as a prop. 

In other words, using this manufactured tale to shine needed light on controlling leaders, isn’t any smart for anyone. Which is why I am no longer going to do that. There are plenty of other real stories that can carry the weight. 

(And I have been mostly using my phone lately so there are going to be the usual phone typing glitches in my posts  )

 

Thanks, juliann.  It's nice to have someone come on here and clarify with more details and information.

I agree (and have already stated) that this sister put her leaders in a horrible position.  I don't envy them!  I also don't doubt the reports coming in from ward members who were eye witnesses.  It's not a good situation and I imagine it's been contentious within that ward which is never good to have going on.

I also don't agree with this being taken to the press and how it's been used to cause harm to the church.

My thoughts were mainly regarding what was claimed about what took place with the Stake President.  And, I've been careful to say "IF true then, I disagree with how he dealt with it".  We may not ever have any more details on this though because the SP will not speak out about what took place in a private interview (and I understand, of course, why he can't). 

Have we heard anything from the husband....do you know?  Does he corroborate her account or has he been silent regarding that?

Edited July 29, 2018 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You stated:

That's why I was asking you to clarify.  I meant nothing by the question and no accusation was ever made by me.  Many do find it offensive for women to nurse at church (even if they are ok with them nursing elsewhere in public).  You're being way too overly sensitive right now just as you were earlier regarding this, Scott (and even others pointed that out to you). 

I was not accusing you of anything but simply asking a question to clarify what you felt the mother was "being unreasonable" about....that could have meant that she was "unreasonable" to refuse to nurse in the mother's room, "unreasonable" to nurse in the foyer, "unreasonable" to nurse uncovered, "unreasonable" to not follow the directions from her leaders, "unreasonable" to speak to the press....and possibly other options that you were referring to.  I did not accuse you of anything, but your statement was vague.

You have never explained why you felt it necessary to ask the question immediately after I had explicitly stated that I believed society should be more tolerant of public breastfeeding. Why in the world would you think I found it “offensive” after I had just stated I think society should be more tolerant of it? That makes no sense. 

I suspect what happened is that you jumped to a conclusion without having bothered to carefully read or consider what I had written. 

It goes back to the Godwin’s Law-like phenomenon that Bernard has just identified: that on the Internet, if you defend modesty, the probability that you will be accused of being a pervert approaches 1.  

Edited July 29, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Exiled]

3 minutes ago, juliann said:

Exiled, I can’t take you seriously when you dismiss accounts of witnesses when you have no more information than newspapers or blogs that merely regurgitate what an unidentifed woman claimed about what scores of people allegedly did. And you you not require a shred of evidence to believe the story you like.

I am not too worried about being taken seriously.  However, the media reports a story. You claim there is another side to it.  What is the other side?  What did she do?  I am afraid that I need a better explanation.  It's one thing if the woman breastfeeds like one usually sees and quite another if she pulls her shirt all the way off to breastfeed her infant.  So, what do the other ward members actually say?  I agree that there are appropriate ways to do it and inappropriate ways.  So, what did she actually do?  A better explanation of what she actually did and routinely does is the only way to resolve this mystery for me.

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

There must be some sort of Godwin’s Rule for discussing modesty on the internet. “At some point, the probability becomes 1 that the person defending modesty is accused of being a pervert.” Perhaps we can come up with a name so we can invoke it for future discussions here.

I like this. If there is not such a written rule, I think we should codify one. I might even make it part of my sig line. 

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You have never explained why you felt it necessary to ask the question immediately after I had explicitly stated that I believed society should be more tolerant of public breastfeeding. Why in the world would you think I found it “offensive” after I had just stated I think society should be more tolerant of it? That makes no sense. 

It was early on in the discussion and you hadn't given your restaurant example yet (which I agreed with and it gave me clarity regarding where you stood on the issue).  I honestly did not know if you believed her behavior (ie. nursing in the foyer) was what you disagreed with and felt was "unreasonable" (your word).  Some may feel it was "unreasonable" for her to nurse in the foyer of the church.

I think you need to just drop this, Scott.  I've clarified several times and I never did accuse you of anything here.

You're being very overly sensitive regarding this (now and when I asked the question).  It was not meant as an accusation.

Edited July 29, 2018 by ALarson

[Exiled]

15 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

There must be some sort of Godwin’s Rule for discussing modesty on the internet. “At some point, the probability becomes 1 that the person defending modesty is accused of being a pervert.” Perhaps we can come up with a name so we can invoke it for future discussions here.

So, do you think I accused you of being a pervert?  It was the other way around, in reality.  I was thinking your take was akin to the shaming bare shoulders behavior that bothers the ex-mormon crowd on ex-mormon reddit.  The woman involved here claimed the Stake President brought up the youth pamphlet and modesty.  So, I was thinking that you were taking that stance that breastfeeding was immodest per se if done at church in the foyer.  So, do you know what the other ward members are saying what really happened?  

[ALarson]

30 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It goes back to the Godwin’s Law-like phenomenon that Bernard has just identified: that on the Internet, if you defend modesty, the probability that you will be accused of being a pervert approaches 1.  

Oh brother 

Even if you did mean that her nursing in the foyer was "unreasonable", it doesn't mean that anyone was accusing you of being a "pervert".  

I think you and Bernard are protesting a bit too much here!!

Edited July 29, 2018 by ALarson

[Exiled]

31 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

It’s offensive because of its obvious implications about me personally. We should be able to discuss modesty without questioning motives.

Of course it’s a culture thing. I don’t think I could make my position clearer. The behavior that started this discussion and got the bishop and stake president involved was open, exposed, uncovered nursing in the church foyer, not the discrete covered nursing that is fairly common and accepted in church or elsewhere.

Here again, I need a better explanation of what the bishop and stake president view as "open, exposed and uncovered."  That is so subject to one's point of view that it becomes meaningless without more of an explanation of what the woman did.  If the woman likes to pull her shirt down prior to breastfeeding, then that sort of behavior should be relegated to private areas.  If it is a case of an overly prudish bishop and stake president trying to assert their views of modesty, then that is quite another issue.

[JulieM]

49 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It should not be a story here. 

It would be a story anywhere if it had been reported accurately.  But we’re learning that this woman was much more undressed in a church setting than just a mother trying to discreetly nurse her baby.

The problem now is that people will read it and believe that’s the case.  Most won’t dig deeper and learn what Juliann knows or the ward members know.

We also may never know what really happened in her interview with her stake president or if he denied the husband a recommend too.  On the surface, that all seems wrong (what we’ve been told).  So a lot of those reading the story will be left with that impression when it may not be the truth.  

Edited July 29, 2018 by JulieM

[Bernard Gui]

10 minutes ago, Exiled said:

So, do you think I accused you of being a pervert?  

Of course. Go back and reread your comment. Where did you intend to take that question? 

Quote

It was the other way around, in reality.  I was thinking your take was akin to the shaming bare shoulders behavior that bothers the ex-mormon crowd on ex-mormon reddit.  The woman involved here claimed the Stake President brought up the youth pamphlet and modesty.  So, I was thinking that you were taking that stance that breastfeeding was immodest per se if done at church in the foyer.  So, do you know what the other ward members are saying what really happened?  

All the rest is conjecture. Many people build castles in the sky. Why not make them one story higher?

[Anijen]

My take then: I thought how inappropriate of the Bishop and Stake President. I was going by what the woman first said about what happened. A downright abuse of power...

My take now: I am with Juliann, Hmm, it seems her story is changing each time. Perhaps my judgmental attitude toward the Bishop and Stake President was a little too premature.

Take away: I am willing to bet the facts are probably somewhere in the middle. Yes, I think because custom here in the US dictates covering up she should cover up and she is wrong to turn this into a vendetta against her church leaders. How I feel about the church leaders: Love them, but they probably should have let it be and not even made it such a hot issue. I still think its wrong to withhold a recommend for breastfeeding in public (if that was the reason).

[USU78]

31 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I like this. If there is not such a written rule, I think we should codify one. I might even make it part of my sig line. 

Call it "Gui's [Gooey's] Law."

[USU78]

24 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Oh brother 

Even if you did mean that her nursing in the foyer was "unreasonable", it doesn't mean that anyone would accuse you of being a "pervert".  

I think you and Bernard are protesting a bit too much here!!

Gui's Law.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, USU78 said:

Call it "Gui's [Gooey's] Law."

Or Shalit's Law in honor of the courageous Jewish woman who is trying to mount a crusade for modesty in our culture.

She has taken a lot of grief because of it. https://www.amazon.com/Return-Modesty-Discovering-Lost-Virtue/dp/1476756651/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1532892935&sr=8-1&keywords=return+to+modesty&dpID=41FuvN9euTL&preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch

Quote

Revised and updated, this fifteenth anniversary edition of A Return to Modesty reignites Wendy Shalit’s controversial claim that we have lost our respect for an essential virtue: modesty.

When A Return to Modesty was first published in 1999, its argument launched a worldwide discussion about the possibility of innocence and romantic idealism. Wendy Shalit was the first to systematically critique the “hook-up” scene and outline the harms of making sexuality so public.

Today, with social media increasingly blurring the line between public and private life, and with child exploitation on the rise, the concept of modesty is more relevant than ever. Updated with a new preface that addresses the unique problems facing society now, A Return to Modesty shows why “the lost virtue” of modesty is not a hang-up that we should set out to cure, but rather a wonderful instinct to be celebrated.

A Return to Modesty is a deeply personal account as well as a fascinating intellectual exploration into everything from seventeenth-century manners to the 1948 tune “Baby, It’s Cold Outside.” Beholden neither to social conservatives nor to feminists, Shalit reminds us that modesty is not prudery, but a natural instinct—and one that may be able to save us from ourselves.

 

Edited July 29, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[juliann]

19 minutes ago, Anijen said:

My take then: I thought how inappropriate of the Bishop and Stake President. I was going by what the woman first said about what happened. A downright abuse of power...

My take now: I am with Juliann, Hmm, it seems her story is changing each time. Perhaps my judgmental attitude toward the Bishop and Stake President was a little too premature.

Take away: I am willing to bet the facts are probably somewhere in the middle. Yes, I think because custom here in the US dictates covering up she should cover up and she is wrong to turn this into a vendetta against her church leaders. How I feel about the church leaders: Love them, but they probably should have let it be and not even made it such a hot issue. I still think its wrong to withhold a recommend for breastfeeding in public (if that was the reason).

I so agree. But I think it is very very important we don't treat this as a breastfeeding issue. If what I am hearing is true, this situation should not and could not have been left alone. That doesn't mean it couldn't have been handled better, but until we get a full story, I don't have enough information.