Exiled Posted July 29, 2018 Posted July 29, 2018 2 minutes ago, CA Steve said: The one person version then a two person version making the story suspect is just a tad bit ironic, if ya know what I mean. Well, different defenses for different cases and congruence doesn't matter with certain angles.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 29, 2018 Posted July 29, 2018 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: This story https://www.good4utah.com/news/local-news/lds-mother-says-her-temple-recommend-was-revoked-for-breastfeeding-uncovered-in-church-foyer/1329529056 indicates that it’s not just a matter of “discreet” breast feeding, as I earlier had supposed, but that she was/is determined to do it fully uncovered in full view of everyone in the foyer. 45 minutes ago, Exiled said: So, this is the controversy? She didn't put a covering over her and the baby and someone got a glimpse of the side of the woman's breast or whatever? Earlier, you said this: “My position is that breastfeeding in the church foyer isn't a big deal per se. If the woman did it as others usually do it, then no big deal and this story is one of an overly prudish bishop trying to assert authority where he shouldn't. If she exposed herself too much, then it is entirely different. If it is somewhere in between, then that is a harder question to resolve and more information is needed.” This indicates that the degree of exposure makes a difference to you. It does to me as well. I’m just saying that it now appears to me that her behavior was (and is) more brazen than I earlier had supposed.
strappinglad Posted July 29, 2018 Posted July 29, 2018 Honestly, you can read all 19/20 pages on this tempest in a " tea " pot and will discover that the other side of the story is from private conversations that will likely be kept private. I get the sense that this lady and her problem was not a ' one off ' so to speak, but an ongoing distraction that came to a head. Leaders stepped in and unfortunately stepped in it. ( metaphors at 30 paces anyone? ) 1
Exiled Posted July 29, 2018 Posted July 29, 2018 1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said: Earlier, you said this: “My position is that breastfeeding in the church foyer isn't a big deal per se. If the woman did it as others usually do it, then no big deal and this story is one of an overly prudish bishop trying to assert authority where he shouldn't. If she exposed herself too much, then it is entirely different. If it is somewhere in between, then that is a harder question to resolve and more information is needed.” This indicates that the degree of exposure makes a difference to you. It does to me as well. I’m just saying that it now appears to me that her behavior was (and is) more brazen than I earlier had supposed. I don't think one could argue against prohibiting the woman from exposing herself more than necessary. In these matters it is one of degree and there is always a little exposure in the process. I would side on not forcing the woman to cover up the baby but try and be as discrete as she could be. It seems her issue was the covering up the baby and that is what the Bishop wanted. Even so, this case is one of line-drawing and I would have to see what happened to really make a decision. This is why I wanted more information. Thanks for providing the link.
Exiled Posted July 29, 2018 Posted July 29, 2018 11 minutes ago, strappinglad said: Honestly, you can read all 19/20 pages on this tempest in a " tea " pot and will discover that the other side of the story is from private conversations that will likely be kept private. I get the sense that this lady and her problem was not a ' one off ' so to speak, but an ongoing distraction that came to a head. Leaders stepped in and unfortunately stepped in it. ( metaphors at 30 paces anyone? ) There is definitely more to the story and maybe one or more parties were concentrating too much on math homework and obtuse angles and not enough on communication class. Anyway, I think I have just about exhausted my interest in it
Bernard Gui Posted July 29, 2018 Posted July 29, 2018 (edited) 5 hours ago, ALarson said: 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!! Modesty is a fairly regular topic here, usually as a result of some news story like this one. Inevitably, defenders of modesty end up defending themselves from unwarranted accusations. Over several decades, I have been in enough modesty discussions here to recognize when the monkeys are in transit. Edited July 30, 2018 by Bernard Gui 3
Bernard Gui Posted July 29, 2018 Posted July 29, 2018 19 minutes ago, strappinglad said: Honestly, you can read all 19/20 pages on this tempest in a " tea " pot and will discover that the other side of the story is from private conversations that will likely be kept private. I get the sense that this lady and her problem was not a ' one off ' so to speak, but an ongoing distraction that came to a head. Leaders stepped in and unfortunately stepped in it. ( metaphors at 30 paces anyone? ) Yep. This.
Anijen Posted July 29, 2018 Posted July 29, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, juliann said: Anjien! This was not a a nursing problem! It was not just exposing a breast to nurse! People should have been offended! We need to at least allow for the possibility that the Exponent blog, that the Trib used for its only source, made no effort whatsoever to seek out the complete story. Yes, I fully am aware it is not just a nursing problem. Edited July 29, 2018 by Anijen
Calm Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, Anijen said: Exactly my feelings. I am accustomed to other cultures and to me this is no big deal, and got carried away. However, there in Utah, a more prudish population (no doubt), it probably is a big deal. I can see a Bishop having his mantle questioned a little bit and perhaps he was offended and took it to the Stake President, who, happened to agree with the Bishop. There is also in Utah larger families, so that might offset any prudishness generally speaking for breastfeeding. People might be a bit thrown by it, but accept it as necessary and therefore ignore it. Utah exceeds US rate: https://ibis.health.utah.gov/indicator/complete_profile/BrstFeed6mos.html Utah is in the top 5 states for breastfeeding as far as I can tell and within one percentage point of top for breastfeeding at 6 months, third for 12 months though 5 off of the top which is Vermont. https://www.cdc.gov/breastfeeding/pdf/2014breastfeedingreportcard.pdf As a side note, choosing the foyer rather than a pew does not in most cases make the mother less noticeable but more, imo. If one chooses a pew further to the back and on the side, the pew itself plus the people surrounding one block the view while in the foyer everything is pretty much in one's line of sight. The advantage of the foyer imo is the comfy chairs and being able to let the other kids wander without having to hush them if they follow you. As far as audio, I don't think I have ever been in a foyer where more than one other person was there that I could hear very well. Besides people walking through, often adults are talking as well. Maybe we can get some sort of wireless headphones setup where people can bring their own (and a few available in the library for visitors or those who forget) and sync with the chapel mic no matter where they are in the building. Edited July 30, 2018 by Calm
Bernard Gui Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I like that. So, unless Bernard objects, so let it be written, so let it be done. I will add the following to my sig line when I can get to my laptop or desktop computer: Gui’s Law: If on the imternet you defend modesty, the probability of your eventuallly being accused of being a pervert approaches 100 percent. I like your version. Consider this and maybe we can work out a good version for keeping. Godwin’s Law.... Quote As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches 1. Gui’s Law (proposed language).... Quote In an online discussion of modesty, the probability that a defender of modesty is called a pervert approaches 1. 2
Bernard Gui Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 5 hours ago, Exiled said: 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. Why do you associate an honest concern for respect and modesty with prudishness? 1
Bernard Gui Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 (edited) 5 hours ago, JulieM said: In public! (Read his question again.) Not just breastfeeding in general. Some are offended by that too (nursing in public or especially at church outside the nursing room). It was a reasonable question as I wondered what you meant by what you said too (disagreeing with what the woman had done). I’m glad you made it more clear. I’m in full agreement with you. I disagree with what she’s done here (and am fine with public nursing just as you are). I think we’re all also clear on why he asked the question and should just take his word (and yours) at this point. It’s kind of silly to keep bringing it up, really. Some may be offended. That’s such a loaded word. Can one have valid concerns about modesty but not as a result of being offended? Quote synonyms: upset, insulted, affronted, aggrieved, displeased, hurt, wounded, disgruntled, put out, annoyed, angry, cross, exasperated, indignant, irritated, piqued, vexed, irked, stung, galled, nettled, resentful, in a huff, huffy, in high dudgeon; Edited July 30, 2018 by Bernard Gui 1
Bernard Gui Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: This story https://www.good4utah.com/news/local-news/lds-mother-says-her-temple-recommend-was-revoked-for-breastfeeding-uncovered-in-church-foyer/1329529056 indicates that it’s not just a matter of “discreet” breast feeding, as I earlier had supposed, but that she was/is determined to do it fully uncovered in full view of everyone in the foyer. S. Heber Young is vindicated. Edited July 30, 2018 by Bernard Gui
Scott Lloyd Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 (edited) 31 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: I like your version. Consider this and maybe we can work out a good version for keeping. Godwin’s Law.... Gui’s Law (proposed language).... Your latest version is the best so far. I like it for its clarity, conciseness and parallel construction to the wording in Godwin’s Law. I say we go with it. Edited July 30, 2018 by Scott Lloyd
Bernard Gui Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: Your latest version is the best so far. I like for its clarity, conciseness and parallel construction to the wording in Godwin’s Law. I say we go with it. And thus shall it ever be known.
Calm Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: the monkeys are in transit. ?
Bernard Gui Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 3 minutes ago, Calm said: ? Everyone has monkeys on their backs that they are wanting to put on someone else’s back. The secret to a happy life is to recognize monkeys in transit.
Exiled Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 26 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Why do you associate an honest concern for respect and modesty with prudishness? I don't think it is a big deal to show one's bare shoulders and I don't think it is a big deal to breastfeed uncovered in the foyer. I think it is a bit much to make an issue over. "Prude," according to dictionary.com means "a person who is excessively proper or modest in speech, conduct, dress, etc." Hence, because that is the definition of what I see is going on, this is why I associate the conduct with prudishness. It's a relative term and I'm sure you look at others with even more conservative dress and standards as prudish. I am sure I am prudish compared to others here in Las Vegas. To you maybe I am an apostate libertine, but here I am probably viewed as prudish. It's relative.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: Modesty is a fairly regular topic here, usually as a result of some news story like this one. Inevitably, defenders of modesty end up defending themselves from unwarranted accusations. Over several decades, I have been in enough modesty discussions here to recognize when the monkeys are in transit. I am a witness that years ago, in a thread on the now-defunct Zion’s Light Message Board, Bernard, a former school administrator, was subjected to libel after he posted favorably about school dress codes that require modesty. It took some strenuous complaining (in which, I’m proud to say, I joined) to eventually get the entire thread not just shut down but deleted from the board. 1
Rain Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: What is not clear? Whether you were trying to make a point or whether you actually didn't understand the difference when you asked the question about the difference.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 6 minutes ago, Exiled said: I don't think it is a big deal to show one's bare shoulders and I don't think it is a big deal to breastfeed uncovered in the foyer. I think it is a bit much to make an issue over. "Prude," according to dictionary.com means "a person who is excessively proper or modest in speech, conduct, dress, etc." Hence, because that is the definition of what I see is going on, this is why I associate the conduct with prudishness. It's a relative term and I'm sure you look at others with even more conservative dress and standards as prudish. I am sure I am prudish compared to others here in Las Vegas. To you maybe I am an apostate libertine, but here I am probably viewed as prudish. It's relative. All of which argues for the establishment and enforcement of boundaries in a setting such as a church meeting. It does not always work to leave things up to the individual. 1
Bernard Gui Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Exiled said: I don't think it is a big deal to show one's bare shoulders and I don't think it is a big deal to breastfeed uncovered in the foyer. I think it is a bit much to make an issue over. "Prude," according to dictionary.com means "a person who is excessively proper or modest in speech, conduct, dress, etc." Hence, because that is the definition of what I see is going on, this is why I associate the conduct with prudishness. It's a relative term and I'm sure you look at others with even more conservative dress and standards as prudish. I am sure I am prudish compared to others here in Las Vegas. To you maybe I am an apostate libertine, but here I am probably viewed as prudish. It's relative. I don’t believe anyone is prudish. Calling someone a prude is judgemental. It’s never intended as a compliment and is usually employed to censor or marginalize the person being labeled. Hence my question to you and some others here, can one have a sincere concern about modesty without being unfairly labeled? You are neither a libertine nor an apostate. Edited July 30, 2018 by Bernard Gui 1
Bernard Gui Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 8 minutes ago, Rain said: Whether you were trying to make a point or whether you actually didn't understand the difference when you asked the question about the difference. I’m sorry. I’m not following you. Could you please clarify so I can respond better? The difference between...... Thanks.
Bernard Gui Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I am a witness that years ago, in a thread on the now-defunct Zion’s Light Message Board, Bernard, a former school administrator, was subjected to libel after he posted favorably about school dress codes that require modesty. It took some strenuous complaining (in which, I’m proud to say, I joined) to eventually get the entire thread not just shut down but deleted from the board. Thanks, by the way. That was a nightmare! That’s when I stopped posting under my real name. Just a correction - I was a teacher, not an administrator, who was serving on a committee to establish a district-wide dress code for secondary schools. Edited July 30, 2018 by Bernard Gui
Scott Lloyd Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said: Thanks, by the way. That was a nightmare! Just a correction - I was a teacher, not an administrator, who was serving on a committee to establish a district-wide dress code for secondary schools. Thanks. I guess it was the administrative role of the committee you were on that caused me to remember incorrectly that you were an administrator at the time.
Recommended Posts