Modesty issues...again

[Hamba Tuhan]

8 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Why the hostility?

No hostility in my words, mate. Sorry for that impression. I'm just genuinely trying to communicate instead of talking past each other.

Quote

I think I answered that in my response: "I explained in detail what I did as a high councilman at stake dances, which is to speak with the youth, ask to see their dance card with the standards on the back and their signature on the front saying they agreed to abide by them, try to avoid confrontation and argument, and ask them to get something appropriate and come back in. Many times the appropriate thing was left out in the car." Is this not adequate for what I would do?

OK, but why do you get to do this based upon your personal interpretation of what tight means? If the young man knows the standard and feels comfortable that he is keeping it, and if I as a fellow high councillor (say) also know the standard and feel that the young man is keeping it, why do you get to ask the young man to change his shirt? On what basis? What does 'tight' really mean? Or are you just going to tell us that you know 'tight' when you see it?

Quote

Not trying to read your mind, but apparently you think the standard needs to be reworded.

Nope. I'm fine with it as written. That you don't understand this seems to be part of the miscommunication. My concern is specifically with private interpretations and acts of 'enforcement' that stem therefrom.

Quote

I'm not sure what you are looking for.

Just clarity. When you don't answer my questions, I'm left feeling you didn't understand them. And that implies you don't even understand the concerns many of us have tried to express over the course of two dozen pages.

Edited August 29, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Rain]

18 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

How does this line up with Sister Canon's statement...

Can we ignore the standards at church activities and be loyal to them at the same time? How we navigate those waters that is the problem, as I see it.

That is what I was taught as a boy and young man, what my sons were taught, and now what my grandsons are taught. Could you explain how anything that has been said here would lead one to think boys have that right?

"Always we exemplify compassion and Christlike love for the individual while we remain loyal to the standards the Lord has set.

WE have compassion. WE remain loyal to the standards. It does not say that the individual remains loyal to the standards. 

As the individual starts to understand why we have the standards through association with us then he/she is more likely to choose those standards for him/herself.

[Gray]

22 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

That is what I was taught as a boy and young man, what my sons were taught, and now what my grandsons are taught. Could you explain how anything that has been said here would lead one to think boys have that right? 

I wasn't trying to suggest that. I was just thinking about all the assaults and harassment so many women have experienced. Obviously the lesson needs to be broadcast more loudly and widely.

On the other hand, confronting a girl about her clothing being too revealing is a kind of harassment too. That can pop up with some people who seem to feel very strongly about the subject.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, juliann said:

I don't think women are too interested in hypothetical what ifs. We have a real ongoing situation here. New thread?

Sounds like a sexist stereotype to me.

[Bernard Gui]

24 minutes ago, Gray said:

I wasn't trying to suggest that. I was just thinking about all the assaults and harassment so many women have experienced. Obviously the lesson needs to be broadcast more loudly and widely.

On the other hand, confronting a girl about her clothing being too revealing is a kind of harassment too. That can pop up with some people who seem to feel very strongly about the subject.

Ah yes. I see and agree. 

I shared my experience at school just up the page a bit. I would be interested in your reaction.

28 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

No hostility in my words, mate. Sorry for that impression. I'm just genuinely trying to communicate instead of talking past each other.

OK, but why do you get to do this based upon your personal interpretation of what tight means? If the young man knows the standard and feels comfortable that he is keeping it, and if I as a fellow high councillor (say) also know the standard and feel that the young man is keeping it, why do you get to ask the young man to change his shirt? On what basis? What does 'tight' really mean? Or are you just going to tell us that you know 'tight' when you see it?

Nope. I'm fine with it as written. That you don't understand this seems to be part of the miscommunication. My concern is specifically with private interpretations and acts of 'enforcement' that stem therefrom.

Just clarity. When you don't answer my questions, I'm left feeling you didn't understand them. And that implies you don't even understand the concerns many of us have tried to express over the course of two dozen pages.

No worries. Let's talk.

I thought I had responded to your questions, but apparently not to your satisfaction. I would do what I said I would do, and I did those things. I don't recall anyone else in this discussion that describes what they did in real life in this situation. I have tried to follow closely, but I may have missed something.

As to "tight." This is what I have been trying to clarify over the course of these 26 pages. When you are the person at the door, you have to make decisions. I assume people are operating in good faith and not out of malice according to the light they have within them.

1) I get to do this because I was asked to do it by assignment from the Stake President. He did not give me further instructions or a list of things he wanted to be checked. The standards were printed on the dance card the youth obtained from the bishop and signed in his presence that they agreed to keep the standard at the activity.

2) If you and I were at the door (there was also a rep from the stake YM and YW presidency) and we disagreed, then I would have a private adult discussion to figure out what to do while the youth bided his/her time in the foyer talking with friends. I think we could do that without coming to blows or I think the other adults would be reasonable about coming to a conclusion. If this were seen as a perpetual problem, I would bring it up in the next HC meeting and ask if it needed to be changed.

3) On the basis that I was asked to fulfill this assignment by my Priesthood leader and that I think I am a reasonable adult who can figure such things out and respond appropriately. I already explained that I don't use the word "enforce" but that I think we need to be "loyal to the standards" while treating others with compassion. In other words, having accountability for the standards we are holding up. 

4) What does "tight" really mean? A dictionary definition? Naw. Since I can't say "tightness" is in the eye of the beholder, I don't know how to answer that. Perhaps a scientific stress tester could be purchased to measure the tightness of the fabric or tension on the buttons or zippers. Over a certain limit would be too tight and you're outta here! 

If it is too problematic to define "tight" and I have to justify what I consider to be too "tight," then perhaps it would need to be deleted from the standard. The same path can be trod for too short, too long, too this, too that. I don't think it is right to just ignore it. I stated earlier that not recognizing existing standards in no different than having no standards standards. If you are OK with the standards in the booklet, but don't think "tight" should be enforced, then I am confused when you say you are OK with them. Please explain.

That's what I would do. To turn it back to you, if the standards for an activity were those printed in FTSOY and everyone knew them before the activity, including "tight," what would you do? 

Edited August 29, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

And back to the most important thing in a woman's thread,  the men.   

 

How have I made men the most important thing? 

[Bernard Gui]

34 minutes ago, Rain said:

"Always we exemplify compassion and Christlike love for the individual while we remain loyal to the standards the Lord has set.

WE have compassion. WE remain loyal to the standards. It does not say that the individual remains loyal to the standards. 

As the individual starts to understand why we have the standards through association with us then he/she is more likely to choose those standards for him/herself.

I'm not sure how this is any different from what I have been saying. I posted that as an example of what I believe we should be doing. Now it's turned back on me? I don't understand.

[Rain]

2 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I'm not sure how this is any different from what I have been saying. I posted that as an example of what I believe we should be doing. Now it's turned back on me? I don't understand.

I am not turning it back on you. 

You asked how what SouthernMO said lines up with what Sister Cannon said. If I remember right you may have asked a similar question of someone else. I was answering your question. 

[sunstoned]

2 hours ago, kllindley said:

To be fair, your first comment didn't specify physical harm or death. It said suffering. Men routinely have to alter their otherwise reasonable behavior to avoid suffering due to female biology. Usually about once per month. 

This vulger and disgusting.  

[Bernard Gui]

14 minutes ago, Rain said:

I am not turning it back on you. 

You asked how what SouthernMO said lines up with what Sister Cannon said. If I remember right you may have asked a similar question of someone else. I was answering your question. 

Sorry for the confusion. A lot of water is passing under the bridge. BTW, it was Sister McConkie, not Sister Cannon. I conflated the two. Could you clarify what you mean? I'm not sure.

Also, would you object to this statement by Sister McConkie from the same talk? Not a trick question, not looking for a fight. Just your opinion.

Quote

We can teach our sons and daughters that modest appearance and behavior helps protect us from the destructive influences of the world. One of the most deceptive weapons used against all of us is the socially accepted attitude that morality is old-fashioned. Modesty is a defense against such evil influences and a protection of chastity and virtue. Listen to these words in For the Strength of Youth: “Before marriage, … do not do anything … that arouses sexual feelings.” Immodest appearance and behavior will often arouse sexual feelings and will break down barriers and invite increased temptation to break the law of chastity.

 

Edited August 29, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[sunstoned]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Indeed it is. It's also a minefield for men.

Men might get their feelings hurt on occasion, but women are being brutalized and killed on a far to regular basis.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

What does "tight" really mean? A dictionary definition? Naw. Since I can't say "tightness" is in the eye of the beholder, I don't know how to answer that.

So you're OK enforcing a standard that you can't define? How can that result in anything other than an arbitrary judgement? And as Blue Dreams has pointed out, the damage people cause is specifically in this arbitrariness.

Quote

If you are OK with the standards in the booklet, but don't think "tight" should be enforced, then I am confused when you say you are OK with them. Please explain.

You seem to believe that lack of enforcement equals absence of standards. Is there any space in your mental universe for teaching a standard that we can all acknowledge is inherently subjective without then needing to enforce it somehow?

Quote

To turn it back to you, if the standards for an activity were those printed in FTSOY and everyone knew them before the activity, including "tight," what would you do?

In a general sense (and assuming that everyone knows the standards, as you wrote), I would assume that each person was doing his or her best to follow those standards. If I worried that a young man's shirt was perhaps too tight, I would ask myself 'too tight for what?'. Immodesty by definition draws attention to itself. Is the shirt a genuine distraction to other participants? If so, and if I already had a warm relationship with the young man in question, I would wait till after the dance (maybe even days after) and then prayerfully prepare for a one-on-one with him. If after discussing the reasons we don't want to be distractions to others, he told me that he sincerely felt like his shirt was not 'tight', I'd let it go. In the Church of Jesus Christ, we teach correct principles and let people govern themselves.

Edited August 29, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Bernard Gui]

8 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Men might get their feelings hurt on occasion, but women are being brutalized and killed on a far to regular basis.

Yeah, that is the case.

Something I said that indicated that I don't know and lament that?

Why not assume other people are operating in good faith?

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Why not assume other people are operating in good faith?

I think this is the very question a number of us have been asking in this thread?

[sunstoned]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

I wasn't trying to suggest that. I was just thinking about all the assaults and harassment so many women have experienced. Obviously the lesson needs to be broadcast more loudly and widely.

On the other hand, confronting a girl about her clothing being too revealing is a kind of harassment too. That can pop up with some people who seem to feel very strongly about the subject.

Agreed.  And taken to an extreme, as often is the case in Utah, this type of harassment can be very damaging, and it is not always confined to chruch activities.  There always seems to be local story about some zealot sending Girls sent home from school dances, or public school administraters airbrushing cap sleeves on yearbook pictures.

Edited August 29, 2018 by sunstoned

[Bernard Gui]

26 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

So you're OK enforcing a standard that you can't define? How can that result in anything other than an arbitrary judgement? And as Blue Dreams has pointed out, the damage people cause is specifically in this arbitrariness.

You stipulated that I could not use the "eye of the beholder" rational, I can't use a dictionary definition, I indicated it would be a matter of arbitrary personal judgement (isn't that the "eye of the beholder?"), I indicated if it is faulty we should revisit the word. I have said nothing about "enforcing." That is a loaded word that doesn't reflect my thoughts. Well, I really don't know what you are looking for. 

Quote

You seem to believe that lack of enforcement equals absence of standards. Is there any space in your mental universe for teaching a standard that we can all acknowledge is inherently subjective without then needing to enforce it somehow?

Room in my mental universe? I feel like I'm in an inquisition here. I'm Bernard Gui. I get to do the Inquistion. I have rejected the use of the word "enforce," but you keep bringing it up. Maybe we could find another word.

On the contrary, I am asking how can we negotiate between the two?

If I had all the answers, I would be King of the World. 

Quote

In a general sense (and assuming that everyone knows the standards, as you wrote), I would assume that each person was doing his or her best to follow those standards. If I worried that a Young Man's shirt was perhaps too tight, I would ask myself 'too tight for what?'. Immodesty by definition draws attention to itself. Is the shirt a genuine distraction to other participants? If so, and if I already had a warm relationship with the young man in question, I would wait till after the dance (maybe even days after) and then prayerfully prepare for a one-on-one with him. If after discussing the reasons we don't want to be distractions to others, he told me that he sincerely felt like his shirt was not 'tight', I'd let it go. In the Church of Jesus Christ, we teach correct principles and let people govern themselves.

That is a very good approach, but not the only one. One might say that one-on-one discussions about morality with a youth are inappopriate. Since you are not his/her bishop, why would you feel you need to and have the responsibility to do that? That would be different than a couple of adults talking with a youth about entrance into a dance. If we are letting things go, then in my view we are not being loyal to the standards. If it is so ambiguous then why keep it? I remember one of President McKay's favorite parables...

If we are walking along a river and know there is a dangerous waterfall ahead and we see a boat of happy youth floating down the river oblivious to the danger, it is one thing to shout at them from the shore that they are in peril. It is another thing to go out to them in whatever way we can and persuade them to come to safety. 

I think we would agree that is the best thing we could do. We may disagree on how to do it. Would I ban the kid from ever coming to a youth dance again? Of course not, but I would with patience, good humor, respect, etc., keep up the effort as best I could. I don't think we do him a favor by just waving him on. But perhaps that is not what you are proposing. I would appreciate the benefit of the doubt that I am operating in good faith according to the light and wisdom I have. I give you the same respect.

I am well aware of what the Church teaches. That sounds condescending to me, but maybe I'm too touchy today. 

Edited August 29, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

15 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I think this is the very question a number of us have been asking in this thread?

My response was to someone who questioned my good faith. Is there an example where I have questioned anyone's good faith? If so, I would like to see it and make apologies.

Edited August 29, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

39 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

In the Church of Jesus Christ, we teach correct principles and let people govern themselves.

In the Church of Jesus Christ, we also teach the principle of accountability. Agency and accountability are paramount. But we are not free from the consequences of

our choices. How would you suggest we hold youth accountable for their choices without driving them away, shaming them, doing long-term damage, etc.? 

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

11 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

How would you suggest we hold youth accountable for their choices without driving them away, shaming them, doing long-term damage, etc.? 

Not telling a young man that his shirt is too tight when you can't define, for either him or this board, what that even means.

[Hamba Tuhan]

33 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Is there an example where I have questioned anyone's good faith?

Would you not include questioning a young person's level best to follow the standards s/he has been been given? If that interpretation doesn't exactly match yours, is there any possibility it was made in 'good faith'?

[BlueDreams]

4 hours ago, kllindley said:

To be fair, your first comment didn't specify physical harm or death. It said suffering. Men routinely have to alter their otherwise reasonable behavior to avoid suffering due to female biology. Usually about once per month. 

What kind of suffering do you think we would be suffering? It can definitely entail physical harm and death. It can entail emotional abuse. Klindley i quite often like your posts...but i can’t believe how obtuse and calloused this comes off. 

I’m near speechless. Like really??? Are you really comparing what BB responded to men’s “suffering” during women’s periods. Last time i checked, only I am likely to experience stabbing pains similar to a knife with an electric barb up my ladyhood  when my husband “suffers” by my side. 

 

with luv and a bit of a swinging jaw,

BD

Edited August 29, 2018 by BlueDreams

[BlueDreams]

duplicate

Edited August 29, 2018 by BlueDreams

[Bernard Gui]

51 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Would you not include questioning a young person's level best to follow the standards s/he has been been given? If that interpretation doesn't exactly match yours, is there any possibility it was made in 'good faith'?

That's not what I asked, but no, I would not question his good faith without further information. My question was in reference to a comment made about me, and I asked if I had questioned anyone's good faith on this thread for which I was willing to apologize. It's hard to apologize to a hypothetical youth in a tight shirt, but I'll do so if you wish.  Have I questioned anyone's good faith here in this discussion? I hope not. It's not something I want to do.

Furthermore, I pointed out that sometimes when youth were asked to change their clothes to get into a dance, the clothes were already out in the car in anticipation of getting challenged. Trying to get in under false pretenses is not operating in good faith, IMO. In the follow-up visits as you suggested, it might be easier to determine if there was good faith involved. That seems to me what your intent was to make those visits, but no one knows what is in another's heart unless the Spirit reveals it. I would think that should be in a bishop's realm.

Edited August 29, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

58 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Not telling a young man that his shirt is too tight when you can't define, for either him or this board, what that even means.

To me that says, "Go ahead and ignore the standards. I'll check back to see if my teachings stuck when you get over Fool's Hill (a reference to my cowboy uncle that I mentioned earlier)." By the time we get to my age, wearing a tight shirt would likely draw the attention of Sister Gui, but not in a complimentary way.

I understand you might not agree or could even find it objectionable...what I said about ignoring standards, not me wearing a tight shirt, although you might also object to that. It wouldn't be pretty.

Earlier you took me to task for not answering your questions. Might I ask the same courtesy?

Quote

One might say that one-on-one discussions about morality with a youth are inappopriate. Since you are not his/her bishop, why would you feel you need to and have the responsibility to do that? That would be different than a couple of adults talking with a youth about entrance into a dance. If we are letting things go, then in my view we are not being loyal to the standards. If it is so ambiguous that it can't be defined and identified, then why keep it?

 

Edited August 29, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Earlier you took me to task for not answering your questions. Might I ask the same courtesy?

One might say that one-on-one discussions about morality with a youth are inappopriate. Since you are not his/her bishop, why would you feel you need to and have the responsibility to do that?

If I were a quorum adviser (as I have been in the past, and as a consequence of which I have 'chaperoned' youth activities), or if I were the high councillor for Young Men, etc., I would feel perfectly responsible for having a chat with a young man. That's why I mentioned needing to have a 'warm relationship' with the boy in question first.

Quote

If it is so ambiguous that it can't be defined and identified, then why keep it?

One could ask the exact same question of the command to keep the Sabbath Day holy. I personally think there is great benefit in having commandments that require us to learn what they mean for ourselves.

Edited August 29, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan