Modesty issues...again

[california boy]

10 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Well, I have gone to great lengths to explain in detail how I tried to temper strictness with fairness when I was Brother Bouncer at the stake dances. How you can reasonably call what I did ridged is beyond my comprehension, unless, of course, you are purposely trying to be contentious. 

Further light is shed on LDS dress standards in our official publications. I hope these help.

Here is the standard quote from FTSOY:

In the August 2008 Ensign, Elder Hales wrote this:

In the July 2007 Liahona, Sister Silvia Allred, counsellor in the YM Presidency, wrote this:

In the 2014 Ensign, Sister Carol McConkie, YM Presidency counsellor gave this wise counsel:

In my assignment to chaperone Church youth dances, I believe I was in line with her counsel to "Always...exemplify compassion and Christlike love for the individual while [remaining] loyal to the standards the Lord has set." I don't see how you can find fault with that.

If you search for and read some other articles in Church magazines and Conference talks, you can glean a lot of practical advice on how to deal with modesty problems at youth activities. Here are a few I found:

1. Parents, youth, and youth leaders should work together to decide what will be the standards for an activity.

2. When an adult finds him/herself in the position of correcting a youth, it should be done privately with dignity, fairness, and compassion.

3. Be sure dress standards are well publicized before the event.

4. Chaperones should be trained on how to deal with confrontations and correction.

5. Rules should not be inflexible but applied wisely and fairly.

 

If you are looking for a Church-wide list of do's and dont's, you won't find it. This article by Carol Canon, Secretary to the Correlation Committee and member of the YW General Board in the April 1972 New Era explains in detail. She answers the question, "Who Establishes Church Dress Standards." It's worth reading.

 

Since none of those references defines what too tight is or too short is, you as your role of Brother Bouncer have taken upon yourself to decide.  Just one question, why is your opinion on what is to tight or too short more valid than the youth who choose the outfit?

Edited August 29, 2018 by california boy

[bluebell]

15 hours ago, pogi said:

From your own lips:

Change of heart?

I'm not exactly sure where the disconnect is but none of those quotes by Juliann express the idea that girls are being taught that they are entirely responsible for the thoughts of boys.

[bluebell]

15 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

The thread is so long that it's hard to find specific responses, but I do recall you saying that modesty should not be a factor in Church activities, only vulgar images or words because that is sexual harassment. I even asked for and received a confirmation. If I misunderstood, I apologize. I will refer to the exchange if I can find it.

No I did say that, and I stand by it.  I think that you are having some trouble seeing the difference between have a dress code and having modesty be the reason for the dress code.  I think you might also be struggling to see the difference between teaching and expecting modesty and requiring modesty. 

You can have standards of dress that are expected and taught without having the reason for those standards be modesty.  Our church does it all the time.  On Sundays we have a dress code for sacrament but the reason for the dress code isn't to retain modesty, but to show reverence.  And, even with that dress code, it's taught but it's not required.  People don't have to wear suits and dresses to church on Sunday and they are still allowed to participate. People don't even have to dress modestly to come to sacrament meeting, though modesty standards are still expected.

Quote

 

3) I think you misunderstand my reference to justice as being something punitive or harsh. I have always tempered it, as I did above, with compassion, kindness, fairness. What I intend to convey is this from Sister McConkie which I hope is something upon which we can agree:

 

I understand that from your perspective it's not harsh to tell someone they can't participate in an activity if they aren't following the clothing requirements (if they are wearing shorts for example, or skinny jeans, or a shirt that someone thinks is too tight) but from my perspective that is harsh, and more so because I believe it's unnecessary.

Quote

Simply, that we have standards, we hold to those standards, we love those who may not keep them, we treat them with respect, dignity, compassion, kindness, but we do not give up the standards. We are loyal to them and try to instill them in our youth as best we can in a way that would be pleasing to the Lord.

If we can enable someone to dress immodestly by welcoming them at church, then I see no valid reason that we can't enable someone to dress immodestly by welcoming them at a youth activity. 

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

On 8/28/2018 at 12:07 AM, Calm said:

I dont include sig lines, they are on ignore as I lose interest after the first three times as they take up too much space for the benefit, except Nehor’swhich makes me smile every time. 

Be that as it may, it’s never my assumption or expectation that readers will block my sig lines. I’m saying that had you not done so, it would not have been necessary to “look it up.”

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

No I did say that, and I stand by it.  I think that you are having some trouble seeing the difference between have a dress code and having modesty be the reason for the dress code.  I think you might also be struggling to see the difference between teaching and expecting modesty and requiring modesty. 

You can have standards of dress that are expected and taught without having the reason for those standards be modesty.  Our church does it all the time.  On Sundays we have a dress code for sacrament but the reason for the dress code isn't to retain modesty, but to show reverence.  And, even with that dress code, it's taught but it's not required.  People don't have to wear suits and dresses to church on Sunday and they are still allowed to participate. People don't even have to dress modestly to come to sacrament meeting, though modesty standards are still expected.

I understand that from your perspective it's not harsh to tell someone they can't participate in an activity if they aren't following the clothing requirements (if they are wearing shorts for example, or skinny jeans, or a shirt that someone thinks is too tight) but from my perspective that is harsh, and more so because I believe it's unnecessary.

If we can enable someone to dress immodestly by welcoming them at church, then I see no valid reason that we can't enable someone to dress immodestly by welcoming them at a youth activity. 

I have really appreciated your thoughtful and level tone in talking about this heated issue.

But I'm not sure I see the practicality of this position. If the church creates a dress code but doesn't say it's for the intent to enforce modesty, is that OK? I don't see why it would make a difference.

Dress Code-

no shorts/dresses above the knee

No tight, overly loose, or revealing clothing, no visible midrifs or shoulders etc etc.

Would it really matter that they enforce this dress code as long as they don't say it's about modesty? It would seem to sidestep the issue. IMO it would be terrible to tell someone they can't participate in a church activity based on their dress, whether they cite modesty, or a dress code as the reason.

[bluebell]

15 hours ago, rongo said:

I think it's telling that the women in this thread who have been vocal about men and male church leaders needing to get with the program and stop making them tired of the old explanations and teachings . . . are completely out of line with what has been consistently taught in the Church. Not just from Packer and Oaks within the last 15 years, and not only by male leaders ---- the female auxiliary presidency members have made statements along these lines as well (as has been listed in this thread). That should cause some reflection, shouldn't it? 

 

It's a bit ironic that you, the bishop who's beliefs and opinions are fairly often completely out of line with what is consistently being taught in the church, would say this.

To answer the question though, other than the walking pornography comment, can you provide a reference to a teaching that is out of line with what i've expressed?  A teaching that says that if someone is wearing shorts to girls camp they shouldn't be allowed to stay?  (or a teaching that is similar, it doesn't have to be exactly that).

People teach stuff all the time in church that sounds good, but is actually harmful.  The reason that we don't get licked cupcakes and chewed gum analogies anymore in chastity lessons, or nails removed from a board for repentance lessons, is because people started to speak up. 

I don't want to change our teachings about the need for modesty or the FSOTY pamphlet (other than to obviously make it more equal for boys and girls).  I want girls to stop being taught that boys need their modesty and that if you wear short shorts to a church activity, you'll be asked to leave.

Again, what is 'completely out of line' with that?

 

[bluebell]

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

How is that relevant? In some cultures people go naked. What's your point?

You said that we should stop teaching modesty at all and see if rates of immorality go up.  I was merely providing a real world example of a culture that does not teach modesty for girls and with very low rates of immorality.

[bluebell]

15 hours ago, rongo said:

My point was that it seems inconsistent to me to hold men 100% responsible but then to argue that the very struggles with a bearing on this topic aren't really wrong, and the Church should stop guilt-tripping them about it. That seems to me to erode the "100% responsibility."

 

Who on this thread has done this??

[bluebell]

14 hours ago, kllindley said:

You know, I can help but think when I read this post "hmmmm, if only there were some external guideline that would remove the burden of wondering from the girls and women. There could be some general rules about what to wear."

But then those rules are lambasted. 

I appreciate that you have personally been vocal about supporting some standards and expectations. From what I understand, your point is that enforcement of those standards is unacceptable.  Is there no limit to what dress you would "permit" at a public activity? Should a person of either gender be allowed to attend sacrament meeting nude? Or would it be reasonable to say that you disagree with the line that some people currently draw in regards to enforcement?

I've already had this discussion with other posters in this thread and see no reason to start it over again.  

To be concise, my point is that 1) there is no reason for people to teach their own personal standards of modest dress to our youth and then require the youth to follow them and 2) there is no reason to kick kids out of youth activities if they are not dressed modestly.  

I find hyperbolical hypotheticals kind of dumb.  Do we really have to resort to 'what if someone comes nude??' in a discussion about whether or not someone should be allowed to stay at girls camp if they show up in a tank top?  The chances of someone showing up nude to a youth activity are low enough that I don't think we need to prepare for that scenario.  Besides, if someone is nude, then they aren't dressed at all and immodest dress isn't a concern anymore.  Let's agree we can go rogue at such a moment and do whatever seems best.

[bluebell]

14 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. 

Thanks for proving my point.

[bluebell]

14 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

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

What is a minefield for women is the constant worrying about how their clothing choices will impact the men around them.  Is that really a minefield for men as well?  Because, I've got three boys and a husband and I haven't seen it personally.  

[bluebell]

39 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I have really appreciated your thoughtful and level tone in talking about this heated issue.

But I'm not sure I see the practicality of this position. If the church creates a dress code but doesn't say it's for the intent to enforce modesty, is that OK? I don't see why it would make a difference.

Dress Code-

no shorts/dresses above the knee

No tight, overly loose, or revealing clothing, no visible midrifs or shoulders etc etc.

Would it really matter that they enforce this dress code as long as they don't say it's about modesty? It would seem to sidestep the issue. IMO it would be terrible to tell someone they can't participate in a church activity based on their dress, whether they cite modesty, or a dress code as the reason.

I'm probably not expressing myself very well, sorry.

For example, saying 'no shorts at girls camp because there are a lot of rattlesnakes' is a lot different than saying 'no shorts at girls camp because we want everyone to dress modestly.'  Saying 'remember the standards of the church when you bring your swimsuit to this pool activity' is different than saying 'no swimsuits at this pool activity because we want everyone to be modest.'

[HappyJackWagon]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm probably not expressing myself very well, sorry.

For example, saying 'no shorts at girls camp because there are a lot of rattlesnakes' is a lot different than saying 'no shorts at girls camp because we want everyone to dress modestly.'  Saying 'remember the standards of the church when you bring your swimsuit to this pool activity' is different than saying 'no swimsuits at this pool activity because we want everyone to be modest.'

That makes perfect sense. Thanks.

Ironically, modesty standards sometimes override a responsible dress code. Like requiring girls to wear shorts and tshirts over swimsuits at girls camp. It's simply not safe but "modesty" overrides common sense.

[mfbukowski]

54 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You said that we should stop teaching modesty at all and see if rates of immorality go up.  I was merely providing a real world example of a culture that does not teach modesty for girls and with very low rates of immorality.

If that culture was not church culture, the comment is irrelevant.

I think we are clearly talking about church culture here, unless I stumbled into an anthropology class.

And still the question remains. What would happen to the levels of immorality if all modesty standards were abandoned?

I think we all know the answer it's just that some do not want to face that question.

It seems that some here are trying to totally erase the question of whether or not modesty has anything to do with immorality.

We don't have to make it a sexist issue. If immodesty has nothing to do with immorality then erase it. There is no need to be modest.

And that goes for both sexes. There is no need to blame one sex for the thoughts of the other, the point is he that it works both ways or drop the issue entirely.

Immodesty can be sexually arousing. Acknowledge it and get on with life.

Deny it and you just sound stupid.

That's the issue here has nothing to do with boys or girls.

So affirm that fact and stay modest or disaffirm it and see what happens.

Sounds pretty simple to me. Obviously we know which alternative we should pick.

 

Edited August 29, 2018 by mfbukowski

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

If that culture was not church culture, the comment is irrelevant.

I think we are clearly talking about church culture here, unless I stumbled into an anthropology class.

Church culture can and does change all the time (especially when compared around the world).  So, no, it's not irrelevant. 

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

What is a minefield for women is the constant worrying about how their clothing choices will impact the men around them.  Is that really a minefield for men as well?  Because, I've got three boys and a husband and I haven't seen it personally.  

Not with their clothing....I mentioned earlier that the suit, pants, and shirt I bought last week are exactly the same as those I have been wearing since I was ordained a deacon 59 years ago. I haven’t had to worry about short hems, low cut dress shirts, transparency, or exposing my hairy chest and legs or, heaven forbid, my tummy! 😁 I hate Speedos and Spandex bike shorts, so those aren’t in the picture. Plus I honor my temple covenants in wearing the garment.

IMO, the minefield for LDS men as a whole is that they seriously desire to be pure followers of the Lord, faithful to their wives and children, but must face the constant internal struggle to remain worthy in our permissive worldly environment. The relentless sexualization of women (and men) in so many areas of activity....fashion, pornography, entertainment, sports, advertising, etc., makes it hard to find a safe haven, hence the internal struggle for self-control

. I always wonder why this is. Maybe the answer, as with the conspiring people in the Word of Wisdom, is to follow the money? 

Talking with my six sons and son-in-law over the years, five of them are concerned about this for themselves and their sons, especially those who are in school now. They take the usual precautions with internet, etc. One has bought into the world’s offerings and the other is somewhat on the fence. I have some non-member friends (Christian and Jewish...don’t have any Muslim friends) who express similar concerns. Many don’t think there’s a problem.

 

 

Edited August 29, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[pogi]

14 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I really liked Bluebell's words which is why I've got it quoted down below. My own concerns is what constitutes "awareness?" I gave an example earlier of clients that at times were triggered by my appearance. I still remember the first time I was wearing a blue wrap cap sleeve shirt with a small under cover. I've worn that shirt to several functions...from conferences, to church, to dates. I like the color and feel pretty in it. The person noted it was my tight shirt. At that point, if I wore that same shirt to that person's session ever again...by your definition am I now "accountable" for my "influence" in their inability to control their sexual thoughts about me....even if my purpose isn't to sexually arouse the individual? 

Scanning the full talk, the context to Monson's talk doesn't seem to directly apply to this situation or what you're suggesting.   

Amen, BB!

 

With luv,

BD

 

I can understand the confusion and emotional labor that BB is talking about of having to mitigate what might arouse men, especially when all men are different.  Some might be aroused by your feet, for example.  There are all sorts of weird fetishes out there.  So, how can a woman be accountable for her influence on others when it is impossible for the woman to read the minds of men and know exactly what might arouse them?  That is a fair question and one that does not have a good black and white answer.  Yet we all seem to agree that there should be at least some boundaries - some definite lines that should not be crossed or allowed at youth dances/activities etc.  The problem is that everyone will disagree on what that line should be, so that leaves youth in that difficult area of figuring out what is appropriate or not.  I think that is why the brethren made a dress code - to give people at least some guidance and to remove the burden of guessing to some degree. Even within those guidelines, there is still some ambiguity as they can be interpreted differently by different people.  So, leaders should allow some wiggle room.  I would like to hear what your suggestions are.   Is there absolutely no apparel that a youth could wear to a stake dance, for instance, that should not be allowed?  If you all agree that there should be at least some basic standards that a leader should use to judge the apparel of youth, what is it?  What are your ideas?  It is easy to pick apart the standards that our leaders have suggested, because there is no absolute right answer. It is much more difficult to suggest a replacement.  

I know that the general consensus is that we should teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves, yet when pressed, there also seems to be consensus that yes, there should be at least some basic standard of expectation.  So what are your suggestions?

Here is what I feel strongly about.  I am basing my comments here on principles, not on gender differences, and not even necessarily on principles of morality.  The principles that I believe in are that we have a responsibility and accountability for the influence that we have on others.  We are accountable for our influence through words and actions on others.  I am accountable if my words influence others to also use filthy speech, even if that wasn't my intent.  That is not shifting responsibility away from them (but it is placing accountability on myself as a stewardship to the Lord.  I have been given stewardship to be an example to others ("set the to be a light to the world", "Be thou an example of the believers"), if my influence is darkness rather than light, than I am accountable for my misuse of that stewardship.  Lucifer was cursed for his influence on Eve because of his words.  Words are symbols, clothing are symbols, actions are symbols, they're are all forms of language for good or evil and we will be held accountable for the language we use and the influence that it can have on others.  

My purpose here is to establish the principle of accountability for our language and influence.  We can quibble about how others might be negatively influenced by us through no fault of our own - I agree there are grey areas, but I hope that we can all at least agree on the premise of accountability - that we should care how our dress affects others (in general, even if we disagree about specifics), that we should accountable for protecting others from harmful influence (in general, even if we disagree about specifics).

I hope that we can at least agree on these generalities at least.  When we understand these general principles, then we can understand why the general authorities have outlined the standards that have been given to our youth.  It is is task that I would not wish on anybody, but I can see how they tried to be principled.  They probably gave specific standards precisely because many youth were confused about what specifically is appropriate or not (as expressed by you guys above) and after speaking to young men about what affects them (generally speaking).  If you disagree with the line they have drawn, what would your line be? Defend it in principle. 

 

Edited August 29, 2018 by pogi

[Bernard Gui]

11 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

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.

Of course. That is why we are here. We try to help each other, don’t we. Sabbath observance isn’t usually a criteria for coming into a dance or going to camp.

Edited August 29, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

IMO, the minefield for LDS men as a whole is that they seriously desire to be pure followers of the Lord, faithful to their wives and children, but must face the constant internal struggle to remain worthy in our permissive worldly environment. The relentless sexualization of women (and men) in so many areas of activity....fashion, pornography, entertainment, sports, advertising, etc., makes it hard to find a safe haven, hence the internal struggle for self-control. 

I always wonder why this is. Maybe the answer, as with the conspiring people in the Word of Wisdom, is to follow the money? 

Talking with my six sons and son-in-law over the years, five of them are concerned about this for themselves and their sons, especially those who are in school now. They take the usual precautions with internet, etc. One has bought into the world’s offerings and the other is somewhat on the fence. I have some non-member friends (Christian and Jewish...don’t have any Muslim friends) who express similar concerns. Many don’t think there’s a problem.

I hear you.  I know a lot of women who feel the same.  Our current cultural environment is rough, for teens and adults alike! 

[Bernard Gui]

9 hours ago, california boy said:

Since none of those references defines what too tight is or too short is, you as your role of Brother Bouncer have taken upon yourself to decide.  Just one question, why is your opinion on what is to tight or too short more valid than the youth who choose the outfit?

You’re welcome for thanking me for going to the trouble to provide information you requested. The answer to your criticism is found in the sources I provided. 

Please read my exchange with Hamba. Tightness was not my issue. Brother Bouncer was meant to be humorous. I should have added a  in order to avoid wrong impressions.

Edited August 29, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I can understand the confusion and emotional labor that BB is talking about of having to mitigate what might arouse men, especially when all men are different.  Some might be aroused by your feet, for example.  There are all sorts of weird fetishes out there.  So, how can a woman be accountable for her influence on others when it is impossible for the woman to read the minds of men and know exactly what might arouse them?  That is a fair question and one that does not have a good black and white answer.  Yet we all seem to agree that there should be at least some boundaries - some definite lines that should not be crossed or allowed at youth dances/activities etc.  The problem is that everyone will disagree on what that line should be, so that leaves youth in that difficult area of figuring out what is appropriate or not.  I think that is why the brethren made a dress code - to give people at least some guidance and to remove the burden of guessing to some degree. Even within those guidelines, there is still some ambiguity as they can be interpreted differently by different people.  So, leaders should allow some wiggle room.  I would like to hear what your suggestions are.   Is there absolutely no apparel that a youth could wear to a stake dance, for instance, that should not be allowed?  If you all agree that there should be at least some basic standards that a leader should use to judge the apparel of youth, what is it?  What are your ideas?  It is easy to pick apart the standards that our leaders have suggested, because there is no absolute right answer. It is much more difficult to suggest a replacement.  

I'll respond to this a little later today. But pogi, you side-stepped my very real, non-hypothetical scenario and whether in said scenario you would view me in part accountable to this person's sexual trigger by my dress. (Fun fact, I am currently wearing the offending shirt to work right now)....the top half looks pretty close to this:

Your answer will help me answer your other questions and what you initially brought up that led to my scenario. 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited August 29, 2018 by BlueDreams

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

Quote

 

No I did say that, and I stand by it.  I think that you are having some trouble seeing the difference between have a dress code and having modesty be the reason for the dress code.  I think you might also be struggling to see the difference between teaching and expecting modesty and requiring modesty. 

 

BB: I don't have an issue with dress codes for some events, but I don't think the dress code shouldn't exist to enforce modesty.  

And I agree that dress codes should be as inclusive as possible.  I know that temples, for example, started instructing people at the recommend desk not to turn any one away who had a recommend, regardless of how they were dressed (at my parents temple in Billings Montana, a recently reactivated member was turned away when he came to the temple--with his new recommend--in jeans, so it was instruction that needed to happen).  If we use that as our example to follow, is there any youth activity that we could hold where someone's reasonable dress should get them barred from participation?  (I noted reasonable dress because obviously clothing with vulgar pictures or phrases on them would be an exception).

 BG: How do you define reasonable? Based on what standard? Only vulgar pictures or phrases should be barred? All the rest is reasonable?

BB: Yes, only vulgar pictures and language should be barred.

BG: Why should they be barred?

BB: Because I believe that no one should be sexually harassed or demeaned at a church function. 

BG: Would you consider provocative clothing harassment or demeaning?

 

I coudn’t find a response to the last question. Perhaps we have failed to understand each other.

Quote

You can have standards of dress that are expected and taught without having the reason for those standards be modesty.  Our church does it all the time. On Sundays we have a dress code for sacrament but the reason for the dress code isn't to retain modesty, but to show reverence.  And, even with that dress code, it's taught but it's not required.  People don't have to wear suits and dresses to church on Sunday and they are still allowed to participate. People don't even have to dress modestly to come to sacrament meeting, though modesty standards are still expected.

Certainly that is our purpose for sacrament meeting and activity. I don’t agree that standards of dress that are expected and taught without having the reason for those standards be modesty. The articles I quoted earlier from General Authorities and YW leaders seem to me to indicate just that.:

 

Sister Hales...rather than do this [dictate a specific list], they consistently and forcefully point out and set before us the standards and principles that the Lord established as guidelines for entrance into his kingdom. Foremost among these principles are those that pertain to purity of thought and action. Since modesty is an essential element of purity, and, in the matter of dress, is interpreted to mean clothing the body adequately and in good taste, dress standards become a matter of concern to youth, to parents, and to our Church leaders.

And...

Elder Hales: Modesty is at the center of being pure and chaste, both in thought and deed. Thus, because it guides and influences our thoughts, behavior, and decisions, modesty is at the core of our character. Our clothing is more than just covering for our bodies; it reflects who we are and what we want to be, both here in mortality and in the eternities that will follow. 

 

Quote

I understand that from your perspective it's not harsh to tell someone they can't participate in an activity if they aren't following the clothing requirements (if they are wearing shorts for example, or skinny jeans, or a shirt that someone thinks is too tight) but from my perspective that is harsh, and more so because I believe it's unnecessary.

If we can enable someone to dress immodestly by welcoming them at church, then I see no valid reason that we can't enable someone to dress immodestly by welcoming them at a youth activity. 

Did you mean to say “dress modestly?” I don’t think we would want to enable immodest dress. 

Apparently I’m the only one here who has been asked to chaperone youth dances and check for dress and behavior, at least no one else has talked about it. I have described in detail what our stake came up with in trying to enable modest dress and maintain standards. I have really tried hard to explain my approach. I’m disappointed it is seen as harsh. 

I might note that our stake dances and the standards that were set were started at the request of the youth, not imposed on them by leaders. They wanted a safe haven where they could enjoy a night out without having to deal with the behavior and dress problems at school dances. They even had youth representatives who selected the music.  Good on them!!!

 

Edited August 29, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Would it really matter that they enforce this dress code as long as they don't say it's about modesty? It would seem to sidestep the issue. IMO it would be terrible to tell someone they can't participate in a church activity based on their dress, whether they cite modesty, or a dress code as the reason.

Of course. But I think it is a different issue when the standards are published and the youth sign agreeing to abide them. In our stake, even non-member friends were asked to talk with a member of the bishopric to obtain a dance card. They all knew beforehand what was expected. No surprises at the door. This was worked out between youth leaders and a representative youth council, at the request of the youth. Reasonable people can figure out a way to make this happen.

Edited August 29, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[cinepro]

On 8/28/2018 at 8:36 AM, bluebell said:

I think [Oaks' comment about immodest women being "pornography" to some men] is likely true, but is a flaw/weakness of men and not something that needs to be addressed to women or girls as a reason God wants them to be modest.

I don't think Oaks' comment was meant to convey what God does or doesn't like about current fashions.  Frankly, I find it hard to believe God cares much about how much skin we show at all.  If a culture can evolve to where they don't care about women exposing their breasts and men don't get turned on by that, then I doubt God cares if women go around topless.  

I look at it this way.  If you travel (especially for business) and you are visiting different cultures, often times it is good to read up on how that culture works.

"Don't say these words, because that culture finds them offensive..."

"Don't make these gestures with your hands, because it means something different..."

"If someone bows to you in greeting, respond with a bow, otherwise they will be offended..."

"Don't wear this color pants, because that color means something else in that culture..."

And so on...

Now, a person could say "I think that culture is stupid.  I'm going to say whatever words I want, and make whatever gestures I want, because I am a unique individual and no one can stifle my individuality!  They should change to accept how I want to act and dress."

Then you find out that you didn't close the business deal, and that company in the other country now hates your company and thinks people from your country are rude, offensive and base.  We can certainly ignore what these things mean, but we don't get to dictate how others perceive us.  A wise person is one who learns how these different cultures work and uses that knowledge to their advantage.  Someone who disregards all social convention isn't being strong or "unique", they're just being selfish and stubborn.  Unless they're rich.

That's what I think the ideal teachings about modesty are.  They're not telling us that God cares about our shoulder skin (hint: He probably doesn't).  No, the best teachings are helpful (but imperfect) guidelines on how to best interact with the culture.  They're saying "As you go out into the world, these things affect how people perceive you.  So make wise choices that will work to your greatest advantage..."

Do most women understand that when they dress immodestly, they can encourage thoughts in some men that are very similar to the thoughts those men get when they look at pornography?  Maybe.  But from the reactions to Oaks' comment, it would appear many women didn't understand that.

Does saying that mean you think it's okay for those men to have those thoughts, or that they don't need to control them?  Of course not.  It's just acknowledging the reality of the culture and biology of the world we live in.  If he hadn't said it, it wouldn't have made it less true.

That being said, we can't underestimate the propensity for some LDS to go overboard, and we're definitely seeing that with the "no sundresses for toddlers" crusade.  But that doesn't encapsulate the entire issue.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 29, 2018 by cinepro

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I can understand the confusion and emotional labor that BB is talking about of having to mitigate what might arouse men, especially when all men are different.  Some might be aroused by your feet, for example.  There are all sorts of weird fetishes out there.  So, how can a woman be accountable for her influence on others when it is impossible for the woman to read the minds of men and know exactly what might arouse them?  That is a fair question and one that does not have a good black and white answer.  Yet we all seem to agree that there should be at least some boundaries - some definite lines that should not be crossed or allowed at youth dances/activities etc.  The problem is that everyone will disagree on what that line should be, so that leaves youth in that difficult area of figuring out what is appropriate or not.  I think that is why the brethren made a dress code - to give people at least some guidance and to remove the burden of guessing to some degree. Even within those guidelines, there is still some ambiguity as they can be interpreted differently by different people.  So, leaders should allow some wiggle room.  I would like to hear what your suggestions are.   Is there absolutely no apparel that a youth could wear to a stake dance, for instance, that should not be allowed?  If you all agree that there should be at least some basic standards that a leader should use to judge the apparel of youth, what is it?  What are your ideas?  It is easy to pick apart the standards that our leaders have suggested, because there is no absolute right answer. It is much more difficult to suggest a replacement.  

I know that the general consensus is that we should teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves, yet when pressed, there also seems to be consensus that yes, there should be at least some basic standard of expectation.  So what are your suggestions?

Here is what I feel strongly about.  I am basing my comments here on principles, not on gender differences, and not even necessarily on principles of morality.  The principles that I believe in are that we have a responsibility and accountability for the influence that we have on others.  We are accountable for our influence through words and actions on others.  I am accountable if my words influence others to also use filthy speech, even if that wasn't my intent.  That is not shifting responsibility away from them (but it is placing accountability on myself as a stewardship to the Lord.  I have been given stewardship to be an example to others ("set the to be a light to the world", "Be thou an example of the believers"), if my influence is darkness rather than light, than I am accountable for my misuse of that stewardship.  Lucifer was cursed for his influence on Eve because of his words.  Words are symbols, clothing are symbols, actions are symbols, they're are all forms of language for good or evil and we will be held accountable for the language we use and the influence that it can have on others.  

My purpose here is to establish the principle of accountability for our language and influence.  We can quibble about how others might be negatively influenced by us through no fault of our own - I agree there are grey areas, but I hope that we can all at least agree on the premise of accountability - that we should care how our dress affects others (in general, even if we disagree about specifics), that we should accountable for protecting others from harmful influence (in general, even if we disagree about specifics).

I hope that we can at least agree on these generalities at least.  When we understand these general principles, then we can understand why the general authorities have outlined the standards that have been given to our youth.  It is is task that I would not wish on anybody, but I can see how they tried to be principled.  They probably gave specific standards precisely because many youth were confused about what specifically is appropriate or not (as expressed by you guys above) and after speaking to young men about what affects them (generally speaking).  If you disagree with the line they have drawn, what would your line be? Defend it in principle. 

 

Interesting thoughts.