Modesty issues...again

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

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

How can we as brothers and sisters help each other fight this battle?

Edited August 29, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[pogi]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

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:

Perhaps I should have been more clear in my response.  This is where I addressed your scenario:

Quote

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 [general] 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).

To be even more direct, no, we cannot dress to the satisfaction of everyone on planet earth, and we cannot be held accountable for how our dress might affect everyone on planet earth.  Having said that, it is not hard to think of scenarios where we clearly would be held accountable four our influence on others through dress.  My point is simply to establish that general principle and not to argue about the specifics as we are not likely to agree.  What you are specifically held accountable for is between you and the Lord, not me.  I would ask myself, am I being genuine in my attempt to dress modestly as the Lord desires?  Am I rationalizing?  Would I feel comfortable wearing this in the presence of the Lord?  Am I being genuine in my responsibility to use clean language (attire is a form of language)?  Have I prayerfully considered the counsel of the prophets?  Am I integrously fulfilling my stewardship to the Lord? Would my language through dress be seen by the Lord as a beacon of light or darkness to others?

What I am trying to say is that accountability is between you and God - it doesn't matter what I think. There are no doubt very gray areas. Use your best judgment.  But again, due to the faulty judgment of some of our youth, our leaders are left with the burden to be stewards of them, to set boundaries, to protect all youth involved. Again, we all seem to agree that there should be at least some base standard or guidelines for leaders to base that judgment on - so where is the disconnect exactly?

Edited August 29, 2018 by pogi

[Bernard Gui]

57 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

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

I’m reminded of the Polish joke...I’m Polish so I appreciate them and get to tell them.

In the Polish Army, how do the soldiers sweep for mines?

The put their fingers in their ears, brace themselves on their left foot, and probe the ground in front of them with their right feet.

It’s better as a visual.

🤓

 

 

[HappyJackWagon]

46 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

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.

We've done the same things but it seems overly controlling IMO. If my teen was invited to go with a friend to an activity, but was told she/he would first need to meet with an adult to talk about appropriate dress, I wouldn't allow them to go. I think it's totally focusing on the wrong thing. They should stop focusing on how the youth dress and focus instead on getting more youth involved. I understand it doesn't have to be an either/or, but from what I see, the rigidness of the rules is a huge turn off for many kids.

My ward recently combined with another local ward for all youth activities. Between the 2 wards there are @ 50 young men and 40 young women. That's 90+ kids between the two wards. So why are they combining? Because each ward only has about 10-15 showing up on a weekly basis so they're combing to get a larger group to hopefully make it more appealing and interesting for the kids. So why is there such inactivity at youth activities? Just 5 years ago my ward had nearly 95% participation on a weekly basis. It was a super vibrant program. So what changed? IMO it's a focus on rules like modesty dress and too many activities that are really just church lessons. I mean, who wants to show up (or invite a friend) to a book of Mormon reading challenge where everyone sits on the floor and reads for an hour? These kinds of activities have become the norm in my area and its no wonder why kids don't come. Kids just want to get together and enjoy each other. Work in some church stuff but don't require it to always be the focus.

That was rather round about way of saying, plan fun activities and be happy that youth come. Don't place extra rules and restrictions on them. Don't preach at them about modesty and dress. Just be happy they are there. Like Bluebell has stated a number of times, no one gets kicked out of Sacrament Meeting for being immodest. So if people aren't required to follow modesty standards for the most sacred service of the week, why should youth be asked to leave because they don't meet modesty standards at an activity. It's pretty darn silly.

[BlueDreams]

57 minutes ago, cinepro said:

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.

That's ridiculous. Like laughably so. Of course I know and most women know that their appearance can elicit thoughts/lust from men. Few women can walk this earth without that experience of knowing TOO well. For me, personally, it doesn't make a freaking difference what I wear there is no protection in cap sleeves and knee length shorts. And I am done (many years back) dressing to "help" the brothers out. Stop being babies about it and learn to bridle your minds. I'll keep my covenants, wear my garments, and if I end up being your porn for the night, that's on you (You in the general sense of whatever man finds me sexually attractive and follows that thought process who isn't my husband). I'm not pornography just because my clothes flatter my figure. That's the problem with the quote. 

Yes I get that it's Hard to deal with so many intrusive sexual thoughts. It's not like I've never had hormones and a sex drive. But how about someone try being the unwanted recipient of all those sexual thoughts. To try and find the outfit that will garner less attention when you're walking down the street and it never fully working. To becoming paranoid if you have a larger chest by all the unwanted looks you get and assertions that you are dressing inapproriately in clothes that a flatter chested person never deals with. To cat calls and sexual harassment. To people openly commenting and critiquing your body and looks in a sexual way in 3rd person in front of you. To coercive sexual encounters. And for some rape and even death.

I don't have a lot of empathy for this. I live with a strong desire and eyeballs. I learned over the years to bridle my passions. I didn't have to do so by teaching boys that they are walking pornography to me when they look a certain way or go about shirtless. It's self-mastery...not other-mastery. I do understand, I simply stopped caring. All that sentiments like this means for me is a burden being foisted on me. And accountability being reduced for the people who are sexualizing my body without my permission. 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited August 29, 2018 by BlueDreams

[bsjkki]

57 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

We've done the same things but it seems overly controlling IMO. If my teen was invited to go with a friend to an activity, but was told she/he would first need to meet with an adult to talk about appropriate dress, I wouldn't allow them to go. I think it's totally focusing on the wrong thing. They should stop focusing on how the youth dress and focus instead on getting more youth involved. I understand it doesn't have to be an either/or, but from what I see, the rigidness of the rules is a huge turn off for many kids.

My ward recently combined with another local ward for all youth activities. Between the 2 wards there are @ 50 young men and 40 young women. That's 90+ kids between the two wards. So why are they combining? Because each ward only has about 10-15 showing up on a weekly basis so they're combing to get a larger group to hopefully make it more appealing and interesting for the kids. So why is there such inactivity at youth activities? Just 5 years ago my ward had nearly 95% participation on a weekly basis. It was a super vibrant program. So what changed? IMO it's a focus on rules like modesty dress and too many activities that are really just church lessons. I mean, who wants to show up (or invite a friend) to a book of Mormon reading challenge where everyone sits on the floor and reads for an hour? These kinds of activities have become the norm in my area and its no wonder why kids don't come. Kids just want to get together and enjoy each other. Work in some church stuff but don't require it to always be the focus.

That was rather round about way of saying, plan fun activities and be happy that youth come. Don't place extra rules and restrictions on them. Don't preach at them about modesty and dress. Just be happy they are there. Like Bluebell has stated a number of times, no one gets kicked out of Sacrament Meeting for being immodest. So if people aren't required to follow modesty standards for the most sacred service of the week, why should youth be asked to leave because they don't meet modesty standards at an activity. It's pretty darn silly.

I always say, "if you can do it on a Sunday, don't do it on Wednesday." (pertaining to youth lessons and activites)

 

 

Edited August 29, 2018 by bsjkki

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

How can we as brothers and sisters help each other fight this battle?

I think, just be kind.  Be charitable.  Be merciful. 

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

We've done the same things but it seems overly controlling IMO. If my teen was invited to go with a friend to an activity, but was told she/he would first need to meet with an adult to talk about appropriate dress, I wouldn't allow them to go. I think it's totally focusing on the wrong thing. They should stop focusing on how the youth dress and focus instead on getting more youth involved. I understand it doesn't have to be an either/or, but from what I see, the rigidness of the rules is a huge turn off for many kids.

Talking about it means reading the card and agreeing to the standards. “This is my friend Alex. He wants to come to the church dance with me.” “OK. We have some standards of dress and behavior at our dances. Here is a card you will need to be admitted to the dance. On the back are the standards. Go ahead and read them. If you agree to observe them, sign the card and bring it with you. Hope you have a great time!” “Yeah I can do that. Thanks.”

Not intrusive or inappropriate as far as I am concerned. There was no rigidness in the standards or the way we dealt with them. I don’t know why I have to keep repeating that. The youth and youth leaders worked together at the instigation of the youth to make a viable policy using FTSOY.  They were sick of the school dances...I knew what they were talking about because I was a faculty volunteer at the dances. Eventually I stopped volunteering

Quote

My ward recently combined with another local ward for all youth activities. Between the 2 wards there are @ 50 young men and 40 young women. That's 90+ kids between the two wards. So why are they combining? Because each ward only has about 10-15 showing up on a weekly basis so they're combing to get a larger group to hopefully make it more appealing and interesting for the kids. So why is there such inactivity at youth activities? Just 5 years ago my ward had nearly 95% participation on a weekly basis. It was a super vibrant program. So what changed? IMO it's a focus on rules like modesty dress and too many activities that are really just church lessons. I mean, who wants to show up (or invite a friend) to a book of Mormon reading challenge where everyone sits on the floor and reads for an hour? These kinds of activities have become the norm in my area and its no wonder why kids don't come. Kids just want to get together and enjoy each other. Work in some church stuff but don't require it to always be the focus.

I understand. I see some similar things around here, but our ward youth activity rate is very close to 100%. So, reasonable people should be able to get together and figure out a better way to make it work. In my opinion. Lots of kids wanted to show up at our dances and many were non-members who wanted something better than school dances. Our LDS senior proms are very well-attended. Couldn’t the that fact we had a dress standard (requested and approved by the youth) have played a teeny tiny role in their popularity?

Quote

That was rather round about way of saying, plan fun activities and be happy that youth come. Don't place extra rules and restrictions on them. Don't preach at them about modesty and dress. Just be happy they are there. Like Bluebell has stated a number of times, no one gets kicked out of Sacrament Meeting for being immodest. So if people aren't required to follow modesty standards for the most sacred service of the week, why should youth be asked to leave because they don't meet modesty standards at an activity. It's pretty darn silly.

It’s not so silly. It’s how one group of reasonable people came together to deal with the issue of modest dress at church activities. No one got “kicked out” of an activity because they had agreed to the conditions beforehand and when reminded at the door, got the point. In this way they were accountable to their own commitments. I am not aware of any youth who refused to sign their dance card in the first place. You are free to disagree, but the success of the program is it’s own best witness. So sucessful, in fact, that other stakes in the region joined in and we took turns sponsoring the monthly dances.

Edited August 29, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think, just be kind.  Be charitable.  Be merciful. 

Indeed. I think we can do even  more if we choose.

Edited August 29, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

That's ridiculous. Like laughably so. Of course I know and most women know that their appearance can elicit thoughts/lust from men. Few women can walk this earth without that experience of knowing TOO well. For me, personally, it doesn't make a freaking difference what I wear there is no protection in cap sleeves and knee length shorts. And I am done (many years back) dressing to "help" the brothers out. Stop being babies about it and learn to bridle your minds. I'll keep my covenants, wear my garments, and if I end up being your porn for the night, that's on you (You in the general sense of whatever man finds me sexually attractive and follows that thought process who isn't my husband). I'm not pornography just because my clothes flatter my figure. That's the problem with the quote. 

Yes I get that it's Hard to deal with so many intrusive sexual thoughts. It's not like I've never had hormones and a sex drive. But how about someone try being the unwanted recipient of all those sexual thoughts. To try and find the outfit that will garner less attention when you're walking down the street and it never fully working. To becoming paranoid if you have a larger chest by all the unwanted looks you get and assertions that you are dressing inapproriately in clothes that a flatter chested person never deals with. To cat calls and sexual harassment. To people openly commenting and critiquing your body and looks in a sexual way in 3rd person in front of you. To coercive sexual encounters. And for some rape and even death.

I don't have a lot of empathy for this. I live with a strong desire and eyeballs. I learned over the years to bridle my passions. I didn't have to do so by teaching boys that they are walking pornography to me when they look a certain way or go about shirtless. It's self-mastery...not other-mastery. I do understand, I simply stopped caring. All that sentiments like this means for me is a burden being foisted on me. And accountability being reduced for the people who are sexualizing my body without my permission. 

 

With luv,

BD

It is a great divide, isn’t it.

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Talking about it means reading the card and agreeing to the standards. “I want to come to the church dance with my friend Alex.” “OK. We have some standards of dress and behavior at our dances. Here is a card you will need to be admitted to the dance. On the back are the standards. Go ahead and read them. If you agree to observe them, sign the card and bring it with you. Hope you have a great time!” “Yeah I can do that. Thanks.”

Not intrusive or inappropriate as far as I am concerned. There was no rigidness in the standards or the way we dealt with them. I don’t know why I have to keep repeating that. The youth and youth leaders worked together at the instigation of the youth to make a viable policy using FTSOY.  They were sick of the school dances...I knew what they were talking about because I was a faculty volunteer at the dances. Eventually I stopped volunteering

I understand. I see some similar things around here, but our ward youth activity rate is very close to 100%. So, reasonable people should be able to get together and figure out a better way to make it work. In my opinion. Lots of kids wanted to show up at our dances and many were non-members who wanted something better than school dances. Our LDS senior proms are very well-attended. Couldn’t the that fact we had a dress standard have played a teeny tiny role in their popularity?

It’s not so silly. It’s how one group of reasonable people came together to deal with the issue of modest dress at church activities. No one got “kicked out” of an activity because they had agreed to the conditions beforehand and when reminded at the door, got the point. In this way they were accountable to their own commitments. I am not aware of any youth who refused to sign their dance card in the first place. You are free to disagree, but the success of the program is it’s own best witness. So sucessful, in fact, that other stakes in the region joined in and we took turns sponsoring the dances.

"We only want you here if you agree to sign our contract stating that you will abide by our dress code". Maybe we should change the signs on our buildings "visitors welcome...after contract is signed".

Again, I'd prefer the message to be "Welcome. We want you here."  The end.

[pogi]

2 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

 I'm not pornography just because my clothes flatter my figure. That's the problem with the quote. 

I don't think that quote was speaking about you.  I think he was speaking about women who do not dress with modesty in mind.  Ever seen a red-carpet event?  I am quite frankly shocked at why more feminists are not enraged at how some women continue to propagate the sexual objectification of their own sex.  Instead of being outraged, many idolize and are influenced by them. 

The quote is a true statement about how extreme some women can and do dress.   I think that there are very easy examples of "walking pornography" that I would be banned for posting here - pictures on the covers of magazines, portrayed as being glamorous, etc.  I think he was cautioning women to NOT idolize these women, and to NOT be influenced by their dress, no matter how much "positive" attention they get for it.  He is telling young women, rightly, DO NOT internalize the sexual objectification of women.

2 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

And I am done (many years back) dressing to "help" the brothers out.

I hope, at least, that you dress to help the young sisters out.  They look up to you.  I think that is probably more important, honestly.  We all dress for others.  We communicate with others through dress.  The question is, what are we saying?  Is your message helping or hurting the cause of womanhood?  Again, we are accountable for that message to some degree. It is inescapable. We will be judged for our communication in all of it's forms.  

I don't blame you for not trying to help all brothers out.  It is impossible.  But I hope that you generally care about what men think of you, and dress for them too.  Most girls do, but some choose to dress for them in terrible, terrible ways - walking porn by almost anyone's standard. 

2 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Stop being babies about it and learn to bridle your minds.

How far should we take that?  It always seems to come back to that question.  Should complete nudity be permissible in a stake dance, a thong, a two piece bathing suit... tell me when to stop.  When is it ok for men (and hopefully women too) to speak out?   "Leave her alone boys, she is a woman expressing her free-spirit - bridle your minds perverts! Babies!  She is innocent of any wrong doing in influencing your thoughts"

I think that is unfair.  

No one here is being a baby about it. I don't blame women for my unrighteous thoughts, even if intentionally provoked. I am 100% accountable for my thoughts, words, and actions and am always working on bridling my mind.  But men and women alike will be accountable for all of their thoughts, words, actions, communications, and influence.  That is all I am saying.   

Quote

 

And accountability being reduced for the people who are sexualizing my body without my permission. 

 

How is accountability being reduced exactly?  This keeps coming up over and over.  Why can't all people be fully accountable for their thoughts AND influence on others?

Edited August 29, 2018 by pogi

[Bernard Gui]

28 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

"We only want you here if you agree to sign our contract stating that you will abide by our dress code". Maybe we should change the signs on our buildings "visitors welcome...after contract is signed".

Again, I'd prefer the message to be "Welcome. We want you here."  The end.

Well, that was neither the attitude nor action we took, but if it helps you to disparage our efforts, so be it. I don’t understand why you feel the need to do that. I don’t see why the efforts of people of love and good will somehow are evil. The Church issued general dress standard and expected the members to integrate them in local situations. We did exactly that in a co-operative effort betwen youth and adults, at the request of the youth. Kids were willing to drive 20-30 miles to attend the dances. Why didn’t you highlight this...

Quote

“Yeah I can do that. Thanks.”

If I am invited someplace I would be willing to abide by conditions of the host. It’s what we do. Kids can learn that aspect of civility. 

Around the same time, perhaps after seeing our success, two local DJs opened up a successful youth dance venue with cool lighting, games, sodas, pizza, DJed music as an alternative to school dances. They had some strict standards and real bouncers. My kids attended their dances and ours. The attitude you describe was more akin to them, but they did have a viable business.

Edited August 29, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

Interesting....

Quote

Parents are urged to visit the venue just before the beginning of the teen event on the night of the event to ensure it meets with your requirements for a safe teen night out. Venues will usual will not allow parents to visit the event after it has started.

Most of the better and safer teen dance clubs have a strict dress code that does Not Permit: Hats, headbands, bandanas, head gear, jerseys T-shirts, sleeveless shirts, groups wearing the exact same attire, backpacks, large purses, excessively revealing attire, gang wear, baggy jeans worn low, booty shorts, and shorts bra tops.

https://www.new-jersey-leisure-guide.com/teen-dance-clubs.html

 

Yeah, I know. It’s New Jersey.

Edited August 29, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

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..."

I kind of agree with you.  In the scriptures God cared about Adam and Eve's nakedness once they were no longer innocent--once they knew good from evil.  So in that regard, I do think that God does care about whether or not our bodies are covered.  But I also agree that it's probably the culture that we live in that God expects His prophets to use to determine what is or isn't acceptable.

I just watched a funny video on Facebook about swear words in Swedish and one of the worst things a girl can call a guy if he gets too cheeky or inappropriate is a filthy lobster.  Another really bad insult is to tell someone that they've pooped in a boot.  Obviously, culture is what adds context to our actions and words and even our clothes, and the context is usually what determines how bad or not they are.  I do think that God takes that context into consideration (for lack of a better term).

Quote

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.

You're not understanding the reaction.  It's not that we don't understand it, it's that we don't want it (men's thoughts) to determine what is or isn't acceptable for women to wear.  

 

[HappyJackWagon]

14 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Well, that was neither the attitude nor action we took, but if it helps you to disparage our efforts, so be it. I don’t understand why you feel the need to do that. I don’t see why the efforts of people of love and good will somehow are evil. The Church issued general dress standard and expected the members to integrate them in local situations. We did exactly that in a co-operative effort betwen youth and adults, at the request of the youth. Kids were willing to drive 20-30 miles to attend the dances. Why didn’t you highlight this...

If I am invited someplace I would be willing to abide by conditions of the host. It’s what we do. Kids can learn that aspect of civility. 

Around the same time, perhaps after seeing our success, two local DJs opened up a successful youth dance venue with cool lighting, games, sodas, pizza, DJed music as an alternative to school dances. They had some strict standards and real bouncers. My kids attended their dances and ours. The attitude you describe was more akin to them, but they did have a viable business.

Come on, man. Don't be so overly sensitive. I've never said your efforts were eeeeeevillll. Bwahahahah.

But how welcoming is it to be invited somewhere with conditions attached? If a friend invited you to his home for dinner but made it clear you would have to sign a contract agreeing to a certain dress and behavioral code while there, would you be pumped about going? Maybe if it was the white house, but otherwise...? Even if the conditions seem reasonable, it's very condescending, at the very least. On the other hand, if a friend invites you over and lets you know dress is casual, or formal, or Hawaiian, you have the knowledge to dress in a way that will make you comfortable and in a way that helps you fit in. But if you show up at the Hawaiian themed dinner party wearing a tux, I hope your friend won't send you packing. I would hope he'd have more sympathy and compassion than telling you to leave until you can get the dress code right.

[Bernard Gui]

25 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Come on, man. Don't be so overly sensitive. I've never said your efforts were eeeeeevillll. Bwahahahah.

Oh. My bad. This mis-characterization was meant as a compliment: 

Quote

Quote

“We only want you here if you agree to sign our contract stating that you will abide by our dress code". Maybe we should change the signs on our buildings "visitors welcome...after contract is signed".

 Again, I'd prefer the message to be "Welcome. We want you here."  The end.

 

Sorry for misunderstanding.

Quote

But how welcoming is it to be invited somewhere with conditions attached? If a friend invited you to his home for dinner but made it clear you would have to sign a contract agreeing to a certain dress and behavioral code while there, would you be pumped about going? Maybe if it was the white house, but otherwise...? Even if the conditions seem reasonable, it's very condescending, at the very least. On the other hand, if a friend invites you over and lets you know dress is casual, or formal, or Hawaiian, you have the knowledge to dress in a way that will make you comfortable and in a way that helps you fit in. But if you show up at the Hawaiian themed dinner party wearing a tux, I hope your friend won't send you packing. I would hope he'd have more sympathy and compassion than telling you to leave until you can get the dress code right.

Being invited to a party at a friend’s home is not the same as a youth inviting a friend to a Church-sponsored dance which  the youth themselves had planned and set standards with their adult leaders . 

It’s amazing how a simple off-handed comment about civility in the middle of a larger thoughtful post becomes just another opportunity to extrapolate and disparage. 

Even our school proms have requirements for kids asking for tickets for friends who do not attend the school. Crivens..

 

Edited August 29, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Oh. My bad. This mis-characterization was meant as a compliment: 

Sorry for misunderstanding.

Being invited to a party at a friend’s home is not the same as a youth inviting a friend to a Church-sponsored dance. It’s amazing how a simple off-handed comment about civility in the middle of a larger thoughtful post becomes just another opportunity to extrapolate and disparage. 

 

 

It's a conversation. You say something. I respond with reasons why I disagree. You claim I called you evil. That's the way things go, I guess  

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

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

I did answer it before but you probably missed it with all the posts.  My answer was no, I don't.

Quote

 

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. 

 

You've misunderstood me.  I mean that I don't believe that dress code for youth activities should focus on modesty.  I'm not saying that modesty should not be taught as the standard that we are all want to live by.  Like I said in my post to HJW, it's the difference between 'remember the church's standards of modesty when you wear your swimsuit for the pool activity' and 'no swimsuits tonight at the pool activity because we want everyone to be modest.'

Quote

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

No, I meant immodesty.  You said that one of the reasons that we should enforce modesty at youth activities is so that we don't enable bad choices.  I'm saying that if the church does not feel it's necessary to enforce modesty standards for sacrament meeting (if they are o.k. with 'enabling immodesty' as you implied), then I'm not sure why youth activities need to be held to a higher standard.

Quote

 

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!!!

 

I've been YWs president twice and i've had to chaperone youth dances before but I've never been asked to check for dress or behavior.  As far as I'm aware, there is no one at our dances that is tasked with that job.  If a chaperone sees bad behavior they are supposed to intervene but I've never seen one intervene in regards to dress (doesn't mean it's never happened, i've just never seen it).  But the kids know the standards and they all pretty much follow them.  The one or two that don't are not approached about it.  We'd rather they be there than not.

And, I have no doubt that you were not at all harsh in your interaction with the youth.  I picture you being very loving and fun about it all.  I just think that telling a kid he or she can't participate at a youth dance because of their clothes is harsh, no matter how kindly or lovingly it is done.  

I will admit though that perhaps the youth culture in your area is such that strict enforcement of modesty standards is necessary.  I'm a fan of recognizing that extreme circumstances can require extreme actions.

[Bernard Gui]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's a conversation. You say something. I respond with reasons why I disagree. You claim I called you evil. That's the way things go, I guess  

Indeed. So since I can’t read your mind and in the spirit of responding, did you mean the comment as a compliment?

[Bernard Gui]

Interesting...a typical high school prom invitation and code of conduct, much like that at my high school. LDS aren’t so unreasonable or peculiar.

VISITOR GUIDELINES
                                   1. Students attending Prom will be parking at the front of the golf club parking lot. All others are asked to park on the outskirts of the parking area.
2. Parents (and friends) are invited to view the Prom inside from 4:00 - 6:00 p.m. (Pictures may be taken outside by the pond. Please respect any golfers for this is a working golf course.)
3. The promenade will start around 5:30 p.m.
4. Parents may come inside until the start of dinner, 6:00 p.m.
5. Photo Booth opens at 7:00 p.m. for use.
6. Only parents of the Prom Court will be admitted for the crowning of the king and queen.
Court parents should return to Prom between 7:00- 7:10 p.m. The crowning will be at 7:20 p.m.
PROM ATTIRE GUIDELINES
We ask those attending Prom to remember this is a high school function as well as a formal affair and the attire and footwear worn should be appropriate for this occasion.
Female Attire:
- Formal Wear should cover the torso. Can be two pieces with no more than 2 inches in span.
- Outfit should not plunge excessively in any direction. Slits no higher than mid-thigh.
- Dresses should not be too short in length. No micro dresses/skirts.
- Sheer or “see thru” fabric must be lined if it applies to one of the rules above.
Male Attire:
- Tuxedos are not a requirement, but tie, dress shirt, suit jacket, and dress pants are needed.
____________________________________________________ (Student’s Name)
____________________________________________________ (Parent/Guardian Signature)
_____________________________ (Date)
                                                 By signing this document, I acknowledge that I have read over these guidelines, understand the rules being implemented, and will abide by them for this occasion.
                                                               

 

 

 

Edited August 29, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said:

Indeed. So since I can’t read your mind and in the spirit of responding, did you mean the comment as a compliment?

No. I meant it as a disagreement and an invitation for you to consider a better way.

[pogi]

50 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I kind of agree with you.  In the scriptures God cared about Adam and Eve's nakedness once they were no longer innocent--once they knew good from evil.  So in that regard, I do think that God does care about whether or not our bodies are covered.  But I also agree that it's probably the culture that we live in that God expects His prophets to use to determine what is or isn't acceptable.

Excellent points about Adam and Eve!

50 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You're not understanding the reaction.  It's not that we don't understand it, it's that we don't want it (men's thoughts) to determine what is or isn't acceptable for women to wear.  

What about young women's thoughts?  Should their thoughts influence what is or isn't acceptable for you to wear?  Shouldn't you strive to be a good influence for them in dress?  Whether you want it or not, we can't escape the influence that other's (both men and women) have on our dress.  We all dress for others to some extent.  If there is a dress that you wouldn't feel comfortable in around young men and young women, then you wouldn't wear it likely.  They have exerted their influence on you to some degree.  Your concern about their thoughts and how they perceive you does influence what is acceptable for you to wear or not.  It is inescapable and there is nothing wrong with it.  I understand the resistance - women are tired of being controlled by men.  But lets not take this fierce independence too far, we are all human and all in this boat together.  We should have influence on each other. 

Edited August 29, 2018 by pogi

[Bernard Gui]

20 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I did answer it before but you probably missed it with all the posts.  My answer was no, I don't.

I searched twice but could not find it. Thanks for the clarification. I disagree, but that’s water under the bridge.

Quote

You've misunderstood me.  I mean that I don't believe that dress code for youth activities should focus on modesty.  I'm not saying that modesty should not be taught as the standard that we are all want to live by.  Like I said in my post to HJW, it's the difference between 'remember the church's standards of modesty when you wear your swimsuit for the pool activity' and 'no swimsuits tonight at the pool activity because we want everyone to be modest.'

No, I meant immodesty.  You said that one of the reasons that we should enforce modesty at youth activities is so that we don't enable bad choices.  I'm saying that if the church does not feel it's necessary to enforce modesty standards for sacrament meeting (if they are o.k. with 'enabling immodesty' as you implied), then I'm not sure why youth activities need to be held to a higher standard.

I've been YWs president twice and i've had to chaperone youth dances before but I've never been asked to check for dress or behavior.  As far as I'm aware, there is no one at our dances that is tasked with that job.  If a chaperone sees bad behavior they are supposed to intervene but I've never seen one intervene in regards to dress (doesn't mean it's never happened, i've just never seen it).  But the kids know the standards and they all pretty much follow them.  The one or two that don't are not approached about it.  We'd rather they be there than not.

And, I have no doubt that you were not at all harsh in your interaction with the youth.  I picture you being very loving and fun about it all.  I just think that telling a kid he or she can't participate at a youth dance because of their clothes is harsh, no matter how kindly or lovingly it is done.  

I will admit though that perhaps the youth culture in your area is such that strict enforcement of modesty standards is necessary.  I'm a fan of recognizing that extreme circumstances can require extreme actions.

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I don’t agree with the “harsh” evaluation, but we can agree to disagree. To me, “Your shirt is too tight. Get out and don’t come back!” is harsh. Perhaps there is a harshness continuum. 

There is nothing extreme here. We are a basically a fairly conservative Seattle/Tacoma bedroom commuity. The extremes are in the big cities. I’m glad you have a positive experience. Do I understand correctly that you have no dress standards for your dances?

Edited August 29, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

16 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

No. I meant it as a disagreement and an invitation for you to consider a better way.

Yep. Thanks for the clarification. I’m considering.......I retract using the word evil. Something less volatile might have been better. I invite you to consider my view without mis-characterizing it.

Edited August 29, 2018 by Bernard Gui