Modesty issues...again

[Meerkat]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thanks, Juliann. This will be my next to the last post on Mormondialogue. My last one will be in the Social Hall. It’s been a great experience. 

To Bernard Gui, Mrs. Gui and all the little Guis,

You were one of the first people I read on this board, and have enjoyed your comments and insights ever since.  If you go, you will be greatly missed.

I am one if those people who can get wound up on a topic like this.  The value of Mormon Dialogue has been, for me, an opportunity to learn how to converse civally with interesting people with differing points of view.  I have also participated in volatile threads like this one that generated rancor in some participants (including, unfortunately, myself occasionally.) But I am trying to improve and am making progress.

Subjects like modesty are important.  Holiness is important.  Using our influence to further discussions about sacred things is important.  Learning how to control our thoughts and our tongues (Matt 5:28, James 3:5) are two of the most important lessons we gain from the Gospel.  You have been a great example of how to participate in controversial topics with kindness, wisdom and influence for good.  I sincerely hope you reconsider your decision to leave.   We may disagree once in awhile.  Even in those few cases, I always leave better informed and uplifted.  Let the dust settle.  Please consider giving it another chance. Tomorrow is another day. 🙄

Edited August 31, 2018 by Meerkat

[california boy]

Just wondering what we can salvage from all of this discussion.  Maybe we can make a list of what we have learned and what changes could be suggested.  Here is a start

The principle of modesty should be taught equally to all youth.  Those principles are already in the FTSOY pamphlet.  If there are tweaks to that pamphlet that need to be addressed, it might be best to let your concerns be known to those who write and approve the pamphlet.  Hopefully, they will appreciate the positive feedback.

The continued teaching of modesty is going to always be required.  Using the FTSOY pamphlet should be the basis for those lessons.  Straying too far from those principles should be discouraged.  As with other church teachings such as keeping the Sabbath day holy, the guidelines are purposely left vague.  Let's keep it that way.

Participation in all church activities including youth activities should not have gatekeepers deciding who should be let in and who should be sent home based on what is being worn.  If someone shows up at a church dance in levis and a tee shirt, let them in.  It is just a dance for heaven's sake. If girls show up at girls camp with shorts capris and swimsuit, welcome them.  These are not automatic violations of any modesty standards as outlined in the FTSOY pamphlet.  

If someone shows up to a church activity that is testing the boundaries of good taste, then a private discussion with that person is encouraged.  Asking the person what they feel the Lord expects of them is a good place to start that discussion.  Teaching them to judge for themselves the appropriateness of their choices with that in mind is the goal of that discussion.  Guide, not dictate.

Never suggest that someone else is responsible for how others control their thought based on what a person wears.  It is up to each person to learn to control their thoughts no matter what situation they find themselves in.  No one else can do that for them.

Your own personal definition of modesty may very well be different from someone else's definition of modesty.  You don't have any more right to force your personal belief on modesty on another person any more than they have any right to force their definition of modesty on you.  Refer to the FTSOY pamphlet for personal guidance.  Don't expand on that guidance and then expect everyone else to agree with your own personal thoughts to what the pamphlet is conveying.

All are welcomed, all are loved, all are valued are not a bad attituded to have when it comes to welcoming people to any church function.

Just my thoughts.  Feel free to add, change or delete anything I have suggested.  It would be nice to end this thread on a positive consensus of what real changes need to be made.  I am under no illusion that this thread will have any impact on the church as a whole, but perhaps it will have an impact on each of our own personal points of view.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

I think this woman may have found a interesting solution. 😉 

When I was studying in America, I visited Salt Lake City and went to the Museum of Church History and Art (or something like that). They had a display of Brigham Young's journals opened to interesting pages, and one included a sketch of a woman in pants. The explanatory note talked about how Brigham really wanted Latter-day Saint women to stop wearing dresses and skirts and start wearing pants. Eliza R. Snow, if I remember correctly, was Relief Society president at the time, and she said the women would never go for it since they weren't 'pretty' enough. So Brigham had attempted to sketch 'pretty pants'!

[Senator]

9 hours ago, juliann said:

It is funny on its face if you ignore the misogynistic underbelly. But it is also a metaphor of women who feel like men have put nails in their head as they mock them for feeling pain.  After all, nothing is funnier than seeing an injured woman. I'm surprised they didn't just crucify her. Now that would be soooooo fun.

Oh, for crying out loud!

[Senator]

5 hours ago, Meerkat said:

To Bernard Gui, Mrs. Gui and all the little Guis,

You were one of the first people I read on this board, and have enjoyed your comments and insights ever since.  If you go, you will be greatly missed.

I am one if those people who can get wound up on a topic like this.  The value of Mormon Dialogue has been, for me, an opportunity to learn how to converse civally with interesting people with differing points of view.  I have also participated in volatile threads like this one that generated rancor in some participants (including, unfortunately, myself occasionally.) But I am trying to improve and am making progress.

Subjects like modesty are important.  Holiness is important.  Using our influence to further discussions about sacred things is important.  Learning how to control our thoughts and our tongues (Matt 5:28, James 3:5) are two of the most important lessons we gain from the Gospel.  You have been a great example of how to participate in controversial topics with kindness, wisdom and influence for good.  I sincerely hope you reconsider your decision to leave.   We may disagree once in awhile.  Even in those few cases, I always leave better informed and uplifted.  Let the dust settle.  Please consider giving it another chance. Tomorrow is another day. 🙄

Bernard Gui,

I fully support your decision to take your leave. This place can be toxic.  It's good to detoxify

I don't know what got into me, to step back into this hornets nest.

Life was good. I was happy

What was I thinking.

I think I shall once again disappear too.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

7 minutes ago, Senator said:

Oh, for crying out loud!

I’m curious if you can elucidate why you felt it was appropriate for this thread?

[Senator]

3 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I’m curious if you can elucidate why you felt it was appropriate for this thread?

Nope

Too toxic

I'm out (and gone)

[SeekingUnderstanding]

8 minutes ago, Senator said:

Nope

Too toxic

I'm out (and gone)

So you drop in, add a video making fun of women in a highly charged debate then leave without explanation? Nice!

 

And then you wonder and exclaim “for crying out loud” when Juliann calls you on it. 

Edited August 31, 2018 by SeekingUnderstanding

[bluebell]

I found this article when looking for some other information and thought it perfectly illustrated what the women on this thread have been saying.  @Bernard Gui (I hope you don't leave) and @pogi, I know you guys have been trying to get a better understanding and this article might help.

https://bycommonconsent.com/2013/09/09/drowning-in-modesty-guidelines-at-girls-camp/

[pogi]

 

Quote

The man is not without the woman, and the woman is not without the man in modesty. 

15 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

I have no idea what this means. Sounds like it should be deep, but I don’t understand. 

What it means is that modesty is not a principle that really exists in isolation.  Modesty is not about me, me, me, and not caring about what other's think.  But that is all I hear in this thread.  That attitude is the opposite of modesty.   Modesty is about how we present ourselves in language, dress, behavior within the culture we live in.  Modesty is partly about respecting cultural expectations.  It's not JUST about female cultural expectations.  Cultural decency and propriety also considers the opposite sex. 

What it means is that if one speaks, behaves, acts, dresses, etc. in an attitude of 'they are my words, they are my actions, they are my behaviors, it is my body, etc. and I don't care if how I present them affects the opposite sex, then that is not really modesty.  It completely misses the mark. 

Modesty is about propriety.

Propriety is about culture.

Culture is about females and males.  

Hence, the man is not without the woman, and the woman is not without the man in modesty. 

One cannot extricate the entire male gender from the interest and principle of morality and pretend to practice propriety.  That simply is not modesty by definition. 

Is there problems with how modesty is taught and practiced in the church.  Absolutely. Quite frankly, it is disturbing how off the mark some stakes are acting. So I understand the frustration with the principle and how it is taught, but we should not lose scope of what it is. 

We need to reclaim and restore the principle of modesty in the church, but all I see is a distortion on every front.  It is saddening to me. 

Edited August 31, 2018 by pogi

[Vanguard]

2 hours ago, Senator said:

Bernard Gui,

I fully support your decision to take your leave. This place can be toxic.  It's good to detoxify

I don't know what got into me, to step back into this hornets nest.

Life was good. I was happy

What was I thinking.

I think I shall once again disappear too.

I'm probably hooked for life here to be mostly a lookie - lou - I could never leave. You happened to step into a thread that has been acrimonious from the get-go and particularly from one camp. My first post a few days ago was answered in that sarcastic, mean-spirited way which turned me off considerably. What that camp does not understand is that they are eating their own on this thread as we try to discuss the issue of modesty and they don't seem to even see it...

Bernard & pogi have been officers and a gentlemen throughout - it is unfortunate that BG must now take long cold shower from this forum. Our great loss... : ( 

[juliann]

The ownership some males feel over women’s threads is unbelievable. Then the hurt feelings when rudeness and disrespect isn’t accepted. Then the man tears and foot stomping before the ultimate I will take my ball home if you won’t let me be captain!

One more time. Guys, start your own thread! Geez Louise, take the hurt feelings over there! Tell each other all about your pain and inability to cope with not being able to control a woman’s discussion. Heck, make 20 threads! Get all those feelings out. Just stop bogging down this thread. 

Edited August 31, 2018 by juliann

[Senator]

46 minutes ago, juliann said:

The ownership some males feel over women’s threads is unbelievable. Then the hurt feelings when rudeness and disrespect isn’t accepted. Then the man tears and foot stomping before the ultimate I will take my ball home if you won’t let me be captain!

One more time. Guys, start your own thread! Geez Louise, take the hurt feelings over there! Tell each other all about your pain and inability to cope with not being able to control a woman’s discussion. Heck, make 20 threads! Get all those feelings out. Just stop bogging down this thread. 

Wait! You tell us to get the hell out, then when we leave you mock us for leaving????

You're a piece of work Julls...

Hey and do us a favor the next time you want to have one of these exclusive misandrous rant fests; give us

some sore of signal from the get go.....you know like:

"HEY MEN....<insert emoji of middle finger>"

 

Clean. Efficient. Done  

 

[BlueDreams]

17 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I thought that was a way to be just (keep the rules) and merciful (a kind way to help keep the rules). Perhaps that was the wrong choice of words. I also mentioned I thought the method was fair and friendly. I didn't' impose my standards on anyone, I didn't instigate the rules, I wasn't seeking for power, just to serve. At the time, I spend 5 days a week with several hundred kids, and spending my Saturdays with more kids was not alway what I wanted to do.

Perhaps I could have done something better or just ask not to be put in the situation. Perhaps you have a better suggestion.

One frequent flyer was a bishop's son (of course) who came several times in jeans and t-shirt. Those were not allowed in the code. When asked to change at the first few dances, he feigned knowledge of the code. He would go out and come back in with the right clothes. I came up with my idea partly as a result of his scam. After he signed the book, there were no more of that kind of problem with him. There were very few problems with the kids.

This is not unlike dance policies in high schools. In my particular school there was a policy, but most of the faculty, especially the ladies for some reason (not taking another jab at the ladies, please) didn't enforce it. The LDS students didn't like going. My own kids were in that group.

I was busy and worn out from a very tough session last night, So I missed all of the hallabaloo of the last few pages. And I haven't read more than a couple of posts to know that you may not be in this thread. If you still are or happen to see this, I wanted to respond to you, because you did bring up a detailed explanation as to what you guys did at the dance for me. 

I still don't see a significant difference. My main concern in my swimsuit was having an external system dictate for me what was modest. And at the end of the day that's what happened in the youth dances as you described (it happened in my youth dances intermittently as well....enforcement changed, if I remember correctly. But I remember getting the little FTSOY pamphlets from leaders as our ticket into the dance basically....and then for other dances, not so much). Though a number of the youth were solidly on board and wanted it, by the behavior alone it's apparent to me that others likely didn't. And I would also guess there was another bunch who didn't necessarily like it but also didn't break the rules. I would have been one of those kids. I didn't wear outfits that would be "too aggregious" but to be externally told what to do has always bothered me. And always will. 

As I mentioned I would want them to know the standard and to begin learning to govern themselves. I would have them learn what is expected and to please be respectful of said expectations. I would teach them the principles (I noted that I would change the FTSOY pamphlet to be gender neutral and to explain the effect of immodesty most noted in the scriptures (vanity and pride)). I would talk to the youth about the importance of respecting others choices unless those choices are directly harming you (as in they're harassing/bullying you in some way). And the only enforcement done is to make sure extreme or detrimental behaviors were not occurring that may be making others uncomfortable. 

Because, as I mentioned, there is very little difference between the dance and my swims. It comes from the same line of thoughts and reasoning. The same try to find a line between "justice and mercy." It's just a different context. 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited August 31, 2018 by BlueDreams

[pogi]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I found this article when looking for some other information and thought it perfectly illustrated what the women on this thread have been saying.  @Bernard Gui (I hope you don't leave) and @pogi, I know you guys have been trying to get a better understanding and this article might help.

https://bycommonconsent.com/2013/09/09/drowning-in-modesty-guidelines-at-girls-camp/

Yep, this is all a serious problem in the church.  Many people in the church have a distorted idea of modesty (not just men). 

The way that some of these girl's camps are being run is clearly disturbing.  It is a distortion of the principle of modesty.  It really is troubling.  But then I think, wait, isn't it the young women leaders who are responsible for this nonsense?  This is not a church wide problem, so we can't blame the GA's for this crap.  It is a local problem and full accountability lies on the shoulders of the leaders who plan the camp and create the guidelines, aka "women".  

Perhaps your biggest problem with this corruption of modesty is not really men, perhaps it is other women.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

 

What it means is that modesty is not a principle that really exists in isolation.  Modesty is not about me, me, me, and not caring about what other's think.  But that is all I hear in this thread.  That attitude is the opposite of modesty.   Modesty is about how we present ourselves in language, dress, behavior within the culture we live in.  Modesty is partly about respecting cultural expectations.  It's not JUST about female cultural expectations.  Cultural decency and propriety also considers the opposite sex. 

What it means is that if one speaks, behaves, acts, dresses, etc. in an attitude of 'they are my words, they are my actions, they are my behaviors, it is my body, etc. and I don't care if how I present them affects the opposite sex, then that is not really modesty.  It completely misses the mark. 

Modesty is about propriety.

Propriety is about culture.

Culture is about females and males.  

Hence, the man is not without the woman, and the woman is not without the man in modesty. 

One cannot extricate the entire male gender from the interest and principle of morality and pretend to practice propriety.  That simply is not modesty by definition. 

Is there problems with how modesty is taught and practiced in the church.  Absolutely. Quite frankly, it is disturbing how off the mark some stakes are acting. So I understand the frustration with the principle and how it is taught, but we should not lose scope of what it is. 

We need to reclaim and restore the principle of modesty in the church, but all I see is a distortion on every front.  It is saddening to me. 

Honest question Pogi since you believe modesty can’t be divorced from the opposite gender. How much time do you spend on a typical day thinking about how your clothing choices effect the gay men and women around you? When you swim do you worry that taking off your shirt is immodest? How much time as a teenager and young adult did you spend worrying about it?

[bsjkki]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

Yep, this is all a serious problem in the church.  Many people in the church have a distorted idea of modesty (not just men). 

The way that some of these girl's camps are being run is clearly disturbing.  It is a distortion of the principle of modesty.  It really is troubling.  But then I think, wait, isn't it the young women leaders who are responsible for this nonsense?  This is not a church wide problem, so we can't blame the GA's for this crap.  It is a local problem and full accountability lies on the shoulders of the leaders who plan the camp and create the guidelines, aka "women".  

Perhaps your biggest problem with this corruption of modesty is not really men, perhaps it is other women.

In many instances, you are absolutely correct.

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

Yep, this is all a serious problem in the church.  Many people in the church have a distorted idea of modesty (not just men). 

The way that some of these girl's camps are being run is clearly disturbing.  It is a distortion of the principle of modesty.  It really is troubling.  But then I think, wait, isn't it the young women leaders who are responsible for this nonsense?  This is not a church wide problem, so we can't blame the GA's for this crap.  It is a local problem and full accountability lies on the shoulders of the leaders who plan the camp and create the guidelines, aka "women".  

Perhaps your biggest problem with this corruption of modesty is not really men, perhaps it is other women.

As I've said before, women are often the problem as well.  But women in the church take their cue from the male leaders (typically the GAs) in creating these guidelines.  It's the teachings that have already been quoted here that are often giving them justification for these rules.  And, these rules are approved by male ward and stake leaders because in the church, men ultimately always have the final say.  For real change to occur, it has to be led by those at the top, which are almost all men.  But women definitely need to be more aware of how our current form of modesty (which is different than it used to be) in the church is impacting the youth and change focus.  

Besides that, church camp rules (such as the camp mentioned in the article, Heber Valley) are church owned camps run by senior missionaries who are following the rules that have been dictated to them by the church.  They are not run by the ward or stake leaders (male or female) and wards and stakes have no authority to change the dress codes at church owned camps.  GAs are over church camps.

Edited August 31, 2018 by bluebell

[pogi]

Just now, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Honest question Pogi since you believe modesty can’t be divorced from the opposite gender. How much time do you spend on a typical day thinking about how your clothing choices effect the gay men and women around you? When you swim do you worry that taking off your shirt is immodest? How much time as a teenager and young adult did you spend worrying about it?

I don't think any time should be spent "worrying" about how we dress.  That is a distortion of what I am saying.  I buy clothing that I feel is culturally appropriate.  I am socially conscious when I dress - as we all should be.  That shouldn't come with any anxiety whatsoever.  But I do dress modestly as a courtesy to others.  It is not all about what I want, it is not about me, me, me. 

No, I don't worry about taking off my shirt when swimming as a matter of propriety. Neither should a young woman have to worry about cover up her one-piece swimsuit at girls camp as a matter of propriety, and hence modesty.  

[pogi]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

As I've said before, women are often the problem as well.  But women in the church take their cue from the male leaders (typically the GAs) in creating these guidelines.

If someone wants to distort and manipulate the words of the leaders into something they are not, that is on them.  This is clearly an issue on the ward and stake level as not all stakes and wards have this issue.  If that is what the GA's really wanted, we would see this problem church wide.  We don't. 

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

  Besides that, church camp rules (such as the camp mentioned in the article, Heber Valley) are church owned camps run by senior missionaries who are following the rules that have been dictated to them by the church. 

CFR that senior missionaries over girl's camp have dress codes for camp dictated to them by the church. 

[Rain]

It was nice to step away from the thread for a little bit.  While I did quickly skim it from time to time I find that if I am not planning to post then I invest so much less time that should be spent elsewhere.  I lost sense of where my priorities should be earlier and hope that I can keep them now.  

I think the word "modesty" has become quite charged.  It has happened over decades so many may not see that it has become so much more than where it should be.  So it became really charged when people recognized that and started speaking out about it. 

There really is no question that how we dress is an influence on how others see us.  No one is arguing that at all.  We have had a lot of discussion here of how varied that influence can be.  

Years ago I noticed that when I started feeling "less than" or insecure or that people didn't like me - do they think I'm dumb, boring?  etc. - then it was almost always a sign of my relationship with God.  When I put my focus on him I started feeling better about myself.  I saw myself more of how He saw me - as his child and of worth.  That then allowed me to open up myself and help others with their struggles. Occasionally those feelings pop up again and then I focus again on God and I am balanced again.

Perhaps there is some miscommunication through all this talk about modesty which relates to that. When we tie our behavior to other people rather than to God than our feelings about modesty get way out of whack.   Here's the thing - if God is happy with what I am wearing it really doesn't matter what you think.  It's not that I don't care about you.  It's not that I don't want to help you.  It's not that I think you are a pervert.  It's not even that I think men and women shouldn't work together.  It's that when I am aligned with God then He is all that matters. 

When we start saying women or men should be modest so that others are not aroused then we have changed the focus on my relationship with God as the priority and put it on my relationship with someone else.  And the same holds true that with your relationship with God.  That relationship I have with you is important, but I if I and you both put our relationships with God first than my relationship with you will align.  

We have had so many years of hearing that women should be modest for men that the balance is way out of whack.  If we go back to focusing the kind of modesty that God has in mind for us - ("Modesty is behavior that flows out of remembering our true place of service, and does not conceitedly boast about the self, but boasts in God ") then maybe one day we can talk about a benefit of modesty is how it helps other people out, but until then the arousal argument is going to be ever trying to make our relationship with God come second.  

[bluebell]

Just now, pogi said:

If someone wants to distort and manipulate the words of the leaders into something they are not, that is on them.  This is clearly an issue on the ward and stake level as not all stakes and wards have this issue.  If that is what the GA's really wanted, we would see this problem church wide.  We don't. 

 

I agree, it's on them.  But if we don't stand up and say (with respect and humility) 'I don't agree with this' then it's on us too.  And I think we are starting to see it church wide.  I think it was last year that the Ensign (or maybe it was the New Era) that had a great article on what modesty actually is, which was very timely.  And the focus of talks on modesty seems to have changed in the last couple of years.  Change takes time but it seems like we are moving in that direction thanks to our leaders.

Quote

CFR that senior missionaries over girl's camp have dress codes for camp dictated to them by the church.

 I attended 3 of them (Camp Zarahemla, Valley View, and Atoka) within 6 weeks of each other this summer This is what we were told, but it could have been wrong.  I have no proof.

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, Rain said:

Perhaps there is some miscommunication through all this talk about modesty which relates to that. When we tie our behavior to other people rather than to God than our feelings about modesty get way out of whack.   Here's the thing - if God is happy with what I am wearing it really doesn't matter what you think.  It's not that I don't care about you.  It's not that I don't want to help you.  It's not that I think you are a pervert.  It's not even that I think men and women shouldn't work together.  It's that when I am aligned with God then He is all that matters. 

When we start saying women or men should be modest so that others are not aroused then we have changed the focus on my relationship with God as the priority and put it on my relationship with someone else.  And the same holds true that with your relationship with God.  That relationship I have with you is important, but I if I and you both put our relationships with God first than my relationship with you will align.  

We have had so many years of hearing that women should be modest for men that the balance is way out of whack.  If we go back to focusing the kind of modesty that God has in mind for us - ("Modesty is behavior that flows out of remembering our true place of service, and does not conceitedly boast about the self, but boasts in God ") then maybe one day we can talk about a benefit of modesty is how it helps other people out, but until then the arousal argument is going to be ever trying to make our relationship with God come second.  

Yes!  I tried to say this to pogi a while back but I did not say it as well as you and probably confused him, but yes, this is exactly what I have been trying to express with all the discussion about influence and modesty.

[Bernard Gui]

After a day of good music, some delicious non-adult beverages, and a really great discussion with Sister Gui, I have decided not to let the thoughtless comments of a few caustic posters drive me out of a community that has been a beloved and important part of my life for decades.

Thanks for the kind thoughts and even the unkind ones. It's part of the game.

[Bernard Gui]

17 hours ago, juliann said:

I think you over estimate how often you truly answer questions. 

I think you missed my invitation for specific questions. Each of the serious ones of those that have been asked have been answered with long, carefully thought-out responses.

Cheap shot sniping like this isn't helpful.