Modestly Level 11

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I’ve never been asked that by a serial hugger.

Which is wrong, imo.  Hugs are intrusive so huggers have an obligation to ask...and I am a hugger so I know it is possible to do so without sacrificing the mood or much spontaneity.

[Bernard Gui]

30 minutes ago, Calm said:

By mission presidents for changing the standard mission rules?

Generally if you want people to change their behaviour, giving them reasons why rather than just ordering them to tends to be more effective from what I have seen.  In the case of it being safety issues, bet they got better compliance than they would have if they hadn't explained.

And if you are trying to teach a principle, explanations are often necessary.

We don’t have enough information to come to any useful conclusions here.

Besides, is it our business to out mission presidents who set rules and  policies we don’t understand or agree with?

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Which is wrong, imo.  Hugs are intrusive so huggers have an obligation to ask...and I am a hugger so I know it is possible to do so without sacrificing the mood or much spontaneity.

Well, I might say “yes” to you if you asked politely. 🤼‍♀️

Edited October 22, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

We don’t have enough information to come to any useful conclusions here.

Besides, is it our business to out mission presidents who set rules and  policies we don’t understand or agree with?

Just in case that last line was directed in part to me, I wasn't asking those questions nor would I "out" anyone in a case like this.

Just to be clear, the only people I think the MP should be explaining the rules to are those living them.  I am generally talking about the interaction between leaders and those they are attempting to influence, not the at times clueless bystanders.

However, if missionaries can't explain it to their parents as it appears to be in this case, I get concerned they aren't getting the explanation themselves.

[Bernard Gui]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Just in case that last line was directed in part to me, I wasn't asking those questions nor would I "out" anyone in a case like this.

Just to be clear, the only people I think the MP should be explaining the rules to are those living them.  I am generally talking about the interaction between leaders and those they are attempting to influence, not the at times clueless bystanders.

However, if missionaries can't explain it to their parents as it appears to be in this case, I get concerned they aren't getting the explanation themselves.

Not directed at you, but at the general tone of judging the MP in this thread based on precious little information. We don’t have any idea what he has really said or done.

Edited October 22, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Somebody get his name! Then I’ll get a rope! 😲

I think you might be getting a little carried away.  No need to threaten him with physical harm.  People can be wrong without us needing to hang them.

[Bernard Gui]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think you might be getting a little carried away.  No need to threaten him with physical harm.  People can be wrong without us needing to hang them.

Ah, but you should be aware that no one expects the Mormon Inquisition. 

Edited October 22, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[bluebell]

Just now, Bernard Gui said:

Ah, but no one expects the Mormon Inquisition. 

You still seem to be overreacting though, as someone saying they are frustrated and annoyed at a sexist dress code can't reasonably be described as 'the mormon inquisition.'   

[MustardSeed]

30 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Well, I’ll handle the details. After all, I am the Mormon Inquisitor.

How about the parent simply write a letter to the MP or the Church Missionary Department for clarification. Whole lotta supposin’ goin’ on.

Of course.  I have no intention of doing anything. 

The photo and described policy is troubling to me.  I can, and will, do nothing about it. But I will talk about it here, because even if we have no idea why this rule is in place, it is worthy of discussing the annoyance I feel when I see this situation at only face value.  Discussion is, after all, how change begins.  I don't see a problem with saying " this photo and this rule is upsetting"

After all, I can't imagine ANY situation that could explain this situation that would have me think - Oh.  Those lucky girls who need to cover up.  (unlike you know who who has been removed from this fun thread.)

Edited to say: 
I think if an MP were named, it would be out of line for us to put judgement on his rule.  Therefore, perhaps it is not ok to 'call out" an unnamed MP either.  But for the record, I personally have not blamed an MP.  I don't like the rule, and I don't like the message that the unexplained rule sends to me or to anyone else.  Without info, the suggestion is that women need to cover up their already covered bodies because they are suggestive and need to be covered.  It also suggests that boys can't control their thoughts, not even when women are in appropriate church attire.  This at face value is a horrid message to receive be it male or female.  More info "might" make more sense as to why the rule was put in place but it still wouldn't change the message. IMO.

Edited October 22, 2019 by MustardSeed

[Bernard Gui]

3 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Of course.  I have no intention of doing anything. 

The photo and described policy is troubling to me.  I can, and will, do nothing about it. But I will talk about it here, because even if we have no idea why this rule is in place, it is worthy of discussing the annoyance I feel when I see this situation at only face value.  Discussion is, after all, how change begins.  I don't see a problem with saying " this photo and this rule is upsetting"

After all, I can't imagine ANY situation that could explain this situation that would have me think - Oh.  Those lucky girls who need to cover up.  (unlike you know who who has been removed from this fun thread.)

There is a lot of speculation going on here with very little real information.

As Anthony Phillip Heinrich, one of my favorite American composers, wrote in his fantasía for violin “The Yankee Doodleiad,”

Quote

Many people build castles in the sky. Why not build a story higher?
 

 

[MustardSeed]

Just now, Bernard Gui said:

There is a lot of speculation going on here with very little real information.

As Anthony Phillip Heinrich, one of my favorite American composers, wrote in his fantasía for violin “The Yankee Doodleiad,”

 

I wrote a song, it also has violin in it, called Take Me there. 

"Ive seen a night time rainbow in the  fields of Idaho

I've been to California Redwood forest long ago

Ive walked on Carolina sandy beaches by the sea

But there aint nowhere that I'd rather be

More than right here holding you, wanting me."

Im a hugger.  

 

[Raingirl]

2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

(As an aside, if I had a quarter for every time as a child / youth that a man told me to smile I’d have enough money to correct my RBF.  These days, no one ever tells me to smile.  They know better. ) 

My “resting face” does not naturally tend towards a smile. It doesn’t necessarily reflect my emotions at the moment. But I would also have a nice accumulation of wealth if I were paid every time I was criticized for not smiling. And always by males. Always. Including a previous bishop. As though that kind of nit-picking is going to motivate me to smile more. 🙄

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, Peacefully said:

The OP said this was a modesty issue, not a safety issue. How do the sister missionaries feel about the rule? Are they too intimidated by the MP to even discuss it? Can they go above the MP if they feel he has overreached? There must be some recourse for missionaries, male or female, in such a situation. I must admit I didn’t think about these questions when my son went on a mission ten years ago, but maybe it is a conversation that needs to happen before they go. 

There isn't any appeal beyond the Mission President (although I suppose for something egregious a Seventy or Area Authority could be contacted). 

To be clear, I don't know that this actually bothers the sister missionaries at all, or how long it's been a policy.  It only came to light when we saw the picture and inquired, and I thought it was an interesting slice of how weird mission rules can be sometimes.

[rchorse]

3 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

For anyone who may be befuddled by the offense taken... I may be wrong but I Don’t believe that boys are told to smile. My opinion is that it is assumed that girls are supposed to be pleasant and pretty. Just another one of those subtle Reminders of how females are seen differently than males. I don’t like it.

I am a man and have been told my whole life to smile, mostly by women. I have always hated it. I don't think this is something that only happens to women.

I think it's a stupid thing to say regardless of who says it.

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I wrote a song, it also has violin in it, called Take Me there. 

"Ive seen a night time rainbow in the  fields of Idaho

I've been to California Redwood forest long ago

Ive walked on Carolina sandy beaches by the sea

But there aint nowhere that I'd rather be

More than right here holding you, wanting me."

Im a hugger.  

 

Not without my permission, please. 🙏

Where's the part with the violin?

Edited October 22, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

There isn't any appeal beyond the Mission President (although I suppose for something egregious a Seventy or Area Authority could be contacted). 

To be clear, I don't know that this actually bothers the sister missionaries at all, or how long it's been a policy.  It only came to light when we saw the picture and inquired, and I thought it was an interesting slice of how weird mission rules can be sometimes.

If it is as egregious as some here have proposed, then a parental letter to the MP would be appropriate, and then to the Missionary Department if the answer is not satisfactory.

Edited October 22, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

33 minutes ago, rchorse said:

I am a man and have been told my whole life to smile, mostly by women. I have always hated it. I don't think this is something that only happens to women.

I think it's a stupid thing to say regardless of who says it.

I have been told the same thing, but that is because my mood is perpetually grumpy. It comes from 42 years of having to deal with school administrators and disgruntled parents. That sucks any optimism right out of you.

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

You still seem to be overreacting though, as someone saying they are frustrated and annoyed at a sexist dress code can't reasonably be described as 'the mormon inquisition.'   

Sorry. My sense of humor sometimes tends to be rather arcane. I shouldn't expect people to see the hyperbole.

Quote

Bernard Gui (French: [gi]), also known as Bernardo Gui or Bernardus Guidonis, was a Dominican friar, Bishop of Lodeve, and a papal inquisitor during the later stages of the Medieval Inquisition. Due to his fictionalized portrayals in modern popular culture, most notably the 1980 [Umberto Eco] novel “The Name of the Rose” [and the film version starring Sean Connery and F. Murray Abraham], he is perhaps the most famous of all medieval inquisitors, although among his contemporaries and modern historians he is more often noted for his accomplishments in administration, diplomacy, and historical writing. {wikipedia}

I kind of like Bernardus Guidonis. It has a certain arcane ring to it.

One of my favorite novels, movies, and movie characters. I hope to be more often noted for my accomplishments in other areas also.

 

 

Edited October 22, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, rchorse said:

I am a man and have been told my whole life to smile, mostly by women. I have always hated it. I don't think this is something that only happens to women.

I think it's a stupid thing to say regardless of who says it.

I try to do or say something to make them smile instead.

So if I ever say or do anything amusingly stupid it is to try to cheer someone up. That is my story and I am sticking to it. This also applies retroactively to any time this has happened in the past and forward into the future. It also applies when I am alone or when everyone around is already smiling or even laughing at me. It also applies when the action is not amusing and is just stupid in which case I tried and failed.

Wow. I just justified my whole life in one day. Makes this keeping me up last night worth it:

[juliann]

2 hours ago, rchorse said:

I am a man and have been told my whole life to smile, mostly by women. I have always hated it. I don't think this is something that only happens to women.

I think it's a stupid thing to say regardless of who says it.

It comes with a set of associated behavior for women. Until you have been cat called on the street or have been subjected to continual comments about your appearance by those who have physical or institutional dominance, it's not the same event at all. So please don't try to diminish what women have been subjected to. 

[bsjkki]

3 hours ago, cinepro said:

There isn't any appeal beyond the Mission President (although I suppose for something egregious a Seventy or Area Authority could be contacted). 

To be clear, I don't know that this actually bothers the sister missionaries at all, or how long it's been a policy.  It only came to light when we saw the picture and inquired, and I thought it was an interesting slice of how weird mission rules can be sometimes.

I totally get your thoughts about it. It might not bother the sister missionaries or it might bother some of them but they have no recourse besides complaining to the MP and that probably would not go well for them. I worry more about how they internalize this rule and how they view their own bodies and if it makes them feel they are a danger to the opposite sex. Do they feel they are responsible for the Elder's thoughts and actions? You never know how these types of rules will be internalized now or down the road. 

 

Edited October 22, 2019 by bsjkki

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

It comes with a set of associated behavior for women. Until you have been cat called on the street or have been subjected to continual comments about your appearance by those who have physical or institutional dominance, it's not the same event at all. So please don't try to diminish what women have been subjected to. 

When I was in Central America, I regularly got cat calls from the señoritas. As did many other Gringo missionaries. "Hola, mi amor. Ay, mi amor." The sister missionaries were also exposed to a lot of this. It may sound trivial, but for some it was a real problem.

Of course, I was much younger then and had lots of sun-bleached blondish hair. Today, the reaction would be, "Uy, viejecito, ¿cómo andas?"

Edited October 22, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

28 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I totally get your thoughts about it. It might not bother the sister missionaries or it might bother some of them but they have no recourse besides complaining to the MP and that probably would not go well for them. I worry more about how they internalize this rule and how they view their own bodies and if it makes them feel they are a danger to the opposite sex. Do they feel they are responsible for the Elder's thoughts and actions. You never know how these types of rules will be internalized now or down the road. 

 

How would something not go well for a sister who asks for a clarification? Like she gets a perpetual assignment with a problem companion, or gets sent to the worst area of the mission for the duration?

The OP poster could ask the daughter missionary what the sisters thought about it. You never know about this sort of stuff until you ask. 

Edited October 22, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[bsjkki]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

How would something not go well for a sister who asks for a clarification? Like she gets a perpetual assignment with a problem companion, or gets sent to the worst area of the mission for the duration?

The OP poster could ask the daughter missionary what the sisters thought about it. You never know about this sort of stuff until you ask. 

I guess I was projecting how, in my experience, things go when a MP or leaders decisions are questioned. I actually just had an experience with this about a sister missionary in the mission field so that is on my mind. The details of that story are not mine to share. 

Edited October 22, 2019 by bsjkki

[Bernard Gui]

On 10/18/2019 at 1:14 PM, cinepro said:

My missionary daughter recently sent a picture of her at a baptism, and in the picture the sister missionaries are wearing coats and sweaters over their dresses (inside the building).  We asked if it was cold in the building (because it was still warm outside), because it looked kind of weird for them to be at a baptism with coats on, and we were told that all the sister missionaries have to wear sweaters or jackets whenever they are around Elders.  Because their missionary-approved dresses and shirts just aren't modest enough by themselves, so there needs to be another layer of protection.

 

Could you please clarify something?

Is the bolded part what the mission president said to the missionaries?

Edited October 23, 2019 by Bernard Gui