Women's Dress and Men's Thoughts

[Bernard Gui]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don’t want to put words in her mouth but if I had to guess it was because her intent had been to cause discomfort and make fun of the elders. 
 

At the time she thought it was funny but as she matured spiritually she began to change and felt bad that she had ever thought doing something like that was acceptable. 

The harm wasn’t to the elders, it was to herself. It was unbecoming of who she wanted to be and when she realized that she repented. 

 

 

That must have been difficult. Did she later come to know the elders she did that to? We all do things we regret.

Can we say there was no harm to the elders? What kind of discomfort do you think it might have caused them?

Edited October 29, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

That must have been difficult. Did she later come to know the elders she did that to? We all do things we regret.

Can we say there was no harm to the elders? What kind of discomfort do you think it might have caused them?

She didn’t.
 

And yes, I think we can say that if it caused any harm to the elders it would only be because they made the choice to dwell on after it was long over.  Missionaries in Europe were expected to deal with that kind of thing all the time.  The church doesn’t seem to believe it causes any harm, in and of itself.  Otherwise it would be negligent for the church to put missionaries in such situations.  

As for discomfort, I would imagine it caused them similar discomfort as when a friend and I were doing service for a nonmember by helping her pack and accidentally came across an open play girl. It was very uncomfortable to suddenly have those images before us but we quickly put it back and packed somewhere else. Laughing hysterically. 

[Bernard Gui]

59 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Abraham 3 describes a society of intelligences, a council, decisions, and leadership.  D&C 122 describes priesthood power as operating without compulsion, but with persuasion, long suffering, gentleness, meekness, love unfeigned, by kindness and pure knowledge that greatly enlarges the soul without hypocrisy and without guile (all qualities that mark the best leaders, and which out to say something about those leaders who lack all of those qualities).

Even if we lived in a universe without Gods in which nothing matters, anyone who has any empathy and awareness whatsoever should recognize through experience that what we do matters.  Native American Coyote and the Norse Loki represent figures who represent the ambition to make personal freedom the first and great commandment before which all other considerations are compromised.  Both start out as likable and appealing, but both bring down a lot of pain.  That is why their stories are still important.

Jesus, recognizing that what we do matters, asks us to sacrifice our personal freedoms on the altar of the recognition that we are all in this together and that what we do matters.

Some things matter more to particular individuals and in specific circumstances.  But everything ultimately matters because we are all in this together.  And time can both multiply the effects of our mistakes and also the effects of our inspired choices in ways that we rarely consider when making those choices.

If ye love me, he says...

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Thank you.

Perhaps the most valuable thing I have experienced as an Addiction Recovery missionary was to make a list of everyone I have harmed and to become willing to make amends when possible, if it would not cause further harm. There are many on the list for whom this is not possible. It also makes me reluctant to add new names to the list. So in my mind I see them lined up at the Pearly Gates and as I walk past stopping at each one I say, “Please forgive me.” “I’m so sorry.” “Oh, it’s you. Can you forgive me?” I hope forgiveness flows freely. I’m sure I will want to extend that forgiveness to others, too. Yet even with our amends, we know there is only One who made forgiveness possible. Yes, we are all in this together.

 

[Bernard Gui]

31 minutes ago, bluebell said:

She didn’t.
 

And yes, I think we can say that if it caused any harm to the elders it would only be because they made the choice to dwell on after it was long over.  Missionaries in Europe were expected to deal with that kind of thing all the time.  The church doesn’t seem to believe it causes any harm, in and of itself.  Otherwise it would be negligent for the church to put missionaries in such situations.  

As for discomfort, I would imagine it caused them similar discomfort as when a friend and I were doing service for a nonmember by helping her pack and accidentally came across an open play girl. It was very uncomfortable to suddenly have those images before us but we quickly put it back and packed somewhere else. Laughing hysterically. 

Interesting thoughts. I was in that situation for two years in Central America. For some elders it did not turn out so well. There was no hysterical laughter for them.There was more than imagined discomfort. Granted, they made their choices. Most were not prepared for the situations and choices we would face. My cowboy uncle Warren called it Fool’s Hill. We all climb it.

Why would the Church be negligent if it believed there was no harm and that the elders were just expected to deal with it? Our incoming MP was shocked at what he saw the elders and sisters had to deal with. I was his first assistant. He and the office elders had some interesting meetings. We were spread out over six countries. He had a Herculean task riding herd on that.

I think the Church has come to recognize the problem over time. Many of the restrictions, policies, rules, and safeguards now in place were not so back then. Maybe we can add that to our list of grievances?

Edited October 29, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[mfbukowski]

20 minutes ago, bluebell said:

She didn’t.
 

And yes, I think we can say that if it caused any harm to the elders it would only be because they made the choice to dwell on after it was long over.  Missionaries in Europe were expected to deal with that kind of thing all the time.  The church doesn’t seem to believe it causes any harm, in and of itself.  Otherwise it would be negligent for the church to put missionaries in such situations.  

As for discomfort, I would imagine it caused them similar discomfort as when a friend and I were doing service for a nonmember by helping her pack and accidentally came across an open play girl. It was very uncomfortable to suddenly have those images before us but we quickly put it back and packed somewhere else. Laughing hysterically. 

Cute stories!

There is an extraordinary radiance of innocent purity here that is beautiful to behold. The sheer lack of worldliness says so much.

Is it somehow harmful to point that out?

 

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said:

Interesting thoughts. I was in that situation for two years in Central America. For some elders it did not turn out so well. There was no hysterical laughter for them.

Why would the Church be negligent if it believed there was no harm and that the elders were just expected to deal with it? Our incoming MP was shocked at what he saw the elders and sisters had to deal with. I was his first assistant. He and the office elders had some interesting meetings. We were spread out over six countries. He had a Herculean task riding herd on that.

I think the Church has come to recognize the problem over time. Many of the restrictions, rules, and safeguards now in place were not back then. Maybe we can add that to our list of grievances?

For the elders that it didn’t turn out well for, that would be because of their personal choices, which they would need to repent of. 

Everyone has their agency. Some use it to make harmful choices.  Seeing a naked body part against your will does not remove your agency.  It’s not fun, but it can’t actually hurt you unless you give it the power to do so.

The church wouldn’t be negligent if it believed that missionaries should be able to handle seeing a breast in public without being harmed.  It would only be negligent if it put missionaries in places where there was a good chance they would see immodest dress and breasts sometimes believing seeing such things was going to harm them. 

[mfbukowski]

13 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Interesting thoughts. I was in that situation for two years in Central America. For some elders it did not turn out so well. There was no hysterical laughter for them.There was more than imagined discomfort.

Why would the Church be negligent if it believed there was no harm and that the elders were just expected to deal with it? Our incoming MP was shocked at what he saw the elders and sisters had to deal with. I was his first assistant. He and the office elders had some interesting meetings. We were spread out over six countries. He had a Herculean task riding herd on that.

I think the Church has come to recognize the problem over time. Many of the restrictions, policies, rules, and safeguards now in place were not so back then. Maybe we can add that to our list of grievances?

Perhaps more to the list of blessings that such an innocence still exists in the world.

I see now why my statements were so shocking.

I had no idea that seeing breasts would cause such a kerfuffle

Edited October 29, 2019 by mfbukowski

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Things have not always been like this. Not to say “those were the good old days,” but not all change is good. Well, maybe they were the good old days in some ways. 😉

Good old days indeed!

Kinsey, of course, interviewed pimps, prostitutes and convicted sexual deviants to construct his new narrative that innocence was a myth with which to cover our universal sexual repression, and his sexual revolutionaries continue to mock the idea of more innocent times, places and peoples, all whilst working around-the-clock to attack and undermine the very places and institutions where such innocence can still be constructed and nurtured and enjoyed.

Which is why as a Young Men president and then a bishopric counsellor, I used to remind parents who didn't think their sons were perfect that any boy who genuinely qualifies for a temple recommend in our hedonistic times is swimming upstream against a rather swift current filled with dangerous jetsam and should be lauded for what he is getting right.

[Bernard Gui]

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

For the elders that it didn’t turn out well for, that would be because of their personal choices, which they would need to repent of. 
 

Of course. I already pointed that out. That aspect of our missionary experience was very difficult.

Quote

Everyone has their agency. Some use it to make harmful choices.  Seeing a naked body part against your will does not remove your agency.  It’s not fun, but it can’t actually hurt you unless you give it the power to do so.

The church wouldn’t be negligent if it believed that missionaries should be able to handle seeing a breast in public without being harmed.  It would only be negligent if it put missionaries in places where there was a good chance they would see immodest dress and breasts sometimes believing seeing such things was going to harm them. 

If you only knew.
 

Is there some reverse mansplaining going on here?

Edited October 29, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

20 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Good old days indeed!

Kinsey, of course, interviewed pimps, prostitutes and convicted sexual deviants to construct his new narrative that innocence was a myth with which to cover our universal sexual repression, and his sexual revolutionaries continue to mock the idea of more innocent times, places and peoples, all whilst working around-the-clock to attack and undermine the very places and institutions where such innocence can still be constructed and nurtured and enjoyed.

Which is why as a Young Men president and then a bishopric counsellor, I used to remind parents who didn't think their sons were perfect that any boy who genuinely qualifies for a temple recommend in our hedonistic times is swimming upstream against a rather swift current filled with dangerous jetsam and should be lauded for what he is getting right.

Strewth. Well-said. My hat is off to any young man who passes through the gauntlet and comes out the other side relatively unscathed.

To the readers: Don’t take that as some intended or unintended slight to the ladies. I cannot speak for the young women. I know they are under attack. Blessings upon them. I can only speak from my long experience as a man...son, father, husband, grandfather, public school teacher, missionary, bishop, and life-long Scouter who has worked for decades with hundreds of youth.

Edited October 29, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Stargazer]

On 10/27/2019 at 4:36 AM, mfbukowski said:

From women who get it, and there are plenty who are wise enough not to post on these threads.

I've learned my lesson about posting on these kinds of threads - except at this moment, anyway, and this is directed only at you. I am surprised you think you can get any headway on this. Give it up, for the sake of your own sanity.  I've followed this thread from its inception, and it has gone exactly the way I predicted.  

[pogi]

39 minutes ago, bluebell said:

For the elders that it didn’t turn out well for, that would be because of their personal choices, which they would need to repent of. 

Everyone has their agency. Some use it to make harmful choices.  Seeing a naked body part against your will does not remove your agency.  It’s not fun, but it can’t actually hurt you unless you give it the power to do so.

The church wouldn’t be negligent if it believed that missionaries should be able to handle seeing a breast in public without being harmed.  It would only be negligent if it put missionaries in places where there was a good chance they would see immodest dress and breasts sometimes believing seeing such things was going to harm them. 

Spending time in a bar can't actually hurt an alcoholic if they don't indulge either, but for some reason you are not likely to find a recovering alcoholic in a bar...

Alcoholics have it easy in some regards - no one is likely going to force them into a bar and shove whiskey in their face as a practical joke.  I think we could all agree that to do such would be a gross offense and terribly cruel. 

My close friend and rock-star bass playing band mate has struggled with addiction from a young age - cocaine, meth, opioids, cigarettes, alcohol, porn, you name it...  After years of seeking recovery he has successfully overcome most addiction except for two - cigarettes and porn.  Of the two, he confirmed to me that porn is by far the hardest partly because triggers are everywhere and almost unavoidable.

While it is true that triggers cannot hurt us unless we give them power, for some it takes all the efforts and energies of heart and soul to fall down on their knees with desperate, flowing tears as they pound their fists, pleading to be freed from this burden as they feel powerless to do so on their own.  For some, that is a daily occurrence, for others, it is a non-issue.  What may be seen as a harmless practical joke to one, may send another into a world of pain and struggle that they did not ask for and are striving their hardest to avoid to find space for healing.  Just something to consider.  Peace after a trigger does not always come without severe pain and struggle - so I would not say that it is true that one can't be hurt unless they give in - there is still unsolicited pain, struggle, and seemingly impossible burden.  For healing to occur, like an alcoholic, one needs distance from the triggers, not repeated exposure in a misguided attempt to strengthen him against temptation so that he can just blow it off and laugh at it in the future.   

While it is true that a likely minority of men struggle at this level, I would suggest that it is higher than you might expect; and for many more who do not struggle with the pain that triggers can bring, it is because they simply choose to indulge, in which case they are hurt spiritually but refuse to recognize it.  

Edited October 29, 2019 by pogi

[Calm]

5 hours ago, alter idem said:

The topic 27 pages ago,  was about a Mission Prs. who was insisting the sisters wear sweaters and coats when around the Elders and then the op discussed Elder Oaks' talk where he suggested that women's dress or lack there of put responsibility on the woman for creating impure thoughts in men around them (this is in essence, not his exact words).  

First the Mission Pres.  I think if this happened to my daughter, I'd contact the Mission headquarters and let them know what this Mission Pres. was doing because basically, his stricter dress standards go beyond the mark and suggest he thinks that the standard missionary dress for women set by the church is immodest.  I think that would get someone's attention who is responsible for this mission pres that something is wrong or 'off'.  Either he himself has problems struggling with impure thoughts, or he's got a number of Elders who have problems and this is his over compensation for how to deal with it.  Either way, this mission needs to be looked into, because something is wrong, IMO.  A mission Pres. should not be dictating additional requirements for what he thinks is 'modest dress' when the Church mission dept. sets these standards, unless this is in a strict Muslim country and then, likely, the Pres. would have told the Sisters to wear baggy coats and sweaters outside the Chapel as well, and the request would have been justified for the Sisters' own safety.  Cinepro never said what mission this is, but I suspect that's not the case.

As for Women being responsible for arousing lust in others;  Demanding that LDS women cover up in order to protect the men and boys is useless.  If the men can't control their thoughts around LDS women, they sure aren't going to be able to do it around the rest of the world; they'd have to be hermits, never leave the house, never go on the internet or watch tv, movies etc and that's not possible.  Men and boys are naturally attracted to women (heterosexual men) and will have to take responsibility and accept that they are the only ones who can discipline their own thoughts.  In fact, we each are responsible for disciplining and controlling our own thoughts, it's an excuse to try to blame others.  While it's likely natural to have an initial reaction of arousal when seeing a scantily clad attractive person, it is the responsibility of the viewer to choose NOT to objectify the person and continue with thoughts of fantasy or lust.  That's on them.   What's on us (those who have the money to choose what we wear and how much we spend on clothes) is to be responsible for the way we dress and the messages it sends to those around us.  That's both men and women and it's not just whether clothing is modest or immodest.  

As for whether or not women are more spiritual than men;  I think both men and women can have and develop the same great spiritual capacity and the gospel of Jesus Christs expects and encourages both sexes to use and develop it spiritual gifts.  I personally believe some things that often appeal to men such as sports, competition, business success, worldly pursuits, money, power etc. sometimes become a distraction that can keep good men from truly developing their spiritual natures.  But, I think women can have distractions that will do the same, and I think we're seeing it more today than maybe in earlier generations.  I'm reminded of what Pres. Kimball once said decades ago;

 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2017/11/general-womens-session/turn-on-your-light?lang=eng

 

I think from Pres. Kimball's prophetic words that he was emphasizing that women have a special mission in the last days and IMO, he's putting a lot of responsibility on the women of the church to help the spiritual growth--not only in themselves but in how they raise their sons, how they teach young men, and even their expectations of their husbands to help them be a spiritual force in their homes.

Excellent summary and analysis

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, pogi said:

Spending time in a bar can't actually hurt an alcoholic if they don't indulge either, but for some reason you are not likely to find a recovering alcoholic in a bar...

Alcoholics have it easy in some regards - no one is likely going to force them into a bar and shove whiskey in their face as a practical joke.  I think we could all agree that to do such would be a gross offense and terribly cruel. 

Carrying your analogy...

Do you believe prohibition is the correct response to awareness that there are alcoholics?

Requiring LDS women to wear baggy coats and sweaters just in case is similar to Prohibition for only half the population.

———

Many women and men struggle with food triggers with obvious health implications of overeating, but also issues of self hate and despair. Do you believe we should ban food at church activities because of this weakness?

Edited October 29, 2019 by Calm

[Stargazer]

On 10/28/2019 at 6:30 AM, Calm said:

 

Thank you for taking the time to explain.  I highly disagree with it as I don't believe God would have children who had an innate desire to rape, but I can understand why if someone didn't make that assumption they might view it differently.

Chiming in here against my better judgment...

It's not an innate desire to rape.  I understnd that rape is not truly about sex; it is about power.  Rapists might seek the gratification, but while that could easily be obtained by way of a lady of the night, and peacefully so, the typical rapist is seeking something else that is more important than the gratification -- the thrill of power over someone.  There's a scripture that covers this.

DC 121:39: "We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion."

The world is full of men who seek power.  In some cases, power is to be had by election; in others it is to be had by violence; and in all places it can be obtained by deceit.  The world groans in sin because of this. God put all of us here because we are gods in embryo, but we must be tested out of sight of the Father, for it is only while we think we are out of His sight that we will reveal whether we are worthy of the eternal honors that God wishes to bestow upon us. We may not have an innate desire to rape; but all of us will be tempted in some degree; and some of us will fall to temptation.  And not just the temptation to rape; unrighteous dominion isn't restricted to physical violence.

 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

It's not an innate desire to rape.  

Perhaps you and mfb could discuss how to define it better then...

Quote

I think the innate desire for men to rape women is simply much stronger than you think and more universal

 

Edited October 30, 2019 by Calm

[pogi]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Carrying your analogy...

Do you believe prohibition is the correct response to awareness that there are alcoholics?

Requiring LDS women to wear baggy coats and sweaters just in case is similar to Prohibition for only half the population.

First, can we at least acknowledge and validate the real pain and suffering that can be imposed upon others in an unsolicited fashion, even when one doesn’t give in to the trigger?

Once that is internalized, let compassion guide your heart to what you think is right after that.

But to answer your question directly, no I don’t think that government intervention in prohibiting the free exercise of agency to purchase alcohol is the answer.  Human decency, awareness, and compassion for the struggles of others is the right way.  If I drank alcohol, I would personally out of decency and compassion and out of my covenant responsibility seek to lessen the suffering of a recovering alcohol by not drinking in their presence, and especially NOT as a practical joke.

I have never agreed with forcing women to wear anything.  I think that is the wrong way.

 

[Calm]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

irst, can we at least acknowledge and validate the real pain and suffering that can be imposed upon others in an unsolicited fashion, even when one doesn’t give in to the trigger?

There are women and likely men who have real pain when they see babies or encounter events that celebrate them.  Discussing the appropriate form of baby blessings including whether or not women should be allowed to hold their baby (the lack of which upsets many women) should not be used to infer there is no acknowledgement of pain and suffering for those who respond this way, imo  

I acknowledge that there is a lot of pain triggered by what are often every day activities to others. I am sorrowful that mortality was includes such suffering.  

What to do to minimize pain is different imo than discussing accountability.  That people have gone through experiences that leave them sensitive to triggers is likely not the responsibility of the person sitting on the pew in front of them.  So the question for me is whether it is the responsibility of others to create standards based solely on what might trigger others to the point those standards are being used in places where no one is likely to be triggered (T-shirts and shirts while swimming at girl’s camp for example).

[Calm]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

If I drank alcohol, I would personally out of decency and compassion and out of my covenant responsibility seek to lessen the suffering of a recovering alcohol by not drinking in their presence, and especially NOT as a practical joke.

Would you assume there is always a recovering alcoholic present or only modify your behaviour if you were relatively certain?

Quote

I have never agreed with forcing women to wear anything.  I think that is the wrong way.

Locally imposed church standards specifically for young women are often built imo on the premise everyone is alcoholic in terms of clothing. 

I keep going back to Bluedream’s example of her client who she knows she is triggering because he told her and her realization that it is healthier for him not to protect him from being triggered by changing her normal attire.

I don’t think we help young men or women by creating a different church environment based on stringent modesty standards if only because it creates more opportunities for them to define what they see elsewhere as immodest and therefore get unnecessarily triggered when even 50 years ago church members wouldn’t have viewed it that way (off the shoulder dresses were often worn by active, devoted Saints from the pictures I have seen of family and friends, one piece swimsuits with no T-shirts or shorts were the modesty standard at girls camp in the early 70s in my area, little girls in sundresses were a frequent sight at church back then too).

I am not saying toss all modesty standards (I don’t think that is realistic in our church culture for one thing), but it has been counterproductive imo emotionally and mentally speaking for our youth to become more stringent in standards as the greater culture becomes less. 

Edited October 30, 2019 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

25 minutes ago, Calm said:

Perhaps you and mfb could discuss how to define it better than...

 

Oh no, I learned my lesson but he's right. It might be about power but it's still rape.

Distinction without any practical difference.

Edited October 29, 2019 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

I've learned my lesson about posting on these kinds of threads - except at this moment, anyway, and this is directed only at you. I am surprised you think you can get any headway on this. Give it up, for the sake of your own sanity.  I've followed this thread from its inception, and it has gone exactly the way I predicted.  

Well yeah you're right. This one has altered my understanding of the entire caliber of this board.

I thought Hamba would at least try to justify his posts but I guess that's not going to happen.

And still no context for Calm's hearsay quote.

Yeah it's a waste of time.

Edited October 30, 2019 by mfbukowski

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Spending time in a bar can't actually hurt an alcoholic if they don't indulge either, but for some reason you are not likely to find a recovering alcoholic in a bar...

Alcoholics have it easy in some regards - no one is likely going to force them into a bar and shove whiskey in their face as a practical joke.  I think we could all agree that to do such would be a gross offense and terribly cruel. 

My close friend and rock-star bass playing band mate has struggled with addiction from a young age - cocaine, meth, opioids, cigarettes, alcohol, porn, you name it...  After years of seeking recovery he has successfully overcome most addiction except for two - cigarettes and porn.  Of the two, he confirmed to me that porn is by far the hardest partly because triggers are everywhere and almost unavoidable.

While it is true that triggers cannot hurt us unless we give them power, for some it takes all the efforts and energies of heart and soul to fall down on their knees with desperate, flowing tears as they pound their fists, pleading to be freed from this burden as they feel powerless to do so on their own.  For some, that is a daily occurrence, for others, it is a non-issue.  What may be seen as a harmless practical joke to one, may send another into a world of pain and struggle that they did not ask for and are striving their hardest to avoid to find space for healing.  Just something to consider.  Peace after a trigger does not always come without severe pain and struggle - so I would not say that it is true that one can't be hurt unless they give in - there is still unsolicited pain, struggle, and seemingly impossible burden.  For healing to occur, like an alcoholic, one needs distance from the triggers, not repeated exposure in a misguided attempt to strengthen him against temptation so that he can just blow it off and laugh at it in the future.   

While it is true that a likely minority of men struggle at this level, I would suggest that it is higher than you might expect; and for many more who do not struggle with the pain that triggers can bring, it is because they simply choose to indulge, in which case they are hurt spiritually but refuse to recognize it.  

Pogi, do you mind if I ask about your friend's earlier life? Like was he an active LDS, or ? I ask, because I keep wondering if those that struggle with addiction to porn or even alcoholism, could stem from a strict upbringing in the church. It's my guess that it can contribute somewhat. Some LDS that drink, go all out and drink to get drunk in their youth. And with porn maybe they can't control it because of the stigma behind it in the church. I know many will think this laughable, but seriously wonder if any of this conincides. And those that stress about modesty, is it because they have a problem with worrying they're going to go all out into porn viewing or can't control their sexual feelings because they've had it ground into their psyche how bad it is. You people out there that are much smarter than me, is there a study/word/definition/condition for this?

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Perhaps more to the list of blessings that such an innocence still exists in the world.

I see now why my statements were so shocking.
 

Innocents abroad. The new Pilgrim’s Progress. 

Quote

I had no idea that seeing breasts would cause such a kerfuffle

No surprise. It’s one of the biggest industries in the world.

Edited October 30, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Of course. I already pointed that out. That aspect of our missionary experience was very difficult.

If you only knew.
 

Is there some reverse mansplaining going on here?

I think of it this way, if Jesus, as a mortal, had seen a woman's breasts, and then struggled afterwards with having impure thoughts, would He still have been able to perform the Atonement?  Or would those impure thoughts have been a sin?  Could the difficulty or hardness of the temptation ever make a sin less a sin, for our Savior?  Did the difficulty of the temptation ever matter? Could it ever serve as justification for falling?

I definitely don't know how it is to be a man, and I'm not going to say that I do, (and I expect men to follow suit, and not think they have any clue what it's like to be a woman), but I think I understand sin and that is what we are talking about here.  

How I understand sin is that our choices make us clean or unclean, not the choices of others.   There is nothing that anyone else can do, that can cause us to sin.  There is nothing that anyone else can do that can negate or justify our sinful choices. Sin requires agency.  You can't sin without choosing to sin.

We all have difficult temptations, that is neither the realm of men nor women.  There are things that women struggle with that you cannot comprehend, and the same is true for men that women can't comprehend, I have no doubt.  There are things that you don't personally struggle with at all that someone else might say 'if only you knew'.  And the reverse could be true for your struggles and someone else who is barely impacted by such temptations.  

None of that matters.  Whether it's an 'if only you knew' sort of temptation, or a 'shrug your shoulders' temptation, the expectation from Christ is the same-that we lean on Him and stay the course with His help.  And praise God for the gift of repentance when we fail.  But when/if we fail, it will be because of our choices.  We won't be able to implicate anyone else on our day of judgment.  

No man's repentance ever begins with 'but how was the woman dressed?' because, as far as his choices are concerned, how a woman was dressed is completely irrelevant.

 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

We all have difficult temptations, that is neither the realm of men nor women.  

And temptations aren't really the objects, but our feelings.  Bread isn't tempting usually for someone who has a full stomach, but everyone understands why Satan used bread in his temptation of Jesus while he was fasting.  Hunger or rather the cessation of hunger (stopping the pain) is the temptation.

When someone is aroused, the temptation is to continue feeling that way (continuing the pleasure).

----

For the women and men who dress because they believe they can arouse others by doing so, they aren't judged I bet on whether or not they are successful, but on their desire...the desire is the sin, not the result (an obvious analogy, the baby is a result and is not the sin of fornication).  The person may be delusional and be repulsing everyone around them with their appearance, but if they desire to seduce, then that is sinful...seduction actually occurring or not.

I doubt if anyone here is saying a woman who chooses their dress because they desire to be seductive is sinless, she is accountable for nurturing that desire in herself.  But that is different from being accountable for someone accepting her invitation.

Edited October 30, 2019 by Calm