Bernard Gui Posted November 2, 2019 Posted November 2, 2019 (edited) 50 minutes ago, bluebell said: I'm not sure what you are asking, Examples of the subjective rules that our girls have had to deal with at different church camps are tightness of clothing, length of shorts, whether or not something is considered low-cut, etc. Was the dress length standard I described an example of a non-subjective rule for the length of skirts at a church dance? If not, what would be? Should there even be one? Edited November 2, 2019 by Bernard Gui
Bernard Gui Posted November 2, 2019 Posted November 2, 2019 (edited) 14 hours ago, Jake Starkey said: The attempt to regulate the interaction of the younger members has been prevalent for a long time in the church. The St. George Stake leadership in the 1880s put out the following regulations for St. George dance parties. The opening address was delivered by Pres-ident McAllister giving report of Stake matters, temporal and spiritual; among other things referred to dancing and read [“1887.” in margin] the following which was passed upon in session of St. George Stake High Council on Saturday, 10th Dec 1887: - “Rules which should be observed in dancing parties in St George Stake of Zion. I. It is recommended that all Public Dancing Parties be held and conducted under the management of the Bishop of the Ward, or of a Committee appointed by the Bishop, or by the High Council, as the case may be. II. That all Public Dancing Parties be opened and closed by prayer. III. It is recommended that Public Dancing Parties be opened at as early an hour in the afternoon, or evening, as practicable, and that no Dancing Party, as a rule, be kept up after midnight. 49. IV. A list of the names who are desired to be invi-ted of all names morally eligible to be invited to Pub-lic Dancing parties should be submitted to the Bishop of the Ward, on any other person, or persons, duly appointed, for revisions, or approval; and no others than those whose names in said list are approved shall be invited, or allowed to attend such parties. Provided: - special visiting friends may be added to the list, by the approval of the Bishop, or other duly appointed person or persons. V. Where it becomes necessary to avoid confusion in filling the floor for dancing, and to give all the guests an opportunity enjoy themselves, we would recom-mend that a non-transferable number be issued to [“1887.” in margin] each guest; and that the observance of these numbers in filling the floor be strictly maintained. VI. Loud, or boisterous talking, or other unseemly noise should be avoided; and all double, or excessive, swinging, in cotillions, quad-rilles, or contra-dances are hereby disapproved; as, gentlemanly and lady-like deportment, should be observed by all; in the Ball-room or elsewhere. VII. We are opposed to round dancing, and in regard to Waltz, Schottische, or Polka, or any other dance embracing the features of these dances, we quote the Words of the Epistle of the Apostles, signed by President John Taylor, 1877: “We do not wish to be too restrictive in relation to the matters, but would recommend that there be not more than 50. one or two (Round Dances] be permitted in an evening.’ VIII. No person should be allowed to take part in any Dancing Party, who shall be under the influence of wine or other strong drinks. IX. That the Presidency of the Stake, the High Council, and the Bishopric of the several Wards, have a standing invitation to all Public Dancing Parties, and should be cordially invited to take part in, and use their moral influence in needful instruction at those parties. By order of the Presidency and the High Council of St. George Stake of Zion. St. George, Utah, 24th. Dec., 1887.” 1887. Annals of the Southern Utah Mission: 1887. Church History Library, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah. MS 318. Is there evidence this refers to youth dance parties, adult dance parties, or both? I’m not sure they were divided in that way at that time. My grandfather and great-grandfather played in dance bands in the LDS colonies in Southern Colorado. I have their hand-written music books with the polkas, quadrilles, waltzes, two-steps, schottisches, etc., that they played. I have transcribed the books into printable, publishable formats, and I am recording myself playing their dance music on their violins which I have. The Saints in Sanford and Manassa built a dance hall with the floor set on buggy springs so that it bounced when they danced. Youth and adults participated. I think they knew how to have a good time. Edited November 2, 2019 by Bernard Gui
Tacenda Posted November 2, 2019 Posted November 2, 2019 4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Is there evidence this refers to youth dance parties, adult dance parties, or both? I’m not sure they were divided in that way at that time. My grandfather and great-grandfather played in dance bands in the LDS colonies in Southern Colorado. I have their hand-written music books with the polkas, quadrilles, waltzes, two-steps, schottisches, etc., that they played. I have transcribed the books into printable, publishable formats, and I am recording myself playing their dance music on their violins which I have. The Saints there built a dance hall with the floor set on buggy springs so that it bounced when they danced. Youth and adults participated. I think they knew how to have a good time. My parents loved dancing in their youth, until my dad was injured in an accident. And my in-laws were big into dancing as well. That was their era. I've seen my mom's dresses and they showed her shoulders, even while at BYU. She wasn't walking porn because of it. No one put that notion in men's minds.
MiserereNobis Posted November 2, 2019 Posted November 2, 2019 20 hours ago, Nacho2dope said: I have a tattoo and I keep it covered for the most part, its on my forearm. I cant tell you how many times I have been teaching the youth and the topic comes up and they will go on and on about how horrible tattoos are and that anyone who has one is a bad person. I don't get offended by this, and I understand why they are saying it. What an excellent opportunity to show them your tattoo and talk about the problems of judging people for their external appearance! Did you do that? Or did you confirm by your silence that everyone who has a tattoo is a bad person? 3
Bernard Gui Posted November 2, 2019 Posted November 2, 2019 3 minutes ago, Tacenda said: My parents loved dancing in their youth, until my dad was injured in an accident. And my in-laws were big into dancing as well. That was their era. I've seen my mom's dresses and they showed her shoulders, even while at BYU. She wasn't walking porn because of it. No one put that notion in men's minds. I knew many of my LDS relatives who lived at that time (late 1800s-early 1900s). They were modest people in the best notions of the word.
pogi Posted November 2, 2019 Posted November 2, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, bluebell said: I didn't say you were condoning it. I suggested that you were ignoring it, and we can't do that in this discussion. It's the bad examples that have gotten us here. We can't pretend they don't exist and we can't ask questions that don't take the bad examples into account. How am I ignoring it? I have addressed the bad examples head on throughout this discussion. What questions have I asked that don’t take bad examples into account? I feel like we are all talking past each other and I am going to bow out for that reason. Communication is futile on these forums sometimes. 1 hour ago, bluebell said: Is it fair to suggest that anyone is condoning abandoning all modesty standards? I certainly have seen anyone suggest that. Could you point it out? Beyond that, I think part of the point of what a lot of women are saying on here is that until those leaders acknowledge their mistakes and want to change, there is no way to 'move on to how it should be practiced.' We aren't to that place yet, as a church. We're still at the point where we have to spend 40+ pages convincing some men that the problem even exists. To me, having standards where we can’t even address behavior when it is violated is no standard at all. Can you think of any other church standard where leaders are expected to turn a blind eye when it is violated? If there is a standard, there is an expectation of obedience. If we pretend like there is nothing wrong when a standard is violated, then there is no real expectation or standard to judge by at all. It is milk toast - weak sauce - mere suggestion rather than a standard with boundaries, expectations, and consequences. I think everyone has acknowledged that problems exist. That is not a fair accusation. We all see local leaders (mostly female I might add) take things beyond the standard and are not justified in doing so. If we are not allowed to address violations, then there is no real “standard” at all. Edited November 2, 2019 by pogi 1
Bernard Gui Posted November 2, 2019 Posted November 2, 2019 42 minutes ago, pogi said: How am I ignoring it? I have addressed the bad examples head on throughout this discussion. What questions have I asked that don’t take bad examples into account? I feel like we are all talking past each other and I am going to bow out for that reason. Communication is futile on these forums sometimes. To me, having standards where we can’t even address behavior when it is violated is no standard at all. Can you think of any other church standard where leaders are expected to turn a blind eye when it is violated? If there is a standard, there is an expectation of obedience. If we pretend like there is nothing wrong when a standard is violated, then there is no real expectation or standard to judge by at all. It is milk toast - weak sauce - mere suggestion rather than a standard with boundaries, expectations, and consequences. I think everyone has acknowledged that problems exist. That is not a fair accusation. We all see local leaders (mostly female I might add) take things beyond the standard and are not justified in doing so. If we are not allowed to address violations, then there is no real “standard” at all. Well, that’s the tricky bit.
bluebell Posted November 2, 2019 Posted November 2, 2019 26 minutes ago, pogi said: How am I ignoring it? I have addressed the bad examples head on throughout this discussion. What questions have I asked that don’t take bad examples into account? I feel like we are all talking past each other and I am going to bow out for that reason. Communication is futile on these forums sometimes. I believe you are ignoring it when you said--"I think we are getting way off track with this. There is no comparison here. Is buying a new car or watch a violation of some church standard? As we all agree - we are not accountable for other peoples thoughts and choices. We are accountable for our influence through living the principles and standards of the gospel. If we are violating those standards and they are negatively influencing others, than we are accountable for that influence. It also needs to be pointed out that this issue is not only about the influence it has on young men, it is about living the standards of modesty, and it is also about empowering women against the corrosive effects of the media. I am honest to goodness more concerned about the young women than the young men. In other words, this is not simply about how others choose to see us (we have all acknowledged we can't control that), it is about our influence we have by living or not living the standards and the corrosive effect that not living the standards can have on us and others. " I believe you are ignoring it when you said that Calm's off examples were off track. I provided examples which showed that her questions are on track. I believe you are ignoring it when you said that there is no comparison. I provided comparable examples where girls who were following the standards of the church were still being taught they needed to cover up to protect the men around them. I believe you are ignoring it when you speak as if everyone in the church "all agree" on this topic. We have examples of leaders (and posters in this thread) who do not agree. Quote If we are not allowed to address violations, then there is no real “standard” at all. This isn't true, but it is a mindset that the church has struggled with in the past in some places (the mindset that a problem to be solved is more important than a person to be loved), and is now working to correct. You see this most specifically right now in the temple, where workers are being taught and trained that if a patron is sincere in their attendance of the temple, and they are comfortable, temple workers are not to address things that were done wrong or correct them. They aren't even supposed to bring it up. This is despite the very real standards and expectations that exist in the temple. The change and new training became necessary because of the number of people who didn't want to attend the temple anymore, due to being singled out or embarrassed for things they did or said wrong in the past. The temple had become a place of stress and anxiety for some, instead of a place of love and learning. The church is trying to change that and it's such a wonderful thing. My parents were temple workers under both systems and they said that the difference in their service now compared to last time is so amazing. 4
bluebell Posted November 2, 2019 Posted November 2, 2019 1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said: Was the dress length standard I described an example of a non-subjective rule for the length of skirts at a church dance? If not, what would be? Should there even be one? No, i think it's a good example of a non-subjective rule for the length of skirt. I have never seen that rule in place for any church function though in the years that I've worked with the youth.
bluebell Posted November 2, 2019 Posted November 2, 2019 1 hour ago, bsjkki said: They actually don't. Here is a good article about the beach volleyball sports attire. I found it interesting even if it doesn't have much to do with how modestly is taught or enforced at church. https://www.insider.com/why-do-women-beach-volleyball-players-wear-bikinis-olympics-2016-8 That's really interesting, thanks for sharing!
bluebell Posted November 2, 2019 Posted November 2, 2019 1 hour ago, bsjkki said: Is this even possible? I would add the word 'purposely.' I think we all know, through puberty sexual feelings can be aroused easily (while sleeping) and even when you are not seeking them. *you may scoff at this as being ridiculous...everyone knows what they mean with this statement but that is not a safe assumption. This book is given to 11-year-olds. They will not have the maturity to 'read intent' and could end up feeling really guilty through middle school for how their changing bodies react to stimuli. No, it's not possible. Our bodies don't work that way, and it's so unhealthy to teach anyone that sexual feelings or arousal are sinful. 3
Jake Starkey Posted November 2, 2019 Posted November 2, 2019 2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: Are you referring to Sister McConkie? Do you know her, the one who teaches GT classes with her hubby. He is knowledgeable, she, imo, not so much but opinionated.
Jake Starkey Posted November 2, 2019 Posted November 2, 2019 1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said: Is there evidence this refers to youth dance parties, adult dance parties, or both? I’m not sure they were divided in that way at that time. My grandfather and great-grandfather played in dance bands in the LDS colonies in Southern Colorado. I have their hand-written music books with the polkas, quadrilles, waltzes, two-steps, schottisches, etc., that they played. I have transcribed the books into printable, publishable formats, and I am recording myself playing their dance music on their violins which I have. The Saints in Sanford and Manassa built a dance hall with the floor set on buggy springs so that it bounced when they danced. Youth and adults participated. I think they knew how to have a good time. I don't care what you are sure about in Dixie and dance parties in 1887. I do trust James G. Bleak, the editor of the Annals of Southern Utah 1851-1890. Here is the post again. he attempt to regulate the interaction of the younger members has been prevalent for a long time in the church. The St. George Stake leadership in the 1880s put out the following regulations for St. George dance parties. The opening address was delivered by Pres-ident McAllister giving report of Stake matters, temporal and spiritual; among other things referred to dancing and read [“1887.” in margin] the following which was passed upon in session of St. George Stake High Council on Saturday, 10th Dec 1887: - “Rules which should be observed in dancing parties in St George Stake of Zion. I. It is recommended that all Public Dancing Parties be held and conducted under the management of the Bishop of the Ward, or of a Committee appointed by the Bishop, or by the High Council, as the case may be. II. That all Public Dancing Parties be opened and closed by prayer. III. It is recommended that Public Dancing Parties be opened at as early an hour in the afternoon, or evening, as practicable, and that no Dancing Party, as a rule, be kept up after midnight. 49. IV. A list of the names who are desired to be invi-ted of all names morally eligible to be invited to Pub-lic Dancing parties should be submitted to the Bishop of the Ward, on any other person, or persons, duly appointed, for revisions, or approval; and no others than those whose names in said list are approved shall be invited, or allowed to attend such parties. Provided: - special visiting friends may be added to the list, by the approval of the Bishop, or other duly appointed person or persons. V. Where it becomes necessary to avoid confusion in filling the floor for dancing, and to give all the guests an opportunity enjoy themselves, we would recom-mend that a non-transferable number be issued to [“1887.” in margin] each guest; and that the observance of these numbers in filling the floor be strictly maintained. VI. Loud, or boisterous talking, or other unseemly noise should be avoided; and all double, or excessive, swinging, in cotillions, quad-rilles, or contra-dances are hereby disapproved; as, gentlemanly and lady-like deportment, should be observed by all; in the Ball-room or elsewhere. VII. We are opposed to round dancing, and in regard to Waltz, Schottische, or Polka, or any other dance embracing the features of these dances, we quote the Words of the Epistle of the Apostles, signed by President John Taylor, 1877: “We do not wish to be too restrictive in relation to the matters, but would recommend that there be not more than 50. one or two (Round Dances] be permitted in an evening.’ VIII. No person should be allowed to take part in any Dancing Party, who shall be under the influence of wine or other strong drinks. IX. That the Presidency of the Stake, the High Council, and the Bishopric of the several Wards, have a standing invitation to all Public Dancing Parties, and should be cordially invited to take part in, and use their moral influence in needful instruction at those parties. By order of the Presidency and the High Council of St. George Stake of Zion. St. George, Utah, 24th. Dec., 1887.” 1887. Annals of the Southern Utah Mission: 1887. Church History Library, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah. MS 318.
Jake Starkey Posted November 2, 2019 Posted November 2, 2019 And anyone can go to the 1887 editions of the Annals (online at the Church History Library) and read about the violence and deaths that occured at some of those Dixie dance parties that resulted in the guidance of the St. George Authorities.
Bernard Gui Posted November 2, 2019 Posted November 2, 2019 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said: I don't care what you are sure about in Dixie and dance parties in 1887. I do trust James G. Bleak, the editor of the Annals of Southern Utah 1851-1890. Here is the post again. he attempt to regulate the interaction of the younger members has been prevalent for a long time in the church. The St. George Stake leadership in the 1880s put out the following regulations for St. George dance parties. The opening address was delivered by Pres-ident McAllister giving report of Stake matters, temporal and spiritual; among other things referred to dancing and read [“1887.” in margin] the following which was passed upon in session of St. George Stake High Council on Saturday, 10th Dec 1887: - “Rules which should be observed in dancing parties in St George Stake of Zion. I. It is recommended that all Public Dancing Parties be held and conducted under the management of the Bishop of the Ward, or of a Committee appointed by the Bishop, or by the High Council, as the case may be. II. That all Public Dancing Parties be opened and closed by prayer. III. It is recommended that Public Dancing Parties be opened at as early an hour in the afternoon, or evening, as practicable, and that no Dancing Party, as a rule, be kept up after midnight. 49. IV. A list of the names who are desired to be invi-ted of all names morally eligible to be invited to Pub-lic Dancing parties should be submitted to the Bishop of the Ward, on any other person, or persons, duly appointed, for revisions, or approval; and no others than those whose names in said list are approved shall be invited, or allowed to attend such parties. Provided: - special visiting friends may be added to the list, by the approval of the Bishop, or other duly appointed person or persons. V. Where it becomes necessary to avoid confusion in filling the floor for dancing, and to give all the guests an opportunity enjoy themselves, we would recom-mend that a non-transferable number be issued to [“1887.” in margin] each guest; and that the observance of these numbers in filling the floor be strictly maintained. VI. Loud, or boisterous talking, or other unseemly noise should be avoided; and all double, or excessive, swinging, in cotillions, quad-rilles, or contra-dances are hereby disapproved; as, gentlemanly and lady-like deportment, should be observed by all; in the Ball-room or elsewhere. VII. We are opposed to round dancing, and in regard to Waltz, Schottische, or Polka, or any other dance embracing the features of these dances, we quote the Words of the Epistle of the Apostles, signed by President John Taylor, 1877: “We do not wish to be too restrictive in relation to the matters, but would recommend that there be not more than 50. one or two (Round Dances] be permitted in an evening.’ VIII. No person should be allowed to take part in any Dancing Party, who shall be under the influence of wine or other strong drinks. IX. That the Presidency of the Stake, the High Council, and the Bishopric of the several Wards, have a standing invitation to all Public Dancing Parties, and should be cordially invited to take part in, and use their moral influence in needful instruction at those parties. By order of the Presidency and the High Council of St. George Stake of Zion. St. George, Utah, 24th. Dec., 1887.” 1887. Annals of the Southern Utah Mission: 1887. Church History Library, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah. MS 318. Your source doesn’t identify the attendees at the dance parties. Where is the reference to youth? It is not clear if the partial paragraph at the top is part of the record. My Google search doesn’t provide a readable version. Do you have a better citation? Edited November 2, 2019 by Bernard Gui
Bernard Gui Posted November 2, 2019 Posted November 2, 2019 3 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said: And anyone can go to the 1887 editions of the Annals (online at the Church History Library) and read about the violence and deaths that occured at some of those Dixie dance parties that resulted in the guidance of the St. George Authorities. Caused by dress standards? Probably not.
Bernard Gui Posted November 2, 2019 Posted November 2, 2019 (edited) 25 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said: Do you know her, the one who teaches GT classes with her hubby. He is knowledgeable, she, imo, not so much but opinionated. Shooting the messenger much? Guilt by association much? Character assassination much? We can do better than this. What parts of her message do you find egregious? Edited November 2, 2019 by Bernard Gui
Bernard Gui Posted November 2, 2019 Posted November 2, 2019 (edited) 47 minutes ago, bluebell said: No, i think it's a good example of a non-subjective rule for the length of skirt. I have never seen that rule in place for any church function though in the years that I've worked with the youth. Supposing a young lady (Or young man) comes to the dance not meeting the published standard? What would be an appropriate response by the leaders? We Washingtonians tend to be ahead of the game in so many ways. 🤓 Edited November 2, 2019 by Bernard Gui
SeekingUnderstanding Posted November 2, 2019 Posted November 2, 2019 On 11/1/2019 at 12:24 PM, Bernard Gui said: Google men’s beach volleyball images. I stand educated! Thank you and sorry!
Jake Starkey Posted November 2, 2019 Posted November 2, 2019 46 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Your source doesn’t identify the attendees at the dance parties. Where is the reference to youth? It is not clear if the partial paragraph at the top is part of the record. My Google search doesn’t provide a readable version. Do you have a better citation? My source is everything he needs to be. You have not shown at any qualifications for your concerns other than what your Dad and Granddad told you about Southern Colorado, several hundred miles away and decades later. I met CFR, you have only their opinions? You don't have a qualified citation.
Jake Starkey Posted November 2, 2019 Posted November 2, 2019 45 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Caused by dress standards? Probably not. Are you being serious here? Go back and read what it says about standards.
Jake Starkey Posted November 2, 2019 Posted November 2, 2019 38 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Shooting the messenger much? Guilt by association much? Character assassination much? We can do better than this. What parts of her message do you find egregious? You really don't get this. I said 'imo'. What part of that bothers you? You are giving your opinions above as if they are solid. Why?
alter idem Posted November 2, 2019 Posted November 2, 2019 On 10/31/2019 at 2:01 PM, pogi said: Agreed. Public or private shaming is never appropriate. Is it your position however that there is NEVER a scenario where it might be appropriate for a church leader to have a private conversation (or with parents) about how a person (male or female) may be dressed inappropriately, in violation of church standards? I know some adults feel that when they see young women dressed immodestly, someone needs to be told, either directly to the young woman or to the parents. In my experience, this has never had a positive outcome. I agree that leaders need to teach modesty but the best course of action is to teach it to a group, never, never single out one individual--only parents should do that and if they fall down on the job, then no one else is going to be able to do it without harm being done, IMO. That always ends badly, they get their feelings hurt, they are embarrassed or offended, it has never been a positive when I've seen a youth singled out. I've seen young women stop attending because someone embarrassed them about their clothing and it is such a stupid thing because that is the exact opposite of what we want. If you want to reach them and you have a responsibility to Youth, teach modesty standards without singling out girls alone, and don't get into specifics of how long a skirt should be etc., but teach respect for oneself, and an emphasis on our value as heavenly beings given a wonderful gift of their body and for the kind of person Heavenly Father wants them to be. Point out that Heavenly Father wants us to be respectful of ourselves and how we dress can also encourage a respect from others to remember that we are Children of a Heavenly Father. Then let them govern themselves; and if they continue to dress in a manner you don't approve of, then pray for them that the spirit might teach them. That is how I think our Heavenly Father wants us to teach correct principles, by always being governed by a spirit of Charity for each other and avoid doing harm. 4
Amulek Posted November 2, 2019 Posted November 2, 2019 So, I have been following this thread (yes, all 44 pages), and I've made a conscious effort to try and just really listen to what women have been saying. I want to tell those of you who have been patiently (sometimes frustratedly, sometimes heatedly) participating in this discussion that I really appreciate your comments. They have helped shift my perspective in a few areas, and I'm really grateful for that - especially now that I'll be moving into a calling (starting tomorrow) that will place me in association with the youth again. 2
Bernard Gui Posted November 2, 2019 Posted November 2, 2019 25 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said: Are you being serious here? Go back and read what it says about standards. The violence was caused by dress standards?
Recommended Posts