Coming Soon to a Strip-ping Mall Near You - Topless Women

[pogi]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

What I (and others) been disagreeing with you about is that modesty is an issue of sacredness of specific body parts.  I don't believe that female breasts are considered sacred by our doctrine, or ever have been.  I don't think really think that women aren't supposed to show their stomachs because their stomachs are sacred.  Same for upper thighs.  Same for shoulders. 

I don't think there is much evidence at all that the specifics of our teachings on modesty stem from belief in the sacredness of certain body parts.

I don't disagree with you here.  I have always said that "culturally" we view certain things as sacred - I have never used the word "doctrinal".  

Let me try to concisely clarify my position, because I feel like side topics have taken us all over the place. 

Modesty is primarily culturally based.

In our culture modesty is associated with the sacredness of our body and sexuality. 

Parts of our body that are powerfully associated with sex/sexuality (my argument is specifically about the genitals and female breasts) are considered immodest to reveal in certain contexts.  Of course, modesty is more than this, but this is one aspect of modesty in our culture. 

I gave breastfeeding as a potential example of how the female breast might be considered more sacred in our culture due to its function than the male breast.  I am not arguing that it is doctrinal.  I was simply suggesting a potential reason for why our cultural views of the female breast are the way they are.   My argument doesn't hinge on that.  I think it is honestly more likely due to the fact that the female breast is culturally a gigantic symbol of sex/sexuality in our culture whereas the male breast is not so much (even though females can be attracted to them).   Pictures of the female breast are considered porn and are prohibited for certain age groups.  Not the same with men.  Culturally, they are on different galaxies.  So, if culture defines modesty, it is no wonder why the female breast is covered while the male breast is not.  Again, this is all contextual.  It would be completely immodest for a male to be shirtless at church for example. Our culture defines modesty and therefore the female breasts and male breasts are not culturally equal in terms of modesty. 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

So you think shoulders are a more sexual symbol these days than they were 40 years ago?

I think the church changes standards based on their perceptions of the culture of the time.  Sometimes they are late to the party.   Why else would they change the standards if not based on their cultural views?  

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Is the male body viewed as  less a temple by the Church or scripture when his chest is exposed?

Is there anywhere that teaches a man’s body is less sacred than a woman’s?

Is the Sacrament more sacred when it’s covered or not covered?  Or is covering about something else?

You never answered as far as I saw if you believe a woman’s face is more sacred than a man’s face with one being veiled at times. 

See my last post to bluebell.

Regarding the temple and sacrament.  Not all coverings serve the same symbolic purpose. 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

They may have thought it wasn't worth making a big deal about it even though they thought they weren't modestly dressed.

Give me a break!  If they were women, they would have been arrested and expelled.  Totally different standard.  Even today men run around shirtless at BYU.  The swim team is shirtless at meets.  Do you really think the GA's all swim with shirts on?  I think it is time for a cultural reality check here.  

Edited November 25, 2019 by pogi

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

Do you really think the GA's all swim with shirts on?

Not at Deseret Gym, they didn't. At least not until sex-segregated nude swimming fell out of favour in the US somewhere in the 1970s.

In my American days, I was in a priesthood leadership meeting with Pres Packer when he told us about a spiritual experience he had had as a young man whilst singing 'Redeemer of Israel' with his priests quorum members, bishop, and quorum adviser on the walk back to the car after having gone 'skinny dipping' following a service project.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Not something that I'm concerned about.  I've never ever had anyone tell me that the church teaches that childbirth is sacred, so I don't see that the chance to disagree with that is likely to come up.  

If birth is not sacred, I guess you won't be celebrating the Christmas this year?

Quote

 

Angel choirs in silence wait

To herald Christ with songs of praise,

Revealing to the eager earth

The wonder of His sacred birth.

 

The sacred symbol of birth and new life (baptism) is central. 

[Ahab]

12 minutes ago, pogi said:

Give me a break!  If they were women, they would have been arrested and expelled.  Totally different standard.  Even today men run around shirtless at BYU.  The swim team is shirtless at meets.  Do you really think the GA's all swim with shirts on?  I think it is time for a cultural reality check here.  

My question to you was whether you think they were being "modest" to show that much skin?  In my perspective that is not how a person dresses to dress modestly unless the definition for modesty is something other than not showing very much skin.  So either it is okay to not be modest when going swimming, or taking a shower, or having sexual relations... in other words it is okay to be naked in those situations even though that means not being modest... or the definition of modesty is somehow in flux depending on what a person is doing.  

[pogi]

6 minutes ago, Ahab said:

My question to you was whether you think they were being "modest" to show that much skin?  In my perspective that is not how a person dresses to dress modestly unless the definition for modesty is something other than not showing very much skin.  So either it is okay to not be modest when going swimming, or taking a shower, or having sexual relations... in other words it is okay to be naked in those situations even though that means not being modest... or the definition of modesty is somehow in flux depending on what a person is doing.  

I don’t know anyone who share your views.  Modesty is largely culturally and contextually based.  Yes they were being modest according to our culture, our church, and yes my personal beliefs based on the context.

[bluebell]

23 minutes ago, pogi said:

If birth is not sacred, I guess you won't be celebrating the Christmas this year?

The sacred symbol of birth and new life (baptism) is central. 

Are you really trying to argue that normal child birth and the birth of Christ as the same thing?

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Yes, because what is culturally appropriate dress in one occasion is not culturally appropriate in another.  But to be clear, this is not my teaching, but the church's.  Again, see the photo of the male BYU athletes.  

There is the case where a guy was ex'd for producing a calendar with bare chested returned missionaries. So apparently the church wasn't happy with some men being shirtless. https://www.foxnews.com/story/man-who-created-calendar-of-shirtless-mormon-missionaries-facing-excommunication

Edited November 26, 2019 by Tacenda

[pogi]

16 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

In my American days, I was in a priesthood leadership meeting with Pres Packer when he told us about a spiritual experience he had had as a young man whilst singing 'Redeemer of Israel' with his priests quorum members, bishop, and quorum adviser on the walk back to the car after having gone 'skinny dipping' following a service project.

You are going to think I am a weirdo, but I used to get naked all the time in nature.  It was just so liberating. To strip down to the raw self and experience nature as I was created was an organically human experience that not enough people take advantage of.  It anchored me to nature and creation, and really humbled me to just be me, and only me, without labels and logos covering me and defining me. 

The most transformatively spiritual and defining experience of my entire life happened on top of a mountain, completely nude and exposed before the Lord saying, “here I am” to God.  I didn’t want to hide anything from him.  

The thought came, “you are on Holy Ground”, and I felt as if someone was watching me and I felt embarrassed and covered up and fell on my knees. I can’t describe what happened next.  But I think being naked prepared me personally for that experience. It was something I needed to do for me, and don’t necessarily recommend it for everyone.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I don't disagree with you here.  I have always said that "culturally" we view certain things as sacred - I have never used the word "doctrinal".  

Our disagreement is the connection between sacred and covered.  I don't think that we as a church have a culture of viewing any specific body part as sacred.

Quote

 

Modesty is primarily culturally based.

In our culture modesty is associated with the sacredness of our body and sexuality. 

Parts of our body that are powerfully associated with sex/sexuality (my argument is specifically about the genitals and female breasts) are considered immodest to reveal in certain contexts.  Of course, modesty is more than this, but this is one aspect of modesty in our culture. 

 

But, parts of our bodies that are not powerfully associated with sex/sexuality are also considered immodest to reveal in certain contexts.

Quote

I gave breastfeeding as a potential example of how the female breast might be considered more sacred in our culture due to its function than the male breast.  I am not arguing that it is doctrinal.  I was simply suggesting a potential reason for why our cultural views of the female breast are the way they are.   My argument doesn't hinge on that.  I think it is honestly more likely due to the fact that the female breast is culturally a gigantic symbol of sex/sexuality in our culture whereas the male breast is not so much (even though females can be attracted to them).   Pictures of the female breast are considered porn and are prohibited for certain age groups.  Not the same with men.  Culturally, they are on different galaxies.  So, if culture defines modesty, it is no wonder why the female breast is covered while the male breast is not.  Again, this is all contextual.  It would be completely immodest for a male to be shirtless at church for example. Our culture defines modesty and therefore the female breasts and male breasts are not culturally equal in terms of modesty.

Ok. 

[phaedrus ut]

There is nothing about this that should be in anyway illegal. Family members will see each other naked, it happens.  This is no more sexual than a breastfeeding mother.

 

Phaedrus 

 

[Calm]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

You are going to think I am a weirdo, b

More you were intelligent to let yourself enjoy and rejuvenate in your surroundings.

[Ahab]

21 minutes ago, pogi said:

I don’t know anyone who share your views.  Modesty is largely culturally and contextually based.  Yes they were being modest according to our culture, our church, and yes my personal beliefs based on the context.

My view on modesty is in agreement with the understanding anyone can find on the internet by doing a simple search about what modesty is. 

Dressing modestly means to dress in a way that doesn't show very much skin.  Not to an extreme.  Not showing too little and not showing too much.

To be modest means to be humble and not extreme.  Having or showing a moderate opinion of one's own value, abilities, achievements, etc.; not vain or boastful; unassuming, not forward; shy or reserved: behaving, dressing, speaking, etc. in a way that is considered proper or decorous; decent, moderate or reasonable; not extreme: quiet and humble in appearance, style, etc.; not pretentious

I would rather not take my shirt off to swim because in my perspective that exposes too much skin.  I would rather wear an average T-shirt with swim trunks that go down to my knees.  If you or others want to dress in more skimpy clothing, or nothing at all, that is for you to decide and if I were to comment on your skimpiness or lack of clothing I would probably only say something about how I don't think that is what it means to dress modestly.   You and others would then either agree or not agree and I would probably not bring it up anymore unless it was to clarify my own view about what think it means to dress modestly.

[pogi]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Are you really trying to argue that normal child birth and the birth of Christ as the same thing?

Christ’s birth (not conception) was totally normal, biologically speaking.  It was more humble than most actually.  Christ was sacred indeed...but so are we.

Birth and death are symbolically sacred and central to the plan.

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Dressing modestly means to dress in a way that doesn't show very much skin.  Not to an extreme.  Not showing too little and not showing too much.

Can’t get more vague than that. 

[Ahab]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Can’t get more vague than that. 

Can't get more clear than that, I think you should have said.  What do you want, measurements of how many inches of clothing you should wear to be modestly dressed?

Shirts - have one on. To not have one on is to be naked on top, with no clothing to cover your chest.  It doesn't have to be a long sleeve shirt, though.  A medium or short sleeve shirt is enough to be modestly dressed.  Not too low on the chest either, showing a lot of cleavage. Moderately below the neck is fine.  And not exposing your belly.  Do you need me to send you some pictures or are you getting enough of an idea now?

Pants - have some of these on, too.  Or at least shorts.  Not too short, though.  I like shorts that go down to my knees, when I wear shorts, otherwise I wear full length pants.  Women have something called Capris that come down to about 6" above their ankles, so you might like something like that.

That's basically all that matters.  You don't have to cover your head or your feet but you can if you want to.

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

Christ’s birth (not conception) was totally normal, biologically speaking.  It was more humble than most actually.  Christ was sacred indeed...but so are we.

Birth and death are symbolically sacred and central to the plan.

I disagree that the birth of the Son of God was no more significant than any other birth.  

 

[pogi]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I disagree that the birth of the Son of God was no more significant than any other birth.  

 

Oh it was significant!  But biologically no different from our own.  It was the most sacred and significant of all in that his conception, birth, life, death, and resurrection make our conception, birth, life, death, and resurrection sacred and significant too.

[pogi]

50 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

There is the case where a guy was ex'd for producing a calendar with bare chested returned missionaries. So apparently the church wasn't happy with some men being shirtless. https://www.foxnews.com/story/man-who-created-calendar-of-shirtless-mormon-missionaries-facing-excommunication

Like I said, context matters

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

You are going to think I am a weirdo, but I used to get naked all the time in nature.

Nope, not a weirdo at all. I've had similar experiences, including the sacredness.

I also swim very often in a manner that Ahab would certainly not find to his liking ...

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

You don't have to cover your head or your feet but you can if you want to.

People with feet fetish agree!  

I can’t wait to show up at church without any shoes, because that would be perfectly modest in that context.

Where do you get this stuff from?  Not from the church.  Not from our culture. Not from the scriptures.  Not from anyone here.

Just one question, do you find it difficult to type with gloves on?

Edited November 26, 2019 by pogi

[pogi]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

Our disagreement is the connection between sacred and covered.  I don't think that we as a church have a culture of viewing any specific body part as sacred.

I think maybe you are right that our teachings don’t dissect the body in a hierarchy of sacred parts. But I do think we tie certain parts with a hierarchy of sacred behaviors or functions.  We do have a culture of viewing certain body parts as sexual.  And that to us is sacred on a hierarchal level that the function of our arms (that while sacred) are not on.  It is like how some parts/functions of the temple are so sacred they are private while others are not private, yet still sacred.  Our bodies are a temple, so I think it is a fair comparison.

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

But, parts of our bodies that are not powerfully associated with sex/sexuality are also considered immodest to reveal in certain contexts.

That’s because modesty is not only about sex/sexuality.  It is also based on cultural perceptions of “propriety” and “decency” and “not drawing undo attention to ourselves” in dress, language, and behavior.

So, trying to get attention by passing the sacrament barefoot would be immodest (unless you ask Ahab) but not sexual in the least. 

 

Edited November 26, 2019 by pogi

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I think maybe you are right that our teachings don’t dissect the body in a hierarchy of sacred parts. But I do think we tie certain parts with a hierarchy of sacred behaviors or functions.  We do have a culture of viewing certain body parts as sexual.  And that to us is sacred on a hierarchal level that the function of our arms (that while sacred) are not on.  It is like how some parts/functions of the temple are so sacred they are private while others are not private, yet still sacred.  Our bodies are a temple, so I think it is a fair comparison.

That’s because modesty is not only about sex/sexuality.  It is also based on cultural perceptions of “propriety” and “decency” and “not drawing undo attention to ourselves” in dress, language, and behavior.

So, trying to get attention by passing the sacrament barefoot would be immodest (unless you ask Ahab) but not sexual in the least. 

 

Pogi, this is a broken record, but do you remember my telling people on a thread about modesty, when in my stake we were told that women weren't to be barefoot when their home teachers visited. I guess to someone in charge, barefoot was immodest, lol!