pogi Posted November 25, 2019 Author Posted November 25, 2019 2 minutes ago, Calm said: I am trying to understand why you equate covering with sacredness. Because that is what the church clearly and unequivocally teaches. Once again: Quote Prophets have always counseled us to dress modestly. This counsel is founded on the truth that the human body is God’s sacred creation. We must respect our bodies as a gift from God. Through our dress and appearance, we can show the Lord that we know how precious our bodies are. Dress = covering.
Calm Posted November 25, 2019 Posted November 25, 2019 Just now, pogi said: Because that is what the church clearly and unequivocally teaches. Once again: Dress = covering. Are shoulders sacred now where they weren’t 40 years ago? Are knees no longer sacred where once they were? 1
Ahab Posted November 25, 2019 Posted November 25, 2019 (edited) 8 minutes ago, bluebell said: Yes, I'm assuming that's his reasoning. I don't think the reasoning stands up well. It seems obvious to me that the leadership in the church view male and female anatomy differently because our culture does and our modesty standards are culturally based. I don't think it has much to do with God viewing women's chests as inherently more sacred then men's. That was basically his point. They view men's and women's bodies differently. Whatever their/our reasons are, they/we view male and female anatomy differently. Men's chests are viewed differently than women's chests. WHY they view them differently is another issue. Edited November 25, 2019 by Ahab
pogi Posted November 25, 2019 Author Posted November 25, 2019 (edited) 40 minutes ago, bluebell said: The most simple conclusion is that our teachings on modesty mostly follow the dominate culture of the time. Thus, it used to be immodest to show your knees, but now it's not. And it didn't used to be immodest to show your shoulders (old pictures from BYU formals are a great example of this) but now it is. Our culture impacts what we view as modest or immodest way more than our beliefs about bodies being sacred impacts it. I have expressed this from the very beginning! You are using my own argument against me. I have long talked about how cultural it is. In our culture (for the time being) it is considered sacred for reasons I have mentioned. Sacredness is largely based on cultural perspectives. Consider the changes to the temple ceremony over the years. What was once a sacred covenant, or a sacred act of washing and anointing the nude body, now is not, largely because the culture changed and took offense at things or it made them uncomfortable. Edited November 25, 2019 by pogi 1
pogi Posted November 25, 2019 Author Posted November 25, 2019 20 minutes ago, bluebell said: It seems like we are going around in circles again. Probably another thing to agree to disagree on. Ok. But whatever you do, please, please don't tell people at church that you think childbirth is not sacred - or disagree that the church teaches it. You may get stoned! 1
Ahab Posted November 25, 2019 Posted November 25, 2019 11 minutes ago, Calm said: Are shoulders sacred now where they weren’t 40 years ago? Are knees no longer sacred where once they were? I don't think they're any less sacred but I think many people consider them to be less sacred now. Before I go any further I think I should define what I mean by "sacred" though, lest anyone misunderstand what I mean when I say that. From an online dictionary I got this definition of sacred: connected with God (or the gods) or dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration. So you tell me now: Do you think shoulders or knees are any less connected with God (or the gods) or any less dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration now than they were 40 years ago?
pogi Posted November 25, 2019 Author Posted November 25, 2019 (edited) 46 minutes ago, bluebell said: and our modesty standards are culturally based. Exactly! But if you ask the church if teachings of modesty are based on culture and the traditions of men, they will likely shy away from that and teach as they have that modesty is - "founded on the truth that the body is sacred"? Edited November 25, 2019 by pogi
Ahab Posted November 25, 2019 Posted November 25, 2019 5 minutes ago, pogi said: Ok. But whatever you do, please, please don't tell people at church that you think childbirth is not sacred - or disagree that the church teaches it. You may get stoned! Do we still do that? I haven't seen that happen to anyone lately. Are we supposed to bring our own stones?
provoman Posted November 25, 2019 Posted November 25, 2019 30 minutes ago, pogi said: Why are you all being so difficult, you KNOW what the church teaches about modesty. I don't need to quote manuals when it is a given. Their teachings on modesty for dress are different for YM and YW, but they are ALL founded upon sacredness of the body. What does that say about men's chests vs womens chests in regards to sacredness if all teachings are founded on sacredness? What other conclusions can be made? When you make claims about what the Church teaches, you need to quote manuals. I am not aware of any Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaching that places the female breast as more sacred than a males. What I am aware of, is what what raised about garments - male or female, the garment covers the breast. 2
pogi Posted November 25, 2019 Author Posted November 25, 2019 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Ahab said: Do we still do that? I haven't seen that happen to anyone lately. Are we supposed to bring our own stones? Today our stones are constructed of shame. We throw shame at people today in our church - perhaps even more damaging then rocks to be honest. But I think our culture is getting better at that too in large extent. Edited November 25, 2019 by pogi 1
pogi Posted November 25, 2019 Author Posted November 25, 2019 (edited) 6 minutes ago, provoman said: When you make claims about what the Church teaches, you need to quote manuals. I am not aware of any Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaching that places the female breast as more sacred than a males. What I am aware of, is what what raised about garments - male or female, the garment covers the breast. And when we don't wear garments at the beach, or if we are not endowed, what is the standard of modesty? I really shouldn't have to point this out. It is a given. And what are those standards based on according to the church? Edited November 25, 2019 by pogi 1
Ahab Posted November 25, 2019 Posted November 25, 2019 1 minute ago, pogi said: And when we don't wear garments at the beach, or if we are not endowed, what is the standard of modesty? Are you under the impression that our standard of modesty should change depending on what we are doing? Why would that be? And what would that be? Are we then changing our definition of modesty for different events, depending on what we are doing, or are we instead simply choosing not to be modest when doing some things, and then choosing to be modest when doing some other things? Why would we have different standards of modesty? Doesn't being modest always mean the same thing?
pogi Posted November 25, 2019 Author Posted November 25, 2019 30 minutes ago, Calm said: Are shoulders sacred now where they weren’t 40 years ago? Are knees no longer sacred where once they were? Insofar as revealing different parts of the body were culturally viewed as symbols of sex/sexuality at different times...yes. 1
pogi Posted November 25, 2019 Author Posted November 25, 2019 6 minutes ago, Ahab said: Are you under the impression that our standard of modesty should change depending on what we are doing? Why would that be? 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. 1
Ahab Posted November 25, 2019 Posted November 25, 2019 (edited) 19 minutes 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. So are you saying that because they were posing for a picture that it was modest for them to not have a shirt on? Or that because they had been swimming that it was modest for them to not have a shirt on, because they had been swimming? I googled how to dress modestly and I got this: How do you dress modestly? If you want to dress modestly, do not show too much skin. Plain high-necked T-shirts, for example, are a great way to stay comfortable, fashionable, and modest. If your favorite shirt is a tight spaghetti strap camisole, drape a long-sleeve cardigan or a light jacket over it. And I also got this: What does it mean to be modest? The definition of modest is someone or something that is humble or shy or not extreme. An example of modest is a person who doesn't easily take their clothes off around others. I saw your reference to a Church manual regarding modesty and I agree with all of that, but I'm not seeing any definition of modesty regarding men taking their shirts off when posing for a picture, even if at BYU. Edited November 25, 2019 by Ahab
bluebell Posted November 25, 2019 Posted November 25, 2019 37 minutes ago, pogi said: Exactly! But if you ask the church if teachings of modesty are based on culture and the traditions of men, they will likely shy away from that and teach as they have that modesty is - "founded on the truth that the body is sacred"? I think it's true that our belief in the need for modesty is founded on the truth that the body is sacred. That seems like a given to me. Exactly what is modest and what isn't, is what is often based on culture and traditions of men I think. 1
bluebell Posted November 25, 2019 Posted November 25, 2019 44 minutes ago, pogi said: Ok. But whatever you do, please, please don't tell people at church that you think childbirth is not sacred - or disagree that the church teaches it. You may get stoned! 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. 1
bluebell Posted November 25, 2019 Posted November 25, 2019 53 minutes ago, pogi said: I have expressed this from the very beginning! You are using my own argument against me. I have long talked about how cultural it is. In our culture (for the time being) it is considered sacred for reasons I have mentioned. Sacredness is largely based on cultural perspectives. Consider the changes to the temple ceremony over the years. What was once a sacred covenant, or a sacred act of washing and anointing the nude body, now is not, largely because the culture changed and took offense at things or it made them uncomfortable. 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.
bluebell Posted November 25, 2019 Posted November 25, 2019 1 hour ago, Ahab said: That was basically his point. They view men's and women's bodies differently. Whatever their/our reasons are, they/we view male and female anatomy differently. Men's chests are viewed differently than women's chests. WHY they view them differently is another issue. Why they view them differently is the issue that we've been discussing.
pogi Posted November 25, 2019 Author Posted November 25, 2019 20 minutes ago, Ahab said: So are you saying that because they were posing for a picture that it was modest for them to not have a shirt on? Or that because they had been swimming that it was modest for them to not have a shirt on, because they had been swimming? I am suggesting the church considers it modest for a man to be shirtless in some cultural settings - or else all these male athletes would have been expelled for exposing their breasts and posting this porn on-line if it was considered immodest by the church.
Calm Posted November 25, 2019 Posted November 25, 2019 38 minutes ago, pogi said: Insofar as revealing different parts of the body were culturally viewed as symbols of sex/sexuality at different times...yes. So you think shoulders are a more sexual symbol these days than they were 40 years ago? 1
Ahab Posted November 25, 2019 Posted November 25, 2019 5 minutes ago, bluebell said: Why they view them differently is the issue that we've been discussing. Yes I noticed that. I'm just keeping track of the points raised by each one of you and pointed out that you have at least reached a partial agreement, with both of you agreeing that they see men's chests differently than they see women's chests. An obvious point, maybe, but both of you can see that and I think that's better than one of you not being able to see that. 1
Calm Posted November 25, 2019 Posted November 25, 2019 (edited) 3 minutes ago, pogi said: I am suggesting the church considers it modest for a man to be shirtless in some cultural settings - or else all these male athletes would have been expelled for exposing their breasts and posting this porn on-line if it was considered immodest by the church. 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. Edited November 25, 2019 by Calm 2
Ahab Posted November 25, 2019 Posted November 25, 2019 (edited) 13 minutes ago, pogi said: I am suggesting the church considers it modest for a man to be shirtless in some cultural settings - or else all these male athletes would have been expelled for exposing their breasts and posting this porn on-line if it was considered immodest by the church. I don't see a good reason for you to jump to that conclusion. They may have thought it wasn't worth making a big deal about it even though they thought they weren't modestly dressed. Being modestly dressed means to not show very much skin, according to that definition I cited for you. They were showing a lot of skin when posing for that picture, don't you think? Or do you think that qualifies as them not showing very much skin? Not showing very much skin in the context of what people wear when they go swimming, maybe? Do you believe you're supposed to keep the context of an event in mind when determining whether people are showing too much skin? Is that what you think? Edited November 25, 2019 by Ahab
provoman Posted November 25, 2019 Posted November 25, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, pogi said: And when we don't wear garments at the beach, or if we are not endowed, what is the standard of modesty? I really shouldn't have to point this out. It is a given. And what are those standards based on according to the church? Modesty is not a given. Modesty standards for the LDS Church membership are likely based on bodies being a Temple. You have your heartfelt opinion about it, I have my opinion. Edited November 25, 2019 by provoman
Recommended Posts