Modesty for Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I thought you didn’t believe in using the scriptures as God’s standard for modesty? My what a tangled web this has become. 

You are obviously not understanding my comments.  The only tangle is in your mind.  Try not to read your own ideas into my words…or others as it seems to me the same thing is happening with theirs from their reaction. 

Edited July 12, 2023 by Calm

[Grug the Neanderthal]

31 minutes ago, Calm said:

The only tangle is in your mind.

Go ahead and believe that if you like. Your contradictory words are there for all to see.

[Raingirl]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

And there are plenty of men out there in them.

And I bet I can guess who desperately wants a pair. 

[webbles]

10 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Men and women are different. Some things are typically more of an issue for men, while other things are more of an issue for women. I think modesty is a bigger issue for women.

Having said that, I agree with what the church has said about modesty for men, including avoiding tattoos, piercings, and extreme styles in clothing and appearance. In my opinion this would include wearing shirts with inappropriate or suggestive words or images, sagging ones pants and exposing one’s underwear, having a Mohawk, dying one’s hair green, etc. Covering the garment and not removing it unless it actually is necessary would be another. 

I had to think about the list of clothing rules you gave for men because it didn't really help my conundrum as a kid.  What you listed are clothing rules that are no different between men and women.  I would expect that you also don't think women should wear "shirts with inappropriate or suggestive words or images, sagging ones pants and exposing one’s underwear, having a Mohawk, dying one’s hair green, etc".  What about all of the women specific rules?  Why shouldn't men follow them as well?

Here's what the previous For the Strength of Youth pamphlet said:

Quote

Immodest clothing includes short shorts and skirts, tight clothing, shirts that do not cover the stomach, and other revealing attire. Young women should wear clothing that covers the shoulder and avoid clothing that is low-cut in the front or the back or revealing in any other manner. Young men should also maintain modesty in their appearance.

So, young women should cover their shoulder and avoid low-cut in the front or back.  Should young men as well?  Because if so, they haven't followed that.  It is pretty common at church youth activities (and occasionally at church adult activities) for men to take off their shirts.  That definitely uncovers their shoulder and is extremely low-cut in the front or back.  Young men also wear sleeveless shirts.

It also says we should cover our stomach.  I have a few shirts that if I lift my hand above my head, the shirt will go a little above my belt and reveal my garment.  I think that should be considered immodest, do you?  Have you ever checked your shirts or checked boys shirts to ensure that they cover their stomach when they raise their hands (I know girls have had to do this).

It says that young women should not wear anything "revealing in any other manner" but men do that all the time.  Have you heard the phrase "the celestial smile"?  This is when you can see a man's garment line underneath their white shirt.  If you can see a garment underneath clothing, that clothing has to be revealing.  If a woman wore the same white shirt, her garment and/or her bra would be visible.  Yet men who wear revealing clothing like that aren't flagged as immodest.

You mentioned "exposing one's underwear" but young men do that at church activities.  Have you ever been at a youth activity where water becomes involved but no one was aware of it before hand?  No one has swimsuits or such and yet many of the young men will quickly take off their shirts and some of them even take off their pants so that they can play in just their boxers.  If a young women took of her shirt and pants, she'd probably be thrown out.  Yet boys can get away with that.  Additionally, it is modest for men to wear swim briefs (speedos) which are extremely revealing but it it isn't ok for women to wear similar styled swimsuites (2 piece)?

[Grug the Neanderthal]

7 minutes ago, webbles said:

I had to think about the list of clothing rules you gave for men because it didn't really help my conundrum as a kid.  What you listed are clothing rules that are no different between men and women.  I would expect that you also don't think women should wear "shirts with inappropriate or suggestive words or images, sagging ones pants and exposing one’s underwear, having a Mohawk, dying one’s hair green, etc".  What about all of the women specific rules?  Why shouldn't men follow them as well?

Here's what the previous For the Strength of Youth pamphlet said:

So, young women should cover their shoulder and avoid low-cut in the front or back.  Should young men as well?  Because if so, they haven't followed that.  It is pretty common at church youth activities (and occasionally at church adult activities) for men to take off their shirts.  That definitely uncovers their shoulder and is extremely low-cut in the front or back.  Young men also wear sleeveless shirts.

It also says we should cover our stomach.  I have a few shirts that if I lift my hand above my head, the shirt will go a little above my belt and reveal my garment.  I think that should be considered immodest, do you?  Have you ever checked your shirts or checked boys shirts to ensure that they cover their stomach when they raise their hands (I know girls have had to do this).

It says that young women should not wear anything "revealing in any other manner" but men do that all the time.  Have you heard the phrase "the celestial smile"?  This is when you can see a man's garment line underneath their white shirt.  If you can see a garment underneath clothing, that clothing has to be revealing.  If a woman wore the same white shirt, her garment and/or her bra would be visible.  Yet men who wear revealing clothing like that aren't flagged as immodest.

You mentioned "exposing one's underwear" but young men do that at church activities.  Have you ever been at a youth activity where water becomes involved but no one was aware of it before hand?  No one has swimsuits or such and yet many of the young men will quickly take off their shirts and some of them even take off their pants so that they can play in just their boxers.  If a young women took of her shirt and pants, she'd probably be thrown out.  Yet boys can get away with that.  Additionally, it is modest for men to wear swim briefs (speedos) which are extremely revealing but it it isn't ok for women to wear similar styled swimsuites (2 piece)?

Are men and women exactly the same, yes or no? 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

9 hours ago, webbles said:

Could it be because you don't notice all the times men are being immodest because they don't affect you like an immodest woman does?

There have been several women on this topic who've mentioned things that men do that are alluring just like an immodest woman is alluring to you.  Shouldn't those men be considered immodest for causing suggestive thoughts in women?

 

Does one have to find someone alluring to recognize that what they are wearing is immodest?

[Grug the Neanderthal]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

What personal observations tell you modesty is a bigger issue for women?  Are they personally telling you they have big issues with it

Yes, that’s one observation. And this thread is proof positive of that. 

Other observations include what I see with my own two eyes regarding the sexualization of women and young women and the marketing and pressure for them to wear skimpy clothes in order to look attractive or simply to fit in and not be seen as weird. And then seeing many women and young women listening to these voices. 

There isn’t this same issue for men and young men. Definitely nowhere near to the same degree. 

Edited July 12, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal

[CV75]

16 minutes ago, webbles said:

I had to think about the list of clothing rules you gave for men because it didn't really help my conundrum as a kid.  What you listed are clothing rules that are no different between men and women.  I would expect that you also don't think women should wear "shirts with inappropriate or suggestive words or images, sagging ones pants and exposing one’s underwear, having a Mohawk, dying one’s hair green, etc".  What about all of the women specific rules?  Why shouldn't men follow them as well?

Here's what the previous For the Strength of Youth pamphlet said:

So, young women should cover their shoulder and avoid low-cut in the front or back.  Should young men as well?  Because if so, they haven't followed that.  It is pretty common at church youth activities (and occasionally at church adult activities) for men to take off their shirts.  That definitely uncovers their shoulder and is extremely low-cut in the front or back.  Young men also wear sleeveless shirts.

It also says we should cover our stomach.  I have a few shirts that if I lift my hand above my head, the shirt will go a little above my belt and reveal my garment.  I think that should be considered immodest, do you?  Have you ever checked your shirts or checked boys shirts to ensure that they cover their stomach when they raise their hands (I know girls have had to do this).

It says that young women should not wear anything "revealing in any other manner" but men do that all the time.  Have you heard the phrase "the celestial smile"?  This is when you can see a man's garment line underneath their white shirt.  If you can see a garment underneath clothing, that clothing has to be revealing.  If a woman wore the same white shirt, her garment and/or her bra would be visible.  Yet men who wear revealing clothing like that aren't flagged as immodest.

You mentioned "exposing one's underwear" but young men do that at church activities.  Have you ever been at a youth activity where water becomes involved but no one was aware of it before hand?  No one has swimsuits or such and yet many of the young men will quickly take off their shirts and some of them even take off their pants so that they can play in just their boxers.  If a young women took of her shirt and pants, she'd probably be thrown out.  Yet boys can get away with that.  Additionally, it is modest for men to wear swim briefs (speedos) which are extremely revealing but it it isn't ok for women to wear similar styled swimsuites (2 piece)?

These seem to be social mores, and most people are generally comfortable with them. Those who think about them in terms of social justice may want to seek changes, and the gospel teaches us how to act when we are seeking to influence others and the world around us. The saints naturally adopt the social mores of the world around them, striving to do better with the gift of the Holy ghost and the decisions of the governing councils of the Church. A good Liahona article that touches on balancing culture and tradition in the transition to a higher and holier walk and conversation: The Jerusalem Council (churchofjesuschrist.org)

I like the scriptural word "comely" -- it conveys visual attractiveness combined with good taste and propriety, a nice balance between personal esteem and sensitivity to making the world a better place for others, which I take modesty to entail. "Homely" is another wone (plain, comfortable).

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

You are obviously not understanding my comments.  The only tangle is in your mind.  Try not to read your own ideas into my words…or others as it seems to me the same thing is happening with theirs from their reaction. 

It's odd to come to the conclusion that you don't care about what the scriptures have to say about modesty when you've taken the time to reference so many scriptures on modesty.

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, Rain said:

My husband and I are big fans of John Lund's "mean what you say and say what you mean".  Part of the concept is that when someone says something you take them for what they said and not what you think they might have meant.  So when I asked you the question some time ago of why you wanted to know and you said it was to understand my point of view I took you at your word. Then I spent a lot of time trying to explain my point of view and told you how your questions didn't apply to what I was saying for a number of reasons.  

Finally I spent a lot of time trying to come up with examples to help you understand how my practical advice worked and you ignored it all. I see no evidence that you even tried to figure out how my practical advice works.

I can no longer trust that you want to understand my point of view and because of that it is not worth it to me to continue a conversation where nothing seems to be getting communicated. This isn't a cop out before you accuse me of that. I would just rather spend my time with others who will respect what I have to say by listening and considering it.

After the last few posts, this seems like a reasonable and useful decision.  

[Grug the Neanderthal]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It's odd to come to the conclusion that you don't care about what the scriptures have to say about modesty when you've taken the time to reference so many scriptures on modesty.

No, it’s odd that she keeps insisting that she ISN'T advocating for using the scriptures to understand God’s standard for modest while at the same time repeatedly referring to scriptures on the subject and referring to a scriptural standard of modesty. It truly is a tangled web that has been woven.  

Edited July 12, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal

[Grug the Neanderthal]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

After the last few posts, this seems like a reasonable and useful decision.  

There’s nothing reasonable about her decision to simply refuse to answer a very simple question about her beliefs. 

But I’m sure that it is useful for her to falsely accuse me of insincerity and not listening to justify herself. It’s certainly easier than continuing to give long vague answers that dance around simple and direct questions. 

Edited July 12, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

There’s nothing reasonable about her decision to simply refuse to answer a very simple question about her beliefs. 

But I’m sure that it is useful for her to falsely accuse me of insincerity and not listening to justify herself. It’s certainly easier than continuing to give long vague answers that dance around simple and direct questions. 

She's definitely made the right call. 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

She's definitely made the right call. 

Yeah, I’m sure for her she did. Like I said it’s much easier to falsely accuse me of insincerity and not listening to justify not answering a very simple question than to keep playing the dance around the question ring around the Rosie like she has been. 

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

No, it’s odd that she keeps insisting that she ISN'T advocating for using the scriptures to understand God’s standard for modest while at the same time repeatedly referring to scriptures on the subject and referring to a scriptural standard of modesty. It truly is a tangled web that has been woven.  

That's got to be the first time in the decades that Calm has been posting here--having been known for her conscientious and sincere communication--that anyone has accused her of weaving a tangled web.  I hope she's enjoying her new notoriety. 

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Yeah, I’m sure for her she did. Like I said it’s much easier to falsely accuse me of insincerity and not listening to justify not answering a very simple question than to keep playing the dance around the question ring around the Rosie like she has been. 

Ok.  

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Are men and women exactly the same, yes or no? 

Men and women are not exactly the same.  But I don't see how that matters for my original question.  Women have all of these rules that appear to be related to sexual immodesty but men have almost none.  Women are not the only sexual beings on the planet, so why aren't men given rules around their sexual immodesty?  A man's stomach and shoulders can be extremely appealing to women just as much as a women's stomach and shoulders to men.  But men have no rules telling them that they need to cover up.  I can't remember a single time someone has spoken about how men are being immodest for wearing revealing white shirts at church yet I can remember people talking about women wearing revealing shirts at church.  Yet the shirts are revealing in the exact same way; you can see their garments/underwear.

54 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Does one have to find someone alluring to recognize that what they are wearing is immodest?

Since you said that you think women are more immodest than men, it would seem that you are missing the immodest men because you don't find it alluring.  Several women have pointed out things that men have done that would be considered immodest by the same rules you appear to be using for women, yet you don't appear to think those men are immodest.

[bluebell]

I know that sincere and well-meaning people often attempt to argue that strict dress codes are needed to save girls and women from being sexualized.  Unfortunately (because it's always sad when our good intentions create more problems than they solve), that's not the case.  Modesty is greatly needed and important, but strict dress codes tied to modesty aren't. 

Strict dress codes and a focus on girls body parts tend to sexualize girls, and depending on when it begins being taught, it can sexualize them at an early age (which comes with a lot of mental health problems).

https://www.morethanabody.org/dress-codes-sexualizing-girls-more/

 

[teddyaware]

On 7/5/2023 at 9:23 AM, telnetd said:

The Liahona magazine makes these statements.

Of course, modesty is not new. It was taught to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. “Unto 
Adam … and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them” (Genesis 3:21; 
see also Moses 4:27). 

I don't quite understand the connection.

Did Adam and Eve view their nakedness as a matter of modesty between them? Or was 
it God who considered their nakedness as a form of modesty? 

How would clothing them with the coats of skin instead of them already wearing the 
fig leaf aprons be reflective of teaching them modesty?

It’s very simple. After the fall, God commanded Adam and Eve to wear clothing made of the skins of animals that had been ritually sacrificed in similitude of the great atoning sacrifice that would be wrought by the Son of God. Their nakedness, which was symbolic of their post-fall exposure to the full demands of the law of divine justice, needed to be clad in a protective covering of clothes representative of Christ’s redeeming mercy and grace. One of the apostle Paul’s unique salvific expressions is that saints need to “put on Christ,” meaning it’s essential the saints obediently clothe themselves with the protective covering of Christ’s salvation, made possible through repentance. Their initial attempt to symbolically hide their moral nakedness before God through through the use of fig leaves, the first example of fallen mortals attempting to obtain justification before God by dead works and not by the grace of Christ, was as ineffectual as it was futile. Why? Because, at best, the fig leaves only pointed to the fact that they had entered a fallen mortal state. It was a totally impotent human effort that imparted no covenantal protection nor forgiveness, blessings that could only be obtained by obedience to God manifested through their willingness to submit to the holy ordinances of the gospel of Christ.

Edited July 12, 2023 by teddyaware

[Raingirl]

34 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I know that sincere and well-meaning people often attempt to argue that strict dress codes are needed to save girls and women from being sexualized.  Unfortunately (because it's always sad when our good intentions create more problems than they solve), that's not the case.  Modesty is greatly needed and important, but strict dress codes tied to modesty aren't. 

Strict dress codes and a focus on girls body parts tend to sexualize girls, and depending on when it begins being taught, it can sexualize them at an early age (which comes with a lot of mental health problems).

https://www.morethanabody.org/dress-codes-sexualizing-girls-more/

 

According to the prom flyer, boys are good to go as long as they wear a shirt that has buttons, a tie, and their pants aren’t sagging. Those are the only requirements. So they could wear Grug’s beloved “booty shorts”, a sleeveless shirt, a midi shirt, a see-through shirt, etc.  None of those, plus many other looks are prohibited by the he posted dress code. 

[bluebell]

Just now, Raingirl said:

According to the prom flyer, boys are good to go as long as they wear a shirt that has buttons, a tie, and their pants aren’t sagging. Those are the only requirements. So they could wear Grug’s beloved “booty shorts”, a sleeveless shirt, a midi shirt, a see-through shirt, etc.  None of those, plus many other looks are prohibited by the he posted dress code. 

It's a double standard that a lot of men don't notice.  Not because they are horrible people wanting to oppress women but simply because it has never applied to them and has never impacted them personally so it stays off their radar.  

It's not healthy for men and women's interpersonal relationships though.

[MustardSeed]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

t's not healthy for men and women's interpersonal relationships though.

As demonstrated by the toxicity of this thread.

[bluebell]

26 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

As demonstrated by the toxicity of this thread.

Very good point.

[Tacenda]

I have to admit, I'm pretty against men in speedos. 

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I have to admit, I'm pretty against men in speedos. 

For modesty reasons or because it's so unattractive?