Modesty for Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

For modesty reasons or because it's so unattractive?

 

Unattractive, so maybe I'm being as bad as the men that don't like crop tops or booty shorts.

[MustardSeed]

26 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

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

Perfect example! When I first started going to high school swim meets, I was very uncomfortable with all of the speedo’s. Then I got over myself. I have zero issues with speedo anymore.

[Tacenda]

I think I shared this before when when modesty was a topic. Or deja vu is happening. ETA: Something they bring up around the 10 min mark is financial modesty. And Brad brings up that his father discussed it with him growing up while living in one of the smaller homes among the monstrosity ones in Cottonwood Heights in Utah. And who needs that big of a house really. I had a friend that moved from Bountiful near the temple in a ward that the women wore mink coats, granted this was several years ago, but she was so glad to move out of that ward with the pressure of dressing like that.

 

Edited July 12, 2023 by Tacenda

[pogi]

4 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

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

They both have belly buttons.  Why is it immodest for one to expose their belly button but not the other?

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

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. 

Why is that? Hmmmm…..maybe there is some kind of power imbalance?

Someone should probably look into that.

Edited July 12, 2023 by The Nehor

[The Nehor]

54 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

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

All good, I’m not wearing this for other people.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, teddyaware said:

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.

Exactly right, BUT remember it was SATAN, not God who told A&E to run from God's presence and to do so with the words "See? You are naked! Quick! Hide!", thereby destroying their innocence about the matter; before that, they were as innocent children.

So saying that God caused mankind to be "modest" is not consistent with the scriptures.

Satan caused the loss of innocence as part of the FORTUNATE FALL, which allowed us to have agency to decide between Good and Evil.

God then showed us how to cope with our newly created options in a world of opposition by teaching us modesty, as part of his plan.

The COMMANDMENT to multiply and replenish the earth could not be followed in a world without male and female desires for each other, so this step was crucial. 

In today's world these desires become supposedly debatable, and confusing, and we have already explored all that here, ad nauseam; but it wasn't GOD who created the need for modesty- He simply taught us how to deal socially with these matters in a world of BOTH good and evil, where we can choose between our behaviors, to either follow or disregard the covenant path.

 

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Raingirl said:

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

Once I forgot to put my proper temple footwear in my temple clothing bag, and discovered that while in the locker room, hurrying to not be late for the session. 

I have large feet, and often have trouble finding a good fit.

In our temple there is a rental counter for those who, for whatever the reason, do not have temple clothing, and need to borrow something for the session.

There was a woman at the counter, clearly born a couple of generations before me.

I jogged up to the counter and said  "Hi- I just need some booties, the biggest you have".

She blinked. A second or two passed, and a surprised expression came over her face.

Finally she said "OH! You mean 'slippers'?"

It took me a second.

I'll never say THAT again. 😱🥴.

Wittgenstein and context: context IS MEANING

 

 

 

Edited July 12, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

8 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Refusing to answer my very simple and direct question is not because I’m not listening, it’s simply because you don’t want to answer it.

This mindreading, telling her her reasons instead of letting her speak for herself is the opposite of respectful.  
 

Given the number of posters saying you don’t understand what they are saying, maybe you should consider that the core of the misunderstanding is on your end and not everyone else not being cooperative or whatever.

[Calm]

 

6 hours 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.  

No, it isn’t that odd at all if you actually understand my position.  Let me illustrate why not and then maybe you will on your end be able to consider you are reading too much into what people are saying as well as ignoring crucial aspects rather than reading them at “face value”.

First,  I don’t believe scriptures are infallible for conveying God’s standards, but they are a great beginning point for teaching us what questions we should be asking of God and his prophets, in this case “why does modesty counsel mostly  focus on ostentatious displays of wealth in the scriptures?”  So, yes, we should use scripture to study modesty, but they are not the end and if God desires, he can teach those sincerely seeking his guidance without them first studying the scriptures.

I also believe in continuing revelation.  I believe we should take both scriptures and the counsel of modern prophets together, study them and then pray about them.  I believe that is the best way to learn God’s standard, but again God does not give rocks to those who ask bread of him and at times he may give sincere seekers his guidance without them being aware of what modern prophets say.  However, sincerity in seeking God’s guidance includes using the tools he has given us to learn of the Spirit, so to knowingly neglect scripture study and the counsel of our own prophets generally demonstrates a lack of sincere hunger and thirst for righteousness and truly seeking of his living water. 

The For the Strength of Youth is the current counsel of modern prophets and therefore should be the written counsel we focus on most if we accept that God wants us to listen to our prophets and not just prophets that spoke for past people.  The website is also official info from the Church and the more current info on it should be considered along with FtSoY.

But seeking God’s counsel on how he wants me to live is not complete until I actually seek him and ask him.  That should be my first and last and constant effort. At the time he chooses, he will teach me what I personally need to know of his way.  Given his wisdom, what he teaches me in mortality will never be complete or fully comprehended, so I should never assume there is not more to learn or a better way to behave to bring me closer to what he wants me to be.

And anyone else who wants to know God’s standard must do the same as no one can communicate fully to others what the Spirit has taught them as words are never enough to describe spiritual experiences. 

Anyone who thinks my previous posts are inconsistent with the above can point out to me where that inconsistency is.  I doubt there is any, but I am hardly a perfect writer.

Edited July 12, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

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. 

I am a weaver…or would be if my loom was set up, my yarns have been waiting too long for me to get back to my tapestry.  My webs are never tangled if I can help it.  Too much work.  I should dig out my loom just to show how straight my web is, lol.

Edited July 12, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

 

5 hours ago, teddyaware said:

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.

Out of points, so just posting to say this is thoughtful.  Well done.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

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

Been swimming lately and have to say few men can really manage that look aesthetically speaking.  It is too off balance unless one is slender as that becomes the focal point of their body, especially if it is bright colors.  Having long but narrow legs below and lots of bulk above tends to create a ballon like visual.  Well built legs balanced by slender torso is what works.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

They both have belly buttons.  Why is it immodest for one to expose their belly button but not the other?

I have never understood the problem with the stomach being exposed.  For past modesty cultural standards, where a woman’s stomach was an issue, men covered their stomachs as well (check out bathing gear of men…they look like chopped off long johns to me).  But obviously we aren’t living that standard any more since it’s okay for men to show their stomach.  So what is the reasoning why women can’t show theirs?  

[Calm]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Once I forgot to put my proper temple footwear in my temple clothing bag, and discovered that while in the locker room, hurrying to not be late for the session. 

I have large feet, and often have trouble finding a good fit.

In our temple there is a rental counter for those who, for whatever the reason, do not have temple clothing, and need to borrow something for the session.

There was a woman at the counter, clearly born a couple of generations before me.

I jogged up to the counter and said  "Hi- I just need some booties, the biggest you have".

She blinked. A second or two passed, and a surprised expression came over her face.

Finally she said "OH! You mean 'slippers'?"

It took me a second.

I'll never say THAT again. 😱🥴.

Wittgenstein and context: context IS MEANING

 

 

 

Context is everything.

Assuming the wrong context from the start will never get you to a mutual understanding. 

Edited July 12, 2023 by Calm

[bsjkki]

5 hours 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/

 

I love this point. When the regulations sexualize the innocent, harm has been done. Much in the way Bishops are cautioned. "Leaders adapt the discussion to the understanding and questions of the youth. They ensure that discussions about moral cleanliness do not encourage curiosity or experimentation." 

 

Edited July 12, 2023 by bsjkki

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

All good, I’m not wearing this for other people.

🤣

[Grug the Neanderthal]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

So, yes, we should use scripture to study modesty, but they are not the end and if God desires, he can teach those sincerely seeking his guidance without them first studying the scriptures.

I also believe in continuing revelation.  I believe we should take both scriptures and the counsel of modern prophets together

So you believe in listening to what the scriptures and latter-day prophets teach about modesty. Cool, then I guess you agree with how the church defines and explains modesty in the article on the church’s website we’ve been discussing, which includes the information about certain types of clothing, tattoos, and piercings being immodest, that is no longer in the Strength of Youth pamphlet but is obviously still God’s modesty standard.

Or alternatively your weaving your web into any even bigger tangle. 

Edited July 12, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal

[Grug the Neanderthal]

2 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

 

 

Edited July 12, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal

[Grug the Neanderthal]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

This mindreading, telling her her reasons instead of letting her speak for herself is the opposite of respectful.  

Wait, so she falsely accuses me of not listening and being insincere in order to justify why she is refusing to answer a simple follow up question about her beliefs, but now I’m the disrespectful one for calling her out on her shenanigans?

That’s baloney and you know it.

[Grug the Neanderthal]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Why is that? Hmmmm…..maybe there is some kind of power imbalance?

No. God just has a different standard for men and women since they are different. 

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, bsjkki said:

I love this point. When the regulations sexualize the innocent, harm has been done. Much in the way Bishops are cautioned. "Leaders adapt the discussion to the understanding and questions of the youth. They ensure that discussions about moral cleanliness do not encourage curiosity or experimentation." 

 

And there’s just something very sad about teaching a 7 year old or a 10 year old or even a 13 year old that she can’t wear a tank top because her shoulders are immodest and harmful for men to be exposed to.

Such a loss of innocence.  

[Calm]

 

10 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

she falsely accuses me of not listening and being insincere in order to justify why she is refusing to answer a simple follow up question about her beliefs, but now I’m the disrespectful one for calling her out on her shenanigans?

there is no false accusation about not listening when what she has said is obviously not registering with you and she said nothing about you being insincere.  Someone can be very sincere and still not listen hardly at all.  My mother, no matter how hard she tried, missed the most important part of what we told her.  My siblings and I have discussed this and I decided it was likely because she approached our discussions as problems she needed to solve rather than a chance to understand who we were and what was going through our heads.

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

but is obviously still God’s modesty standard.

You are not listening to me.

[The Nehor]

40 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

No. God just has a different standard for men and women since they are different. 

Not in the way you think they are.