Modesty for Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

No, not at all. 

That is the only purpose. It is to control female sexuality.

[MustardSeed]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

That is the only purpose. It is to control female sexuality.

Amen. 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

7 hours ago, bluebell said:

Yep. Teaching girls that their shoulders and belly buttons need to be covered because men have a sexual response to them, when they never viewed those body parts to have any sexual connotation before, is sexualizing girls.

So you’re accusing the latter-day prophets of sexualizing girls, then? 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

That is the only purpose. It is to control female sexuality.

Nope. It’s about teaching everyone right from wrong and trying to keep iniquity out of the church. 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

7 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I’m a bit confused. @Grug the Neanderthal, aren’t you arguing against the most recent teachings of your apostles by appealing to former teachings?

No, the current teaching of the apostles according to the church’s website hasn’t changed. The article on modesty still contains the previous teachings about not wearing skimpy clothes, avoiding extreme styles, getting tattoos and piercing, etc. They just removed some of the language from the strength of youth pamphlet. They have never said that these things are modest now. 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

It is the very definition of sexualizing to attach a sexual meaning to part of the body that serves no inherent sexual purpose.

So you’re also accusing the latter-day prophets of sexualizing girls, then?

[Grug the Neanderthal]

6 hours ago, webbles said:

Would you consider it to be desexualizing if women told you to stop going topless at the swimming pool because you are more handsome wearing a swim top?  Or if a woman in church came up to you and said that you need to change your shirt because she can see your garments through it?  Is that desexualizing you?  What if you were told that there were women at the swimming pool or at the church that were being sexually attracted to you because they could see your bare chest or through your see-through shirt?  You were giving them impure thoughts and need to stop being a sexual man around them.

Neither the leaders of the church or pretty much anyone else claim that it’s immodest for men to swim without a shirt or to wear a white shirt that allows people to notice that they are wearing garments. But I would be fine wearing a shirt while swimming (I often do anyway) or wearing a thicker or looser shirt if the things you mentioned were actually considered immodest, and I would not feel sexualized at all.

Edited July 13, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal

[Grug the Neanderthal]

9 hours ago, bsjkki said:

No. It is you. You are telling women how to dress and what to wear regardless of their intent in choosing the clothing. So, it is you are sexualizing and policing women's bodies. 

It’s the Lords prophets who are the problem apparently. It’s not society telling girls to wear skimpy clothes to be sexy or hot sexualizing them, it’s the Lord’s prophets who teach them that their bodies are sacred and that they shouldn’t listen to the voices of the world trying to sexualizing them who are the problem.

Hmm… I seem to recall a scriptures about people calling evil good and good evil.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

So you’re also accusing the latter-day prophets of sexualizing girls, then?

Not intentionally.  Our culture has made it extremely difficult not to (the more global one that has been existing for centuries).  Just as ancient and modern prophets appear to have been supportive of slavery, racism, and committed other errors.

Do you believe our prophets are infallible and able to remove themselves from the influences of their upbringing?

Edited July 13, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

It’s the Lords prophets who are the problem apparently. It’s not society telling girls to wear skimpy clothes to be sexy or hot sexualizing them, it’s the Lord’s prophets who teach them that their bodies are sacred and that they shouldn’t listen to the voices of the world trying to sexualizing them who are the problem.

Hmm… I seem to recall a scriptures about people calling evil good and good evil.

Since when does it have to be that the opposite of a wrong is inherently a right?  Extreme reactions are often both wrong even when the reverse of the other.   Telling someone to starve is not the solution to overeating.  

Two wrongs don’t make a right, even if done with the best of intentions.

Teaching bodies are sacred is a good thing, but not all ways of teaching good things are automatically good themselves.

Thank goodness most prophets see themselves as human still and know they can always do things better and look for ways to improve things and therefore we have the lifting of the priesthood ban and women being able to receive their endowments and become active in temple work all their adult life rather than being banned as my great aunt even though she was extremely devout her whole life simply because she never married and new, better ways of teaching modesty and respect for one’s bodies.

Edited July 13, 2023 by Calm

[Grug the Neanderthal]

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do you believe our prophets are infallible

No, I don’t believe that prophets are infallible. But I also don’t believe that their teaching that it’s immodest to wear skimpy clothes is a mistake that they erroneously picked up in their youth. 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

Since when does it have to be that the opposite of a wrong is inherently a right?  Extreme reactions are often both wrong even when the reverse of the other.   Telling someone to starve is not the solution to overeating.  

Two wrongs don’t make a right, even if done with the best of intentions.

Teaching bodies are sacred is a good thing, but not all ways of teaching good things are automatically good themselves.

I don’t believe that the old strength of youth pamphlet and the current teachings from the church’s website on modesty is an extreme reaction that is wrong.

I agree that in our highly sexualized and immoral world that it’s difficult to address this and teach and uphold God’s high standards without making people feel uncomfortable. It’s also hard to know where to draw the line when it comes to modesty. How high of a skirt or shorts is too high? How low cut of a top is too low? How much of the midriff is too much? What type of tank top is too revealing? What styles of clothing are too suggestive? It’s difficult, especially as the world gets more and more wicked and Satan continues to ramp up his sexualization of women and men. The voices of the world teaching Satan’s lies are deafening, if the Lord’s church doesn’t clearly establish a standard for what is and isn’t okay the immodesty camel will move farther and farther into the tent until it’s all the way in. It’s in way too far already. 

[Calm]

32 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I don’t believe that the old strength of youth pamphlet and the current teachings from the church’s website on modesty is an extreme reaction that is wrong.

I don’t believe it is extreme either…at least not by the global standard that is out there. I used the example of extremes because of your own reactions/interpretations of mine and others’ comments as completely rejecting one thing simply because we advocate for some of another thing made me think in terms of extremes plus it seemed like it would make my point clearer that a corrective response to an bad thing can still be wrong itself.  But even a moderate response can be wrong if it results in something it didn’t intend to and that something is bad.

It is very important to not only recognize what is wrong in the world, but find the right solution to deal with it.  Easy solutions are often the wrong one.  Telling women and girls not to wear clothes that offend us is an easy solution, but since it conveys more than just the clothes are wrong (it conveys for too many that our bodies are wrong as well), we need to find another way to teach self respect and respect of others.  I think it is wonderful the Church as an institution as well as our leaders are looking for better ways to teach good principles.  I think we risk disrespecting them if we ignore the changes and insist everything remains essentially the same.

There are some excellent comments and counsel in the FtSoY, past and present. But there were also some highly problematic comments that have been now removed or altered to be improved to more effectively address concerns over appearance as well as modesty, as has been pointed out by webbles and others. 

Edited July 13, 2023 by Calm

[Grug the Neanderthal]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don’t believe it is extreme either

Just highly problematic?

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

But there were also some highly problematic comments that have been now removed or altered to be improved to more effectively address concerns over appearance as well as modesty

If they teachings were removed from the strength of youth pamphlet because highly problematic, they when are they still on the church’s website under the article explaining God's standard for modesty?

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

I used the example of extremes because of your own reactions/interpretations of mine and others’ comments as completely rejecting one thing simply because we advocate for some of another thing

This is the hatchet coming out again. I have never said that any of you completely reject something. Instead I have repeatedly asked you to explain exactly what it is you believe. But with the exception of Mustardseed, I haven’t been able to get a clear answer out of any of you and even Mustardseed’s position is still somewhat vague and unclear.

[webbles]

2 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Neither the leaders of the church or pretty much anyone else claim that it’s immodest for men to swim without a shirt or to wear a white shirt that allows people to notice that they are wearing garments. But I would be fine wearing a shirt while swimming (I often do anyway) or wearing a thicker or looser shirt if the things you mentioned were actually considered immodest, and I would not feel sexualized at all.

If I had been taught in church, over and over again, that sight of my chest caused inappropriate thoughts in women around me and then a women walks up to me and tells me I need to wear a thicker shirt because of modesty, I would absolutely feel sexualized.  I would feel like that I had caused inappropriate thoughts in that woman and she was trying to protect herself by asking me to cover up.

[Grug the Neanderthal]

Calm, if you are willing to put the hatchet down and try to build a bridge instead, would you please respond to this attempt of mine to build one:

33 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I agree that in our highly sexualized and immoral world that it’s difficult to address this and teach and uphold God’s high standards without making people feel uncomfortable. It’s also hard to know where to draw the line when it comes to modesty. How high of a skirt or shorts is too high? How low cut of a top is too low? How much of the midriff is too much? What type of tank top is too revealing? What styles of clothing are too suggestive? It’s difficult, especially as the world gets more and more wicked and Satan continues to ramp up his sexualization of women and men. The voices of the world teaching Satan’s lies are deafening, if the Lord’s church doesn’t clearly establish a standard for what is and isn’t okay the immodesty camel will move farther and farther into the tent until it’s all the way in. It’s in way too far already. 

 

[webbles]

1 minute ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

If they teachings were removed from the strength of youth pamphlet because highly problematic, they when are they still on the church’s website under the article explaining God's standard for modesty?

You keep saying this but I pointed out you are wrong.  I pointed out above how the teachings were removed.  Also, the teachings in the new For the Strength of Youth pamphlet are not that much different from what is on the website.  Here's what the pamphlet says:

Quote

As you make decisions about your clothing, hairstyle, and appearance, ask yourself, “Am I honoring my body as a sacred gift from God?” Heavenly Father wants us to see each other for who we really are: not just physical bodies but His beloved children with a divine destiny. Avoid styles that emphasize or draw inappropriate attention to your physical body instead of who you are as a child of God with an eternal future. Let moral cleanliness and love for God guide your choices. Seek counsel from your parents.

and

Quote

What is the Lord’s standard on dress, grooming, tattoos, and piercings? The Lord’s standard is for you to honor the sacredness of your body, even when that means being different from the world. Let this truth and the Spirit be your guide as you make decisions— especially decisions that have lasting effects on your body. Be wise and faithful, and seek counsel from your parents and leaders.

Here's what the website says:

Quote

Central to the command to be modest is an understanding of the sacred power of procreation, the ability to bring children into the world. This power is to be used only between husband and wife. Revealing and sexually suggestive clothing, which includes short shorts and skirts, tight clothing, and shirts that do not cover the stomach, can stimulate desires and actions that violate the Lord’s law of chastity.

In addition to avoiding clothing that is revealing, we should avoid extremes in clothing, appearance, and hairstyle. In dress, grooming, and manners, we should always be neat and clean, never sloppy or inappropriately casual. We should not disfigure ourselves with tattoos or body piercings. Women who desire to have their ears pierced should wear only one pair of modest earrings.

The only thing different is that the website lists out "short shorts and skirts, tight clothing, and shirts that do not cover the stomach".  But it gives no guidance on what that is.  So anyone who adds more to it, such as saying that "short shorts" is anything above the knee or that a bikini is a "[shirt] that [does] not cover the stomach" is going beyond the mark.  The pamphlet gives good guidance on how an individual should know if they are wearing immodest clothing.  It says "let moral cleanliness and love for God guide your choices".  And that statement follows what Calm and others have been saying.  It is the inner self that defines whether the outer clothing is immodest or not.

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Calm, if you are willing to put the hatchet down and try to build a bridge instead, would you please respond to this attempt of mine to build one:

 

First off I don’t agree I have been wielding a hatchet. I have been speaking the truth as I see it. I did not ask you if you would be willing to do so yourself because I was agreeing to your interpretation of my actions, but because I was curious to see if you would hold yourself to the same standard you were telling me to abide by. 
 

I am not now asking you to bury the hatchet or build bridges.  I don’t see you as targeting me or you attempting to undermine me. We simply are both responding to a conversation taking place between several posters, some of who I agree with and one of who I strongly disagree with.  I don’t suspect you are following me around trying to find something to criticize in my posts, but I expect if you come across such you will speak up if you feel like it…which is what I am doing even if you think that is “baloney”.
 

I think by the way that building bridges is a highly subjective idea because while you see your above comment as just such an attempt, I see it as the same thing you have been doing from the beginning, trying to make me respond with or to a checklist of dos and don’ts and a generic standard you claim is God’s standard when I see no good purpose in doing so.  To me you are not building a bridge. In my view you haven’t moved your position at all and you are only inviting me to join you there without the least recognition that I find your position faulty and somewhat dangerous.  
 

I have given you what I believe are quite clear answers. I don’t know why it appears you don’t see them that way. You not seeing them that way doesn’t mean I haven’t been clear though. You may be the one who is viewing my clear comments through a smudged filter. Your expectations may be getting in the way of your understanding of me and others (whose answers appear quite clear to me as well and I am baffled why you think they didn’t answer you clearly).  If so, I can’t do anything about that.  Only you can.  If you are truly interested in understanding me, you will need to look at my answer without those assumptions, but since I don’t know what assumptions you have, I can’t help you there.

 

Edited July 13, 2023 by Calm

[Rain]

6 minutes ago, webbles said:

You keep saying this but I pointed out you are wrong.  I pointed out above how the teachings were removed.  Also, the teachings in the new For the Strength of Youth pamphlet are not that much different from what is on the website.  Here's what the pamphlet says:

and

Here's what the website says:

The only thing different is that the website lists out "short shorts and skirts, tight clothing, and shirts that do not cover the stomach".  But it gives no guidance on what that is.  So anyone who adds more to it, such as saying that "short shorts" is anything above the knee or that a bikini is a "[shirt] that [does] not cover the stomach" is going beyond the mark.  The pamphlet gives good guidance on how an individual should know if they are wearing immodest clothing.  It says "let moral cleanliness and love for God guide your choices".  And that statement follows what Calm and others have been saying.  It is the inner self that defines whether the outer clothing is immodest or not.

I wonder as well if that page was supposed to have been updated when FSOY was updated.  I have caught other pages like that.  The website has an awful lot of info and I'm sure it isn't easy to keep track of every place where things change.

[Grug the Neanderthal]

22 minutes ago, webbles said:

If I had been taught in church, over and over again, that sight of my chest caused inappropriate thoughts in women around me and then a women walks up to me and tells me I need to wear a thicker shirt because of modesty, I would absolutely feel sexualized.  I would feel like that I had caused inappropriate thoughts in that woman and she was trying to protect herself by asking me to cover up.

If God considered it immodest for men to swim without a shirt and to wear a white shirt that allows people to recognize that they are wearing garments underneath, as I man I would want to be clearly told that by the Lords church rather than just given some vague council to search my heart about what God considers modest or not. 

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, Rain said:

I wonder as well if that page was supposed to have been updated when FSOY was updated.  I have caught other pages like that.  The website has an awful lot of info and I'm sure it isn't easy to keep track of every place where things change.

A nephew in law of mine (Jeff Isom) ran the lds.org website for years and he said (in response to me asking when something would get changed) that there was at least a 6 month backlog of material and some updating would never get done because there was more urgent needs. And this was when the website was a lot smaller.  Even the online Handbook has lagged behind announcements of changes at times.

Edited July 13, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

33 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I would want to be clearly told that by the Lords church rather than just given some vague council to search my heart about what God considers modest or not. 

But God and the Church don’t always operate the way we want them to. In fact, we should probably be concerned if we think they are because either they aren’t pushing us out of our comfort zone, which needs to be done if we are ever to leave behind the natural man or we are misunderstanding what God and his Church are doing. 
 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/answering-gospel-questions?lang=eng

“From time to time, Church leaders provide information to help answer some of our questions. But it is neither practical nor possible for our leaders to answer every question we may have. When we understand how to seek learning by study and by faith, we become more self-reliant, better able to seek divinely inspired answers to our own questions and continue faithful as we resolve concerns. President Boyd K. Packer taught: “Spiritual self-reliance is the sustaining power in the Church. … If we move so quickly to answer all your questions and provide so many ways to solve all of your problems, we may end up weakening you, not strengthening you.””

Edited July 13, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

have never said that any of you completely reject something.

Quote

 

 

I thought you were the one advocating for using the scriptures as the modesty standard and not the teachings of the modern leaders of the church. Weren’t you trying to do just that by bringing up Adam and Eve and Moroni and the other scriptures you quoted?

You appear to think I had rejected the one because I had accepted the other in the above. 

[Rain]

40 minutes ago, Calm said:

But God and the Church don’t always operate the way we want them to. In fact, we should probably be concerned if we think they are because either they aren’t pushing us out of our comfort zone, which needs to be done if we are ever to leave behind the natural man or we are misunderstanding what God and his Church are doing. 
 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/answering-gospel-questions?lang=eng

“From time to time, Church leaders provide information to help answer some of our questions. But it is neither practical nor possible for our leaders to answer every question we may have. When we understand how to seek learning by study and by faith, we become more self-reliant, better able to seek divinely inspired answers to our own questions and continue faithful as we resolve concerns. President Boyd K. Packer taught: “Spiritual self-reliance is the sustaining power in the Church. … If we move so quickly to answer all your questions and provide so many ways to solve all of your problems, we may end up weakening you, not strengthening you.””

It's an interesting thing. Teaching self reliance, principles and doctrines and understanding can be much harder than teaching rules yet, as I have posted earlier, President Packer said, "True doctrine, understood, changes attitudes and behavior. The study of the doctrines of the gospel will improve behavior quicker than a study of behavior will improve behavior." 

I was thinking about this with plants. You have a plant that needs the right amount of water to survive and thrive.  Some will want a rule about watering, say, "water a 1/2 cup every other day". But here in Arizona humidity levels change. It can be dry a lot of the year, but there are times when it is raining a lot and the humidity level is higher. Then there are the monsoons and the humidity is a lot higher. There are also times when the excessive heat changes things. That half cup of water will be ok in some seasons, but in others it may cause root rot and others kill it off because it doesn't have enough.

But if you understand the principles of checking the dirt for how moist it is and that the humidity and heat will affect that you will be a much better plant keeper and make it thrive.

Of course you can make a rule for every situation (if the humidity is 20% and the temp is 89 then water 1/2 cup), but that will be exhausting for both teacher and student.

I think there are several reason that make teaching principles and doctrines and making sure they are understood is quicker than teaching rules.

1. Once the principle is understood it sticks. It isn't something made up by another person so you don't rebel against it.  2. It makes the time in other situations where a decision needs to be made shorter because you already understand the principle or doctrine. 3. It helps you to become more like God.

But it isn't just modesty that the church is beginning to teach by principles and doctrine.  Keeping the Sabbath Holy is another one. It used to be that lessons and talks would have these lists of rules.  Now the lessons are starting to tell the teacher to teach the principle instead of lists of rules (read that in a lesson 7 or 8 years ago).  

And food storage - instead of saying you need a year supply of wheat (good luck with that in some Asian countries) they have you store what you eat.

Instead of missionaries repeating specific words in a specific order they have missionaries teaching in the way the person needs it. 

Repeating this because I think it is the key. "True doctrine, understood, changes attitudes and behavior. The study of the doctrines of the gospel will improve behavior quicker than a study of behavior will improve behavior."

 

 

 

Edited July 13, 2023 by Rain

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

If God considered it immodest for men to swim without a shirt and to wear a white shirt that allows people to recognize that they are wearing garments underneath, as I man I would want to be clearly told that by the Lords church rather than just given some vague council to search my heart about what God considers modest or not. 

In addition to what Calm said, we aren't pharisaic.  We don't have rules for every condition.  Even with immodest clothing.  For example what is the definition of "short shorts'?  You might say that it needs to cover the garment, but young women and men don't wear garments so how would they know.  Plus, garments are different sizes.  I've worn garment bottoms that went all the way to the knee and I've worn ones that didn't go that far.  These were correctly sized, brand new garments.  Tops have similar issues.  I can wear some pretty low cut shirts depending on the style.  A well endowed woman is going to be "low-cut" in almost anything she wears just because of her body type.

Both the modesty section and the FTSOY pamphlet give a really good mechanism to figure out if you are modest or not:

Quote

If we are unsure about whether our dress or grooming is modest, we should ask ourselves, “Would I feel comfortable with my appearance if I were in the Lord’s presence?”

If a person can answer that in the affirmative, then they are modest.