Modesty for Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden

[Rain]

7 minutes ago, webbles said:

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:

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

Ok, one upvote is not enough for this post. Here is another one. ⬆️

[BlueDreams]

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. 

There's a couple problems with this

1.) you're not given this for the most part so you don't know what the actual implications would be on a personal level. Men/young men in the church were given basic outlines and then left alone. Women/young women were given talks about becoming walking pornography. Because there was an imbalanced message on this, you haven't experienced what this does to one's mind and heart over the years. It's hypothertical and can therefore focus on potential positive. I have. From my experience I can tell you I found it largely damaging and draining, even if unintentional in doing so. I still resent the little voice I find popping up in the recesses of my brain that I know aren't God and that I've come from walking with God not to believe in, but still judges people unnecessarily for their outfits decisions. 

2.) The church is moving away from excessively spelling out how principles should be applied. For several reasons....but a big one to me is simply that doing so tends to teach people the wrong thing. It leads to people having Checklist Jesus as opposed to relational Jesus. As in, follow all these expectations and you're good rather than have an active and dynamic relationship with God and you'll be good. One of these is salvific and sanctifying another is neurotic and trapping IMHO. One opens the world to it another closes it as our decisions become rigid and anxiety oriented. Either they're anxious about doing THE right thing....or they get anxious about others not doing what they see as THE right thing. Checklist jesus gives a veneer of comfort, particularly when one feels they're doing the checklist well. It gives order, simple direction, easy answers to any basic problem, etc. But it starts to fall apart when life get unexpectedly messy or complicated and it can be difficult for people to get comfortable with a more dynamic orientation to faith because of it. I don't say this hypothetically...I see this all the time with people I've worked with through life/mental health concerns. 

 

 With luv,

BD

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

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

I think it went skillywampus whoever got in there and did what they did, say for example, putting sleeves on the angels on someone's art work in the New Era magazine.

https://rogerdhansen.wordpress.com/2012/05/21/carl-heinrich-blochs-angels/

And the Children's Friend about children dressing modestly. 

https://bycommonconsent.com/2013/05/16/children-cant-dress-immodestly/

Edited July 13, 2023 by Tacenda

[MustardSeed]

Driving into work today I was listening to a comedy routine where people were reading posts from HOa message boards.

I’m going to paraphrase one of the hilarious and ridiculous posts because it’s so beautifully parallel to this conversation. 

“ I am not a pervert. But it is Covid. And my only form of exercise is to walk through the neighborhood. I am shocked, utterly shocked, that people do not have blinds or curtains. I am forced to look into windows and see people doing things that should be private. People need to get blinds as a courtesy to the community. I do not appreciate being turned into a pervert. I have already called the police on this matter.” 

The commentary after by the host who was beside themselves, laughing so hard it was hard to understand:” I cannot fathom that somebody actually wrote a post, making somebody else’s curtains all about them.” 
 

What can I say. This was very timely this morning. 😂🤣😂

[bluebell]

5 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

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

I'm saying that that is one of the unintended consequences of it, yes.

As I said before, sometimes we have really good intentions but they end up causing harm accidentally.  Teaching modesty is a very good thing.  Teaching it by sexualizing girls bodies and telling them that they must cover up to save men from themselves isn't a good thing though.  It's a harmful thing.  People, I think our leaders included, are beginning to understand that more (largely because women are beginning to speak up about it) and are changing their approach.

Thankfully.  

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I think it went skillywampus whoever got in there and did what they did, say for example, putting sleeves on the angels on someone's art work in the New Era magazine.

https://rogerdhansen.wordpress.com/2012/05/21/carl-heinrich-blochs-angels/

And the Children's Friend about children dressing modestly. 

https://bycommonconsent.com/2013/05/16/children-cant-dress-immodestly/

Things got really out of control there for a couple of decades.  

[mfbukowski]

19 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

  This has been going on forever.  It’s not a Godly attribute to sexualize women’s bodies at all.  

Probably unrealistic, unless we stop reproducing.

Men and women are sexually attracted to the other.  God wants it that way.

Yes modesty and religion put civilized boundaries between how those attractions are expressed, and I agree with the rest of your post; I just think this takes it a bit too far.

Edited July 13, 2023 by mfbukowski

[MustardSeed]

10 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Probably unrealistic, unless we stop reproducing.

Men and women are sexually attracted to the other.  God wants it that way.

Yes modesty and religion put civilized boundaries between how those attractions are expressed, and I agree with the rest of your post; I just think this takes it a bit too far.

Feeling desire is godly.  The desire to reproduce is godly.  Sexualizing behaviors are not godly IMO. I’m open to your thoughts - maybe you and I are defining Sexualizing differently. 

[bsjkki]

5 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I still resent the little voice I find popping up in the recesses of my brain that I know aren't God and that I've come from walking with God not to believe in, but still judges people unnecessarily for their outfits decisions. 

I still fight this too. Even though I've learned these, as Webbles put it, 'Pharisaic' thoughts are not of God. They are usually bearing unrighteous judgement that has no place in church or anywhere else. 

 

5 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

2.) The church is moving away from excessively spelling out how principles should be applied. For several reasons....but a big one to me is simply that doing so tends to teach people the wrong thing. It leads to people having Checklist Jesus as opposed to relational Jesus. As in, follow all these expectations and you're good rather than have an active and dynamic relationship with God and you'll be good. One of these is salvific and sanctifying another is neurotic and trapping IMHO. One opens the world to it another closes it as our decisions become rigid and anxiety oriented. Either they're anxious about doing THE right thing....or they get anxious about others not doing what they see as THE right thing. Checklist jesus gives a veneer of comfort, particularly when one feels they're doing the checklist well. It gives order, simple direction, easy answers to any basic problem, etc. But it starts to fall apart when life get unexpectedly messy or complicated and it can be difficult for people to get comfortable with a more dynamic orientation to faith because of it. I don't say this hypothetically...I see this all the time with people I've worked with through life/mental health concerns. 

 

This is perfect. 

[Teancum]

11 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

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

I didn't yet but I will respond now.  Yes.

[Grug the Neanderthal]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

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. 

So you have zero intention of putting the hatchet away and ceasing your “openly disagree with and attack pretty much everything Grug says, including obvious jokes that have nothing to do with you” war path. 

Noted.

9 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

And there’s the gaslighting again. Now we just need to wait for your gal pals to show up and join you. I’m sure they’ll be along shortly. 

Edited July 13, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal

[Grug the Neanderthal]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

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

How on earth did you come up with that conclusion?

[Grug the Neanderthal]

8 hours ago, webbles said:

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:

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

I recognize that it’s hard to know where to draw the line on what is an isn’t modest and especially on what to make a big deal out of and what to let go. But there absolutely must be a standard and a line that we will not permit to be crossed without correction. Otherwise we are opening the tent and letting the camel all the way in and then it’s checkmate.

[Grug the Neanderthal]

8 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

The church is moving away from excessively spelling out how principles should be applied.

Yes, and this as a problem, because without a clear standard anything goes. 

Edited July 13, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Yes, and this as a problem, because without a clear standard anything goes. 

You miss the Law of Moses?

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

you have zero intention of putting the hatchet away

I can’t put something away I am not holding.  I am not going to pretend I am doing stuff so you can feel okay.  I am not going to lie.

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Now we just need to wait for your gal pals to show up

Is Smac one of my gal pals too?  I will be happy to claim him!  

[Grug the Neanderthal]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

I can’t put something away I am not holding.  I am not going to pretend I am doing stuff so you can feel okay.  I am not going to lie.

Keep telling yourself that.

[Grug the Neanderthal]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You miss the Law of Moses?

Did I say that? 

Have you read the Book of Mormon and New Testament? They are very clear about what the standards are and they’re actually higher than what is expected under the law of Moses. 

[BlueDreams]

12 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Yes, and this as a problem, because without a clear standard anything goes. 

Only if you struggle with all or nothing thinking, get anxious with any form of ambiguity, and haven't learned to study and pray to see how general principals might apply to you. Oh and struggle to allow people the space to reach different conclusiona for their own circumstances. 

In which case that's definitely a problem, just not with the church. 

 

With luv, 

BD 

Edited July 14, 2023 by BlueDreams

[Calm]

1 minute ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Keep telling yourself that.

When you are the one and only person claiming I am acting a certain way and you barely know me, why should I assume you are correct when many others who know me better and who are seeing the same things you are tell me something different.  Would you believe me if I insisted you were doing something when everyone else was saying you weren’t?

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

How on earth did you come up with that conclusion?

Quote

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?

Are you not saying in the above you thought I was for the scriptures as the modesty standard and against using the teachings of leaders for the same?  If not, feel free to explain what you meant.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Feeling desire is godly.  The desire to reproduce is godly.  Sexualizing behaviors are not godly IMO. I’m open to your thoughts - maybe you and I are defining Sexualizing differently. 

When I met my wife to be, I looked into her eyes, and saw light and kindness, and certainly attraction. Of course I noted that she was female, and felt sexual attraction as well, but my she seemed to be a very " nice girl" in the first 5 minutes.

Over a year later we married according to God's law.

If she was a man, we would be good friends and nothing more.

Perhaps I don't know your definition of "sexualizing behaviors".

I do in one sense, as objectivizing women as objects.

That is evil. Is that what you call "sexualizing behaviors"?

That term seems innacurate to me, sexual objectivizing seems like a much better term.

[Grug the Neanderthal]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

When you are the one and only person claiming I am acting a certain way and you barely know me, why should I assume you are correct when many others who know me better and who are seeing the same things you are tell me something different.  Would you believe me if I insisted you were doing something when everyone else was saying you weren’t?

Your gal pals and other friends on here are backing you up. No surprise there, they always do. But I can assure you that I’m not making this up. I’m most definitely not the only one who has observed what you and your gal pals are doing in regards to the gaslighting and ganging up. Multiple people have reached out to me who have made similar observations. 

You and your gal pals have driven most of the conservative old school voices either into silence or into leaving the board altogether. Haven’t you noticed that you have very few people voicing similar views  to the ones I hold around here anymore? It’s not because you converted them to your side. It’s be because you drove them away, just like you’re trying to do to me, whether consciously or subconsciously. 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

19 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Only if you struggle with all or nothing thinking, get anxious with any form of ambiguity, and haven't learned to study and pray to see how general principals might apply to you.

No, this is simply not true. There has always been ambiguity and a need to study and pray to know how to best apply the principles and standards taught. Things have never been completely spelled out. Never. Not even close.