Modesty for Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Oh, so you do want an echo chamber where people aren’t allowed to express old fashioned views that are still on the church’s website. This is another admission by one of the gal pals (you) that you are actively trying to make people unwilling to express old fashioned views. 

No, it is none of those things.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

She admitted that the gal pal gang gangs up on men who express old fashioned views taught by the church when it come to modesty and that the gal pals have been able to effectively silence them doing it. 

Sure Jan.

[Grug the Neanderthal]

37 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I believe this. 

24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm really ok if it's all true.  And I say that sincerely

Well at least you admit that that gal pals do what I said and that you have no shaming doing it either. 

[bsjkki]

18 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I don't think you took my reply the way I intended it. In the years past a few guys or males get in hot water for their comments about how women should feel in these threads, and they aren't women! 

So listen up fellas and believe a woman who says how it feels to feel sexualized or less than or loved for what they look like or wear or put in their place where you think they belong or need to take a back seat or be the second or third fiddle or stay quiet and look pretty or care for everyone before themselves or you think they better not put it out there or they're a slut (clothes wise) and the list goes on and on and on. Lay off the freakin women or girls! Leave them the hell alone when it comes to how they look or dress. Look at yourselves men. Look at yourselves and respect a woman for her choices even when they may make them for the wrong reasons. Let it be. Women who feel that their looks are the only thing important and not enough without the right look are harmed and are left to feel less than in the human race. 

Not specific to you Grug necessarily I guess.

 

It is frustrating. A baseline of just not commenting on women’s bodies or clothing is such a small ask. 

[Pyreaux]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I believe this. 

But not because of gaslighting and all of that other stuff.  It's because we didn't agree with him on a subject that affects women and he didn't like the disagreement. A lot of older men have no idea how to handle when women won't either agree with them or just be quiet about it.  They are used to having the final say, to being seen as authorities on most subjects (especially religious ones), and to having the church back their views.  That's all changed and I'm sure it's very uncomfortable on some subjects.   

I don't really blame them or hold it against them.  They were raised in a different era and I'm sure that makes some church topics difficult to navigate.  But neither do I feel badly that their views no longer align with church teachings on these subjects.

FYI he wasn't talking about me, I'm not old, my avatar doesn't look like me... though I too felt Intimidated in this thread, as one of my opinions had earned a down vote. It seemed like a sign I should back off; all I earn is permanent residency in the doghouse with the women of the church. As worthless as my opinions are about things that don't even affect me, expressing my opinion need not be like walking through a minefield at night with clown shoes, yet it seems it is. Thus, I stepped back. Though I'm not an old man, maybe somethings should pass away, but I am fond of rather old-fashioned notions, like etiquette, chivalry or romance.

"Sometimes the old ways... are the best ways."

Perhaps not always all ways

Edited July 14, 2023 by Pyreaux

[Tacenda]

Very interesting article on the evolving talks on modesty concerning clothing started with a loud bang with a talk by Spencer W. Kimball in the fifties. IOW, my mother wouldn't have heard this talk in her youth like I did in mine. Here's the full article titled: "A Style of Our Own": Modesty and Mormon Women - 1951 to 2008.

https://bycommonconsent.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/blakesley.pdf

Edited July 14, 2023 by Tacenda

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Well at least you admit that that gal pals do what I said and that you have no shaming doing it either. 

There is no concern that anyone else is misreading these posts as badly as you consistently are, so I don't even feel the need to clarify.  But I have to admit I did laugh out loud at this.  So thanks for that at least.   

 

[Rain]

10 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

FYI he wasn't talking about me, I'm not old, my avatar doesn't look like me... though I too felt Intimidated in this thread, as one of my opinions had earned a down vote. It seemed like as sign I should back off, all I earn is permanent residency in the doghouse with the women of the church. As worthless as my opinions are about things that don't even affect me, expressing my opinion need not be like walking through a minefield at night with clown shoes, yet it seems it is. Thus, I stepped back. Though I'm not an old man, maybe somethings should pass away, I too am fond of rather some old-fashioned notions, like etiquette, chivalry or romance.

"Sometimes the old ways... are the best ways."

Perhaps not always all ways

I actually was hoping you would reply to me. It seemed like you were considering what I said.  If you don't agree then I will at least feel you tried to understand me.

I too do not like down votes. On reddit I've found it is a way to silence people. Here sometimes that is why it is used.  Sometimes awful things are said and the downvote shows that is not appropriate. And sometimes it is just used as disagreement - which I would guess happened to you.  So I try to think of it as disagreement now, but sometimes it really is hard to not take it personally.  

Edited July 14, 2023 by Rain

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

FYI he wasn't talking about me, I'm not old, my avatar doesn't look like me... though I too felt Intimidated in this thread, as one of my opinions had earned a down vote. It seemed like as sign I should back off, all I earn is permanent residency in the doghouse with the women of the church. As worthless as my opinions are about things that don't even affect me, expressing my opinion need not be like walking through a minefield at night with clown shoes, yet it seems it is. Thus, I stepped back. Though I'm not an old man, maybe somethings should pass away, I too am fond of rather some old-fashioned notions, like etiquette, chivalry or romance.

"Sometimes the old ways... are the best ways."

Perhaps not always all ways

As far as I am aware, there is only one female poster on here that feels comfortable giving downvotes and I don't think she has been classified as a "gal pal" (though give it time).  I'm not sure why the downvote was given (or who gave it as I haven't looked, I'm just guessing at who it was and maybe I'm wrong) and I'm not castigating her for giving it or anything like that.  I only bring it up to say that one person's feelings on a matter isn't a sign that everyone who believes similar on a topic feels the same way about your contribution.  

Us women need men's voices very much.  We don't need them to agree with us but we do need them to respect us, and to treat women's voices as authoritative on women's issues.   

[bsjkki]

10 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

FYI he wasn't talking about me, I'm not old, my avatar doesn't look like me... though I too felt Intimidated in this thread, as one of my opinions had earned a down vote. It seemed like as sign I should back off, all I earn is permanent residency in the doghouse with the women of the church. As worthless as my opinions are about things that don't even affect me, expressing my opinion need not be like walking through a minefield at night with clown shoes, yet it seems it is. Thus, I stepped back. Though I'm not an old man, maybe somethings should pass away, I too am fond of rather some old-fashioned notions, like etiquette, chivalry or romance.

"Sometimes the old ways... are the best ways."

Perhaps not always all ways

I had to go read your first comment and the replies. It seemed a sincere change. For women, we have no control over how men view us. I don’t think it a bad thing to have opinions challenged. On the board opinions are challenged all the time. It’s why we are here. This happens to be a thread where women will pick apart any comment implying women can control the thoughts of men. 
 

The reason why is because of personal experiences with being objectified or shamed. Or…much, much worse. Thank you for your sincerity. 
 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

There is no concern that anyone else is misreading these posts as badly as you consistently are, so I don't even feel the need to clarify.  But I have to admit I did laugh out loud at this.  So thanks for that at least.   

 

You said you believe it and that you have no problem if it’s true. How did I misread you exactly? 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

I find your use of ‘gal pals’ misogynistic. IMO, it reveals your opinion of females in general.  

And there it is again.

What I find truly fascinating and disturbing is the hypocrisy on display here. You and the other gal pals go on and on whining about the double standards you believe women are subjected to, but at the same time have no problem falsely accusing men of being misogynists, which is a terrible slur. If men did anything even remotely similar to you heads would roll. That’s a total double standard. 

[Calm]

Amen, Tacenda!

[Grug the Neanderthal]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

treat women's voices as authoritative on women's issues.

We should treat women’s voices as more authoritative than the word of God as delivered in the scriptures and by the mouths of his servants who hold the keys over his church?

And pray tell, which women’s voices should we consider to be authoritative? Those who believe in the traditional views on modesty, which many still do btw, or those who challenge the teachings of the prophets and accuse them of sexualizing women for teaching God’s standard on modesty? 

[webbles]

2 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Oh, so you do want an echo chamber where people aren’t allowed to express old fashioned views that are still on the church’s website. This is another admission by one of the gal pals (you) that you are actively trying to make people unwilling to express old fashioned views. 

I'm getting frustrated that you keep repeating the line that the "old fashioned views" are still on the church's website.  I've pointed out twice how website is closer to the new FTSOY than to the older one.  In addition, the main difference between the website and the old FTSOY is actually contra "old fashioned views".  I'd recommend you stop repeating that line.

[Tacenda]

42 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Very interesting article on the evolving talks on modesty concerning clothing started with a loud bang with a talk by Spencer W. Kimball in the fifties. IOW, my mother wouldn't have heard this talk in her youth like I did in mine. Here's the full article titled: "A Style of Our Own": Modesty and Mormon Women - 1951 to 2008.

https://bycommonconsent.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/blakesley.pdf

Replying to my own post to bump this up because I edited a previous comment. 

[webbles]

4 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

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.

I know the conversation has veered into a discussion about gaslighting but I'd still like to respond to this.  You are right that the absolutely must be a standard and a line.  And that line is well defined:

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?”

It was even in the old FTSOY pamphlet.  And since men had almost no additional lines drawn (seriously, men were just given the statement "Young men should also maintain modesty in their appearance."), this was the line that men lived under for my entire life.  If it was good enough for men through all that time, then why isn't it good enough for women?

[Grug the Neanderthal]

25 minutes ago, webbles said:

I'm getting frustrated that you keep repeating the line that the "old fashioned views" are still on the church's website.  I've pointed out twice how website is closer to the new FTSOY than to the older one.  In addition, the main difference between the website and the old FTSOY is actually contra "old fashioned views".  I'd recommend you stop repeating that line.

I disagree with your interpretation that the old fashioned views aren’t still on the church’s website. 

[webbles]

Just now, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I disagree with your interpretation that the old fashioned views aren’t still on the church’s website. 

Can you show that then?  I've copied the text from the website, the old FTSOY, and the new FTSOY and showed the differences.  The website is much more inline with the new FTSOY than it is with the old FTSOY.  In fact, the website has been that way since at least 2019 (per the wayback machine) which means that if we went back a few years, you'd probably be arguing over how the website is changing the definition away from the original definition.

[Grug the Neanderthal]

20 minutes ago, webbles said:

You are right that the absolutely must be a standard and a line.  And that line is well defined:

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?”

This is definitely not a clear line. A person could literally justify wearing anything or nothing based on this statement alone. Heck we have had individuals on this very thread suggesting that God didn’t want us to wear any clothes at all and that this was all Satan’s doing. And with Satan’s lies through the marketing and peer pressure, clothing has become more and more provocative, especially for women. 

There’s a reason why additional specific direction on what is and isn’t modest was in the FTSOY for decades and why it’s still on the church’s website. 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

1 minute ago, webbles said:

Can you show that then?  I've copied the text from the website, the old FTSOY, and the new FTSOY and showed the differences.  The website is much more inline with the new FTSOY than it is with the old FTSOY.  In fact, the website has been that way since at least 2019 (per the wayback machine) which means that if we went back a few years, you'd probably be arguing over how the website is changing the definition away from the original definition.

There’s nothing to show. I know what the old FTSOY says and what the article on the website says. I know that they aren’t word for word the same, but I consider the teaching to be the same. I see zero evidence that the website is now teaching that men shouldn’t swim without a shirt or whatever else you are reading into it. 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Gaslighting is lying and lying is a sin. Why would I and anyone else here risk their soul to “win” a discussion? A meaningless win if only achieved by lying. 
 

It boggles my mind that anyone who knows me even a little would think I would be that foolish. Or anyone else here. 

You’re being overly dramatic. 

As for why you regularly resort to gaslighting, you’ll have to search your own heart. My opinion based on what I have observed you do and under what circumstances is that you gaslight for the following reasons:

1) To save face when it’s pointed out that you have contradicted yourself or you’re being called out on something 

2) To try and escape when you are trapped in a theological corner

3) To avoid giving even an inch to those whose opinions you either disdain or find threatening 

4) To try and rescue a gal pal in distress 

Edited July 14, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal

[Raingirl]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

As far as I am aware, there is only one female poster on here that feels comfortable giving downvotes and I don't think she has been classified as a "gal pal" (though give it time).  I'm not sure why the downvote was given (or who gave it as I haven't looked, I'm just guessing at who it was and maybe I'm wrong) and I'm not castigating her for giving it or anything like that.  I only bring it up to say that one person's feelings on a matter isn't a sign that everyone who believes similar on a topic feels the same way about your contribution.  

Us women need men's voices very much.  We don't need them to agree with us but we do need them to respect us, and to treat women's voices as authoritative on women's issues.   

Why is it that I’ve only seen women (including myself) criticized for using the downvote? It is simply a tool placed by admin for our use. Upvotes indicate approval, downvotes indicate disapproval. Why is it okay to use one tool, but use of the other is criticized? A poster can choose to use the upvote to indicate their opinion instead of writing a response, but we’re not supposed to use the downvote to indicate disapproval instead of writing a response? Especially when we know that any words we write will fall on deaf ears? Are egos here that fragile? And why is it that none of the men get criticized for using the downvote? In the course of this thread, Grug has reached back months to find posts of mine to downvote because my downvoting- disagreeing with his posts - apparently threatens his fragile ego. Indeed, I’ve only seen men here engage in that behavior, and none of the women. If you find downvotes so offensive, why not petition the admin to have that option removed?

Anymore, coming to this forum simply serves to remind me of some of reasons I’m not really interested in associating with the church anymore. 

[Rain]

18 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

Why is it that I’ve only seen women (including myself) criticized for using the downvote? It is simply a tool placed by admin for our use. Upvotes indicate approval, downvotes indicate disapproval. Why is it okay to use one tool, but use of the other is criticized?

You asked this so I started to wonder why I have felt it was different.  I mentioned reddit, but their down vote works differently. It actually moves the post to a place you are less likely to see it. That doesn't happen here, but it's hard to get my experience out of my feelings here.

I also wonder if the color red has anything to do with it.  Perhaps people associate it with the red x on their school papers when their teachers marked them wrong.  Red is also associated with a stop light.  It makes me wonder if it was changed to blue if people would feel differently about it.

18 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

A poster can choose to use the upvote to indicate their opinion instead of writing a response, but we’re not supposed to use the downvote to indicate disapproval instead of writing a response? Especially when we know that any words we write will fall on deaf ears? Are egos here that fragile? And why is it that none of the men get criticized for using the downvote? In the course of this thread, Grug has reached back months to find posts of mine to downvote because my downvoting- disagreeing with his posts - apparently threatens his fragile ego. Indeed, I’ve only seen men here engage in that behavior, and none of the women. If you find downvotes so offensive, why not petition the admin to have that option removed?

Anymore, coming to this forum simply serves to remind me of some of reasons I’m not really interested in associating with the church anymore. 

 

[bsjkki]

1 minute ago, Rain said:

You asked this so I started to wonder why I have felt it was different.  I mentioned reddit, but their down vote works differently. It actually moves the post to a place you are less likely to see it. That doesn't happen here, but it's hard to get my experience out of my feelings here.

I also wonder if the color red has anything to do with it.  Perhaps people associate it with the red x on their school papers when their teachers marked them wrong.  Red is also associated with a stop light.  It makes me wonder if it was changed to blue if people would feel differently about it.

 

I think the red color is jarring.