Modesty for Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden

[webbles]

46 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

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.

So you can't show that the Modesty section on the website matches what is in the old FTSOY?

Here, I'll try to make it even more obvious.

Here is what the FSTOY from 2001 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. All should avoid extremes in clothing, appearance, and hairstyle. Always be neat and clean and avoid being sloppy or inappropriately casual in dress, grooming, and manners.

It was updated in 2011 and said:

Quote

Immodest clothing is any clothing that is tight, sheer, or revealing in any other manner. Young women should avoid short shorts and short skirts, shirts that do not cover the stomach, and clothing that does not cover the shoulders or is low-cut in the front or the back. Young men should also maintain modesty in their appearance. Young men and young women should be neat and clean and avoid being extreme or inappropriately casual in clothing, hairstyle, and behavior.

The biggest change was that parts of first sentence from 2001 was moved into the young women's sentence.  Other than that, the meaning is basically the same.

Then, the church creates a modesty section online.  In 2019, it read the same as what it reads now:

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.

That's a pretty big change.  It no longer mentions covering shoulders or low-cut clothing.  It also removes the phrase "sheer".  And instead of focusing on young women, it moves the statement to affect both young men and young women.  The website was absolutely a step away from the "old fashioned view".  Per the website, a young woman could wear a strapless gown and be modest since shoulders aren't mentioned anymore.

 

46 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

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.

The website isn't teaching that now.  The FTSOY has technically been teaching that for a long time.  I know people in the church who believe that a man is immodest when he takes off his shirt or wears a see-through shirt and they point to FTSOY.  Probably the reason you don't see it in there is because the modesty line for men is extremely vague.  It literally was "Young men should also maintain modesty in their appearance".  What does that mean?  Are short shorts on men modest or not?  What about taking off your shirt?  What about stripping down to boxers?  What about swim briefs?  What about low riding pants?  I know members who have said that all of those are immodest as well as modest.  Because there was absolutely no line to point to.  As you said, "we [opened] the tent and [let] the camel all the way in."

As a young man, it frustrated me.  I had no guidance to know what I should do, except to ask myself "Would I say these words or participate in these activities if the Lord were present?”  That's why I keep going back to that.  Men only had that as their guidance all these years.  If that is good enough for men, why isn't it good enough for women?  If you really want to have strong modesty lines, then we absolutely should have them for men as well as women.  Except I know how damaging that was to young women so I don't want to see the same damage done to young men.

Edited July 14, 2023 by webbles

[bluebell]

33 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? 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. 

Agreed. 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

24 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? 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. 

Downvoting posts should not be an option. Sometimes they can legitimately be used to express disapproval of someone’s post, but often times they are used as a weapon. And you personally use them as a weapon more than anyone else on this board. (And I’m not the only one you thinks this.) It’s also not just women who have been called out for it either. Men have, too. 

As for why I downvoted some of your posts, it’s not because your downvotes threaten my fragile ego, it’s because I believe that you cast them out of spite intending to hurt people. And in spite of my pleas in the past that you refrain from doing this because I perceive it this way, you have continued. That’s messed up. So rather than plead with you again, I’m hoping that fighting fire with fire will get through to you. 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

15 minutes ago, webbles said:

So you can't show that the Modesty section on the website matches what is in the old FTSOY?

I think I have shown that the teaching is the same. I believe that you are reading too much into minor differences in wording. 

[Raingirl]

6 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Downvoting posts should not be an option. Sometimes they can legitimately be used to express disapproval of someone’s post, but often times they are used as a weapon. And you personally use them as a weapon more than anyone else on this board. (And I’m not the only one you thinks this.) It’s also not just women who have been called out for it either. Men have, too. 

As for why I downvoted some of your posts, it’s not because your downvotes threaten my fragile ego, it’s because I believe that you cast them out of spite intending to hurt people. And in spite of my pleas in the past that you refrain from doing this because I perceive it this way, you have continued. That’s messed up. So rather than plead with you again, I’m hoping that fighting fire with fire will get through to you. 

I’m out of votes for today, otherwise I would have given this a laughing emoji, as laughing is the only possible reaction to this steaming pile of ridiculousness.  Yet again, you defend your heinous behavior by claiming to know what someone is thinking, better than the person (woman) who is doing the thinking. 
 

You are the perfect example of why it makes more sense to use the downvote instead of posting a response. The only voice you hear is your own. You don’t even listen to the voices of the prophets or God himself. 
 

The fact that you state that I downvote you to spite you and hurt you is simply more proof of your fragile ego and flaming narcissim. I’ve downvoted friends on here because I disagree with them, but am not interested in taking my disagreement further. They don’t whine about it, and we stay friends. Also, projecting much? I’m not the one who reacts to a simple downvote by running all over the site looking for posts to downvote. So childish and hypocritical.  It just makes me laugh.  It’s an inconsequential action by some random nut on the internet.  If you are so fragile that you cannot handle disagreements and downvotes, than perhaps the internet is not the place for you. 

[The Nehor]

51 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Downvoting posts should not be an option. Sometimes they can legitimately be used to express disapproval of someone’s post, but often times they are used as a weapon. And you personally use them as a weapon more than anyone else on this board. (And I’m not the only one you thinks this.) It’s also not just women who have been called out for it either. Men have, too. 

As for why I downvoted some of your posts, it’s not because your downvotes threaten my fragile ego, it’s because I believe that you cast them out of spite intending to hurt people. And in spite of my pleas in the past that you refrain from doing this because I perceive it this way, you have continued. That’s messed up. So rather than plead with you again, I’m hoping that fighting fire with fire will get through to you. 

We need more fire you say?

ON IT!

[Calm]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

I think the red color is jarring.

I stopped using downvotes except in rare cases because I got tired of having to do what Raingirl has to do constantly it seems and that is explain why I was using it, which was simply for disagreement. When I see her post a downvote, I think someone’s going to whine now they got dinged and in so many cases that has happened. She has even downvoted me a few times, btw and she is one of my gal pals as far as I am concerned.  I was a bit surprised at first, but thought about it and realized where we likely saw things differently. My nearest and dearest disagree with me all the time. No big deal. 
 

PS:  I wrote this before I saw Raingirl’s post. Bravo for using the tool how it makes sense to use it here if that is what you want to do. I like seeing when you are reading threads and that is one way I do. 
 

My only complaint is you don’t post more. But that would make it too easy for retaliatory downvoting, lol

Edited July 14, 2023 by Calm

[Grug the Neanderthal]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

We need more fire you say?

ON IT!

Downvoting 50+ posts. What a jerk move. You’re even more of a butthole than I thought. 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

5 hours ago, Raingirl said:

I’m out of votes for today, otherwise I would have given this a laughing emoji, as laughing is the only possible reaction to this steaming pile of ridiculousness.  Yet again, you defend your heinous behavior by claiming to know what someone is thinking, better than the person (woman) who is doing the thinking. 
 

You are the perfect example of why it makes more sense to use the downvote instead of posting a response. The only voice you hear is your own. You don’t even listen to the voices of the prophets or God himself. 
 

The fact that you state that I downvote you to spite you and hurt you is simply more proof of your fragile ego and flaming narcissim. I’ve downvoted friends on here because I disagree with them, but am not interested in taking my disagreement further. They don’t whine about it, and we stay friends. Also, projecting much? I’m not the one who reacts to a simple downvote by running all over the site looking for posts to downvote. So childish and hypocritical.  It just makes me laugh.  It’s an inconsequential action by some random nut on the internet.  If you are so fragile that you cannot handle disagreements and downvotes, than perhaps the internet is not the place for you. 

Like I said Raingirl, I’m not the only one who sees your downvotes this way. You know this is true, too. You admitted as much in your initial post complaining about having to keep defending your downvoting on this board.

And if you really think it’s totally cool to downvote posts, why were you whining about me downvoting several posts of yours I disagree with, particularly ones that were nasty attacks on me or others? You obviously didn’t like that, which should tell you something about your own behavior. 

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

I stopped using downvotes except in rare cases because I got tired of having to do what Raingirl has to do constantly it seems and that is explain why I was using it, which was simply for disagreement. When I see her post a downvote, I think someone’s going to whine now they got dinged and in so many cases that has happened. She has even downvoted me a few times, btw and she is one of my gal pals as far as I am concerned.  I was a bit surprised at first, but thought about it and realized where we likely saw things differently. My nearest and dearest disagree with me all the time. No big deal. 
 

PS:  I wrote this before I saw Raingirl’s post. Bravo for using the tool how it makes sense to use it here if that is what you want to do. I like seeing when you are reading threads and that is one way I do. 
 

My only complaint is you don’t post more. But that would make it too easy for retaliatory downvoting, lol

I guess there's a good thing to being on limited.

I've been spoken to a few times by Raingirl, and respect her opinions. Hopefully she will post more. 

[Warrior Saint]

41 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Like I said Raingirl, I’m not the only one who sees your downvotes this way. You know this is true, too. You admitted as much in your initial post complaining about having to keep defending your downvoting on this board.

And if you really think it’s totally cool to downvote posts, why were you whining about me downvoting several posts of yours I disagree with, particularly ones that were nasty attacks on me or others? You obviously didn’t like that, which should tell you something about your own behavior. 

I just went back over her post history, and it appears that she is more interested in voting something down than she is in really contributing anything of worth. It appears as though she is a really furious person; at least, that's how it seems. I would advise you to disregard what she says and instead focus on being thankful that you did not marry someone who feels the need to regularly express their rage on an online forum. 

[MustardSeed]

22 minutes ago, Warrior Saint said:

I just went back over her post history, and it appears that she is more interested in voting something down than she is in really contributing anything of worth. It appears as though she is a really furious person; at least, that's how it seems. I would advise you to disregard what she says and instead focus on being thankful that you did not marry someone who feels the need to regularly express their rage on an online forum. 

Unusual for a brand new poster to post negatively about a long time poster and to get involved in a personal conflict. 

[BlueDreams]

13 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

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.

Then it shouldn't be a problem that the church is expecting us to do more of it by giving less specifics and focusing more on principles to have people do just that.  The whole idea of teach correct principles and let the govern themselves idea. 

 

Clearer principles and less checklists will always be a good thing to me. 

 

 

With luv, 

Bd

Edited July 14, 2023 by BlueDreams

[webbles]

8 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I think I have shown that the teaching is the same. I believe that you are reading too much into minor differences in wording. 

You have not shown the teaching is the same.  You haven't even given anything except your opinion.  I've shown you that the direction has been changing towards less rules.  They aren't minor differences.  Rules have been removed.

[Grug the Neanderthal]

10 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Then it shouldn't be a problem that the church is expecting us to do more of it and gives less specifics and focuses more on principles to have people do just that. 

No, the problem is just as I described. Without a standard soon anything goes. At first people will still kinda of hold to the old standard but as time goes by it will be forgotten and people will simply do whatever they want and the camel gets all the way into the tent.

[mfbukowski]

13 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

IMO we “sexualize” somebody when we assume that somebody is trying to be sexy or when we identify somebody from a sexual point of view without considering the context, attitude or behavior. 

"Objectification" also fits that description as well, imo, and even relates to things beyond sex, like making the homeless mentally invisible, ignoring people in need etc.

Any kind of lack of caring; responding here to others unkindly.

I am working on that one.

[Grug the Neanderthal]

43 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Unusual for a brand new poster to post negatively about a long time poster and to get involved in a personal conflict. 

What point are trying to make?

[webbles]

9 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

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. 

That is the line that men have lived under for decades.  If it is clear enough for men, why isn't it clear enough for women?

And yes, I know that men have literally justified wearing anything or nothing based on the statement alone.  Yet they don't get called out in church.

[bsjkki]

1 hour ago, Warrior Saint said:

I just went back over her post history, and it appears that she is more interested in voting something down than she is in really contributing anything of worth. It appears as though she is a really furious person; at least, that's how it seems. I would advise you to disregard what she says and instead focus on being thankful that you did not marry someone who feels the need to regularly express their rage on an online forum. 

I view this as a uncalled for personal attack. She explained her use of downvotes and I understand why she uses them. This comment says much more about you and who you are than her. 

[BlueDreams]

15 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

No, the problem is just as I described. Without a standard soon anything goes. At first people will still kinda of hold to the old standard but as time goes by it will be forgotten and people will simply do whatever they want and the camel gets all the way into the tent.

We still have a standard. It's called true principles. It's spelled out pretty nicely in the new FTSY. It can be found in the scriptures when you study up on modesty. It's still assumed in the temple. Only you are seeing that as going "without a standard." Which ps is a great example of all-or-nothing/black and white thinking. And again that's not the church's problem. 

 

With luv, 

BD 

[bluebell]

59 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Unusual for a brand new poster to post negatively about a long time poster and to get involved in a personal conflict. 

Also weird how the new poster seems to know Grug personally.

[bsjkki]

11 minutes ago, webbles said:

That is the line that men have lived under for decades.  If it is clear enough for men, why isn't it clear enough for women?

And yes, I know that men have literally justified wearing anything or nothing based on the statement alone.  Yet they don't get called out in church.

You have made such good points and I appreciated your documenting the changes made. I agree, if that line is all that is needed for men, it should be sufficient for women too. 
 

 

[bsjkki]

4 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

We still have a standard. It's called true principles. It's spelled out pretty nicely in the new FTSY. It can be found in the scriptures when you study up on modesty. It's still assumed in the temple. Only you are seeing that as going "without a standard." Which ps is a great example of all-or-nothing/black and white thinking. And again that's not the church's problem. 

 

With luv, 

BD 

Exactly! 

[mfbukowski]

49 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Then it shouldn't be a problem that the church is expecting us to do more of it by giving less specifics and focusing more on principles to have people do just that.  The whole idea of teach correct principles and let the govern themselves idea. 

 

Clearer principles and less checklists will always be a good thing to me. 

 

 

With luv, 

Bd

I'd give you 14 upvotes if I could.

Not 15, though. That'd make it too specific.😜

I hope Pres Nelson just gets translated instead of dying some day.  Would that make him a prophet forever?

I oughta start a thread on that one, it would fit on this board perfectly!

 

Edited July 14, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Tacenda]

12 hours ago, bsjkki said:

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

I concur bsjkki!