Modesty for Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden

[Grug the Neanderthal]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

This is what the church teaches the youth about modesty right now—

“Treat your body—and others’ bodies—with respect. 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.”

This is enough for me. 

Question: Was the teaching from the previous Strength of Youth pamphlet before the change less than a year ago enough for you at the time? 

Edited July 9, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal

[Rain]

20 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Highly disagree.

This is an international church now, not a Utah USA church.

People around the world come in various shapes and sizes.  What a mess and expense it would be if we had Asian sizes, Samoan sizes, African sizes, Chicago sizes, and California sizes.

Every body ( two words) gets to be a little uncomfortable; yet another tiny tiny reminder of Christ being  "uncomfortable" for us.

Honest questions (no debate, just curious).  Do you feel the uncomfortableness is a side effect or feature? You talk about it as being a side effect, but conclude with it as if it was a feature.  If you are using it as a positive way to see a side effect what if they never remind some people of Christ? 

[Chum]

12 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

There’s simply no excuse to take off the garment in order to wear more revealing clothing on the grounds that it’s too hot. 

Being able to know other people's bodies to the point where you're qualified to make this determination - this is an interesting ability to have.

[Rain]

18 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Question: Was the teaching from the previous Strength of Youth pamphlet before the change less than a year ago enough for you at the time? 

Answering for myself and not Bluebell.  No, previous versions were not enough for me.  Modesty is an attitude, not a set of rules.  The previous versions failed to teach that distinction.

[Grug the Neanderthal]

21 minutes ago, Rain said:

You don't have to buy it, but it would be nice if you tried to understand it from someone who has tried the different fabrics, seen and definitely felt the red rash across my body rather than discount my experience with a wave of a hand. 

 

I understand the issue with fabrics and rashes. I have had issues with this myself in regards to the garment. This is a completely different issue.

We’re talking about removing the garment in order to wear less clothing because it’s too hot. I reject the grounds that it’s too hot as a valid reason to remove the garment and wear less modest clothing. 

[Rain]

2 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I understand the issue with fabrics and rashes. I have had issues with this myself in regards to the garment. This is a completely different issue.

We’re talking about removing the garment in order to wear less clothing because it’s too hot. I reject the grounds that it’s too hot as a valid reason to remove the garment and wear less modest clothing. 

You understand YOUR experience, not mine.  Because of that you don't understand the connection.

[Grug the Neanderthal]

4 minutes ago, Rain said:

Answering for myself and not Bluebell.  No, previous versions were not enough for me.  Modesty is an attitude, not a set of rules.  The previous versions failed to teach that distinction.

I disagree. I believe that the previous version taught the attitude and the reason for modesty just fine. But if there was a concern, more information could have been added without eliminating the specific teachings on types of dress that are immodest. 

[Rain]

3 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I disagree. I believe that the previous version taught the attitude and the reason for modesty just fine. But if there was a concern, more information could have been added

Which means it wasn't enough.

3 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

without eliminating the specific teachings on types of dress that are immodest. 

Unless the specific teachings were either not correct or stopped people from understanding the concept. 

[Calm]

31 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

looks like you’re trying to play the old insensitive man card.

There are women who haven’t experienced it either, so in my mind it’s the old clueless person who can’t put themselves in someone else’s life and instead seems to think their life is standard card.  I have come across enough of them in my life I find it boring at this point once the amusement has faded. 
 

I don’t have a clue what issue you have, but since you claim garments won’t overheat anyone if their clothing choice is correct, you obviously don’t have the issue of garments overheating you no matter what clothing choice is made…which issue I and quite a few other women and men I have known over the years have.

[mfbukowski]

27 minutes ago, Rain said:

Honest questions (no debate, just curious).  Do you feel the uncomfortableness is a side effect or feature? You talk about it as being a side effect, but conclude with it as if it was a feature.  If you are using it as a positive way to see a side effect what if they never remind some people of Christ? 

Like everything, imo, it's subject to how you interpret it to create your world.

You don't have to be exalted to create a world, we get to practice it every day 😉

[Grug the Neanderthal]

8 minutes ago, Rain said:

You understand YOUR experience, not mine.  Because of that you don't understand the connection.

I don’t think I’m misunderstanding the connection by not understanding your experience, but if you think so, perhaps you would be kind enough to clarify your experience.

Are you saying that you were unable to find a single garment fabric, style, or size that didn’t give you a heat rash across your entire body but were able to find other undergarments with fabrics that didn’t give you a heat rash under the exact same heat conditions because they allowed you to wear clothing that wouldn’t cover the garment?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I understand the issue with fabrics and rashes. I have had issues with this myself in regards to the garment. This is a completely different issue.

You have never heard of rashes caused by overheating?***

PS:  I don’t get rashes from fabric, though elastic causes them. I overheat with all fabrics, but cotton and thin, thin rayon (probably linen is okay too, but I haven’t owned anything linen for awhile to be sure) and I overheat with them quite a bit if I forget my fan or venture someplace warmer than 74-80 degrees. 

***one kind, heat rash, can be caused by clothing

Quote

Heat rash occurs when sweat is trapped in the skin. Symptoms can range from small blisters to deep, inflamed lumps. Some forms of heat rash are very itchy….

Adults usually develop heat rash in skin folds and where clothing rubs against the skin.

Garments are always rubbing against the skin in my experience. 
 

Another form:  https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/320916#symptoms

Edited July 9, 2023 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

There are women who haven’t experienced it either, so in my mind it’s the old clueless person who can’t put themselves in someone else’s life and instead seems to think their life is standard card.  I have come across enough of them in my life I find it boring at this point once the amusement has faded. 
 

I don’t have a clue what issue you have, but since you claim garments won’t overheat anyone if their clothing choice is correct, you obviously don’t have the issue of garments overheating you no matter what clothing choice is made…which issue I and quite a few other women and men I have known over the years have.

At least we know he doesn't come from Arizona or Nevada! One might get overheated while naked in those places.  

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Here, I’ll try to make the question even easier. Is it modest for LDS women and young women to wear croptops which expose the midriff, chest, shoulders, and back? How about booty shorts that barely cover the butt or even show some of it? How about bikinis? Strapless mini skirts?

I have no interest in telling my sister saints (or brothers for that matter) what is and isn’t righteous for them to wear. That is not my calling. I think them searching scripture and asking God is a much better use of their time and mine. 
 

You can ask all you want, I am not going to turn modesty, which is an internal attitude, into a checklist of acceptable and unacceptable clothing, which are external objects. 

Edited July 9, 2023 by Calm

[Raingirl]

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

No one is asking you to limit the conversation on modesty to LDS members.

Mustard seed specifically brought up the old fashioned LDS standards on modesty which held that it was immodest for women and young women to wear clothing that revealed the chest, midriff, shoulders, and knees and how she was glad that a grassroots movement had done away with this and that people were now starting to view modesty correctly. When I asked her a question about her statement, you presumed to speak for her. 

I have asked a very relevant and essential question about the views you keep expressing in regards to modesty, and you have intern repeatedly deflected and posed distracting questions of your own. And you’re still at it. Is there a reason why you are unwilling to answer my simple question? It’s not a difficult question. 

Here, I’ll try to make the question even easier. Is it modest for LDS women and young women to wear croptops which expose the midriff, chest, shoulders, and back? How about booty shorts that barely cover the butt or even show some of it? How about bikinis? Strapless mini skirts?

The "humble" poor wear these things in our current mainstream culture. Is it modest for LDS women who have been properly taught what modesty means to wear these things?

I say no. And I also say that’s it’s not modest for anyone to wear these things, LDS or otherwise. But what say you?

You seem to spend a lot of time thinking about women in skimpy clothing. 

[bluebell]

44 minutes ago, Rain said:

Answering for myself and not Bluebell.  No, previous versions were not enough for me.  Modesty is an attitude, not a set of rules.  The previous versions failed to teach that distinction.

Agreed.  

[bluebell]

37 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I disagree. I believe that the previous version taught the attitude and the reason for modesty just fine. But if there was a concern, more information could have been added without eliminating the specific teachings on types of dress that are immodest. 

Send a letter to the First Presidency outlining where they messed up with the new guidelines.  It's been them and you and has nothing to do with the rest of us.

[Calm]

41 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

At least we know he doesn't come from Arizona or Nevada! One might get overheated while naked in those places.  

Our car broke down crossing Nevada in 115 degrees in the shade. I was practically comatose for the ride to Las Vegas in an old tow truck that lacked AC. We surrounded ourselves as much as we could with bulk ice.  

Unfortunately that is also me in Utah summers. It is ridiculous. I used to love Utah summers because of the warm nights.  Perfect for being outdoors in the dark.  These days I can manage getting to the car if it’s in the shade.

And yes, being able to wear just a tank top rather than a garment and a short sleeve tshirt could help add a few more degrees of tolerance before the nausea shows up.  I tried it this spring out of curiosity  (I am too programmed to feel emotionally comfortable in only a tank top so it lasted for the day, it was so much more comfortable physically for a couple of reasons).  Thankfully we can afford a cranked up AC and I just avoid places that don’t do the same.  People love coming to our house.  

I miss the sun though. I loved going for long bike rides and walks up in Canada.  There was one year we were there that it snowed every month of the year (very little in July and August, of course, but it was bizarre to see flakes then).  I knew I was in paradise for sure (we had recently moved from Kansas where I was 9 months pregnant in over 100 degrees of heat with high humidity).  Now I use a big white umbrella as a sunshade if I have to get the mail. 

Edited July 9, 2023 by Calm

[Grug the Neanderthal]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

Which means it wasn't enough.

Unless the specific teachings were either not correct or stopped people from understanding the concept. 

I said, IF the previous teaching on modesty were not enough more could have been added. But I disagree that this was the case.

As for your second point, what if the current teachings is too vague out of fear of offending? 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

34 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Send a letter to the First Presidency outlining where they messed up with the new guidelines.  It's been them and you and has nothing to do with the rest of us.

Did you write them a letter complaining about the previous teaching on modesty? If not, why not? 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

44 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

You seem to spend a lot of time thinking about women in skimpy clothing. 

And there it is. I was waiting for it. 

[MustardSeed]

I don’t enjoy this type of “gotcha” discussion. I said what I said, but I will answer the question simply, and leave it at that. Yes, I believe women can show their shoulders and be humble, just as boys can.  Yes, I believe women can show their knees and still be humble, just as boys can. And I believe that women’s midsection’s are as innocent as are mens. To be clear, I believe it would be inappropriate for women to show their breasts in public in the United States of America, unless they are breast-feeding. I no longer use the term modesty, but instead use the term socially appropriate as deemed by the situation, For example, it would be inappropriate for me to wear a two-piece suit to Neanderthals barbecue. It is appropriate for me to wear a two-piece suit in other places. I do so with no qualms or issues.  As another example, it’s important to dress appropriately when one is singing in a high school girls choir when the required dress says no shoulders. The purpose of this is for Continuity to please the eyes of the audience. Choirs are supposed to be one voice, and the visual should be the same. When girls show up with strap dresses or short skirts it messes up the scene and directs focus on the individual. Not appropriate.

At a wedding I attended yesterday, somebody wore an extremely revealing dress. This is not appropriate, because everybody knows that the focus is supposed to be on the bride. Nobody is to wear white, and nobody is to wear anything that takes attention away from the bride. If a man showed up in a sparkly suit, that would also be inappropriate.
 

Since correcting the message  delivered in my youth from “modesty” (where the focus was protecting boys and men) to “appropriate dress for the situation”, I feel better informed, and actually LESS JUDGMENTAL myself.  It is a nice place to be. 
 

I think arguments online, which I have been guilty of, demonstrates significant absence of modesty (humility). I have shared what I think and what I believe. I will not discuss further.

 

Edited July 9, 2023 by MustardSeed

[bluebell]

33 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Did you write them a letter complaining about the previous teaching on modesty? If not, why not? 

I didn't, because I wasn't trying to convince anyone that they were in the wrong for following the directions in the old version.  When some members would attempt to add things to those directions, or create rules around them, I would speak up when I could.

[Raingirl]

41 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

And there it is. I was waiting for it. 

You are so predictable. 

[Calm]

33 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

You are so predictable. 

He apparently got impatient and got partway there himself.

Quote

looks like you’re trying to play the old insensitive man card.

I was actually thinking more of some female relatives and friends who were sympathetic, but not empathetic; one made demands at the most obviously wrong time, one especially kept putting her foot in her mouth because she was unable to relate to some of others’ difficulties, another made it clear we were being lazy when we didn’t fall in line with her expectations.  In ‘real life’, I don’t typically have conversations with men that lead to me discussing why I can’t do something, so the vast majority of the more significant and shocking experiences of this type has been with women.  Men haven’t been as interested in the “why” of my refusals or ‘failures’.

Edited July 9, 2023 by Calm