Rain Posted July 10, 2023 Posted July 10, 2023 (edited) 20 minutes ago, The Nehor said: His standard of immodesty always seems to mimic the latest moral panic. From Mark E. Peterson: “The miniskirt was a British creation. At first it drew the unanimous scorn of the fashion experts in Europe and the United States. Particularly were the French designers outspoken in their condemnation of the new fad. They pointed out that such styles threw women’s clothes out of proper proportion and therefore were evidence of bad designing. Then they pointed out to the ugliness of the knees in general and of the fat ones and the bony ones in particular. Are there any others?” “Americans scoffed at it for quite some time too, but here, as in Paris, the London styles swept everything before them, and many of our women now feel obliged not only to display their badly shaped knees, but their thighs as well.” “No woman looks as lovely as when she is properly and fully clothed. What woman can suppose that ugly knees and bony shoulder blades can add luster to her charm?” Why won’t women cover their hideous knees and disgusting shoulder blades? I happen to find both attractive. Am I some sort of degenerate pervert? This makes me hurt. I've been given this wonderful body by God. There are days I really struggle with it. My type 1 diabetes, my body with very little fat. My body with a lot of fat. My eyesight. My kidneys, liver, tonsils, sinus problems, broken bones and scars all over. But recently I have been focusing on being grateful for all my body and seeing the beauty in it despite the parts not working or working well. There is something about tying it to the truly great gift that God have me that is healing me. My knee with a scar running down the length of it is not ugly. Despite it being cut open to repair my broken leg and the pain I sometimes feel it has kept me walking and swimming and dancing. My shoulders both are frozen and have several other problems. It's painful to move them most of the time. By going to the physical therapist I'm learning how they work and how cool it all is! They are not ugly. They are beautiful. Edited July 10, 2023 by Rain 2
Grug the Neanderthal Posted July 10, 2023 Posted July 10, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, Rain said: You are misunderstanding. I am not against choosing not to wear short shorts, skirts etc. If someone works that out with God I am totally ok with that. I do feel that rather than teaching those behaviors the church should be teaching doctrines and principles and how to find your own applications and behavior. You know, as the new FSOY teaches. I think I probably closely match their thinking on this. So if I understand you correctly you don’t believe that there’s a standard for modest dress at all and that the church is wrong to teach specific standards. Whatever anyone "works out with God" is fine. For one person it’s perfectly modest to wear a bikini, crop-top, strapless dress, miniskirt, or booty shorts as long as they believe that God is okay with it. For someone else it’s perfectly modest to cover their body with tattoos or sag their pants showing everyone their underwear as long as they believe God is okay with it. Do I understand you correctly now? Edited July 10, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal -1
Rain Posted July 10, 2023 Posted July 10, 2023 (edited) 24 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said: So if I understand you correctly you don’t believe that there’s a standard for modest dress at all and that the church is wrong to teach specific standards. Whatever anyone "works out with God" is fine. For one person it’s perfectly modest to wear a bikini, crop-top, strapless dress, miniskirt, or booty shorts as long as they believe that God is okay with it. For someone else it’s perfectly modest to cover their body with tattoos or sag their pants showing everyone their underwear as long as they believe God is okay with it. Do I understand you correctly now? No. And the key part is this "For one person it’s perfectly modest to wear a bikini, crop-top, strapless dress, miniskirt, or booty shorts as long as they believe that God is okay with it". Change that to "as long as God is okay with it". You and I both know that people are going to get that wrong sometimes. Church leaders get things wrong sometimes. There has always been the concern that we might not understand what God wants. I'm ok with that because I trust him and I trust his process. I trust that when true doctrine is taught and we understand, that God will help us with the application. It may take a few tries, but if we understand his doctrine the path will lead to him. Edited July 10, 2023 by Rain 1
Grug the Neanderthal Posted July 10, 2023 Posted July 10, 2023 Just now, Rain said: No. And the key part is this "For one person it’s perfectly modest to wear a bikini, crop-top, strapless dress, miniskirt, or booty shorts as long as they believe that God is okay with it". Change that to "as long as God is okay with it". You and I both know that people are going to get that wrong sometimes. People won’t just get this wrong sometimes. The desire to fit in and be considered attractive in the eyes of the world is overwhelming for many people, especially for majority of young people. Many will convince themselves that God is okay with their immodest attire because of what society is screaming at them. Let me ask you another clarifying question. Do you believe that God actually ever considers it modest for women and young women to wear crop-tops, bikinis, booty shorts, strapless dresses, miniskirts, or for either sex to cover their bodies with tattoos and piercings, walk around with their underwear hanging out, etc.? Particularly members of his church who have been plainly taught the correct definition of modesty? -2
Calm Posted July 10, 2023 Posted July 10, 2023 (edited) If God cares about having the body covered, why didn’t he make sure Adam and Eve weren’t naked when he placed them in the Garden? Why was Moroni naked under the open robe when he visited Joseph per the quote if nakedness is immodest? Edited July 10, 2023 by Calm
Rain Posted July 10, 2023 Posted July 10, 2023 14 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said: People won’t just get this wrong sometimes. The desire to fit in and be considered attractive in the eyes of the world is overwhelming for many people, especially for majority of young people. Many will convince themselves that God is okay with their immodest attire because of what society is screaming at them. Let me ask you another clarifying question. Do you believe that God actually ever considers it modest for women and young women to wear crop-tops, bikinis, booty shorts, strapless dresses, miniskirts, or for either sex to cover their bodies with tattoos and piercings, walk around with their underwear hanging out, etc.? Particularly members of his church who have been plainly taught the correct definition of modesty? I don't think God labels things modest or immodest. I think that is something people do. Rather I think he looks at us and our learning, struggles, good and bad choices and tries to help us understand the great possibilities he has for us. When people label things as modest or immodest I think it's because they are trying to help us get back to him as well, but have to use an imperfect system to do it and/or they have an imperfect understanding. Applications/behaviors are important. They can often help us learn the doctrine or principles, but when those applications have been strongly linked to incorrect principles (like I am responsible for your thoughts and actions) then the applications become a hinderance instead of a teaching tool. One key to what I have been saying is "understood". You say they have been plainly taught, but that doesn't mean it was taught well or that a person will have understood the teachings. Especially if they were taught in such a way that the application became more important than an understanding of the doctrine or principal. I'm not sure that we are going to come to an agreement here. 1
bsjkki Posted July 10, 2023 Posted July 10, 2023 (edited) Sad we are still having to debate this. Maybe the men should listen to women on this topic because we are the ones who have been harmed directly or indirectly by it. Edited July 10, 2023 by bsjkki 2
Calm Posted July 10, 2023 Posted July 10, 2023 (edited) 5 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said: That’s not what I said, but God’s standard of modesty is definitely not just whatever the current culture deems as acceptable. Maybe we only need a standard of modesty in mortality. Why would perfect, sinless godly beings be distracted or bothered by seeing someone naked? It doesn’t seem like God cared when he was associating with Adam and Eve in the Garden until Adam and Eve cared about their nakedness. He had provided for all their needs and yet left them unclothed according to the scriptures and temple narrative. Such beings wouldn’t have any sinful thoughts, after all. Clothing choice would most likely be an issue of personal and social respect rather than any physical need, given the power to control their environments these perfect beings would have (if we assume this same group helps organizes/creates earths and solar systems for God’s children). Even among the Telestial beings, they are sinless or else they couldn’t dwell in God’s glory of even a Telestial level. Edited July 10, 2023 by Calm
Grug the Neanderthal Posted July 10, 2023 Posted July 10, 2023 3 hours ago, Rain said: I don't think God labels things modest or immodest. I think that is something people do. Rather I think he looks at us and our learning, struggles, good and bad choices and tries to help us understand the great possibilities he has for us. When people label things as modest or immodest I think it's because they are trying to help us get back to him as well, but have to use an imperfect system to do it and/or they have an imperfect understanding. Applications/behaviors are important. They can often help us learn the doctrine or principles, but when those applications have been strongly linked to incorrect principles (like I am responsible for your thoughts and actions) then the applications become a hinderance instead of a teaching tool. One key to what I have been saying is "understood". You say they have been plainly taught, but that doesn't mean it was taught well or that a person will have understood the teachings. Especially if they were taught in such a way that the application became more important than an understanding of the doctrine or principal. I’m confused by your answer. Do you believe that God considers it modest for some people, even active member of his church who have been taught and understood the correct definition of modesty, to wear bikinis, crop-tops, booty shorts, have their underwear hanging out, or cover their bodies with tattoos and piercings and that those who do this have legitimately worked this out with God or not? Yes or no? Or are you now claiming that there is no such thing as modest or immodest dress in God’s eyes?
Grug the Neanderthal Posted July 10, 2023 Posted July 10, 2023 3 hours ago, Calm said: If God cares about having the body covered, why didn’t he make sure Adam and Eve weren’t naked when he placed them in the Garden? Adam and Eve were innocent like little children before the fall, not knowing good from evil. They were like naked babies being born into the world. As soon as they’re eyes were opened and they began to recognize good from evil they immediately recognized that it was wrong for them to be naked and made aprons to cover themselves. God then made a coat of skins for them to cover their nakedness. 3 hours ago, Calm said: Why was Moroni naked under the open robe when he visited Joseph per the quote? Why was Moroni naked under his clothes? 3 hours ago, Calm said: Maybe we only need a standard of modesty in mortality. Maybe, but since we live in mortality, God would clearly have a standard for modesty for his mortal children though, right?
Tacenda Posted July 10, 2023 Posted July 10, 2023 (edited) Do you think it appropriate for BYU to not allow leggings? https://universe.byu.edu/2014/11/29/what-not-to-wear-byu-edition1/ Or this young man sent this letter chastising a girl over it? https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2105657/Brittany-Molina-BYU-student-chastised-dressing-provocatively-lands-modelling-gig.html The body is covered. But what of men playing basketball in skimpy clothing? And here a BYU female in the 60's.... Edited July 10, 2023 by Tacenda
Calm Posted July 10, 2023 Posted July 10, 2023 2 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said: Adam and Eve were innocent like little children before the fall, not knowing good from evil. They were like naked babies being born into the world. As soon as they’re eyes were opened and they began to recognize good from evil they immediately recognized that it was wrong for them to be naked and made aprons to cover themselves. God then made a coat of skins for them to cover their nakedness. Like I said. It didn’t seem to bother God what they were wearing…or not, only Adam and Eve. Otherwise, if God had thought it inappropriate or immodest for adults to be naked, then surely he would have provided the two with clothing. But he did not. It is reasonable to conclude therefore that God himself does not find nakedness inherently immodest….which is a good thing since he can see us at all times and likely is capable of perceiving all of our bodies all of the time, clothed or not. If God is omniscient, he is aware of what we look like naked even as we stand fully clothed before him. My guess is to the advanced, perfect beings who are like God, clothing amounts to very sheer coverings anyway, their perception is so advanced. There is likely little actual difference between wearing clothing and being naked for advanced beings who are so In tune with their surroundings.
Calm Posted July 10, 2023 Posted July 10, 2023 2 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said: but since we live in mortality, God would clearly have a standard for modesty for his mortal children though, right? He does. Is anyone here arguing that he doesn’t? It is given in the scriptures multiple times. I have quoted them above. Basically don’t wear things for the purpose of self aggrandizement, to elevate yourself above others. 1
telnetd Posted July 10, 2023 Author Posted July 10, 2023 On 7/8/2023 at 6:21 PM, Calm said: I suggest going back and rereading all of Ben MacGuire’s posts to you on figurative vs literal in your previous thread every time you are wondering this. Hopefully at sometime something will click and you will understand his point. https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/75128-the-universal-depravity-of-the-human-family/?do=findComment&comment=1210138838 I asked him to explain Moses 3:21-22 in a figurative instead of literal way and I didn't see a reply. "And I, the Lord God, caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam; and he slept, and I took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh in the stead thereof; And the rib which I, the Lord God, had taken from man, made I a woman, and brought her unto the man".
Rain Posted July 10, 2023 Posted July 10, 2023 3 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said: I’m confused by your answer. Do you believe that God considers it modest for some people, even active member of his church who have been taught and understood the correct definition of modesty, to wear bikinis, crop-tops, booty shorts, have their underwear hanging out, or cover their bodies with tattoos and piercings and that those who do this have legitimately worked this out with God or not? Yes or no? I can't answer that with a yes or no, because like calm shares I don't think any of those things in and of themselves proclaim modesty. It is the state of their hearts and minds, not the length of their hems that make it modest or not. But if you are asking if I think God has rules for every clothing item or body decoration then I would have to say no, especially if it is only women's clothing someone is concerned about. 3 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said: Or are you now claiming that there is no such thing as modest or immodest dress in God’s eyes? I am claiming his rule of immodesty is something like calm said,"don’t wear things for the purpose of self aggrandizement, to elevate yourself above others", a state of heart, not a set of rules about body coverage of clothing or body decoration. 2
bluebell Posted July 10, 2023 Posted July 10, 2023 2 hours ago, Tacenda said: Do you think it appropriate for BYU to not allow leggings? https://universe.byu.edu/2014/11/29/what-not-to-wear-byu-edition1/ Or this young man sent this letter chastising a girl over it? https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2105657/Brittany-Molina-BYU-student-chastised-dressing-provocatively-lands-modelling-gig.html The body is covered. But what of men playing basketball in skimpy clothing? And here a BYU female in the 50's.... That letter from the young man chastising the young woman for what she was wearing is what happens when you teach young men that what girls choose to wear should be based on how boys feel about it. And, thanks for the pictures from BYU from the 60s. They are a great representation of how modesty has changed over the years in the church. I don’t think that anyone could successfully argue that the church’s views on modesty have always perfectly aligned with God’s views on modesty. 4
bsjkki Posted July 10, 2023 Posted July 10, 2023 1 hour ago, bluebell said: That letter from the young man chastising the young woman for what she was wearing is what happens when you teach young men that what girls choose to wear should be based on how boys feel about it. And, thanks for the pictures from BYU from the 60s. They are a great representation of how modesty has changed over the years in the church. I don’t think that anyone could successfully argue that the church’s views on modesty have always perfectly aligned with God’s views on modesty. Strapless dresses in the 40’s. There is a nice history that the hippie generation brought the voluntary honor code to BYU with its dress and grooming requirements which morphed into its current dress and grooming code which has the added enforcement measures. 3
Calm Posted July 10, 2023 Posted July 10, 2023 1 minute ago, bsjkki said: Strapless dresses in the 40’s. There is a nice history that the hippie generation brought the voluntary honor code to BYU with its dress and grooming requirements which morphed into its current dress and grooming code which has the added enforcement measures. I wonder how much the modesty craze would have affected church members if we didn’t have BYU to imprint that attitude on many. Not saying that was the sole cause, but it was useful to spread it nation wide and into Canada as well. 3
bsjkki Posted July 10, 2023 Posted July 10, 2023 (edited) 59 minutes ago, Calm said: I wonder how much the modesty craze would have affected church members if we didn’t have BYU to imprint that attitude on many. Not saying that was the sole cause, but it was useful to spread it nation wide and into Canada as well. I think it started at BYU and got out of hand. I wish I had raised my daughters in a time when dress standards were not a big issue. Looking back, the emphasis on modesty was unhealthy and sexualized innocent and practical attire and created an overall judgemental attitude for those in and out of the church. Edited July 10, 2023 by bsjkki 4
Popular Post The Nehor Posted July 10, 2023 Popular Post Posted July 10, 2023 6 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said: Adam and Eve were innocent like little children before the fall, not knowing good from evil. They were like naked babies being born into the world. As soon as they’re eyes were opened and they began to recognize good from evil they immediately recognized that it was wrong for them to be naked and made aprons to cover themselves. God then made a coat of skins for them to cover their nakedness. As I recall it was Satan that told them that it was shameful. 5
The Nehor Posted July 10, 2023 Posted July 10, 2023 7 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said: Do you believe that God considers it modest for some people, even active member of his church who have been taught and understood the correct definition of modesty, to wear bikinis, crop-tops, booty shorts, have their underwear hanging out, or cover their bodies with tattoos and piercings and that those who do this have legitimately worked this out with God or not? Yes or no? Now tattoos and piercings are a modesty issue? You sure do like to police women’s bodies. 1
bluebell Posted July 10, 2023 Posted July 10, 2023 28 minutes ago, The Nehor said: As I recall it was Satan that told them that it was shameful. Exactly. There was nothing shameful about being naked in the presence of their spouse. 4
Vanguard Posted July 10, 2023 Posted July 10, 2023 14 minutes ago, bluebell said: Exactly. There was nothing shameful about being naked in the presence of their spouse. That's correct but they were also to be dealing with others (Peter, James, and John) weren't they?
Calm Posted July 10, 2023 Posted July 10, 2023 (edited) 58 minutes ago, Vanguard said: That's correct but they were also to be dealing with others (Peter, James, and John) weren't they? If nakedness was okay for God, why would it not be for his messengers? Edited July 10, 2023 by Calm 1
bluebell Posted July 10, 2023 Posted July 10, 2023 4 minutes ago, Vanguard said: That's correct but they were also to be dealing with others (Peter, James, and John) weren't they? Not that point in the creation narrative. That doesn't happen until after they are kicked out of the garden and in the world for a while.
Recommended Posts