Leaderboard

Not at all. My roommate just played lout music ALL THE TIME. And when I asked him to turn it down, he said,"That's just how I play my music, dude. I'm not doing it to irritate you." It seemed to make no difference that he'd do it at 1:00 am while most people try to sleep. Just because they aren't doing it to tempt, doesn't mean that it doesn't affect those around them. It's the same for mask wearing (I wasn't the first one to bring it up). I really do have a breathing problem. It is difficult for me to wear a mask. But if someone I'm dealing with feels uncomfortable and asks politely, I am going to do my best to wear a mask in their presence out of courtesy. And there really is no reason for me to wear one when I'm already immune. But they still feel uncomfortable. I love kim chee. So does my family. So we're good. But when my wife was pregnant, she couldn't stand the smell. So, during those times, I made an effort to not indulge. And most guests don't like it either. So, I make an effort to not have kim chee when guests are over. We all NEED to go to the bathroom. We have to expose ourselves to do so. But we're not trying to flash anyone. We just need to do it. Does that mean that there shouldn't be privies to do the deed? Can't we just have a toilet in the middle of the office? I want to have sex with my wife. One could say that we're SUPPOSED to have sex. But do we do it in front of people? We're not trying to be provocative. We're just doing what married people do. A certain young woman in an old ward decided to dress as Black Widow for Halloween. The costume was of thinner material than ScarJo's outfit. It made it cheaper, and more available to the masses. It also made the outfit extremely form fitting and... you get the idea. She was just wearing it because it was a "cool costume". Do you think the YM in the ward simply said,"Hey, cool outfit." and then moved on? No, nearly every young man in the ward was gathered around her wherever she went. Remember, I still think it is 100% the young men's fault for not controlling themselves. They should have done the decent thing and simply said, "Hey, cool outfit," then moved on. That was on them. But did she really do nothing wrong? I'd say she did. She was being immodest. The thing here is that there seems to be undue "blame" on the boys for not controlling themselves. And, again, they should be blamed for THEIR actions and maybe even REactions. But your position seems to be of one that says that the "standards of modest dress" is something we shouldn't be teaching. It is as if this is NOT a sin at all. There is NOTHING wrong with being immodest in one's dress while in public. I disagree. There is something wrong with the boys not being able to control their reactions. So, we DO teach that principle to the YM. Trust me, we teach it a LOT. And there seems to be NO push back on the need to teach it. There is also something wrong with women who like to dress sexy and provocative only to hide behind the notion of "freedom of dress" (for lack of another term). Should we not be teaching this principle? No, girls, go ahead and walk around in a mono-kini to school and it is totally the boys' fault for looking at you while at school. (And I'd dare say, most of the girls would be looking too... albeit for a different reason.)

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/17/supreme-court-same-sex-couples-foster-care-catholic-church-494999?fbclid=IwAR27O4a90zwe_5KiYyU0JiKft3Pel-Y_KCUuCE8E5_aTykBD3DKCIJCdvuo It seems to be a win for religious freedom.

But isn’t a major reason we engage in modesty, a matter of sensitivity/deference to the way others are affected by our behavior? I mean, I get that we don’t want to drift into “her short skirt made me do it!”. But why can’t we at least say (either to females or, as applicable, to males) “hey, part of the problem with you running around with no shirt on is that it distracts other people, and there is a sexual element to that distraction, and the people being distracted would rather not cope with it at the moment”? Who is "we"? The Church? Maybe I'm seeing this from a difference perspective, but I have concerns when we teach young women particularly not to dress in a certain way because it might cause young men/men to feel/think/act/react in a certain way. We have to be very careful here, there are a lot of things that can go very wrong with this sort of teaching including rape ("She asked for it, did you see how she was dressed?"). It can be very damaging for an individual. On top of all of this, it is not an effective way to teach modesty. I think the focus should be about self-respect and self-esteem which our youth all over the world lacks terribly these days.

But isn’t a major reason we engage in modesty, a matter of sensitivity/deference to the way others are affected by our behavior? I mean, I get that we don’t want to drift into “her short skirt made me do it!”. But why can’t we at least say (either to females or, as applicable, to males) “hey, part of the problem with you running around with no shirt on is that it distracts other people, and there is a sexual element to that distraction, and the people being distracted would rather not cope with it at the moment”?

Agreed we don't hear it... But is it a double standard? Or is it a simple reality that women's temptations do not go that direction? After all when we think porn we think videos and pictures that men are the primary targets for and consume in large quantities. We don't generally think trashy romance novels that women are the primary targets for and consume in large quantities. Yet both appeal to the same base desire of the natural man/woman. Women's temptations do go that direction. Generally speaking, I think there is a clear lack of awareness on this topic. Yes, when we think of porn we think about males as the primary targets and women consuming trashy romance novels but there has been a very concerning trend for years of young women particularly consuming more and more porn daily.

But your position seems to be of one that says that the "standards of modest dress" is something we shouldn't be teaching. Not at all. I'm clarifying the misconception that young women/women dress to "tempt" men. Just like in the case of the young woman in your ward, she did it because it was a "cool" costume. Was it immodest? Absolutely. I have 0 issues with teaching about modesty, I just don't believe in teaching it for the wrong reasons. The wrong reason will be "You shouldn't wear this costume because you will cause our YM to have bad/sexual thoughts and they will follow you around". In my last statement I said "if it bothers you, you are probably staring too much". The reality is that we interact with non-members on a daily basis. They don't have our same values, they will dress and act according to the world and there is no much we can do about that. Having said that, if I choose to engage in a particular behavior, it is on ME 100%. I don't believe in the concept of "but her outfit was too revealing..." "but she was showing off her body..." and the like. The only thing missing is "Satan made me do it". I BELIEVE in modesty, we just need to be careful about the reasons we give.

If someone eases me, taunts me, and harrasses me to no end, even using racial slurs that would make my wife blush, and I lose my temper, it is still 100% my fault for losing my temper. But do we think the one taunting me did nothing wrong? I think the last part is interesting based on what I was sharing previously in connection with this topic. Some men seem to have the notion that women dress in a certain way to "tempt" them and "they should be held responsible for that". In my view, it shows a lack of understanding about women's behavior but also it shows delusion of grandeur. Generally speaking, women dress for other women. Not for men. Having said that, I never heard anyone telling a man to stop dressing in a certain way because they're tempting women. "You're too sexy, stop it!" We are all big boys and big girls, we all should be modest in everything we do 100% agree but let's us not shift responsibilities here. If I turn on my computer and decide to watch porn, should I require the actors to take responsibility for 'tempting' me? One of my favorite phrases is: If it bothers you, you are probably staring too much.

No. Conduct yourself modestly because it’s the right thing to do before God. Not to do with others.

To add to this discussion, parents are very much unaware about the kind of activities their young children and teenagers are involved online. It is a very disturbing trend that some parents wish to ignore or blame it to "computer games" or "bad friends" but in fact, there are no rules or any sort of monitoring taking place at home. Children are producing porn. YOUR child might be producing porn. Time to wake up!

Thank you for clarifying your position. I think we're pretty close on this. It's just the old argument. 1: I see clouds in the sky. 2: I see blue skies. 1: Yes, but there are clouds up there. 2: Yeah, but there's blue behind them. 1: Why are you saying it isn't cloudy? You can clearly see clouds. 2: I see the too. But the blue... That said: I think women do dress to tempt men, but not in the way you think. It is several steps removed. But if we're going to be intellectually honest, the fundamental driving force is that we want to impress the opposite sex. Women dress because they want to feel pretty. They want to impress other women. Got it. 100% understand. My wife even tells me this is so. No argument. Why is it important for them to "feel pretty"? Why is it important to them to "impress other women"? It is so that they can show they are a "better specimen". Think about what animals do? Both males and females of any species do things to make themselves compete with others in the mating game. Why is that important to be a better specimen? So, they can attract a better mate. It isn't conscious. It isn't the immediate thing on people's minds. But I think that the Puritanical attitude towards sex has blinded us to the fact that, yes, human beings do have the same instincts that any other animals have. The only thing is that we can choose to push against that. Actually achieving control over it is another story. So, if you were her mother, what would you say to her if she came home with that costume and raved about how cool it was? Would you even consider what I've just described above? Would you be concerned about how the YM would ogle her the entire evening? Would you just encourage her to go ahead and wear it?

There has been talk that the recent spate of 9-0 decisions is at least partly a response to court-packing plans; SCOTUS’s way of saying “no, we actually aren’t all that politically divided”. This decision seems to be in harmony with that theory; it apparently (per Politico’s coverage) dodges the substantive issue and doesn’t really accomplish a whole lot.

Agreed we don't hear it... But is it a double standard? Or is it a simple reality that women's temptations do not go that direction? After all when we think porn we think videos and pictures that men are the primary targets for and consume in large quantities. We don't generally think trashy romance novels that women are the primary targets for and consume in large quantities. Yet both appeal to the same base desire of the natural man/woman. Yes to a point. Those with stewardship have to look and have to make judgements. Because they have to teach and correct. If we are not willing to teach correct principles and standards... then the world will teach their standards to our sorrow. This is why we have (and enforce) standards. Not because we want to name and shame, but to teach and uplift. Sadly to many take this into unrighteous judgement levels, which then drives the movement to remove any judgment on the subject.

This is 100% true. I don't think anyone here has said anything to the contrary. If I lose my temper it is 100% my responsibility that I didn't keep a lid on it. If someone eases me, taunts me, and harrasses me to no end, even using racial slurs that would make my wife blush, and I lose my temper, it is still 100% my fault for losing my temper. But do we think the one taunting me did nothing wrong?

Quick question. Feel free to expound on your answer should you so choose. When an atheist acts upon the light of Christ within them and obeys a commandment of God, is he/she unknowingly exercising faith in Christ?

Agreed. Honestly my reaction at the time (being ms snark and not the most polite) was and inward “well, if I knew the way to my dorm, why would I be asking you for directions? You must be stupid”.

People are sinners. Even desk ladies at BYU. But it is an example of how we need to be careful in how we approach people and doctrine, always putting charity first.

If a young woman in my ward goes to New York’s Central Park at 3 AM in a dress made of $100 bills and gets mugged, do I have to never, ever, say anything to the other 50 youth in my ward about the dangers of dodgy neighborhoods and late hours and flaunting wealth, or about the virtues of keeping a can of mace on one’s person? Of course not. We must warn our youth about the dangers out there, it is our responsibility. Most importantly we must also teach them about showing compassion to those who found themselves in certain situation and became victims. We should never engage or encourage victim-blaming conversations or behaviors (not only because it's damaging to the individual in question) but also because it comes from a reckless believe system that what others experience "can never happen to me". I want to be trauma-informed, but when sensitivity to trauma means we can no longer talk about prevention or utter fundamental truths that are useful—I fear we may be going too far. One thing is prevention, another thing is blaming. There lies the difference. As you know, there are many abused women and men who feel compelled and empowered to talk and warn others about the signs of controlling and abusive relationships. This is very beneficial for the general public but also very therapeutic for these individuals. There is nothing wrong with informing and warning others, it is paramount. We need to prevent rather than cure (my motto) but in the process of doing all of this, we need to ensure that we don't create a bigger problem. In the example I provided, rape has nothing to do with sex or how a person was dressed (and yet most of the comments victims receive are about how they were dressed, what they did for this to happen and why they didn't fight back more).

This is a good discussion. Starting from this statement, I feel like one of the problems I have with modesty discussions is that they so often feel circular to me. As an example, when I graduated from BYU (mid-'90s'ish), when I wandered too far from Provo, I found myself in a restaurant with a male server wearing a pony tail (which was the style at the time). Me, having been at BYU for many years, found the pony tail "distracting". Why? Was there something inherently immodest about men wearing ponytails, or was it because I had been told that men should not wear ponytails? I find myself with the same kind of thinking with other aspects of modesty. Do I find women wearing pants to church immodest because there is something inherently immodest about women wearing pants, or is it because I have been told that women should not wear pants to church? Am I bothered by someone wearing jeans and a t-shirt to church because it is inherently immodest, or because I have been told it is inappropriate? Do I find multiple ear piercings in some people (men or women) distracting because it is "wrong" or because I have been told that God doesn't want women or men to wear multiple piercings? Which isn't to say that there should be no dress and grooming standards anywhere in society. Such standards are perfectly appropriate. The challenge I find when I think of a "full and complete" lesson on modesty is trying to get past these circular arguments to the eternal truth "bedrock" underneath them.

I'm sure you and your English degree are aware that there is a vocal minority of fans of the Bard who say that Romeo and Juliet was supposed to be a comedy (in modern terms) because of how ridiculous the plot actually is. Two teenagers immediately fall in love at first sight. And even though they are completely loyal to their family names, Juliet pronounces within an hour "My greatest love sprung from my greatest hate." In the DiCaprio version, I loved the friar's delivery of the line. "Young men's love lies not in their hearts, but in their... eyes." No, in real life, such a situation would not come out of the blue. It comes from years of disrespecting parental opinion. Really, there was love, affection, devotion, loyalty, and obedience to family and parent. But because our eyes make us fall in love, BOOM, I want only what makes my parents upset, and want to drop him as soon as my parents approve... Hmm... Yeah, that doesn't happen with most of us. My one son whom I call my mini-me is the one who openly says that he tends to not want to do something if I'm encouraging him to do it. And it has been many years coming. But even then, he doesn't change his mind on something because I agree with him. But if he's still in the process of considering...

I've heard of this happening -- usually in jokes. This is the first I've heard of it working in real life. It would not work in my family.

Still, it's better than a 9-0 opinion the other way.

Best news I've heard all day. (Besides Tau day)

I had no idea you were a Tauist.

[Googles] The Christian Feast Day of Blessed Maria Pia Mastena? [Googles harder] Ah - Tau day. Works for me, especially since it's almost here!

That’s really good of you. I know of many who feel the same way about masks that you do who would, sadly, just throw a temper tantrum.

I agree. The conversation of woman and modesty isn’t a point of blame on who is responsible for the inappropriate thoughts. It’s a point of (1) being dignified and (2) bearing one another’s burdens (which is very different from being responsible for one another’s burdens) I do think you would be hard pressed to find anyone today who would blame an immodestly dressed woman for the thoughts of men Around them. It happens, sure, but they are a minority. I may be wrong, but so think most of the Saints have progressed beyond this.

You spoil all my fun. Meanie. For the record, I wouldn't mind being shown to be wrong here. But I'd be happy for the US constitution to be real and last 500 years over the 2.something centuries most strong "world powers" tend to get. Then it's my distant progeny, ten or fifteen generations removed from anyone I'll ever know and love, who have to deal with it. I'd also settle for the millennium to swiftly come, or as @LDSGator puts it "wish for a world destroying flood".

Honestly, the thing I'm looking forward to the most about returning to work, is March 14th, when I get to choose between free key lime, chocolate, strawberry, or pumpkin.

I suppose a lot of it depends on what we all define as 'better'. Is it: 1. Poverty levels dropping, clean water, living standards, access to goods, etc. OR 2. Moral compass, desire to follow God, service to mankind, adherence to the commandments, loving your fellow man, etc. OR Both I believe #1 is better while at the same time believe #2 is unfortunately getting worse, namely here in the USA.

@LDSGator This is my take (my apologies but I didn't read all the replies). Generally speaking, I agree that men are perhaps more "responsive" to visual stimulus than women but I don't believe it should be used as a reason and/or excuse to ask women to dress modesty so men will stop having sexual thoughts. We need to be careful than in our zeal to speak about this very important topic, we don't end up contributing to the objectification of women since as we all know it, modesty goes beyond short skirts and tight pants. In doing the opposite, we are actually throwing the responsibility to be chaste into the shoulders of young women because young men "cannot help themselves". Elder Holland gave a powerful speech about responsibility and he said this: "I’ve heard all my life that it is the young woman who has to assume the responsibility for controlling the limits of intimacy in courtship because a young man cannot. Seldom have I heard any point made on this subject that makes me want to throw up more than that. What kind of man is he, what priesthood or power or strength or self-control does this man have that lets him develop in society, grow to the age of mature accountability, perhaps even pursue a university education and prepare to affect the future of colleagues and kingdoms and the course of this world, but yet does not have the mental capacity or the moral will to say, "I will not do that thing". No, this sorry drugstore psychology would have him say, "I just can't help myself. My glands have complete control over my entire life, my mind, my will, my very future." To say that a young woman in such a relationship has to bear her responsibility and that of his too is the most discriminatory doctrine I have ever heard...." Even though it is not about modesty, the point remains the same. I have no issue whatsoever to ask women to be modest (and of course men too), I think it is very important issue and as a woman myself, I always ensure to look professional and modest in all my meetings. I just don't believe we should ask anybody to do this for the wrong reasons.

True. So I guess the answer is just that because woman are encouraged to wear more immodest clothing. The reason for the lesser attention given to other aspects of modesty is due to how it isn’t as important. I don’t remember ever being taught in class that over eating is breaking the word of wisdom, but we do focus on the points of the law that have a larger affect on us. Its a matter of degree

I grew up being taught that modesty was about woman’s shorts, tank tops, and cleavage. It also includes dressing in appropriate clothing for activities. I once wore skinny jeans and a We Came as Romans shirt to a stake youth choir practice and there were no issues. But if a girl shows up with short shorts or an immodest swimsuit to a youth activity, they weren’t allowed in. The modesty restrictions are applied far more heavily on woman than men. I feel like it is not a controversial statement to say modesty is focused on girls

No. We DO know. Scriptures are replete with such references.

Just out of curiosity. Did anyone happen to express the fact that this statement is, for all but the Savior Himself, 100%, absolutely, totally wrong? I guess the question is, "Good enough for what?" Good enough to be worth the air you breathe? Sure. Good enough for the rest of eternity? Nope.

Just out of curiosity. Did anyone happen to express the fact that this statement is, for all but the Savior Himself, 100%, absolutely, totally wrong?

It was more for my own purposes. I don’t necessarily think one should be done. I just didn’t fully understand the connection between modesty, our dress, and why there was so much hoopla about women and their dress and why I feel nothing else was ever really stressed.

Is there a reason you want a full lesson on modesty taught in church? Church lessons usually serve 3 purposes: teach doctrine, strengthen faith, and change behavior. It was with this understanding that I observed earlier that we don't generally have stand-alone lessons on modesty. We have lessons on chastity (which includes a section on modesty), and we have standards nights (which includes discussions on modesty), and we have lessons on humility (which includes examples of modesty). Modesty is a secondary principle in our teaching. From what I can tell, it is taught in order to encourage some behavior which supports the greater principle. I wonder if it warrants a full lesson.

I do not understand why people share such intimacies with the world. On an anonymous discussion list, I can understand. But to broadcast it as if it were newsworthy? What on earth are people thinking? But this observation probably belongs in the modesty thread.

My question is why can some people look at attractive individuals and not feel any arousal while others look at individuals and it becomes sexual attraction? Why does it become a sexual attraction? Also how is it that some people can be so very happily married to someone who is not physically attractive and produce children with them when sexual attraction is so darned important- like so important that it defines the very labels and identity we give ourselves!? (sarcasm alert) I feel pity for David because if he decides to lay hold onto what little attraction he has for women in order to obtain the family he wants, he will have to fight the world and community that wants him for their own. He’s kind of a meek guy. I’m not sure he’s strong enough for that fight. The cat’s out of the bag and it’s not ever getting back in!!

I do not want to create condemnation but there are things that are scientifically obvious that do not seem to be socially obvious. There has been a great deal of research into behaviors and how different species acquire behaviors. But before I go there I would point out that the scientific definition of intelligence is the ability to learn and alter cognitive behaviors or cognitive responses. It is obvious that one must be cognitive or aware for controllable behavior or response. In the human species there are three physical neurological responses - the sympathetic and the parasympathetic both of these systems are associated to cognitive awareness. Sexual arousal is well defined as a parasympathetic response that can be altered by what is called the lowest cognitive levels of learning. This was proven by the famous Pavlov's dog experiments. The third system is called enteric and has nothing to add to this discussion. The point is that science has demonstrated that parasympathetic responses (including sexual arousal) can be alter and controlled by various learning processes - including the lowest cognitive level of learning. The other point that demonstrates that sexual arousals are not "G-d" given or genetic imbedded responses in the human species is the vast variety or means by which individuals are sexually aroused. At this point I will add my personal conjecture for a reason that sexual attractions may seem unobvious is because - like with Pavlov's dog we may not be aware when and how we are acquiring various parasympathetic responses. This can also accrue with various fears, like fear of spiders, heights, fire or any number of fears. In addition in 1973 the American Psychiatric Association, without what I would consider a viable explanation, defined sexual attractions as a none treatable behavior - despite knowing full well that sexual attractions are parasympathetic. It would seem that in our modern society that many scientist are not very scientific. Something else that we need to understand is that any cognitive behaviors that are directly connected to the release of endorphins present unique problems in learning override behaviors; especially when addictions are involved at any of many levels. The final thought I would add is that of "Agency". As a firm believer in the LDS doctrine of agency - I believe that G-d has given the human species (with the cognitive ability to be "accountable") the power of agency. The primary concern I have for the LBGTQ+ community is a claim that their responses are not within their ability of agency. It is my personal belief that one can lose their agency - I am not sure that the loss of agency is something that can be completed in this life. I could be convinced on way or the other by significant scientific evidence or by revelation that is confirmed to by by the Holy Ghost - that has not happened to my understanding. I remain unconvinced that a railing accusation is NOT the best or primary means to call anyone to repentance -rather from the D&C 121: The Traveler

Agreed. At any rate, the very doctrine of the Fall reminds us that the way we are isn’t necessarily the way we were intended to be.

On a personal note, I certainly wish Archuleta the best. On a broader cultural note: I wonder whether we will ever see the day when men who publicly commit to chastity while maintaining that their attraction to children was God-created and God-approved, can get the same degree of sympathy and support and acceptance as men like Archuleta who publicly commit to chastity while maintaining that their attraction to other men was God-created and God-approved. I rather don’t think we will. Because I think that in our heart of hearts we all know that when someone says “this is how I was created and God doesn’t mind”—they are, consciously or not, laying the foundation to justify a future course of tangible action.

1. I fear you’re again falling into the trap of making “modesty” all about (or even just “mostly” about) sex. Even “For the Strength of Youth” doesn’t do this. It reads, in relevant part, Your body is sacred. Respect it and do not defile it in any way. Through your dress and appearance, you can show that you know how precious your body is. You can show that you are a disciple of Jesus Christ and that you love Him. Prophets of God have continually counseled His children to dress modestly. When you are well groomed and modestly dressed, you invite the companionship of the Spirit and you can be a good influence on others. Your dress and grooming influence the way you and others act. Never lower your standards of dress. Do not use a special occasion as an excuse to be immodest. When you dress immodestly, you send a message that is contrary to your identity as a son or daughter of God. You also send the message that you are using your body to get attention and approval. 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. They should choose appropriately modest apparel when participating in sports. The fashions of the world will change, but the Lord’s standards will not change. Do not disfigure yourself with tattoos or body piercings. Young women, if you desire to have your ears pierced, wear only one pair of earrings. Show respect for the Lord and yourself by dressing appropriately for Church meetings and activities. This is especially important when attending sacrament services. Young men should dress with dignity when officiating in the ordinance of the sacrament. If you are not sure what is appropriate to wear, study the words of the prophets, pray for guidance, and ask your parents or leaders for help. Your dress and appearance now will help you prepare for the time when you will go to the temple to make sacred covenants with God. Ask yourself, “Would I feel comfortable with my appearance if I were in the Lord’s presence?” Now, if modesty is all about making sure others aren’t tempted to lust after us—how does being neat and clean and avoiding extremes in fashion and grooming, keep people from lusting after us? It’s not (primarily) about the sex; it’s about the messages we send to ourselves, to our God, and—yes—to others. 2). I don’t believe I said that issue of masks is objectively trivial. I did acknowledge that one side views the other side’s concerns as trivial (as the parties to any dispute are wont to do). I think I also stated that wearing a mask at church for a couple of hours (like avoiding wearing immodest sundresses in the same venue) is a trivial concession—as, in fact, it is; except for the spiritually sociopathic jack-donkeys who, as I expressed upthread, “are usually making a countercultural power play—a grownup variant of “I don’t wanna, and you can’t make me, and my sheer obnoxiousness makes me smarter and more virtuous than thou art!!!” Or, to phrase the mentality another way— “I’m gonna get mine, and if you don’t like it you can go to Hell. Maybe literally.”

The CHURCH is not a uniform homogenized mass. It made up of thousands of individual whom neither you nor I can control, the only thing we have is an influence... An influence that is best felt by example. If you feel the membership of the church needs to change, your best tactic is to be that change. We judge.. by stewardship, and by asking questions. Poor intent usually becomes pretty clear when you ask someone about it. Just because a dress code is a cultural standard.. does not mean that it is wrong and shouldn't be talked about. We can not transmit cultural or any other standards without communicating it some how.. The gospel standard is to share the light of Christ and not to try to be that Light ourselves. The cultural standard helps us see how our actions might go one way or the other in trying to accomplish the goal of the gosple

The CHURCH is doing it. Look up “modesty” in gospel topics in the gospel library and about 70% of it is talking about dress. I am trying to understand the connection between modesty and why we have this law of Moses approach when it comes to youth dress code. I agree with this. So if this is the case, and modesty when applied to how we dress is about intent, should we stop talking about a dress code completely? How do we judge intent?

Holy fetch, chill out. I’m not suggesting anything. I’m asking questions to more fully understand what others are saying. Is it so difficult for you to see a question that you don’t agree with the premise of? I’m actively studying and pondering this right now and I’m trying to understand. I don’t agree nor think it is about the hemlines. I am trying to understand why the church and its members fixate in hemlines and how it relates to humility. I asked the question above because if modesty is very much cultural, than why do we impose cultural standards in our youth activities? Yesterday I was on a boat tour to go snorkeling. There was a family from what seemed to be Indonesia or some poor Asian country. One of the daughters was wearing a poorly fitted swimsuit and her boob was sticking out. Neither her nor her family seemed to care much. Now, was she (1) being immodest but not guilty of it because she was not aware of it the law? Or (2) was she not immodest because immodesty is a cultural standard? Or perhaps some other answer? Again, I’m not talking about modesty as a whole. I’m acknowledging that the church (this bastion of truth and wisdom whose leaders know more than me) treats modesty almost entirely about woman’s clothing. Had this event been from a young woman from Utah, she would absolutely be immodest. If 1, then there is a gold standard for modesty. If 2, then why do we impose cultural norms as barriers of entry to activities for youth activities and speak it from the pulpit in church and conferences? Is the answer simply to stop teaching modesty as being a dress standard? Or to stop requiring a certain dress in youth activities?

Indeed... I think a more fruitful discussion about dress and appearance would be.... Since no one can control the actions of another (Only influence) So how far do we need to change our behavior before it is considered enough? One of the most common criticism that is given is about how the young women have been taught is that they are responsible for the behavior of the young men.. there are so many problem with this understanding... first being is they literally can't change enough for some people. I mean I am pretty sure we think that full body burkas would be excessive, and yet that would not be enough for some people.

But....but... I need to make sure her bikini is immodest, I swear that’s all I’m doing. 😉

Lol. I’m sheer evil bro. 😈

Well, to be fair, I can see why a Jedi would be nervous about masks. After all, the most dangerous Sith Lords wear them!