Janice

Jehovah's Witness: I know of no other Christian religion (maybe not even ours) that asks so much of their members. And all of them that I know willingly give it.

That's unfortunate. I did not read any of the threads on prop 8, but I thank you for bringing this to my attention.

That goes on at FMH, no doubt. But I'm able to look past it I think because everyone is at least polite. The reason I enjoy that site immensely is because the bloggers and the audience seems to understand that LDS Culture and LDS Gospel are not the same thing. For me, and this is ONLY my humble little opinion, one of the biggest... um.... (looking for the right word....) "indicators" of someone who can't separate LDS Culture from LDS Gospel is the belief that every word spoken by every church leader is pure commandment as if it came from Christ Himself, and should be adhered to as if it was canonized scripture. I've made some people pretty riled up and received some "please repent" personal messages when I've stated, more or less, that teachings from GA's are good guidelines and that we should live our lives based on those guidelines plus our own well thought out, inspiration based decisions. Some of the "decisions" my husband and I have arrived at make some members of this forum very, very nervous. On other LDS blog sites, however, my ideas have been accepted with a much greater degree of ... (again, looking for the right word...) tolerance. I guess that, plus the recent "pants" thread was the basis of my original post. :) Janice

Hmm. Interesting. I had not thought of it that way before. I don't think I agree with you, but if you care to expound, I promise to listen with an open mind.... I'd like to understand your point.

"Well, isn't that special!" -- Church Lady (I have no idea why your comment made me think of her)

Ram, typical blogs on the two sites I mentioned range from 50 to 300 comments. These are not your average mostly-ignored-little-one-person-blog-sites that nobody reads. Mormon Matters especially is a pillar of the blogernacle. It's well read and receives a considerably healthy dose of comments on just about every post.

I've got no problem with "not what I understand". In fact I think that's what a good conversation is all about. "I had not thought of it that way before, but that's not how I understand it." I do have a problem with "your spiritual progression is in jeopardy if you don't agree with me." (Being careful with this next comment -->) It seems to me that when one person questions the spiritual progression of someone else... when one person suggests that someone else's conclusion on a Church / Gospel matter is something less then inspired or goes against church teachings and is therefor flawed... well, I guess I'm not comfortable with that. And in in my limited observation, this kind of thing happens much more on this forum them other LDS web sites. Well said.

Sure, SmartBlue, I agree with everything you said, but in my OP I was not referring at all to personal attacks. That's another matter all together. What I'm wondering about is why we can't have a discussion on fringe Church topics (ie: pants) w/o someone inevitably saying, effectively, "My opinion is the only opinion, and if you disagree with me, you are wrong." I don't see this as a personal attack. I see it as having a closed mind, as an inability or unwillingness to consider the possibility that there is more then one way, more then "my" way, to think about the topic at hand, and that when someone else sees an issue differently, it does not mean they are wrong, it just means they are different. I feel sometimes that Mormon culture celebrates homogeneity and discourages individuality, and that maybe that attitude is portrayed on this forum when we are unwilling to embrace different points of view, and when we instead tell people, for example, "If you would just read this quote from a GA, you will clearly see that you are wrong." Am I being unfair?

#8 made me laugh! #2 Education... err, maybe? But I'm not willing to say, "Ya'll are a buncha unedumacated hicks!" I know, this is not what you are saying, but still.... .. thing is, I don't think I've seen any personal insults on this forum. But I have seen people become riled up when someone views the Gospel or the Church or Church culture differently then they do. The term "ethnocentric" comes to mind. "The way I view the world is the right way to view the world, and if you see it differently, then you are wrong, and not only that, but it's my duty to prove that you are wrong." #4: Politically I am VERY conservative, but when it comes to church culture, I am, as some friends have told me, off-the-rocker liberal. So what does that make me? (potential answer: confused) Anyway, all good points. My pondering continues. Janice

I'm still thinking Josh was joking with his OP.

This is a joke? Right? HA HA?

I think this sums up my feelings nicely. Prevailing theme in many of the comments on this forum: "Your spiritual progression is in jeopardy if you don't see the Church and the Gospel exactly as I do. " Prevailing theme in many of the comments on other LDS web sites: "Interesting perspective. I don't agree with you, but thank you for helping me see the issue from a new angle." I'm, speaking in generalities, of course. Many exceptions exist on both sides.

Oh come now, it takes a heckuvalot more then that to get me riled up. As an adult with ADHD I've learned to manage it and compensate for it, but yes, I do tend to talk first and think second. When in a group setting, I often compensate by not saying anything at all. And back to the subject at hand... Maybe the amount of "spirit" we see here is a combination of both the people and the format.

Ha ha! I'm a Mormon with ADHD. Look out!

True. And that may very well play a part. Yet the discussions I see on those sites are no less limited then here. But here, at least, there is a bit more sense of community... we have avatars, profiles, etc. There, when you comment, you can post your name but there are no "accounts", so maybe here the sense of ownership is greater, and thus we all invest more emotion? (I'm thinking out loud.) This is actually not the case. MormonMatters makes a point of NOT filtering or editing posts. What is said stands, and what is said appears instantly (no approval process). And yet rudeness, sarcasm, and troll-like comments are virtually non-existent. Good point. I'd have to say that I don't always agree with the bloggers on that site, nor with some of the comments, but by and large, yes, the general audience is more on the... well... "liberal" side of Mormonism. Hmmm. Choosing my words VERY carefully here... "Immature" is a term that has come to mind during a couple of discussions on this forum. But please, let me explain before I cause hurt feelings. It strikes me that by and large, the people on this forum are very mature people, but that sometimes maybe that maturity is set aside when discussing topics that are very close, personal, and maybe emotional. (Religion is a VERY emotional subject.) We recently had a conversation here about the terms "debate" and "discussion" and "argument" (can't recall the thread, and don't feel like finding it.) It seems to me that maybe some members on this forum may have a hard time having a ______ (pick your favorite word: debate, discussion, etc) on topics about which they have strong feelings without letting it become personal. I don't see that as much on the other sites, and I'm curious if it's the people, or the format. So far the comments here seem to lean towards it being the format? I'm on the fence. Janice

And yet humans exist on this site and the others.

For the most part you are right on, but not in the case of these two sites. They are "blogs" only in the sense that a limited number of people can start conversations, but they absolutely invite and encourage feedback. Most of the initial posts end in "What do you think?" Both of these sites are geared towards public and open discussion. Some of the topics they bring up I don't care about, others I love. (I'm not going to mention any actual topics for fear of this thread focusing on that topic). But suffice it to say that these sites exist to spark conversation, and they do a very, very good job.

I really, really want to ask this question without coming across as judgmental or holier-then-thou, but I fear ahead of time that I won't be able to pull it off. If (when?) I offend anyone with this post, please please forgive me. I spent a lot of time at Mormon Matters and Feminist Mormon Housewives. They are blog sites and the most us lay people can do is comment... you can't start a thread unless you are one of the official bloggers. For that reason, I prefer this site... I can start conversations. But that being said, there is another reason why I prefer those sites over this. At both, they tackle some pretty heavy issues that could be spectacularly controversial, and yet it is rare to non existent to see people become upset and contentious with each other, and I don't recall anyone ever casting fingers of blame for being judgmental, which seems to happen often here. We can't even discuss *pants* without people getting upset. (I am not excluding myself, by the way.) I am an untrained people watcher, meaning I have no formal education in "human behavior" (if such a study exists... would it be called sociology?), but I am fascinated by it none the less. I am currently pondering, why, on this site, we can't discuss pants vs skirts without becoming contentious, but on other sites *real* issues are discussed in depth w/o a moderator ever shutting down the conversation because it's causing hurt feelings. Any ideas? Again... I do NOT want to blame anyone, be judgmental, be critical, or anything like unto it. I've just made an observation and would like some input. Janice

I have an opinion question for everyone... What do you think of being asked if you would like a blessing? Reason why I ask... my mother is constantly volunteering my father to give people blessings. Just about every time someone suggests a little bit of a trial or struggle, she says, "Have you asked for a blessing? Fred! Come here! This person would like a blessing!" (Fred being my father.) Every time she does this I cringe. When she does it to me I downright bristle. It's not that I don't like blessings or don't believe in them. I do! It's just that if I want a blessing I will ASK for one. And I don't think I would ever yank my hubby out of a crowd and pronounce, "Sister so-and-so would like a blessing" when sister so-and-so never said any such thing. I can tell I'm not alone in this. I'd say most of the time she does this, it's not just me who cringes, but my father and the person upon whom she's imposing a blessing. I know in the past it has caused some over-sensitive types to take offense. Am I being over sensitive? Should I say something? What would you do? Do you known others who are blessing solicitors? Do you feel it's appropriate? Inappropriate? Curious to hear your thoughts. Janice

And so long as both sides are taught, then we are all happy! My concern is that too often we only teach the clothing side, which presents a lopsided understanding of modesty. Janice

Pam, I offer my sincere apology. Honestly. I was trying to make a point, and I did so at the expense of your feelings. That was rude of me. I knew you were not trying to say you judge people on their clothing. It's a sad aspect of humanity that we do, so to speak, judge books by their cover, or people by their clothing. I wish it was not so. I wish we could all look past what people wear and see into their hearts. I really, honestly do feel that in general we over-focus on clothing when we teach modesty, and it concerns me. Can't we cast an equally bright light on all the other aspects of modesty without diminishing the importance of modest clothing? When we over-focus on clothing, we only exacerbate the problem of seeing the clothing and not the person. I feel if we could spend more time on the other principles of modesty, then we would be less apt to judge the book by it's cover, or the person by the clothing. Janice

I missed something when reading this exchange the first time through: I'm really glad he said "Girls should try always to enhance their natural beauty and femininity". Sometimes I feel our girls are being told, in the name of modesty, to HIDE their natural beauty and femininity so as to keep boys from having impure thoughts. I'm NOT saying girls should flaunt their natural beauty and femininity with bikinis and too-tight clothing, etc. I'm only saying that we don't need to hide under a burka to be modest. "They should dress appropriately for any occasion." -- That really is a good sum of modest attire. Asking a girl to wear a dress while playing kickball so she can remain modest is silly. Of course, she does not need to wear uber-short cut off's with a tank top either. Janice

An Olive Branch: LDS.org - Friend Article - Friend to Friend I find this exchange fascinating. 1) Note the date.... 1971. It seems strange to us today that any parent would insist that their daughter wear a dress to school. These parents did so using modesty as their reasoning, and backing up their belief with "It's what the First Presidency would want you to do." To the ever lasting credit of this wise 10 year old, she opted to find her own answer. 2) President Tanner manages to tell the Valarie that it's okay to wear pants at school without saying "your parents are wrong." He validates both the parents love for their daughter and the church's stance on modest dress, and tells her to honor her parents. 3) In the paragraph that begins "Modesty in dress is a quality..." President Tanner promotes both of the points of view that have been expressed in this thread: 1) Outward modesty is a reflection of who we are on the inside. 2) Teach and talk about dress, grooming, and personal appearance. 4) I am glad that me makes the point: "Modesty in dress is a quality of mind and heart... Modesty reflects an attitude of humility, decency, and propriety.". THIS is exactly the point I have been so inefficiently trying to make on this thread. He did not offer any rules on when you must wear a dress. He did not tell Valarie how long her dress, hemline, neck, or sleeves should be. He basically said: Respect yourself. Respect others. Be humble. Be decent. Be proper. With these principles in mind, discuss dress, and discuss grooming, and discuss personal appearance. Then, respect your parents, use your free agency, and do the right thing. Perfect! Janice

I do! I do! I do!

Ok, you edited your post while I was responding. :) Thank you, but once again, you have not understood what I am trying to say. My point: Accept the person first. Teach the person modesty in being first and foremost. Being is different then behavior. Our outward behavior is the result of who we are on the inside. What I am trying to do, Apple, is make modesty an INNER principle, not an OUTWARD principle. The "outside" is a reflection of the "inside". If the reflection is bad, don't fix the mirror, fix the person. If the reflection is good, so is the person. Christ works from the inside out. He changes people's hearts and minds and desires. When that transformation takes place, the outward manifestation naturally follows. When we begin teaching modesty with clothing, we are doing it the wrong way (in my opinion). Modest clothing is important, but it's not where lessons on modesty should begin. Janice