Suzie

And is the point of the whole issue isn't it?. What does that mean really??? If she was going to a swim party you might give a thumbs up to the swimsuit she chooses as modest. But then you would not let her wear the swimsuit you found as modest enough to sacrament meeting, because it is suddenly immodest. She wouldn't be wearing a swimsuit to sacrament meeting for the same reason I wouldn't be wearing a cowgirl outfit in front of a judge if I'm called as an expert witness. That means modesty is not, nor can it be about a certain amount of coverage. I agree 100%.

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).

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!

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? I will acknowledge the fact that she just wants to have fun and she thinks it is a pretty cool costume, etc. But then, I will remind her about our lengthy conversations about modesty and touch the topics about self-respect and our bodies being a Temple of God, etc. 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? Nope because she wouldn't be allowed to leave my home dressed immodestly.

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.

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.

@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.

Wishing David all the best in this difficult journey ahead. https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/12/entertainment/david-archuleta-american-idol-lgbtqia-trnd/index.html https://deadline.com/2021/06/david-archuleta-says-he-is-part-of-lgbtqia-plus-community-talks-crisis-of-faith-1234774238/

Of course we see a lot of commotion in society in general but I was wondering if anyone else has seen a change in people over the last year? Indeed. I can only describe the present moment as very unhealthy and concerning. I observe a significant increase in depression, anxiety, intermittent explosive disorder (IED), substance abuse and the list goes on...

For those who have left deep scars or are toxic/dangerous/harmful, it's important to understand what 'honor' means, and doesn't mean. It doesn't mean you agree with them, or stick up for them in public, or turn yourself into a doormat or a victim. It means you take an interest in their wellbeing, and if they lack for the necessities of life, you help. Even if that means helping them into some sort of state run facility or something. I think generally speaking, I understand (not necessarily agree fully). I listen to women and men well into their 40's and 50's who have been severely abused by their parents. Don't wish to put details out here but the most horrific abuse you can imagine. One of them was rescued by the authorities after spending most of his life in a situation that could be described as "hell". He will probably need professional help for the rest of his life. Does he need to take an interest in the well-being of his torturers and provide the necessities of life if they are in need?

Generally speaking, I wonder if this issue stems from lack of communication? I wonder if husbands share with their wives the struggles they face at work? I worked most of my adult life but there was a period of time when I was a housewife and for me, it was way harder than going out and work. It is extremely demanding and not for the faint of heart. Should I mention it can cause isolation to a certain extent? Those who work outside the home, get the chance to talk with other adults, take a little break, have a laugh or two, etc but a lot of moms or stay-home dads don't have that chance. Most of the time, they're seeing about colicky babies, picking up cheerios, cleaning, cooking and the list goes on, their job isn't 8 to 5 but literally from the moment they open their eyes until their kiddies go to bed. Now, this is not to say that there is something wrong with being a housewife or a househusband but I can definitely see why the person staying at home could feel their spouse who is working outside seems to be having "fun" even though they're just working as hard. This is usually a warning sign that the person really needs a break otherwise it might lead to depression (if they aren't already experiencing it).

Just_A_Girl is a stay-at-home mom but has a set of symptoms that roughly matches fibromyalgia (though she insists it must be something else, frankly because fibromyalgia has no known cure and she hasn’t given up on recovering yet). Sorry to hear this JAG, I can imagine she's in a lot of pain. I don't want to pry but did she get a diagnosis? May I suggest yoga? (with a few changes, it can help a lot) and low-impact exercises. Otherwise—I (or increasingly, our kids) do most of the grocery shopping, most of the dinners, almost all of the dishes, all of the laundry and bathroom cleaning and vacuuming and garbage-emptying and lawn maintenance and pruning and sprinkler repair, as well as miscellaneous stuff like car maintenance and keeping our family’s 8 bicycles in working order. Certain chores that were done routinely in my house as a kid (daily bed-making, weekly surface-dusting, biweekly oiling the wood furniture and cabinetry) just don’t get done, because no one has the energy to do them. I respected you before and I respect you even more now. Sending all my love and good wishes for your entire family.

I would love to know what "honoring" exactly means for most posters (if you guys would like to share).

I my wife is under the impression that my time at work is spent hanging out, eating burgers, and playing video games. So when I come home, I’m order to make up for all the time I was partying, I do everything. The question is: Are you at work eating burgers and playing video games? lol (j/k)

We share duties. Some of them get done more often by one of us then by the other. It is great to share duties and of course, involve the children as well. Is there a chore you dislike to do?

Carborendum, I see. Hope my answer clarified your assumption.

I'm one of them. Same here! I love "to do" lists for everything.

Husband gets a fairly classic "Honey do" list of household chores because he struggles to pitch in without instuction, but he's pretty good about remembering to do the big seasonal tasks like the swamp cooler and the heater and fix old doors and stuff. And that's okay too, some people just need "to do" lists. 

It seems pretty sad that your husband can't cook. lol Where did I say he can't cook? We have different schedules and I love cooking and baking so this is why I'm the one cooking the most. Having said that, he is an excellent cook. It's odd that you put yourself forth as a liberated woman and you hold to the stereotype that only the woman can cook a homemade meal. I almost find that... insulting. Um..What? I didn't know I put myself as a "liberated woman and I hold the stereotype that only the woman can cook a homemade meal", you need to chill a bit and try to relax a bit. Hope you are just kidding because otherwise I will be the one that find this part of your post very odd.

Amateur historian Meg Stout has suggested — and although I disagree with her on some things, I think she’s onto something here — that what was actually being offered to Jane was a polygamous sealing; though between the loose terminology Joseph and Emma used and Jane’s own ignorance of the concept at the time, she may well have not fully understood. IIRC, Stout points out that the Smiths weren’t offering adoptive sealings to anyone else—male or female—at this point in time; Jane was unmarried and likely a victim of previous sexual exploitation (as Stout alleges some of his other plural wives were, thus setting up a sort of protective relationship between Smith and these wives in the future); and a polygamous sealing between Joseph and Jane would have established a pattern of racial egalitarianism much more than an adoptive sealing would have. Interesting. Taking into account Jane's own words, she described the Prophet (and Emma) treating her as a "child", as part of their family. I think this is the reason why she was confused, perhaps even wondering if it is possible at all for a an adult woman to be "adopted". I have been working and researching with little success who could be the earliest LDS black woman to convert to the LDS Church. Let's see how it ends.

It's Friday so I thought in creating a few "light" threads to talk a bit (and depending on your answers, have a laugh or two). 😉 Let's talk about household chores! For the men: How do you help around the house daily? (if you're doing something once a month/year doesn't count lol). For the ladies: How does your husband help? I'll start: We both work so we share the chores. I do the cooking because we all love homemade meals, he does the grocery shopping on occasion and helps with our never-ending laundry.

Even if they do immediately accept—getting someone to actually do the work is another matter. Having declined the opportunity for a temple sealing with Joseph Smith during his lifetime, Jane Manning James waited the rest of her life—over sixty years—for another shot at a temple sealing; and much ink has been spilt amongst the LDS intelligentsia about how agonizing the experience must have been for her. One of the most heartbreaking parts of her story is that she truly didn't understand what it meant to be "adopted" as a "child". Perhaps, Emma assumed that Jane understood what it meant but as Jane said "I didn't know my own mind. I didn't comprehend."

Things... are just so complicated and I don’t see the benefit in that. I’d rather figure out how to best be loving and truthful in the individual circumstances I come a across. That's the best we can do, thank you @Jane_Doe for sharing from your personal experience.