carlimac

I have mixed feelings about this topic. Growing up, I didn't listen to secular music, because my church told me that rock and roll was full of satanic messaging. Funny how nobody bemoaned the drunkenness and adultery/fornication that is so prominent in Country/Western. Then there were the boycotts of the 1980s of shows and material that were not "family friendly." We eventually grew out of that stage, and now the liberals suddenly think it's a good approach--boycotting Chick Fil-A, Walmart, etc.
The anti-Christian, pro-immorality messaging is just so prolific. I suspect the strongest answer--at least if we are to be "in the world but not of it" is to have our answers ready. Our children need to know why we "love the sinner and hate the sin." They need to know why we don't drink, smoke, gamble or chew, and why we choose to remain chaste unto marriage, and why we do not approve of men lying with men and women lying with women. They need to know why we insist that God created us male and female, and we need to honor that, regardless of any sense we have of gender dysphoria.
Sheltering only goes so far. If we push beyond, might our children not think we were hiding the truth from them? I'm done with boycotting, but I get the desire not to provide unnecessary exposure to immorality.

Thanks for your response! 
A girl once told me that she specifically dresses modest to help men bridal their sexual passions. And I was pretty impressed by that. Choosing to dress modestly to help the 19 year old boy who is trying to be more like Jesus, and to keep His commandments, and to keep his thoughts pure in Babylon--is a beautiful thing. It shows the love of a sister toward a brother and it shows how far a women is willing to go outside the norm of giving charity.

I will raise the bar and join you two in my birthday suit and then we will truly see who is uncomfortable! (Probably me)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The article and this thread reminds me of this Conan episode (who holds responsibility here?):
 
 

I'd say that there's a point where someone aroused by reasonably modest clothing should take responsibility. Speak candidly to those close to them. Limit their venturing into society. Seek counsel and therapy.

I hated the modesty lessons growing up.   No one should be taught that they are responsible for someone else's thoughts.  I would wear a tighter shirt or dress the next week after the modesty lessons.  It's  not my job to keep the boy's thoughts  clean. It's theirs.

So much “woke” feminist garbage in this article.
The progressive woman have become a huge thorn in teaching doctrine now-a-days due to the feminist movement. Just like testifying of the roll of men and woman in the home and the innate value of a baby fetus, Talking about the truth of modesty is social suicide. 
But here I go cause there is no society I am worried about here.
claim 1: women were taught not to wear scandalous attire so men wouldn’t be tempted.
Yes young women were taught this. As found in the gospel topics section on churchofjesuschrist.org:
”Central to the command to be modest is an understanding of the sacred power of procreation, the ability to bring children into the world. This power is to be used only between husband and wife. Revealing and sexually suggestive clothing, which includes short shorts and skirts, tight clothing, and shirts that do not cover the stomach, can stimulate desires and actions that violate the Lord’s law of chastity.”
 clearly there is a problem here. Clearly immodesty can lead to temptation and I don’t know anyone that would argue that. 
Lindsey’s (the author) approach to this is an “every man/woman” for his/herself approach. As long as what she is doing is not affecting her, than everything is ok. It is so frustratingly un-Christlike and has only fed to the raging feminist fire that has spread into our church.
Yes. ONE reason to dress modestly is so not to arouse sexual feelings in others. Men should do the same. If I find out that something I am doing or wearing causes lustful feelings in women or homosexual men, the I better stop right away. I know what it is like to struggle with thoughts and I don’t want to be the source of any one else’s evil thoughts. 
That is the Christlike way.
 
claim 2: modesty is a woman’s issue
No one is teaching this, it’s just a harder thing to do if you are a woman. I definitely had modesty lessons, but it was more about appearing clean and acting appropriately.
This is another feminist situation where because it is more difficult for woman, they see it as oppressive and evil. 
Claim 3: we can tell people what to wear
This is just an extension of claim 1 and 2
I can agree with her at point here. If the story she tells about her “pink” shirt is true, I wouldn’t have worried to much about it. But If I wore a Trojan shirt, that would definitely be considered immodest and I would not wear it. It’s different levels of the same principle. If you are worried someone might look at your t-shirt with a Victoria secret logo and feel aroused, dont wear it.
claim 4: priesthood leaders are attracted to young woman 
This whole section she has is completely idiotic. She tells the story of when she was at girls camp and the young woman leaders forced the young woman To dress modestly for when the bishopric comes and speaks.
In the mornings and evenings, my wife does not wear a bra under her shirt. However, If we have guests coming over she goes and puts one on so her nipples are poking through her shirt. Additionally, I have a pair of shorts that are short, tight, and “revealing”. I like wearing them to bed, but if I’m having company over in the morning or evening, I’m going to change out of them, especially if one of them coming over is female.
Other nonsensical statements 
1. “If a claim cannot be supported by scripture, or perhaps a recent general conference talk: don’t teach it.“
 The irony here is so thick I can’t even cut it with my metaphorical lightsaber. She says this in her explanation of a quote from a 70 from 1974. Additionally, giving prophetic direction an expiration date is what leads to apostasy.
2. “The claim that women have stewardship over another man’s thoughts is nowhere to be found in the scriptures. In Elder Jeffrey R. Holland’s talk To Young Women, there was no mention of young men depending on the women to keep them clean.”
Jeffery R Holland also taught “although I am not my brother’s keeper, I am my brothers brother”. Stop making this mortal life a free-for-all. 
When I’m with my friends, we make fun of each other and laugh at our mistakes together. But If one of my friends struggles with depression, I’m going to be more careful about the things I say.

I guess Fridays are good days to put words under microscopes.
"Be honest".  If I can be honest as I stand there quietly, not making any particular eye contact with anybody, with neutral body language not meant to say much of anything, communicating nothing to anybody, then I agree.  Sometimes shutting up is best.  Not all the time, but sometimes.
So if the admonition to "always be honest" means that there are zero cases where I should shut up, that I must always actively advocate for something from a position of honesty, then I must decline to adopt that phrase into my big pile of good life quotes.
For whatever reason, the older I get, the more situations I find myself in that seem best handled by just standing there with a dumb look on my face. 

To me there is a difference between being right and choosing the right.  I've found that sometimes when people talk about "being right" they mean that they want others to know or acknowledge that they are right.  Personally, I think sometimes winning an argument is not as important as keeping a relationship.  

She said she was so anxious, she had to get out of church, then sat at home organizing gummy bears and listening to the same Beatles song on loop for two hours — something was obviously very, very wrong. Please do not condemn her for not being in church when something was obviously going very wrong in her brain.

Have you read “Like a Broken Vessel”? Not everyone has clinical anxiety and depression, but some — like Elisha — actually have chemical imbalances that cannot just be fixed by sheer willpower. And anxiety IS classified as a disorder, especially depending on what type of anxiety you have — there are panic disorders, generalized anxiety disorders, etc. 
Also, Elisha is a beautiful, wonderful person, and it makes me sad that instead of sympathizing with the struggles she faces and applauding her for turning to God in her moments of darkness, people want to focus on how her struggles with anxiety may stem from her own poor choices regarding what music she listens to or television she watches. 
Of course what we watch, listen to, and allow into our homes and lives affects us — but I think the things the author mentions aren’t worthy of the condemnation people on this post have issued and I think it’s a huge stretch to say that they are the root of her anxiety.

Elisha, the primary author of this post, talks about struggling with anxiety since she was a very, very little girl — during a time when she probably watched "Mr. Roger's Neighborhood" rather than "Breakfast at Tiffany's," when "The Good Place" wasn't out, and when her music choices probably consisted mainly of primary songs. I don't think her lack of morality — or associating with people or things that are morally repugnant — was an issue at that point. She also talks about experiencing deep, debilitating anxiety on her mission, a time when you're completely separated from "Babylon." 
Similarly, she said nothing about the Church needing to reorient itself; instead, she focused on how Heavenly Father has helped her through her trials. 
Anxiety is a real, genuine brain disorder that needs to be treated through therapy and sometimes medicine — rather than pointing the finger at all the things you think she's doing wrong by associating herself with "bad" things, perhaps we could consider that she has a real, psychological problem that needs addressing and that simply changing what she watches on the television isn't going to fix the problem.

Well, some brain things are like losing a leg (or being born without one), and other brain things are like breaking a bone and healing.   Figuring out which one is at play may be easy, or it may involve guesswork.
A shrink specializing in mood disorders I knew back in the '90's, once shared with me a little about what private practice was like.   He said he had two main types of clients.  One type needed help "leveling the playing field", so they could get their misfiring brain to work enough like everyone else's, so the odds of just being a human on planet earth weren't stacked against them.  The other type would come in and complain about being sunburned, and he'd treat the sunburn and work with them to develop plans to stay out of the dang sun so they wouldn't get sunburned so often.
 

Okay - I will make a confession.  In my youth it thought it my responsibility to convince my teachers to resign.  Not so long ago talking to my brother (a genius with a photographic memory) he thought the same himself - likely I got it from him.  This carried over into college.  Especially when the professor had written his own text that was required for the class and costs more than other text books covering the curriculum.  I spend far too much time finding any mistakes and bring up the mistakes in class with the intent of embarrassing the professor.  
Some years ago, my wife and I were asked to take over a primary class that had gone through 3 teachers in 4 months.  In about 3 seconds in the class I knew exactly what the problem was.  It was a kid just like me.  Although we are no longer in the same ward we are in the same stake.  We enjoy catching up at every stake conference.  The last time I talked to my young friend he told me of his mission call.
Sometimes (not always) kids that cause problems just want to be heard and recognized - sometimes for valid reasons and they have worthwhile things to be considered.  Sometimes (as a disciple of Christ) we need to listen to our students (subordinates and lessor Saints) and not always have an agenda to teach.  My wife is the best at listening - I am still learning and fully emphasize with milkbone.   I believe this is idea to listen and apply is the main message of Moroni chapter 10.
 
The Traveler

If I were there in the class directly, I would have said something, not from  a "you're wrong!" standpoint, but from a sharing a perspective.  
Honestly, I don't think the teacher's viewpoint was literally "if you died unhappy, you're forever unhappy".   Having you say something would have been a great opportunity for class discussion and him to clarify his actual thoughts (which were probably not what was being communicated).  
As to what to do now... if this is really getting to you, perhaps talking with him in person could be a way to do things.  Or perhaps this goes down as a "better way of handling things next time" lesson for you.

I would guess that more than a few people would have been grateful if you had asked the question in the class after he said it.  

I won’t go into detail of the doctrine cause I just don’t want to, but to me, the teacher’s interpretation and explanation was grossly  over simplified and missed a greater explanation that could lead to repentance. I would probably be incredibly annoyed by the ignorance of the comment had I been there.
As far as correcting our teachers and leaders. I don’t know about you, but I am a member of the the Church of Jesus Christ, not the church of *insert leader name*. If anyone teaches false doctrine, it is our duty to correct it. Now of course respect is needed and there is multiple tactful ways of going about it. I would not want to do it out of spite, anger or frustration. Otherwise I too would be caught in sin.
But yes... if my stake president teaches false doctrine and I can say something and pull up a direct reference from a direct church source, I will. And I will do it both unapologetically and respectfully.

I will take the less popular opinion here and say that you should speak to him.  But what you are offering is not a correction, and her certainly wasn't teaching any false doctrine. What his statements needs is a brief statement of nuance.
I have used that same scripture to make the same exact point. However, I always add the caveat, "barring cases of mental health and/or depression, those who find themselves happy in this life are likely to find themselves happy in the next."
The important part is to focus on the behavior of doing our best to live the gospel and repent--doing so brings lasting joy through eternity.
While I have no doubt that your stake presiden(t/cy person thing) would agree, I believe that words are important. Especially when they can affect some of our most vulnerable saints.  Adding that one simple caveat is, I feel, a reasonable protection to keep those with mental health struggles from further despair.

The church does not recognize homosexual marriage.  The Family: A proclamation to the world is pretty straightforward.
Thus any sexual relationship outside of a legal and lawful marriage is considered either fornication or adultery.
 
For example, in my mission, a few years before I arrived a foursome of missionaries paired off after marring each other.   Yes the crazy Elders convinced themselves that that had the authority to perform the marriage ceremony as they were branch presidents.  They convinced the sister missionaries and consummated their unions.  They were all excommunicated as their ‘marriages’ were neither legal nor lawful in the eyes of the Church.
Homosexual marriage although considered legal by some governments does not trump the justice and government of God. 

Pardon the intrusion, but your comment (as well as others on the idea of a "satisfactory" or "satisfying" answer when petitioning G-d is deeply fascinating to me.  Do you think it is possible that G-d gives ambiguous answers to those who inquire even after deeply important matters?
In reading the New Testament (Acts 15), there was a time that the Apostles seemed to receive an answer from G-d that was not clear or distinct but rather it "seemed good."
The occasion was in considering whether Gentiles (non-Jews) could, in fact, follow a Jewish Messiah (Jesus), and, if that was a possibility, what would that look like in practice.  I find their response after "much disputing" very interesting:
Notice the bold/italic portions above.  My question to all of you as believers in Jesus and the Holy Ghost, do you believe that G-d will be, at times, deliberately ambiguous about important matters in order for men to make their own decisions?
Not sure if I'm making any sense, but there you have it.  Be well, my friends.
 

Wow that sounds like an unpleasant and fruitless exercise. No thanks. 

I'm obviously not mikbone but wanted to respond to this question. We've been told by many leaders of the Church that going beyond the mark isn't necessary. Just search the term "going beyond the mark" or "looking beyond the mark" for the pages and pages of references on LDS.org.   Another way to look at it is that "going beyond the mark" for some may be way more than they can handle, whereas someone else can keep their sanity and bodily health in check by not doing so. I have a dear friend who has a picture of Christ or a temple or a scripture plaque in EVERY SINGLE room of her house. For me, that would be going way beyond what is necessary or helpful. For her, it's what she likes and needs- apparently to remember Christ and to help her family. This friend has been known to live life in high gear with a zillion things going on at once. When I first met her she was extremely strict with computer use with her children. Over the years she's lightened up a bit. But she herself makes sure everyone knows she doesn't use social media and has dim views of it...just shy of acting as though it's against the commandments. For her, personally,  maybe it is.
So what YOU may think is the bare minimum of what is required may be someones very best effort- all they can muster. And I believe that's acceptable to the Lord.  For someone else, it may not be enough and the Lord will ask why talents weren't expanded and resources used to do more? I fear the admonition to "magnify our callings" meant that some would go overboard and that it would be used as a measuring stick to beat upon those for whom doing the minimum feels just right. 

I'm obviously not mikbone but wanted to respond to this question. We've been told by many leaders of the Church that going beyond the mark isn't necessary. Just search the term "going beyond the mark" or "looking beyond the mark" for the pages and pages of references on LDS.org.   Another way to look at it is that "going beyond the mark" for some may be way more than they can handle, whereas someone else can keep their sanity and bodily health in check by not doing so. I have a dear friend who has a picture of Christ or a temple or a scripture plaque in EVERY SINGLE room of her house. For me, that would be going way beyond what is necessary or helpful. For her, it's what she likes and needs- apparently to remember Christ and to help her family. This friend has been known to live life in high gear with a zillion things going on at once. When I first met her she was extremely strict with computer use with her children. Over the years she's lightened up a bit. But she herself makes sure everyone knows she doesn't use social media and has dim views of it...just shy of acting as though it's against the commandments. For her, personally,  maybe it is.
So what YOU may think is the bare minimum of what is required may be someones very best effort- all they can muster. And I believe that's acceptable to the Lord.  For someone else, it may not be enough and the Lord will ask why talents weren't expanded and resources used to do more? I fear the admonition to "magnify our callings" meant that some would go overboard and that it would be used as a measuring stick to beat upon those for whom doing the minimum feels just right. 

I think you have a fair point. I was thinking of government help and intervention, of course single mothers need help right now. I don't know exactly what the perfect answer is, although I do know there are thousands of private groups that make themselves available to help women in a difficult situation. While abortion must stop, I'd be happy to launch some studies to see what the most effective way of helping women in pregnancy crises would be and acting according to that data. 

But the government has taken away a person's agency to kill another human being, no matter how annoying or inconvenient it is to live with or near that person.  There are lots of things we can't use our agency on, without serious repercussions. Like jail or being put to death ourselves.  I guess what counts is how much value you put on the life of a baby before it's born. 

The church is very pro life. There are numerous talks that focus on the sacredness of human life and the evils of abortion, many of them by President Nelson. I agree with you and also applaud the Alabama legislature, although I hope there is an exception for ectopic pregnancies which are impossible to save. Hopefully between Ohio, Georgia, and Alabama we can finally challenge and overturn the most disgusting Supreme Court decision since Plessy V. Ferguson, Roe V. Wade. Most abortions are of convenience. I've seen studies that anywhere between 85 to 95 percent of them are strictly because said person doesn't want the inconvenience of another baby (it'll hurt their career, they aren't ready, they have too many already etc). Those should be outlawed, and it breaks my heart to think of how many babies have been killed on the altar of convenience.
However, I do not believe the church should change it's policy, because it's direction is set by the Lord. He will change or keep the policy as he sees fit, and he knows far better than we what direction to take on this matter. I've read often enough other talks wherein they explain that even the exceptions should only be considered after prayer and consultation with the Lord and priesthood leaders (sorry I'd post examples but I'm off to work in a minute, a quick google search out to bring them up).