mordorbund

I haven't followed the bloggernacle for a while. Has anyone opined that this is President Nelson's way of striking back yet again at former President Uchtdorf for classifying the women's session as part of General Conference?

If you want to go literary you could call it the synecdoche fallacy - using a part to represent the whole.

More than that <gulp>.

It's the keyhole fallacy. That's where you latch onto one argument or statement in isolation. You might not have heard of it because I just coined it.

That makes it sound like there's some portion of modesty that's part of an eternal principle. I can see where that may be the case when it is grounded in humility, but I think what's really happening at the point you describe is that Church leaders are carving out a sub-culture. This lines up with the Word of Wisdom comparisons you've made. The dietary restrictions of each dispensation came about as a response to the diet of the larger culture. In Moses dispensation, the dietary code was spelled out as part of the Law of Holiness - summarized as the LORD your God is holy (different from other gods, set apart) so you must also be holy (different from other people, set apart). It was a subculture and in some ways counterculture. But I don't think the eternal principles we draw from this law are food-based. Instead it is built on a foundation of obedience and corporeal sanctity. Back on modesty, I'm not certain that bikinis are taboo in the celestial kingdom where lust and jealousy has been conquered. Perhaps we'll all be pure enough to view each other as works of art, fashioned and molded in a partnership of Creator and creation. With such a mindset, it would be rude to be clothed. I'm not stating this is the case, I just think turning modesty into a foundational principle is a mistake, and the standards we maintain are based on foundational principles but are by no means the only set that could derive from them.

No. Conduct yourself modestly because it’s the right thing to do before God. Not to do with others. Now hold on a minute. When @Fether summarized modesty as a standalone principle, every point came back to cultural norms and acceptable behaviors with other people. I don't think you can divorce modesty from culture anymore than you can separate the first great commandment from the second.

June 28th is better for math and for your sweet tooth.

Are you talking about the period from the start of the Old Kingdom to the end of the New Kingdom? My understanding is that each "Kingdom" period was a time when upper and lower Egypt were unified under a single pharaoh and the dynasties during that time were serial, while the Intermediate Periods had a divided Egypt with local pharaohs and dynasties could overlap. The Kingdom periods to stand in contrast to @NeuroTypical's point since they each lasted about 500 years, but not quite to the degree as when we include all dynasties.

I'll add my experience to the anecdata. The Aaronic Priesthood quorums I was in would have lessons based on the standards in the For the Strength of Youth pamphlet. No girls were present. I knew how long my shorts needed to be to attend youth activities. I knew that my shirts needed sleeves.

Maybe it's time to recirculate this beaut of an article* *I may have accidentally edited two of the paragraphs

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.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/modesty?lang=eng Just in case anyone wants to measure the percentage.

You mean like after a man has enter his 30's or has gotten married and has had decades of experience keeping his appetites and passions within the bounds the Lord has set? Sure. This goes back to what I wrote earlier. These lessons are generally aimed at teenagers or people in their early 20's who are learning to control their sexuality, not abuse it, and courting and wooing. For the latter case (the older young people), we've been taught that there are wheat and tares in the Church. Which are you attracting? For teenagers, responsible mentors (parents, leaders, etc) should come right out and say "There's a lot of power in the engine of a car. It will kill you. It will kill your friends. Any time your friends are driving I want you to live by this rule: You will do nothing that will distract the driver! -- You do not touch the radio unless the driver says you can. You do not control the temperature, the driver does. Pranks, surprises, and tomfoolery are all kinds of fun at home and in the parking lot, but on the road there is none of that." Each family may draw the line at a different place, but there will be a line drawn and it will be bright. I don't see why it should be any different for teenagers learning to steer through relationships and sexual power. Clear lines should be drawn and saints help each other, even in their youth.

I don't believe I've had a lesson that included modesty in dress since I've left the YSA. I can think of a few times when modest speech (and modesty generally) has been included in lessons on humility. If others can relate to this, I would suppose it's because when we are young we benefit from having clear lines - particularly when they serve as barriers to chastity violations. By the time a person is 30 I guess we figure you understand the principles well enough that you no longer need lawyer by your side explaining where the standards come from.

You started this thread lamenting that modesty in our lessons was reduced to "no cleavage - no tight clothes". Is this a concession that a focus in modest dress is proper in our lessons is proper and useful and you're just trying to understand the principle better? Or is this intended to show that the saints have a gap in our curriculum?