Fether

I often ponder this. I often unjustly get frustrated with people who lament God doesn't love them. It’s such a pointless conversation and concern to have. I equate it to someone lamenting that the sun is not going to rise. If it doesn’t love me, we are all dead and none of this matters. If his love is conditional, than all I have ever been taught is false and I might as well get over my sadness and do what needs to be done to make him love me . If God loves us unconditionally, than great… but his love for me is not going to save me in my sin so I might as well repent of what I am doing that is making me feel the lack of love. All that being said, I recognize my thought process is not like most and this is a serious matter for many so I try to keep my opinions to myself when someone is sad about it.

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. Sorry, someone here not good enough to be loved by your Father in Heaven? TFP, that's a luciferian lie, not worth your time. I’m just here to add to the quote chain

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

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.

I do always forget about the fall when considering these types of questions. It is a very simple, but true, answer

Is my natural attraction to women God given? Is an attraction to the same gender god given or is it a form of mutation on what was intended? the obvious answer is “we don’t know” but I naturally draw myself toward the idea that God didn’t have much of a direct control in our creation.

Everyone called out his homosexuality when he was on American Idol. He is really the only person of note in The Church that has come out. Stacy Harley came out lot too long ago, maybe you were thinking of him?

My attempt at points to be hit on in a lesson on modesty. - “Modesty is an attitude of propriety and decency in dress, grooming, language, and behavior. If we are modest, we do not draw undue attention to ourselves. Instead, we seek to “glorify God in [our] body, and in [our] spirit”” - Gospel Topics - Modesty - When you are at church, don’t wear clothing, speak in such a way, or act in such a way that distracts you from church activities. When you are at school, don’t wear clothes, act, or speak in a way that distracts from school. Same with a dance, swimming, etc. Unless you are the intended focus of an activity, don’t seek to be the focus. - The reason for the constant focus on woman and the specific to-wears and not-to-wears is partly because their men tend to be more sexually minded and tempted and it is easier for women to draw undue attention to themselves, and this matters whether it is intentional or unintentional. Another point of note is that woman’s accepted clothing attire has been slowly degrading over the ages (it was pointed out that men pretty much where the same stuff they did 200 years ago). - We are all in this life together. We are all sons and daughters of God. Luke 22:32 teaches that when we are converted, we strengthen our brethren. It doesn’t say “when thou art converted, put up hedges and stumbling blocks for your brother” Additionally, we all Covenanted at baptism tho bear one another’s burdens and stand as a witness of God. Men and woman both should be aware of how they dress and be concerned as to the affect it has on all those around them. anything else worth being said on the topic? Or something that should be left out?

You need to chill out

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?

As I was writing that, I thought to myself “we have come full circle”

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?

But if modesty is not about the individual, but other around, it doesn’t matter what the age is. If there is a male anywhere that is under the age of 30 (via your example) or any male that struggles with impure thoughts regardless of age, then no one should dress immodestly. back to my question. If we could be absolutely certain that boys and men were not sexually tempted by immodest women, would there be a need for such a concern of modesty for woman?

If men were better at controlling their thoughts, or say the men that were around had pure motives and great control over their thoughts and temptations, would there be less of a stress on modesty for women?

So the reason for the focus on female immodesty is in fact because of the effect in men’s thoughts? I’m ok with that, just pointing out that that explanation is what people are annoyed with. So is the modesty standard taught and lived by the church in Utah stakes where girls are kicked out of stake dances for having shorts that go two inches above the knee the pinnacle and most celestial way of dressing modestly? And all cultures should moving closer to this superior celestial cultural approach to modesty? I’m not oppose to this thought, just trying to put it in more stark wording to figure out what you are saying or maybe weed out misconceptions in my understanding of what you are saying. similar question as posed above. Should we all be moving toward that thought process? That there is an ultimate cultural approach to modesty, but we are just not guilty of any sin because we haven’t been taught that?

So would it be improper then to make “modesty” dress standards when it comes to youth activities or church schools? Is accusing someone’s being immodest in dress similar to accusing someone of not having good enough personal prayer or Having lustful thoughts?

Now I want to challenge the current understanding. Is a girl wearing. Bikini to the pool really immodest? I’m actually currently in Hawaii and it is quite obvious that many of these old and over weight women wearing so-called immodest swimsuits are not seeking attention. It also seems to just be a more practical and comfortable. It also seems to be very much a cultural thing too. A popular convert and Latter-day Saint cultural apologist, Kwaku, talks about how he grew up around “immodesty” and it has never bothered him, but when he moved to Utah, other guys are a very difficult time when they saw slight examples of immodesty

If you want to misrepresent the argument, I don’t see much of a need in speaking further. What we are talking about is creating an improper affect on our environment via our dress, speech, and actions. If I walk into work tomorrow with a Hawaiian shirt and flip flops sure, that is fine. If I show up at church with the same attire, that is immodest. If I make a sexual joke with a bunch of my married friends, I’m sure that is at worst in tasteful. But if I make the same joke at a youth fireside, that is deeply immodest. Swimsuit at the beach, fine. Swimsuit at the temple, immodest.

But that is exactly what it is. If there is a higher way of living, than we ought to seek it. Someone who makes dirty jokes is being immodest and ought to correct their behavior if they wish to be considered “Christlike”.

My intention is to better understand it myself. I feel like people have been pointing out a gap, but no one has provided enough substance to fill that gap sufficiently. I somewhat disagree. We still have conversations about other principles of the gospel, but we have abandoned modesty. I think it has more to do with the fact that we just don’t know what to do with it now that we aren’t youth and sex isnt something we are trying to avoid. I think the fact that modesty is only taught to youth goes to show the gap in our teaching

I’ve decided modesty includes how we present ourselves through our dress, words, and actions. I’m simply trying to expand the conversation itself beyond “is that woman showing too much skin?”

 (I also recall President Hinckley accused the brethren in attendance at a priesthood session of conference of looking "shaggy" though I can't find it in the transcripts) Then this brings up the conversation about dress and grooming and what it means to dress to please God. This changes with time more than anything. If we were to put a specific standard on it, it is black slacks, cleanly pressed button up, and a blue solid tie… but to be frank, I think that can look extremely tacky. We had a job interview the other day with a potential hire, he was young and came in with your typical deacon passing the sacrament attire and it looked awful. I find the more casual button ups with khaki jeans (not slacks) to be far more stylish and appealing to the eye than the traditional deacon attire. Is it immodest for me to show up to church is khaki jeans, casual button up shirt, a canvas material shoe, and skinny tie with the top button undone?

Does modesty require some level of conforming to style norms so to avoid unnecessary attention to one’s self? Like would it be immodest to wear traditional 20s style suits and hairstyle to church?

I don’t necessarily think we need to. I’m not so much asking how women feel about it or how it affects them. But rather, if modesty is suppose to encompass more than just cleavage, what else is it suppose to cover and is it as important? Because based on how I was raised, cleavage is the only aspect that really matters. Kinda of like the word of wisdom. Drugs, alcohol, tea are all bad and we shouldn’t have. But the word of wisdom encompasses eating healthy and taking care of your body… but that isn’t as important as avoiding sticking a needle full of heroin in your arm. So that’s it. Is cleavage the “injecting heroin” of modesty? And wearing a Metallica shirt like eating too much ice cream? (Yes I am being facetious)