pam Posted January 31, 2009 Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 I agree with you, Wingnut, these things add very little to the topic. In my opinion, saying things like "Isaiah preached in the nude" or "the apostles fished in the nude" etc., are merely thrown out for shock effect.I totally agree with you. They added nothing to the conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruthiechan Posted January 31, 2009 Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 I totally agree with you. They added nothing to the conversation.Oh I dunno about that. It seemed a bunch of eye rolling and groans wouldn't've happened without those comments . . . Oh, wait, maybe you meant "added nothing constructive to the conversation . . . " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiannan Posted January 31, 2009 Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 I totally agree with you. They added nothing to the conversation.'Except that it's found in the Bible and I do believe it's a bit dangerous to try to say that a scripture that says one thing actually means something else.The first time I heard the Isaiah thing was on a history program on one of the educational channels. Then I looked it up, as well as other references to things like nudity and found the information I have shared quite valid and defesible. Discount it if you wish -- I mean in the Victorian Era any references to the human body were taboo in Protestant churches and the influence even caused some places in America to make taking a bath naked a criminal offense. I will leave it up to people to people to research these topics on their own since due to my experiences in posting links. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiannan Posted January 31, 2009 Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 My wife switched on a figure skating show for my girls last night. They love that sort of thing -- and it gave me an excellent excuse to chat with friends on MSN. The interesting thing I did notice was the outfits. Now my family would not switch this off, or any of those dance shows that now fill the TV world. However, I would suggest that if people ARE offended by the outfits people wear for ballet, modern dance, tango, rally, etc. they should not even be watching these shows, nor should they even go to sporting events like women's volleyball or mens football (ever notice how the female cheerleaders dress?). And please, avoid art museums -- the last time I toured The Hermitage in St. Petersberg, Russia you could not imagine the amount of nudity in the artworks of the so-called "masters". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarginOfError Posted January 31, 2009 Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 'Except that it's found in the Bible and I do believe it's a bit dangerous to try to say that a scripture that says one thing actually means something else.The first time I heard the Isaiah thing was on a history program on one of the educational channels. Then I looked it up, as well as other references to things like nudity and found the information I have shared quite valid and defesible. Discount it if you wish -- I mean in the Victorian Era any references to the human body were taboo in Protestant churches and the influence even caused some places in America to make taking a bath naked a criminal offense. I will leave it up to people to people to research these topics on their own since due to my experiences in posting links.You know what--I actually have no doubt that there are many biblical scholars who interpret Isaiah's nakedness literally. I don't really even care, because I think Isaiah's nakedness being commanded by God to teach the Israelites some 2600+ years ago is pretty irrelevant to the outfits of a dance class in 2008. What does irk me is the "research it yourself because I'm not good at posting links." There's an ocean of information out there and not all of it is credible and a lot of it isn't worth reading. Someone so wrapped up in a science such as psychology should be familiar with the concept of reproducibility; that is, providing enough information so that a peer researching the subject can replicate the procedure and verify the conclusion. That involves providing references and resources from which you draw your conclusion. I don't care if you post links or not. Feel free to simply copy and paste URL's into your posts (don't bother hyperlinking them). But until then, don't expect us to take your conclusions at full value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiannan Posted January 31, 2009 Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 You know what--I actually have no doubt that there are many biblical scholars who interpret Isaiah's nakedness literally. I don't really even care, because I think Isaiah's nakedness being commanded by God to teach the Israelites some 2600+ years ago is pretty irrelevant to the outfits of a dance class in 2008. What does irk me is the "research it yourself because I'm not good at posting links." There's an ocean of information out there and not all of it is credible and a lot of it isn't worth reading. Someone so wrapped up in a science such as psychology should be familiar with the concept of reproducibility; that is, providing enough information so that a peer researching the subject can replicate the procedure and verify the conclusion. That involves providing references and resources from which you draw your conclusion. I don't care if you post links or not. Feel free to simply copy and paste URL's into your posts (don't bother hyperlinking them). But until then, don't expect us to take your conclusions at full value. My experiences with posting links has nothing to do with my academic abilities but the way some may interpret the sites and then...well, like I said, I'm sitting with my back to the wall (to coin a phrase from the old west).I am actually finding this debate tedious. All it demonstrates to me is the thruth of the concept of schemas -- the human mind interprets the world not objectively but quite subjectively based on how one has been brought up. So two people can witness the same event or object and interpret it quite differently based on emotional context governed by variables in the formation of values and beliefs. This is why one poster can say that LDS females in Spain have no problem with one piece swimsuits (bottoms) in public but maybe others in the USA might interpret such behavior as immodest. Now the reason I bring up the scriptures is due to the fact that values in a culture led to laws and then those laws reinforce the pathway of those values. Generally these are based on human experience, not through God necessarily, but then will govern the way we look upon the world. So ultimately the scriptures are the basis for what God sees as right or wrong but then humans can, and do, place things into a context that then we may still have to consider (I'll give people that). Like half our modern-day prophets had beards but as the context of beards changed now we kinda look down on men with beards. Of course, God does not look down on beards (and wearing a beard is not against God's values) but it still winds up discouraged in western LDS culture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted January 31, 2009 Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 (edited) 'Except that it's found in the Bible and I do believe it's a bit dangerous to try to say that a scripture that says one thing actually means something else.The first time I heard the Isaiah thing was on a history program on one of the educational channels. Then I looked it up, as well as other references to things like nudity and found the information I have shared quite valid and defesible. Discount it if you wish -- I mean in the Victorian Era any references to the human body were taboo in Protestant churches and the influence even caused some places in America to make taking a bath naked a criminal offense. I will leave it up to people to people to research these topics on their own since due to my experiences in posting links. Interesting because the information I and Connie found that dispute your claim came directly from the Institute manual..NOT an educational channel. Unless that educational channel is endorsed and/or sponsored by the Church. I would prefer to take my sources from the institute manual.It's okay though. Believe what you will..I however, will believe what I find in the Church' teachings. Edited January 31, 2009 by pam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rameumptom Posted January 31, 2009 Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 Even if Isaiah were completely naked, he did it because the Lord commanded him to do so, to make a point to Israel. I highly doubt the girls and boys of today's environment have been given the same command by God. In fact, given the YW values now include "virtue", I'd say that God is very concerned about the kids in this generation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted January 31, 2009 Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 Why do I feel like I'm having to defend the Church' stance on modesty and nudity and such? From it's own members? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
talisyn Posted January 31, 2009 Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 As my daughter has grown older and will soon face the whole cheer/drill team participation question I've had my own concerns about modesty. I guess the best example I've found is the college level cheer competitions usually found on ESPN. There is usually a seasonal trend in costumes so they all have the same general look, but the individual modesty levels can vary wildly. My daughter will probably go into sports rather than dance and I'm very happy with the basketball shorts that at least hit mid-thigh. The volleyball shorts, not so much happiness. A lot of the teams wear what looks like swimming bottoms. Great for the pool, but jumping around on the court? You know they're only following what the adults are doing. I remember reading years ago about the women's beach volleyball organization requiring the really skimpy outfits you see them wear in competitions. My thought when watching them in the Olympics was 'omgosh I hope they have a lot of double-sided tape.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiannan Posted January 31, 2009 Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 Any opinions of the outfits the BYU cheerleaders wear? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connie Posted January 31, 2009 Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 Any opinions of the outfits the BYU cheerleaders wear?Nope, sorry, i don't watch football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted January 31, 2009 Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 They look pretty modest to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leming6 Posted January 31, 2009 Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 BYU's cheerleading outfits are more modest then most. Their tops are two inches longer to not show stomach and the skirts are a good two to three inches longer than most. People from the team and coaches defend them because they are doing activities that couldn't be done in long skirts. Longer skirts and sleeves could actually cause injury to them with the stunts they do. If a church owned school allows its athletes to where needed uniforms for certain activities, than I'm okay with it. The key to modesty is to make sure you are not dressing like this all the time, only during certain activities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leming6 Posted January 31, 2009 Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 After seeing your picture, the description I read doesn't seem to fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted January 31, 2009 Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 They are still modest. They aren't showing stomach. Shoulders and arms are even covered. Sure beats what a lot of other college cheerleaders look like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leming6 Posted January 31, 2009 Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 Yeah, they are modest compared to others. I just pictured skirts that were a little longer and tank tops with no sleeves. The description I read was that the skirts had another 2-3 inches on them, if other schools are shorter than I guess they don't cover much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connie Posted January 31, 2009 Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 I found that picture, too, and i thought Wow! those are the best cheerleader outfits i've ever seen. I, however, think the more important question is what do they wear when they are not cheerleading. They would have to wear a certain kind of outfit for all the stunts they do.http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m182/byucheer/Retreat/100_0063.jpgSee those knee-length shorts. Awesome! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted January 31, 2009 Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 Yeah, they are modest compared to others. I just pictured skirts that were a little longer and tank tops with no sleeves. The description I read was that the skirts had another 2-3 inches on them, if other schools are shorter than I guess they don't cover much. Pictures I've seen of other cheer squads show a tremendous amount of cleavage. It's the sex factor there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiannan Posted January 31, 2009 Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 Not going to post a link but if anyone is interested go to the BYU Cougars official site, look up cheerleaders and while I did not take a lot of time there I can say if you go to 2006 football season (and check out the pics from the Arizona game and the Tulsa game) apparently you can see what is in fashion for warmer events. In the pic "making a little girl's dream come true" one could say it might make a few boys happy to be in that pic as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 Okay I went there and found pictures from those games of the cheerleaders. I still wonder where the immodesty is? They still have uniforms that cover the stomach..they still don't show cleavage..Okay so they are showing some arm. I still see very modest cheerleading uniforms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 I don't understand you...you make comments about what if some teenagers got nude at a national monument. You mention commercials of nudity in Europe that there isnt a problem with but yet you have a problem with these uniforms? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 I will post the link Fiannan was referring to.BYUCougars.com - Home of The BYU Cheer Squad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john doe Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 Fiannan, do you actually have a point to make? On the one hand you say that nakedness is fine and dandy because an OT Prophet once walked around naked, but on the other hand you act like cheerleaders performing in outfits which allow them freedom of movement without flashing the crowd is evil. Do you have daughters? If you do, what do you allow them to wear, or not wear? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarginOfError Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 I will post the link Fiannan was referring to.BYUCougars.com - Home of The BYU Cheer SquadThanks, Pam. That made my day! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts