Swimsuit Question for the Young women

[Wingnut]

Oh, not this again. Please.

[peanutgallery]

Janice is right. No one is 100% but shouldn't we be striving to be? If the Prophet suggests we not wear certain piece of clothing or jewelry shouldn't we try to take his councel? Or is that just another thing we pick and choose because we disagree with it? I think that's what this is all coming down to. Picking and choosing.

ITA. I have posted about it before. If you don't follow the counsel of your leaders, you are not sustaining them. I would say that not sustaining your leaders is a sin.

[Snow]

Come on, Snow. You know very well that every one of those commandments was subject to specific limitations. Paul was not advocating celibacy for everyone (even in his own time).

You're right - he advocated it for men (which implies women should also be celibate, UNLESS you couldn't stand it.

According to Paul:

Celibate... Good

Not Celibate... Not so Good.

Neither Jospeh, Hyrum, Lorenzo, nor Joseph F. were vegans.

I didn't claim or imply that they were. What is your point?

So, yeah, they were sinning.

So says you. What we do know for certain is that they were prophets, seers and revelators who God allowed to called to and remain in their callings.

Really? No one? Not even your compatriots over at Sunstone? Must be difficult being a lone voice of righteousness in a church with four-million-odd active members . . .

Whoops - you're mistaken. I don't pretend that my opinion is righteous or even necessarily right. It's simply my opinion.

I'm unfamiliar with this instruction.

... and?

No, it doesn't. It advises against multiple piercings.

Nope. It advises against multiple piercing and piercings singular except in the case of single piercings in each ear of women about which it takes no position. If piercing is a sin, then piercing is a sin, regardless of whether or not the Church wants to annoy women - on the other hand, since the Church won't say anything about singular piercings on women's ears, one may surmise that piercing is not a sin, rather an attempt to control the image its member present... or maybe piercings are fine in and of themselves but someone things they are a gateway... to other sins such as beards or long hair or tattoos of "MOM" across your chest.

Really, Snow--I am somewhat bewildered by your post. In other posts you come across as an extremely well-informed member of the Church. Surely all this misdirection is not intentional?

I might say the same of you.

Edited March 27, 2009 by Snow

[Moksha]

Wasatch Front Mormons positively foam at the mouth.

Janice

Can you imagine what would happen if we Wasatch Fronters were to allow our inner pharisee to run free and wild on the beach? We would go postal for righteousness sake.

[MrmnMommy]

Proof that modesty does change:)

Modesty doesn't changed. That doesn't make sense. modesty is modesty. The principles of modesty don't change. Even angels wore/wear long garments covering arms and legs.

When we want to do something that isn't usually acceptable we tend to excuse away our behavior...There's nothing immodest about my stomach...you can only see my cleavage because I'm blessed...the dress is tight because I dried it...

and the examples go on and on.

I haven't seen anyone reference the "For the Strength of the Youth"...

"DRESS AND APPEARANCE:

Servants of God have always counseled his children to dress modestly to show respect for him and for themselves. Because the way you dress sends messages about yourself to others and often influences the way you and others act, you should dress in such a way as to bring out the best in yourself and those around you. However, if you wear an immodest bathing suit because it's "the style," it sends a message that you are using your body to get attention and approval, and that modesty is not important.

Immodest clothing includes short shorts, tight pants, and other revealing attire. Young women should refrain from wearing off-the-shoulder, low-cut, or revealing clothes. Young men should similarly maintain modesty in their dress. All should avoid tight fitting or revealing clothes and extremes in clothing and appearance.

As Latter-day Saint youth, you can also show respect for the Lord and yourselves by dressing appropriately for Church meetings and activities, whether on Sunday or during the week. If you are not sure what's appropriate, ask for guidelines from your parents, advisers, and bishop.

"

Obviously, bikinis are reavealing and therefore considerd inappropriate attire for young women.

[MrmnMommy]

Proof that modesty does change:)

Modesty doesn't changed. That doesn't make sense. modesty is modesty. The principles of modesty don't change. Even angels wore/wear long garments covering arms and legs. I haven't seen anyone reference the "For the Strength of the Youth"...

"DRESS AND APPEARANCE:

Servants of God have always counseled his children to dress modestly to show respect for him and for themselves. Because the way you dress sends messages about yourself to others and often influences the way you and others act, you should dress in such a way as to bring out the best in yourself and those around you. However, if you wear an immodest bathing suit because it's "the style," it sends a message that you are using your body to get attention and approval, and that modesty is not important.

Immodest clothing includes short shorts, tight pants, and other revealing attire. Young women should refrain from wearing off-the-shoulder, low-cut, or revealing clothes. Young men should similarly maintain modesty in their dress. All should avoid tight fitting or revealing clothes and extremes in clothing and appearance.

As Latter-day Saint youth, you can also show respect for the Lord and yourselves by dressing appropriately for Church meetings and activities, whether on Sunday or during the week. If you are not sure what's appropriate, ask for guidelines from your parents, advisers, and bishop.

"

Obviously, bikinis are reavealing and therefore considerd inappropriate attire for young women.

[Snow]

Modesty doesn't changed. That doesn't make sense. modesty is modesty. The principles of modesty don't change. Even angels wore/wear long garments covering arms and legs.

Modesty most certainly does change. Are you not familiar with what modest attire was 100 years ago, 200 years ago - compared to what even Church leaders today would consider modest?

Moroni may have covered his legs but his chest was not covered.

[Snow]

Can you imagine what would happen if we Wasatch Fronters were to allow our inner pharisee to run free and wild on the beach? We would go postal for righteousness sake.

Utah County is the worst.

After a ballet performance at BYU co-eds write letters to the BYU daily newspaper frothing at the lascivious ballerinas who are corrupting their boyfriends.

[Fiannan]

Modesty doesn't changed. That doesn't make sense. modesty is modesty. The principles of modesty don't change. Even angels wore/wear long garments covering arms and legs.

Society determines what is and isn't modest. If you go to a public beach in Brazil and wear a thong bikini that is totally okay but generally toplessness is frowned upon. In Sweden, it is perfectly okay to go topless on a beach but there's an unwritten law, so to speak, that you can lay there topless but it's not kosher to walk around or play a sport topless. In Germany? Well, you get it.

So if I talk about the term "modesty" each of these cultures will be more liberal than the USA yet people will still register a concept in their minds of what modesty is. So all cultures have the concept, but the norms built up over many years will determine the interpretation of specifics.

Let's just take the piercing thing for instance. Back in the 1970s the only people who would have piercings would be gay guys (can't remember if it's left or right ear lobe), strippers and biker chicks. So in those days if someone said they wanted a piercing people would have associated it with fringe behaviors connected to people involved in these sorts of activities. The practice, for some reason, jumped out of these groups and became popular with the punkers and to a certain degree grungers and then got fashionable with the general, usually young, population. Now you find even older middle age mothers going in with their daughters, or even grand-daughters, and getting a nose, navel or multiple ear peircing (not to mention other places so I won't mention that). So now if someone under (40 or 50) hears that pircings is not modest in their mind's eye they get images of full body tatooed people with starnge piercings -- not the more standard ones. In a couple of decades piercing may be so mainstream that the Church does it's best to ignore it ever said anythng about it or it could be so out of fashion that it gives people shudders to think about it.

[Elgama]

Modesty doesn't changed. That doesn't make sense. modesty is modesty. The principles of modesty don't change. Even angels wore/wear long garments covering arms and legs.

When we want to do something that isn't usually acceptable we tend to excuse away our behavior...There's nothing immodest about my stomach...you can only see my cleavage because I'm blessed...the dress is tight because I dried it...

and the examples go on and on.

what does change is what is acceptable for modesty even within the church, the clothes I wear by 2009 standards are very modest but by my Great Grandmas perspective are postively revealing, if I am going swimming I do not hire a bathing machine to travel down to the sea, I take my dress of and go. I do not wear a bathing cap unless the pool i am in requires it. My Mother thinks my clothes are not revealing enough lol being a young adult in the 60s

Being British like Fiannan has said means to me a one piece swimsuit with classic leg and high back is perfectly modest and does not require anything over it, but going topless is for certain beaches only,

-Charley

Edited March 27, 2009 by Elgama

[hordak]

Society determines what is and isn't modest. If you go to a public beach in Brazil and wear a thong bikini that is totally okay but generally toplessness is frowned upon. In Sweden, it is perfectly okay to go topless on a beach but there's an unwritten law, so to speak, that you can lay there topless but it's not kosher to walk around or play a sport topless. In Germany? Well, you get it.

So if I talk about the term "modesty" each of these cultures will be more liberal than the USA yet people will still register a concept in their minds of what modesty is. So all cultures have the concept, but the norms built up over many years will determine the interpretation of specifics.

Let's just take the piercing thing for instance. Back in the 1970s the only people who would have piercings would be gay guys (can't remember if it's left or right ear lobe), strippers and biker chicks. So in those days if someone said they wanted a piercing people would have associated it with fringe behaviors connected to people involved in these sorts of activities. The practice, for some reason, jumped out of these groups and became popular with the punkers and to a certain degree grungers and then got fashionable with the general, usually young, population. Now you find even older middle age mothers going in with their daughters, or even grand-daughters, and getting a nose, navel or multiple ear peircing (not to mention other places so I won't mention that). So now if someone under (40 or 50) hears that pircings is not modest in their mind's eye they get images of full body tatooed people with starnge piercings -- not the more standard ones. In a couple of decades piercing may be so mainstream that the Church does it's best to ignore it ever said anythng about it or it could be so out of fashion that it gives people shudders to think about it.

You need to post the pic again of the lady showing her legs and being led of the beach by the cops for being "immodest". (i think that was you)

[gabelpa]

i was just thinking my grandparents thought jeans were immodest - in fact to my Grandfather and gentleman in anything other than suit and hat was underdressed, a sign you were not of a certain standard in society (he dressed like Poirot) his consession was a tweed or lighter coloured suit. He held that view until the 1970s

1900 Bathing Costume was expected to be dark, and cover everything and included a floppy hat. despite that was seen as indecent and a bathing machine was used to convey young ladies to the beach

by 1920 you could show your arms still required a cap and wear a splash of colour

by 1930 you could wear a suit which coverage is similar to what I would by today and called Modest, it also covers the area that many Tankinis cover, actually less than some.although i skip the wool lol

-Charley

[Hemidakota]

I was just wondering, if as LDS girls, if you wear bikinis, as long as they do a good job of covering up, and aren't to revealing.

Not in my house...I have six daughters and known of them will wear it.

[Just_A_Guy]

You're right - he advocated it for men (which implies women should also be celibate, UNLESS you couldn't stand it.

According to Paul:

Celibate... Good

Not Celibate... Not so Good.

Everything I've ever read (from an LDS standpoint, anyways) suggests he was advocating it for missionaries. You disagree? Why?

I didn't claim or imply that they were. What is your point?

You said they "advised against killing animals", without qualifying it, and then hinted that any use of dead animals was violating their counsel. Your actual quote was:

Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith, Lorenzo Snow, Joseph F. Smith all advised against killing animals - I'm going to guess that you regularly wear and/or use parts of dead animals killed just so their parts could be used by folks like you.

So says you.

Whereas your point was what? That they weren't? Or that a little sin is OK?

Whoops - you're mistaken. I don't pretend that my opinion is righteous or even necessarily right. It's simply my opinion.

But you did pretend that you were the only one who held it.

... and?

And I was kind of hoping you'd provide a source so that your argument could be fully evaluated.

Nope. It advises against multiple piercing and piercings singular except in the case of single piercings in each ear of women about which it takes no position.

Piercings of the body (in context of a discussion about piercings in the nose, tongue, etc). President Hinckley's actual position was:

Likewise the piercing of the body for multiple rings in the ears, in the nose, even in the tongue. Can they possibly think that is beautiful? It is a passing fancy, but its effects can be permanent. Some have gone to such extremes that the ring had to be removed by surgery. The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve have declared that we discourage tattoos and also “the piercing of the body for other than medical purposes.” We do not, however, take any position “on the minimal piercing of the ears by women for one pair of earrings”—one pair. (Ensign, Nov. 2000, 50-53)

[MrmnMommy]

what does change is what is acceptable for modesty even within the church, the clothes I wear by 2009 standards are very modest but by my Great Grandmas perspective are postively revealing, if I am going swimming I do not hire a bathing machine to travel down to the sea, I take my dress of and go. I do not wear a bathing cap unless the pool i am in requires it. My Mother thinks my clothes are not revealing enough lol being a young adult in the 60s

Being British like Fiannan has said means to me a one piece swimsuit with classic leg and high back is perfectly modest and does not require anything over it, but going topless is for certain beaches only,

-Charley

Okay, so since the styles available do change there is a certain amount of "adjustment" made. What is a bathing machine? Bathing suits that cover the stomach and aren't extremely low cut in front are modest. The church would never condone going topless @ ANY beach.

[Hemidakota]

I would expect any LDS man at the beach to wear a tank top or something similar. I know I did seeing women are not allowed to remove there tops. Then, those who would expose their chest without any covering had nothing to show...

[MrmnMommy]

Modesty most certainly does change. Are you not familiar with what modest attire was 100 years ago, 200 years ago - compared to what even Church leaders today would consider modest?

there is a degree of adjustment made according to styles available. However, garments will not change. Have not changed. Obviously you don't wear them when you swim, but your goal when choosing a swimsuit should not be to show as much as possible just because you don't have garments. For those who don't wear garments, you should begin practicing appropriate dress.

Moroni may have covered his legs but his chest was not covered.

It doesnt' matter if his chest was covered or not. Men do not have breasts. I don't know how a female would dress but I'm sure that, Heavenly Father knowing that humans are weak would not send a female angel bearing breasts.

[hordak]

I would expect any LDS man at the beach to wear a tank top or something similar. I know I did seeing women are not allowed to remove there tops.

After spending all that time in the gym. I think not.

Plus it makes it hard to show of the tat.

[Janice]

I would expect any LDS man at the beach to wear a tank top or something similar.

Hemidakota, I need to ask... sorry... I really can't tell if you are being serious when you say this, or if you are joking.

[Hemidakota]

I am being serious on this one.

[Elgama]

Okay, so since the styles available do change there is a certain amount of "adjustment" made. What is a bathing machine? Bathing suits that cover the stomach and aren't extremely low cut in front are modest. The church would never condone going topless @ ANY beach.

a Bathing Machine was a vehicle used on the beach so women could be transported into the water and get into it so that noone would see them in a bathing costume

When my Grandmother was a little girl you would not be seen on the beach in a swimming costume, 10 years later you didn't need a bathing machine

-Charley

[Elgama]

I am being serious on this one.

I'm with you on this one would expect a Tshirt unless actually swimming

-Charley

[Elgama]

It doesnt' matter if his chest was covered or not. Men do not have breasts. I don't know how a female would dress but I'm sure that, Heavenly Father knowing that humans are weak would not send a female angel bearing breasts.

actually my Mum's generation would consider a man showing his nipples as disgusting it was what common people that didn't know better did.... no way would my Mum let my Dad go around without a top on without him actually swimming and I hold to the same with my husband and son

-Charley

[bytor2112]

Hmmm.........not Bytor, he goes shirtless. All the ladies having those sinful thoughts about Bytor's awesome abs, will just have to repent.

[john doe]

I would expect any LDS man at the beach to wear a tank top or something similar. I know I did seeing women are not allowed to remove there tops. Then, those who would expose their chest without any covering had nothing to show...

Good thing you're not my facebook friend, I have a profile picture where I am topless, and yes, my nipples are showing for everyone to see. And next time I go to the beach, I'll do it again now that I've been working out and got my abs almost down to an 18-pack and actually have pecs and biceps now.

I think that a man's naked chest is a much different critter than a woman's naked chest, and while much of that can be attributed to the current American culture, it is what it is. In today's American culture, it is immodest for a woman to go topless in public. That view may change over the next 20 years, but for today it is not acceptable.