Whats wrong with shoulders?

[Jennarator]

Addendom:

I also have lots of friends that don't obey this modisty thing, I am still their friends. I realize that came out much more harsh than I ment. My point is that this is MY opnion. I am just giving the advice you asked for, you don't need to take it. I won't be offened, but I might defend it.

[Guest]

You can make this as gray as you want, but the prophets tell us not to rationalize. We don't need to make excuses for obeying or not.

Addendom:

I also have lots of friends that don't obey this modisty thing, I am still their friends. I realize that came out much more harsh than I ment. My point is that this is MY opnion. I am just giving the advice you asked for, you don't need to take it. I won't be offened, but I might defend it.

Your point is moot. Because NOBODY ever said that we shouldn't obey commandments because of it.

We just answered this question:

Perhaps instead of asking what is wrong with shoulders and trying to defend and justify the standards set, we should reverse it. Ask what is Right with shoulders to justify and defend breaking the standards. Can someone really make a good case for the reverse?

With the opening response as:

...cute sleeveless sundresses?

Honestly, I'm used to it. I've never been in a work environment that allowed anything sleeveless.

Can't think of a single good reason against the standard that your average place of work would approve of.

Which Bini and I followed up with our own answers. Which none of us is using to encourage breaking "shoulder" laws.

Edited May 6, 2011 by anatess

[Backroads]

You can make this as gray as you want, but the prophets tell us not to rationalize. We don't need to make excuses for obeying or not.

I don't know how much it is rationalizing in cases like this if Brother and Sister So-n-So from Hawaii or a Polynesian country want to wear the native costumes of their culture sometimes. On other levels, is it rationalizing if Brother So-n-So does not want to remove his tattoos because they represent the history of his people and family?

[Spudchic]

This is a test. This is only a test. Sorry this is actually pam. Just testing out someone's account for them.

[Jennarator]

I don't know how much it is rationalizing in cases like this if Brother and Sister So-n-So from Hawaii or a Polynesian country want to wear the native costumes of their culture sometimes. On other levels, is it rationalizing if Brother So-n-So does not want to remove his tattoos because they represent the history of his people and family?

Just because it is traditional, doesn't mean it's ok. The Laminates killed people, that happened a long time ago, it's part of history so I should relive it, right?

doesn't matter what I say, it will be rationalized and it sounds like people will always find and excuse to do what we have been told not to do.

[Bini]

Just because it is traditional, doesn't mean it's ok. The Laminates killed people, that happened a long time ago, it's part of history so I should relive it, right?

doesn't matter what I say, it will be rationalized and it sounds like people will always find and excuse to do what we have been told not to do.

Your thoughts come across as a blanket statement tossing everything into one category. That's where I'm disagreeing, which is fine, we can "agree to disagree" (as it's often said on here). But even in this very quote, your comparison between tattoos and massacres, are entirely different things. Tattoos (tribal tattoos, hena, etc) are done out of positivity, reflect the history of their ancestors and the pride they have in their home and land. Killing people (and many cultures have dark histories with this) is not a positive. So of course, you wouldn't relive pillaging towns and destroying lives. Two different issues here.. The Lord is not blind to the differences.

[Jennarator]

Your thoughts come across as a blanket statement tossing everything into one category. That's where I'm disagreeing, which is fine, we can "agree to disagree" (as it's often said on here). But even in this very quote, your comparison between tattoos and massacres, are entirely different things. Tattoos (tribal tattoos, hena, etc) are done out of positivity, reflect the history of their ancestors and the pride they have in their home and land. Killing people (and many cultures have dark histories with this) is not a positive. So of course, you wouldn't relive pillaging towns and destroying lives. Two different issues here.. The Lord is not blind to the differences.

I realize they are not the same, but the thing is, off the straight and narrow is off the straight and narrow. If you know better, you will be held accountable, doesn't matter how far off the path you are, if you are not on it, you are not on it. Sure we all get off of it for a bit here and there, but to blatantly just go off of it on purpose, I think we will be held accountable for.

Now, as far as doing a traditional tribal dance for a half hour, that's one thing, but blowing off the council of the GAs and saying to heck with it, I think I'm too hot outside and I am going to go around immodest, that's just simply another thing....

Edited May 8, 2011 by john doe
fixed quote function

[Backroads]

Just because it is traditional, doesn't mean it's ok. The Laminates killed people, that happened a long time ago, it's part of history so I should relive it, right?

doesn't matter what I say, it will be rationalized and it sounds like people will always find and excuse to do what we have been told not to do.

So... which cultures' dress codes are wrong and which ones are right? I have to say I find your statement incredibly silly.

If it's wrong, then you should write to the Church and demand they deny temple recommends to those with tattoos or anything that does not meet North American conservative culture.

[volgadon]

Climate is also different in Southeast Asia than in Arizona or even the Middle East. Deserts are dry. The Philippines is a tropical climate -- humid. I'd rather have 100 dry degrees than 80 humid ones.

Israel is very humid but the Philipines are worse that way.

[Guest]

Your thoughts come across as a blanket statement tossing everything into one category. That's where I'm disagreeing, which is fine, we can "agree to disagree" (as it's often said on here). But even in this very quote, your comparison between tattoos and massacres, are entirely different things. Tattoos (tribal tattoos, hena, etc) are done out of positivity, reflect the history of their ancestors and the pride they have in their home and land. Killing people (and many cultures have dark histories with this) is not a positive. So of course, you wouldn't relive pillaging towns and destroying lives. Two different issues here.. The Lord is not blind to the differences.[/quote

I realize they are not the same, but the thing is, off the straight and narrow is off the straight and narrow. If you know better, you will be held accountable, doesn't matter how far off the path you are, if you are not on it, you are not on it. Sure we all get off of it for a bit here and there, but to blatantly just go off of it on purpose, I think we will be held accountable for.

Now, as far as doing a traditional tribal dance for a half hour, that's one thing, but blowing off the council of the GAs and saying to heck with it, I think I'm too hot outside and I am going to go around immodest, that's just simply another thing....

Nobody is saying to blow off the GA's. Everybody is saying that the GA's may adjust the policy in deference to the culture.

Do you see the difference?

Just like you will commonly see Filipinos in the poor regions go to church in a white t-shirt, knee-shorts, and flip-flops administering the sacrament because - good luck finding a white button down shirt and tie within 100 miles and the white t-shirt and flip-flops are literally their best in the wardrobe. They are not blowing off the Stake Presidency, the Stake Presidency acknowledges the culture and adjusts the policy to fit.

Edited May 8, 2011 by anatess

[pam]

I do know when I lived in Hawaii, many men wore the lavalavas to church. While the continental 48 may think that is inappropriate to church..it's culture in Hawaii and other polynesian areas.

[RipplecutBuddha]

Here's the other side of the issue. If cultural traditions trump the standards set by God, then should the tropical members be issued sleeveless, spaghetti-string, or even strapless garments? Who's standards take priority?

Here's the thing for me. The garments are the standard for LDS motesty rules. if God sees fit to allow adjustments due to regional tradition, he'll do so. As it stands, since the garments are exactly the same no matter where one lives, then it can't be too hard to imagine that God thinks that's the way it should be.

All this discussion, from my perspective, is similar to a hammer trying to tell the carpenter how to better build the home he is working on.

[Bini]

Here's the other side of the issue. If cultural traditions trump the standards set by God, then should the tropical members be issued sleeveless, spaghetti-string, or even strapless garments? Who's standards take priority?

Here's the thing for me. The garments are the standard for LDS motesty rules. if God sees fit to allow adjustments due to regional tradition, he'll do so. As it stands, since the garments are exactly the same no matter where one lives, then it can't be too hard to imagine that God thinks that's the way it should be.

All this discussion, from my perspective, is similar to a hammer trying to tell the carpenter how to better build the home he is working on.

No, you've missed something.

If you read carefully, you'd seen that we all agreed that shoulders should be covered up for those planning to go to the temple or have gone, in preparation for wearing garments. Absolutely, garments are a non-negotiable. None of us argued that.

What we disagree on is this. The Lord and Church leaders understand that different countries have different cultural backgrounds. Not everyone lives by the so-called "norm" of what North America subscribes to. Therefore, the Church does have "wiggle room" for faithful LDS that continue to embrace their culture (Tribal tattoos, religious nose piercings). The Lord is NOT blind! And neither are the Church leaders. They understand we all come from different backgrounds and upbringings. They are not so harsh that they would refuse and condemn people that are tied to their ethnic and cultural roots.

[pam]

Here's the other side of the issue. If cultural traditions trump the standards set by God, then should the tropical members be issued sleeveless, spaghetti-string, or even strapless garments? Who's standards take priority?

Here's the thing for me. The garments are the standard for LDS motesty rules. if God sees fit to allow adjustments due to regional tradition, he'll do so. As it stands, since the garments are exactly the same no matter where one lives, then it can't be too hard to imagine that God thinks that's the way it should be.

All this discussion, from my perspective, is similar to a hammer trying to tell the carpenter how to better build the home he is working on.

Yet those that live in the tropics such as the Polynesian islands don't wear the spaghetti straps etc. Even while wearing lavalavas they still wear white shirts etc to church.

[Dravin]

I think the issue is whether any particular standard is set by God. For instance, a suit coat with white shirt and tie is not an God issued standard, like say sexual purity, and thus is more culturally malleable. As Pam points out cultural adaption doesn't necessarily mean immodesty. I think the problem is that since the thread started off about modesty the assumption is any cultural adaption being discussed is going to be of the type that is in conflict with other standards.

Tattoos and nose piercings are a different issue than what is appropriate Sunday dress though.

Edited May 8, 2011 by Dravin

[RipplecutBuddha]

No, you've missed something.

If you read carefully, you'd seen that we all agreed that shoulders should be covered up for those planning to go to the temple or have gone, in preparation for wearing garments. Absolutely, garments are a non-negotiable. None of us argued that.

What we disagree on is this. The Lord and Church leaders understand that different countries have different cultural backgrounds. Not everyone lives by the so-called "norm" of what North America subscribes to. Therefore, the Church does have "wiggle room" for faithful LDS that continue to embrace their culture (Tribal tattoos, religious nose piercings). The Lord is NOT blind! And neither are the Church leaders. They understand we all come from different backgrounds and upbringings. They are not so harsh that they would refuse and condemn people that are tied to their ethnic and cultural roots.

Okay, but my point is this; What do we promise when we recieve the garments? Is that promise only applicable when we go to the temple? further, if locale can determine when/where we wear the garments, why not allow general fashion do the same here in the states? I guarantee the southern part of the US would be in the same situation as any of the tropics were that the case. I'm sorry, but I just don't see how the wording used in the temple gives us any wiggle room on when we can get out of wearing garments.

See, this is my sticking point. Yes there are times we probably shouldn't wear the garments. For instance Steve Young said he didn't wear them during football games because the violent nature of the games was contrary to the nature of the garments in his opinion. Another instance is when we are swimming, bathing, undergoing planned hospitalization, etc... However, the entire point of this life, the Gospel, and the whole program is to teach ourselves to submit to all things God sees fit to place upon us. It's not to hear what God has to say, then see what we can opt out of when we don't feel we can do what he asks of us.

The followers of God and Christ in the OT and NT are referred to as peculiar people. That, to me, indicates that it is expected that we'll stand apart from the crowd. The standards of the Lord are not based upon geography, but eternal truths. This has nothing to do with where the Lord decided to restore his church. It has everything to do with what we are expected to do in order to recieve all the blessings promised to us.

If someone hasn't been through the temple, then I have no problem with how they choose to clothe themselves. However, once they do go through and make the covenants with the Lord in the temple, I believe those promises need to take priority.

Edited May 9, 2011 by RipplecutBuddha

[Guest]

Okay, but my point is this; What do we promise when we recieve the garments? Is that promise only applicable when we go to the temple? further, if locale can determine when/where we wear the garments, why not allow general fashion do the same here in the states? I guarantee the southern part of the US would be in the same situation as any of the tropics were that the case. I'm sorry, but I just don't see how the wording used in the temple gives us any wiggle room on when we can get out of wearing garments.

See, this is my sticking point. Yes there are times we probably shouldn't wear the garments. For instance Steve Young said he didn't wear them during football games because the violent nature of the games was contrary to the nature of the garments in his opinion. Another instance is when we are swimming, bathing, undergoing planned hospitalization, etc... However, the entire point of this life, the Gospel, and the whole program is to teach ourselves to submit to all things God sees fit to place upon us. It's not to hear what God has to say, then see what we can opt out of when we don't feel we can do what he asks of us.

The followers of God and Christ in the OT and NT are referred to as peculiar people. That, to me, indicates that it is expected that we'll stand apart from the crowd. The standards of the Lord are not based upon geography, but eternal truths. This has nothing to do with where the Lord decided to restore his church. It has everything to do with what we are expected to do in order to recieve all the blessings promised to us.

If someone hasn't been through the temple, then I have no problem with how they choose to clothe themselves. However, once they do go through and make the covenants with the Lord in the temple, I believe those promises need to take priority.

And this is where you keep on missing our point Ripple and Jenna...

We, as members of the church do not intend to break any rule of garments or whatever commandment we make. But, we do understand that GAs and Stake Leaders may apply the policies differently for a reason.

For example - back in the Brigham Young days, garment sleeves go to the wrists. Now they don't.

THAT'S the kind of thing we are talking about here. Not that WE WANT to break the commandment willy-nilly for whatever reason!

Can we at least get that understood here???

Also, there are things that are not universal that Americans think are universal - wearing white shirt and tie is one, wearing tribal tattoos is another, flip-flops in Sacrament meeting another. That's another thing we are talking about here.

Edited May 9, 2011 by anatess

[Jennarator]

I said that I was never asked about tatoos in a temple rec interview. But I AM asked about being chase and wearing the garment. So THAT issue is black and white.

Sure if they garment gets changed to speghetti straps or strapless, then fine, for for it. All I am saying is that we have sleeves on them, so we wear them.

We don't just because it is hot...

[Backroads]

Actually, the original question was on modesty of shoulders... not necessarily with garments. Garments arose out of an answer to that original question.

So I guess I see where the argument came from here...

I was never arguing on the sense that we should dress contrary to covering the garments, but I was arguing that modesty depends on culture.

[JudoMinja]

I was never arguing on the sense that we should dress contrary to covering the garments, but I was arguing that modesty depends on culture.

On that note, we could even view the church itself as a "culture". There are certainly many things that are culturally accepted in areas dense with an LDS population that would seem odd to others. So the garments are the guideline for what is considered modest by our culture as compared to other cultures around the world. If someone wishes to become a part of LDS culture, they must alter their current sense of modesty to meet that of the church.

What is interesting about that is what is considered modest to other cultures is typically, constantly changing. There are a few that have not changed over the years, but for the most part other cultures are moving the line further and further on what is considered modest. Aside from the early alterations to church garments, the Lord's standard does not change. It is a constant in an ever changing world.

[Guest]

I said that I was never asked about tatoos in a temple rec interview. But I AM asked about being chase and wearing the garment. So THAT issue is black and white.

Sure if they garment gets changed to speghetti straps or strapless, then fine, for for it. All I am saying is that we have sleeves on them, so we wear them.

We don't just because it is hot...

Actually, the original question was on modesty of shoulders... not necessarily with garments. Garments arose out of an answer to that original question.

So I guess I see where the argument came from here...

I was never arguing on the sense that we should dress contrary to covering the garments, but I was arguing that modesty depends on culture.

THAT. That's what you keep on missing!

We NEVER said not to wear garments because it is HOT! It's like this exchange:

Man 1: Are you going fishing?

Man 2: No, I'm going fishing.

Man 1: Oh, I thought you were going fishing.

Amazingly frustrating.

[Backroads]

On that note, we could even view the church itself as a "culture". There are certainly many things that are culturally accepted in areas dense with an LDS population that would seem odd to others. So the garments are the guideline for what is considered modest by our culture as compared to other cultures around the world. If someone wishes to become a part of LDS culture, they must alter their current sense of modesty to meet that of the church.

What is interesting about that is what is considered modest to other cultures is typically, constantly changing. There are a few that have not changed over the years, but for the most part other cultures are moving the line further and further on what is considered modest. Aside from the early alterations to church garments, the Lord's standard does not change. It is a constant in an ever changing world.

I don't know... I think we are still now and then getting alterations to garments. From what I understand, in the early days of the garments they weren't even a full-time wearing thing as they are now (if I'm mistaken on that, please correct me!) Garments hardly allow you to be immodest, but many of the garment styles are getting shorter. Then there are the military garments which are designed to not look very much like garments at all!

I do see what you are saying that the Lord's standards won't change... but I wonder if the garments really are concerned with modesty at all or if that is merely a side-effect that came from the necessity to cover them. My mom often talks about how when she was young people wore the short-shorts and tank-tops all the time without a thought for modesty as modesty in clothing wasn't really stressed at the time.

All in all, I'm sure all members of all cultures are perfectly happy to alter their clothing in order to meet garment standards. I just don't know if garments and modesty are intricately connected.

[Backroads]

THAT. That's what you keep on missing!

We NEVER said not to wear garments because it is HOT! It's like this exchange:

Expecially when there is enough selection of material to suit the individual garment wearer and their climate comfort tastes...

[Jennarator]

Climate was brought up as a reason for immodesty.

[Guest]

Climate was brought up as a reason for immodesty.

Read the thread again. You missed something.

Just because one decides to wear an A-shirt style instead of a T-shirt does not constitute immodesty. Filipino formal attire is a see-through long-sleeve, button-down shirt worn over either a t-shirt or an a-shirt. Note: Most Filipinos are Catholics. Yet, even though they wear this:

you can hardly call the Filipinos an immodest society!

Edited May 9, 2011 by anatess