Girl told to leave Prom over dress


annewandering
 Share

Recommended Posts

Sarcastic? Yes

Mean? No

I'm sure I'm older than many on the forum, younger than some. But I can distinctly remember days when youth in the church attended activities in tank tops and shorts above the knee.

Now I have seen individuals advocate that our youth live up to the same standards of dress as those who have covenanted to do so in the temple. They need to dress as though they are wearing garments. I've heard others attempt to shame even younger children (achievement days, primary etc.) that what they are wearing is immodest.

We are all entitled to our opinions. Mine is that we have gone a bit off the deep end on this modesty kick. I think it has gone a bit beyond a reasonable standard. We've moved beyond the concept of teaching correct principles and allowing individuals to govern themselves. That's my opinion.

So a bit tongue in cheek, where does it stop? If you are going to have 'impure thoughts' over a shoulder or a belly button, then what about a wrist? A calf?

-RM

I think you're right that people are starting to go overboard. It is a bit over-the-top, for example, to be giving lessons on dressing modestly to four-year-olds, and to expect them to wear clothing that would cover non-existent garments for four-year-olds. Yes, teach them from when they're young, but there's a time and a place for everything. Let's let kids have a childhood, for heaven's sake!

Plus, they're defining 'modesty' too narrowly. It may be partly about clothing and hair styles, but not only that. It's also about not getting puffed up with pride, not putting yourself above or before other people, and not doing the Rameumpton thing.

Likewise, our discussions about morality should not be only about sex--it's much broader than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I disagree with the notion that all sin is equal. Following that logic, baring one's shoulder is just as bad as going completely naked.

And the idea that any sin keeps us out of the presence of God was pretty much disproven by Jesus' entire life and ministry. God came down and lived among wretched, sinful human beings for over 30 years, ate with them, forgave them, loved them, and died for them.

I was victimized by the "all sin is not equal" crowd, so my emotions are very strong around the issue. If all sin is not equal then when do we just not forgive? Where does it start? I'm sorry I can not be rational about this, but just wanted to open the idea that we have to be really careful who we play God with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If all sin is not equal then when do we just not forgive?

I'm not sure how it follows that if there is a sliding scale of sin that there is a line of 'seriousness' where one doesn't have to forgive. We're commanded to forgive everyone, the discretion of not forgiving isn't up to us and that would be the same regardless of if there is a sliding scale of sin 'seriousness' or if all sin is equal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a really good thing these chaperons weren't at my prom.....no one would be at prom. Except the guys.

I think my daughter was the ONLY one dressed modestly at her prom in MN. She's lined up for pictures with at least 10 other girls ALL in strapless dresses. I have to say, (no bias or anything ;)) my daughter was the most beautiful and radiant of the group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sarcastic? Yes

Mean? No

I'm sure I'm older than many on the forum, younger than some. But I can distinctly remember days when youth in the church attended activities in tank tops and shorts above the knee.

Now I have seen individuals advocate that our youth live up to the same standards of dress as those who have covenanted to do so in the temple. They need to dress as though they are wearing garments. I've heard others attempt to shame even younger children (achievement days, primary etc.) that what they are wearing is immodest.

We are all entitled to our opinions. Mine is that we have gone a bit off the deep end on this modesty kick. I think it has gone a bit beyond a reasonable standard. We've moved beyond the concept of teaching correct principles and allowing individuals to govern themselves. That's my opinion.

So a bit tongue in cheek, where does it stop? If you are going to have 'impure thoughts' over a shoulder or a belly button, then what about a wrist? A calf?

-RM

Perhaps "mean" wasn't the right word. I agree with everything you've said here. I just thought the burqa reference was insensitive, especially given that we now have a very active member of this forum who is a (recently) former Muslim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please show me some scriptures that say sin will allow you to reside in the presence of God.

As Jesus was having a meal in Levi’s home, many tax collectors and sinners were eating with Jesus and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. When the experts in the law and the Pharisees saw that he was eating with sinners and tax collectors, they said to his disciples, “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?” When Jesus heard this he said to them, “Those who are healthy don’t need a physician, but those who are sick do. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Mark 2:15-17, NET Bible)

I think this is what HEthePrimate was referring to.

M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Jesus was having a meal in Levi’s home, many tax collectors and sinners were eating with Jesus and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. When the experts in the law and the Pharisees saw that he was eating with sinners and tax collectors, they said to his disciples, “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?” When Jesus heard this he said to them, “Those who are healthy don’t need a physician, but those who are sick do. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Mark 2:15-17, NET Bible)

I think this is what HEthePrimate was referring to.

M.

I'm sure it's what he was referencing but the relevance is a bit hard to see. Ram was pointing out that even the smallest stain of sin is quite literally damning (this is why we need the atonement so desperately). That Christ ministered to sinners and publicans isn't a counterpoint to such. I think HE is trying to draw attention to Christ's power to cleanse us but it's not immediately obvious how that negates Ram's point.

1) Any stain of sin will keep us from God's presence.

2) The stain of sin can be removed by the power of Christ's atonement.

Both points are true and neither is a counterpoint to the truthfulness of the other.

Edited by Dravin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share