Modest is Hottest: One-Piece Swimsuits Are Trending

[Guest]

On 5/24/2017 at 7:47 PM, Jojo Bags said:

How are one piece suits modest according to church standards? 

Maybe think about it in context. We're talking about clothing specific to an activity, not clothing people are walking around in. Take a look at this picture of  some members of the BYU women's swim team and release yourself from the responsibility of judging and fussing over what women of the church wear to swim in. 

[classylady]

On 5/19/2017 at 11:29 AM, pam said:

With several trips planned for the rest of the year including a cruise, I need to find a swimsuit that is modest.  I have been looking at tankinis with the shorts.  They are much better suited for my body than a one piece would be.  And I think that is part of the key to choosing something modest.  Choose something for your body style, not just because it's trending or cute.

I've been looking for a new swimsuit as well. I also like the tankinis with the shorts. One of my biggest gripes about the one-piece swimsuit is when you have to use the restroom. The wet suit has to be peeled off, down to your ankles, exposing your breasts and lower area. And, honestly, most bathroom stalls have gaps where others can see your naked body in all its glory.  Embarrassing!  I'm finished with the one-piece. 

[Jojo Bags]

On 5/26/2017 at 2:23 PM, kashleyann said:

 

Dup

Edited June 2, 2017 by Jojo Bags

[Jojo Bags]

On 5/26/2017 at 2:23 PM, kashleyann said:

 

Dup

Edited June 2, 2017 by Jojo Bags

[Jojo Bags]

On 5/26/2017 at 2:23 PM, kashleyann said:

The Church doesn't have a standing list of what styles of swimsuit are appropriate, but General Authorities have given specific counsel to avoid clothing that doesn't cover the stomach or that is low cut. Years ago, the Church did have a specific guideline to not wear "two-piece" swimsuits, meaning bikinis. 

One-piece swimsuits certainly aren't the only style of modest swimsuit, and all one-piece swimsuits aren't necessarily modest (you can buy plenty of one-piece suits that have cutouts or dip really low in the front, for example), but they're one style that tends to cover more skin than some other styles.

So, what you're saying is that Heavenly Father has waived His standards for modesty when it comes to swimming attire?  It's OK to show cleavage and have clothing so tight you can see every ripple, bump, and curve?

[The Folk Prophet]

Just now, Jojo Bags said:

 It's OK to show cleavage and have clothing so tight you can see every ripple, bump, and curve?

Leaving the "cleavage" part out, yes. Sometimes it is appropriate.

[Jojo Bags]

Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

Leaving the "cleavage" part out, yes. Sometimes it is appropriate.

How is the rest Church standard?

[Vort]

1 minute ago, Jojo Bags said:

So, what you're saying is that Heavenly Father has waived His standards for modesty when it comes to swimming attire?  It's OK to show cleavage and have clothing so tight you can see every ripple, bump, and curve?

"Modesty" is a poorly understood concept among us. It is primarily a spiritual, not a physical, attitude. I submit that one might exhibit more true and Godly modesty while naked than another who is fully clothed.

[zil]

Jojo, the only way to not show at least some "ripples, bumps, and curves" is if we all wore robes with hula-hoop-like things at the shoulders so that the robes never touched the body, cuz even in a temple dress (and even if it were on a man) some curves are gonna show.  Tight or not, the shape of the body still shows so long as the clothing is touching the body, and I have yet to see clothing that doesn't touch the body (unless there's hula-hoop-like things under it).

(I'm not arguing for everybody running around in spandex , I just think your description is not a reasonable one, even if your intent may be.)

(That said, I think @Vort has the more important point.)

[Jojo Bags]

On 5/26/2017 at 7:33 PM, Eowyn said:

Maybe think about it in context. We're talking about clothing specific to an activity, not clothing people are walking around in. Take a look at this picture of  some members of the BYU women's swim team and release yourself from the responsibility of judging and fussing over what women of the church wear to swim in. 

BYU allows its professors to teach that differing forms of socialism/communism is OK in some of the courses, yet countless GA's and prophets have condemned it.  Sure, it's been repackaged in a new, pretty wrapper called "fairness" or some other such garbage, but is it still OK?  The same for any other precept of the Gospel.  I'm curious why anyone would think that just because BYU allows something, that it would be approved by Heavenly Father.  BYU is very typical of the overwhelming majority of all colleges and universities in the world; it has gone liberal.  Elder H. Verlan Anderson taught law at BYU before being called to the First Quorum of Seventy.  Here's what he had to say about BYU.

Quote

Satan’s plan seems to be working to perfection among the Latter-day Saints today. I discover that almost without exception, the students here at the B.Y.U. believe in the 10 points of the Communist Manifesto either in whole or in part. This in spite of the fact that our modern prophets have identified communism as being diametrically opposed to everything for which the Church stands (See President McKay’s statement of the position of the Church on communism, April, 1966) and that it is Satan’s plan. (Many are Called But Few are Chosen, p. 49) Moroni warned us specifically about confusing God’s plan with Satan’s. He tells us a bitter fountain cannot bring forth good water, (Moro. 7:11) and that,

…whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ…then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; (Moro. 7:17)

He also points out in this same verse that those who subject themselves unto Satan persuade no one to do good. This fits communism exactly and the verses in between the two cited furnish a clear warning about the danger.

http://www.mormonchronicle.com/exclusive-elder-h-verlan-andersen-on-apostasy-of-the-church-members/

What about that pesky scripture that says, "For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance?"  Has it been waived, too?  "For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward."

[Jojo Bags]

22 minutes ago, Vort said:

"Modesty" is a poorly understood concept among us. It is primarily a spiritual, not a physical, attitude. I submit that one might exhibit more true and Godly modesty while naked than another who is fully clothed.

Really?  I guess  if you are in your bathroom or bedroom while naked, this would be true.  Actually, modesty is pretty black and white.  Sister Elaine S. Dalton said that modesty is an outward sign of an inward commitment.  She also said it was the "foundation stone" of chastity.  I really can't see God waiving his standards just because some place like BYU said it was OK.

Edited June 2, 2017 by Jojo Bags

[The Folk Prophet]

4 minutes ago, Jojo Bags said:

Really?  I guess  if you are in your bathroom or bedroom while naked, this would be true.  Actually, modesty is pretty black and white.  Sister Elaine S. Dalton said that modesty is an outward sign of an inward commitment.  She also said it was the "foundation stone" of chastity.  I really can't see God waiving his standards just because some place like BYU said it was OK.

What is God's standard? In Joseph Smith's time I suppose a knee length skirt would have been scandalously immodest. Is that the Lord's standard?

[Guest MormonGator]

24 minutes ago, Jojo Bags said:

  BYU is very typical of the overwhelming majority of all colleges and universities in the world; it has gone liberal.

 

True. When I think of schools advocating progressive liberalism the first school I think of is BYU. No doubt.  Move over Berkeley. 

Edited June 2, 2017 by MormonGator

[The Folk Prophet]

2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

True. When I think of schools advocating progressive liberalism the first school I think of is BYU. No doubt.  

I find this view truly strange in light of the riots, safe spaces, actual policies, and other what-have-you going on at many schools.

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I find this view truly strange in light of the riots, safe spaces, actual policies, and other what-have-you going on at many schools.

He was being facetious.  Consider this was in response to Jojo's belief that "BYU has gone liberal".

Edited June 2, 2017 by Guest

[NightSG]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

What is God's standard?

Easy to determine; look what He puts us here in.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

He was being facetious.  Consider this was in response to Jojo's belief that "BYU has gone liberal".

I see that now. Sorry Gator.

[The Folk Prophet]

35 minutes ago, NightSG said:

Easy to determine; look what He puts us here in.

The joke aside, I don't think it is, actually, easy to determine, which is the problem with views like Jojo Bags who thinks it can be narrowed down to specific rule set. A half inch above the knee = modest but a full inch above the knee = immodest and so forth. Full length prairie-style dresses on women are modest but pants are obscene. Covering the shoulder is modest but showing the elbow is just fine.

I guess per Jojo's view women should all swim in these:

Oh...but wait...that shows too much calf. Whoops. Hope I don't get banned for the pornographic posting.

The funny thing is, of course, that judging what is modest for oneself is, really, quite easy to determine if one understands what modesty actually is. Judging modesty on someone else is significantly more challenging.

Edited June 2, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[anatess2]

43 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

 

The funny thing is, of course, that judging what is modest for oneself is, really, quite easy to determine if one understands what modesty actually is. Judging modesty on someone else is significantly more challenging.

Which is why it should be avoided unless the person is under your sphere of authority.

Yes, modesty is easy to determine.  Go to Church, ponder the scriptures, heed the words of the prophet, attend the temple, do your callings, pray heartily.  Your conscience will rankle when you're not modest in the same manner that it will rankle when you didn't offer enough tithes or you didn't keep the Sabbath Day holy, etc. etc.  Let the Holy Spirit guide...

So @pam, beach has been a daily event here in Florida for a while now.  My friend goes to the beach in this super cute girly-pink outfit that looks like what one would wear to play tennis in.  I looked all over the internet for it and couldn't find it.  She bought it from South Korea.  It looks kinda like the outfit in the picture below with the same style top but the pleats in the skirt don't flare up as much (the skirt doesn't float up in the water).  The skirt and the "panty" is one piece.  It's super duper cute!

[The Folk Prophet]

25 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Which is why it should be avoided unless the person is under your sphere of authority.

Depends. If I'm teaching my daughter about modesty then I'm going to set blanket standards (rules) until she's old enough to understand better. That blanket rule being taught automatically implies a judgment of all others in the same sphere. It's not a final judgment, a you're going to hell judgment, a you're an evil person judgment, but definitely a "that's immodest" judgment. And I'm perfectly fine with that, as long as my daughter learns the broader picture of what modesty is and isn't really as she matures.

Really that's the crux of it. Some people never grow up in these matters.

[anatess2]

7 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Depends. If I'm teaching my daughter about modesty then I'm going to set blanket standards (rules) until she's old enough to understand better. That blanket rule being taught automatically implies a judgment of all others in the same sphere. It's not a final judgment, a you're going to hell judgment, a you're an evil person judgment, but definitely a "that's immodest" judgment. And I'm perfectly fine with that, as long as my daughter learns the broader picture of what modesty is and isn't really as she matures.

Really that's the crux of it. Some people never grow up in these matters.

I don't see teaching your daughter standards as a judgment on others.  It is simply that - teaching your daughter morals.  Your daughter, of course, is under your sphere of authority so you can judge her modesty to instill discipline and correction.  I teach my boys they have to wear their undershirts and boxers under all clothing except for sleeping, swimming, shower... you know the drill... It doesn't even enter my mind that I'm judging everybody else who don't wear undershirts and boxers because I'm not.  Make sense?

[The Folk Prophet]

34 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I don't see teaching your daughter standards as a judgment on others. 

That's because you're narrowly defining judging to mean something less than what I believe it actually means. I plan to teach my child to judge -- I just hope to teach righteous judgment. The idea of not judging is ridiculous to me. Makes no sense whatsoever. I don't buy absolute neutrality. You see something and you assess it. Which is synonymous with judging. You either assess (judge) it to be good or you assess it be bad or you assess that it makes no difference. This is judging. And it cannot NOT be done. In theory one could stick their head in a hole and never interact with anything or anyone, but in practical reality that is not possible. If you interact, you judge. The key is to judge righteously. The idea that accepting everything isn't judging is baloney. If you accept something you are judging it to be acceptable or good. It's merely a claim that one judges everything to be good. It's still judging.

People like to think judgment is equivalent to condemnation. But it isn't. Judging is making a determination. It is drawing a conclusion. Both good, bad and neutral are a part of that.

Now if you say it in terms of condemnation then we're in sync a bit more. I do not plan on teaching my daughter to condemn others by the standards I teach her. I do, very intentionally, intend to teach her to make righteous judgments.

[Sunday21]

6 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Which is why it should be avoided unless the person is under your sphere of authority.

Yes, modesty is easy to determine.  Go to Church, ponder the scriptures, heed the words of the prophet, attend the temple, do your callings, pray heartily.  Your conscience will rankle when you're not modest in the same manner that it will rankle when you didn't offer enough tithes or you didn't keep the Sabbath Day holy, etc. etc.  Let the Holy Spirit guide...

So @pam, beach has been a daily event here in Florida for a while now.  My friend goes to the beach in this super cute girly-pink outfit that looks like what one would wear to play tennis in.  I looked all over the internet for it and couldn't find it.  She bought it from South Korea.  It looks kinda like the outfit in the picture below with the same style top but the pleats in the skirt don't flare up as much (the skirt doesn't float up in the water).  The skirt and the "panty" is one piece.  It's super duper cute!

https://www.google.ca/search?q=cute+swim+skirt+korea&client=safari&channel=iphone_bm&prmd=isnv&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&fir=B6D5EwTkEM_rmM%3A%2CoLkl2twbVdMNqM%2C_%3B3YG0Fy3XiGbNJM%3A%2CxNpRwt2ldqc_GM%2C_%3BdFAbQH9xMwwibM%3A%2CCIUFNPRWeu2CCM%2C_%3BjSYCbA4343ZjCM%3A%2CwqB3TNYXYYADeM%2C_%3BElLAlk2THmWAMM%3A%2C8cNWRSCYaJnuhM%2C_%3BVr5KrdCE0cEcVM%3A%2CRCmuK2e6ASSNnM%2C_%3Bk43-rLPGptZ5MM%3A%2CypmnVkqrRp5g-M%2C_%3BbagDWImciVtvNM%3A%2CCIUFNPRWeu2CCM%2C_%3BD6jZg49pLGt0KM%3A%2CZhWD_zb4Ua2DvM%2C_%3BH4o-o8NFqJBL_M%3A%2CJs1YNgClgir9dM%2C_&usg=__ulUbf2PpA-5jh-VkbB0wmBDijIA%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjZ-Pqix6DUAhUC2IMKHaMGBAgQ420IXA&biw=1024&bih=729#imgrc=bagDWImciVtvNM:

[Sunday21]

https://www.google.ca/search?q=cute+swim+skirt+korea&client=safari&channel=iphone_bm&prmd=isnv&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&fir=B6D5EwTkEM_rmM%3A%2CoLkl2twbVdMNqM%2C_%3B3YG0Fy3XiGbNJM%3A%2CxNpRwt2ldqc_GM%2C_%3BdFAbQH9xMwwibM%3A%2CCIUFNPRWeu2CCM%2C_%3BjSYCbA4343ZjCM%3A%2CwqB3TNYXYYADeM%2C_%3BElLAlk2THmWAMM%3A%2C8cNWRSCYaJnuhM%2C_%3BVr5KrdCE0cEcVM%3A%2CRCmuK2e6ASSNnM%2C_%3Bk43-rLPGptZ5MM%3A%2CypmnVkqrRp5g-M%2C_%3BbagDWImciVtvNM%3A%2CCIUFNPRWeu2CCM%2C_%3BD6jZg49pLGt0KM%3A%2CZhWD_zb4Ua2DvM%2C_%3BH4o-o8NFqJBL_M%3A%2CJs1YNgClgir9dM%2C_&usg=__ulUbf2PpA-5jh-VkbB0wmBDijIA%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjZ-Pqix6DUAhUC2IMKHaMGBAgQ420IXA&biw=1024&bih=729#imgdii=a0ypELktI15ZLM:&imgrc=bagDWImciVtvNM:

[anatess2]

17 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

That's because you're narrowly defining judging to mean something less than what I believe it actually means. I plan to teach my child to judge -- I just hope to teach righteous judgment. The idea of not judging is ridiculous to me. Makes no sense whatsoever. I don't buy absolute neutrality. You see something and you assess it. Which is synonymous with judging. You either assess (judge) it to be good or you assess it be bad or you assess that it makes no difference. This is judging. And it cannot NOT be done. In theory one could stick their head in a hole and never interact with anything or anyone, but in practical reality that is not possible. If you interact, you judge. The key is to judge righteously. The idea that accepting everything isn't judging is baloney. If you accept something you are judging it to be acceptable or good. It's merely a claim that one judges everything to be good. It's still judging.

People like to think judgment is equivalent to condemnation. But it isn't. Judging is making a determination. It is drawing a conclusion. Both good, bad and neutral are a part of that.

Now if you say it in terms of condemnation then we're in sync a bit more. I do not plan on teaching my daughter to condemn others by the standards I teach her. I do, very intentionally, intend to teach her to make righteous judgments.

Okay, I understand what you mean.  That's not the judging I'm talking about.  The judging I'm talking about is that judgment where-in you look at a person as not righteous, immoral, etc. etc.  That's the judgment that can be righteous/unrighteous.  Judging if you should go left or right when a choice is before you is judgment but that connotation is completely different.  That can be righteous or unrighteous as well but it has nothing to do with judging a person, it has everything to do with exercising agency. 

Now, where the left-or-right judgment becomes unrighteous judgment is when... okay, I'm going to illustrate with a bit of absurdum - Jojobags is walking with his daughter, sees a woman from the BYU swimteam and he points to her and tells his kid, "see that woman over there in that swimsuit?  Don't wear that outfit because that's not who we are." (this is exactly the phrase I use with my kids .  That is judgment of agency.  Now, if Jojobags would have told his kid, "see that woman over there in that swimsuit?  Don't wear that outfit because that woman is immoral."  That's judgment of someone else's character and is unrighteous because that woman is not under Jojobag's authority.  So basically - judging an action/event/etc as a means for somebody to choose the right is judgment but is not what I'm talking about.  Judging an action/event/etc. to paint the character of the other person even if it is part of somebody deciding to choose the right is what I'm talking about that should not be done unless you're in authority.

Summary - judging a person's action to choose your own actions is good exercise of judgment.  Judging a person as immoral because of a person's action is bad exercise of judgment without proper authority and is not necessary in the process of choosing your own actions.  And yes, my kids were taught the difference between the two ever since they were little - it was very important for them to know this because they're the only Mormons in a sea of Catholics in my side of the family.

Edited June 3, 2017 by anatess2