Sign in to follow this  
Queolby

A Modesty Article that is going around.

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Some insist that the Church needs no introspection

This sort of approach isn't useful until we decide what's being meant by "the Church", which I believe changes meanings as each individual tries to push their agenda further.

For example:

10 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

its all the learners

If by "The Church" we mean the members --  then "the learners" ARE the church, so suggesting the learners are culpable is introspection into "the Church"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Fether said:

If I find out that something I am doing or wearing causes lustful feelings in women or homosexual men, the I better stop right away.

Yeah, because you're around some seriously desperate people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed, I was careless there. In that post, when I reference "the Church", I have in mind the institution/entity/people responsible for publishing curriculum materials, conducting teacher training, and such. Those responsible for deciding what topics are taught when and for suggesting to teachers how to teach those topics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MrShorty said:

Agreed, I was careless there. In that post, when I reference "the Church", I have in mind the institution/entity/people responsible for publishing curriculum materials, conducting teacher training, and such. Those responsible for deciding what topics are taught when and for suggesting to teachers how to teach those topics.

If you can find me a curriculum manual that teaches modesty or chastity in a way you (or others) consider wrong then we'll discuss. But I'm betting dollars to donuts that there's no chewed-up-gum lessons in church manuals. Maybe I'm wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

1) "Modesty" is not defined as "what clothes you wear".  Rather it is the attitude of meekness and humility, by which we carry ourselves and work with others & God.  What clothes a person wears is part of that, but only one small part of the picture.   While clothes should be talk about some, it should only be a small part of discussion, not >90%.

I hear this a lot, and whereas it's technically correct, the church lessons aren't always on (nor are they meant to be) the other principles that have their own lessons. As in -- humility is its own gospel principle that we have lessons on -- meekness is its own gospel principle that we have lessons on -- etc. The lessons/discussions on "modesty" are, sometimes, on "dressing modesty", which is, indeed, defined as "what clothes you wear". I do absolutely agree that how we approach dressing modestly is based in our humility and decency, but dressing modestly is its own important principle.

Either way, I find it interesting when the anti-dressing-modesty but theoretical pro-"real"-modesty-modesty crowd pridefully demands, without any humility or meekness, that it's no one's business to tell them what they should and should not wear, as they proudly flaunt their indecency!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are right, but I also don't recall ever seeing a curriculum manual that explicitly says, "We hear of some of you using chewed gum object lessons in your chastity lessons. Don't use them because they are false." It sometimes seems like our curriculum materials don't often disavow false teachings of yesterday. Maybe that's all that is needed sometimes. Or maybe those kinds of things fall under "teacher training". It sometimes seems like we are so resistant to any kind of "let's look at how we are teaching the gospel (formally and informally) and see if we can make improvements" when it comes to these kinds of topics. I think there are improvements that could be made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I think you are right, but I also don't recall ever seeing a curriculum manual that explicitly says, "We hear of some of you using chewed gum object lessons in your chastity lessons. Don't use them because they are false." It sometimes seems like our curriculum materials don't often disavow false teachings of yesterday. Maybe that's all that is needed sometimes. Or maybe those kinds of things fall under "teacher training". It sometimes seems like we are so resistant to any kind of "let's look at how we are teaching the gospel (formally and informally) and see if we can make improvements" when it comes to these kinds of topics. I think there are improvements that could be made.

That’s interesting.  I distinctly remember in my youth, a New Era article condemning the idea that repentance is like pulling nails out of a board (leaving the holes), and asserting that the better analogy is that repentance gives you a whole clean board to work with.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

It sometimes seems like we are so resistant to any kind of "let's look at how we are teaching the gospel (formally and informally) and see if we can make improvements" when it comes to these kinds of topics.

I challenge you to find a single individual who is resistant to the idea of no longer using the chewing-gum analogy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Just_A_Guy I recall the same article. I don't offhand recall the year, but it was before I got married, so early '90's at the latest. I found it quite enlightening at the time, because I learned that those analogies (which I had encountered at some point prior to this article) were wrong. An interesting thing I note is that, 20+ years later and these object lessons are not extinct from our teaching. One New Era article (and numerous online discussions since then) is not quite enough to push the analogy to extinction. I don't recall encountering very many references to this New Era article within my own Church instruction (perhaps because I have not been involved in the youth). Would it be enough to give that article greater visibility in our curricula?

TFP, I hope I would not find anyone who is invested in these kinds of analogies. I don't understand why, but, even if none of us is invested in these ideas, these ideas seem to have a persistence to them. Would it be so terrible in this introspection process for the Church to ask itself why these false ideas persist in our culture/teaching and what it could do differently to refute them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

TFP, I hope I would not find anyone who is invested in these kinds of analogies. I don't understand why, but, even if none of us is invested in these ideas, these ideas seem to have a persistence to them. Would it be so terrible in this introspection process for the Church to ask itself why these false ideas persist in our culture/teaching and what it could do differently to refute them?

Of course it's not terrible. I'm actually wondering how it is that you've concluded that there is no introspective process for the Church or its members.

There is, of course, a very large divide between introspection and declaring lessons on dressing modestly false doctrine.

Edited by The Folk Prophet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

An interesting thing I note is that, 20+ years later and these object lessons are not extinct from our teaching. One New Era article (and numerous online discussions since then) is not quite enough to push the analogy to extinction.

Can you back this claim up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Sounds to me like a Bishop with a great sense of humor and a girl with none and a big chip on her shoulder to me.

How is there any sense of humor in this? 

Being called into the Bishop's office and being told that I should date this boy and use the idea of marriage at a later time to get to go on a mission. This was after I said that I had no desire to ever date him.  I was told to do it anyway and help him go on a mission.  I was 17.  My dad talked to the bishop about. He was sure that I heard it wrong. No. I didn't.  They had words about it.  My dad came out so upset and told that the church is true but some of people are not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, LadyGunnar said:

Being called into the Bishop's office and being told that I should date this boy and use the idea of marriage at a later time to get to go on a mission. This was after I said that I had no desire to ever date him.  I was told to do it anyway and help him go on a mission.  I was 17.  My dad talked to the bishop about. He was sure that I heard it wrong. No. I didn't.  They had words about it.  My dad came out so upset and told that the church is true but some of people are not.

My skepticism remains. But taking you at your word...fair enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Fether said:

So much “woke” feminist garbage in this article.

The progressive woman have become a huge thorn in teaching doctrine now-a-days due to the feminist movement. Just like testifying of the roll of men and woman in the home and the innate value of a baby fetus, Talking about the truth of modesty is social suicide. 

But here I go cause there is no society I am worried about here.

claim 1: women were taught not to wear scandalous attire so men wouldn’t be tempted.

Yes young women were taught this. As found in the gospel topics section on churchofjesuschrist.org:

”Central to the command to be modest is an understanding of the sacred power of procreation, the ability to bring children into the world. This power is to be used only between husband and wife. Revealing and sexually suggestive clothing, which includes short shorts and skirts, tight clothing, and shirts that do not cover the stomach, can stimulate desires and actions that violate the Lord’s law of chastity.”

 clearly there is a problem here. Clearly immodesty can lead to temptation and I don’t know anyone that would argue that. 

Lindsey’s (the author) approach to this is an “every man/woman” for his/herself approach. As long as what she is doing is not affecting her, than everything is ok. It is so frustratingly un-Christlike and has only fed to the raging feminist fire that has spread into our church.

Yes. ONE reason to dress modestly is so not to arouse sexual feelings in others. Men should do the same. If I find out that something I am doing or wearing causes lustful feelings in women or homosexual men, the I better stop right away. I know what it is like to struggle with thoughts and I don’t want to be the source of any one else’s evil thoughts. 

That is the Christlike way.

 

claim 2: modesty is a woman’s issue

No one is teaching this, it’s just a harder thing to do if you are a woman. I definitely had modesty lessons, but it was more about appearing clean and acting appropriately.

This is another feminist situation where because it is more difficult for woman, they see it as oppressive and evil. 

Claim 3: we can tell people what to wear

This is just an extension of claim 1 and 2

I can agree with her at point here. If the story she tells about her “pink” shirt is true, I wouldn’t have worried to much about it. But If I wore a Trojan shirt, that would definitely be considered immodest and I would not wear it. It’s different levels of the same principle. If you are worried someone might look at your t-shirt with a Victoria secret logo and feel aroused, dont wear it.

claim 4: priesthood leaders are attracted to young woman 

This whole section she has is completely idiotic. She tells the story of when she was at girls camp and the young woman leaders forced the young woman To dress modestly for when the bishopric comes and speaks.

In the mornings and evenings, my wife does not wear a bra under her shirt. However, If we have guests coming over she goes and puts one on so her nipples are poking through her shirt. Additionally, I have a pair of shorts that are short, tight, and “revealing”. I like wearing them to bed, but if I’m having company over in the morning or evening, I’m going to change out of them, especially if one of them coming over is female.

Other nonsensical statements 

1. “If a claim cannot be supported by scripture, or perhaps a recent general conference talk: don’t teach it.“

 The irony here is so thick I can’t even cut it with my metaphorical lightsaber. She says this in her explanation of a quote from a 70 from 1974. Additionally, giving prophetic direction an expiration date is what leads to apostasy.

2. “The claim that women have stewardship over another man’s thoughts is nowhere to be found in the scriptures. In Elder Jeffrey R. Holland’s talk To Young Women, there was no mention of young men depending on the women to keep them clean.”

Jeffery R Holland also taught “although I am not my brother’s keeper, I am my brothers brother”. Stop making this mortal life a free-for-all. 

When I’m with my friends, we make fun of each other and laugh at our mistakes together. But If one of my friends struggles with depression, I’m going to be more careful about the things I say.

Thanks for your response! 

A girl once told me that she specifically dresses modest to help men bridal their sexual passions. And I was pretty impressed by that. Choosing to dress modestly to help the 19 year old boy who is trying to be more like Jesus, and to keep His commandments, and to keep his thoughts pure in Babylon--is a beautiful thing. It shows the love of a sister toward a brother and it shows how far a women is willing to go outside the norm of giving charity.

Edited by Queolby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Can you back this claim up?

Probably not adequately, but here's something at ldsliving by the authors of Sexual Wholeness in Marriage (2014) and A  Better Way to Teach Kids about Sex (2018) that claims that they are still hearing about these metaphors being taught to young adults "in the years leading up to" these publications. http://www.ldsliving.com/The-Dangers-of-Using-Metaphors-When-Teaching-Youth-About-Sexuality-What-We-Can-Do-Instead/s/88898

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Probably not adequately, but here's something at ldsliving by the authors of Sexual Wholeness in Marriage (2014) and A  Better Way to Teach Kids about Sex (2018) that claims that they are still hearing about these metaphors being taught to young adults "in the years leading up to" these publications. http://www.ldsliving.com/The-Dangers-of-Using-Metaphors-When-Teaching-Youth-About-Sexuality-What-We-Can-Do-Instead/s/88898

Interesting. The article explains exactly why these approaches persist. Fear based metaphors are less uncomfortable to use than actually discussing sex with kids.

Personally I call it lazy.

Edited by The Folk Prophet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a side note, @MrShorty,

The problem with the damaged-goods metaphors is that they're incomplete.

There is a complete damaged-goods metaphor that sets a pretty good example for us.

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. Isaiah 1:18

So I suppose one could apply: Though your board be filled with nail holes, it shall be as smooth as glass; though your gum be chewed, it shall be as if straight out of the wrapper.

Edited by The Folk Prophet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

@Just_A_Guy I recall the same article. I don't offhand recall the year, but it was before I got married, so early '90's at the latest. I found it quite enlightening at the time, because I learned that those analogies (which I had encountered at some point prior to this article) were wrong. An interesting thing I note is that, 20+ years later and these object lessons are not extinct from our teaching. One New Era article (and numerous online discussions since then) is not quite enough to push the analogy to extinction. I don't recall encountering very many references to this New Era article within my own Church instruction (perhaps because I have not been involved in the youth). Would it be enough to give that article greater visibility in our curricula?

It was paradigm-changing for me too—not because I’d heard any contrasting analogies under the auspices of Church instruction; but merely because I had a linear way of thinking and conceptualized my current self as to some degree an inevitable and unchangeable product of past decisions and events.  Who knew I could really purge all that?  Before then “I knew”, as Amulek says, “and yet I would not know.”

I would gently suggest that for purposes of this discussion you’re changing the goal post a bit, in that first you suggest the paradigm has never been challenged through official channels; and then you suggest it hasn’t been challenged enough. I’m not really in a position to do a comprehensive study of twenty (thirty?  Ugh, I’m old!) years of Church publications.  I will simply note with interest the disconnect between what I hear at Church week after week after week, versus what other people on the interwebs say they are hearing.  So when someone like @LadyGunnar says they were taught a very specific thing, the lawyer in me wants to say “really?  Who taught it?  Would they acknowledge having taught it in that way?  Will you please give me their name and phone number”?  Not because I think anyone’s lying, per se; but because humans have a huge capacity to hear a statement and pull out of it something that was radically different than what the speaker intended.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

On a side note, @MrShorty,

The problem with the damaged-goods metaphors is that they're incomplete.

There is a complete damaged-goods metaphor that sets a pretty good example for us.

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. Isaiah 1:18

So I suppose one could apply: Though your board be filled with nail holes, it shall be as smooth as glass; though your gum be chewed, it shall be as if straight out of the package.

Well, and it’s not necessarily that simple either.  A guy who fornicated may get a “new board”; but that new board still carries the load of child support, coparenting with a crazy ex, venereal disease, bonding/trust issues, etc. that was laid upon the old board; and even the Atonement doesn’t make all of that magically disappear.  

Preparing a teenager to live in the world as a grownup does, means making them aware of those sorts of inescapable consequences; and that creates a tension with the theological idea of forgiveness and absolution that isn’t always easy to reconcile—especially for a teenager whose own moral development (I’m thinking in a Kohlberg sort of way) is still malleable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Well, and it’s not necessarily that simple either.  A guy who fornicated may get a “new board”; but that new board still carries the load of child support, coparenting with a crazy ex, venereal disease, bonding/trust issues, etc. that was laid upon the old board; and even the Atonement doesn’t make all of that magically disappear.  

How is this different than any sin?

In the end, the Atonement will, indeed, make all of that magically disappear. But if you cut your arm off, you're going to have to wait a bit until you have both arms again.

3 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Preparing a teenager to live in the world as a grownup does, means making them aware of those sorts of inescapable consequences; and that creates a tension with the theological idea of forgiveness and absolution that isn’t always easy to reconcile—especially for a teenager whose own moral development (I’m thinking in a Kohlberg sort of way) is still malleable. 

Fair point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Fether said:

1. “If a claim cannot be supported by scripture, or perhaps a recent general conference talk: don’t teach it.“

I'm wondering what scripture or General Conference talk this statement comes from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Vort said:

I'm wondering what scripture or General Conference talk this statement comes from.

Notice that she says that if it wasn't "taught in a RECENT General Conference talk, don't teach it." As if the older talks are obsolete. You can go into the LDS app and search 'Modesty' and get all kinds of talks from the relief society leaders and read things that this woman would disagree with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/3/2019 at 5:27 PM, The Folk Prophet said:

On a side note, @MrShorty,

The problem with the damaged-goods metaphors is that they're incomplete.

There is a complete damaged-goods metaphor that sets a pretty good example for us.

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. Isaiah 1:18

So I suppose one could apply: Though your board be filled with nail holes, it shall be as smooth as glass; though your gum be chewed, it shall be as if straight out of the wrapper.

That's how the gum analogy was taught to me in a combined Sunday School class many years ago. The object lesson involved bringing out a stick of spearmint gum and asking if anyone wanted it (plenty of hands went up) followed by chewing it and reissuing the offer (no hands went up). We were taught breaking the law of chastity has permanent (in mortality) consequences like the gum that had been chewed. It's best to stay pure in the first place for this reason. However, some of us may have already strayed from the ideal and it's important to understand that through the atonement we can be made clean again and just like a fresh stick of gum... with the caveat that some consequences like STD's and pregnancy could still bring about lifelong challenges that we would not have had to face if we hadn't strayed in the first place. I've never understood the push back against what seems to be a fine analogy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, SpiritDragon said:

I've never understood the push back against what seems to be a fine analogy.

I think, upon reflection, the push back on sexual issues is pretty easy to understand. People want their cake and to eat it too. Er...maybe it's people want their gum and to eat it too. :D

We are constantly bombarded with messages about sin not being that big of a deal, don't feel bad, shame is the worst thing ever, everybody does it, and it's all the church's fault.

Where do we really think these messages come from?

It takes a special kind of intentional idiocy to take messages about the harm of sin to heart, but entirely ignore messages about repentance and the Atonement's cleansing power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this