Sign in to follow this  
Fether

Full and complete lesson on modesty?

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

You can have @mirkwood’s seat. He flunked out. His skills in the classroom are equal to his skills in Scrabble. 

BLAM!!!  A double whammy.  The ol'  1 - 2.   Shift those feet.

Cue: announcer's vocal forte.

@mirkwood is down!  Can he come back from this harrowing onslaught by Redbeard, himself.

Stay tuned, sports fans.  Same bat-time.  Same bat-channel.

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/9/2021 at 9:46 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

The application that has been most prevalent in my mind lately (as our ward council has grappled with COVID-related drama) is this:  if “modesty”, properly understood, demands that a female dress conservatively around a male; then it also demands that an anti-masker wear a mask around a COVID-hypochondriac.  

Uh…no.  The two are not even closely related.  An unreasonable fear of having some illness versus following a commandment to dress modestly is not even comparing apples and oranges.  That’s comparing apples and flashlights.  If bearing each other’s burdens included enabling each other’s fears, then what about someone else’s fears of getting sick from breathing their own carbon dioxide all day?

How far do we want to take that reasoning?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Stay tuned, sports fans.  Same bat-time.  Same bat-channel.

Dude, major comic book law violated.
 

Most Batman fans HATE that show with a burning passion. It made the best detective on Earth into a slapstick, silly and absurd character. @mirkwood and @Godless-think I’m passionate about the Black Album? Uh, you are right. Now give me a few drinks and let me rant about how much that wretched, sinful abomination set Batman back 20 years. 

Edited by LDSGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Dude, major comic book law violated.
 

Most Batman fans HATE that show with a burning passion. It made the best detective on Earth into a slapstick, silly and absurd character. @mirkwood and @Godless-think I’m passionate about the Black Album? Uh, you are right. Now give me a few drinks and let me rant about how much that wretched, sinful abomination set Batman back 20 years. 

So, Keaton or Bale?  (Not the movies, we all know Nolan rocked it.  But the actors).

Notice I skipped over the 90s.  They were abominations from which Clooney and Kilmer never recovered.

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


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

So, Keaton or Bale?  (Not the movies, we all know Nolan rocked it.  But the actors).

Bale, but I think Keaton did a fine job in the first Burton movie. I’m really picky with comic book movies. I’ve been reading comics for over 35 years now so I have my own interpretations of the characters. My favorite comic book movie of all time is Shazam. The one without Shaq! Lol

Edited by LDSGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Dude, major comic book law violated.
 

Most Batman fans HATE that show with a burning passion. It made the best detective on Earth into a slapstick, silly and absurd character. @mirkwood and @Godless-think I’m passionate about the Black Album? Uh, you are right. Now give me a few drinks and let me rant about how much that wretched, sinful abomination set Batman back 20 years. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

 

Some people get passionate about gay marriage and abortion. Religious freedom. 
 

I spend hours and hours thinking about how that album, not St. Anger, was the real start of their decline. St. Anger is objectively a far worse album, but it all went south when Metallica became radio friendly. 
 

There’s a reason why your idiotic cousin has the Black Album and no other metal albums. To show how “diverse” is music taste is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Who said "only"?

Many in the church feel this way. And coming from someone who studies often and enjoys church, I don’t know that I have a strong understanding and testimony in the concept of modesty when it is NOT applied to the way women dress.

I dont ever remember a lesson about modesty that doesn’t have to do with cleavage and tight clothing. I understand it includes wearing appropriate attire during activities like church, swearing, the way you communicate, etc.but  that is done in a conversation about reverence, not modesty. The modesty lessons I have had have always been focused on women and the way they dress with a footnote about how we should all should dress well and watch how they speak 

Edited by Fether

Share this post


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

Why would you suppose that so many feel like the only conversation being had on modesty is how women dress?

 I think it is the result of the taint of hypersexualized society, which became that way largely for marketing purposes. And when the success of "sex sells" was demonstrated, a variety of secular/political ideologies have adopted the approach (see how this is done in the mass media). So even the "elect" are prone to compromise their sexual expression through dress, entertainment and other means. And many "elect" were already prone to being prudish and judgmental, so this hypersexualizing just gives them more fodder on one hand or hypocrisy on the other. Both men and women are manipulated in these ways, but the focus on women, I believe, has to do with men being the ones with the greater disposable income. But as women get more economic power, the recent trend to oppose "Eurocentric" beauty standards in advertising, media, etc. is very sexualized as a means to draw their dollars. Even "Me Too" has gotten sexualized in a way, in that to get the point across, some boldly assert their sexuality as an antidote to sexual shaming. All this plays out in dress and grooming among many other choices. Just my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Fether said:

Many in the church feel this way. And coming from someone who studies often and enjoys church, I don’t know that I have a strong understanding and testimony in the concept of modesty when it is NOT applied to the way women dress.

I dont ever remember a lesson about modesty that doesn’t have to do with cleavage and tight clothing. I understand it includes wearing appropriate attire during activities like church, swearing, the way you communicate, etc.but  that is done in a conversation about reverence, not modesty. The modesty lessons I have had have always been focused on women and the way they dress with a footnote about how we should all should dress well and watch how they speak 

Maybe we should ask the women on the board how they feel? 
 
What I do find interesting though is how to deal with “immodesty”. If it’s still a “problem“ after all this time, maybe the church should address it differently? Same with porn too, to be frank. If porn use is still rising, (I have no idea if it is) than something is obviously not working. 

@Suzie

@Jane_Doe

Edited by LDSGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Maybe we should ask the women on the board how they feel? 
 

Do you often find that you have to ask women to tell you how they feel?  Because the women in my life have never felt the need for an invitation.  😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/10/2021 at 5:13 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

 he’s being a self-centered drama queen. 

🤣 Sometimes the truth hurts.  :P   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Jedi_Nephite said:

Uh…no.  The two are not even closely related.  An unreasonable fear of having some illness versus following a commandment to dress modestly is not even comparing apples and oranges.  That’s comparing apples and flashlights.  If bearing each other’s burdens included enabling each other’s fears, then what about someone else’s fears of getting sick from breathing their own carbon dioxide all day?

How far do we want to take that reasoning?

The trouble is, your distinction is thoroughly subjective.  You think that an pro-masker’s “fear” of COVID transmission is irrational whereas a conservative’a fear of having his lusts incited by a scantily-attired female is rational.  Others see it as precisely the opposite.

Certainly there’s a limit to how much we will undermine our own interests to assuage the fears of others that we deem trivial.  I get that masks may be an issue if you’re breathing heavily due to exertion; and maybe some folks have sensitive skin or something and really can’t abide a mask.  But for the vast majority of people, wearing a mask to Church for a couple hours is about as trivial a concession as asking a female to go to Church on a summer day in something other than her favorite sun dress.  In both cases, the strongest objectors are usually making a countercultural power play—a grownup variant of “I don’t wanna, and you can’t make me, and my sheer obnoxiousness makes me smarter and more virtuous than thou art!!!”

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LDSGator said:

Maybe we should ask the women on the board how they feel? 
 
What I do find interesting though is how to deal with “immodesty”. If it’s still a “problem“ after all this time, maybe the church should address it differently? Same with porn too, to be frank. If porn use is still rising, (I have no idea if it is) than something is obviously not working. 

@Suzie

@Jane_Doe

I don’t necessarily think we need to. I’m not so much asking how women feel about it or how it affects  them. But rather, if modesty is suppose to encompass more than just cleavage, what else is it suppose to cover and is it as important? Because based on how I was raised, cleavage is the only aspect that really matters.

Kinda of like the word of wisdom. Drugs, alcohol, tea are all bad and we shouldn’t have. But the word of wisdom encompasses eating healthy and taking care of your body… but that isn’t as important as avoiding sticking a needle full of heroin in your arm.

So that’s it. Is cleavage the “injecting heroin” of modesty? And wearing a Metallica shirt like eating too much ice cream? (Yes I am being facetious)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Fether said:

I don’t necessarily think we need to. I’m not so much asking how women feel about it or how it affects  them. But rather, if modesty is suppose to encompass more than just cleavage, what else is it suppose to cover and is it as important? Because based on how I was raised, cleavage is the only aspect that really matters.

Kinda of like the word of wisdom. Drugs, alcohol, tea are all bad and we shouldn’t have. But the word of wisdom encompasses eating healthy and taking care of your body… but that isn’t as important as avoiding sticking a needle full of heroin in your arm.

So that’s it. Is cleavage the “injecting heroin” of modesty? And wearing a Metallica shirt like eating too much ice cream? (Yes I am being facetious)

I think modesty entails an unassuming, moderate, proper and decent spirit in dress, grooming, language, arts and media, and most of the five senses -- what we perform, listen to, watch, touch, and even how we use perfume. I think the Church curriculum covers this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think modesty entails an unassuming, moderate, proper and decent spirit in dress, grooming, language, arts and media, and most of the five senses -- what we perform, listen to, watch, touch, and even how we use perfume. I think the Church curriculum covers this.

Does modesty require some level of conforming to style norms so to avoid unnecessary attention to one’s self? Like would it be immodest to wear traditional 20s style suits and hairstyle to church?

Share this post


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

Many in the church feel this way. And coming from someone who studies often and enjoys church, I don’t know that I have a strong understanding and testimony in the concept of modesty when it is NOT applied to the way women dress.

I dont ever remember a lesson about modesty that doesn’t have to do with cleavage and tight clothing. I understand it includes wearing appropriate attire during activities like church, swearing, the way you communicate, etc.but  that is done in a conversation about reverence, not modesty. The modesty lessons I have had have always been focused on women and the way they dress with a footnote about how we should all should dress well and watch how they speak 

I think you're correct that modesty as a principle is broken across multiple lessons. The more memorable ones are probably the ones tied to lessons on chastity and focus on modesty in dress, and as you say modesty in speech is incorporated into lessons on humility. I don't think it's a negative that the principle is taught across multiple lessons. If someone would like to read up on modesty as a holistic principle, the Gospel Topics article on modesty covers both speech and appearance, as does the True to the Faith entry.

If I wanted to teach just a lesson on modesty, I would probably prepare one based on those entries. But I'd like to call attention to something here. In general, the lessons taught to our youth (where modesty frequently comes up) are not primarily about modesty. It is a secondary or tertiary principle (see here for young women, and here for young men). In the lessons I linked, the lesson is about keeping the law of chastity. In that context, a lesson aimed at teenage girls will include a caution about cleavage tight clothes. Given the larger context of chastity, they will be reminded that their bodies are holy and should be treated as such. And given the audience, they will be reminded that their sexuality is power and should not be abused. Similarly, a lesson to teenage boys includes a warning about "locker room talk". Given the larger context of chastity, they are taught that they behave themselves as sons of God and treat women like daughters of God. And given the audience, they are often told to look for young women who respect themselves and the young man enough not to play with fire (yes, I'm referring to cleavage and tight clothes here).I also think it's worth noting that young men are also taught that clothing standards apply to them, and it seems like they are also given a special focus on grooming.

Quote

“Brethren, are you more interested in dressing and grooming your body to appeal to the world than you are to please God? Your answer … sends a direct message to Him about your feelings regarding His transcendent gift to you. In this reverence for our bodies, brethren, I think we can do better and be better.”

President Russell M. Nelson, Apr. 2019 general conference (Ensign or Liahona, May 2019, 68).

(I also recall President Hinckley accused the brethren in attendance at a priesthood session of conference of looking "shaggy" though I can't find it in the transcripts)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mordorbund said:

I also think it's worth noting that young men are also taught that clothing standards apply to them, and it seems like they are also given a special focus on grooming.

Quote

“Brethren, are you more interested in dressing and grooming your body to appeal to the world than you are to please God? Your answer … sends a direct message to Him about your feelings regarding His transcendent gift to you. In this reverence for our bodies, brethren, I think we can do better and be better.”

President Russell M. Nelson, Apr. 2019 general conference (Ensign or Liahona, May 2019, 68).

 (I also recall President Hinckley accused the brethren in attendance at a priesthood session of conference of looking "shaggy" though I can't find it in the transcripts)

Then this brings up the conversation about dress and grooming and what it means to dress to please God. This changes with time more than anything. If we were to put a specific standard on it, it is black slacks, cleanly pressed button up, and a blue solid tie… but to be frank, I think that can look extremely tacky. We had a job interview the other day with a potential hire, he was young and came in with your typical deacon passing the sacrament attire and it looked awful. I find the more casual button ups with khaki jeans (not slacks) to be far more stylish and appealing to the eye than the traditional deacon attire.
 

Is it immodest for me to show up to church is khaki jeans, casual button up shirt, a canvas material shoe, and skinny tie with the top button undone?

Share this post


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

Does modesty require some level of conforming to style norms so to avoid unnecessary attention to one’s self? Like would it be immodest to wear traditional 20s style suits and hairstyle to church?

 

31 minutes ago, Fether said:

Is it immodest for me to show up to church is khaki jeans, casual button up shirt, a canvas material shoe, and skinny tie with the top button undone?

You started this thread lamenting that modesty in our lessons was reduced to "no cleavage - no tight clothes". Is this a concession that a focus in modest dress is proper in our lessons is proper and useful and you're just trying to understand the principle better? Or is this intended to show that the saints have a gap in our curriculum?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/10/2021 at 6:13 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

A thought on the above (I hope I’m not hijacking anything) is:  humans like bright-line rules whose compliance is easily monitored.  @LDSGator and I can argue all day long about whether he’s being a self-centered drama queen.  [Gator, you know I love you, bud!]  But if he tells me “JAG, you’re wearing a sleeveless shirt” — well, either I am or I’m not; and the discussion is pretty much over.

It’s easy to take one or two of the most visible symptoms of a disease and, over time, conflate and equate them with the disease itself.

I don't believe I've had a lesson that included modesty in dress since I've left the YSA. I can think of a few times when modest speech (and modesty generally) has been included in lessons on humility. If others can relate to this, I would suppose it's because when we are young we benefit from having clear lines - particularly when they serve as barriers to chastity violations. By the time a person is 30 I guess we figure you understand the principles well enough that you no longer need lawyer by your side explaining where the standards come from.

Share this post


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

 

You started this thread lamenting that modesty in our lessons was reduced to "no cleavage - no tight clothes". Is this a concession that a focus in modest dress is proper in our lessons is proper and useful and you're just trying to understand the principle better? Or is this intended to show that the saints have a gap in our curriculum?

I’ve decided modesty includes how we present ourselves through our dress, words, and actions. I’m simply trying to expand the conversation itself beyond “is that woman showing too much skin?”

Share this post


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

... the concept of modesty when it is NOT applied to the way women dress.

I dont ever remember a lesson about modesty that doesn’t have to do with cleavage and tight clothing. I understand it includes wearing appropriate attire during activities like church, swearing, the way you communicate, etc.but  that is done in a conversation about reverence, not modesty...

I believe the answer falls under the topic of "perception is reality" and the words "synonymns," "euphemisms," and "labelling."

1) The actual TOPIC of modesty is a broad umbrella.  It covers things like pride, loud laughter, uncouth behavior, reverence...
2) The USE of the word "modesty" is less common because of why we use it in the first place.

  • Euphemisms make us want to phrase it as "modesty" rather than "sexuality".
  • Easier, more common synonymns make us want to use other words than modesty to describe other behaviors.

It may be prudish, but just as we must face reality when people want us to use politically correct speech, we also have to face reality when other euphemisms are used.  People don't like talking about sex or sexuality in a classroom setting.  So, they use the word "modesty".

When it is brought up in the young men's class, we actually do start off by introducing the topic as "dressing modestly.  BUT... almost immediately afterwards, they substitute a synonymn.  And we begin talking about THE SAME TOPIC but using different words.  WHY?  Because "modesty" is not really a common word.

  • If we have a forensic/semantic discussion, a whole lot of other topics could be placed under the modesty umbrella.  And given a forum such as this, we can pull apart all the semantics in the world in this manner.  But in common classroom settings, it generally doesn't happen.
  • We use the synonym that we feel most comfortable with.  And as uncommonly we use the word "modesty" we tend to use it only when we feel less comfortable with another word.  And really, the only topic I can think of off the top of my head the is "sexuality".

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