[hawkgrrrl]

DarkJedi:

Quote:

75% of the Silent Generation and Baby Boomers (those born before 1964 and counted together) believe it is OK to remove garments for sex. Only 51% per Millennials believed that. :wtf: Honestly I’m not sure if there was something wrong with the way that question was asked or understood but it’s absolutely crazy.

I saw that in the book, too, and my first reaction was WHAT???? But my current theory is that those Millenials they asked who are NOT endowed were making assumptions due to how controlling and intrusive the believe the Church is, that they would assume that those who are endowed are “required” to keep them on during sex. I mean, if so, no wonder they aren’t endowed!

[hawkgrrrl]

This old topic again! (I mean that in a good way)

There are so many ways individuals define modesty, and that’s part of the problem:

1) A person is only modest if they could be wearing garments under it.

2) Wearing what is appropriate to the activity.

3) Not being “too casual” (which seems to be a particular concern for our aging Church leaders).

4) Not inciting lust (which sounds like the problem of the lustful person to me, not the person they are objectifying. Women are seldom motivated by the things men think we are).

So two people can see the same clothing and consider it completely differently. The concept of modesty for not being “showy” or appearing to show off wealth is similarly problematic. You could buy a BMW because you want social status, or you could inherit it from a dead relative, or you could just get a fabulous deal on it. But others could look at that and say “immodest! show off!” That doesn’t mean that was your motive.

I used to think, like dande48 said, that you should live your life in such a way that you don’t cause another to stumble, but it is a crippling way to live. You really can’t second guess what others think or how they perceive what you do. For example, you could think “If I wear pants to church (as a woman), it will upset the pearl-clutching old ladies.” But you could just as easily think, “If I wear pants to church it will make visitors and investigators feel more comfortable.” No matter what you do, different people will react differently.

[hawkgrrrl]

badkarmal: Thanks for sharing your experiences. Based on what you’ve said about growing up in an affluent ward where affluent Church members were more influential than regular Joes, I have to say your original guilt-ridden post makes even more sense. Mormons, particularly those that are conservative and wealthy, get very caught up in the Prosperity Gospel. Uchtdorf is really the only apostle who is consistently preaching against it which is why he’s a breath of fresh air, and IMO, the only one I find consistently worth listening to, just between us.

IMO, it’s a natural failing of the Church because it’s such an American Church. We were based on the American myth of the self-made, self-reliant man, the rags to riches story. Particularly those who are politically conservative like to believe that they have earned and deserve their affluence. That applies to how they feel about their “success” at Church too. In this mindset, the highest callings go to the most worthy, to the best members, to the ones God favors. If missionaries are not successful, it’s not because people have free agency–we blame the missionary for not being hard-working enough or obedient enough or not having enough faith. If children leave the Church, we never blame the Church for failing to engage them or the leaders for turning them off or the members if they treated them cruelly. We blame either the kids themselves (they wanted to sin) or their poor parents (they didn’t have a faithful enough home).

There are just as many scriptures that decry this attitude as there are implications that it works this way. We aren’t saved by our works; we are saved because God loves us even though we don’t deserve it. The BOM cautions against the “pride cycle,” and that once we are prosperous, we are ripe for a fall. But too often Church members (and leaders) believe that they deserve good things because they worked for them. They think the people who worked hard but didn’t get the same results didn’t *really* work hard. For example, if someone prays about the BOM and doesn’t get a testimony as a result, we say they didn’t have *real intent*. Well, how is that charitable? How would we even know such a thing? It’s kind of a jerk move to assume that people’s motives are impure just because their results differ. We overstate the impact of our own actions and understate the unforeseen factors (including dumb luck, timing and better opportunities) that impact outcomes.

I did a post about these concepts a few years ago: https://bycommonconsent.com/2013/08/01/east-vs-west-spiritual-smackdown/ You might enjoy this different perspective on these ideas. If we quit taking responsibility for results and only take responsibility for our actions, we can refocus on what really matters and quit feeling pride for things we didn’t really “earn” or do. And yet, our wards and missions and the Church in general are run like businesses. When you see it as a corporation, it can be freeing to say that Church no longer defines your spirituality or your Christian discipleship. It’s a place you go to try to become more Christlike next to others with similar intentions.

Pornography (aside from the exploitation of women which is a wider, systemic problem) is essentially a victimless crime. Buddhism’s Law of Chastity is just that you not harm another person in your sexual actions. It’s up to the individual to determine what is harm. Consent is a good starting point. When it comes to the java drink, which is the greater sin? In Matthew 15:11, Jesus said: “Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.” What’s inside of us, who we are, how we treat others, these are more important than a checklist of food or behavior prohibitions. But the other things are easier to track and enforce.

I often think our hyper-focus on what is measurable and enforceable takes our eye off the ball. Who are we becoming? Are we living the Gospel? Are we treating others well and with love? Focusing on checklists creates the opposite focus: it’s all inward on whether or not we legalistically meet a list of “qualifications.” The fact that you want to bless others is the higher law. It’s not even just a scale of “Good, Better, Best.” Being focused on “earning” salvation through checklist behavior COMPETES with actually living the gospel. You can’t do both. If you do the former, you have your reward (the approval of humans and social capital that comes with that). If you do the latter, you might not get the same outcomes, but you become a better person. As a stark example, consider a parent so focused on the checklist for eternal families that she tries to control her children to force them to obey the checklist, and if they step out of line or do anything wrong, she punishes them with her emotional distance and rejection. Is she really creating an eternal family? No, she’s being selfish and controlling. Her kids will pray for the day they turn 18 and can get away from her.

[hawkgrrrl]

One of our favorites that we still laugh about was a high council speaker who brought a “downtrodden” guy in as a prop. He wanted to illustrate just how bad your life can get without the gospel. He had this guy tell some “facts” about his life, and the guy just drawled through this list of prior mistakes: “I been with whores. I done drugs. I had my best friend die in my arms.” It was the best of talks, it was the worst of talks.

[hawkgrrrl]

Holy Cow: It’s definitely a mix of TBM and middle wayers, perhaps similar to BCC but less academic. We don’t moderate as heavily, so you get some cranks. The majority are probably progressive. Among the bloggers, the majority are active in the church, but not TBM. A few are really into the Mormon History stuff, and others are more into the middle way discussions. Dave B and I are more the latter. Mary Ann and Mormon Heretic are more MHA nerds.

[hawkgrrrl]

This is one side benefit when wards don’t ask a “couple” to speak on the same day. At least you can dilute the crazy. They aren’t supposed to do that because it’s insensitive to people who aren’t married (I thought), but my current ward also asks couples to speak on the same day. I think it’s a bad practice.

[hawkgrrrl]

I liked the idea of the 3 pillars to remaining active in the church so much that I devised a poll for readers. I’m a little surprised by some of the results.

https://wheatandtares.org/2019/08/14/trust-belonging-and-meaning-polls-follow-up-discussion-of-ostlers-bridges/

Hop over and take the poll and see what you think.

[hawkgrrrl]

Curt: So let me counter / ask you a follow up question. What is someone’s best? If a parent is abusive, but it’s a cycle of shame and abuse that happened over their own lifetime and they do a lot to keep it in check, but they still abuse, is that their best? Some people seem incapable of loving others, only able to control others out of fear. Is that their best?

[hawkgrrrl]

Minyan Man wrote:

Old Timer wrote:

…The garment was made for us, not us for the garment.

Curt, can you explain this further? I’ve heard it before. But, I’m not sure what it means.

Curt is modifying the scripture that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath, meaning that human needs trump rules (that are presumably designed for humans or at least human society).

[hawkgrrrl]

Regarding “defiling” the garment, I have a slightly different take on that than Curtis. When I was on my mission, since I had bought my garments without much experience wearing them, I had a real variety of them, some of which were just terrible choices for me, but it was what I had, and there were no temples in the country I served in. Some of the garments I had were the cotton/poly that they (for some unfathomable reason) had put a band of elastic around the leg bottom in. It gave me welts wherever it touched my bare leg. I am allergic to medical tape, latex, and apparently raw elastic rubbing against my skin.

To remedy this, I took a pair of scissors and snipped the lace / elastic band on each leg so it wouldn’t rub against my skin. My companion gasped when she saw it. “Hermana! You’re defiling your garments!” she said in shock. “No,” I replied. “THEY are defiling me!” Then I showed her the welts.

I guess what I mean by that is that we are made in the image of God. Do we believe that or not? Doesn’t our health matter? Doesn’t our emotional and sexual health matter? Doesn’t our comfort matter?

[hawkgrrrl]

Question Abound: Speaking as a woman, garments make interest in sex at all pretty difficult. Feeling fat, frumpy and unattractive isn’t exactly a recipe for desire. Some women find that they need to forego them hours in advance to even become interested or receptive to sex. There’s a reason we used to call them “passion killers” at BYU.

[hawkgrrrl]

Quote:

I’ve seen DW’s new garment tops. Compared to my garment tops, hers are practically a tank top. Garment tops for women weren’t like that even a few short years ago. The garment was modified to accommodate clothing styles.

Whether that’s the reason for the change is questionable, though. The new tops you are talking about also provide more support in the bust and have side-wicking panels for heat management (which is kind of crazy because they are also unwearable in a hot climate, go figure), so it’s not just a question of accommodating “styles.” It’s also making some improvements to performance.

Having said that, there are no appropriate garments for summers in AZ or everyday in Singapore (90% heat / 90% humidity, 365 days a year). In Singapore, garments mean you are drenched and your clothes are drenched every single day, at least as a woman. It’s (in my opinion), not appropriate to require wearing them; it causes extreme professional and personal embarrassment. It can cause yeast infections, which are obviously just a female problem, but something some women suffer more than others. Nobody making the decisions about garments has to worry about yeast infections. They are just terrified of being seen as “giving into social pressure.”

One of my favorite tweets was:

Quote:

“We all know that Joseph Smith didn’t wear his garments at Carthage, but did you also know he never wore them during menopause?”

Body chemistry changes during menopause, and women are more prone to problems caused by overheating or as Roseanne Barr (somewhat crassly) put it “Everything that’s supposed to be wet is dry, and everything that’s supposed to be dry is wet.”

But here’s the deal. It is utterly inappropriate for a woman to have this kind of conversation with a bishop or one of his counselors or a member of the stake presidency. I am not going to talk to a dentist or lawyer or small business owner about my personal health related issues that are private and would not be understood by a male lay person who sits in judgment. Not going to happen. That we even have such an expectation is kind of bonkers.

[hawkgrrrl]

I did a post based on this book a while back: https://wheatandtares.org/2018/11/27/fairness-feminism-and-football/

To give the quick version of the post, a problem I had with the book (which I did enjoy overall, but feel it’s got this serious flaw) is that it doesn’t do enough to question male privilege and status quo. The book has a conservative bias that was pretty glaring.

Quote:

The chapter starts by talking about two types of justice that humans seem hard-wired to demand:

Distributive justice: people are getting what is deserved, based on their contribution

Procedural justice: the process by which things are distributed and rules are enforced is fair and trustworthy

Violating these principles of justice results in outcry and pushback. However, the other inherent problem is that elements of these are subjective and personal experience for someone in a minority group will often differ greatly from someone in a majority group. There is also some question about how different contributions are valued. Ultimately, the underlying problem is that existing systems favor status quo. You have to make a case to change what currently exists, and to do so, you have to convince those in power who currently benefit from the status quo. That’s a tough pull.

“Humans naturally favor fair distributions, not equal ones; when fairness and equality clash, people prefer fair inequality over unfair equality.”

The book shares the story of a university that has a women’s rowing team that is fully funded, and a men’s rowing team that receives no funding. The book calls this a fairness issue, but the reason for this problem is that the school’s funding is required to be distributed equally to men and women in athletics, including football which is strictly male and the most expensive program the school has! So it’s “unfair” that the male rowers aren’t funded, but it’s not unfair that football takes up all the funding for athletics. Right.

But I also had positive things to say about the book in a different post I did. I agreed with the points about the trigger warnings being overused and counter-productive to healing. https://wheatandtares.org/2018/12/04/dangerous-speech-words-as-violence/

Quote:

The book points out the flaw with something called Emotional Reasoning. When we take our emotions as “facts” rather than “information,” we are prone to going quickly down a rabbit hole of fear and feeling unsafe. The qualities of this thinking include:

Catastrophizing. Imagining the worst case possibility as likely or certain to occur.

Labeling. Using terms like “rape culture” and “microaggression” for accidental or unintentional slights, even if these terms help to bring a societal issue to the forefront.

Overgeneralizing. Assuming that the idea behind the emotion we are feeling is widespread and powerful.

Dichotomous thinking. Seeing people as either good or bad, not misinformed or scared or flawed, but actually seeking our demise.

I do think these trends are recent over-corrections in some cases, but I do think it’s too easy for conservatives to dismiss the concerns of minorities and women. Labeling, IMO, is something we should pay attention to because you can’t correct a problem if you don’t name it and acknowledge it, and racist and sexist attitudes proliferate in society because we don’t take it seriously enough. But I do agree that dichotomous thinking is an issue, particularly with younger people understanding older people.

My parents are in their 90s. My mom especially is racist in many ways. She uses terms we don’t use any more. She makes it a point to say when a black person is “good” or “nice” like it’s a pleasant surprise. She and my dad didn’t buy a house once because they found out that it was in a “black neighborhood” (the very real byproduct of codified racial practices like redlining that made race discrimination completely legal and continued to hold back black people from access and success). But when my sister was in 3rd grade, she had a teacher at school who tormented a black student, forcing him to stand outside in the cold without a jacket and calling him racist names in class. My mom went to the school about it, complaining that this behavior was unacceptable. When I told my kids that story they were shocked. Maybe grandma wasn’t a racist after all! They don’t always understand that 1) people are complex and enigmatic, and 2) the past is a foreign country that we can’t and don’t fully understand, and that’s where old people live.

[hawkgrrrl]

I have mixed reactions to this.

– I agree with nibbler that the church is tougher on its members and less welcome to the fringe members than it is welcoming to converts.

– I do think the church is mostly a positive force for converts in their lives, but there can be an eventual diminishing return, and of course, they were attracted to it because it already resonated on some level (it matched or spoke to their own good desires).

The core problem is that it’s one prescription for glasses, and it really does improve things for people who need that specific prescription (for others, not so much), but in time, your prescription changes, and you outgrow the prescription you used to need, or you need progressive lenses, or you develop astigmatism. But if you are born into the church, it may not fit you at all except for the fact that you were raised that way.

It also can erode faith in God for many because once you buy the “one true church” and “all others are an abomination” line, if you have doubts or questions after that, you are going to doubt EVERYTHING religious: God, Jesus, you name it. After all, every other church wasn’t ever an alternative. It was an abomination!

Ultimately, I think the correlation effort went further than just the curriculum and budgetary oversight. The church has a very narrow program for human development, and you either fit the mold they are pushing you into, or you are the problem. That just doesn’t work for everyone long term. Converts choose it. Those born into it don’t.

I do agree that converts make the church better, but really just at the local level. They only make the church (as a whole) better in terms of increasing the numbers, kind of like when the Borg assimilate a planet.

[hawkgrrrl]

“The past is a foreign country. Its customs and cultural assumptions are different from ours.” And that’s where our church leaders live. Not in the world we live in.

We have a lot of information about the past, though, even if it’s not the world we inhabit. The way men & women were viewed in the past was a complementarian view, not an egalitarian view. This has been changing over time, but for those who are much older, particularly if they lived in a place where patriarchy flourished (Utah’s not exactly the most progressive place), these ideas may have gone unchallenged even longer. According to this complementarian thinking, each gender had completely different strengths and roles, and as such they had their own sphere of influence: women in the domestic world held supremacy in personal moral matters and the family, and men in the public sphere, the workplace, politics, and the world at large. One way early feminists fought for the vote is by pointing to the obvious flaw in this logic: if women were morally superior, not including them in the vote meant we had lost their morally superior priorities and thoughts. And you can’t have gay marriage, obviously, because then the children are going to get either a too masculine upbringing or a too feminine one. They are only going to get what one sex brings to the table.

It’s ridiculous to most women I know who are my age or younger (and most men, too) because we don’t see a “gender” as all behaving monolithically. We see men and women having more in common than these stereotypes, and women in our era haven’t been raised on the idea that they are only fit for the domestic sphere and can’t do important things outside the home. Men likewise have been raised to believe women are as capable as men and that everyone deserves equal opportunity and equal pay and shared parenting as partners, not just saddling the wife with everything. Both men and women are responsible for providing and for nurturing.

[Author]

Posts