Thursday, May 23, 2013


I agree with what you ladies are saying. The article rubbed me the wrong way, also (as did another thing I recently read about modesty, and how there's "too much emphasis" on it). It does have a feeling of defensiveness about it, to me. I had a problem with this statement in her comment:
"But for me, and many others, our children and teenagers are capable of being modest while wearing tank tops and shorter shorts, irregardless of what FTSOY lays out as approved/not approved."

I don't understand all the whys and whats of modesty, necessarily (like, is there some ultimate divine standard of modesty, or is it mostly a cultural construct?) but I just don't get that statement. You are capable of being modest while not following the cultural standards our church has set about modesty? Okay, I get it, modesty has cultural ties (if we were that tribe in "The Gods Must be Crazy" we would be wearing only loincloths and it would be totally acceptable) but whether or not these are FOREVER or UNIVERSAL standards, they ARE the current standards for US. If the temple garments change someday to be midriff-baring, and sleeveless, or whatever, then that's fine. But until then, this is what we've got. I don't get how you can "be modest" without obeying what our prophets say is modest. That's like saying, "I'm perfectly capable of keeping the word of wisdom while drinking coffee, 'irregardless' [and, btw, that incorrect usage annoys me to no end] of what the Doctrine and Covenants says about it." Um . . . no?

As for cjane, I think I better confine my comments about her to a more private place . . .

And Andrea, I loved the article you posted awhile back about the "ordain women" website. I liked what you said about the site, that the women there seem to be sincerely trying to do the right thing (I think I agree . . . mostly) but I thought it was interesting how different I _felt_ in reading the two things. I generally try not to use my "spiritual feelings" as a bludgeon to stop further discussion on something (does that metaphor even make sense?)---but---when I was reading the Valerie Cassler article I felt confirmation of some truths within it. I like her vision of womanhood and even though I didn't agree with ALL of her suggestions for how to improve, I felt she was on the right track with the way she viewed our birthright as women. I LOVE the "two trees" idea she mentions here (and expands on in other articles). This way of thinking about our roles really works for me, and helps me understand some things in the temple that I had never understood before. And it just made so much SENSE---why should women look to men to "give them" their power? They already HAVE it!

Conversely, as I read the "ordain women" website, I felt worried/conflicted/upset, all the same feelings I have when I come across anti-Mormon stuff online. It felt palpably "darker" (as in, UNenlightening) as I read it, contrasted with the enlightenment I felt reading the VHC article. Like I said, I'm not trying to set my spiritual feelings up as the ultimate authority (who knows, maybe the ordain women thing really is ok) but it certainly was a stark contrast.

And incidentally, that Pres. Hinckley quote about "no one is agitating for" women to have the priesthood----I suppose it could be taken the way they took it, as a "challenge to women"----but that's not how I would have read it all. I read it as saying, "In our church, we DON'T 'agitate' for things, because we believe the Lord is in charge!---we may be open to and even pray about change, but we don't pretend that WE know better than the Lord or His timing!" I don't see that willingness to be content with what is currently given us as laziness or complacency, but as patience and faith.

No comments: