How to turn someone against religion.

[Lyster]

Umm, it IS "wrong" to put caffeinated soda into your body. Have you read the ingredient list for a Diet Coke? Do you think you are making a good choice when you drink that? Just saying.

Not the best thing for your body but not a sin.

I guess I disagree. If you choose to pollute your body, which is a temple, that is a sin. A very, very minor one in the big picure, but could it keep you from God? No unclean thing can enter His presence.

Mark 7:14-23 (RSV)

And he called the people to him again, and said to them, “Hear me, all of you, and understand: there is nothing outside a man which by going into him can defile him; but the things which come out of a man are what defile him.”

And when he had entered the house, and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile him, since it enters, not his heart but his stomach, and so passes on?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.)

And he said, “What comes out of a man is what defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, fornication, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a man.”

And this is applying to the notion of "unclean foods" aka forbidden cloven hoof stuff and those darn pigs. Parts of the Law of Moses, which was fulfilled in Christ. Not declaring that all things that enter your mouth are good for you. Meth defiles a man. Hardcore.

To sum: Christ fulfilled the Law. Not "all you do is cool".

[passionflower]

I am sorry that you find the church’s standards so offensive. If you prefer a watered-down version of these things, you can find them anywhere else. The church and parents need to continue to teach youth correct principles and standards with the expectation of adherence. In love, with accompanying support and continued teaching, and with increasing agency with age and learning. This is the best course for a good outcome.

WHo said I was offended? Not some SJW. Strange you use the term "watered-down" as this afternoon I noticed on social media that BYU will now sell caffeinated drinks in the cafeteria. While we know that our leaders use caffeinated soda we appear to have a lot of people who are saying this is wrong. It isn't, but people have believed it.

Fiannan is not saying anything is intrinsically wrong with church standards of dress and modesty. Although I am probably much more conservative and traditional than Fiannan is, and I don't find one thing wrong with white shirts in church or forbidding tattooing, unnatural hair dying, etc, I too have observed this same kind of weird extremism he is talking about among church members and other religious people over the years and find it a very very curious phenomena. It isn't proactive, it is fearfully reactive. It is letting one extreme push you into the other extreme.

I was a strict mother, yes. Much more than most. But that was just the way I am. It was consistent with my traditional culture. Almost nothing I did was done out of some kind of reaction to the world around me.

[Red]

I'm not sure the church is losing people because it suggests modest dress and a less generous view of pornography viewing than you would like to see. And if it is, what would that matter? Should standards be relative to what brings in good attendance?

Oh come on, there is a difference between telling members that viewing porn is wrong (as I find it to be) and going all "Reefer Madness" in regards to the issue. I have seriously heard LDS people say that looking at porn is as addictive as heroin and any amount is addiction. Thankfully the Church is now saying that this is incorrect and that most people who look at porn are not addicted. As for modesty it may depend on when a person was raised in the Church. In the 1950s is was perfectly fine at BYU to wear gowns that exposed the shoulders and much of the back. In the 1970s one can remember most youth wearing those really short running shorts (both males and females) to youth activities. Then something happened around the turn of the century and suddenly little girls in sun dresses were seen as immodest and we saw sleaves added to classic art paintings depicting angels. That is going overboard, don't you think?

Seriously! That is fascinating! Do you have some sort of evidence of the dress at BYU in the 50s and 70s? Not that I don't believe you, I just am highly interested.

My daughter has been ostracized because I let her wear sleeveless shirts and shorts anywhere she goes. She's only 11. I let her pick out her own clothes. We have limits on sheer clothing, but I don't have a problem with her wearing what she likes. Lately though, I've noticed she's started wearing tights under all of her dresses to church. Her dresses aren't mini skirts, by any stretch, but they're probably four inches above the knee. I asked her why and she shrugs and looks guilty. The funny thing is though, she won't wear tights with her dresses anywhere but church. I've witnessed the other girls and parents ostracize her. I know this is what's behind her behavior. It makes me sad. This is why I want to know your evidence of the attire at BYU in the 50s and 70s. It's evidence that the standard has changed, but not due to revelation.

[Fiannan]

I'm not sure the church is losing people because it suggests modest dress and a less generous view of pornography viewing than you would like to see. And if it is, what would that matter? Should standards be relative to what brings in good attendance?

Oh come on, there is a difference between telling members that viewing porn is wrong (as I find it to be) and going all "Reefer Madness" in regards to the issue. I have seriously heard LDS people say that looking at porn is as addictive as heroin and any amount is addiction. Thankfully the Church is now saying that this is incorrect and that most people who look at porn are not addicted. As for modesty it may depend on when a person was raised in the Church. In the 1950s is was perfectly fine at BYU to wear gowns that exposed the shoulders and much of the back. In the 1970s one can remember most youth wearing those really short running shorts (both males and females) to youth activities. Then something happened around the turn of the century and suddenly little girls in sun dresses were seen as immodest and we saw sleaves added to classic art paintings depicting angels. That is going overboard, don't you think?

Seriously! That is fascinating! Do you have some sort of evidence of the dress at BYU in the 50s and 70s? Not that I don't believe you, I just am highly interested.

My daughter has been ostracized because I let her wear sleeveless shirts and shorts anywhere she goes. She's only 11. I let her pick out her own clothes. We have limits on sheer clothing, but I don't have a problem with her wearing what she likes. Lately though, I've noticed she's started wearing tights under all of her dresses to church. Her dresses aren't mini skirts, by any stretch, but they're probably four inches above the knee. I asked her why and she shrugs and looks guilty. The funny thing is though, she won't wear tights with her dresses anywhere but church. I've witnessed the other girls and parents ostracize her. I know this is what's behind her behavior. It makes me sad. This is why I want to know your evidence of the attire at BYU in the 50s and 70s. It's evidence that the standard has changed, but not due to revelation.

1964 BYU Homecoming Queen.

[Rose Garden]

I was speaking to a man from the Middle East recently. He was telling me some of his experiences that turned him into an atheist and thus rejecting Islam. One was that he loves dogs. More conservative Muslims hate dogs. They are unclean. And while many people in the Middle East in more conservative nations get dogs they are often harassed by religious fanatics and often dogs are taken away and killed by the authorities. His dad bent the rules and owned a business. He bought a dog and listed it as a guard dog, which is tolerated. His dad would take him to the business and let him play with his pet.

Maybe when we get too fanatical we sew the seeds for antagonism against the institution we see as the source of that fanaticism.

So in order to turn someone against religion, you just need to be religious. Got it.

[Rose Garden]

I'm not sure the church is losing people because it suggests modest dress and a less generous view of pornography viewing than you would like to see. And if it is, what would that matter? Should standards be relative to what brings in good attendance?

Oh come on, there is a difference between telling members that viewing porn is wrong (as I find it to be) and going all "Reefer Madness" in regards to the issue. I have seriously heard LDS people say that looking at porn is as addictive as heroin and any amount is addiction. Thankfully the Church is now saying that this is incorrect and that most people who look at porn are not addicted. As for modesty it may depend on when a person was raised in the Church. In the 1950s is was perfectly fine at BYU to wear gowns that exposed the shoulders and much of the back. In the 1970s one can remember most youth wearing those really short running shorts (both males and females) to youth activities. Then something happened around the turn of the century and suddenly little girls in sun dresses were seen as immodest and we saw sleaves added to classic art paintings depicting angels. That is going overboard, don't you think?

Seriously! That is fascinating! Do you have some sort of evidence of the dress at BYU in the 50s and 70s? Not that I don't believe you, I just am highly interested.

My daughter has been ostracized because I let her wear sleeveless shirts and shorts anywhere she goes. She's only 11. I let her pick out her own clothes. We have limits on sheer clothing, but I don't have a problem with her wearing what she likes. Lately though, I've noticed she's started wearing tights under all of her dresses to church. Her dresses aren't mini skirts, by any stretch, but they're probably four inches above the knee. I asked her why and she shrugs and looks guilty. The funny thing is though, she won't wear tights with her dresses anywhere but church. I've witnessed the other girls and parents ostracize her. I know this is what's behind her behavior. It makes me sad. This is why I want to know your evidence of the attire at BYU in the 50s and 70s. It's evidence that the standard has changed, but not due to revelation.

1964 BYU Homecoming Queen.

Modesty standards are too far entrenched. If you try to make a case for the changes not being revelation, you are likely to get the response that ongoing revelation is behind them. The church leaders talk about modesty in general conference. You aren't likely to convince anyone that it isn't important if they already believe it is.

The problem is not the dress standards but the ostracization. A culture that allows snubbing over infractions, even serious infractions, is not a healthy one. It leads people to do what's "right" based on other people's beliefs. Even when it leads people to do good things, it distorts your ability to make decisions based on truth rather than opinion and so you can never be entirely sure you are truly in the right.

If you fight the ostracization, you will likely find it only gets worse. Instead, I would focus on being as inclusive yourself as possible. Encourage your daughter to be loving and accepting of everyone, especially herself. You will find that eventually she gains a supportive, loving group of friends who don't make her feel bad for her choice of dress. It might seem like every other girl in the ward is snubbing her, but that isn't true. As she loves and accepts herself, she'll find those who also love and accept her.

[eddie]

Do you have any specifics in mind in posting this? I mean, other than dogs.
Most of us fanatics are not against dogs.
dc

Hahaha! I have to admit I don't like Pitbulls.

[Michelle]

I am sorry that you find the church’s standards so offensive. If you prefer a watered-down version of these things, you can find them anywhere else. The church and parents need to continue to teach youth correct principles and standards with the expectation of adherence. In love, with accompanying support and continued teaching, and with increasing agency with age and learning. This is the best course for a good outcome.

WHo said I was offended? Not some SJW. Strange you use the term "watered-down" as this afternoon I noticed on social media that BYU will now sell caffeinated drinks in the cafeteria. While we know that our leaders use caffeinated soda we appear to have a lot of people who are saying this is wrong. It isn't, but people have believed it.

Fiannan is not saying anything is intrinsically wrong with church standards of dress and modesty. Although I am probably much more conservative and traditional than Fiannan is, and I don't find one thing wrong with white shirts in church or forbidding tattooing, unnatural hair dying, etc, I too have observed this same kind of weird extremism he is talking about among church members and other religious people over the years and find it a very very curious phenomena. It isn't proactive, it is fearfully reactive. It is letting one extreme push you into the other extreme.

I was a strict mother, yes. Much more than most. But that was just the way I am. It was consistent with my traditional culture. Almost nothing I did was done out of some kind of reaction to the world around me.

Not directed specifically at you passionflower, just an opportunity to bring up something I have been considering regarding these specific counsels.

So, as I have been learning more about the technological advances being worked on to "enhance" human beings and how close we are or aren't to these advances. And also believing as I do that most are contrary to the gospel plan. (That is a bigger discussion about having a physical experience vs. a more mental experience through tech like virtual reality and things like Elon Musk's attempts at hooking computers and the internet directly into our cerebral cortex's, or in other words, God's plan of a physical experience vs. Satan's attempt to take us back a step to just being a mind and spirit.)

I am wondering how following the counsel about extreme's in style (un-natural hair color, piercings, tatoos, etc.) will play into the choices we make with regard to accepting these physically permanent alterations of our bodies in the future. The scriptures teach of "marking oneself." Perhaps hair does grow out, and piercings can be removed, but some of the changes being discussed for the near future would not be so easily reversed. Maybe obedience now, while not vital in these specific alterations, will lead to acceptance of worse "markings" when the options become more available.

[Fiannan]

I was speaking to a man from the Middle East recently. He was telling me some of his experiences that turned him into an atheist and thus rejecting Islam. One was that he loves dogs. More conservative Muslims hate dogs. They are unclean. And while many people in the Middle East in more conservative nations get dogs they are often harassed by religious fanatics and often dogs are taken away and killed by the authorities. His dad bent the rules and owned a business. He bought a dog and listed it as a guard dog, which is tolerated. His dad would take him to the business and let him play with his pet.

Maybe when we get too fanatical we sew the seeds for antagonism against the institution we see as the source of that fanaticism.

So in order to turn sometime against religion, you just need to be religious. Got it.

That was not what I was saying. The application of religious teachings can be done in a way that merely irritates people and thus turns them away.

[mcusick]

Not the best thing for your body but not a sin.

I guess I disagree. If you choose to pollute your body, which is a temple, that is a sin. A very, very minor one in the big picure, but could it keep you from God? No unclean thing can enter His presence.

Mark 7:14-23 (RSV)

And he called the people to him again, and said to them, “Hear me, all of you, and understand: there is nothing outside a man which by going into him can defile him; but the things which come out of a man are what defile him.”

And when he had entered the house, and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile him, since it enters, not his heart but his stomach, and so passes on?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.)

And he said, “What comes out of a man is what defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, fornication, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a man.”

And this is applying to the notion of "unclean foods" aka forbidden cloven hoof stuff and those darn pigs. Parts of the Law of Moses, which was fulfilled in Christ. Not declaring that all things that enter your mouth are good for you. Meth defiles a man. Hardcore.

To sum: Christ fulfilled the Law. Not "all you do is cool".

Thank you for helping me see how to correlate these verses into Mormonism.

Mosaic Law (OT): Unclean Foods Defile a Man
Higher Law (NT): Unclean Foods Don't Defile a Man
Even Higher Mormon Law (LDS): Unclean Foods Defile a Man

[Lyster]

I guess I disagree. If you choose to pollute your body, which is a temple, that is a sin. A very, very minor one in the big picure, but could it keep you from God? No unclean thing can enter His presence.

Mark 7:14-23 (RSV)

And he called the people to him again, and said to them, “Hear me, all of you, and understand: there is nothing outside a man which by going into him can defile him; but the things which come out of a man are what defile him.”

And when he had entered the house, and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile him, since it enters, not his heart but his stomach, and so passes on?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.)

And he said, “What comes out of a man is what defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, fornication, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a man.”

And this is applying to the notion of "unclean foods" aka forbidden cloven hoof stuff and those darn pigs. Parts of the Law of Moses, which was fulfilled in Christ. Not declaring that all things that enter your mouth are good for you. Meth defiles a man. Hardcore.

To sum: Christ fulfilled the Law. Not "all you do is cool".

Thank you for helping me see how to correlate these verses into Mormonism.

Mosaic Law (OT): Unclean Foods Defile a Man
Higher Law (NT): Unclean Foods Don't Defile a Man
Even Higher Mormon Law (LDS): Unclean Foods Defile a Man

That almost sounds reasonable... if you forget that (like you implied), it's not about the FOOD but the action. The Law's unclean foods were some of a number if restrictions that were about teaching the principal of obedience - what Jews had been struggling with - and of remembrance - what the Jews had been struggling with.

The more accurate version of this is:
OT - do these things because the Lord neess you to learn this.
NT - hey, that Law was fulfilled. Remember why it was in effect. Be mindful.
LDS - hey, that law was fulfilled. Remember why it was in effect. By the way, here's what conspiring men will do. Be warned.

Not about food, so much as it is about trusting the Lord.

[kittycat51]

I'm not sure the church is losing people because it suggests modest dress and a less generous view of pornography viewing than you would like to see. And if it is, what would that matter? Should standards be relative to what brings in good attendance?

Oh come on, there is a difference between telling members that viewing porn is wrong (as I find it to be) and going all "Reefer Madness" in regards to the issue. I have seriously heard LDS people say that looking at porn is as addictive as heroin and any amount is addiction. Thankfully the Church is now saying that this is incorrect and that most people who look at porn are not addicted. As for modesty it may depend on when a person was raised in the Church. In the 1950s is was perfectly fine at BYU to wear gowns that exposed the shoulders and much of the back. In the 1970s one can remember most youth wearing those really short running shorts (both males and females) to youth activities. Then something happened around the turn of the century and suddenly little girls in sun dresses were seen as immodest and we saw sleaves added to classic art paintings depicting angels. That is going overboard, don't you think?

Seriously! That is fascinating! Do you have some sort of evidence of the dress at BYU in the 50s and 70s? Not that I don't believe you, I just am highly interested.

My daughter has been ostracized because I let her wear sleeveless shirts and shorts anywhere she goes. She's only 11. I let her pick out her own clothes. We have limits on sheer clothing, but I don't have a problem with her wearing what she likes. Lately though, I've noticed she's started wearing tights under all of her dresses to church. Her dresses aren't mini skirts, by any stretch, but they're probably four inches above the knee. I asked her why and she shrugs and looks guilty. The funny thing is though, she won't wear tights with her dresses anywhere but church. I've witnessed the other girls and parents ostracize her. I know this is what's behind her behavior. It makes me sad. This is why I want to know your evidence of the attire at BYU in the 50s and 70s. It's evidence that the standard has changed, but not due to revelation.

Just saying skirts/dresses that are 4 inches above the knee, double that when they sit down. My boys would be able to see right up her skirt if they glanced that way across the classroom.

[mcusick]

Mark 7:14-23 (RSV)

And he called the people to him again, and said to them, “Hear me, all of you, and understand: there is nothing outside a man which by going into him can defile him; but the things which come out of a man are what defile him.”

And when he had entered the house, and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile him, since it enters, not his heart but his stomach, and so passes on?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.)

And he said, “What comes out of a man is what defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, fornication, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a man.”

And this is applying to the notion of "unclean foods" aka forbidden cloven hoof stuff and those darn pigs. Parts of the Law of Moses, which was fulfilled in Christ. Not declaring that all things that enter your mouth are good for you. Meth defiles a man. Hardcore.

To sum: Christ fulfilled the Law. Not "all you do is cool".

Thank you for helping me see how to correlate these verses into Mormonism.

Mosaic Law (OT): Unclean Foods Defile a Man
Higher Law (NT): Unclean Foods Don't Defile a Man
Even Higher Mormon Law (LDS): Unclean Foods Defile a Man

That almost sounds reasonable... if you forget that (like you implied), it's not about the FOOD but the action. The Law's unclean foods were some of a number if restrictions that were about teaching the principal of obedience - what Jews had been struggling with - and of remembrance - what the Jews had been struggling with.

The more accurate version of this is:
OT - do these things because the Lord neess you to learn this.
NT - hey, that Law was fulfilled. Remember why it was in effect. Be mindful.
LDS - hey, that law was fulfilled. Remember why it was in effect. By the way, here's what conspiring men will do. Be warned.

Not about food, so much as it is about trusting the Lord.

If the law is fulfilled, why are there dietary purity laws within Mormonism that are enforced and can prevent participation in the temple? That's very different than saying "Be mindful of what you put in your body/Be warned"; it's more like say "Do not drink coffee or you damn yourself."

It's okay to admit you discard certain things that Jesus or other prophets have said. Everyone does it (I am 100% guilty of this crime). It becomes challenging when there are direct contradictions (e.g., returning to dietary restrictions, Paul says eating meat sacrificed to idols is okay, but John indicates it is evil).

I think it's a better approach to be honest and say "I disagree with X scripture." If every scripture needs to conform with what you already believe, then there is no real point reading them because they lack corrective power.

[Thinker]

Do you have any specifics in mind in posting this? I mean, other than dogs.
Most of us fanatics are not against dogs.
dc

I have seen this in all religions. Brigham Young even warned that if you control a kid too much then once they reach 18 they would go crazy with the freedom to do all the things you banned them from doing previously.

Yeah, I see that a lot with many who have faith crisis. They come to realize an undeniable flaw in the lds church & then they toss the whole thing out, rejecting anything to do with the church, including political leanings. Ridiculous! It's essentially switching herd mentalities.

Also, children (esp teens & young adults) tend to test parental love by rebelling against what parents seem to want most for them, unless they're sufficiently convinced their parents love them. But it could also be they sense when something is extreme in an unhealthy way - like worshipping a church above God.

Raising children is not easy & is largely based on faith without knowing the exact consequences. I hope & pray often that my kids find the narrow way between extremes of cult-like mentality and leftist insanity. I have reason to believe that there are others (seen & unseen) who are also hoping for the best for them. I need to do what I sense is best as their parent, and then trust that they'll find their way, whether it's tough or easy.

[Rose Garden]

I was speaking to a man from the Middle East recently. He was telling me some of his experiences that turned him into an atheist and thus rejecting Islam. One was that he loves dogs. More conservative Muslims hate dogs. They are unclean. And while many people in the Middle East in more conservative nations get dogs they are often harassed by religious fanatics and often dogs are taken away and killed by the authorities. His dad bent the rules and owned a business. He bought a dog and listed it as a guard dog, which is tolerated. His dad would take him to the business and let him play with his pet.

Maybe when we get too fanatical we sew the seeds for antagonism against the institution we see as the source of that fanaticism.

So in order to turn sometime against religion, you just need to be religious. Got it.

That was not what I was saying. The application of religious teachings can be done in a way that merely irritates people and thus turns them away.

I was trying to be funny. Guess I failed.

[Red]

I'm not sure the church is losing people because it suggests modest dress and a less generous view of pornography viewing than you would like to see. And if it is, what would that matter? Should standards be relative to what brings in good attendance?

Oh come on, there is a difference between telling members that viewing porn is wrong (as I find it to be) and going all "Reefer Madness" in regards to the issue. I have seriously heard LDS people say that looking at porn is as addictive as heroin and any amount is addiction. Thankfully the Church is now saying that this is incorrect and that most people who look at porn are not addicted. As for modesty it may depend on when a person was raised in the Church. In the 1950s is was perfectly fine at BYU to wear gowns that exposed the shoulders and much of the back. In the 1970s one can remember most youth wearing those really short running shorts (both males and females) to youth activities. Then something happened around the turn of the century and suddenly little girls in sun dresses were seen as immodest and we saw sleaves added to classic art paintings depicting angels. That is going overboard, don't you think?

Seriously! That is fascinating! Do you have some sort of evidence of the dress at BYU in the 50s and 70s? Not that I don't believe you, I just am highly interested.

My daughter has been ostracized because I let her wear sleeveless shirts and shorts anywhere she goes. She's only 11. I let her pick out her own clothes. We have limits on sheer clothing, but I don't have a problem with her wearing what she likes. Lately though, I've noticed she's started wearing tights under all of her dresses to church. Her dresses aren't mini skirts, by any stretch, but they're probably four inches above the knee. I asked her why and she shrugs and looks guilty. The funny thing is though, she won't wear tights with her dresses anywhere but church. I've witnessed the other girls and parents ostracize her. I know this is what's behind her behavior. It makes me sad. This is why I want to know your evidence of the attire at BYU in the 50s and 70s. It's evidence that the standard has changed, but not due to revelation.

Just saying skirts/dresses that are 4 inches above the knee, double that when they sit down. My boys would be able to see right up her skirt if they glanced that way across the classroom.

Let me reiterate, I said they are NOT mini skirts. You created a gross exaggeration in order to victimize your boys, who should have better manners than to look up a girls skirt!

[Fiannan]

Weird how young women are to blame when men look at them in an admiring and/or sexual way (men just cannot help themselves I guess) but when a married woman refuses sex to her husband it is his repsonsibility to just forget and repress any sexual feelings.

[Red]

Weird how young women are to blame when men look at them in an admiring and/or sexual way (men just cannot help themselves I guess) but when a married woman refuses sex to her husband it is his repsonsibility to just forget and repress any sexual feelings.

Yeah, it's not exactly fair logic. A woman's emotional needs = a man's sexual needs. If a couple can understand that's how it naturally is and love heir spouses accordingly, marriages could be stronger.

[passionflower]

I am sorry that you find the church’s standards so offensive. If you prefer a watered-down version of these things, you can find them anywhere else. The church and parents need to continue to teach youth correct principles and standards with the expectation of adherence. In love, with accompanying support and continued teaching, and with increasing agency with age and learning. This is the best course for a good outcome.

WHo said I was offended? Not some SJW. Strange you use the term "watered-down" as this afternoon I noticed on social media that BYU will now sell caffeinated drinks in the cafeteria. While we know that our leaders use caffeinated soda we appear to have a lot of people who are saying this is wrong. It isn't, but people have believed it.

Fiannan is not saying anything is intrinsically wrong with church standards of dress and modesty. Although I am probably much more conservative and traditional than Fiannan is, and I don't find one thing wrong with white shirts in church or forbidding tattooing, unnatural hair dying, etc, I too have observed this same kind of weird extremism he is talking about among church members and other religious people over the years and find it a very very curious phenomena. It isn't proactive, it is fearfully reactive. It is letting one extreme push you into the other extreme.

I was a strict mother, yes. Much more than most. But that was just the way I am. It was consistent with my traditional culture. Almost nothing I did was done out of some kind of reaction to the world around me.

Not directed specifically at you passionflower, just an opportunity to bring up something I have been considering regarding these specific counsels.

So, as I have been learning more about the technological advances being worked on to "enhance" human beings and how close we are or aren't to these advances. And also believing as I do that most are contrary to the gospel plan. (That is a bigger discussion about having a physical experience vs. a more mental experience through tech like virtual reality and things like Elon Musk's attempts at hooking computers and the internet directly into our cerebral cortex's, or in other words, God's plan of a physical experience vs. Satan's attempt to take us back a step to just being a mind and spirit.)

I am wondering how following the counsel about extreme's in style (un-natural hair color, piercings, tatoos, etc.) will play into the choices we make with regard to accepting these physically permanent alterations of our bodies in the future. The scriptures teach of "marking oneself." Perhaps hair does grow out, and piercings can be removed, but some of the changes being discussed for the near future would not be so easily reversed. Maybe obedience now, while not vital in these specific alterations, will lead to acceptance of worse "markings" when the options become more available.

I have also comtemplated this same subject and worry about a similar outcome.

[Crackers]

Do you have any specifics in mind in posting this? I mean, other than dogs.
Most of us fanatics are not against dogs.
dc

I have seen this in all religions. Brigham Young even warned that if you control a kid too much then once they reach 18 they would go crazy with the freedom to do all the things you banned them from doing previously.

Yeah, I see that a lot with many who have faith crisis. They come to realize an undeniable flaw in the lds church & then they toss the whole thing out, rejecting anything to do with the church, including political leanings. Ridiculous! It's essentially switching herd mentalities.

Also, children (esp teens & young adults) tend to test parental love by rebelling against what parents seem to want most for them, unless they're sufficiently convinced their parents love them. But it could also be they sense when something is extreme in an unhealthy way - like worshipping a church above God.

Raising children is not easy & is largely based on faith without knowing the exact consequences. I hope & pray often that my kids find the narrow way between extremes of cult-like mentality and leftist insanity. I have reason to believe that there are others (seen & unseen) who are also hoping for the best for them. I need to do what I sense is best as their parent, and then trust that they'll find their way, whether it's tough or easy.

I think teaching kids why we do things and the significance of and consequences of their actions can go a long way in helping them stay on the path. Just teach a kid to be home on time, and they might want to rebel. Teach them the reasons for being home on time, the natural consequences of being out late and potential dangers, and they might start to understand and internalize the matter. It also helps when they feel like they are being treated like a distinct human being instead of an appendage of their parents who can just be manipulated like a puppet.

[kittycat51]

Oh come on, there is a difference between telling members that viewing porn is wrong (as I find it to be) and going all "Reefer Madness" in regards to the issue. I have seriously heard LDS people say that looking at porn is as addictive as heroin and any amount is addiction. Thankfully the Church is now saying that this is incorrect and that most people who look at porn are not addicted. As for modesty it may depend on when a person was raised in the Church. In the 1950s is was perfectly fine at BYU to wear gowns that exposed the shoulders and much of the back. In the 1970s one can remember most youth wearing those really short running shorts (both males and females) to youth activities. Then something happened around the turn of the century and suddenly little girls in sun dresses were seen as immodest and we saw sleaves added to classic art paintings depicting angels. That is going overboard, don't you think?

Seriously! That is fascinating! Do you have some sort of evidence of the dress at BYU in the 50s and 70s? Not that I don't believe you, I just am highly interested.

My daughter has been ostracized because I let her wear sleeveless shirts and shorts anywhere she goes. She's only 11. I let her pick out her own clothes. We have limits on sheer clothing, but I don't have a problem with her wearing what she likes. Lately though, I've noticed she's started wearing tights under all of her dresses to church. Her dresses aren't mini skirts, by any stretch, but they're probably four inches above the knee. I asked her why and she shrugs and looks guilty. The funny thing is though, she won't wear tights with her dresses anywhere but church. I've witnessed the other girls and parents ostracize her. I know this is what's behind her behavior. It makes me sad. This is why I want to know your evidence of the attire at BYU in the 50s and 70s. It's evidence that the standard has changed, but not due to revelation.

Just saying skirts/dresses that are 4 inches above the knee, double that when they sit down. My boys would be able to see right up her skirt if they glanced that way across the classroom.

Let me reiterate, I said they are NOT mini skirts. You created a gross exaggeration in order to victimize your boys, who should have better manners than to look up a girls skirt!

I have not taught my boys to look up girls skirts. They are all well behaved young men AND adults. Do you have boys even better yet teen boys? Even the best behaved and on the straight and narrow path boys, aren't always perfect. I have heard my boys and their friends comment in frustration on the gross negligence of how many girls dress in poor taste at church. So you are saying that they have to keep their eyes downcast or closed and not glance across the room in the chance they look where they shouldn't? They shouldn't have to be afraid to glance across the room at all in the first place. I have taught my boys proper manners, etiquette and high moral standards so in the event to counter what other parents don't.

[Gage]

I have not taught my boys to look up girls skirts. They are all well behaved young men AND adults. Do you have boys even better yet teen boys? Even the best behaved and on the straight and narrow path boys, aren't always perfect. I have heard my boys and their friends comment in frustration on the gross negligence of how many girls dress in poor taste at church. So you are saying that they have to keep their eyes downcast or closed and not glance across the room in the chance they look where they shouldn't? They shouldn't have to be afraid to glance across the room at all in the first place. I have taught my boys proper manners, etiquette and high moral standards so in the event to counter what other parents don't.
[/quote]



No they shouldnt be afraid to glance across the room, matter of fact the teenage girls want them to glance across the room.

[mcusick]

No they shouldnt be afraid to glance across the room, matter of fact the teenage girls want them to glance across the room.

It's a slippery slope. That's what I hear. Over the years, I've gathered it goes something like this: First, a glance. Then fornication. Then leaving the church. Then heroin in a ditch and dying. Then hell fire. Then posthumous ordinances. Then eternal exaltation with your family.

[Thinker]

Do you have any specifics in mind in posting this? I mean, other than dogs.
Most of us fanatics are not against dogs.
dc

I have seen this in all religions. Brigham Young even warned that if you control a kid too much then once they reach 18 they would go crazy with the freedom to do all the things you banned them from doing previously.

Yeah, I see that a lot with many who have faith crisis. They come to realize an undeniable flaw in the lds church & then they toss the whole thing out, rejecting anything to do with the church, including political leanings. Ridiculous! It's essentially switching herd mentalities.

Also, children (esp teens & young adults) tend to test parental love by rebelling against what parents seem to want most for them, unless they're sufficiently convinced their parents love them. But it could also be they sense when something is extreme in an unhealthy way - like worshipping a church above God.

Raising children is not easy & is largely based on faith without knowing the exact consequences. I hope & pray often that my kids find the narrow way between extremes of cult-like mentality and leftist insanity. I have reason to believe that there are others (seen & unseen) who are also hoping for the best for them. I need to do what I sense is best as their parent, and then trust that they'll find their way, whether it's tough or easy.

I think teaching kids why we do things and the significance of and consequences of their actions can go a long way in helping them stay on the path. Just teach a kid to be home on time, and they might want to rebel. Teach them the reasons for being home on time, the natural consequences of being out late and potential dangers, and they might start to understand and internalize the matter. It also helps when they feel like they are being treated like a distinct human being instead of an appendage of their parents who can just be manipulated like a puppet.

Exactly!
Essentially it's about teaching them to think, to reason things out so they don't blindly follow whoever is most persuasive. Also, it can help them develop emotional intelligence (harmonizing reason with emotion & spirit).