NOM

Really?



What happened between 1964 and now?

1964 BYU Homecoming Queen:



...and what happened to the Miss Indian BYU Pageant? Did they all turn W&D?

Interesting. I have two observations. One is that the current modesty kick was less of a big deal in the early 1960s. Pre sexual revolution perhaps (or else as usual PSRs were slow to catch on).

The problem I have with the first image is the word "dummy". Sure it's clever but it's also insulting. Is this to be SOP going forward, ridiculing alternate points of view? That was a feature of the Renlund dinghy fireside with both the Renlunds taking cheap shots at doubters. Who would Jesus ridicule?

I think I see in really small letters that that meme (or mormonad or poster or whatever it's called) was made in July 2001. So... maybe the modesty standards have evolved since 2001.

I mean, 2001 was a different time, and the prophets of that time period were heavily influenced by the culture they were in, and they did the best they could, and statements made back then simply do not reflect the mind of God in 2019, and what's really important is that you have a testimony in the living prophets, preferably the living prophets who are talking right now, about different things... like love, and... the storms of life are less stormy when the light beams of revelatory stuff shines and stuff. (LOL. How am I doing as an apologist?)

In related news, I think the garments are getting smaller.

misterfake371 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2019 6:35 pm I think I see in really small letters that that meme (or mormonad or poster or whatever it's called) was made in July 2001. So... maybe the modesty standards have evolved since 2001.

I missed that detail. So insulting the less obedient has been in the culture for a while.

DPRoberts wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2019 6:44 pm

misterfake371 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2019 6:35 pm I think I see in really small letters that that meme (or mormonad or poster or whatever it's called) was made in July 2001. So... maybe the modesty standards have evolved since 2001.

I missed that detail. So insulting the less obedient has been in the culture for a while.

Looking down on outsiders has been a consistent feature of fundamentalist religion since... like, the dinosaurs. It's always been there, along with using disgust, fear and shame to keep insiders in line.

It works like this. Your religion requires you to believe something that's hard to believe, either because you're surrounded by outsiders, or because it contradicts your senses or the known facts. But you've built your life on it! Outsiders' ideas become scary. You discover that it's easier to look down on them than to be afraid. You recruit your sense of disgust to keep scary ideas out of your head. You beat yourself up internally if the ideas manage to get in. And you turn all of this outward when a loved one seems to be straying.

You also invent more ways to divide the insiders from the outsiders. The better you conform to what's expected of insiders, the more you feel like you belong, and the safer the world seems to be.

This modesty business is more of the same. Good Mormon girls dress like X, and those slutty outsiders dress like Y. Conform and feel comforted.

misterfake371 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2019 6:35 pm I mean, 2001 was a different time, and the prophets of that time period were heavily influenced by the culture they were in, and they did the best they could, and statements made back then simply do not reflect the mind of God in 2019, and what's really important is that you have a testimony in the living prophets, preferably the living prophets who are talking right now, about different things... like love, and... the storms of life are less stormy when the light beams of revelatory stuff shines and stuff. (LOL. How am I doing as an apologist?)

Sounds like an alternative take on what's in the Mormon Ad in the OP.

A prophet teaches whatever the world is selling. Your standards are higher than that.

“Your standards are higher than that” - except in the case of a President of the Church who was misogynist, racist, treasure hunting, dabbling in folk magic, or marrying underage girls, in which case he was just doing what everyone else at the time was doing.

Wait... isn't a scarf with a tank top dumb? Those don't go together. I mean, how can your neck be cold enough to warrant wearing a scarf, yet your shoulders and arms warm enough to go around in a sleeveless shirt? That outfit really is dumb! Or... maybe it's a fashion thing I don't understand. I've never been great at fashion.

misterfake371 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 6:59 pm Wait... isn't a scarf with a tank top dumb? Those don't go together. I mean, how can your neck be cold enough to warrant wearing a scarf, yet your shoulders and arms warm enough to go around in a sleeveless shirt? That outfit really is dumb! Or... maybe it's a fashion thing I don't understand. I've never been great at fashion.

Isn't it the arms of a sweater? I only see that look in anime now, but wearing your sweater like a cape was all the rage among the upper classes sometime in the 1990s. It was like... like being hugged all day by a tiny, starving person.

That's the real crime in this modesty propaganda: a crime against fashion.

Reuben wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 7:12 pm
It was like... like being hugged all day by a tiny, starving person.

Hey, you stole that line from Mitch Hedberg!

uh... well maybe you didn't steal it from Hedberg, exactly but what you wrote is very similar to this joke of his just googled: "Wearing a turtleneck is like being strangled by a really weak guy, all day. Wearing a backpack and a turtleneck is like a weak midget trying to bring you down."

Reuben wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 7:12 pm
Isn't it the arms of a sweater?

Ha! Yes, you're right! It is a sweater. I thought it was a scarf for a second.