Have you ever been in a discussion at church in which the discussion was so far afield that you found yourself thinking “We have completely lost it. We are talking total nonsense”?
Recently I was called to be the ward trek coordinator. [1] Our stake has never done a pioneer trek before, so I’m not the only complete novice. I just have to go to the meetings, not the trek itself. To me, that’s an ideal assignment. In one of our early meetings, the committee mentioned that other stakes had gone down a rabbit hole we would not be going down: holding fake funerals for our lost children and burying baby dolls in the desert. Thank goodness we aren’t total psychos, we all thought, congratulating ourselves on our non-psycho status. Imagine that shiz hitting the newspapers: Costumed Mormon Teens Bury Dolls in Desert in Weird Religious Ritual. Crisis averted!
But then the topic of costuming came up, specifically whether the girls would be required to wear bloomers under their ankle-length dresses. (Jeans are apparently verboten for both sexes). The answer came back that wearing bloomers was required for girls, as a safety matter, but also for modesty sake.
Our committee was a bit incredulous that this was required and also that it was somehow linked to modesty, particularly given that the girls will be wearing ankle-length dresses. It was pointed out that the girls wear skirts to church every Sunday without wearing bloomers. Most of the committee seemed surprised we were sitting in a room at the church on a Sunday evening discussing the young women’s underwear. The committee chair suddenly went on an unexpected modesty rant about how the girls could fall over, presumably in a strong wind, exposing their unbloomered nether regions to the priests and teachers. If a really strong wind occurred, the girls could be tumbling around like jacks, all over the place, their thighs exposed for all to see and possibly worse! So the girls have to wear bloomers that are essentially pants (scrubs or pajama bottoms are recommended) under a long skirt and a long apron while the boys are just wearing more or less the same type of pants sans skirts and aprons.
One ward pointed out that the girls already plan to wear bike shorts underneath anyway, but this was also deemed immodest because the so-called bike shorts would probably not go all the way to their knees and would probably end up being booty shorts. To bolster an already weak argument, the modesty ranter pointed out that it was important for the kids to experience hardship as the pioneers did, hiking in a circle around a cell phone tower within a hundred yards of the freeway with port-a-potties at the ready as did their forebears.
At this point, the discussion had gone on long enough and been sufficiently crazy for me to declare that this would be an excellent lesson to the girls in how unfair dress guidelines have been for women for the last several thousand years. One sister hopefully asked if the leaders would be exempt from this requirement, and was told that as a show of example and solidarity, they too would need to wear the bloomers (presumably over their garments and under the ankle length skirt and apron). If I were a betting woman, which let’s face it, I probably am, I would bet that at least half the leaders intended to ignore this stake-level mandate.
A friend shared a similar crazy exchange he observed in a ward council meeting:
The ward council was having some discussion about men accompanying the sister missionaries on visits to homes of single men. They didn’t want the sisters going along because that seemed pliggy. [2] They didn’t want one man showing up with two sisters because that looked pliggy on the doorstep and seemed double-datey once inside. They didn’t want two men accompanying the sisters because that seemed double-datey on the doorstep and inches away from all-out orgy once inside. So they determined that the optimal plan would be for THREE MEN TO ACCOMPANY TWO SISTER MISSIONARIES TO VISIT ANOTHER SINGLE MAN. And they talked about this as a serious, non-crazy, viable thing to do. Until I raised my hand and said “You guys have completely lost your minds.”
I have also noted the craziness of the guidelines around missionaries not entering a home where there is no 18 year old male resident present. Another friend shared a story of how the elders brought in a third adult male with them because she was a divorced mother, and therefore a potential seductress from whom they needed protection. I suggest that if we care about appearances, as these crazy conversations seem to think we do, we quit showing up with a posse of brethren at people’s houses. If we are that worried about it, maybe some garlic and a crucifix would be a more subtle alternative?
Others have pointed out that the horror of two opposite sex people being alone is so feared that they have let a woman walk in an icy sleet storm, driving closely behind her to be sure she is OK, rather than offering her a ride home. Because slowly driving next to a woman who is walking doesn’t look at all weird or creepy. We can only assume that this is what the Savior would do, at least if he didn’t want to be falsely accused [3] because we all know that all women are harlots and false accusers.
Whenever I’ve suggested that these guidelines go too far, invariably someone will bring up the one time when some missionary had sex with an investigator or a member. Clearly Dick Cheney is setting our policies: if there is even a 1% chance it could happen, we must treat it as a certainty that it will happen every single time. It’s probably happening right now, as I type this.
The modesty rant reminded me of a conversation with my sister-in-law who said that her stake was concerned that the girls’ legs would be exposed if they were swimming at a girls camp (you know, those camps we have for girls only), so all girls were required to wear knee length shorts and tee shirts over their swimsuits. She was gobsmacked that this was not only raised as a serious suggestion, but that it was actually adopted as a real guideline, which prompted this research and post I did at BCC.
It would be great to imagine that as Mormons we’d be capable of keeping people’s crazier fears in check. So far, the jury is out, but it seems that the craziest person in the room gets the most say in how things are done.
What “we so cray” moments have you had in Mormondom?
Discuss.
[1] I was really disappointed this wasn’t a Star Trek theme. Now THAT would be a cool youth activity. Ditch the handcarts and throw a Gorn in there!
[2] This little pliggy went to market. Or to the Cedar City WalMart.
[3] Obviously, Jesus was no stranger to being falsely accused, but unlike Mormons, he didn’t go to weird lengths to avoid it.
Wheat & Tares 
“One sister hopefully asked if the leaders would be exempt from this requirement, and was told that as a show of example and solidarity, they too would need to wear the bloomers (presumably over their garments and under the ankle length skirt and apron).”
Those cotton-poly garment bottoms are bloomers, I’m certain.
That’s how many layers in a desert?
“Because slowly driving next to a woman who is walking doesn’t look at all weird or creepy.”
Explaining that kerb-crawling arrest would be interesting. Oh no officer, I’m not harassing that woman, I’m just making sure she gets home safely. Yes, I know I have 3 empty seats. No, that isn’t why she isn’t getting in the car.
Yes this is just plain crazy. I mentioned this in my Open Letter to President Oscarson when she took over the YW. We need some support from the central leadership to rein in the crazies otherwise the crazies win way too much at the ward level. The moderates, who are probably in the majority in most places, simply have no rhetorical room to stand on because there isn’t single modesty talk that warns of the dangers of “going too far”. Not. a. single. one. But we have tons of stories and lessons about GA wives that recommend using a three-way mirror and bending every which way to absolutely insure that an outfit is modest. I have no problem with devout people choosing super devout forms of religiosity. I have a HUGE problem with them trying to enforce their scrupulosity on the rest of us. If your family wants to stay dressed up all Sunday, not let your kids out in the yard, pay 11% tithing, force your daughters to knee length shorts while banning flip flops. Go afreaking’ ahead. How the moment you turn my daughter away for wearing a tank top in some fit of righteousness we will have words. The tyranny of the crazies at the ward and stake levels must stop.
However…
That was my fit of religious pique.
Oh man…i am laughing out loud. This was very well written and all too true.
I think “the craziest person in the room gets the most say” really nails the problem. For the most part, everyone else is thinking “NOOOOOOOO!!!!!” while also maintaining “neutral face” and trying not to offend the crazy one.
Because there’s no sacrifice too big and/or ridiculous that the men won’t lay it upon the women and girls.
Females are like dynamite. Super dangerous!
Good luck to you hawkgrrl!
My daughters voted with their feet at all this crazy stuff, so I don’t think anything was won there.
Whilst I agree that we should all take responsibility for the modesty of our dress(not other people’s sexual fantasies about our dress), I wonder what any half-sane dermotologist would have to say about this?!
I would imagine that the danger of litigation might act as a disincentive to what always was a sorry venture…
OTOH, those cool and breezy bloomers look both fetching and practical compared to the mormon underwear I persist in wearing.
My wife was just called as the young women’s camp director and was told that the girls need to wear board shorts and a t shirt over their swimsuit at GIRLS camp. They have gone to the local rec center and have the same dress code enforcemed.
My wife was confused about it, thought it was unnecessary, and started to ask around. The YW president said it was in the handbook. She checked, and it isn’t. The RS president said it was in the scout handbook… Yeah, that’s not real. Finally someone tells that it’s a directive from the stake.
Some of these girls aren’t the best swimmers, but we are telling them to wear heavy cotton shirts over their swimsuits to protect their modesty at an all girls camp? No thought about safety? Crazy!
Hattip to Hedgehog for pointing out the safety issues created when one wears bloomers and a dress in the summer heat. This combination strikes me as much more appropriate for a boy scout Klondike derby than a trek.
As a father of daughters, I would be very tempted to offer my example of shared sacrifice by wearing an ankle-length dress and bloomers alongside the young women. Maybe then the stake leaders would see how crazy we look. But then again, probably not.
I have nothing to say about the trek dress code, other than I think the whole idea of a pioneer trek is stupid. I am so grateful when our kids were teenagers we lived in a poor stake that couldn’t afford to indulge in such nonsense. I’ve never before thought of being low-income as a blessing.
As for the t-shirt and shorts over swimming suits for girls, I’ve often wondered by we don’t just skip the swim suits completely and tell the kids to wear shorts and colored t-shirts. If you are going to be insane, please be affordable about it.
Treks are the worst in bringing out the crazy!!! A few years ago we had some leadership tell the kids they shouldn’t bring toothbrushes and went so far as to tell the girls they couldn’t bring tampons. Fortunately someone spoke up to tell them they were being weird and that our kids would bring whatever personal hygiene products they needed. I don’t know what it is about planning a Pioneer Trek, but it seems to bring out the Dwight Schrute in some people.
I wear Star Wars stormtrooper oufits to all civil war reenactments and I am wondering if that would work for the upcoming renaissance festival….Seriously, the whole trek modesty and other modesty discussions are the only ones I walk out of. We live close to the beach where our young men and women see each other in bathing suits, some of which are bikinis. It cracks me up that bloomers would even be discussed. Our ward’s girls are wearing biker shorts.
Modesty is probably the biggest waste of time an effort within the young womens program. In all my years as a young man and old man in the church, we never had a discussion about what we should be wearing, except the whole white shirt stupid discussion, which I have not heard in years.
At our last girls camp the leaders brought out the granny swimming suit that the girls would have to wear if they brought swimming suits that were deemed immodest.
So yeah, shaming a girl in front of the rest of the girls is exactly the message we want to send about modesty.
re: the stalker in the ice storm. A few years ago our RS president’s family was down to one car while the other was in the shop. She lived on my way to the chapel and I offered to give her a ride to ward council so she wouldn’t have to schlep back and forth on Sunday mornings between WC and church meetings to get the rest of her family or dragoon them into going to the chapel at 7:00 am. After I extended the offer via telephone she responded she had to check with her husband and get his approval about riding to the chapel alone with me. (perhaps that says something about me!) Here’s the rub: she is smart and serves tirelessly. I would have never expected that kind of stupid and silly response from someone like her. Sure, she has an irrational and silly fear of gay marriage, but she is a perfect RS president by her sincere desire to serve and help people. Her husband quickly approved our early Sunday morning rendezvous (just kidding for the humor impaired) and I drove her to WC. Both she and her husbands are products of BYU, though I am not sure even BYU zealotry and craziness explains her strange response. I still scratch my head over that encounter b/c she and her husband are very good people.
Our last trek featured a “river crossing” (a specially constructed shallow pool full of slightly muddy water that could also be walked around), and a few youth slipped and fell in. This caused a bit of a stir amongst the leaders, as a couple young women’s white blouses no longer hid their brightly colored bras. The YW leaders leapt quickly into action, frantically trying to find ways to cover them, since the extra clothes were not accessible (they weren’t in the wagons because the wagons would have been too full). Eventually the crises was averted and we were again underway. Until that afternoon, when the company was caught in a rare, 15-minute downpour. Now, ALL the girls’ pioneer blouses were see-through, including many of the leaders’. Purple, teal, and blue bras everywhere. Nobody really knew what to do, so the kids just didn’t worry about it and played in the rain.
Our YW wore bike shorts because chafing can be an issue.
Martin,
I don’t think American women were commonly wearing bras in the mid-1850s, so we should probably ban them all together for trek. Ta-da! No problems with colored bras showing through blouses.
And as a descendant of people in both the Martin and Willie handcart companies, I vote trek should be in winter, barefoot, with no food.
Thanks for the laughs, Hawkgrrl. Surely you’re right and Dick Cheney is indeed writing our rules.
I am always thoroughly amused when in the world of low modesty standards, attacks by sex-crazed men rarely happen (they do happen, but given the population of normally less modest people, not very often). But, in a crowd of supposedly high standard, high modesty Mormons, the temptation is so great that extra precautions must be taken to prevent the orgy-like experiences the adults are always worried about.
Why do they think so little of us?
This happened to me yestarday I was waiting to teach a class and the sisters were the only ones there and so they had to stand outside in the hallway whilst I was sitting in a chair in the room, this was just after sac. mtg. I thought it was ridiculous they had to stand outside because if I was going to put the moves on the sister missionaries it would not be at Church! What is more the ward busybody bishopric guy was poking around ‘just checking’-I think he was just jealous I was talking to the sisters and not him!
In my brother’s stake in Gilbert Arizona (I’m not sure which stake) an edict recently came down from the Stake President that the young women are no longer allowed to wear shorts to play volleyball on the ward teams. Long pants are now required because, of course, shorts are de facto immodest.
The boys, however, will continue to play all manner of ward athletics in their ratty, unwashed shorts with impunity. Of course nobody was brave enough to point out the inequity of this new rule to the SP.
It can be pretty funny when a counsel begins to go down certain rabbit holes…trying to be “even more righteous”. It can be difficult to get the discussion back to sensible ground, especially when modesty or sex is feared. No one knows how to talk about those subjects rationally.
It can sometimes be fun to play along with them, and see how far they’ll go with it. For example…bubble ball suits for all YM to keep certain body parts away from girls. I think you can buy them on the Internet for only $250 a suit…a small price to pay for the safety of our YW. Right?
I don’t think counsels set out to be ridiculous all at once. But… we all know how frogs get boiled.
I have several friends in my ward thoroughly involved in our Stake’s upcoming “Trek.” I am amazed at the complexity and the work involved. I just want to echo the single comment, to date, that the whole “Trek” thing is ridiculous. And, I wouldn’t be surprised if there are several places in the world, outside the USA, where these are conducted and are, therefore, even more silly.
There may well be some worthy objectives/benefits of such an enormously labor-intensive activity, but there are also many simpler, less silly and less difficult ways to achieve them. But we Mormons are nothing if not mindlessly traditional.
I remember hearing of a missionary in the MTC having behavioral issues. His mental state was in question. Being interviewed by the MTC psychologist, the missionary was like a deer in the headlights when asked if he talked to God, thinking as a missionary he should say yes and yet wondering what a psychologist thinks of a person who says he actually talks to God.
It must be that I travel in boring circles, but all the crazies I know are in the bloggernacle.
Course, that begs the question, am I the crazy one?
I had a man come up to me at a church basketball game and told my YM team was not appropriately attired because they were wearing tank tops. He was surprised when I showed him the church’s manual that stated that appropriate clothing should be worn for each sport and gave the example of tank tops & shorts for B-ball. People seem to want the make rules more and more strict, I guess to protect God, or to help themselves get promoted. BTW I was the Bishop at the time. BTW as a youth every church team I knew wore BBall tank tops and our shorts were very short. But somehow it all became sinful. You can’t have too much shame. I think maybe tank tops are now be formally outlawed in church. If they are not anything else the crazies are upwardly mobile. 🙂
On another note I recently heard someone in the High Priest group propose that the Holy Ghost (the third member of the Godhead) might be a calling and that different unembodied spirits may be called to take it over and later released. Its a real rollercoaster ride.
I had the audacity to suggest at a Relief Society function that some day they might change the garment tops to a tank top. I was not teaching, it was just a group of women chatting. One of the ladies almost fainted. I think she was expecting lighting to strike me dead. I asked her why she thought the suggestion was so blasphemous. She said because of modesty. It would be immodest to wear no sleeves. I asked her if the top two inches of the arm were that sexually stimulating to men. There are no markings on the cap sleeves. Well, she changed the subject immediately.
Hawkgrrrl, I think the bloomers would keep the girls from upper thighs rubbing together during the long walks in the hot desert or getting chaffing and rashes under the hot sweaty skirts. Bike shorts would probably do the same thing. Do you remember at our family reunion where our Utah relatives wore shorts and t-shirts over their bathing suits? They said everyone in Utah does that for modesty’s sake.
Why has the church decided to force our children to dress as if they already wear garments? I want my daughter to be modest and dress modestly. She hasn’t gotten her endowments or been to the temple other than to do baptisms so why force her to dress as if she has?
On the other hand, what’s truly crazier, requiring girls to wear board shorts swimming, or the fact that YW have to shave their pubes (to some degree at least) to wear the modern swimsuits?
Dress coding is, as usual, ridiculous. I hope someday to grow out of the damage done to me as a YW. But mostly I just want to second your recommendation for a Star Trek trek. Fighting a Gorn wouldn’t be nearly as difficult or irritating as half the stuff that happened on my youth trek, and it would have been way more fun.
Martin, is your idea that a swimsuit becomes immodest if it exposes (or has potential to expose) the pubes? Allow me to point you in the direction of the phenomenon known as “happy trails.”
#26 – while there’s nothing wrong with getting the young accustomed to clothing that’s compatible with temple garments, only the “pre-vert” would get a rise out of some 13-14 y.o. girl in short shorts. If it’s hot and the kids need to be comfortable. let ’em.
#27 – Martin, you wouldn’t have ingratiated yourself with Lt. Lockhart (“Full Metal Jacket”, Joker and Rafterman’s CO in the Public Affairs Office, who wants to see “fur” and “early morning dew”). Surely some form of slip-over garment could be improvised for those high-cut bathing suits. And I wouldn’t be staring in that general direction anyway in the context of an informal LDS activity, so pas de problem.
Men, if you want your wife and daughters to love you forever, be sensitive to this issue and stand up for your girls. (Some good examples of this in the comments.)
I know Utah gets all kinds of crap for the weird things that happen here. I’m not denying that. But I will say that the weirdest ward I ever visited was in Mesa, Arizona. It was a ward full of Cliven Bundys talking white horse prophecies (this was before the Tea Party wackos became a thing.) Hawk, how far are you from Mesa? Do you have Mesa transplants in your ward?
Mesa is to Scottsdale what Provo is to Park City. Short answer, no. Also, I have observed that Mesa is trying to out-Provo Provo. Most Mormons in AZ live in east valley (Mesa, Gilbert, Chandler).
I’m not a practicing mormon anymore, but when I hear the crazies it makes me feel bad I’m no longer in there fighting the good fight.
24
Frank we know all the crazies are over at M* 🙂
Just to move the Overton Window on modesty. Can I just say – tank tops aren’t immodest. Really. They aren’t. Only we and a few really crazy evangelicals think this. The crazies are winning.
So bizarre! I’m impressed that you held your cool.
When you said, “The answer came back…” Where did it come from? The stake, higher up?
Any of your kids planning to attend?
It’s been my theory a while now that it isn’t shoulders that are bothersome to the modesty police, but arm pits. You’d never get them to say so though. But it would explain where dresses or blouses with cap sleeves that cover the shoulder only are seen as cheating, and can leave them grinding their teeth.
rice, I heard that theory on the HG too, nearly 30 years ago.
We have developed a pretty strong culture of risk management and litigation avoidance. It seemed to really take hold when I was a youth (early 1990s) and we clearly noticed that the list of prohibited activities was getting longer every year, inversely proportional to the amount of fun we were having. Fortunately though, it was before pioneer treks became a thing.
I suppose this is what happens when the Q12 has more lawyers than any other single profession.
Jessica: “answer came back” means that the stake committee chair (aka modesty ranter) stated that this was the policy for this trek. I don’t know whether she made that call or the stake did. My 16 year old son is registered to attend. My daughter isn’t old enough. I’m pretty sure my son isn’t aware of the no-jeans requirement yet. As with many of these requirements, we’ve been told not to say too much because the kids will refuse to attend, so instead, we need to spring it on them at the last minute. Which actually kind of reminded me of the first time I went to the temple, come to think of it!
I have been on 2 Treks as a leader and would be going on the one that is this year but, have been black balled by the leadership due to my constant fighting against ridiculous rules.
The first trek in which my Wife and I participated took place at Martin’s cove and was one of the greatest experiences I have had in a long time. The rules were moderate and Ma’s and Pa’s were allowed a modicum of free reign. I cannot speak for other people’s trek families but, I still have a great relationship with the majority of the youth that were in my trek family. Have attended farewells, homecomings, weddings, etc.
Having said this, I am a very much spirit of the law guy and not a letter of the law person at all. And have seen too often how rules are made for the sake of rules. If a rule is not in place that deals directly with a healthsafety issue then it is one I believe I can bend or brake. Lights out was at 10PM. My wife and I did not get to bed before 1AM any of the nights and we had another brother that would come over about every 30 minutes and tell us to go to bed. The direction to our kids was that they could stay up as long as they like as long as there was not whining the next day. We quickly became the camp hang out and had kids from all families at our fire until late in the evening.
Our 2nd trek was very different. In the first we were allowed to choose if we had a “baby” in the form of a doll to take with us. We left it up to the kids and they unanimously voted against. Many families that did bring dolls had them strapped to the spokes of their handcarts, which I found very funny. On the 2nd we were required to have a “baby” which was provided for us. So we named our baby DB, which was short for Dumpster Baby since my wife and I aren’t having any more children and the youth weren’t interested in having any either. The first evening at our forced FHE experience my wife and I brought out the markers and allowed the kids to decorate our baby. This led to Prison Tats as well as many other things. The baby had a space where a battery box used to exist that fit perfectly a LED flash light causing its plastic head to glow red. The baby was put on a stick and reportedly floating around tent windows at various times in the evening. A good time was had by all.
So this is long already but, some of the crazy that was put forth as a rule:
No Camelbacks because the pioneers didn’t have them. They also didn’t have plastic water bottles that everyone was carrying around either. Every kid in my trek family had a camelback either of their own or one I provided.
Girls had to remain in their skirts until they went to bed. This rule was so ridiculous that a member of the Stake presidency stopped a meeting to call out all the YW that were in the group who after having been in camp for hours had changed into some comfortable sleeping attire.
The same member of the stake presidency showed off the three electronic devices he had brought with him because, “this is how I prepare and give talks” even though electronic devices were forbidden.
We packed up camp in the morning and hiked 10+ miles in a circle to finish 200 yards from where we began to setup camp again. The kids were super excited about this.
I have discovered in my time doing these types of things that my job is to make sure that the kids are safe from physical harm and that they are having a great time. I have found that the Lord will take care of the testimonyspirit part on his own of the previous two conditions are met.
rice (#25)
Apparently Joseph Fielding Smith believed that the Holy Ghost was a calling. If you get some pre-McConkie scriptures, some of the chapter headings refer to “the office of the Holy Ghost.”
I hate dealing with the crazy at church. I am not a confrontational person, but I feel complicit if I don’t speak up sometimes. When we covered the OT, we had a gospel doctrine teacher who would obsessively talk for 10-15 minutes at the beginning of each lesson about the truth of the stories covered. It was tedious and, sometimes, a little silly. Sometimes it feels like people think believing something absurd is a virtue.
When programs like these have the crazy in them (i.e., burying dolls, wearing bloomers/shorts & t-shirts over swim suits, etc.), it is up to us who are not of the crazy to do something like what is done in the real world–do not tolerate it. I think sometimes we sane people get so used to the Mormon bubble world–all the social mores and etc. that prevent us from speaking up and just saying no. Would the crazy be tolerated in a professional setting?
Ways to speak up include voting with your feet: as a leader, say no or don’t be afraid to quit callings that require you to shame girls. As a parent, refuse to allow your kids to participate in activities. If people vote with their feet, though, they need to follow up with a carefully worded e-mail or letter to someone in charge stating why you are not participating.
In my stake, the leaders of the youth trek were quite proud that the youth would only be eating foods that the pioneers ate, such as gruel, thin soup, water, and biscuits. My children will not be participating in treks like that.
“we’ve been told not to say too much because the kids will refuse to attend, so instead, we need to spring it on them at the last minute. Which actually kind of reminded me of the first time I went to the temple, come to think of it!”
That’s disturbing. My kids are fully grown with kids of their own (not yet ready for trekking) but my relationship with them is far too valuable to risk it by lies of commission or omission.
#33 – The “480” is a nice place to VISIT, but were I to relocate to the Valley of the Sun, I’d stay NORTH of the Salt River. Many “Mesa Mormons” are actually quite nice people, but it becomes the same problem culturally of what happens when you can’t swing a dead cat without hitting a Mormon. And I want to swing for the fences with a forlorn feline, an apt analogy on this very day when Spring Training games are in session, as my “Gigantes” commences to defend their World Series crown.
I’m SO glad that the Phoenix Arizona Temple is up and running. North Phoenix is about 3% LDS tops, and that’s the way I likes it.
#41 – just for you…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRj-S8Aklcw
Oh, if Seth MacFarlane were LDS or at least had once been…
Funny that some of these leaders are so hell-bent on maintaining certain historical details of pioneer treks (clothing, food, babies, personal hygiene, etc.) for the sake of simulating hardships. But they conveniently overlook the very obvious historical facts of the era (polygamy/polyandry, racism, MMM, BY’s heavy-handed leadership, etc.) that may be inconvenient to the spiritual objectives of the trek, but are just as much a part of our history as the handcarts.
Youth pioneer treks need to go away already. You will create much more of a memorable experience and lifetime testimonies by taking the kids rafting or rock climbing.
I’ve spoken out about stuff before now. It had an effect. Our last ward back when my daughter was nursery age, and I was on the RS presidency, the RS president mentioned to the RS presidency that due to a shortage of classrooms, it had been proposed that nursery would be moved into the font area. The font area was separated from the corridor by those awful zigzag screens that close, was very small, and had no natural light or ventilation. She told us the primary president was very happy with the planned arrangement, though she herself was concerned. I was appalled, and told the RS president, in our presidency meeting, that if nursery was held in the font area, my daughter would not be attending. She was able to report this at the following ward council meeting, and afterwards said to me, it was a good thing I’d that, and the plan was abandoned. I wasn’t too popular with the primary president after that. But hey ho.
Some examples ive seen
Years ago in a ward in South salt lake. the Elders Presidency was talking of ways to increase attendance. It was decided that Elders were not attending because the room we were in was not Ar conditioned. A plan was made to evict the nursery so the men would be comfortable. I mentioned if they kicked my kid out of the AC room, they would be kicking me from attending priesthood.
My stake currently will not support Stake Lagoon day( for you non utah folk, lagoon is an amusement park, they give tickets to Utah stakes for reduced entry fees to the park), because lagoon makes kids work on Sunday, so we should not support them.
Also in my stake, their is an over abundance of Porn talk. I even have been called as a Ward Web safety Specialist. Basically if you have questions I can point you to web filters etc. Some of the ideas of protecting the home against porn are just crazy.
Examples i have heard.
1. Only the Wife has the password to the internet and she logins and allows access to the internet to everyone in the home including her husband.
2. Wife will be in the same room with anyone online in eyesight of the pc. Even staying up late to watch the screen with kids working on homework.
3. A Husband that when he travels he will not login to internet or turn on the TV because he does not want to even have the opportunity to be tempted
Lots of others as well. I have no problem with this, if it fits what you want or need, but to mention in classes as ways to protect yourself, it just seems a bit nutty.
When I was a young woman, one year at girl’s camp, the leaders decided to bring a number of air horns to police modesty. The rule was that if anyone showed any portion of midriff then they air horn would be blown to let everyone know. I didn’t realize how shaming and terrible this was at the time I heard the rule until I repeatedly had the air horn blown when I would bend over, or while doing athletic type activities. I had never considered anything I wore to be immodest up until that point. To this day I will mostly only where shirts that go down past my bum so that there is no chance of midriff no matter the activity. The leaders even recruited the young women to police themselves by handing out horns we could blow at each other anytime any one of the girls was deemed to be wearing something “inappropriate.” When I look back on it now, I wonder how that conversation went where they all got together and decided that it was a good idea. Where was the voice of reason?
#49 – AWK! To treat the men as if their crazed deviants whom one can’t turn their backs on for even a second, lest they gain opportunity to glance at the ‘forbidden’…if there’s a prize for most ‘bizzare’ in connection with LDS culture, that’s a strong candidate.
I recall the bishop of our then young single-adult ward in Fresno (1983) got upset b/c we had a “MASH” party for FHE..it was the swan song of the series, for pity’s sake…maybe he feared our young men would shirk military service and commence cross-dressing!
Wow, Dan, those are just bonkers!
It should be noted that bloomers were a clothing style heavily promoted by feminist activist Amelia Jenks Bloomer. She did not design the outfit but so heavily promoted it as part of her feminist writings that the article of clothing got attached to her name. Bloomers allowed women to shorten their skirts slightly for sanitary reasons (heavy skirts dragging the ground) and allowed women to ride bikes and do other activities that were difficult in long skirts. Bloomers did not become popular immediately because they were viewed as too radical of clothing for many of the same reasons Mormon women today wouldn’t wear dress pants to church. The bloomer was a uniform of feminism. Being a women who wears dress pants to church every Sunday I look forward to the day years down the road when my great granddaughters can be shamed for not wearing their dress pants to church. After all a strong gust of wind could blow into the chapel creating all sorts of havoc if a women chooses to simply wear a skirt.
Radicalpatience I have actually personally have had and witnessed many mishaps with dresses/skirts at church. Toddlers and dresses don’t mix.
Suggestions for Trek: Make it real.
What was the biggest source of death and suffering for the Mormon pioneer?
The answer: Dysentery.
A retired scout master told me there is always a problem at week long summer camp with young boys and pooping.(This is true, I know from my own experience). It is hot and humid with no A/C. They get dehydrated and constipated. The food is bulky and they have modesty problems. They hold it in and avoid the dread trip to the latrine as long as possible. Within a couple of days the abdominal pain and bloating makes its appearance. Next comes the trips to the camp clinic or the local emeergency room. Then the enemas and the embarassment when the other scouts find out. So funny for boys around a campfire, who are not afflicted.
This grizzled scout master’s old school solution was a big pot of chili the first night at camp for everyone. And he had it laced with ex lax. Some of the older boys would eventually figure out to not eat the chili and they would be given the task of lacing the chili themselves (boy leadership). But it took a few years and by then they had figured out to drink more water and get over pooping in whatever primitive facility they had available. And for the rest of them the suffering together builds comradarie, the mutual humiliation of pooping together half the night. No problems with that issue for the rest of the week or the next several years.
At Philmont scout camp (the pinnacle scouting experience) there are back-to-back wooden two hole toilets just sitting there out in the woods. It is a mark of true scout brotherhood to share one of them with your best friend. As an adult leader I have seen these devices in person but never actually witnessed their ritual use. I have heard many scouts report doing it.
Don’t believe me? Go to google image and search for “BSA Philmont two hole toilet.”
Trek is not about history but all about indoctrination and guilt, nothing useful in the modern world is accomplished in my experience. Of course, there is going to be a predictable major slap down on modesty directed at the girls. You will see every other excess of ultra-orthodox Mormonism manifest in these treks.
You will never see people like me who can do great imitations of J. Golden Kimball or scare the hell out of young teenagers with tales of mountain meadows masaacres and such allowed to say one word around the campfire, between all the praying and devotional lectures and guilt tripping.
Good luck.
I think you should insist that the girls dress as authentically as possible, in crotchless pantalets: http://mentalfloss.com/article/51840/7-things-historical-women-wore-under-their-skirts.
I live in Brisbane Australia. We have had no money in our church budgets for the last year. (rumors about a legal action the church is undertaking to keep tax exemption, even though it doesn’t spend enough on charitable works) We do have the modesty madness for YW here too, even though the other 99% of the population dress themselves without help/advice from old men, and the YM associate with them somehow.
We just had a debate about women’s safety, on national TV. Apparently 1 in 3 women is physically assaulted in her lifetime, usually by her partner, and 1 in 5 sexually assaulted. The main solution offered was equality for women, and a number of support programmes. Modest clothing was not mentioned. I guess they don’t understand?
It has just been announced we are having a treck for the youth. During the week, 3 beautifully made handcarts turned up at the chapel. We have no culture of handcarts. The treck is being held hundreds of ks west in the drier country. How much does a handcart cost in Utah, plus shipping to Australia, plus transport to the treck site? A member who is a caterer is supplying food for the treckies.
My wife and I were temple workers for a year, and I noticed that the inner door to the temple has 180 degree hinges but there is a stop to stop it swinging inward. Every third person crashes into the door, expecting it to swing inward. I quietly removed the stop. About 6 weeks later a bod from SLC came and wanted the stop replaced. Temple presidencies are obedient types, but asked why. Apparently a group in the Philippines tried to enter the Temple, and it was deemed that if the door had only swung outward they would have been thwarted, so all the small temples now have door stops to prevent invasions of Philippineos.
Similar kind of craziness?
Harkgrrrl – not much I could add to the stories of the often pathetic things done people do in the church.
If I can just make a comment about some of the language used in your post. In saying this, please know that I support wholeheartedly your premise.
I run a course that seeks to educate people about mental illness. One of the ways we begin the course is by asking them to list the names that people use in referring to such people. Nut job, psycho, looney and crazy are all such names. We then talk about how many people will suffer a mental illness this year – 20% or one in five. That’s you or someone you know. We then ask how they would feel if someone referred to their friend or them in that way.
Whilst I get the reference to someone doing the things you are suggesting as being “crazy”, the negative connotation to people with a mental illness is potentially not nice.
Interestingly, the connotation that someone is crazy, therefore they do stupid thing XYZ, assumes that they are not in their right mind. Quite the opposite, in probably all the examples above, all are doing these ridiculous things in their right minds. No illness, no psychosis. Just fanatical adherence to standards and traditions that do not reflect any real benefit.
I hope we can make comment on people doing such things without reference to language that indicates the presence of a mental illness or disorder.
Otherwise excellent post..!!
Point well taken, LDS_Aussie! That’s a habit we should all try to break. I suppose it has less punch to say “scrupulous” than “crazy,” but that’s probably the specific brand of quirk I’m describing.
Forgot the OBVIOUS one – when I get on a long-winded thread on W&T! Then it’s just a POV issue as to who is supplying the ‘crazy’!
Loved the Post
Sorry to come to the post a bit late but I felt that I should comment on Trek and the dress standards. I think the obvious solution if we need people to monitor dress is that we have (as LDS), a well proven quasi investigation, and as I read it, spying team at the Honour Code Office at BYU Idaho.
Just give them a call they might extend the “teams” activities to Trek and help fund more jobs.
Dont worry in Australia the same nonsence has been transported here!
Someone send this onto the Twelve!
I had elders knock on my door and then tell me they couldn’t come inside because my husband was not at home.( Somehow that’s different than when the elders lived with us and we were all home but my husband wasn’t??) They were then going to go to my non-member neighbor’s house and knock on her door and potentially not go inside so I told them not to go.
I’m a gay BYU student who finished his mission about a year and a half ago, and in my mission (Singapore/Malaysia) we were required to do the exact opposite: if male missionaries wanted to enter a room that had only women in it (no matter how many), we had to find a man, somewhere, to go in with us. Our sister missionaries had to bring another woman when they taught single men. When we actually tried to follow this rule, either we ended up spending a lot of time sitting on thresholds or one or two male members abandoned their other obligations to spend 20 hours each week wandering the city with us. Not ideal. I was always bothered by this rule. I mean, even if we’re alone with a beautiful 19-year-old girl, and not the roomful of aged matrons that we usually taught, why assume we’re going to rape her? There’s also the heteronormativity of the rule: the implication that sexual activity might happen between men and women but not in a room with only men. Clearly appearances, and not chastity, was the real idea behind the rule, but you’d be amazed at how many elders treated it like the first and greatest commandment.