A bridge too far?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Solon

Is that true? No capris at The-College-Formerly-Known-As-Ricks?

Amazing.

I suppose the next step is to prohibit women from wearing pants at all.

Now that would be a change I could favor, after my daughter graduates. BYU Idaho would rise in the Playboy ratings after that.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Adam

Exactly. There is a perceived need to control LDS youth. If you don't control them, they can't be your missionary force, they won't get married young and have lots of babies to keep your growth going. If they don't get married young and have lots of kids, they will go inactive and get caught up in careers and marry girls from far from home who are less likely to be willing to pay tithing and raise the one kid they are willing to have in the church. And so forth.

We call this control "Raising our kids in the Church". I'm doing it. I assume you are or will do it too.

Interesting. So how do you decide when what they speak is commandment, and when its just control-freakishness?

Originally Posted by Archaea

From a brand recognition, it is important.

The leaders like a clean look. It's what they are comfortable with, and they would like to maintain a distinctive brandmark.

So do you likewise believe that this comes strictly out of a desire to control people?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Adam

I didn't know this. Please shoot me now.

He is a Packer, JFS hard core.

I hope the new guy lightens up a bit, but they even have an intro to BYU Idaho, wherein Bednar is quoted as saying how inspired the Honor Code and the dress code, coming from oracles of God.

No, Bednar is somebody to watch out for. He's no moderate. And I can't see a German being moderate.

So we need to look to Eyring.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

Interesting. So how do you decide when what they speak is commandment, and when its just control-freakishness?



So do you likewise believe that this comes strictly out of a desire to control people?

Yes. Well mostly.

They probably rationalize it, by tying it to loving one's body, but it comes out of brandmarking.

Mind you, my family looks the part, mainly because I want my kids to fit within professional society. We're no rebels, but we don't reject those who otherwise comply with Gospel standards but rebel a bit in dress.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Adam

I didn't know this. Please shoot me now.

One could only hope he was kissing up and didn't believe it.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Yes. Well mostly.

They probably rationalize it, by tying it to loving one's body, but it comes out of brandmarking.

Mind you, my family looks the part, mainly because I want my kids to fit within professional society. We're no rebels, but we don't reject those who otherwise comply with Gospel standards but rebel a bit in dress.

Along the lines of "brandmarking" ... could it be possible it has something to do with not getting in the way of the message?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

Along the lines of "brandmarking" ... could it be possible it has something to do with not getting in the way of the message?

Probably to present an image that offends nobody.

I can see the logic, as long as it doesn't fall over into the "they are from hell because they dress like that" logic.

We dress conservatively, because that's what appeals to us, not because we're commanded to.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Adam

Commandments are clear. "Thou shalt not kill" "Do you keep the law of chastity" and so forth.

Control-commands are there to make compliance with the commandments more likely. And I'll freely admit that a girl with a belly ring and an ankle tat will be statistically more likely to bank her boyfriend then the homeschooled no-tan who can't single date until she is in college.

If your goal is no breaking of commandments, lots of control is a very good thing. Sure you will lose a few who can't stand the restrictions, like duct tape wrapped around and around and around them. But most will get used to the bit and find comfort in the restraints.

But if your goal is to live life happily, without fear, filled with love for all, you can shed much of the stifling unnecessary guilt regarding nonadherence to rules not constituting eternal doctrine. This is my path of choice.

I see. So you're really just obeying the higher law, eh.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Adam

Commandments are clear. "Thou shalt not kill" "Do you keep the law of chastity" and so forth.

Control-commands are there to make compliance with the commandments more likely. And I'll freely admit that a girl with a belly ring and an ankle tat will be statistically more likely to bang her boyfriend then the homeschooled no-tan who can't single date until she is in college.

If your goal is no breaking of commandments, lots of control is a very good thing. Sure you will lose a few who can't stand the restrictions, like duct tape wrapped around and around and around them. But most will get used to the bit and find comfort in the restraints.

But if your goal is to live life happily, without fear, filled with love for all, you can shed much of the stifling unnecessary guilt regarding nonadherence to rules not constituting eternal doctrine. This is my path of choice.

Are you intending a veiled reference to Aichinger's "The Bound Man?" If so, I approve!

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Adam

It is like the rule not to enter the girls bedrooms in Heritage Halls. But then you home teach the girl and she is in bed with a fever of 103 and you are called to give a blessing. You go into the room and don't feel bad about it and the Spirit tells you it is OK.

There is no eternal law saying you shouldn't go into that bedroom. It is a law of Moses restriction to put a roadblock on the hormones of 18 year old boys.

If those boys' love was stronger then their sex drive, we wouldn't need the rule at all. The rule controls the subjects in order to make compliance with the law of chastity more likely.

Similarly, GBH thinks having a belly ring is one step closer to fornication. So he forbids it.

That doesn't make it an eternal truth/law.

What's interesting to me is that you think, absent the "belly ring ... fornication" line, that Hinckley would disagree with any of this.