Church edits sleeves onto 7 year old

[_Stormy Waters]

They covered her bare shoulders, but they forgot to edit out the good, faithful, future priesthood holder on the right who yielded to temptation and became a little pervert because of her shoulders.

They should edit his expression to be one of Godly sorrow.

[_just me]

It's really sad that this has turned into giving a 7 year old boy "impure thoughts."

People.

[_consiglieri]

I had to compare the photos three times before I saw the difference, and that's even though I was told what to look for!

My take away is that whoever is in charge of the photo section of the Church News sees things I never would have seen and makes changes I wouldn't have seen, to boot.

And of course, it just had to be a little black girl they found improperly dressed.

So they stage a photo in which a black girl is placed on the teacher's lap in order to show how diverse the church is now, and then they go back and photoshop the black girl's shoulder strap because she is immodestly dressed.

This just goes from bad to worse.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_SteelHead]

But isn't that the implication we are railing against? That putting the sleeves on the child sexualizes her?

She is incapable of being immodest.

[_just me]

But isn't that the implication we are railing against? That putting the sleeves on the child sexualizes her?

She is incapable of being immodest.

Yes. And I think that is what is sad. Not only does it sexualize the little girls, but all the little boys, too.

[Guest]

Stupidity knows no bounds.

My family is all posting on Facebook links to their latest diviine modestee and other such ilk purchases. I respond to every mention with a picture of a burqa, and the question "why did you not buy this instead?" as the logical conclusion to the church's modesty campaign is a burqa.

Now looking on it theologically, the concept of modesty in Mormonism was introduced by Satan. "See you are naked...." The whole Mormon modesty campaign is the perpetuation of the teachings of Satan.

[_PrickKicker]

found at: http://siouxlander.blogspot.com/2012/05/jesus-of-street.html

O'Please tell this guy to have a shave...

You know he can't officiate at the temple with that beard!!!

[_cinepro]

Modesty is a tough issue, and I don't envy the adults who have to try and teach it. Luckily, my daughter seems inclined to make good choices so far (even if only to better judge the other girls , but that's a different discussion).

But when I see what other girls are wearing at the schools, it's obvious some standards are needed, and few others are even trying to set them.

So while the Church may not always get it right (and the natural tendency towards Pharadisiacal ovecompensation may too often show itself), thank goodness they're at least trying.

[_DarkHelmet]

Modesty is a tough issue, and I don't envy the adults who have to try and teach it. Luckily, my daughter seems inclined to make good choices so far (even if only to better judge the other girls , but that's a different discussion).

But when I see what other girls are wearing at the schools, it's obvious some standards are needed, and few others are even trying to set them.

So while the Church may not always get it right (and the natural tendency towards Pharadisiacal ovecompensation may too often show itself), thank goodness they're at least trying.

I agree for the most part, but is the dress in the photo really so immodest that they needed to photoshop a t-shirt? The modest dress standards of the church are spiraling out of control to where the logical conclusion will be burkas.

[_Sophocles]

This seems to have more to do with image and style than modesty. I can't see a substantive difference between a dress with wide straps and no sleeves and one with those tiny little cap sleeves. It's just style. It's the fashion equivalent of abstaining from iced tea. It serves to differentiate Mormons from non-Mormons, and that's about it. The girl in a sleeveless dress doesn't suggest sexuality or immodesty so much as non-LDSness, and that's why it had to be altered. It's about promoting a brand image.