20 Comments | leave a comment | RSS 2.0 for this post | trackback |
A: they were written in the 80s. I can virtually guarantee it. |
The concerns about exposing underwear, sexual dance moves and positions, and lyrics that glorify violence don’t sound like the 1980s. |
I think this is much more reflective of changes in general social norms than changes in attitudes in the Church. In 1897 there was sufficiently more social pressure to prevent a someone from showing up drunk or dressed like a bum/slut. Today, not so much. One needs only to look back through a month or two of the FMH archives to find multiple examples of people who would storm the bishop’s office at the first suggestion that their child can’t attend a dance/youth activity dressed as Lady Gaga or Lil’ Wayne. Better to have it codified than re-fight the same battle every month. |
Do we really have to mention hats/baseball caps 3 times? You would think once would be enough. |
#4 MCQ. How about not at all? What’s the big deal about wearing a hat in a building? I don’t wear hats anymore because they make my head itch, but when I was younger the only times you caught me without a hat was at church and even then if I thought I could have gotten away with it I totally would have worn one there too. |
Probably the Hats thing is a kicking against the pricks thing. Much like the whole No colored shirts if you serve in the Young Mens, or No facial hair if you have a leadership calling. There. My favorite pricks to kick are now out in the open. |
Apparently hats are more objectionable than satanism or sexually suggestive dance moves. |
I actually remember being on my Stake’s “Youth Standards Committee” and our job was to meet once a month and review lyrics of songs. If we didn’t approve a song, (based on the For Strength of Youth) pamphlet then it couldn’t be played at a Stake Dance. We felt bad that we were being pretty strict, but then a member of the Stake Presidency got ahold of our approved list. By the time he was done with us, it felt like our dances consisted of 2 songs by Celine Dion and 3 by Michael McLean. |
“One needs only to look back through a month or two of the FMH archives to find multiple examples of people who would storm the bishop’s office at the first suggestion that their child can’t attend a dance/youth activity dressed as Lady Gaga or Lil’ Wayne.” ………….. Anyway, the standards of today just scream of paranoia to me. Satanism? That seems so random to just be thrown in there! When I was a youth, I knew teens who were up for sexually suggestive stuff (duh), but I can’t say I’ve met a single person ever who was into Satanism. And if they were, I doubt they’d use the stake youth dance as the perfect opportunity to break it out. When you are a youth, these types of standards are handed down to you with the weight of doctrine. The focus put on them lends them the importance of eternal truths. Obviously, they are just silly cultural worries, mostly from older folks freaking out about what the young kids are up to these days. But by pressing them so much, I think we are setting people up to chafe and have issues down the road. |
I suspect the 1897 standards reflect a time when people didn’t look to take advantage of every loophole in the letter of the law. Today if you try to enforce something that has not been spelled out in black and white, someone will cry foul. |
Except, Nat, I don’t think it’s silly how boys wear their pants around their hips. It kind of grosses me out. A few times, I’ve sung “I Can See Your Underwear” to boys and they’ve pulled their pants up. But it’s just kind of disgusting and nerve-wracking. I’m nervous their pants are going to fall off altogether. What kind of fashion statement that is I can’t imagine. |
Seems like the satanism stuff is from the 80′s. The rest seems more recent. Esp the suggestive dancing and showing underwear stuff. Mac is right there are always a few parents in every stake that have no limits for their kids and will go to bat for them to do whatever at Stake activities. So the rules are there to show them and then you tell them to take it up with the SP member or the kids bishopric member who is in attendance. The SP member-bishopric member then gets to be the bad guy and back up the rule. |
None of that explains the hat thing. |
Nat Kelly,
Well! I had figured to make it through life without ever catching myself nodding in agreement at something you said, but apparently streaks are made to be broken. |
annegb – Scott B., |
I have the opposite perspective, I think the suggestion that standards are inherently oppressive and their existence risks “chaffing” our youth is paranoid. The idea that the onus is on the youth leadership to mitigate any tension between appropriate standards and non-Church culture is silly. Do we really expect so little of our youth? The fact is that stating the standards from the get-go is the best and fairest policy for everyone involved. For the most part, the youth will appreciate the clarity. For those who don’t, please see the post titled “Extending love to the uncool kids.” Particularly anngb’s comment about complainers and iconoclasts. Some people’s personalities are such that ANY statement of standards immediately evokes an indignant response. If the tender feelings of every kick-against-the-pricks type were to be considered prior to making any decisions nothing would ever get done. Never mind the Church context, Organizationally it simply means nothing is ever accomplished because some people’s hobby is not being happy about any sort of external direction. Actually, I wonder if the whole Satanism thing is a secret test. If you read over it and think “so what, that doesn’t apply to me” before losing interest, you pass; but if you read it and say to yourself “that doesn’t apply to me or anyone I know, but damnit I have a problem with it being in there!” you fail and subsequently self-identify as a PTS. |
The Satanism prohibition does not sound 80′s but rather it reflects common misconceptions about metal and other forms of hard rock music. They are trying to minimise the influence of goths. |
I wonder what the stats are on how many church dances have run kids out of the church. |
So in other words no playing Metallica backwards? |
I suspect it’s more a 1970s holdover from Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath. It’s from the pre-CD era when you could spin disks backwards looking for messages. Has that hobby returned now that software would make it easy to play digital files backwards? |