Modesty as described by the General Youth Division

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by dizzyde

I get it, just think it's ironic... and more than a little controlling. (on their part)

It would only be controlling if we didn't allow those "from" UPC to their opinion. We are an equal opportunity forum.

[tstew]

Of course, with all that teenaged energy, there’s always the probability of spectacle. Young people came dressed in their “Youth Congress best” (that’s a multiple of 10 greater than your “Sunday Best”). Wednesday night forward, young people wore a wild display of outfits worth remembering. The girls displayed ankle-length dresses, unusual hair accessories, showy glasses, and, of course, the world’s fanciest hairdos. The guys were seen in vests (with and without suit coats), white shoes, and bow ties—though rarely as a combination.

I'm sorry but I don't see this as a definition of modesty but rather as a discussion of style. That appears to be the point of this paragraph. The other style elements listed would probably not be included if the goal was strictly to convey modesty.
Now, if the General Youth Division instructed the young ladies in advance to wear ankle-length skirts, I would be much more inclined to accept it as "their description of modesty".

[dizzyde]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

It would only be controlling if we didn't allow those "from" UPC to their opinion. We are an equal opportunity forum.

You allow them (us?), theirs, but they don't seem willing to to return the curtesy of allowing you, yours. (generalization, I understand that not all are like that) If I am not being clear, I agree with you, but I just think the complaining that you have to endure over this kind of thing is, for lack of a better word, dumb. If people think it is so horrible that you have an opinion on the subject, move on. Nobody is forcing anyone to be here. JMO

If you can't tell, I'm in a "mood" today! lol

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by dizzyde

You allow them (us?), theirs, but they don't seem willing to to return the curtesy of allowing you, yours. (generalization, I understand that not all are like that) If I am not being clear, I agree with you, but I just think the complaining that you have to endure over this kind of thing is, for lack of a better word, dumb. If people think it is so horrible that you have an opinion on the subject, move on. Nobody is forcing anyone to be here. JMO

If you can't tell, I'm in a "mood" today! lol

LOL - - - I understand!

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by tstew

Of course, with all that teenaged energy, there’s always the probability of spectacle. Young people came dressed in their “Youth Congress best” (that’s a multiple of 10 greater than your “Sunday Best”). Wednesday night forward, young people wore a wild display of outfits worth remembering. The girls displayed ankle-length dresses, unusual hair accessories, showy glasses, and, of course, the world’s fanciest hairdos. The guys were seen in vests (with and without suit coats), white shoes, and bow ties—though rarely as a combination.

I'm sorry but I don't see this as a definition of modesty but rather as a discussion of style. That appears to be the point of this paragraph. The other style elements listed would probably not be included if the goal was strictly to convey modesty.
Now, if the General Youth Division instructed the young ladies in advance to wear ankle-length skirts, I would be much more inclined to accept it as "their description of modesty".

I didn't think the article was addressing modesty. But when the article describes over-the-top hairdos, extravagant clothing, etc., it begs the question...... do we truly believe in biblically defined modesty?

Just please, don't harp on me about my elbows or knees showing, if you're going to dress extravagantly. It does not compute.

*not addressing that last comment to anyone in particular, just our general belief system.

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

I didn't think the article was addressing modesty. But when the article describes over-the-top hairdos, extravagant clothing, etc., it begs the question...... do we truly believe in biblically defined modesty?

Just please, don't harp on me about my elbows or knees showing, if you're going to dress extravagantly. It does not compute.

*not addressing that last comment to anyone in particular, just our general belief system.

That's how I took it too.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

This Apostolic Identity stuff *really* bugs me. I only want to be identified with Jesus, not a religious denomination.

Isn't "apostolic identity" another way of saying "cookie cutter Christian"?

[DAII]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

This is not meant as a bash on the UPC or the youth at all.... I'm glad they were all there and had a great time.

But I think it is an interesting commentary on how our denomination defines modesty. Apparently modesty is only referring to the amount of skin that is covered..... and I don't think that is what Apostle Paul meant.

It's just interesting. Often times the same people who condemn wedding rings go ALL OUT in their clothing. It's just an interesting paradigm.

It is not what Paul soley meant in the book of Timothy ... nor Peter meant in his epistle.

[DAII]

Any doubt that the Youth Dept and/or the org has equated Apostolic Identity to primarily mean Holiness and dress standards should be erased with the latest discipleship bible study for their young people ... as Lesson 7 reads:

Lesson #7 HOLINESS: The "New Born" Apostolic Identity

Source: http://www.thecommune-ity.com/


Apostolic Identity no longer "The Message" ... of Oneness, Acts 2:38 .... but dress codes.

Our New Born Identity?

[MissBrattified]

Personally, I don't believe modesty dictates dressing plainly, either. The meaning of the word is "...orderly, that is, decorous: - of good behaviour, modest."

Do you (Daniel & Renda in particular) read the verse to forbid gold, pearls and costly array?

To me, the verse is emphasizing that our adornment is not these things, but rather our works. However, I don't take away from the verse that we can't wear gold, pearls or costly array (the virtuous woman was clothed in fine linens); I just understand it to mean we should emphasize good works and manner above outward adornment.

I also understand that (maybe) it is the pointing out of the inconsistency, whereas gold and pearls are forbidden, among other things, at least on certain parts of the body, but costly array is not. However, since the forbidding of those items comes from a poor interpretation of the verse to begin with, it's somewhat pointless and disingenuous to criticize people for wearing costly array--unless you truly think it's sinful.

In the particular excerpt that Daniel posted, I would agree with tstew that it's just about style, and would suggest that the majority of young people did look modest, at least as it's defined in Strong's. Personally, I don't equate "fashionable" with "immodest" unless fashionable IS immodest in some way. (e.g., indicative of indecorous behavior or attitude; disorderly) We don't call clothing immodest simply because it's in vogue--do we?

This reminds me of the Easter thread last year...why is it bothersome when people wear dress clothes? Unless you're opposed to dressing up, generally speaking (and I know for a fact that most of the posters on this thread are NOT opposed, including Daniel, if the occasion demands it), then what exactly are you harping on?