A small irking

I am in a ballet class this semester.  Our required attire is pink tights and a black leotard with pink ballet shoes; for the gents it's a fitted t-shirt or leotard with black tights, leggings, or biking shorts.  There is an addendum to the dress code requirements in the syllabus: "Proper modest cover up is required for hallways if the distance traveled from the locker room is half the length of the RB or more."  Our classroom is quite close to the locker room, so this doesn't apply to us; however, it still irks me.  

This is why: Why is it OK to be dressed in a leotard and tights in front of men in your ballet class but not in front of men in the rest of the RB?  Are they not properly prepared?  Have they not mentally steeled themselves to fight against your tempting ways?  (This is all based on the assumption that the covering up is for the students of the male persuasion, of course.)  Why is it so wrong to walk through the athletic building, which also features an observation window of the pool where team members are wearing bathing suits, in ballet attire?  I could see the point of not walking around campus or through other buildings in ballet attire, but this is the athletic building, where it's expected that people will be in workout/athletic clothing. 

I know it's a small rule tucked away into the syllabus, but the principle of it still bothers me.  It's one thing if you are personally uncomfortable with showing your body and want to cover up; it's another thing for that action to be mandated as a rule.  Although the context is different, you're actually being more modest than you are wearing a bathing suit.  Why is the context of the hallway versus the classroom so different? 

I'm not blaming the syllabus, but this rule actually makes me feel some shame for walking around outside of the classroom in my outfit.  I feel like I should feel bad because the rule implies that there is something wrong with it.

Letter: Salt in the wound

The author of this letter to the editor, responding to a letter saying that it was inappropriate to fly the flag at half-mast for a deceased BYU student (which I don't necessarily disagree with), has a good point.  However, there's a line in it that I love!

After reading the Readers’ Forum from the author of “In mourning 9/8,” I looked up what was said and found it very interesting.
However, I also found the content disturbingly insensitive toward Vanessa’s family and friends (probably because I knew her).
It sprayed salt on their wounds as well as mine.
I’m not going to argue about whether you were right or not, because to my limited knowledge, you were right. But, you were definitely wrong in practice.
People are more important than truth (not to be confused with the name of the Savior as Truth).
If you study the scriptures enough, you will see this. Clearly, those in charge of BYU do.

Jonathan Kerby

Ooh!  Pulling out the Scriptures Card!  "Clearly, I am in the right because the scriptures agree with me. You are wrong, which means you don't read your scriptures enough."  I just find the use of this argument laughable.

Another odd thing about the letter is the clarification that he did not mean the Savior by using the word "truth."  I trust that somewhere, the Savior has been referred to as "the Truth," but I have never personally heard it.  This clarification raises an interesting question, though: If he had meant the Truth, would it really be false?  Are people not more important than the Truth?  I'm guessing he means that they are less than or equal to the Truth.  But which is it—less than or equal to?  Is there a bar under the crocodile or not?  Is the whole (the Savior) greater than the sum of its parts (the people He saved)?  I guess if I read my scriptures enough, I'd know the answer!

Sarcasm will make me friends!

The letters in the opinion section of the Daily Universe can make me so mad.  Why do I keep reading them?  Not reading them doesn't make the people who write them go away.

I just browsed the opinion section on the Universe website, and some of the letters included there are saying that:

• People around campus should smile more
• People shouldn't leave before the closing hymn and prayer during the Priesthood conference session
• Let's not pick on the way girls dress; instead, let's pick on the guys!!
• People should abstain from facebook and texting as a fast
•  People should walk in the crosswalks
• The people in the author's ward should stop hassling him to come to FHE

I understand that these could be considered valid concerns or ideas; a main problem I find with them though is that they carry the attitude that "if I think this is a good idea, then everyone should think it's a good idea."  Do you think it would help you to take a break from facebook?  Great, do that, and I hope it does help, but you don't need to tell other people that they should do it too.  You want people to smile more?  Stop picking on them and pointing out what they're doing wrong.  Maybe someone isn't smiling because s/he isn't happy; why don't you work on thinking of the why part of why people don't smile?  I hate the letters to the editor about the way girls dress, but I hate the ones from girls about guys almost as much; it's not right to criticize someone for something and then turn around and do a similar thing to them.  The ones from the guys are demeaning to girls, but the ones from girls make us girls look bad too.

The one about Priesthood session had a good reason for not leaving the session early: the noise bothers people still in attendance.  But you can still leave early and not make noise.  This letter has a self-righteous attitude and includes things like this:

Maybe it’s the traffic (waiting 2-3 minutes to get out of a church parking lot is brutal, I know), maybe by some amazing coincidence all of those brethren had to be at work right after the session. Whatever the reason, it’s disrespectful to the brethren sitting around you, the leaders you just heard from, and the choir that prepared a closing hymn to seal the spirit of the meeting.

Shame on you for disrespecting leaders!  Sarcasm will make me friends!

As for the FHE letter, the DU opinion section is not the proper forum.  The author should just talk to his FHE group leaders about it instead of letting them read it in the paper.

Yes, here I am saying what people should do.  But at least I'm not writing into the paper about it.

Trapped

I feel trapped.  The people who are less than close friends and who I know like me, and who enthusiastically and regularly tell me so, probably don't know what I would call the "real me."  They see the outside varied cheerfulness and don't expect the darkness within.

I'm sure this is a common problem.  "You don't know me!"  "If you only knew how I really was!"

I have a psychological need to confirm to them that I am like they think I am.  I plan ways to do emotional acrobatics to keep on a brave smiling face and not weasel out of social functions. 

What am I afraid of?  That they won't like me?  I'm trying to accept the thought that I'd rather be hated for who I am than loved for who I am not. 

I have to remind myself that their reaction will not necessarily be "she's got issues/she's an apostate/she needs some fellowshipping/she needs more attention than we're already giving her/she's wrong."  Maybe it's possible to be an example to them of a non-traditional Latter-day Saint whose opinions are just as valid.

Problem: What defines "righteousness"? The pharisees were wrong.

One problem I've found that we have is judging how good a person is based on some details that are misleading and/or superficial.  Many of the tenets of the Honor Code can be observed based on your outside appearance: do you have piercings?  Do your sideburns not extend below your ear?  Is your skirt knee-length?  Are you smoking?  But really, none of these details is saving.  Details about a person that you can quickly see without even taking to that person are not as telling as people think they are.

Often, someone who is an RM, attends the temple regularly, has a calling and is active in church, doesn't drink, etc. is held up as the standard of righteousness.  BALONEY!  Yes, someone with all of these qualities can be an upstanding citizen, but it doesn't automatically make him or her one!  You could be living the Word of Wisdom and going to the temple every single day, but if you're heart's not in it and you're going through the motions only, it's not much benefit.  And even more importantly, if you're a judgmental jerk who talks condescendingly to lesser mortals, that's much more telling than if you're a full tithe payer.  It's harder to be kind and compassionate than to dress modestly.

I'm tired of people with certain qualities being automatically defined as righteous.  This is not because I do not like these actual people; it's because other people who don't do such obvious "good" things but are still great people aren't considered so.  I'd rather live with a stoner who was nice to me than with someone who doesn't even drink caffeine but is gossipy.  This reminds me of a Board question written by a girl who clashed with her roommates: she seemed to be a stereotypical super Mormon girl, while they skipped church and class and had non-member friends over.  I do not know this girl at all, and my assessment of her might be inaccurate.  I feel that she is one whose heart is in the right place who is trying to do the right thing, but is getting caught up in all of the extra things and ignoring the center of the Gospel.  This sentence sums it up for me: "I am really trying to be more religious and do better with scripture reading and journal writing, etc."  Writing in your journal doesn't save you.  Although it is a great idea, it is really eclipsed by more important actions.  A nice little Mormon girl can sit in her room with her cap sleeves and long skirt, reading scriptures about repentance and writing in her journal, but that's really not what it means to be righteous.  At all.

The asker of the question also mentioned how it was hard to feel the Spirit with the roommates' friends over.  This is a big one for me, because having the companionship of the Holy Ghost is a huge deal in youth.  If you so much as step foot in a less-than-great area, the Spirit will apparently flee.  To that I say, "NONSENSE!"  The Holy Ghost isn't uptight and he wants to stay with us as much as possible.  It's one thing to seek out the dark places, but if you somehow wind up in a situation, the Holy Ghost is going to stay there to help you; it would be ridiculous for him to run away when you need him most.  In addition she said how her roommates left church after sacrament meeting.  Also, at least the roommates are going to sacrament meeting, which is arguably the most important part of church!  

Anyway, perhaps I'm misjudging this girl, but she seems to embody so many of the beliefs that I am against.   Too many people act like Pharisees and judge someone's spirituality based on public actions Another perfect example of this belief, and the thing that inspired this post, is this nice little flyer that you find around the library:

I agree that music piracy is a major issue for this generation--that's not my complaint.  My complaint is the first part, which is trying to show that Brad is a righteous guy!  Why is he righteous?  Because he's an eagle scout and an RM!  Seriously?  

And yes, I suppose that the "Be Consistent" does kind of fit with my view, because it's saying that being married and an RM doesn't guarantee you're living all areas of your life well.  But still, it still is rather judgmental, and it's proof that the belief that certain things seem to guarantee you're a righteous person does exist.