StaceyinLA Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 I am a fan of the Duggars. I have enjoyed watching them, seeing how their family operates, and been inspired by a lot of the things they do. However, I was watching a rerun last night of the one where #18 was born, and, in a scene where they were in a baby store, one of the little boys was playing some music on a baby toy and dancing. The camera guy asked the oldest daughter about it saying he thought they weren't supposed to dance. The oldest daughter kinda hem-hawed around that he wasn't really dancing just acting silly cuz that's what kids do (which I certainly do agree with - kids do act silly). Then the dad had the son show him what he had done to the music (this is like a music box now) and commented about how that is the reason they have to be really careful what they allow in their home. I mean, really, God forbid would we want our 3 year old to even PRETEND to do something like, GASP, dance!! (sorry - that was snarky) How many people truly feel like dancing is evil? I mean, I know that certain types of dancing are very suggestive and inappropriate, but having a dance with your new spouse, or just dancing in a group for fun. How many believe that is wrong? What is the basis for that belief or does it just wreak of legalism? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remudamom Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 I don't know where they get that. Who danced for joy in the Bible? David, right? IMO that's going waaay overboard. I do object to dancing where little girls are dressed like hookers and shake their wazoos around, I think that's awful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyBlueLobsters Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Geesh. That is WAY overboard IMO. I agree with Remudamom though....no hoochie momma clothes and suggestive dance moves. But for a 3 yr old? Give me a break! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Susan Wise Bauer Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 I do object to dancing where little girls are dressed like hookers and shake their wazoos around, I think that's awful. :lol: This is why we don't clothes-shop for our daughter at Target any more...it's hard to get anything at Target that isn't Baby Hooker. SWB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camibami Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 I do object to dancing where little girls are dressed like hookers and shake their wazoos around, I think that's awful. Funny...ish story: DH and I were flipping channels late and night, and one of the premium channels (HBO? Showtime?) there is a reality show set at the Bunny Ranch in Nevada. I am not recommending this show- its basically pornography. But anyway, there were the...ladies, pole dancing...to my youngest DD's gymnastics routine music!!! There are no words, it always sounded sort of cabaret-stripper to me, but when we saw that-!! I thought DH was going to keel over and die. DD's routine is rhythmic gymnastics, no poles (a hoop actually!) but geez- what an image to have whenever they perform it!! I never got the no dancing thing either. Is it Baptists that are no dancing? What constitues dancing- kids dancing to a toy? Ballet? Square dancing? I will be following this thread, I'm very curious to hear from someone who believes this, instead of the "well, I heard that..." line of talk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Governess Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 :lol: This is why we don't clothes-shop for our daughter at Target any more...it's hard to get anything at Target that isn't Baby Hooker. SWB My 4.5 year old recently graduated from the toddler section to the "big girl" section at target. It's like a whole new world over there: mini skirts, low-rise jeans completely covered with rhinestones, and Hannah Montana's face on every other article of clothing. :001_huh::001_huh: I'm not ready to deal with this!! As for the dancing, I don't really understand the ban, with the exception of some overly suggestive types of dancing. I know that some religious denominations (Nazarene maybe?) discourage any dancing. And a Baptist church I went to in high school raised objections from certain members when they threw a square-dancing party. Quite scandalous. :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalicoKat Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 :lol: This is why we don't clothes-shop for our daughter at Target any more...it's hard to get anything at Target that isn't Baby Hooker. SWB :lol: (snort) I almost choked on my coffee here. Thanks for the laugh. Good description of Target clothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tap Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 I have a friend whose husband is a pastor for the Nazarene church and we have discussed this before. The belief she was discussing was that dance has se*ual connotations and the there is such a fine line between 'jumping for joy' type dance and salsa dancing that all forms of dancing are technically not allowed. She also said that some churches have begun to try to identify the difference and are starting to allow some dance forms like ballet. Free Methodists are very similar to Nazarene, but I am not sure if they hold this belief as well, or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erica in PA Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 I can't think of anything negative said about dancing in the Bible at all. I don't think there's anything wrong with dancing, as long as it's not done in a suggestive way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela H in Texas Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 There are numerous accounts in the Bible regarding dancing, including Jesus using it in a parable. There is nothing wrong with dancing in and of itself. There are times dancing is inappropriate (when the Israelites were dancing in connection to worshiping the golden calf, immodest behavior, etc), but dancing can be appropriate as the Bible also shows. IF the only scriptures were those showing it in displeasing ways, then I would believe that God was using that to say it was inappropriate, but because he has positive and negative, we can tell it's not the dancing that is inappropriate, but the heart condition, situation surrounding, etc that is problematic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swellmomma Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 DAncing is not allowed at my church(pentacostal). We were going to rent the gym for my parents 30th anniversary but were told that dancing was not allowed. I was surprised actually because I did not even know it was a concern. After all the folks dancing at teh 30th anniversary are not "dirty dancing" etc where a sexual connotation occurs. I know my neighbors also stop their little children(ages 2 & 3) from dancing because it is veiwed as inappropriate in their church(LDS) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ereks mom Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 mother was required to come before the church and apologize for dancing at a party when she was a teenager. This would have been in the 1920s or 1930s. At that time, the by-laws of that particular Southern Baptist church expressly prohibited dancing and "consorting with Methodists". LOL! :lol: When I was a teen, my father was a very legalistic Southern Baptist, and he wouldn't allow my sister or me to dance or go to movies. He said dancing was sexually suggestive (I was a teen in the l1970s -- the disco era), and he said that even if we went to a G or PG movie, there would be previews for R movies. For awhile, he wouldn't allow us to play cards, but he relented on that one because we weren't gambling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jann in TX Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 I GUARANTEE that when King David danced id looked NOTING like ballet!--probably more like something from MTV! (Full body dancing). My Dad is still 'anti-dancing'. He NEVER danced with my mother--even after they were married! (She LOVED to ballroom dance). To him dancing=s#x period. I worked at a private school (Independent Baptist) and this was also their stand. I clearly remember the headmaster telling the students that dance in ALL forms was EVIL and straight from the devil (I had a hard time suppressing my laughter every time he said that!). My youngest dd is on the 'interpretive dance' worship team at our church. It is a BEAUTIFUL form of worship! While I am VERY uncoordinated DH and I will occasionally go dancing. 'No dancing rules' are NOT Biblical--they are legalistic. Jesus was NOT concerned about appearance--he hung out with cheaters (tax collectors) and pr*stitutes (woman at the well)! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
********* Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 I was raised Nazarene, much of my extended family are members of the Nazarene denomination, and my grandfather was a Nazarene pastor. I was raised that dancing is not to be done, period. I was not even allowed to take ballet as a child. My parents did not dance at their wedding. The way it was described to me as a child was that since some forms of dancing are inappropriate, all forms must be prohibited. Ugh. I was also given the same explanation for the Nazarene denomination's ban on going to movie theaters. Renting movies was ok, but not going to the theater. :glare: (I believe the denomination has since changed it's stance on that issue.) Like a previous poster said, I believe your heart's motivation dictates your actions. Dancing before the Lord, a young child dancing with delight at a toy, these things seem right and good to me. Even dancing for fun I would think could certainly be ok, as in square dancing, ballet, tap, etc, as long as the outfits and moves were not at all 'suggestive', and I felt that what I was doing was pleasing to the Lord. I don't believe in adding rules on top of what is in the Bible. I believe in training our children, as well as ourselves, to always examine our motives for what we do, say, watch, or otherwise participate in. The number one goal should be to glorify the Lord in everything we do. Just my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StaceyinLA Posted January 22, 2009 Author Share Posted January 22, 2009 is VERY sexually suggestive. My goodness - there are kids imitating the se* act with their clothes on at school dances and such. That is appalling to me, and I'm not conservative at all with dancing and music. Our family LOVES to dance. Our weddings are a blast, with all the parents and children out dancing together. At every function we attend as a family, and I'm including my siblings and their children, grandchildren, etc., we WILL be up dancing! I will say this - I LOVE dancing with my husband. Yes, it can be a sensual experience to slow dance to certain types of songs, but he is my husband and I love that. I'm married to him and I think that's a fringe benefit! :tongue_smilie: We went to a wedding for a close friend's son. They are Southern Baptist. The only music played was a little violin music that some young girls played, and there was NO dancing. Zero. Zip. Nada. Not even the husband and wife. It was SO dull. Oddly enough I find that a lot of the most legalistic churches/denominations with regards to dancing, alcohol, etc. seem to be the ones who have functions that revolve around food all the time. I don't see how they can be so legalistic about some things and not others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StaceyinLA Posted January 22, 2009 Author Share Posted January 22, 2009 I know the Duggars are involved in ATIA (the Bill Gothard stuff, which I know has been mentioned here before). I know there is a lot of legalism there. I wonder if their practice (or lack thereof) is really from their religious beliefs and convictions, or from what is handed down by Gothard. I guess I'm just sad. I enjoyed watching them a lot, but have now lost a fair amount of respect due to, what I feel are, their legalistic views. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LibraryLover Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 :lol: This is why we don't clothes-shop for our daughter at Target any more...it's hard to get anything at Target that isn't Baby Hooker. SWB Spendy, but Mini Boden is very child-like. They carry lots of long peasant skirts, plus cute cords & jeans. Sweet tops with pix of cupcakes and ponies etc. Oh, and many plain (picture and word-less) tops as well, if you can even believe that. lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melinda in VT Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 I know my neighbors also stop their little children(ages 2 & 3) from dancing because it is veiwed as inappropriate in their church(LDS) This is not a common belief among the mainstream LDS church (i.e., the one is based in SLC, that has the Mormon tabernacle choir, the one that sends around missionaries in name tags knocking on doors). In fact, I have never heard of a member of the LDS church who was against dancing (and I was raised Mormon and graduated from BYU). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Governess Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Spendy, but Mini Boden is very child-like. They carry lots of long peasant skirts, plus cute cords & jeans. Sweet tops with pix of cupcakes and ponies etc. Oh, and many plain (picture and word-less) tops as well, if you can even believe that. lol Oh, thanks for reminding me about Mini Boden! I looked at a catalog a while back and then completely forgot about them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abbeyej Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 This is why we don't clothes-shop for our daughter at Target any more...it's hard to get anything at Target that isn't Baby Hooker. This is where it's convenient to have a 7yo who wears size 5s. We still shop in the baby section. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fivetails Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 I was raised Nazarene, much of my extended family are members of the Nazarene denomination, and my grandfather was a Nazarene pastor. I was raised that dancing is not to be done, period. I was not even allowed to take ballet as a child. My parents did not dance at their wedding. The way it was described to me as a child was that since some forms of dancing are inappropriate, all forms must be prohibited. Ugh. I was also given the same explanation for the Nazarene denomination's ban on going to movie theaters. Renting movies was ok, but not going to the theater. :glare: (I believe the denomination has since changed it's stance on that issue.) . I was quite surprised to see Nazarene mentioned - we went to a Nazarene church for over a year (our first church) and not once did anyone ever tell us anything about dancing (or movie theaters) not being allowed. I even took the membership classes there and nope, no mention of either....things must have changed....surely we'd have heard *something* in the course of a year. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephanie Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 :lol: This is why we don't clothes-shop for our daughter at Target any more...it's hard to get anything at Target that isn't Baby Hooker. SWB You are so right! It's never a good thing when I'm looking in the kids section and wanting a shirt for myself! What ever happened to flowers, butterflies, and ladybugs for girls older than 3? Geesh! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blessedfamily Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 I GUARANTEE that when King David danced id looked NOTING like ballet!--probably more like something from MTV! (Full body dancing)......... :lol: It did say he danced with all his might. (And earned him one of these:rolleyes: from Michal.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1bassoon Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Our church has its own ballet school. Very God-honoring, God-exalting for the most part. The advanced girls even dance as a prelude to worship services - classical ballet - which was NOT something we were exposed to in the North before we moved here! My eldest dd dances and teaches for them. It's been life-transforming for her, to realize that God is sovereign over the art form she loves so much, and that she can bring Him glory in her dancing. We are having an issue this year - the spring performance is always an Allegory ballet. This year, dd's class is expected to dance (modern) the part of the evil henchmen - you know, the bad guys that try to thwart God's plans (it's too long to explain!). At any rate, the costume involves vinyl and long spikes. My dd is now in an uncomfortable position - she's drafting a letter to the director, explaining that the part is violating her own standars for femininity and modesty, and offering to work backstage in stead. It's been a hard time for her, but I'm proud of her convictions. OTOH - My 8 yo, if she even hears any music in the store, whatever, starts - um - how shall I say this - "shaking her bootie". OK, so I don't know WHERE she gets this!? I'm not a bootie-shaker myself. ;):D But we do have to remind her that there are ways that are appropriate to move, and then there are some better left alone. Thanks for listening! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 (edited) because it is veiwed as inappropriate in their church(LDS) Funny, because my cousin is a die hard LDS in Utah and she's both a cheerleading coach and dance instructor (in fact, was part of a dance team one 4th of July for a production where the Osmond brothers sang God Bless the USA). Don't think it's necessarily an LDS thing. When I was growing up in the IFB/Gothard type churches, we were taught that the music could messes with a person's emotions and any music that caused you to want to move or tap your foot was evil. Funny, because there were many tapping feet to hymns (and I pointed it out to one foot tapping gent when he tried to use it as a reason against CCM...he actually blushed). Also, there is a group of people out there that teach/believe that only "marches" are God-honouring, because they emphasize the first of two beats and other music emphasizes the second of two beats (making one want to move and play on the emotions), thus the "other" music is evil. :001_huh: Go figure. Oh, and yes, it's legalism. There is dancing that is appropriate and dancing that is not appropriate. Edited January 22, 2009 by mommaduck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5knights3maidens Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 I've seen the word "legalistic" in some posts. Legalistic is adding more to salvation. Just because a church says no dancing, etc. doesn't mean they are legalistic or adding more to salvation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cricket Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 And a Baptist church I went to in high school raised objections from certain members when they threw a square-dancing party. Quite scandalous. :D I went to a conservative Christian college my freshman year. I ran one of the spotlights for the fall musical (Oklahoma!) that year. When some of the bigwig donors to the college heard what the musical was, they threw a fit about the square-dancing in one of the scenes. :lol: I think they reached some kind of compromise where at the Sunday performance the dancing was taken out and for the other shows it was toned down to just a couple of steps. It was all quite silly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 I've seen the word "legalistic" in some posts. Legalistic is adding more to salvation. Just because a church says no dancing, etc. doesn't mean they are legalistic or adding more to salvation. It's also adding more to Scripture, as in going where Scripture doesn't go. A friend of mine put it this way...putting up a fence around a fence (the Nazarene example above...since some forms are not good, let's prohibit all forms). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runamuk Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 :lol: This is why we don't clothes-shop for our daughter at Target any more...it's hard to get anything at Target that isn't Baby Hooker. SWB :lol: I've stopped looking for clothes for my daughter at Target. Old Navy is just as bad. My sister calls their clothing line for girls Tramps R Us. Land's End has a nice selection of cute clothes that aren't so revealing. And I love Mini Boden! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantlion Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Even Footloose reminded us that in scripture there is a "time to dance". :tongue_smilie: Here is a website I just found via google. It talks about some of the original meanings of "dance" in scripture. http://www.davidicdance.com/dance_from_the_scriptures.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CLHCO Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 What was that part of C.S. Lewis' "Screwtape Letters" where Screwtape says none of their study has managed to produce even one pleasure? They just sort of twist the stuff their enemy (God) has created. That's dancing. It's a pleasure and Satan did not invent it. Outlawing it is, imo, extra biblical. However, we shouldn't be shocked that it's been twisted. What hasn't? The job of the church should be pointing towards all things and how they were meant to honor God, not squashing everything that has gone astray. If we did that we'd be left with banning music, reading, food, and, uh, reproduction. :party: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DB in NJ Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 I can tell you that our former pastor made his 6 children turn their backs and not participate in the "dancing" at my (then) 6 yo ds's birthday party. The dance? "you put your right foot in, you put your right foot out...." Yep. The Hoky Poky. And not only were they not allowed to shake it all about, they weren't even allowed to watch. They stood there lined up with their backs to the room full of people who were learning "that's what it's all about!" We also know a couple with this story: B and F are married with 2 girls - toddler & infant. W (B's father) and C are married with 2 kids - toddler boy and girl. C is a few years older than B. W's son hugs F's daughter when he sees her. Although he is technically her uncle, age-wise they are more like cousins. F tells W, "We need to talk. NOW." Ahem. F tells W in no uncertain terms that he needs to speak to his son. F does not want his dd being hugged by any male other than her father (F) or her grandfather (W). He doesn't want her to be touched or get used to being touched by anyone who is not her husband. She's 2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macrina Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 At my college you weren't allowed to A. dance on campus. B. have sex on campus. The joke was always "we can't have sex on campus because it leads to dancing.....!" :lol: We held off campus dances ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 (edited) F tells W in no uncertain terms that he needs to speak to his son. F does not want his dd being hugged by any male other than her father (F) or her grandfather (W). He doesn't want her to be touched or get used to being touched by anyone who is not her husband. She's 2. Wha...??? :blink::001_huh::blink: :001_rolleyes: :001_rolleyes: :001_rolleyes: :001_rolleyes: :001_rolleyes: Edited January 23, 2009 by Audrey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erica in PA Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 I've seen the word "legalistic" in some posts. Legalistic is adding more to salvation. Just because a church says no dancing, etc. doesn't mean they are legalistic or adding more to salvation. Legalism is also adding works to *sanctification*-- subjecting oneself or others to man-made laws that are not specified in Scripture, in the hopes that that will help them to become more like Christ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erica in PA Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 I can tell you that our former pastor made his 6 children turn their backs and not participate in the "dancing" at my (then) 6 yo ds's birthday party. The dance? "you put your right foot in, you put your right foot out...." Yep. The Hoky Poky. And not only were they not allowed to shake it all about, they weren't even allowed to watch. They stood there lined up with their backs to the room full of people who were learning "that's what it's all about!" We also know a couple with this story: B and F are married with 2 girls - toddler & infant. W (B's father) and C are married with 2 kids - toddler boy and girl. C is a few years older than B. W's son hugs F's daughter when he sees her. Although he is technically her uncle, age-wise they are more like cousins. F tells W, "We need to talk. NOW." Ahem. F tells W in no uncertain terms that he needs to speak to his son. F does not want his dd being hugged by any male other than her father (F) or her grandfather (W). He doesn't want her to be touched or get used to being touched by anyone who is not her husband. She's 2. Those stories make me absolutely sick. Just awful, child-warping stuff, imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrothead Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 I know when dh and I got married in his Methodist church, we weren't allowed to dance at the reception. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Alfred Academy Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 At my college you weren't allowed to A. dance on campus. B. have sex on campus. The joke was always "we can't have sex on campus because it leads to dancing.....!" :lol: Hey...did we go to the same college? That was the joke at mine too! :tongue_smilie: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beansprouts Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 That is very sad, Stacey, and I strongly disagree. I think many Christians don't realise that God wants His children to be joyous, and celebrate the life that He has given us. I imagine that He must enjoy watching us play just like we watch our own children. Too many believe that if an activity is fun than it must be sinful. I feel badly for them and their children. I am a fan of the Duggars. I have enjoyed watching them, seeing how their family operates, and been inspired by a lot of the things they do. However, I was watching a rerun last night of the one where #18 was born, and, in a scene where they were in a baby store, one of the little boys was playing some music on a baby toy and dancing. The camera guy asked the oldest daughter about it saying he thought they weren't supposed to dance. The oldest daughter kinda hem-hawed around that he wasn't really dancing just acting silly cuz that's what kids do (which I certainly do agree with - kids do act silly). Then the dad had the son show him what he had done to the music (this is like a music box now) and commented about how that is the reason they have to be really careful what they allow in their home. I mean, really, God forbid would we want our 3 year old to even PRETEND to do something like, GASP, dance!! (sorry - that was snarky) How many people truly feel like dancing is evil? I mean, I know that certain types of dancing are very suggestive and inappropriate, but having a dance with your new spouse, or just dancing in a group for fun. How many believe that is wrong? What is the basis for that belief or does it just wreak of legalism? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathleen in VA Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Well, whatever you think about dancing, I think it should be up to the parents to decide how to raise their children. If Mr. Duggar doesn't approve of dancing that is his prerogative. That is what homeschooling is all about, isn't it? The education of the children being the parent's responsibility and not the state's? If his conscience is bothered by dancing he should be allowed the freedom to follow his conscience. Freedom of conscience is sacred and if he truly believes dancing is a sin then he should be allowed the privilege of raising his children with those beliefs. I do not think it will harm the children and they can make up their own minds about it when they grow up. Anyone can see how much those children are loved and cared for. This one thing should not discount them as being good parents. Also, if a person thinks something is a sin then, for him, it is. He would be defiling his own conscience if he went ahead and allowed an act he considered to be sinful. Those who do not think it is a sin must bear patiently with those who do - not ridicule them. (See I Cor 8) The truth is, as has already been pointed out, some dancing does lead to immoral behavior. Perhaps he just wants to nip it in the bud, as it were, in an effort to avoid any appearance off evil. Besides, no one has ever died from not dancing.:) In any case, they are his children and he must give an account before God some day as to how he raised them. He may wish to err on the side of caution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanga Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 The Nazarene Church does not forbid all dancing! Nor do they forbid movies! Yes, they may have once, but so did the Lutheran Church that my parents attended growing up (many denominations did back then). Our local Nazarene Church hosts a homeschool co-op. The co-op offers three different ballroom classes and the ballroom dancers put on a demonstration twice a year in the sanctuary before the pastor and the entire congregation. My dd and some friends were discussing waltzing and a son of one of our local pastors (the denomination shall remain nameless because I realize that not all in his denomination feel this way) said that he felt dancing was inappropriate because it would stimulate sexual feelings. I told my dd that I was sorry she was subjected to that and she said "Don't worry I reassured him that I could dance with him without. feeling. a. thing!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StaceyinLA Posted January 23, 2009 Author Share Posted January 23, 2009 I totally get that. It certainly IS his prerogative. I just think it is sad to forbid something like this to that extent, and/or to blatantly try and lie to cover up his "movements" that were, in fact, dancing. We're talking about a 3 or 4 year old. Besides, I'm fairly sure no one has ever died FROM dancing either!! :tongue_smilie: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CLHCO Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Well, whatever you think about dancing, I think it should be up to the parents to decide how to raise their children. If Mr. Duggar doesn't approve of dancing that is his prerogative. That is what homeschooling is all about, isn't it? I agree completely, and I think most here would as well. I didn't read any of the tones as being ridicule, but it may simply be the light hearted tone I was reading it all in. The Duggars have put themselves into a fishbowl. They will be a topic of discussion, as well their decisions. In most cases, this is a good thing as they walk their faith. There will be times when things create discussions of this sort as well though. It comes with the territory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela H in Texas Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Kathleen, I think you are right. I have an extremely strict conscience (and my daughter's is even stricter). It causes some people to go "hmmm." One person I've known for years sometimes thinks I've lost my marbles. She just doesn't get it. My mom goes out of her way to respect most issues, but thinks we're weird. The great majority of things are just us being conservative, but we do have a few "sins for us" that cause people to wonder. But we're not on tv. The Duggars have put themselves in front of millions of people. It is natural people would question their choices. To me, a simple Bible study would lift this burden from them. It no longer would be a sin and so they could go on away from it. But they are following a man/program and I don't know how that would change if they decided to learn what the Bible really says and change something like this. Generally, I think that: 1) they have the right to raise their kids however they wish 2) they must not go against their conscience 3) that this particular thing is sad. But that is jmo. Mine is no better than anyone else's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bess Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 My 4.5 year old recently graduated from the toddler section to the "big girl" section at target. It's like a whole new world over there: mini skirts, low-rise jeans completely covered with rhinestones, and Hannah Montana's face on every other article of clothing. :001_huh::001_huh: I'm not ready to deal with this!! Sigh. I often ponder how great it would be if all the styles in the baby section at Target were available in big girl styles. They are the cutest clothes. Why stop at 5t????? I'll never understand that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beansprouts Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Sigh. I often ponder how great it would be if all the styles in the baby section at Target were available in big girl styles. They are the cutest clothes. Why stop at 5t????? I'll never understand that. :iagree: I remember passing by a mall store that had the prettiest little girl's clothes. I fell in love with a dress one day and went in to look at it for dd. It was only available in sizes up to 4 or 5 and she was already in a 6 or 7. I looked at the clothes they had in her size, and they were all sporty/stylish. They were modest enough, but not pretty and feminine like that dress. I need to start sewing again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HRAAB Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 :lol: This is why we don't clothes-shop for our daughter at Target any more...it's hard to get anything at Target that isn't Baby Hooker. SWB When I took my newly 10 yr old dd to shop for her first training bra, and the store employees almost had to pick mom up off the floor. Shocked doesn't even describe how I felt. Low cut, padded, push up bras for young girls. Looked Victoria's Secret for young girls. We finally found some sports bras. Holy cow - what are we telling our daughters? To view themselves as sex objects at the 11, 12 and 13? I agree the Duggars have the right to raise their children according to their beliefs, but since they have made their family very public, they're going to be discussed and dissected. I'm not opposed to dancing, however.... I remember school dances from about 8th grade on, and no, I wouldn't let my children go to them if they were in school. They are what I would term 'a near occasion of sin'. A local homeschool group has a prom for seniors that is very nice and well chaperoned. I would be okay with that. Janet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camibami Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 When I took my newly 10 yr old dd to shop for her first training bra, and the store employees almost had to pick mom up off the floor. Shocked doesn't even describe how I felt. Low cut, padded, push up bras for young girls. Looked Victoria's Secret for young girls. We finally found some sports bras. Holy cow - what are we telling our daughters? To view themselves as sex objects at the 11, 12 and 13? Don't even get me started on bras for little girls. My poor oldest started developing quite early, and at 10 is in a B cup. And 28 inches around- an impossible size! She can't wear the kids no-support bras, she needs support. Bras- even bras marketed for pre-teens- in her size are not just lined and underwire (which frankly, she needs) but push-up, padded, lacy,...its quite gross actually, IMO. SHe is wearing sports bras exclusively now, too. I was shocked at the "sexy" bras for little girls. I'm no prude, but that is really gross- just because a child is developed does not mean they are anything but a child! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macrina Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Hey...did we go to the same college? That was the joke at mine too! :tongue_smilie: Geneva in Western PA....my guess is lots of Christian school end up with the same jokes!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tutor Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 (edited) I'm sure there are denominations, sects, etc. out there who ban dancing of any kind. Period. However, I think there are many more out there who leave those types of decisions up to the individual congregations (as they should, IMNSHO). I think that is why we are seeing a lot of posts saying, "I went to an XYZ church, and we were allowed to dance there." I think most of us would agree that the prohibition on dancing is an issue of binding the conscience, but that the disagreement lies in one of two areas: 1) Is the view of dancing as sin a Scriptural one? (I am obviously making the assumption that we are discussing this within the confines of the OP which was about the Duggars who profess to follow the Christian faith.) Are certain Scriptures being mis-applied or poorly translated to support a legalistic, un-Scriptural position on dancing? (For example, should the passage in 1 Thessalonians be translated "avoid every appearance of evil" or "avoid evil in all its appearances" - the meaning is completely different in the two translations.) If dancing is not categorically sinful, are there types of dancing which are? Even if dancing is not a sin, are there certain types which should be refrained from? What are those reasons? Are the physical motions of dancing the defining of the sin or the heart behind it? 2) Who is allowed to do that for any given person. Should an adult be free to choose for themselves what is a sin or should a pastor/ congregation be able to declare it as such? What about minor children? Should their parents bind the consciences of their own children? Until what age? My overall point being (yes, I actually had a point. lol) - this is a very complex issue and a simple, "Dancing is a sin" or "Dancing is not a sin" isn't really an option but, unfortunately, the message board format generally limits us to yes or no types of answers, with little room to delve, by its nature. Edited January 23, 2009 by Tutor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.