For Mormons, modesty of dress (according to our specific modesty guidelines) is the easiest way to determine whether someone is a Mormon or not, especially at Disneyland. The Mormons are the ones sweating it out in multiple layers, knee length shorts and high-coverage tee shirts. Why is modesty important? Is it? What are good reasons to promote modesty vs. bad reasons? What are some negatives of an emphasis on modesty?
First, a definition of modesty: 1. The state or quality of being modest (very helpful). 2. Reserve or propriety in speech, dress, or behavior. (our recent EFY post debunks this one!) 3. Lack of pretentiousness; simplicity. (Mormons are not dressing like the Amish – we allow sequins, ribbons, buttons and bows – even novelty ties and socks – so this can’t be talking about us) 4. designed to prevent inadvertent exposure of part of the body. (Bingo!)
Here’s some of what the church has to say about modesty, from a June 2010 New Era article called Modest by Design by Julia Woodbury.
- “. . . beauty is in more than the cut of a dress or the style of a fabric. True beauty is in a young woman who knows that modesty is the best policy” Unless she’s an uggo. That’s just genetics. Can’t do much about that. Maybe plastic surgery.
- “Elise constructed sleeves for her dress. “When you’re modest,” she said, “you can focus on what matters: how you act.” So, if you’re modest, you are unselective about your clothing? I would think you can focus on how you act regardless of your attire.
- “I want to enter the temple one day, so I need to prepare now for that day. One of the ways I do that is by dressing modestly.”” The idea of dressing modestly to prepare for the temple never made any sense to me. I wore tank tops right up to my endowment figuring life would be over soon enough. Why start enduring to the end before necessary?
- “Many more young women mentioned how dressing modestly helps them to be confident and focus on who they are rather than what they wear.” I can think of lots of immodest looks that don’t require much forethought. Haven’t any of these people watched NASCAR?
- One laurel said: “I feel confident and comfortable when I know I don’t have to tug and pull at my clothes.” Clearly she’s in for a rude awakening when she starts to wear garments.
Modesty is clearly cultural – it is defined by what is considered “modest” for that time and place alone. Most of the clothing we wear today (women in pants, tee shirts, heads uncovered, knee length shorts and skirts) would be considered obscene in other times and places. There are a few harmful justifications of modesty:
- to ensure female safety from sexual crime. The rule of law provides protection to all from crime; this justification is essentially blaming the victim based on how she is dressed. Unfortunately, experience has shown that even women in burkhas are rape victims.
- because girls are responsible for boys’ sexual behavior. The notion that girls should dress modestly for boys usually stems from the notions that: 1) boys can’t control themselves, 2) girls have a lower sex drive more easily controlled, and 3) girls who dress according to different standards than ours are promiscuous entrappers. In reality, both boys and girls are responsible for their own behavior, not for arousal which is involuntary.
- that sexuality is scary – it’s nearly impossible to control! If this were true, no one could hold down a job or graduate school or remain faithful to their spouse. It’s still up to individuals to control themselves, and people do that all the time. Even people whose bare arms are exposed do not immediately and indiscriminately have sex with the nearest person.
So what is the church’s justification for our current definition of modesty? It seems to fall into 3 buckets:
- to prevent temptation / avoid sin. We’ve covered this one above. People sin, not because they are tempted, but because they are weak. Plus, avoiding sexual temptation is like trying to lose weight through starvation. One’s as likely to binge as to stick to it.
- self-referential / circular reasoning. These reasons are self-referential in that they aren’t really reasons to dress according to the specific standards of modesty so much as an encouragement to do so. There is no justification given for the standards themselves in terms of rational personal benefit. Some of these reasons sound like this:
- dress to be an example . . . of the standard according to which you are dressed (?).
- live God’s law rather than the world’s. But the dress standards are not linked to a specific revelation, and they have changed over time. It seems that rather than God’s law (Angel Moroni’s chest was exposed – maybe to show his flashy gold chains and chest hair), it’s just society’s laws with a few minor tweaks to make us slightly more conservative than the average devout Catholic.
- the body is a temple. Many religions promote this notion, but with different dress standards than our own. And you have to cover up more in the temple than you do outside of the temple.
- dress modestly now so you won’t be tempted to be immodest later. This one just defies logic. So dressing is addictive? This does not compute.
- to promote self-esteem of YW. Of all the reasons, this is the one I like the most, although it’s not rock solid either. Teenage girls do have some blind spots about sexuality, and modest dress can help them avoid pitfalls (or maybe help cushion their fall) like: 1) misjudging sexual dynamics, 2) body image issues, and 3) using sex for power rather than for pleasure in a committed relationship. Not only are modesty guidelines set by men in our church, but it’s in reaction to the immodest guidelines set by men in our society at large. The quote about modesty giving YW more confidence is linked to this idea, as well as the idea that girls are choosing to be judged for their inner qualities rather than their physical appearance. Does the logic follow that LDS-modest girls who can’t get the boyfriend they want are being rejected solely based on their inner qualities?
Can you spot the modesty violations to the right (yellow pantsuit)? (answer below)
Reasons not clearly provided, but that are likely at play:
- Insiders vs. Outsiders. Having our own clear modesty guidelines makes it easy to tell who is in our tribe and who is not. The friendlies vs. the others. Mi casa no es su casa.
- Conservativism. Many (but not all) of our standards are simply the common standards of earlier eras. This promotes an intentional (if outdated and needlessly conformist) image for the church. Similar to Leave It to Beaver, but without the racy title!
- Career Helper. A conservative appearance can appear more professional and trustworthy and less risky, depending on the company or social group. Does modesty keep people paying more tithing and off church welfare? Or even working in more conservative careers? That would be an interesting sociological study!
So, what do you think? Is LDS modesty justifiable, and if so, on what grounds? Does the church explain it well or are we messing with kids’ heads too much? Do you dress according to LDS modesty standards? Do you judge those who don’t? Do your kids? Discuss.
*Modesty violations (in order of importance): sleeveless (tsk, tsk), helmet not on (you can’t repent if your brains are smeared across the pavement), no bra (this will have lasting consequences, people!), wearing her jumpsuit Angel Moroni style. Also, jumpsuits are danged inconvenient in the bathroom; if she’s not indecent now, just wait until she has to pee.
Wheat & Tares 
Don’t forget the recent story in The Friend where a FOUR YEAR OLD is told not to wear sleeveless so as to be modest…
Some days I swear Mormons just want their women frumpy and asexual.
I find it ironic that the first comment 1) mocks the concept that children shouldn’t have to worry about being modest, and then 2) equates modesty with lack of sexuality.
Cognitive dissonance?
As for the OP, why should the Church justify their current definition of modesty at all? They are suggesting a certain set of decisions, but hardly mandating them. If the modesty standards the Church suggests really aren’t such a big deal, why do so many people try so hard to tear them apart?
It’s just another thing for the complainers to complain about. It is the most important thing? Probably not, but the way we dress and act says a lot about who we are and what we think about ourselves. And what we want others to think about us.
I always laugh at the justification based on cultural grounds. It was people who decided on those cultural norms. It is not necessary what God wants.
I think modesty standards for children should be different because children are carefree. A little boy running around in a diaper is not immodest, its just kids being kids.
This was a great article. LDS modesty falls into that grey area of “not doctrine, but treated as if it were.” Like the Word of Wisdom and other high visibility principles, for some reason LDS seem to find it easier to take a stand and be a martyr on this issue. We’ve all heard of people who didnt wear the right bathing suit or prom dress or have a cocktail at great social expense.
To me personally, its just not that big a deal. I don’t think God sits around worrying about knee length shorts and a glass of wine with dinner. I don’t read the book of mormon or bible and immediately come away thinking “my four year old cant leave the house in a sundress without sleeves!!!”
Jeff – Is it possible for someone to advocate for positive change without being a “complainer” ?
From your past posts it seems like you like the status quo, whatever it is. And that anyone who thinks we can be better is just a hater.
To be honest I grow tired of the whole modesty debate. Yes, we should teach children to be modest, yes, its important. But really, is it as important as its made out to be? In the end modesty is low down on my checklist of attributes of Godliness that we should aspire to. I’d worry more about how charitable our youth are, how faithful they are, and how they get on with their family and friends then exactly how long their skirt is, how tight their t-shirt is.
I think the church places too much focus on it, and as a result neglect the weightier matters of the gospel. Its like the word of wisdom, yes, its good to keep but there are bigger things to worry about then if someone smokes or not. In the end I’d rather someone was charitable and smoked then a non-smoking bitter, vitriolic scrooge.
I think the level of discussion is given to modesty because its observable and measurable. Its a great way of quantifying faith and righteousness instead of basing it on intangible values such as charity, faith and hope.
In the end the gospel is not the word of wisdom nor is it the strength of youth pamphlet.
“not doctrine, but treated as if it were”
Oh yes. Try to enter the church building for a stake dance not wearing a tie (for males) or a skirt above the knee (for females) and you may just need an interview with the bishop, and you are certainly getting kicked out. Fun times!
Cue “Singles Ward” here.
As an interesting aside on another cultures view on modesty. One of the types of traveller communities in the UK (gypsies) have an interesting take on modesty. The young women in the community all dress extremely revealing, or what we would call immodest ie. Short skirts, low tops etc. However, despite the revealing attire they wear, their values are very high. If anyone was even to suggest that they were were not virtuous or sexually promiscuous then they would be really offended and the brothers and family would have a bare knuckle boxing match with them for marring the family name.
The young women dress in a revealing way not because they are promiscuous but it is to advertise to any potential husbands what they are getting. They do it as a way to entice men to marry them. They celebrate their body through the clothes they wear just as they would highlight personality traits.
Perhaps is Jeff is secretly being funded by the correlation committee. (Joke)
Modesty is wonderful – in moderation.
Extreme modesty is an oxymoron.
Limiting understanding of modesty to sexuality and clothing is an example of extreme modesty – which, by definition, is moronic.
JessieP,
“From your past posts it seems like you like the status quo, whatever it is. And that anyone who thinks we can be better is just a hater.”
There are many things about the “status quo” that I personally do not like. You must not have read my posts carefully.
BUT, I try to see the larger picture.
We are here on this earth as a test. I am trying to be like Jesus, not Russell Brand. I want to return to my Heavenly Father, not be in band with Jimi Hendricks, as much as I would love that.
I am not that good at it yet, but I am trying.
If I was a big believer in Satanic influences (which I am not), I’d say that the devil is distracting a lot of people about what is really important, to focus and complain about minutiae. But I also know that we humans are perfectly capable of doing that for ourselves and we need no help from any outside influence.
I find people to be very distracted away from the Gospel and into the weeds. In some cases, even Church leaders.
“They draw near to me with their mouths, but their hearts are far from me.”
I hate to see that.
I’m very much of the opinion that most kids will figure out ‘modesty’ on their own. If you want them to figure it out more quickly then give them lots and lots of hard meaningful things to do.
When you’re busy trying to get stuff done then you don’t have *time* to worry about your peers staring at your cleavage, or your clothes pinching and riding up, or making sure that everyone knows you’re gangster or whatever. You will want clothes that cover the important bits* so that people focus on what you have to say, while still being comfortable and ‘attractive.’
*which bits are important is culturally relative, but most kids have their own culture down by at least 8.
Troth,
“Perhaps is Jeff is secretly being funded by the correlation committee. (Joke)”
I hear they have quite a bit of money. If you have any influence, I’d appreciate a kind word….. 😀
Maybe, we could get the Sunday School lessons re-written!
I think these outwardly observable Mormon cultural issues like modesty and the word of wisdom are the tail wagging the dog. We are all so focused on things that we can SEE that the more important things like not judging or loving ones neighbor (both hidden but indisputably central themes in Christ’s gospel) are virtually ignored!
There is another more perverse result from this preoccupation that I have experienced as a life-long Utah Mormon — bare shoulders are unbelievably sexy for me… perhaps because I have seen so few of them?
Those who have lived in Europe know that they view the human body very differently there (and they view a lot more of it). When you see forbidden body parts all the time I think they become more familiar and less sexualized. If so, then one could argue that our strict modesty rules are actually counter productive.
I lived near two 8-9 year-old girls, whose families were members. One wore sleeveless shirts, and the other would tell her she was bad and didn’t love the prophet.
I think things like modesty, Word of Wisdom, etc. are just ways that we are acting the Pharisee’s part (see Luke 18: 9-14). It’s so easy to feel like we’re “righteous” if we have outward signs of obedience. Never mind the fact that it says nothing about our true devotion to Christ. But I guess that’s basically what Porter (#14) just said.
jacobhalford,
#6 is a great comment. This is exactly what the Savior said to the Pharisees in Matthew 23. They were attending the temple, studying rigorously, feeding the poor and paying their tithes; however, he let them have it in Matthew 23:23:
“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone”
I just had an experience over the weekend, however, that illustrates the difference between boys and girls when it comes to modesty. We went to southern Utah over the 24th. We were staying at the family vacation home and the bathroom on the east wing does not have blinds on it. The shower and toilet are visible (obliquely – you would have to be in the right spot) from the pool and it is usually where the boys stay when we are down there. The blinds have been gone for some time and I didn’t even know this until my daughter and her friends used this section of the house.
They pulled wrapping paper out of the closet and were taping it to the window. I asked them why the Christmas wrapping paper was on the table and they explained the bathroom had no blinds. One of my son’s responded and said, oh yea they have been gone for a long time.
I don’t know if this is typical or just in my family. The Boys didn’t even care (clearly for some time) they could possibly be seen in the shower; and, it is was the first order of business for the girls.
My view on the whole modesty discussion is that it is a way of telling others that our physical attributes are not our most important ones. In our current culture which is obsessed on what clothes people wear (see the E networks existence), I think this is valuable to all of us. Also, I don’t think its a good idea to tell our young men and women that showing off your body is the best way to pick up a husband toward or wife.
At 58, I’m getting old. This topic has become an internet favorite. So much of the reasoning escapes me. Keep writing, I’ll keep reading. Maybe it will sink in.
If you don’t like the LDS version of modesty, what version do you like and what is the rationale for any version being in place?
That’s a real question. Help a codger out. FYI, I am an inactive LDS who is less and less sympathetic to the church every day.
Will, the boys didn’t mind – not just because they didn’t mind being seen in the shower, but also because they wanted to see the girls in the shower.
Just saying.
My biggest problem with the concept of modesty is that a nice sleeveless dress is placed in the same category as thigh-high boots, a mini-skirt and a half tee-shirt.
How does that make any sense at all?
what about the idea that the book of mormon never mentions what parts of the body your clothes should cover, but very frequently mentions that they should not cost lots of money. when was the last time you heard someone in church say you shouldnt wear expensive clothes? never?
The recent Mormon Matters podcast #43 had some interesting thoughts on teaching modesty. I would link to it if I had any idea how to do it =(. It’s available thru iTunes.
Brian @19…this podcast might help you understand why this topic is still salient.
The code itself is one thing (as the Lovely Lauren points out, it is a bit arbitrary, though). To me what is more troubling is the reasons used to justify the code. Justifying it for circular reasoning probably just means it’s’not justified. Justifying it as a prevention to sin is a flawed argument and possibly damaging psychologically if girls are viewed as sex objects (the gypsy story is even worse – dress like a whore but act like an angel – both of which are male fantasies). I agree with those who say people who are busy doing good works will naturally dress more modestly (perhaps not to our exact code, though). But we teach it backwards then.
Another Post on Modesty??
HG, I think (as usual) you’ve hit the high points well, particularly in your harmful list.
I didn’t quite get this one, though: “People sin, not because they are tempted, but because they are weak.” Why, then, did the Savior admonish his apostles to pray lest they fall into temptation? I think people may sin because of weakness and because of temptation.
That said, LDS women and men should not be taught that the principal reason for modesty is to avoid tempting others.
#6: “I think the church places too much focus on it”
I think the Bloggernacle places too much focus on it.
“Justifying it as a prevention to sin is a flawed argument and possibly damaging psychologically if girls are viewed as sex objects”
Ignoring the dress code ignores reality for attractive females – unattractive females can pretty much wear what they want. Attractive women will get stared at by men; it is just a fact of life. And, if the attractive female wants more attention, then wear less clothing. So, if you’re an attractive female and you want men staring and slobbering all over themselves then don’t wear much. However, don’t complain when men do look. It is the natural man. The spiritual man would and should overcome this; however, most of the men in this world aren’t the spiritual man.
“I think the Bloggernacle places too much focus on it.”
Best comment ever on this topic.
If you don’t like the LDS version of modesty, what version do you like and what is the rationale for any version being in place?
Actually, lets reverse the OP and ask the question: who is in favor of immodesty and why?
I expect that no one would favor immodesty. But reversing the question, I think, reveals a number of issues.
I think we need to not inflict our beliefs on others on modesty and too often it is used as a weapon. Recently a leader’s wife joined the scouts on a bike ride. A lady w/ a jogger stroller passed by wearing a jogging bra. The wife stopped the lady, told her she needed to cover up her bra and wear something over it, the lady told her to quit wearing her religion on the outside. The conversation got quite loud and heated w/ the deacons standing by. The woman was on a jogging trail and was stopped by a woman essentially telling her she looked like a slut. The woman left very offended and not likely to think very highly of our church. The scouts stood there embarrassed over the whole situation. I think we need to be careful and not put so much into outward appearance. I personally wish garments would be changed, I wouldn’t dress much different, just would be lots more comfortable, especially in the hot summer.
I believe the reason we are discussing modesty is because although it is not part of the gospel (no mention in the scriptures, Christ wasn’t concerned about it and modesty was not more prevalent then) but it is an important teaching/requirement of the church.
So it is part of the conservative/utah culture that comes as part of the church, and probably a result of having conservative male senior citizens running the show.
We have a talk at least once a month on this subject in fact it is probably the most regularly assigned topic- and yet it isn’t part of the gospel.
So how do we deal with something that is not gospel but is treated like it is? How can we change it? Could you explain your concerns and ask your bishop to stop the talks and remove the emphasis?
Jeff S #11 Are we here on earth to be tested in general, ie with meaningless tests like dressing modestly? My understanding is that the test we are here to pass is to take and keep the covenants necessary for exaltation, and any other tests are voluntary and irrelavent. After we have taken the test we spend the rest of the time becoming more christlike.
Jacob Halford #8 Assuming you are in UK. Do you know of any trustworthy Australians(yes I know they are all convicts but) who are living in UK and likely to be for next 12 months? Contact me on geoffic48@gmail.com
perhaps a close reading and understanding of Romans 14 may be helpful…
Ethesis:
Reversing the question in the manner you did reveals very little other than the standard response elucidated in dog lover’s comment – namely that, to Mormons, anything not matching their definition is immodest.
Showing your shoulder is immodest? Wearing sleeveless dresses is immodest? Forbidding sundresses is modest? Etc.
Your question has absolutely nothing to do with the issue other than to raise a straw man and hope it passes without notice.
I loathe the idea that that which isn’t LDS modesty = immodest.
And that is the single worst comment ever on this subject (invoking the hyperbole shared by Michelle).
I think there is great value in the question Stephen asked – and I think george’s reading of it doesn’t represent at all what Stephen meant by asking it.
I think it is important to establish a baseline that says, “I do not want to espouse immodesty. I agree that modesty is a good thing. Establishing a good definition of “modesty” (or, at least, trying to do so) is important – not just expressing dislike over a certain standard of modesty as it relates to dress standards.”
In all the discussions I have read in the Bloggernacle that are written about “modesty”, very few posts and comments actually address modesty in its comprehensive, complex meaning – and very few offer constructive guidelines about how to change the current obsession over shoulders and knees. Generally, the conversations quickly devolve into complaint sessions – which means that, in the end, nothing has changed from before the post was written and the thread began.
That’s unfortunate, since there is a real need to dig deeper and find ways to frame this discussion that have a chance to make an impact – even if it is limited to one’s own sphere of influence. Establishing clearly that modesty in dress actually is an important aspect of overall modesty (that nobody, I hope, is advocating immodesty in its purest definition) – ***but that “extreme modesty” is not modest*** – is an important first step.
Geoff-A.
“Jeff S #11 Are we here on earth to be tested in general, ie with meaningless tests like dressing modestly? My understanding is that the test we are here to pass is to take and keep the covenants necessary for exaltation, and any other tests are voluntary and irrelavent. After we have taken the test we spend the rest of the time becoming more christlike.”
I think you miss my point. It’s about the larger picture. Modesty is only a small piece of that. It we are in tune with our grander purpose, the modesty takes care of itself because it is as much a spiritual thing as a physical thing. I think that is also what Ray is trying to point out.
Some times we address the physical as a way of influencing the spiritual to counteract the extreme messages of the world.
I’m a big fan of appropriate clothing for the weather and I also enjoy fashion. I cheerfully dismiss temple garments in favor of the ability to wear modest tank tops tube tops, sundresses, and the like.
One laurel said: “I feel confident and comfortable when I know I don’t have to tug and pull at my clothes.” Clearly she’s in for a rude awakening when she starts to wear garments.
My thoughts exactly!
For those who think there is ANY ETERNAL SIGNIFICANCE with keeping your shoulders covered, for example, you are wrong. Our current ideas are already a concession to changing societal values.
If we truly define “modesty” as “what garments cover”, perhaps we should all do as the founder of our Church did and cover ourselves all the way down to our wrists and ankles. If as you read this you have your arms showing above your wrists and/or your legs showing above your ankles, you are already “immodest” according to the first 100 years of our Church. If you DON’T consider that immodest, you are ALREADY valuing society’s values above those of our founder.
Therefore, judging someone “immodest” because their shoulders show or their knees or for anything else because of society is, in reality, somewhat hypocritical.
Ray:
I actually took the same route that George took in trying to understand Ethesis’ statement. His comment was about reversing the discussion of the OP, which was a direct response to the OP question about LDS modesty. Contrasting the use of the term “immodest” with “LDS modesty” may not have been his intention, but that’s a very easy reading to make of it.
Maybe people don’t offer comprehensive modesty reform in the b’nacle, but I hardly think that’s an issue. The more beneficial scenario, in my mind, would be to erase all conversations about dictating what is/isn’t modest and allow the individual to self-select and take care of that themselves. We (LDS), as well as others, are great at taking something we feel to be correct and imposing that feeling on everyone else. If we feel like we should be living a certain way (abstaining from whatever it might be, for example), then everyone should live that way, that that is the “best” way to live.
That’s how I see this modesty discussion going. Church leadership (both female and male) have given direction and counsel in the form of manuals, conference talks, devotionals, EFY, etc., that all promulgate a certain definition of modesty. That definition is the “best” and only definition allowed in the conversation.
Then, there are many who take the viewpoint shared in Ethesis’ comment (intended or not) that whatever doesn’t match the current LDS definition is, by default, bordering (if not in full scale) on immodest. The lady jogging someone shared above is a perfect example. The more charitable thing to do, in my mind, would have been to do nothing, say nothing. Instead, that LDS woman (my interpretation) felt she had to speak up with impressionable scouts in tow and, instead, made a spectacle where none was needed. The same thing happened to me as a YM – my YM leader made a pathetic remark about a very attractive woman running in a sports bra and stated that she “would never be able to take you to the temple.”
Whether something is immodest or not is almost beside the point because its being used as a judgment for others almost all the time. We base judgments and decisions about people based on whether they’re meeting our definition of modest or not.
To the LDS culture, jogging in sports bras, wearing sundresses, wearing sleeveless dresses, etc., are all used to justify our behavior and judge others. Leaders say that people who don’t meet our standard would feel uncomfortable in front of deity, that the way we dress will determine whether the Gods can or can’t speak to us.
In the end, it’s a bunch of nonsense. That which isn’t LDS dress isn’t immodest anymore than that which is LDS dress is modest, no matter how hard we try to convince ourselves otherwise.
Also, I happen to be in Southern CA this week. I heard a funny story. Someone I was talking to on the beach told me there is a subdivision near here which has a number of LDS families. Because of this, LDS kids from Huntington down to Capistrano tend to go to this same beach to hang out together.
Apparently a big scandal this summer was that an LDS girl … wait for it … actually wore a bikini to the beach. I asked, seriously, as my wife next to me was wearing a bikini, as were my girls. I guess it was a big deal.
When we have gone so far as to judge someone for what they are wearing and not for the amazingly judgmental attitude of everyone else, we have lost something. Christ never talked about bikinis. He did mention something about “motes” and “beams”.
#38 – Irony, I don’t disagree with anything in your comment. My own daughters each have varying views about what is modest to them when it comes to what they wear – and to other aspects of modesty totally unrelated to what they wear. It’s why I’d like much more in-depth discussions in the Bloggernacle about what modesty means, not just diatribes against the current dress norms.
I just don’t think Stephen meant what you and george took from it. I might be wrong about that. If I am, I am. Stephen can answer that, if he wants to do so. If he doesn’t care to do so, fine.
#39 – Amen, Mike. Sometimes we are are own worst enemies.
and sometimes we are OUR own worst enemies.
(Yikes, I even re-read it. I must be more tired than I thought.)
I’ve been very pleased to see in my current ward that people wear whatever the wear. Some are very conservative with toddler girls having covered shoulders. There have been women in pants, sleeveless, sheer, and even a middle-aged woman in a sari which often exposes the midriff below the wrap. We are in a multi-cultural ward. People don’t judge others based on those things. Everyone is welcome. Homogeny and provincialism is what seems to create these judgmental types.
Ray, I’m glad you got that:
After all, no one is espousing immodesty. But realizing that is an important step, and what it means becomes important.
Stephen got lunch at 7:30 p.m. this evening.
Another long day tomorrow. I’m not at all sure what Stephen “can” do these days. 😉
But when you ask yourself why no one espouses immodesty, you are asking yourself what immodesty really is (rather than relying on it being whatever is not someone’s technical definition of modest).
I think that takes you to new places rather than tired old discussions.
Re: Mike S’s bikini wearing wife. Until 2 years ago my wife also wore bikinis, but as our now 15 yr old got older my wife abandoned her bikini for the dreaded tankini. A couple of weeks ago while at the Outer Banks our 15 yr old daughter surprised everyone and wore a bikini. My wife was aghast; I was amused. When my wife approached our daughter, the daughter responded by reminding my wife that it was only recently she stopped wearing bikinis. My only contribution to the conversation was to agree with my daughter and encourage my wife to stop being a hypocrite and return to her bikini wearing days! At the moment it’s a draw but my daughter and I have a united front against my wife: bring back the bikini!!!!
I ran across a discussion of the “dress code” expressed for Christian missionaries in the NT, i.e., purse and sandals and bags, etc.
It appears to be based on starting with the dress code of the Cynics of the time and then modifying it. The assumption that then comes to the fore is that if Cynic dress is the starting point, and Jesus doesn’t modify it, that’s what a Christian missionary was to wear.
So… here’s how Farrand Sayte describes Cynic dress:
“The Cynic would not appear anywhere without his wallet, staff, and cloak, which must inevitably be worn, dirty and ragged and worn so as to LEAVE THE RIGHT SHOULDER BARE.”
rbc, that made me laugh. Thanks!
The late Spencer W. Kimball, is response to the (apparent) conflict between modesty and style, quipped, “We can adopt styles of our own”. To an extent, that’s spot on. Many LDS (and some non-LDS) young ladies can look rather attractive and still comport themselves as young ladies (rather than young hoes).
However, in the ever-infuriating human tendency to get legalistic, we adopt a certain maxim and staunchly declare what is “modest” and what isn’t. Case in point..my little girl (last of the line), declares the Princess Jasmine character to be immodest because she’s drawn with a bare midriff and belly button. I don’t share that opinion, the Jasmine character, if anything, seems to be a confident and principled young lady. Certainly she’s “drawn that way” because her style of dress is considered typical and socially appropriate for an Arab princess of the tenth century. Yet some of our more stuffy brothers and sisters think that somehow Disney is corrupting our little girls with this “harem harlot”. (sigh)
I know a lot of good Christian woman who wear tank tops and so forth. I don’t think they are immodest unless their chest is hanging out. One night I sat down to read my 6 year old daughter a story from The Friend. It was about a little girl who wanted to wear a dress but it didn’t have sleeves so she wouldn’t wear it. I laughed at the article. I believe the modesty- no sleeve- issue is teaching others to judge. I never cared what people wore when I wasn’t a member. Now I find myself looking at people and classifying them on their clothes. It’s not right. I also think it teaches our children to judge. One of the primary children told her non member friend that she was immodest because of ther tights and her sleevless dresses. Hmmmmm. What are we really teaching ourselves and our children?