Several months ago, a woman in RS talked about her daughter’s prom dress not being something you could wear with garments, and that her daughter hadn’t yet gained a “testimony of modesty,” which is something that she said most women don’t get until they are older. That concept has been stuck in my craw ever since, and I’m still not done unboxing it. My reply at the time was to add to the discussion that I don’t have a testimony of modesty, and I’m 50 years old, so maybe I’m just immature for my age.
Hear me out. Modesty–referring specifically to women’s dress codes and not the broader definition of not drawing attention to oneself–as we all know, is very contextual. I’ve been asked to cover my head in a Cathedral with a shawl because that’s their modesty standard. I’ve had to put on a zip up floor and wrist-length covering in some mosques because it is likewise their modesty standard. What you wear to the beach differs from what you wear to work. When an actor like Donny Osmond plays Joseph taken into Egypt, he’s shirtless because that’s what the scene calls for. When Claire in Outlander time travels, her very-modest-by-today’s-standards-even-for-garments 1940s style dress is scandalous because everyone thinks she is wearing a “shift” (basically underclothes for women). “Modesty” isn’t something timeless and static. It is fluid and contextual. We are conditioned to respond based on norms, and norms vary depending on time, culture, and other contexts.
Having a testimony of modesty therefore is problematic to me, but I do take this woman’s comments at face value. So what is it that she has that feels like a testimony of a principle to her? Is it a confirmation that modesty protects her from something (e.g. unwanted sexual advances, not being taken seriously at work, being too focused on her own hotness)? Or is it a humility for her to suborn her own comfort for the preferences of others (patriarchy in particular)? Is the act of personal sacrifice something that in and of itself feels like a spiritual act? I tend to think it’s the latter. When someone sacrifices something, even if nobody else appreciates it, they are being humble.
But I don’t like that, and I’m not like that. Self-sacrifice is not always a virtue, particularly when we sacrifice something that truly helps no one in the long run and inconveniences us on a regular basis by making us feel unworthy or as if we (and our comfort and choices) don’t matter or need to be suborned. John Wooden said that the only thing you should never do for another person is what they can do for themselves. Modesty for others is not a virtue but is its opposite because the more modest you are, the more you feed into the lasciviousness of those who are looking at you as an object. There was an excellent post on that here:. Not everyone is making those types of sacrifices. Women are disproportionately asked to be self-sacrificing (usually for the benefit of others: men in particular).
Maybe making meaningless sacrifices for theoretical others is the nature of religion.
Why is that a problem? A few reasons. First, there’s a reason the airlines advise you to put your own oxygen mask on before assisting other passengers: you can’t assist others if you are passed out from lack of oxygen. Women often do burn out. Eventually, our pointless sacrifices feel . . . well, pointless! Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon, and for the rest of your life.
Another reason is that observance of rules can actually lead to ignoring weightier matters. The more of our “goodness” we spend on silly things, the less likely we are to spend “goodness” on other things. That sounds like a scarcity mentality, one that shouldn’t be so, because surely goodness should be a thing that increases the more we have it like the wise servant with ten talents who was given more of them to invest because s/he was a pretty amazing day trader. This concept is called “moral licensing.”
Apparently, doing something that helps to strengthen our positive self-image also makes us less worried about the consequences of immoral behaviour, and therefore more likely to make immoral choices. (Wikipedia)
So as Fernando said on Saturday Night Live, “It is better to look good than to feel good”. . . or to do good, apparently. As a friend put it, people who feel they are already sacrificing in one way may not feel inclined to do so in other ways:
I actually think this may have played into the story of the good Samaritan. The priests would likely be heading to the temple and shouldn’t touch unclean things. Did they feel that because they were doing temple work that they were already doing enough “good” and could skip helping the poor sap on the side of the road? I have seen this behavior in me and I am sure we all do it at times. I wonder if some of this is in play when the woman feels like she is getting her quota of “good” by making sure her shoulders are covered.
Victor Frankl talked about this in Man’s Search for Meaning.
Life is never made unbearable by circumstances, but only by lack of meaning and purpose.
When we make sacrifices that are ultimately meaningless, we eventually come to resent them.
People with a positive self-image are less likely to worry about sin, but the flip side is that people who don’t have that positive self-image, people prone to self-flagellation, are going to be overly worried about sin. They are going to be scrupulous perfectionists. Whew! At least I don’t suffer from that nonsense! Overconfidence is definitely more fun. So maybe a testimony of modesty is just the internalization of guilt feelings about our responsibility for others’ choices through the way we dress. Or the internalization of feelings of worthlessness associated with being seen. Modesty in dress allows us to be less visible, to stand out less.
And this definition does go hand in hand with the actual definition of modesty:
- the quality or state of being unassuming or moderate in the estimation of one’s abilities. (humble, unpretentious)
- the quality of being relatively moderate, limited, or small in amount, rate, or level. (having modest aspirations)
- behavior, manner, or appearance intended to avoid impropriety or indecency. (often rephrased as dressing in such a way that undue attention is not drawn to the self, dressing appropriately for the occasion, not standing out)
I posed this question of how one gains a testimony of a principle like modesty to a group and another friend made a parallel to how some people gain a testimony of the Word of Wisdom without ever breaking it. The steps in this process are:
- live the principle on faith
- observe other people not living the principle
- wait for something bad to happen to them
- tie their misfortune back to their non-compliance with the principle
I’ve heard this type of testimony bearing. It sounds something like this: “I know that the Word of Wisdom/Law of Chastity/modesty/tithing is true because if it weren’t for the Word of Wisdom/Law of Chastity/modesty/tithing, I would totally be the kind of person who would be a raging alcoholic/slutburger/hoochie-mama/lush spending my money on booze because my friends/relatives/random strangers/neighbors/people in movies behave that way, and I know I would be just like them.”
What do you think?
- Have you ever felt that your sacrifices were meaningless? Which ones and why?
- How do we gain a testimony of a principle? Is that possible or is it just something we become used to doing?
- Do you ever feel as if you spend all your goodness on the wrong things?
Discuss.
Through the years, I have waited to hear a talk on the importance of modesty in words, actions and aspiration for men. I’ve waited for that talk that tells men to not call attention to themselves.
Women are being taught that anything in words or deeds that draws attention to oneself is immodest. When those talks are analyzed for context, the lesson is that women are to limit their personal success. “Do not be financially successful in a noticeable wayif you are a woman” is the lesson being taught. Be a pretty, petite, covered-up woman who stays home is the lesson.
The truth is that not all women are pretty. Not all are petite. Not all will marry. Not all have the option to stay home. Not all are fertile.
The modesty lessons diminish options for women. It’s time to stop them.
I’m okay with the mother trying to help her daughter — that’s what mothers are supposed to do. They aren’t all perfect, but they have to function as mothers, whether perfect or not.
And I’m okay with the mother sharing her thoughts in a Sunday setting with fellow Saints. We need to be able to talk with each other.
But somewhere along the way, the mother picked up a notion that non-endowed members — such as her minor children — have to dress as though they were endowed, and she seems to conflate that notion and modesty. Maybe she got the notion from her mother, or from her husband, or from her ward community. I think it is a false notion, but it is one she sincerely holds. I want to respect her sincere belief.
If the setting and timing were right, I suppose someone else could have offered her own differing perspective that there is no need to require non-endowed members — such as minor children — to dress as though they were endowed. I don’t know if that perspective would have been helpful to the mother, but it might have been helpful to someone in the room. The original poster did push back a little, and I hope it was taken well.
As we try to do more of our lessons in a “council” setting, we have to be willing to share our own thoughts, and to allow others to do the same. It is not necessary that we all agree on so many minor matters, but it is necessary that each of us makes up our own mind for ourselves and our families. We have to live our own lives. And we need to sustain others as they live their lives. If that mother wants to require her minor children to dress as if they were already endowed, that’s her business — but other members might choose differently, and that’s their business.
The problem comes when one claims the Church’s imprimatur for one’s own decision. Then, every else with a differing perspective is wrong. For something as minor as a minor child’s clothing, this isn’t the best approach. Adopt the notion if you want to for your own family — that’s your business — but please don’t claim the imprimatur of the Church for your notion.
So, my mom’s observing that her cigarette smoking twin died of cancer fits into your analysis.
I’ve always been confused on the church’s teachings about modesty that how a girl dresses will affect a boys thoughts and contribute somehow to how she feels about herself or she will be letting others know what kind of person she is, etc., because then I see that none of these modesty issues apply to the girls on the BYU volleyball or swim or gymnastic teams. Mother’s are not throwing their hands over their young impressionable sons eyes fearing immoral thoughts during these events and the crowds in the stands are not collectively thinking, “oh the shame! what a bunch of sluts!”. I could go on and on on the contradictory messages being taught by the church but you have covered many of them so thank you! Also who are you because I want to be your friend!
I’ve stated this before elsewhere, but modesty and other such “principles” are examples of the time-honored LDS notion that blessings come through obedience to arbitrary, made up rules. It’s not a sacrifice if it doesn’t hurt, so artificially enhancing the pain to meet the threshold of sacrifice equals blessings. It’s unfortunate that so many testimonies are built on this foundation. Even worse is when we impose it on our kids. One of my cousins won’t let her 7-year-old daughter leave the house without at least a sleeved top and knee-length shorts in the summertime (they live in Phoenix, BTW). I don’t have a problem sending my pre-teen daughter to school in a tank top on a hot day, and most other LDS families with daughters in my area do the same. Maybe it just takes a certain number of generations to break the cycle of modesty.
I’m intrigued at the OPs suggestion that goodness is a finite resource, one that must be spent carefully and prudently. Past instances in which I used up my goodness reserve to righteously enforce boundaries instead of acting empathetically almost always left me feeling hollow, and rarely had a net positive result.
Great post. And great comments, too. The last few weeks I’ve been seeing a bunch of ads on Facebook for the new line of temple dresses from Sexy Modest Boutique. I just can’t wrap my head around what has happened to the idea of modesty in our Church.
Also, I think its ridiculous to impose adult standards on children, especially those based on sacred covenants they have yet to make (or consciously decline if they so choose). I’m also equally angered by the occasional insistence on imposing youth standards upon grown adults, such as when someone suggests that the standards contained in the “For the Strength of Youth” pamphlet are applicable to parents as well as youth.
Jack Hughes: Even “modesty” or wearing the garment is not something we covenant to do. It’s a reminder of covenants, but it’s just an instruction to wear it. I don’t know why we would expect children to dress this way when it doesn’t make sense for the activity or weather. It’s not like you need to “practice” dressing inappropriately for the occasion.
I found the idea of goodness being wasted on arbitrary rule-following and policing intriguing because it rings true for some of the discussions I hear at church. I suspect it’s linked to resentment, although that wasn’t mentioned in the article I read.
Damascene—your comment would make a great guest post.
Okay, I disagree with the concept that modesty is only about sacrifice. If you’re in a really hot climate, then yes, it’s gonna feel like an arbitrary dress code and a stupid sacrifice. But I have a friend who rocks the skirt suits every Sunday. That’s not modesty as a sign of sacrifice, that’s a baby boomer who has had to demand respect in her financial profession and likewise commands respect at Church. Some women honestly don’t care about hemlines or showing skin – that’s the real comparison here to the Word of Wisdom. It’s only a real sacrifice if it’s something you care about or is an actual temptation. (And I am NOT trying to say caring about hemlines is anything bad, just that some of us are more likely than others to be nominated for “What Not to Wear.”)
I love your writings and thoughts hawkgrrl. Very well done. You’re comment about “When we make sacrifices which ultimately are meaningless, we eventually come to resent them” – really “struck a cord” with me. Meaningless rules, duties and check-off lists – are the ultimate in insanity; and waste of time & energy!
Prom dresses are usually pretty expensive, in my experience (3 daughters), even if you sew them yourself. I bought one & sewed the formals for other dances for our oldest. If this mother didn’t think the dress was “modest”, or didn’t like it for some other reason, then why on earth did she buy it? I tried to raise our children with the idea that we “vote” with our dollars. We purchase not only the outfit, but the advertising, etc. If you don’t like it, don’t buy it. As a mother, I don’t understand shelling out for an outfit you think is inappropriate in some way. For example, as a mother, I did not buy dresses or outfits that needed dry cleaned, either for myself or our daughters, because dry cleaning was not in our rather tight budget. It was a practical consideration rather than a theological one, but I think sometimes the moms just are not willing to say no.
I am in my 60’s now, & I have yet to see any women who gained a “testimony of modesty” when they “were older.”
I do think that I have wasted my energy in many mormon pursuits that were unnecessary and not productive.
But one day I did get modesty.
I was meeting a very body conscious friend, and knew that she would compare herself to me and be distressed. I have a good body by current standards, but that , interestingly, is due to illness rather than any efforts of my own. I chose to dress to make her comfortable, and seem to have taken that insight away with me as I don’t dress to bring any attention to my body. My profession also makes it much more functional to dress fairly invisibly, and maybe I’ve internalised that over time.
I think if we put more emphasis on teaching solidarity amongst women and equality before the law in all walks of life, we might find ourselves with more modest young men who supported women’s achievement rather than feeling a need to limit and control. I do see more of that happening and it has been the case with my son. I have to admit to finding his very accomplished girlfriend’s clothing really shocking for a bright girl, but he managed to act respectfully, knowing that gave him no license for anything else. Of course, I know it could have been otherwise and I’m not taking any credit by association from that, only observing that norms can change with the right environment.
Marivene: I didn’t share the entire discussion here because it was a little off point to the post. Suffice it to say, her daughter loved the dress, it looked great on her, and the mother’s bigger concern was what people would think of her (so she said), not that she thought the dress was truly immodest. All the rest of the family members, dad included, agreed it was a great dress and not an issue. Truth be told, I suspected that she didn’t really feel the dress was bad in any way, but she wanted to raise the issue of feeling judged by others at church, to take one for the team by making it her issue, but really to allow the sisters to talk about that worry we all often privately feel, that we will be seen as inadequate or judged by the rest of the women in RS; the example was maybe a bit of a stretch to get the discussion going–I’m not sure. I gave her mad props for doing that, TBH, if it was a straw-modesty discussion. But then later she made the comment about a testimony of modesty, and that was the thing that struck me as off chord, so maybe I misunderstood her real stance and just assumed she was making more of it than was there. Hard to say. Most of the women in the discussion agreed that modesty standards are situational and have changed a lot over time and need to make sense and that we shouldn’t judge others based on them.
I really tend to think that if someone says they have a testimony of modesty what they really mean is that they finally just gave up and gave in to doing what others told them, and that made things easier somehow.
Mary Ann: You are certainly right that dressing appropriately for the occasion, including wearing dress suits to a work environment, often coincides with modesty. I had a team member who ran our Bangkok office who was also a celebrated ladyboy on weekends; he dressed conservatively to the office (as a man) because that’s what is “modest” or fits in and doesn’t stand out. It’s only pointless to dress “modestly” when it doesn’t make sense in the environment, e.g. it’s 115 degrees out or you are doing something physically demanding, or you have hit menopause and your metabolism is suddenly acting very differently, making your uncomfortable. In fact, dressing inappropriately by piling on too many clothes also stands out.
And of course, when we condition our young men to see something as “immodest” and therefore titillating, we can’t blame the women who are wearing whatever we’ve arbitrarily as a culture decided is going to be titillating.
” Truth be told, I suspected that she didn’t really feel the dress was bad in any way, but she wanted to raise the issue of feeling judged by others at church, to take one for the team by making it her issue, but really to allow the sisters to talk about that worry we all often privately feel, that we will be seen as inadequate or judged by the rest of the women in RS”
Doesn’t that just say it all? If it’s become some mechanism by which people judge and manipulate one another — and I’m speaking about individuals and about the COB as well — what real value does it have?
Time to change the subject to young men controlling their thoughts and their behavior. There will always be hormones but if we’re civilized people isn’t that what we should be seeking to master rather than the behavior of other people? Time, too, to express to the folks on the top floors that they may be missing the values that create a community and enhance spirituality and our efforts to be our best selves when they misplace values on the superficial.
This is probably a threadjack but I tend to think of covering up differently. Being covered is a sign of power and being uncovered is an attempt to make you vulnerable. My feminist mind goes crazy every time I see a magazine cover with a half naked woman and a man in a suit. It says it all – the man is powerful the woman weak – that is the message they are trying to send. That is why powerful women wear the same basic uniform as men and not light, frilly, partial-coverings. Powerful men and women in high secular leadership positions are covered. Men in professional settings are covered from neck to ankle and wrist with double layers. Why? Because it makes you powerful and NOT vulnerable.
Thanks for applying some critical thinking into a discussion that badly needs it. Most helpful to me are your points on pointless sacrifices and the Frankl quote on meaning and purpose; I’m trying to weed that garden, so to speak. Your comment at 1:35 is so good I’d like to see it added to the OP. It fleshed out the discussion as being (among other things) an apologetic bid by the mother who bought the prom dress, to mitigate the potential judgement she feared from her OWN peer group. I think that’s one of the main factors that drives our weirdness with modesty, moms worrying what other moms think of their control (or lack) over their kids.
Also, the testimony-of-modesty point that it’s a function of giving up the struggle to figure out the meaning of modesty, and just adopting the pamphlet guidelines to be done with puzzling over it – that’s an idea worthy of exploring. In a blog post, maybe.
When it comes to the question of women’s modesty as service to the men around them, I think the authoritative answer is Christ’s hyperbolic take on men managing their lusts: Rather than the woman in view changing herself, the man could solve his problem by plucking out his eyes.
Hit post too soon.
Damascene: Brava! Exactly the right comment. If modesty is not about diminishing women, why don’t we ever talk about modesty for men?
(Also, the link in paragraph 4 is broken.)
I said my piece on modesty a while ago (https://wheatandtares.org/2017/07/19/33014/), and I don’t think my attitude has changed much. While there’s clearly a lot of talking past each other, there’s also clearly a fundamentally different worldview.
This discussion reminds me of the recent hoopla over whether a mother can nurse her baby in church. There is a problem within Christianity including the LDS Church. That problem is a huge hangup over the human body, accompanied by fear, shame and neurosis. I appreciate and respect modest dress. But I have also enjoyed several visits to European mixed au naturel spas and one USA nudist camp. These experiences teach participants that human bodies come in all shapes, sizes, ages, genders, some with tattoos, surgical scars, cellulite, stretch marks, etc. So visitors gain a healthy respect of the human body in its most natural form. I imagine that much of the problem that males have with pornography would go away through healthy social nudity experiences. Also, females might be able to overcome their tendency to eating disorders or obsessions about their appearances. Yes, safeguards need to be in place to keep the perverts away. But this has never be an issue in the spas that I have visited.
Lily, I’m happy to support your feminist POV but I think your conclusion re: the amount of clothing = the amount of power is flawed.
Women’s business apparel mirroring men is simply a way of pretending that the male option is the only one. Women always have to meet men wherever they are to be taken half-seriously. As for the amount of body coverage, I’m willing to bet Malala Yousafzai was in full Pakistani shalwar kameez when she was shot for daring to be educated. I’d also place a wager that there must be a Chicago phonebook size stack of pictures somewhere of men in less than full dress dominating women. Think Stanley Kowalski, veritable icon of masculinity.
It’s a whole lot deeper than costume. Any woman who is trusting clothing to protect her from people threatened by challenges to male dominance is practicing risky behavior, I’m afraid. I think too, that if she’s using some sort of full coverage, as a bargaining chip in return for rights or full access to opportunities she’s not going to get very far.
Do you ever feel as if you spend all your goodness on the wrong things? andjack at 10.25 about blessings come by obedience.
I had a moment when I read the 8 or 10 verses before “be ye therefore perfect even as your father in heaven is perfect”, and realised it is not talking about rules or commandments, or modesty, but loving our fellow men/women as God does.
So yes there could be a lot of mormons who have put a lot of their life trying to be perfect mormons, when they should be going in a completely different direction, learning to love perfectly.
Thank you, Geoff!
Has anyone done a survey of general authority first wives and yearbook pictures?
I’m curious what we would learn from that.
Brother Marsh, another fun servery would be photos of the BYU Homecoming Queen over the years, looking at how “modesty” has changed for the Lord’s university. (Spoiler alert: if has gotten more strict in our lifetime)
Bishop Bill, so many women over the years have made comments about the Homecoming Queen photos and how LDS dress standards have changed since the 1960’s. All those conversations have been in the corners of social events. They have been quiet and furtive conversations. So many women attempt to look like they are following all the current rules, but their gut/spirit/promptings tells them the culture has taken modesty too far. Unfortunately, anyone who stands up to start that conversation gets culturally beaten on.
The entire dynamic of LDS modesty has gotten very strange.
Hi Alice:
I don’t mean to suggest at all that you can protect yourself from a violent attack by the way you dress. However, the color, print, fabric and style of clothing projects a certain image. I work in student professional development and we have had some from the costume department from the fine arts college come over every year and speak to the students about what message they are sending with the color, print, fabric and style of the clothes they wear to an interview or on the job, etc. It is the job of these folks to convey the personality and image of a character, and to generate certain feelings in others, by the way they dress their characters on the stage and on film. So, yes, your clothing tells us something about you. In the costume world (and I would say the professional world), dark, solid prints, made with heavy fabric that cover most of the body, convey strength, stability and authority. Movies and magazines use barely clothed women all the time to reinforce the idea that women are weak and helpless.
To your comment that women in the business world have to take their cue from men to be taken seriously, I would say the same principles apply to men. We wouldn’t take a man with bare legs, flip flops and an open shirt, with chest hair showing, very seriously in a professional setting either.
How interesting, Lily. Thanks for the details that explain your perspective.
My husband is in the entertainment world as well so I really do understand the power of costume to create an environment. That’s a different thing though than challenging the constructs or ensuring personal safety. We can play by the rules and be demure and “good” or powerful or whatever and communicate that by how we dress or we can project from our cores and defy constructs that aren’t useful, fair or necessarily reliable..
Meanwhile, I think of a line from The Descendants in which George Clooney’s character says that some of the most powerful people in Hawaii look like surf bums and stunt men. That is more true in the real world than people may realize. In the “business” world some people may restrict themselves to suit and tie or power suits, but there is a LOT of 7-, 8- and 9-figure business conducted by folks who look like surfers and stuntpeople and to dismiss them is to miss opportunities. I know. I’m married to one.
Interestingly, my husband, who operates on the fundamental level of who brings the right attitude and who gets the job done rather than who looks the part, is a fierce advocate for women at the executive level and a diligent guardian of the safety of his workplace for all. Maybe in freeing himself from some conventions he’s opened himself to other possibilities. Maybe that’s what people who want to control and manipulate are trying to resist.
Just sayin’. Fundamentals. Not appearances — modest or otherwise. Meanwhile, making fundamentals, communication,performance and decency the priorities can advance everyone’s interest in a feminist or a conventional male-dominated world.
I dress nicely at work, even on “dress down Friday”. It is my choice. I feel better about myself. How you dress is your choice. It might affect my perception of you, and that might matter in some contexts but not in others. I am more concerned about pokey spikes in your ears and German writing on your neck and forehead, but it’s all the same thing; you are a walking advertisement for yourself just as I am for myself.
” observance of rules can actually lead to ignoring weightier matters. The more of our “goodness” we spend on silly things, the less likely we are to spend “goodness” on other things.” I’m not sure I totally buy this idea, but it is certainly something important to consider. If for example you consider the 4 substances in the WoW (coffee, tea, alcohol, and tobacco), at least 2 of the 4 are trivial. The Church recently stated that cola drinks are okay. But nutritionally they are much worse for you than coffee or tea. The WoW no longer becomes a health guide; it is simply a requirement for a TR. Not using coffee or tea becomes one of those silly thing. It is also counterproductive if it encourages members to drink colas in lieu of coffee and tea.
Another silly thing are dress standards. While I was at BYU, women were required to wear skirts or dresses.. And when kneeling, the hems had to touch the ground. According to my memory, one cold winter day a woman was kept out of the testing center because she had on pants. Since she had on a long winter coat, she went in a restroom and took off her pants. She then returned to testing center and was admitted. When this story appeared on Paul Harvey news (a national program popular at BYU at the time), the skirt/dress policy was reconsidered.
The Church devotes so much of its time to silly rules, regulations, and minor doctrine, that they may well be using up the members goodness on inane stuff. Leaving less available goodness for important matters.