"Immodest" Dance Outfits: Much Ado About Nothing?


Janice
 Share

Recommended Posts

Fiannan,

I think that there is a cultural thing in determining style, etc. But that isn't the issue. The issue is, what does TODAY's prophet tell us what to do?

Does Pres Monson say that women should wear tops, except when on the French Riviera? Do you think Pres Monson would approve of a member attending a nudist colony?

Perhaps the term, "Follow the Prophet" needs to be inserted more into our lives.

BTW, the Church has not ever officially established white shirts and ties, but has long encouraged it. I joined the Church in 1975, and my stake in Montana insisted on white shirts, ties AND a missionary haircut, if you were going to perform any priesthood function whatsoever. The view, then and now, is that if we want to follow the Prophet, it is best if we dress similar to him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 238
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Perfect. Well said.

Now now, culture determines a lot in regards to what is then considered appropriate by the Church or not. The girls at BYU would be seen as much exibitionists if they were sent through a time machine to Brigham Young's day as much as a group of coeds jogging topless in Idaho would be today. And even my wife once had a bishop who told the young women in his ward that they needed to wear bras to be modest yet Emma Smith never wore one, nor did any of Brigham Young's wives -- they had not been invented yet.

And I suspect that if a woman was representing the Church in a public forum yet had hairly legs (that were extremely noticable -- I am from Oregon you know) someone in authority would make a comment even though all women prior to fairly recent history had hairy legs except for prostitutes. This is due to cultural labels that would automatically attach to her even though there is nothing at all immodest about refusing to shave. And do remember, the Book of Mormon does say not a hair on your body will be lost. Sorry gals.

How many of our Seventies are military veterans? If they are I'll bet a few have tatoos. Maybe during the Korean or Vietnam War and the 1970s a man with a tatoo was not seen the way society sees them today. I doubt they would get one today but when they were younger a tatoo did not mean the same as it might now with many people. Yet I wonder about tatoos within the Polynesian and Maori LDS communities.

Again, culture.

Now we have the Church urging men to wear white shirts to meetings and ties yet in the 1980s I blessed the sacrament many times wearing colored shirts, sweaters, and even no tie. In time this may very well evolve into a mode of dress that is associated with LDS people. Again, no ancient Hebrew, Nephite or Lamanite wore a white shirt.

I am not saying in any way that LDS people should rebel against the standards promoted by the Church -- but if one recognizes the cultural context they can at least be less likely to challenge them. However, one should not be so quick to label people in a judgemental way if they choose to dress in accordance to the dance or athletic styles that are accepted in modern western culture as long as they are not swinging around a fire pole in a g-string in public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted this early this morning on another thread but I will post here as well.

On the subject of modesty. I'm only going to quote one source that I found on lds.org.

This is from Elder Robert D. Hales Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and was published in August 2008.

Some Latter-day Saints may feel that modesty is a tradition of the Church or that it has evolved from conservative, puritanical behavior. Modesty is not just cultural. Modesty is a gospel principle that applies to people of all cultures and ages. In fact, modesty is fundamental to being worthy of the Spirit. To be modest is to be humble, and being humble invites the Spirit to be with us.

In everyday living, immodest clothing such as short shorts, miniskirts, tight clothing, shirts that do not cover the stomach, and other revealing attire are not appropriate. Men and women—including young men and young women—should wear clothing that covers the shoulder and avoid clothing that is low cut in the front or back or revealing in any other manner. Tight pants, tight shirts, excessively baggy clothing, wrinkled apparel, and unkempt hair are not appropriate. All should avoid extremes in clothing, hairstyle, and other aspects of appearance. We should always be neat and clean, avoiding sloppiness or inappropriate casualness.

(End quote)

Now if someone would like to argue the above statement...argue with Elder Hales.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MorningStar,

Fiannan, I don't understand how you can claim to be a member sustaining the leaders of the church and contradict them on issues regarding modesty. Also, I've never heard of any girl ever getting a talking to for leg hair. Did I miss a talk about how women are supposed to shave their legs?

I don't think he has done that. All he seems to be saying is that our standards of modesty have changed over time.

I've found all the conversation on "How about this photo?" and "What about these cheerleaders, are they immodest?" interesting. It makes we think we aught to do a photo line up of cheerleaders, each photo containing girls wearing increasingly revealing outfits, and then ask President Monson to determine exactly at what point they become immodest.

We could then measure how far below the waist their skirts are, how long there sleeves are, how much shoulder (if any) is showing, how much cleavage (if any) is showing, etc. We could then publish these findings in an official church document, and then, at long last, we would all have a clear understanding of where modestly begins and ends. And, if we ever see or hear about someone not following these guidelines, we can all point fingers and tell them how they are not following church teachings on modesty.

Or, maybe...

Modesty has less to do with how much skin is showing then with the actual person behind the clothing (or lack there of).

And maybe....

We can all take into account what the Church has already said, and then use personal inspiration, prayer, and revelation to determine what is right for ourselves and our family.

And maybe....

We can not judge others when they come to different conclusions then you did.

Janice.

Edited by Janice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if topless sunbathing is okay in France...because it's a "cultural" thing; that makes it okay with Church standards? Isn't that what you are saying...forget scriptures and go with culture?

I knew (know) many church members in Spain who did and do go topless at public beaches. Some were even females! Some of those females were even teens and women!

Said it before... Those who don't think modesty is a cultural issue have never experienced other cultures.

Janice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my stake in Montana insisted on white shirts, ties AND a missionary haircut, if you were going to perform any priesthood function whatsoever.

My bishop and your bishop would tussle over this, and I'm pretty sure my bishop can beat up your bishop :D

On a serious note, there is nothing in the church handbook or anyplace else that says you must wear a white shirt and tie to perform a priesthood ordnance. The issue has come up in our ward, and our Bishop has made it clear that so long as a young man is dressed in a reverent manner, the color of his shirt is irrelevant. It came up when the Young Mens President was not allowing priests to bless the sacrament unless they had on a shirt that was pure white.

Nit picking over these kinds of details is, in my opinion, silly.

Does Pres Monson say that women should wear tops, except when on the French Riviera? Do you think Pres Monson would approve of a member attending a nudist colony?

I lived in Spain for two years while in High School. My mother, sisters and I, along with other branch members, would go topless at the beaches. Everyone knew. Nobody cared. If I could ever go back there I would again, and my daughters could make up their own minds. On a US beach, however, I would not, nor would I give them the option.

I've never heard of a nudist "colony" but I have heard of nude beaches and resorts. I've never been to one and I don't think I ever will, but I do know of members in good standing who do.

The replies to this post should be fun!

Janice

Edited by Janice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Modesty is not just cultural.

I don't think anyone here said it is JUST cultural. But a few of us have said it's cultural.

My husband pointed out this quote to me (from by Elder David R. Stone April 2006 General Conference):

"What an insidious thing is this culture amidst which we live. It permeates our environment, and we think we are being reasonable and logical when, all too often, we have been molded by the ethos, what the Germans call the zeitgeist, or the culture of our place and time.

"Because my wife and I have had the opportunity to live in 10 different countries, we have seen the effect of the ethos on behavior. Customs which are perfectly acceptable in one culture are viewed as unacceptable in another; language which is polite in some places is viewed as abhorrent in others. People in every culture move within a cocoon of self-satisfied self-deception, fully convinced that the way they see things is the way things really are.

"Our culture tends to determine what foods we like, how we dress, what constitutes polite behavior, what sports we should follow, what our taste in music should be, the importance of education, and our attitudes toward honesty. It also influences men as to the importance of recreation or religion, influences women about the priority of career or childbearing, and has a powerful effect on how we approach procreation and moral issues. All too often, we are like puppets on a string, as our culture determines what is 'cool.'"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now now, culture determines a lot in regards to what is then considered appropriate by the Church or not. The girls at BYU would be seen as much exibitionists if they were sent through a time machine to Brigham Young's day as much as a group of coeds jogging topless in Idaho would be today. And even my wife once had a bishop who told the young women in his ward that they needed to wear bras to be modest yet Emma Smith never wore one, nor did any of Brigham Young's wives -- they had not been invented yet.

And I suspect that if a woman was representing the Church in a public forum yet had hairly legs (that were extremely noticable -- I am from Oregon you know) someone in authority would make a comment even though all women prior to fairly recent history had hairy legs except for prostitutes. This is due to cultural labels that would automatically attach to her even though there is nothing at all immodest about refusing to shave. And do remember, the Book of Mormon does say not a hair on your body will be lost. Sorry gals.

How many of our Seventies are military veterans? If they are I'll bet a few have tatoos. Maybe during the Korean or Vietnam War and the 1970s a man with a tatoo was not seen the way society sees them today. I doubt they would get one today but when they were younger a tatoo did not mean the same as it might now with many people. Yet I wonder about tatoos within the Polynesian and Maori LDS communities.

Again, culture.

Now we have the Church urging men to wear white shirts to meetings and ties yet in the 1980s I blessed the sacrament many times wearing colored shirts, sweaters, and even no tie. In time this may very well evolve into a mode of dress that is associated with LDS people. Again, no ancient Hebrew, Nephite or Lamanite wore a white shirt.

I am not saying in any way that LDS people should rebel against the standards promoted by the Church -- but if one recognizes the cultural context they can at least be less likely to challenge them. However, one should not be so quick to label people in a judgemental way if they choose to dress in accordance to the dance or athletic styles that are accepted in modern western culture as long as they are not swinging around a fire pole in a g-string in public.

I said it before, and I'll say it again: dead prophets...living prophets...dead prophets...living prophets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does that quote say ANYWHERE that because of culture it's okay to go to a beach topless? Nope it doesn't. I don't know how anyone can say anything is okay because it's the culture of a certain country after reading Elder Hale's comments that I posted.

I like that last line.

All too often, we are like puppets on a string, as our culture determines what is 'cool.'"

Posted Image

Exactly the point I was trying to make. We are like puppets on a string because if one culture says it's okay then yep it's cool and okay. Not according to the remarks made by Elder Hales.

Thanks for posting that little remark. It only strengthened the point I was trying to make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Janice scratches her head...) Is it wrong to compare what used to be vs what is now and say, "Things have changed"?

No, that's not wrong. The problem is that today is being compared to yesteryear and justification for immodesty today is being made because of yesteryear's customs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Janice after discovering what your email address is: I will now refrain from arguing or debating this issue. You aren't here to listen to what our Church Leaders have taught us concerning modesty. I totally understand where you are coming from now. Your email address told me everything. We would be beating a dead horse with the continuance of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone here said it is JUST cultural. But a few of us have said it's cultural.

My husband pointed out this quote to me (from by Elder David R. Stone April 2006 General Conference):

"What an insidious thing is this culture amidst which we live. It permeates our environment, and we think we are being reasonable and logical when, all too often, we have been molded by the ethos, what the Germans call the zeitgeist, or the culture of our place and time.

"Because my wife and I have had the opportunity to live in 10 different countries, we have seen the effect of the ethos on behavior. Customs which are perfectly acceptable in one culture are viewed as unacceptable in another; language which is polite in some places is viewed as abhorrent in others. People in every culture move within a cocoon of self-satisfied self-deception, fully convinced that the way they see things is the way things really are.

"Our culture tends to determine what foods we like, how we dress, what constitutes polite behavior, what sports we should follow, what our taste in music should be, the importance of education, and our attitudes toward honesty. It also influences men as to the importance of recreation or religion, influences women about the priority of career or childbearing, and has a powerful effect on how we approach procreation and moral issues. All too often, we are like puppets on a string, as our culture determines what is 'cool.'"

This is a prime example of why it’s important to read the entire talk. The title of Elder Stone’s talk is “Zion in the Midst of Babylon.” Elder Stone speaks of Israel, and how it was a concentrated gathering place—“an island of the one true God, surrounded by an ocean of idolatry.” Yet Israel constantly gave in to the culture surrounding them.

Let’s take a look at the rest of Elder Stone’s message following the passage already quoted:

There is, of course, a zeitgeist to which we should pay attention, and that is the ethos of the Lord, the culture of the people of God. As Peter states it, “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light” (1 Pet. 2:9).

It is the ethos of those who keep the Lord’s commandments, walk in His ways, and “live by every word that proceedeth forth from the mouth of God” (D&C 84:44). If that makes us peculiar, so be it.

Seduced by our culture, we often hardly recognize our idolatry, as our strings are pulled by that which is popular in the Babylonian world. Indeed, as the poet Wordsworth said: “The world is too much with us” (“The World Is Too Much with Us; Late and Soon,” in The Complete Poetical Works of William Wordsworth [1924], 353). In his first epistle, John writes:

“I have written unto you … because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one.

“Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world” (1 Jn. 2:14–15).

We do not need to adopt the standards, the mores, and the morals of Babylon. We can create Zion in the midst of Babylon. We can have our own standards for music and literature and dance and film and language. We can have our own standards for dress and deportment, for politeness and respect. We can live in accordance with the Lord’s moral laws. We can limit how much of Babylon we allow into our homes by the media of communication.

We can live as a Zion people, if we wish to. Will it be hard? Of course it will, for the waves of Babylonian culture crash incessantly against our shores. Will it take courage? Of course it will.

If Babylon is the city of the world, Zion is the city of God. The Lord has said of Zion: “Zion cannot be built up unless it is by the principles of the law of the celestial kingdom” (D&C 105:5) and, “For this is Zion—the pure in heart” (D&C 97:21).

Wherever we are, whatever city we may live in, we can build our own Zion by the principles of the celestial kingdom and ever seek to become the pure in heart. Zion is the beautiful, and the Lord holds it in His own hands. Our homes can be places which are a refuge and protection, as Zion is.

We do not need to become as puppets in the hands of the culture of the place and time. We can be courageous and can walk in the Lord’s paths and follow His footsteps. And if we do, we will be called Zion, and we will be the people of the Lord.

The message that Elder Stone is trying to convey is that the Latter-day Saints should not be influenced by local cultural customs, but by the cultural commentary provided by the prophets of the Lord. In essence, we should be adopting the culture of Zion—the culture of the celestial kingdom—which is guided by revelation to those who have the keys of leadership in God’s kingdom.

Is it true that perceptions of morality vary from culture to culture? Yes, it certainly is true. But if we’re talking about adopting the culture of the US, Spain, Germany, Japan, Saudi Arabia, or any other temporal realm, we’re talking about adopting the wrong culture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share