Sign in to follow this  
Queolby

A Modesty Article that is going around.

Recommended Posts

I was wondering if I could get your thought on this article. I want to see if I'm not the only one that sees the issues with the authors' arguments. The author claims that certain things are doctrine and that some things are not.

https://lindsayhperez.com/2019/06/26/the-harmful-misconceptions-of-modesty/?fbclid=IwAR1wQaJQL03xYiQN2A7XHoOTZMT31vAHtPI3AGN1DdQnLPbAA0goQiutSFg

 

Edited by Queolby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mores

She claims.  She's both right and wrong.

If you were to make a single sentence summary of each point she made, they would all be correct.  But at the same time, the things she was railing against are also correct.  It's not that they are mutually exclusive.  It is that she's focused so much on one aspect / perspective, that she's totally denying another aspect /perspective that is also correct.

If I may quote Ben Kenobi:  "Many of the truths we cling to depend largely upon our own point of view."  This is one of those times the description fits.

From her point of view, she's absolutely right.  But from another perspective, the things she calls "false doctrine"are also true.

Edited by Mores

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, as a progressively enlightened (dare I say, “woke”) LDS male, I firmly believe that the women of this Church should skank it up as much as humanly possible, and in every way imaginable.

For their own good, of course.  I have no dog in this fight.  None at all, nosiree . . .

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mores
10 hours ago, Queolby said:

I was wondering if I could get your thought on this article. I want to see if I'm not the only one that sees the issues with the authors' arguments. The author claims that certain things are doctrine and that some things are not.

https://lindsayhperez.com/2019/06/26/the-harmful-misconceptions-of-modesty/?fbclid=IwAR1wQaJQL03xYiQN2A7XHoOTZMT31vAHtPI3AGN1DdQnLPbAA0goQiutSFg

So, what did YOU think of what she said?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Queolby said:

I was wondering if I could get your thought on this article. I want to see if I'm not the only one that sees the issues with the authors' arguments. The author claims that certain things are doctrine and that some things are not.

https://lindsayhperez.com/2019/06/26/the-harmful-misconceptions-of-modesty/?fbclid=IwAR1wQaJQL03xYiQN2A7XHoOTZMT31vAHtPI3AGN1DdQnLPbAA0goQiutSFg

 

But by far, most important things surround the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost, and D&C 59:4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Queolby said:

I was wondering if I could get your thought on this article. I want to see if I'm not the only one that sees the issues with the authors' arguments. The author claims that certain things are doctrine and that some things are not.

https://lindsayhperez.com/2019/06/26/the-harmful-misconceptions-of-modesty/?fbclid=IwAR1wQaJQL03xYiQN2A7XHoOTZMT31vAHtPI3AGN1DdQnLPbAA0goQiutSFg

 

So much “woke” feminist garbage in this article.

The progressive woman have become a huge thorn in teaching doctrine now-a-days due to the feminist movement. Just like testifying of the roll of men and woman in the home and the innate value of a baby fetus, Talking about the truth of modesty is social suicide. 

But here I go cause there is no society I am worried about here.

claim 1: women were taught not to wear scandalous attire so men wouldn’t be tempted.

Yes young women were taught this. As found in the gospel topics section on churchofjesuschrist.org:

”Central to the command to be modest is an understanding of the sacred power of procreation, the ability to bring children into the world. This power is to be used only between husband and wife. Revealing and sexually suggestive clothing, which includes short shorts and skirts, tight clothing, and shirts that do not cover the stomach, can stimulate desires and actions that violate the Lord’s law of chastity.”

 clearly there is a problem here. Clearly immodesty can lead to temptation and I don’t know anyone that would argue that. 

Lindsey’s (the author) approach to this is an “every man/woman” for his/herself approach. As long as what she is doing is not affecting her, than everything is ok. It is so frustratingly un-Christlike and has only fed to the raging feminist fire that has spread into our church.

Yes. ONE reason to dress modestly is so not to arouse sexual feelings in others. Men should do the same. If I find out that something I am doing or wearing causes lustful feelings in women or homosexual men, the I better stop right away. I know what it is like to struggle with thoughts and I don’t want to be the source of any one else’s evil thoughts. 

That is the Christlike way.

 

claim 2: modesty is a woman’s issue

No one is teaching this, it’s just a harder thing to do if you are a woman. I definitely had modesty lessons, but it was more about appearing clean and acting appropriately.

This is another feminist situation where because it is more difficult for woman, they see it as oppressive and evil. 

Claim 3: we can tell people what to wear

This is just an extension of claim 1 and 2

I can agree with her at point here. If the story she tells about her “pink” shirt is true, I wouldn’t have worried to much about it. But If I wore a Trojan shirt, that would definitely be considered immodest and I would not wear it. It’s different levels of the same principle. If you are worried someone might look at your t-shirt with a Victoria secret logo and feel aroused, dont wear it.

claim 4: priesthood leaders are attracted to young woman 

This whole section she has is completely idiotic. She tells the story of when she was at girls camp and the young woman leaders forced the young woman To dress modestly for when the bishopric comes and speaks.

In the mornings and evenings, my wife does not wear a bra under her shirt. However, If we have guests coming over she goes and puts one on so her nipples are poking through her shirt. Additionally, I have a pair of shorts that are short, tight, and “revealing”. I like wearing them to bed, but if I’m having company over in the morning or evening, I’m going to change out of them, especially if one of them coming over is female.

Other nonsensical statements 

1. “If a claim cannot be supported by scripture, or perhaps a recent general conference talk: don’t teach it.“

 The irony here is so thick I can’t even cut it with my metaphorical lightsaber. She says this in her explanation of a quote from a 70 from 1974. Additionally, giving prophetic direction an expiration date is what leads to apostasy.

2. “The claim that women have stewardship over another man’s thoughts is nowhere to be found in the scriptures. In Elder Jeffrey R. Holland’s talk To Young Women, there was no mention of young men depending on the women to keep them clean.”

Jeffery R Holland also taught “although I am not my brother’s keeper, I am my brothers brother”. Stop making this mortal life a free-for-all. 

When I’m with my friends, we make fun of each other and laugh at our mistakes together. But If one of my friends struggles with depression, I’m going to be more careful about the things I say.

Edited by Fether

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Fether said:

Jeffery R Holland also taught “although I am not my brother’s keeper, I am my brothers brother”. Stop making this mortal life a free-for-all. 

This, to me, is a major point.  Yes, there’s far more to modesty than helping those dastardly males to control their baser instincts; but even if there weren’t—we are under covenant to bear one another’s burdens.  Speaking in generalities, and with due exceptions for individual cases:  both the general population of men and the general population of women have predilections towards certain behaviors that undermine the establishment of a Zion community.  Men often tend to be lustful, controlling, and insensitive.  Women often tend towards drama, hyper-sensitivity, the emphasis of emotion over reason, and physical weakness.  Making allowances for the weakness of others while diligently striving to improve ourselves, is something we all must do; and I will bear with my sisters’ gender-linked psychoses if they will bear with mine.  

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mores
10 minutes ago, LadyGunnar said:

No one should be taught that they are responsible for someone else's thoughts.

Good thing no one said that.

10 minutes ago, LadyGunnar said:

I would wear a tighter shirt or dress the next week after the modesty lessons. 

I'm sure your dad was proud of that behavior.

10 minutes ago, LadyGunnar said:

It's  not my job to keep the boy's thoughts  clean. It's theirs.

Just like it's not my job to keep you from getting angry.  But if I say enough harsh words, you know you'll blow your top.  Am I responsible for your anger?  NO!!!  But I'm not innocent either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Queolby said:

I was wondering if I could get your thought on this article. I want to see if I'm not the only one that sees the issues with the authors' arguments. The author claims that certain things are doctrine and that some things are not.

https://lindsayhperez.com/2019/06/26/the-harmful-misconceptions-of-modesty/?fbclid=IwAR1wQaJQL03xYiQN2A7XHoOTZMT31vAHtPI3AGN1DdQnLPbAA0goQiutSFg

 

Yes, you are not alone in seeing issues with the author's arguments; although, it would be interesting to know if we are seeing the same issues. My sentiments follow Fether's with mine own thoughts also.

1) We were taught that dressing modestly was to help the men keep their thoughts pure...First, this idea has no relation to why God commanded us to be modest...Second, what happened to Mosiah 3:19?

This is false. I would assume she has never read Miracle of Forgiveness. Unless my mind is not remembering correctly this is where President Kimball talked about a young man who mows the lawn with his shirt off. President Kimball included that young men be cautious, and probably not take their shirt off as it may cause a young woman or older woman to be tempted. This stood out to me because I have an athletic build, and I would often have my shirt off. Modesty is for us who should keep our thoughts clean and for others to dress appropriately.

In high school I wore a tank top to seminary, my seminary teachers asked if I wouldn't wear the tank top to seminary anymore for reasons of modesty. I never wore it again to seminary.

She is clearly misrepresenting Mosiah 3:19. Mosiah 3:19 is about the natural man which also includes the great and spacious building. The natural man doesn't care what they wear, or how their actions affect others. The spiritual man/woman will care how their actions affect others -- this includes manner of dress. There is a reason why women have been counseled not to wear bikinis.

She is clearly missing the boat and is off by degrees.

2) We were taught that modesty is a woman’s issue.

I never attended a young woman's meeting when chastity was solely taught to young women. I was taught that modesty is a man and woman issue and it deals with the manner of dress and our attitude. I was taught not to wear tank tops, but that was one thing in high school I rebelled against my junior and senior year. I understand now why the counsel is there. And no I didn't wear a tank top because it was hot. I knew the young women liked it and it drew attention to me.

So I can't say either yes or no on this as I wasn't ever taught modesty the way she was.

Dressing modestly is partially about what we are wearing, but has more to do with why we are wearing it. 

Actually it is a balance between both. Neither is more important than the other. I mentioned tank tops. I had friends who wore tank tops because that is what they liked. They didn't care about how girls felt, but it doesn't change the "immodesty" of the outfit because the "why."

She is again off by degrees.

Someone could be wearing clothes that cover the body completely, but still be immodest in their heart. 

The correct term here would be uncircumcised of heart. They outwardly appear clean but inwardly are unclean. This statement also is justification to dress immodestly if your "heart" is in the right place.

3) We were taught that it is acceptable to tell people what to wear. To be frank, what other people wear is none of our business.

I think there is irony when someone talks about the natural man and then makes a natural man statement. We are taught, "We teach principles, and let people govern themselves." If I am at the beach walking up to a stranger and saying your G-string is immodest is really none of my business.

A woman who comes once to church, not a member, in a tank top and shorts, probably wouldn't be the best to tell her proper dress attire (unless of course that truly is her Sunday best -- meaning she has not other clothing that would be more appropriate).

A woman that is a covenanted member, temple endowed, who shows up in a tank top and shorts, well -- it shouldn't be surprised if someone talks to her. To be frank, depending on situation -- what other people wear is our business.

Her example is valid though with Victoria secret. At the same time, his reaction is also valid. I don't think Heavenly Father will be "offended" at a young man who naively or innocently seeks to help one of his (Heavenly Father) daughters to be modest. As a father, if a young man naively or innocently made such a statement to my daughter, if shirt was truly modest (just brand), I would smirk and have a easy chat with my daughter afterwards letting her know to love (be merciful) the boy who cared enough to make a mistake.

If that individual is not your child, missionary, or employee, it would be wise to refrain from giving correction.

Another partial truth. Not fully wrong, but not fully correct either.

4) We were taught that our priesthood leaders are attracted to the young women...“We will eat dinner while we present our skits, and then we will be blessed to hear from Brother _____ from the bishopric, so please be sure to wear modest clothing.”

Good for her young women leaders. Nothing wrong here. Part of being Christian is thinking outside of yourself and how and what we do affects others. What I see is how we can teach modesty better not that the teaching is wrong. In that light though, chastity and modesty, should be taught in the home first by parents.

Assuming this was truly the mindset, "All of us were squirming in our chairs at the idea of adult men lusting after us. After all, we were only in middle school." This reminds me of a primary lesson I gave that I thought was perfect regarding baptism. I taught the symbolism of baptism. One of the primary kids went home and told her parents, 'I don't want to be baptized because I don't want to die." DOH!

Well, after that I decided to be more careful with symbolism when children are young. Nothing wrong with caring about others and proper dress attire for specific events. There is a reason I don't walk out to get the mail (in my birthday suit) after taking a shower. It has both to do with modesty and how what I am wearing (or not wearing) does affect others. Simple truths this article appears to be missing -- but not surprised as this article is progressive leaning.

5) If it be some other way it is not of God....Likewise, the Spirit cannot reside in a lesson where leaders are teaching false doctrines and principles to the youth.

So, the Spirit then was not within this article as the author is teaching false doctrine and principles -- got it.

6) How do we know if we are teaching modesty correctly?

I would say, first step do not use this article as a spring board for your modesty lesson. Too much false doctrine and personal opinion for the Spirit to be there (refer to point #5)

If you follow the manual provided and provided factual arguments from prophets and apostles regarding modesty in your lesson -- you are more likely to teach modesty correctly. It truly is that simple.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Mores said:

Just like it's not my job to keep you from getting angry.  But if I say enough harsh words, you know you'll blow your top.  Am I responsible for your anger?  NO!!!  But I'm not innocent either.

Solid example. I was trying to think of one when I read this.

I was thinking more along the lines of "With great power comes great responsibility". :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there are some good points in the article.  However, I think she swings the pendulum too far in the other direction regarding the reasons why modest dress is stressed.  One can recognize that immodest dress can influence a person's thoughts without taking responsibility for the thoughts.

The talk about girls camp got me thinking.  Are the girls wearing revealing clothing the rest of the week when men aren't present?  Shouldn't the leaders be stressing modest clothing regardless of who is there?  But I can see her point that the way it is presented can influence how the girls view men, making them seem creepy or even pedophiles.  It doesn't seem like a great way to establish a relationship with their priesthood leaders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, dprh said:

The talk about girls camp got me thinking.  Are the girls wearing revealing clothing the rest of the week when men aren't present?  Shouldn't the leaders be stressing modest clothing regardless of who is there? 

Think about it like this: say there's a men's locker room and a female reporter is coming in so the coach let's the players know the female reporter is coming in so they can be dressed appropriately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This article is ridiculous and nothing but lies. I can't see how anyone can be saying "some good points" and the like. No. They're not good points. They're garbage points based on lies.

Quote

We were taught that dressing modestly was to help the men [and women] keep their thoughts pure.

It is. What other possible reason could there be for not exposing skin, cleavage, midriffs, thighs, etc.? Yes, there is more to modesty than that, but that is clearly and obviously the primary point. Duh.

Quote

We were taught that modesty is a woman’s issue.

No we weren't. It is, of course. But it's also a men's issue. The fact that men are more easily tempted by the visual is reality. So...duh.

Quote

We were taught that it is acceptable to tell people what to wear.

It is. It always has been. I get told what I can and cannot wear everywhere I go. If I don't wear anything...I get arrested. I can't go into most gas stations without shoes or shirt. I can't wear ripped clothes or inappropriate logos to work. Etc. etc. And, may I add...DUH.

Quote

We were taught that our priesthood leaders are attracted to the young women.

THEY ARE!

DUH!

Edited by The Folk Prophet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Think about it like this: say there's a men's locker room and a female reporter is coming in so the coach let's the players know the female reporter is coming in so they can be dressed appropriately.

That is a good analogy.  A locker room is a place designed for changing clothes and showering.  The media has invaded this 'private' place.  It seems part of that is to capitalize on the lack of clothing.  

I guess there is some changing clothes at girls camp, but from what I've heard, not a lot of showering.  I still don't understand if or why girls are dressed so immodestly that a point needs to be made to cover up when men come to visit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dprh said:

I still don't understand if or why girls are dressed so immodestly that a point needs to be made to cover up when men come to visit.

When it comes to certain ways of dressing I totally agree with you. If the girls are wearing short shorts for most the camp but then put on longer shorts just for the bishop then there's a problem. But I can see that certain, lazy type ways of not bothering might be more prevalent with just girls around that aren't inappropriate until men/boys show up (and vice-versa).

But I'd say, yeah...overall your point is solid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mores said:

Good thing no one said that.

I'm sure your dad was proud of that behavior.

Just like it's not my job to keep you from getting angry.  But if I say enough harsh words, you know you'll blow your top.  Am I responsible for your anger?  NO!!!  But I'm not innocent either.

I never had to get rid of any clothes when I started wearing garments. So that can't  have been that bad. I got so fed up at the double standard. Boys never heard anything modesty.  They never had to struggle to find modest clothes. 

I was told by my bishop that I had no understanding how much power my looks had over men. I was 14.  I was being blamed for my looks. I had no control over that. It's not my fault that men who look. 

People are responsible for thie own actions. It's the only thing you can control.  I don't care if people run their mouth.  It's their right to do so. It's my right to think that they are wrong. 

My dad would laugh by the way. I am just like him. So he knew it was coming. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Fether said:

If you are worried someone might look at your t-shirt with a Victoria secret logo and feel aroused, dont wear it.

This just seems extreme to me. Are we really going to say that women can't wear a standard t-shirt (or sweatshirt or sweatpants) with the word Pink on it (because Pink is associated with Victoria's Secret which sells women's underclothing)? I can accept that it is good for me to take some thought about how my clothing choices might affect others, but it seems like there should be reasonable limits on that concern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

This just seems extreme to me. Are we really going to say that women can't wear a standard t-shirt (or sweatshirt or sweatpants) with the word Pink on it (because Pink is associated with Victoria's Secret which sells women's underclothing)? I can accept that it is good for me to take some thought about how my clothing choices might affect others, but it seems like there should be reasonable limits on that concern.

I'd say that there's a point where someone aroused by reasonably modest clothing should take responsibility. Speak candidly to those close to them. Limit their venturing into society. Seek counsel and therapy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I am trying to teach my daughters about modesty comes down to three principles, deliberately ranked in order of importance.

1. Modesty in dress means wearing clothing appropriate to the activity you are currently engaged in.

2. Modesty in dress and behavior means dressing and acting in ways that do not call attention to yourself for reasons that distract from your capabilities and divine nature. (ie, don't try to be noticed by how you dress or how you act, but by the things you accomplish)

3. You are not responsible for how people look at or think about you, neither are you in control of it. You are free to dress how you want, but choose the clothing that will attract the kind of attention you desire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Backroads said:

I'd say that there's a point where someone aroused by reasonably modest clothing should take responsibility. Speak candidly to those close to them. Limit their venturing into society. Seek counsel and therapy.

Yes, if a person is dressing modestly and male/female is aroused -- practice self-control. Just because I look good in a suit doesn't mean I am going to stop wearing one if someone besides Ms. Anddenex is aroused. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

This just seems extreme to me. Are we really going to say that women can't wear a standard t-shirt (or sweatshirt or sweatpants) with the word Pink on it (because Pink is associated with Victoria's Secret which sells women's underclothing)? I can accept that it is good for me to take some thought about how my clothing choices might affect others, but it seems like there should be reasonable limits on that concern.

It’s the difference between a word and a logo.

having the word “thoroughbred” written on my shirt is fine, but having the “thoroughbred” strip club logo is not. I used an extreme example only to make the point. I don’t know what the “pink” logo is or what kind Victoria secret product it is (nor do I feel inclined to google it). Words paint immediate pictures in our mind. You advertise woman’s underwear, bikinis, or lingerie and everyone who sees it will think it.

again, if I found out that every time I wore my red t-shirt that it caused women around me to lust after me, it would be very un-Christlike for me to continue to spitefully wear it. We are now talking about charity. Why would I do something that makes it difficult for others to have pure thoughts?

Do you believe that it is ok for me to do something that does not effect my salvation but makes it difficult for others?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Fether said:

I don’t know what the “pink” logo is or what kind Victoria secret product it is (nor do I feel inclined to google it).

Pink, (or PINK, to portray the branding more accurately), is a line of clothing and accessories sold by Victoria's Secret. It's target demographic is young adults (usually less than 30). It isn't just lingerie, but casual wear, sports wear, fragrances, etc. (at least, uh, that's what my friends tell me). In essence, they realized they would have trouble building brand recognition if all of their products were worn under people's clothes, so PINK is the line that gets to the outer layers.

But that makes it kind of an odd example for you, because it's like saying we shouldn't wear shirts that have the JCPenney logo because they sell women's underclothing. But if you aren't familiar with the PINK brand, I can excuse the choice in example. Just trying to explain why you might be getting some push back on that particular example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It should be of no surprise but the role of men and women is perhaps the most misunderstood principle of "The Gospel" not just in our time but throughout all human history.  I believe the biggest problem is that men and women have "complementary" roles not "equal" roles.  It seems to me that this misunderstanding is the most exploited principle of the relationship of men and women by Satan.  In our modern society we have come to believe that things that are not equal are inferior and I believe that is exactly what Satan intends. 

The role of women is to complement men and the role of men are to complement women.  If women are not helping men to be better they have failed - likewise if men are not helping women to be better they have failed.  This also applies to sex in marriage.  Outside of the divine covenant that includes marriage (between a man and a women) - sex - all by itself is a failure of both or either men and women (if someone insists on the broader definition of sex or even marriage). 

 

The Traveler 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this