Full and complete lesson on modesty?


Fether
 Share

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

I’ve heard of situations like it here and there. It’s a great idea, you don’t want to create a Romeo and Juliet type situation. Easier said than done though. 

I'm sure you and your English degree are aware that there is a vocal minority of fans of the Bard who say that Romeo and Juliet was supposed to be a comedy (in modern terms) because of how ridiculous the plot actually is.

  • Two teenagers immediately fall in love at first sight. 
  • And even though they are completely loyal to their family names, Juliet pronounces within an hour "My greatest love sprung from my greatest hate."

In the DiCaprio version, I loved the friar's delivery of the line.

"Young men's love lies not in their hearts, but in their... eyes."

No, in real life, such a situation would not come out of the blue.  It comes from years of disrespecting parental opinion.  Really, there was love, affection, devotion, loyalty, and obedience to family and parent.  But because our eyes make us fall in love, BOOM, I want only what makes my parents upset, and want to drop him as soon as my parents approve...

Hmm... Yeah, that doesn't happen with most of us.  My one son whom I call my mini-me is the one who openly says that he tends to not want to do something if I'm encouraging him to do it.  And it has been many years coming.  But even then, he doesn't change his mind on something because I agree with him.  But if he's still in the process of considering...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I'm sure you and your English degree are aware that there is a vocal minority of fans of the Bard who say that Romeo and Juliet was supposed to be a comedy

I actually did not know that, even though I love the play. My favorite of his is Macbeth with Hamlet being 1a.
 

Mercutio has some truly funny lines (so does the nurse) but it’s hardly a comedy. 

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Suzie said:

Nope because she wouldn't be allowed to leave my home dressed immodestly.

And is the point of the whole issue isn't it?.  What does that mean really???  If she was going to a swim party you might give a thumbs up to the swimsuit she chooses as modest.  But then you would not let her wear the swimsuit you found as modest enough to sacrament meeting, because it is suddenly immodest.

That means modesty is not, nor can it be about a certain amount of coverage.  At the most extreme example is say a young couples wedding night... (Or Adam and Eve in the garden) That is a expected clothing optional situation and it is not immodest.  But if we fixate on clothing and coverage then you can cause some pretty big issues. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/9/2021 at 11:24 PM, Fether said:

Being modest is acting, speaking, and dressing in a way that does not distract from The righteous intentions of whatever activity is being done at the moment.

This is a good discussion. Starting from this statement, I feel like one of the problems I have with modesty discussions is that they so often feel circular to me.

As an example, when I graduated from BYU (mid-'90s'ish), when I wandered too far from Provo, I found myself in a restaurant with a male server wearing a pony tail (which was the style at the time). Me, having been at BYU for many years, found the pony tail "distracting". Why? Was there something inherently immodest about men wearing ponytails, or was it because I had been told that men should not wear ponytails?

I find myself with the same kind of thinking with other aspects of modesty. Do I find women wearing pants to church immodest because there is something inherently immodest about women wearing pants, or is it because I have been told that women should not wear pants to church? Am I bothered by someone wearing jeans and a t-shirt to church because it is inherently immodest, or because I have been told it is inappropriate? Do I find multiple ear piercings in some people (men or women) distracting because it is "wrong" or because I have been told that God doesn't want women or men to wear multiple piercings?

Which isn't to say that there should be no dress and grooming standards anywhere in society. Such standards are perfectly appropriate. The challenge I find when I think of a "full and complete" lesson on modesty is trying to get past these circular arguments to the eternal truth "bedrock" underneath them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

This is a good discussion. Starting from this statement, I feel like one of the problems I have with modesty discussions is that they so often feel circular to me.

As an example, when I graduated from BYU (mid-'90s'ish), when I wandered too far from Provo, I found myself in a restaurant with a male server wearing a pony tail (which was the style at the time). Me, having been at BYU for many years, found the pony tail "distracting". Why? Was there something inherently immodest about men wearing ponytails, or was it because I had been told that men should not wear ponytails?

I find myself with the same kind of thinking with other aspects of modesty. Do I find women wearing pants to church immodest because there is something inherently immodest about women wearing pants, or is it because I have been told that women should not wear pants to church? Am I bothered by someone wearing jeans and a t-shirt to church because it is inherently immodest, or because I have been told it is inappropriate? Do I find multiple ear piercings in some people (men or women) distracting because it is "wrong" or because I have been told that God doesn't want women or men to wear multiple piercings?

Which isn't to say that there should be no dress and grooming standards anywhere in society. Such standards are perfectly appropriate. The challenge I find when I think of a "full and complete" lesson on modesty is trying to get past these circular arguments to the eternal truth "bedrock" underneath them.

This aspect of modesty is very much culturally based. It’s about being aware of cultural norms and to not use your dress as a way to stick out or send a message.

The aspect of modesty that has to do with the amount of skin being shown is different. It includes what I said above, but is less cultural, more spiritual

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a young woman in my ward goes to New York’s Central Park at 3 AM in a dress made of $100 bills and gets mugged, do I have to never, ever, say anything to the other 50 youth in my ward about the dangers of dodgy neighborhoods and late hours and flaunting wealth, or about the virtues of keeping a can of mace on one’s person?

Of course not. We must warn our youth about the dangers out there, it is our responsibility. Most importantly we must also teach them about showing compassion to those who found themselves in certain situation and became victims. We should never engage or encourage victim-blaming conversations or behaviors (not only because it's damaging to the individual in question) but also because it comes from a reckless believe system that what others experience "can never happen to me".

I want to be trauma-informed, but when sensitivity to trauma means we can no longer talk about prevention or utter fundamental truths that are useful—I fear we may be going too far.

One thing is prevention, another thing is blaming. There lies the difference. As you know, there are many abused women and men who feel compelled and empowered to talk and warn others about the signs of controlling and abusive relationships. This is very beneficial for the general public but also very therapeutic for these individuals. There is nothing wrong with informing and warning others, it is paramount. We need to prevent rather than cure (my motto) but in the process of doing all of this, we need to ensure that we don't create a bigger problem. In the example I provided, rape has nothing to do with sex or how a person was dressed (and yet most of the comments victims receive are about how they were dressed, what they did for this to happen and why they didn't fight back more).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And is the point of the whole issue isn't it?.  What does that mean really???  If she was going to a swim party you might give a thumbs up to the swimsuit she chooses as modest.  But then you would not let her wear the swimsuit you found as modest enough to sacrament meeting, because it is suddenly immodest.

She wouldn't be wearing a swimsuit to sacrament meeting for the same reason I wouldn't be wearing a cowgirl outfit in front of a judge if I'm called as an expert witness.

That means modesty is not, nor can it be about a certain amount of coverage. 

I agree 100%.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Suzie said:

And is the point of the whole issue isn't it?.  What does that mean really???  If she was going to a swim party you might give a thumbs up to the swimsuit she chooses as modest.  But then you would not let her wear the swimsuit you found as modest enough to sacrament meeting, because it is suddenly immodest.

She wouldn't be wearing a swimsuit to sacrament meeting for the same reason I wouldn't be wearing a cowgirl outfit in front of a judge if I'm called as an expert witness.

That means modesty is not, nor can it be about a certain amount of coverage. 

I agree 100%.

 

Sharing a personal experience: when I was 10, I attended a soccer training camp at BYU.  One afternoon we had some water sports at the fields, to which we all wore our bathing suits (me in my one piece).

  As the day came to a close, I got separated from my group. Lost and distressed, I went into one of the buildings, hoping someone could give me directions. The response from the lady at the front desk “Come back when you are dressed modestly, then I might be able to help you.”

We need to be very careful on how we approach some gospel topics. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

The response from the lady at the front desk “Come back when you are dressed modestly, then I might be able to help you.

Responses like that are why others dislike religious people. I’m sorry you had to deal with that. That’s the epitome of placing doctrine above people. Sick. 

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Responses like that are why others dislike religious people. I’m sorry you had to deal with that. That’s the epitome of placing doctrine above people. Sick. 

People are sinners. Even desk ladies at BYU.  But it is an example of how we need to be careful in how we approach people and doctrine, always putting charity first. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

People are sinners. Even desk ladies at BYU.  But it is an example of how we need to be careful in how we approach people and doctrine, always putting charity first. 

Agree, I’m not saying she’s condemned to a lake of fire for eternity. It’s still a tactless comment and a reason why others dislike religious people. 

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Agree, I’m not saying she’s eternally condemned to a lake of fire for eternity. It’s still a tactless comment and a reason why others dislike religious people. 

Agreed. 

Honestly my reaction at the time (being ms snark and not the most polite) was and inward “well, if I knew the way to my dorm, why would I be asking you for directions?  You must be stupid”. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Jane_Doe said:
2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

But isn’t a major reason we engage in modesty, a matter of sensitivity/deference to the way others are affected by our behavior?...

No. 

Conduct yourself modestly because it’s the right thing to do before God. Not to do with others. 

Now hold on a minute. When @Fether summarized modesty as a standalone principle, every point came back to cultural norms and acceptable behaviors with other people. I don't think you can divorce modesty from culture anymore than you can separate the first great commandment from the second.

 

On 6/13/2021 at 7:28 PM, Fether said:

My attempt at points to be hit on in a lesson on modesty.

- “Modesty is an attitude of propriety and decency in dress, grooming, language, and behavior. If we are modest, we do not draw undue attention to ourselves. Instead, we seek to “glorify God in [our] body, and in [our] spirit”” - Gospel Topics - Modesty

- When you are at church, don’t wear clothing, speak in such a way, or act in such a way that distracts you from church activities. When you are at school, don’t wear clothes, act, or speak in a way that distracts from school. Same with a dance, swimming, etc. Unless you are the intended focus of an activity, don’t seek to be the focus.

- The reason for the constant focus on woman and the specific to-wears and not-to-wears is partly because their men tend to be more sexually minded and tempted and it is easier for women to draw undue attention to themselves, and this matters whether it is intentional or unintentional. Another point of note is that woman’s accepted clothing attire has been slowly degrading over the ages (it was pointed out that men pretty much where the same stuff they did 200 years ago).

- We are all in this life together. We are all sons and daughters of God. Luke 22:32 teaches that when we are converted, we strengthen our brethren. It doesn’t say “when thou art converted, put up hedges and stumbling blocks for your brother” Additionally, we all Covenanted at baptism tho bear one another’s burdens and stand as a witness of God. Men and woman both should be aware of how they dress and be concerned as to the affect it has on all those around them.

 

anything else worth being said on the topic? Or something that should be left out?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mordorbund said:

 

Now hold on a minute. When @Fether summarized modesty as a standalone principle, every point came back to cultural norms and acceptable behaviors with other people. I don't think you can divorce modesty from culture anymore than you can separate the first great commandment from the second.

 

 

 

I would add that modesty is mostly attributed to cultural norms, but once it passes certain lines, it becomes a spiritual matter and is no longer dependent on culture. ie look at swimsuits and fashion norms. It has changed drastically over time and there haven't been issues until the fashion and swimwear started to become more revealing. The cultural approach takes a back seat to modesty once it cross that line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Phineas said:

I just want to make it clear that literally nobody is making the argument that men and boys don’t have responsibility over their own thoughts and actions.  That is a straw man claim that always gets brought up in this discussion.

But a beloved strawman it is, always dragged out and dutifully flogged in such situations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/17/2021 at 2:24 PM, Carborendum said:

I'm sure you and your English degree are aware that there is a vocal minority of fans of the Bard who say that Romeo and Juliet was supposed to be a comedy (in modern terms) because of how ridiculous the plot actually is.

  • Two teenagers immediately fall in love at first sight. 
  • And even though they are completely loyal to their family names, Juliet pronounces within an hour "My greatest love sprung from my greatest hate."

In the DiCaprio version, I loved the friar's delivery of the line.

"Young men's love lies not in their hearts, but in their... eyes."

Dost thou hear thyself?

https://youtu.be/RhUY9li_roA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/17/2021 at 6:16 PM, Fether said:

I would add that modesty is mostly attributed to cultural norms, but once it passes certain lines, it becomes a spiritual matter and is no longer dependent on culture. ie look at swimsuits and fashion norms. It has changed drastically over time and there haven't been issues until the fashion and swimwear started to become more revealing. The cultural approach takes a back seat to modesty once it cross that line.

That makes it sound like there's some portion of modesty that's part of an eternal principle. I can see where that may be the case when it is grounded in humility, but I think what's really happening at the point you describe is that Church leaders are carving out a sub-culture. This lines up with the Word of Wisdom comparisons you've made. The dietary restrictions of each dispensation came about as a response to the diet of the larger culture. In Moses dispensation, the dietary code was spelled out as part of the Law of Holiness - summarized as the LORD your God is holy (different from other gods, set apart) so you must also be holy (different from other people, set apart). It was a subculture and in some ways counterculture. But I don't think the eternal principles we draw from this law are food-based. Instead it is built on a foundation of obedience and corporeal sanctity. 

Back on modesty, I'm not certain that bikinis are taboo in the celestial kingdom where lust and jealousy has been conquered. Perhaps we'll all be pure enough to view each other as works of art, fashioned and molded in a partnership of Creator and creation. With such a mindset, it would be rude to be clothed. I'm not stating this is the case, I just think turning modesty into a foundational principle is a mistake, and the standards we maintain are based on foundational principles but are by no means the only set that could derive from them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

That makes it sound like there's some portion of modesty that's part of an eternal principle. I can see where that may be the case when it is grounded in humility, but I think what's really happening at the point you describe is that Church leaders are carving out a sub-culture. This lines up with the Word of Wisdom comparisons you've made. The dietary restrictions of each dispensation came about as a response to the diet of the larger culture. In Moses dispensation, the dietary code was spelled out as part of the Law of Holiness - summarized as the LORD your God is holy (different from other gods, set apart) so you must also be holy (different from other people, set apart). It was a subculture and in some ways counterculture. But I don't think the eternal principles we draw from this law are food-based. Instead it is built on a foundation of obedience and corporeal sanctity. 

Back on modesty, I'm not certain that bikinis are taboo in the celestial kingdom where lust and jealousy has been conquered. Perhaps we'll all be pure enough to view each other as works of art, fashioned and molded in a partnership of Creator and creation. With such a mindset, it would be rude to be clothed. I'm not stating this is the case, I just think turning modesty into a foundational principle is a mistake, and the standards we maintain are based on foundational principles but are by no means the only set that could derive from them.

I think modesty is an eternal principle. However, natural man forces us to include our sexual nature into the equation.

I don’t think bikinis will be sexually tempting in Heaven because (1) we won’t have such carnal desires, and (2) bikinis are immodest. It’s a two fold reason to avoid revealing clothing, it is immodest and it can cause inappropriate feelings in others.

I think modesty is mostly to do with meeting the current cultural expectations as long as said expectations don’t cross the Lord’s standard (amount of one’s body revealed and/or inappropriate messaging on the clothing) . If it crosses that line, culture becomes secondary to the spiritual standards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Fether said:

I think modesty is mostly to do with meeting the current cultural expectations as long as said expectations don’t cross the Lord’s standard (amount of one’s body revealed and/or inappropriate messaging on the clothing) . If it crosses that line, culture becomes secondary to the spiritual standards

Divine principles should not have exceptions, otherwise they are not divine or principle.  If we think they need an exception then we have misunderstood the principle.

The bikini can't be a standard because we hit exceptions.  God placed Adam and Eve naked in the garden. Did God violate modesty or force Adam and Eve to?  We are born naked. Did God violate modesty or force us to? Married couple are commanded to be fruitful and multiply. Is God commanding us to violate one command to fulfill another?  Half the population is male and are likely swimming without tops... are we immodest?

When I ponder those questions I am forced to reason that modesty is fundamentally not about coverage or square inches of clothing.  It can't be, there are too many exception.  It has to be higher then that.  If it is higher then that then the coverage or square inches of clothing question can emerge as a contextually dependent function.

It seem completely logical to put modesty in the same realm as "Love one another" and "Preach the Gospel" and others.  All divine principles and commands, things we need to do/be.  But how that looks when applied can look very very different depending on the situation/context.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, mordorbund said:

Back on modesty, I'm not certain that bikinis are taboo in the celestial kingdom....

So what you're saying is that if I'm righteous, I might have a harem of 72 bikini clad virgins given to me in heaven?

I hear what I want to hear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, estradling75 said:

Divine principles should not have exceptions, otherwise they are not divine or principle.  If we think they need an exception then we have misunderstood the principle.

I get the sense this comment is in opposition to what I said. I agree with everything you said, but maybe let me restate it more clearly.
 

3 hours ago, estradling75 said:

The bikini can't be a standard because we hit exceptions.

I am not saying a bikini is an exception to any commandment. I am saying that God has given us parameters to live within when it comes to how we dress. Additionally, he has taught us that modesty is about not drawing attention to yourself. This means that when it comes to how we dress, we need to dress ourselves in such a way that aligns with those cultural norms, but does not step outside the standards set by God. A bikini is an example that is a cultural norm, but steps outside the standards of the Lord.
 

3 hours ago, estradling75 said:

God placed Adam and Eve naked in the garden. Did God violate modesty or force Adam and Eve to?  We are born naked.

Probably, why else would we dress them once they recognized they were naked. Perhaps it was just a principle that wasn't necessary yet. We learn line upon line. I am not worried about teaching my children about modesty and sexual desires because they are only 2 years old. I will worry about it when they become old enough to recognize it. But yes, in any activity, my children are indeed immodest if they are naked.

3 hours ago, estradling75 said:

Married couple are commanded to be fruitful and multiply. Is God commanding us to violate one command to fulfill another?  Half the population is male and are likely swimming without tops... are we immodest?

This goes back to how modesty adjusts depending on the activity being done. As long as we don't cross the lines put by God, we are fine. A bunch of boys with their shirts off swimming around are not being immodest. Their dress is appropriate for the activity. Should they dress that way in public, yes they are being immodest. 

3 hours ago, estradling75 said:

When I ponder those questions I am forced to reason that modesty is fundamentally not about coverage or square inches of clothing.  It can't be, there are too many exception.  It has to be higher then that.  If it is higher then that then the coverage or square inches of clothing question can emerge as a contextually dependent function.

It seem completely logical to put modesty in the same realm as "Love one another" and "Preach the Gospel" and others.  All divine principles and commands, things we need to do/be.  But how that looks when applied can look very very different depending on the situation/context.

I agree completely. It would be insane to put a law about covering square inches of skin. And you are right, there would be far too many exceptions.

I do believe modesty belongs in the "love one another" realm. I would also extend it to the "Ye are the light of the world" and "Glorify God in our body and in our spirit". My hairy upper thigh may not be sexually attracted to others, but it would distracting and uncomfortable to be around. Though I don't believe (but am willing to be wrong) a man walking around in booty shorts, or the like, is necessarily crossing spiritual lines, it is surely crossing cultural and should not be done. (and to address obvious comments before they come, I do believe a girl walking around in booty shorts is crossing the line, or at least coming close. If you want to argue that men's legs are as sexualized as any girls legs, feel free... I just won't see it necessary to engage in that argument)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Fether said:

I get the sense this comment is in opposition to what I said. I agree with everything you said, but maybe let me restate it more clearly.

 

We appear to agree on many points.  I disagree with the statement and implications that bikinis are 'inherently' immodest. Because that leads back to the idea of coverage, rather then 'situationally' immodest. (Admittedly the only time that I think it might be ok is in the private Husband and Wife time, but that is a valid time) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share