Full and complete lesson on modesty?


Fether
 Share

Recommended Posts

Fundamentally Modesty is about not setting yourself up as a light or to draw attention to yourself for personal reasons.  Disciplines of Christ are support to hold up the light of Christ and to draw attention and people to him. In other situations there are other purposes that we should be supporting and not distracting from.

Teachers should be focused on educating their students, not on showing how smart they are.  Leaders should be about doing what is best for those they lead, not on what they can get or do by leading.  Students should be about learning and helping others learn, not about what they can show off about.

That is the core idea.  A natural subset of that is how we dress.  For example there is nothing inherently immodest about pants... or is there anything inherently immodest about the color purple, and therefore there is nothing inherently immodest about purple pants. If you grab purple pants and where them to church because they are part of your Sunday best you are being modest... If however you grab purple pants to make a political or social point aka to draw attention to yourself/causes.. then you are being immodest no matter how much you are covered up..

To continue that line, not drawing attention to ourselves through are clothing applies equally to both men and women.  With that standard our hearts can convict both men and women, because we know that sometimes we wear things to draw attention, and that is immodest.  Other times we do not intend to draw attention to ourselves and we end up doing so anyways.  When we find out about that then we have a hard choice to make... we can either say it is not my problem and they need to deal with it... or they can follow the example of Christ about being our Brothers/Sisters keeper.

And before people get all up in arms about how unfair it is to women at this point and stifles their freedom of expression, I would like to remind everyone that men are expected to wear white shirts and ties to church... and if they don't even with the best of intentions they are going to be drawing attention to themselves... and they have to make that hard choice.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, mordorbund said:

 

You started this thread lamenting that modesty in our lessons was reduced to "no cleavage - no tight clothes". Is this a concession that a focus in modest dress is proper in our lessons is proper and useful and you're just trying to understand the principle better? Or is this intended to show that the saints have a gap in our curriculum?

My intention is to better understand it myself. I feel like people have been pointing out a gap, but no one has provided enough substance to fill that gap sufficiently.

 

8 hours ago, mordorbund said:

I don't believe I've had a lesson that included modesty in dress since I've left the YSA. I can think of a few times when modest speech (and modesty generally) has been included in lessons on humility. If others can relate to this, I would suppose it's because when we are young we benefit from having clear lines - particularly when they serve as barriers to chastity violations. By the time a person is 30 I guess we figure you understand the principles well enough that you no longer need lawyer by your side explaining where the standards come from.

I somewhat disagree. We still have conversations about other principles of the gospel, but we have abandoned modesty. I think it has more to do with the fact that we just don’t know what to do with it now that we aren’t youth and sex isnt something we are trying to avoid.

I think the fact that modesty is only taught to youth goes to show the gap in our teaching

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fether said:

think the fact that modesty is only taught to youth goes to show the gap in our teaching

It’s clearly misunderstood by many of the members, myself included. 
 

I’m a little worried that the term “immodest” will turn into just a pejorative. “I don’t like this girls sense of humor or personality. I don’t get it, therefore she’s immodest.”
 

 It could easily turn into something just to nag others about. LDS are in a tough place. Most are terribly hard on themselves, they don’t need something else to worry about and feel bad over. Maybe it’s not talked about simply because of that reason? 

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

It’s clearly misunderstood by many of the members, myself included. 
 

I’m a little worried that the term “immodest” will turn into just a pejorative. “I don’t like this girls sense of humor or personality. I don’t get it, therefore she’s immodest.”
 

 It could easily turn into something just to nag others about. LDS are in a tough place. Most are terribly hard on themselves, they don’t need something else to worry about and feel bad over. Maybe it’s not talked about simply because of that reason? 

But that is exactly what it is. If there is a higher way of living, than we ought to seek it.

Someone who makes dirty jokes is being immodest and ought to correct their behavior if they wish to be considered “Christlike”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Fether said:

But that is exactly what it is. If there is a higher way of living, than we ought to seek it.

Someone who makes dirty jokes is being immodest and ought to correct their behavior if they wish to be considered “Christlike”.

Eh, whatever works. 
 

I think we should go the extra step and  ban all humor and fun though.  Just to be safe. 

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

I think we should go the extra step and  ban all humor and fun though.  Just to be safe. 

If you want to misrepresent the argument, I don’t see much of a need in speaking further.

What we are talking about is creating an improper affect on our environment via our dress, speech, and actions. If I walk into work tomorrow with a Hawaiian shirt and flip flops sure, that is fine. If I show up at church with the same attire, that is immodest. If I make a sexual joke with a bunch of my married friends, I’m sure that is at worst in tasteful. But if I make the same joke at a youth fireside, that is deeply immodest. Swimsuit at the beach, fine. Swimsuit at the temple, immodest.

Edited by Fether
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Fether said:

If you want to misrepresent the argument, I don’t see much of a need in speaking further.

Yeah he does that in other discussions as well...  All you can really do in not to engage any further.

24 minutes ago, Fether said:

What we are talking about is creating an improper affect on our environment via our dress, speech, and actions. If I walk into work tomorrow with a Hawaiian shirt and flip flops sure, that is fine. If I show up at church with the same attire, that is immodest. If I make a sexual joke with a bunch of my married friends, I’m sure that is at worst in tasteful. But if I make the same joke at a youth fireside, that is deeply immodest. Swimsuit at the beach, fine. Swimsuit at the temple, immodest.

That is pretty much it...  And as a church we do talk about it...  But usually not under the heading of modesty, but rather as a bits an pieces in parts of other gospel discussions.  I do not consider it an abandonment of the topic but an acknowledgment of its integration

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Fether said:

Does modesty require some level of conforming to style norms so to avoid unnecessary attention to one’s self? Like would it be immodest to wear traditional 20s style suits and hairstyle to church?

Those are two different kinds of drawing attention to oneself, one being sexual in nature and the other being weird/artistic/socially non-conforming, counter-cultural or subversive. If intentional, it is done in the spirit of pride. If unintentional, it is simply unwise and hopefully receptive to correction. In either case, if it is not drawing attention to Christ, or getting in the way of that, why do it?

There are also overt and excessive, and subtle and culturally acceptable ways of drawing attention to oneself sexually or socially/culturally, and intentionally and not.

Having the name of Christ upon us, I think we are happiest when we are willing and strive to dress and groom ourselves in a way that draws people to Him. President Nelson recently said ("Let God Prevail" in October 2020): "When your greatest desire is to let God prevail, to be part of Israel, so many decisions become easier. So many issues become nonissues! You know how best to groom yourself. You know what to watch and read, where to spend your time, and with whom to associate. You know what you want to accomplish. You know the kind of person you really want to become." https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2020/10/46nelson?lang=eng

Elder Bednar reiterated this (April 2021): "Note how many crucial decisions and life experiences can be influenced by the principle of being willing to let God prevail: dating and marriage, gospel questions and concerns, temptation, personal grooming, what to watch and read, where to spend time, with whom to associate, and many, many more." https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2021/04/56bednar?lang=eng

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

That is pretty much it...  And as a church we do talk about it...  But usually not under the heading of modesty, but rather as a bits an pieces in parts of other gospel discussions.  I do not consider it an abandonment of the topic but an acknowledgment of its integration

Now I want to challenge the current understanding. Is a girl wearing. Bikini to the pool really immodest? I’m actually currently in Hawaii and it is quite obvious that many of these old and over weight women wearing so-called immodest swimsuits are not seeking attention. It also seems to just be a more practical and comfortable.

It also seems to be very much a cultural thing too. A popular convert and Latter-day Saint cultural apologist, Kwaku, talks about how he grew up around “immodesty” and it has never bothered him, but when he moved to Utah, other guys are a very difficult time when they saw slight examples of immodesty

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, estradling75 said:

.  All you can really do in not to engage any further.

This proves my point. Because people like you don’t get sarcasm or dry humor, you misread everything. So it’s a personal thing. Cool. Love you too sweetheart. 


Never forget this-you not engaging with me does both of us a grand favor.

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Fether said:

Now I want to challenge the current understanding. Is a girl wearing. Bikini to the pool really immodest? I’m actually currently in Hawaii and it is quite obvious that many of these old and over weight women wearing so-called immodest swimsuits are not seeking attention. It also seems to just be a more practical and comfortable.

It also seems to be very much a cultural thing too. A popular convert and Latter-day Saint cultural apologist, Kwaku, talks about how he grew up around “immodesty” and it has never bothered him, but when he moved to Utah, other guys are a very difficult time when they saw slight examples of immodesty

Ahh... but declaring that someone is being immodest... is a judgement... and potentially an unrighteous one.  Thus the topic of our reaction to something someone else does falls under the gospel topic of righteous judgements... not modesty.

Now we can and often do make poor judgements based on faulty understanding of both principles, and the motivations of others.  And do many have a false idea of what modesty covers?  Well yeah that seems self evident

Edited by estradling75
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Ahh... but declaring that someone is being immodest... is a judgement... and potentially an unrighteous one.  Thus the topic of our reaction to something someone else does falls under the gospel topic of righteous judgements... not modesty.

Now we can and often do make poor judgements based on faulty understanding of both principles, and the motivations of others.  And do many have a false idea of what modesty covers?  Well yeah that seems self evident

So would it be improper then to make “modesty” dress standards when it comes to youth activities or church schools?

Is accusing someone’s being immodest in dress similar to accusing someone of not having good enough personal prayer or Having lustful thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Fether said:

Is accusing someone’s being immodest in dress similar to accusing someone of not having good enough personal prayer or Having lustful thoughts?

That seems sort of out of left field.

Personal prayer and lustful thoughts are both private expressions, internal, as it were. How one dresses is public and external. I think it's silly to get overly upset about how someone dresses, but there is sort of a baseline of expected modesty mandated by your society.

Female "immodesty" in dress is specifically addressed for what seem to me obvious reasons. Not only is the woman being immodest, as e.g. when a guy flashes a roll of Benjamins or drives around in a Ferrari (or Bentley, depending on age), but she is engaging in public sexual wooing. In the life of someone who calls herself a Saint, and certainly in a Church or other worship setting, this is wildly inappropriate. So in that case, "immodest" means more than simply immodest; it's a placeholder for desecration of the sacred, whether those sacred things are spaces of worship or one's own sexuality.

And if you respond that the guy flashing the dough or driving the fancy car is equally engaged in public sexual wooing: Touché. But that only goes to reinforce the point that women typically and traditionally don't respond to the physical cues like men do. A guy wearing a tight speedo with a big bulge might catch the eye of a woman on the make, but your average woman is simply not overly excited by such open displays of primary and secondary sex characteristics. In contrast, most heterosexual men are pruriently attracted to a nude female body. (Oddly, this tends to be true even when the men are not fond of—indeed, even when they openly dislike—the woman displaying herself.)

So male immodesty in dress simply doesn't have the same implications or effects as the female version. If a good-looking man strolled naked through a gathering, most women would probably look away, or perhaps look at him curiously. Doubtless several would voice their offense taken and talk about harassment. In contrast, if a good-looking woman strolled naked through a gathering, even virtuous and chaste men might very likely have trouble not looking at her, and the idea that her nudity somehow constitutes sexual harassment would never cross the men's minds.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Fether said:

So would it be improper then to make “modesty” dress standards when it comes to youth activities or church schools?

I would say no.  Part of modesty is not standing out... but to do that the cultural standards (And yes our dress code is a cultural standard) need to be taught... And the farther away the church and the world gets from having the same standards the more important it is that they standard is communicated clearly.

Or to put it another way... one can't use their agency to disobey a command... until the command is given.  Either can one choose to disobey a cultural standard until they know what that standard is.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Often what is thought or believed to be modest or immodest is a part of our culture and traditions.   One of the blessings of being from a family with ancestral roots dating back to the first generation of the restoration is, as a young boy hearing stories from my grandparents that remember being children and listening to their grandparents that talked personally with Joseph Smith and were part of the Westward movement to Utah.  Some of these stories are recorded but some are preserved by word of mouth.  As a youth I was closets to my grandmother Abby.  She was an amazing lady that raised 14 children in a 3 bedroom house without running water (a hand pump in the kitchen) or electricity.  The kitchen stove was wood fired and a free standing coal stove as heat in the winter.  She still lived in that house when I knew her - and I remember when her home was upgraded to running water, electricity and a standing gas heater that stood exposed in the front room where the coal stove use to stand.  My grandparents were not considered poor but rather were pillars of their community.  Abby wrote regular articles for the Desert News and was Utah Mother of the year (during my lifetime)

Why am I telling you this bit of family history?  Because my dear grandmother lived most of her life in an era when temple garments covered to ankles and wrists.   As styles changed she did not - for personal modesty sake she wore dresses that did not even show here ankles and she never wore something in public that did not cover to her wrists.  She also never wore red, which she considered a color devoted to Satan and deliberate immodesty.  I recall her telling (teaching) me that in the temple legs and arms were covered as an example of the divine standard of modesty.  

I have personally witnessed stalwart Saints (ladies) arguing and upset because their chosen wedding dress was not allowed for their temple sealing - which required that they were sealed wearing a different dress than what they wore for the formal pictures after words on the temple grounds.   My grandmother would be hart broken that standards of modesty have shifted so.

For whatever reason - men's formal wear have not changed so much (with the exception of Hollywood).  Men's formal wear still remains the tux - which covers arms and legs.

But here is another thought.  In my youth the church built our meeting houses with a stand for the bishopric, choir and speakers and all that was between them was the podium and stairs to the stand.  I remember when women sitting on the stand became a problem as the dress length was shortened to the knees and women on the stand were often unaware (I think they were unaware).  Ladies were encouraged to wear longer dresses when sitting on the stand - but for whatever reason the warnings were not headed by all.  Finely a new standard was adopted and a wall was built at the edge of the stand that prevented anyone sitting on the stand from an "immodest" display. 

I do not know why women seem to be the primary problem of immodesty.  It seems that in our modern society that any suggestion why women are the primary problem is received as "sexism" - especially if coming from any priesthood holder.  Somewhere there is a major disconnect and misunderstanding.  And that disconnect and misunderstanding prevents a honest discussion - at least among some - concerning this subject.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, LDSGator said:

Just curious-“loud laughter” is considered “immodest”?  Not a challenge. 

1) I'm going from the position of "modesty" being the broad umbrella of "unnecessarily drawing undue attention to yourself.

2) "Loud Laughter" spoken in scriptural terms is not just laughing with a loud volume.  It is the cackling, mocking, rude laughter meant to show irreverence and disrespect for others.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

1) I'm going from the position of "modesty" being the broad umbrella of "unnecessarily drawing undue attention to yourself.

2) "Loud Laughter" spoken in scriptural terms is not just laughing with a loud volume.  It is the cackling, mocking, rude laughter meant to show irreverence and disrespect for others.

 

Ahh makes perfect sense. Thanks. 

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Vort said:

That seems sort of out of left field.

Personal prayer and lustful thoughts are both private expressions, internal, as it were. How one dresses is public and external. I think it's silly to get overly upset about how someone dresses, but there is sort of a baseline of expected modesty mandated by your society.

Female "immodesty" in dress is specifically addressed for what seem to me obvious reasons. Not only is the woman being immodest, as e.g. when a guy flashes a roll of Benjamins or drives around in a Ferrari (or Bentley, depending on age), but she is engaging in public sexual wooing. In the life of someone who calls herself a Saint, and certainly in a Church or other worship setting, this is wildly inappropriate. So in that case, "immodest" means more than simply immodest; it's a placeholder for desecration of the sacred, whether those sacred things are spaces of worship or one's own sexuality.

And if you respond that the guy flashing the dough or driving the fancy car is equally engaged in public sexual wooing: Touché. But that only goes to reinforce the point that women typically and traditionally don't respond to the physical cues like men do. A guy wearing a tight speedo with a big bulge might catch the eye of a woman on the make, but your average woman is simply not overly excited by such open displays of primary and secondary sex characteristics. In contrast, most heterosexual men are pruriently attracted to a nude female body; oddly, this tends to be true even when the men are not fond of—indeed, even when they openly dislike—the woman displaying herself. So male immodesty in dress simply doesn't have the same implications or effects as the female version. If a good-looking man strolled naked through a gathering, most women would probably look away, or perhaps look at him curiously. Doubtless several would voice their offense taken and talk about harassment. In contrast, if a good-looking woman strolled naked through a gathering, even virtuous and chaste men might very likely have trouble not looking at her, and the idea that her nudity somehow constitutes sexual harassment would never cross the men's minds.

So the reason for the focus on female immodesty is in fact because of the effect in men’s thoughts? I’m ok with that, just pointing out that that explanation is what people are annoyed with.

 

2 hours ago, estradling75 said:

Or to put it another way... one can't use their agency to disobey a command... until the command is given.  Either can one choose to disobey a cultural standard until they know what that standard is.

So is the modesty standard taught and lived by the church in Utah stakes where girls are kicked out of stake dances for having shorts that go two inches above the knee the pinnacle and most celestial way of dressing modestly? And all cultures should moving closer to this superior celestial cultural approach to modesty? I’m not oppose to this thought, just trying to put it in more stark wording to figure out what you are saying or maybe weed out misconceptions in my understanding of what you are saying.

 

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

  I recall her telling (teaching) me that in the temple legs and arms were covered as an example of the divine standard of modesty.  

similar question as posed above. Should we all be moving toward that thought process? That there is an ultimate cultural approach to modesty, but we are just not guilty of any sin because we haven’t been taught that? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Fether said:

So the reason for the focus on female immodesty is in fact because of the effect in men’s thoughts? I’m ok with that, just pointing out that that explanation is what people are annoyed with.

Most of those who claim to be annoyed with such asymmetrical, sexist thought also believe that a woman striking a man, while bad, is much less serious than a man striking a woman. Why? Well, because men tend to be bigger and stronger than women, and when a man strikes a woman, he is (they claim) more likely to cause serious injury than when a woman strikes a man.

How vilely sexist! Ho hum. Just more hypocrisy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Vort said:

Most of those who claim to be annoyed with such asymmetrical, sexist thought also believe that a woman striking a man, while bad, is much less serious than a man striking a woman. Why? Well, because men tend to be bigger and stronger than women, and when a man strikes a woman, he is (they claim) more likely to cause serious injury than when a woman strikes a man.

How vilely sexist! Ho hum. Just more hypocrisy.

If men were better at controlling their thoughts, or say the men that were around had pure motives and great control over their thoughts and temptations, would there be less of a stress on modesty for women?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Fether said:

If men were better at controlling their thoughts, or say the men that were around had pure motives and great control over their thoughts and temptations, would there be less of a stress on modesty for women?

You mean like after a man has enter his 30's or has gotten married and has had decades of experience keeping his appetites and passions within the bounds the Lord has set? Sure. This goes back to what I wrote earlier. These lessons are generally aimed at teenagers or people in their early 20's who are learning to control their sexuality, not abuse it, and courting and wooing. For the latter case (the older young people), we've been taught that there are wheat and tares in the Church. Which are you attracting?

For teenagers, responsible mentors (parents, leaders, etc) should come right out and say "There's a lot of power in the engine of a car. It will kill you. It will kill your friends. Any time your friends are driving I want you to live by this rule: You will do nothing that will distract the driver! -- You do not touch the radio unless the driver says you can. You do not control the temperature, the driver does. Pranks, surprises, and tomfoolery are all kinds of fun at home and in the parking lot, but on the road there is none of that." Each family may draw the line at a different place, but there will be a line drawn and it will be bright.

I don't see why it should be any different for teenagers learning to steer through relationships and sexual power. Clear lines should be drawn and saints help each other, even in their youth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mordorbund said:

You mean like after a man has enter his 30's or has gotten married and has had decades of experience keeping his appetites and passions within the bounds the Lord has set? Sure. This goes back to what I wrote earlier. These lessons are generally aimed at teenagers or people in their early 20's who are learning to control their sexuality, not abuse it, and courting and wooing. For the latter case (the older young people), we've been taught that there are wheat and tares in the Church. Which are you attracting?

But if modesty is not about the individual, but other around, it doesn’t matter what the age is. If there is a male anywhere that is under the age of 30 (via your example) or any male that struggles with impure thoughts regardless of age, then no one should dress immodestly.

back to my question. 
 

If we could be absolutely certain that boys and men were not sexually tempted by immodest women, would there be a need for such a concern of modesty for woman?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/11/2021 at 4:16 PM, LDSGator said:

Maybe we should ask the women on the board how they feel? 
 
What I do find interesting though is how to deal with “immodesty”. If it’s still a “problem“ after all this time, maybe the church should address it differently? Same with porn too, to be frank. If porn use is still rising, (I have no idea if it is) than something is obviously not working. 

@Suzie

@Jane_Doe

 "Modesty", when properly understood, is about being humble in thought/deed/word/appearance.  It is the opposite of being boastful.  And I find that people errantly try to make it all about appearance, especially a girl's hem line.  That bothers me.

As to how to better teach this: stress that modesty = humble.  I would even have an entire lesson on modesty where talking about clothes is banned-- just so that other aspects of this important topic can actually get talked about.  And yes, it's an issue that equally affects both genders.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Fether said:

So the reason for the focus on female immodesty is in fact because of the effect in men’s thoughts? I’m ok with that, just pointing out that that explanation is what people are annoyed with.

Yes!  The core of modesty—even under the expansive definition that goes beyond mere sex—has to do with us participating in behavior that we know will elicit a particular reaction from others.

7 hours ago, Fether said:

If men were better at controlling their thoughts, or say the men that were around had pure motives and great control over their thoughts and temptations, would there be less of a stress on modesty for women?

In all fairness, I think we should recognize that the male’s reaction to visual stimuli is the result of thousands of years of social conditioning and (if you believe that sort of thing) tens of thousands of years of human evolution.  A glib “teach men not to look!” is facile and probably not realistic; especially considering the staggeringly high proportion of modern western males who regularly indulge in pornography.  
 

(That doesn’t mean men should stop trying to improve themselves, obviously.  But it does mean that as Christians who are all trying to help each other along, we should have a realistic view of what sorts of behaviors tend to undermine our brothers’—or sisters’—progress; and make a conscientious effort to avoid those behaviors where reasonably possible.)

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