Codifying Dress & Grooming

[zil2]

49 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

IMO I'm doing the opposite of that and the problem is that others have made it more complicated than it actually is.

I thought that would be an interesting discussion. But if not....

Maybe it would be, but I'm the wrong person with whom to explore your questions. Sorry.  Perhaps someone else will take them up.

[Traveler]

3 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

This is an interesting thing to actually consider. Is never wearing something that is designed to draw attention to oneself always wrong? And is that really what "modesty" is about.

One might well ask...can one modestly wear something to draw attention to themselves?

Can one modestly wear something to draw attention to themselves sexually?

Can someone be immodest without meaning to be?

I'd say yes, yes, and yes.

Frankly, the whole modesty discussion in the church has become pretty muddled. I'm not sure, in many cases, the discussion makes sense any longer.

I find your questions interesting and diffidently something that ought to be discussed and taught – especially in the home.  Though the questions are answered with a simple “yes”, it is my impression that such answers are both inaccurate and insufficient.  For example – your question: “can one modestly wear something to draw attention to themselves?”  Obviously drawing attention to oneself is seldom and expression of modesty.  However, I have learned through years of cycling that I need to wear bright colors that draw attention to me so I am seen while cycling – especially by motorists.

In essence such things are not so much what is done but more the reason that an individual has chosen to act upon what they are doing.  One could argue that commuting 20+ miles to work on a bicycle is more “modest” that driving an opulent auto but it is also possible that a commuting cyclists is doing so for immodest purpose.  In the end what a person does is not near as important as to the reason that they are doing it.  ---- And yet what a person does is the primary means by which they communicate to others what the intent of their purpose is.  

It is my belief that we need to be honest – both in what we say as in what we do.  It is always possible that we can be misunderstood.  When that is the case, it is usually the fault of those that have misunderstood.  Such misunderstandings can easily be cleared up if both the “speaker” and the “listener” are willing to express their understandings openly.  In additions we ought to be aware that different cultures define modesty differently.  It does seem logical to me that someone that has made covenants in the temple would have a different standard of modesty than someone unaware of such covenants.  If this is not the general case – what then is the purpose of making temple covenants?

 

The Traveler

[Just_A_Guy]

6 hours ago, zil2 said:

IMO, the underlying principles are simple and have not and will not change:

• Clean (with recognition that the possibilities here vary by region)
• Well-kept (i.e. in good repair; see recognition above)
• Modest (that is, not designed to draw attention to oneself, whether sexually or otherwise)

The rest is just cultural sensibilities. 

I very much agree.  I’m a bit of a traditionalist; and I think that dressing well is a way of conveying respect (and while I recognize that conventions are loosening, I do think there’s a point at which someone’s clothing is pretty obviously calculated to convey an “expletive-you-all-and-the-horse-you-rode-in-on” mentality).

At work: On court days I stick to a two-piece suit, but I also usually walk from my office to court and in cold weather will wear a knee-length wool overcoat and fedora (fedoras/traditional hats are *very* underrated for cold weather) and black leather gloves that my secretary gave me for Christmas a couple years ago.  

Since I’m in a suit most weekdays, I like to do something a little extra to preserve some meaningful notion of “Sunday best”.  So like @Vort’s son I typically wear a three-piece suit to church with handkerchief in my jacket and a pocket watch that my kids gave me in my waistcoat; I also wear a French-cuffed shirt with cufflinks to church (if I’ve had time to iron it).  But I rarely wear an overcoat/ gloves/ hat to church in cold weather, because combined with everything else it just feels like a bit much—immodest, even.  (Even though, for an old fat guy, I look pretty good in it all.)

Edited March 29, 2023 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

I find your questions interesting and diffidently something that ought to be discussed and taught – especially in the home.  Though the questions are answered with a simple “yes”, it is my impression that such answers are both inaccurate and insufficient.  For example – your question: “can one modestly wear something to draw attention to themselves?”  Obviously drawing attention to oneself is seldom and expression of modesty.  However, I have learned through years of cycling that I need to wear bright colors that draw attention to me so I am seen while cycling – especially by motorists.

In essence such things are not so much what is done but more the reason that an individual has chosen to act upon what they are doing.  One could argue that commuting 20+ miles to work on a bicycle is more “modest” that driving an opulent auto but it is also possible that a commuting cyclists is doing so for immodest purpose.  In the end what a person does is not near as important as to the reason that they are doing it.  ---- And yet what a person does is the primary means by which they communicate to others what the intent of their purpose is.  

It is my belief that we need to be honest – both in what we say as in what we do.  It is always possible that we can be misunderstood.  When that is the case, it is usually the fault of those that have misunderstood.  Such misunderstandings can easily be cleared up if both the “speaker” and the “listener” are willing to express their understandings openly.  In additions we ought to be aware that different cultures define modesty differently.  It does seem logical to me that someone that has made covenants in the temple would have a different standard of modesty than someone unaware of such covenants.  If this is not the general case – what then is the purpose of making temple covenants?

 

The Traveler

I find it interesting that you state my 'yes' answer to be inaccurate, but then handily explain how it is accurate. 

[Traveler]

I had a thought more about codifying dress and grooming.  Thinking goes back to the scholar and novelist C. S. Lewis and his description of the devil.  Unlike the historical image of a red character with horns, unique tail and strange hoofed feet – C. S. Lewis described him as a well-groomed, sharp dresser, handsome, charming and good looking fellow.  Someone that says exactly what one want to hear at precisely the moment one needs most to hear it.  Then at the moment that one is comfortable and confident with the character – he gleefully stabs them in the back fatally harming them.

I think if I were to add anything to C. S. Lewis’s concept I would expect Lucifer to brilliantly be dressed and groomed exactly in a manner that most convinced anyone thinking of such things that one could hold Lucifer in their highest esteem.   Lucifer would mirror precisely what one expects from their notion of trust and confidence.

As I have thought on this I have wonder (and I have wondered this on numerous occasions) – If G-d (the Father or the Son) were to appear – how would they be dressed and groomed?   To be honest – I am somewhat conflicted.  I think upon the song that addresses this conundrum – “A Poor Wayfaring Man of Grief”.  My conflict is that G-d is a being of light and truth – how could he appear in any manner other than what is the truth of what he is?   But then I wonder is the problem is somewhat scientific.  Information is sent from our eyes and ears to our brain that then interprets what it is that we will think we are seeing.  It is said that there is none so blind as he that will not see and none so death as he that will not hear.  Perhaps I would add – and none more the liar that he that presents themselves other than who or what they indeed are.  And so I wonder of myself and what I present and what other would see of me.

 

The Traveler

[LDSGator]

53 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Thinking goes back to the scholar and novelist C. S. Lewis and his description of the devil.  Unlike the historical image of a red character with horns, unique tail and strange hoofed feet – C. S. Lewis described him as a well-groomed, sharp dresser, handsome, charming and good looking fellow

CS Lewis was exactly right here. If Satan showed his true colors right off the bat, then no one would be tempted by him. 

[Just_A_Guy]

2 hours ago, LDSGator said:

CS Lewis was exactly right here. If Satan showed his true colors right off the bat, then no one would be tempted by him. 

This is something I haven’t contemplated a lot, but it just occurred to me:

Would they, though?

Does Satan really love suffering and despair and violence and brutality and hopelessness?

Or does he just love the sorts of behaviors and mindsets (narcissism, shortsightedness, power) that inevitably yield those results, and then he dissociates between cause and effect when the chickens come home to roost?

If the latter, it may well be that he has never shown his “true colors” more visibly or accurately than he is doing right now—and his acolytes are legion.  

[mikbone]

 

[LDSGator]

9 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

This is something I haven’t contemplated a lot, but it just occurred to me:

Would they, though?

Does Satan really love suffering and despair and violence and brutality and hopelessness?

Or does he just love the sorts of behaviors and mindsets (narcissism, shortsightedness, power) that inevitably yield those results, and then he dissociates between cause and effect when the chickens come home to roost?

If the latter, it may well be that he has never shown his “true colors” more visibly or accurately than he is doing right now—and his acolytes are legion.  

Maybe. I haven't given it much thought either, but I’m fairly confident that Satan likes everything evil. Like despair, violence, brutality, hopelessness…

and, he loves the sort of mindsets that yield those results. It’s not an either-or thing. 

[LDSGator]

Having said all that I don’t think grooming and dress standards have anything to do with Satan/CS Lewis, etc.

 

I guess many things can open the door to Satan. If you start feeing morally superior to those who don’t dress like you, I’m certain Satan is thrilled with that. I don’t think it’s an issue for most people though. 

Edited March 29, 2023 by LDSGator

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, LDSGator said:

Maybe. I haven't given it much thought either, but I’m fairly confident that Satan likes everything evil. Like despair, violence, brutality, hopelessness…

and, he loves the sort of mindsets that yield those results. It’s not an either-or thing. 

On occasions I have pondered the person and character of Satan.  I am thinking along the lines that his issue is agency and not what he initially intended or what many think is his evil intent.  I have thought it possible that Satan has a very strong dislike of evil (at least the common concept of evil) – especially evil as a result of agency.  Thus, those that support agency; he may feel deserve getting wrapped up in all the evil that they directly or indirectly support through agency.  That it is justice for those that demand agency be responsible for all the evil that results.  Perhaps he strongly believes that the only sure way to prevent and stop evil it to prevent the opportunity of “weak” or lesser intelligent individuals that he thinks should not have agency from using that agency to bring about evil.  That his thing is control and by the use of force and might - preventing what should not happen from being able to happen.

It is difficult for me to understand why anyone with intelligence enough to realize obvious results, would foolishly oppose G-d and convince anyone else intelligence; that evil accomplishes anything desirable.   The only logical possibility is the concern over the dangers that agency must, by definition, allow.  That agency is Satan's problem.

 

The Traveler

[SilentOne]

10 hours ago, Traveler said:

As I have thought on this I have wonder (and I have wondered this on numerous occasions) – If G-d (the Father or the Son) were to appear – how would they be dressed and groomed?

I guess I've generally imagined them to be dressed something similar to the description of the angel Moroni's clothing - long white robe. I've more or less taken that as a descriptor of heavenly dress in general, I guess. That image could also be influenced by having seen many pictures and movies using that as the basic heavenly uniform.

[Vort]

15 hours ago, SilentOne said:

On 3/29/2023 at 9:13 AM, Traveler said:

As I have thought on this I have wonder (and I have wondered this on numerous occasions) – If G-d (the Father or the Son) were to appear – how would they be dressed and groomed?

I guess I've generally imagined them to be dressed something similar to the description of the angel Moroni's clothing - long white robe. I've more or less taken that as a descriptor of heavenly dress in general, I guess. That image could also be influenced by having seen many pictures and movies using that as the basic heavenly uniform.

From what I have gathered, our modern dress, largely worldwide at this point, is based on Renaissance and medieval European dress of trousers and a torso overcoat or covering, which is itself based on earlier tailored dress articles used in e.g. Frankish and Germanic tribes, Scandinavia, the Asian steppes, and really throughout northern Asia all the way to the Pacific. They dressed that way because they lived in a very cold, harsh climate. Robes and open-bottomed dresses simply did not work well for staying warm; you needed to wear heavy clothing that was tailored to fit your body closely so that it provided insulation while walking but didn't hinder movement too much. Societies in more temperate regions such as the Mediterranean area and northern Africa, the Near East, and really the entire globe's tropical zone (where most people lived) tended to wear some variation on loose, open robes or loin coverings, or nothing at all. For the majority of the human race throughout history, the clothing norm was to wear such loose clothing. Trousers or breeches and a close-fitted coat must have looked very strange indeed to most premodern peoples.

My guess, based on scriptural accounts and thinking about it a bit, would be that celestial folk don't wear closely tailored trousers and close-fitted shirts. Probably not shoes, either. I'm starting to believe that shoes are not generally a good idea for normal wear.

[mikbone]

I generally get uneasy when we start making recommendations about other people's dress and manner of worship.  

I was trying to find an article I remember about a polynesia male coming to the temple to worship in a traditional skirt.  And a concerned brother trying to explain to this Samoan or Tongan about how we should come to the temple in our Sunday Best.  The Polynesian brother then replied to the man that the woven skirt was his great grandfather's and was handed down from father to son and was his Sunday Best.  The concerned brother was no doubt lucky that the polynesian brother did not take any offense.

  

From age 6-8 my family lived in Hawaii.  By far the best ward I've ever experienced.  One of my favorite temple sessions was about 8 years ago in the Laie, Hawaii temple wherein a very large and tattooed young man officiated.  

Edited March 30, 2023 by mikbone