- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Several months ago, a woman in RS talked about her daughter’s prom dress not being something you could wear with garments, and that her daughter hadn’t yet gained a “testimony of modesty,” which is something that she said most women don’t get until they are older. That concept has been stuck in my craw ever since, and I’m still not done unboxing it. My reply at the time was to add to the discussion that I don’t have a testimony of modesty, and I’m 50 years old, so maybe I’m just immature for my age. Hear me out. Modesty–referring specifically to women’s dress codes and not the broader definition of not drawing attention to oneself–as we all know, is very contextual. I’ve been asked to cover my head in a Cathedral with a shawl because that’s their modesty standard. I’ve had to put on a zip up floor and wrist-length covering in some mosques because it is likewise their modesty standard. What you wear to the beach differs from what you wear to work. When an actor like Donny Osmond plays Joseph taken into Egypt, he’s shirtless because that’s what the scene calls for. When Claire in Outlander time travels, her very-modest-by-today’s-standards-even-for-garments 1940s style dress is scandalous because everyone thinks she is wearing a “shift” (basically underclothes for women). “Modesty” isn’t something timeless and static. It is fluid and contextual. We are conditioned to respond based on norms, and norms vary depending on time, culture, and other contexts.
Having a testimony of modesty therefore is problematic to me, but I do take this woman’s comments at face value. So what is it that she has that feels like a testimony of a principle to her? Is it a confirmation that modesty protects her from something (e.g. unwanted sexual advances, not being taken seriously at work, being too focused on her own hotness)? Or is it a humility for her to suborn her own comfort for the preferences of others (patriarchy in particular)? Is the act of personal sacrifice something that in and of itself feels like a spiritual act? I tend to think it’s the latter. When someone sacrifices something, even if nobody else appreciates it, they are being humble.
But I don’t like that, and I’m not like that. Self-sacrifice is not always a virtue, particularly when we sacrifice something that truly helps no one in the long run and inconveniences us on a regular basis by making us feel unworthy or as if we (and our comfort and choices) don’t matter or need to be suborned. John Wooden said that the only thing you should never do for another person is what they can do for themselves. Modesty for others is not a virtue but is its opposite because the more modest you are, the more you feed into the lasciviousness of those who are looking at you as an object. (There was an excellent post on that here:
https://bycommonconsent.com/2013/06/18/men-sex-and-modesty/ Maybe making meaningless sacrifices for theoretical others is the nature of religion. And if so, that’s a problem.
This is a bit of a tangent, but related. I recently found out about the concept of “Moral Licensing” ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-licensing
Quote:Moral licensing is a a particularly interesting mental glitch: apparently, doing something that helps to strengthen our positive self-image also makes us less worried about the consequences of immoral behavior, and therefore more likely to make immoral choices
I actually think this may have played into the story of the good Samaritan. The priests would likely be heading to the temple and shouldn’t touch unclean things. Did they feel that because they were doing temple work that they were already doing enough “good” and could skip helping the poor sap on the side of the road?I have seen this behavior in me and I am sure we all do it at times.
I wonder if some of this is in play when the woman feels like she is getting her quota of “good” by making sure her shoulders are covered.
I am there with you. Church isn’t the right place to show up in a tank top or a guy in a muscle shirt, but just covering up more does not make you closer to God.
I can testify that I sweat less when I wear less.
How much of what we teach in church is Mormon cultural baggage? How much of what we teach is structured to make the people better Mormons rather than better people? Last week’s YW activity was a lesson on modesty and how to make modest and cute outfits followed by a photoshoot. The parents were asked to have the girls come to the activity in a modest and cute outfit.
Yesterday’s Sunday School lesson for the girls was on the importance of getting married in the temple because only then can you have an eternal family. In addition, the handout said to date only people with high standards and to not date and/or marry non-members.
DD is 12, does not own any immodest clothing and does not date. DW and I encourage/force DD to go to these things mainly because we are hopeful that our daughter will gain a stable and positive group of friends. However, I am feeling frustrated that the lessons appear to be pretty limited towards specific Mormon standards and not as applicable towards general life skills. How much does my DD need to conform to the Mormon mold in order to benefit from the Mormon social structure? It is a vexing question.
Specifically in regards to testimony, do we gain testimony of modesty the same way that we gain a testimony of WoW?
1) live the principle on faith.
2) observe other people not live the principle.
3) wait for something bad to happen to them.
4) tie their misfortune back to their non-compliance with the principle.
I’m a big fan of the “golden mean” or “middle way”. There is a modesty spectrum, and falling at either end will cause you trouble. As with most of the Church, it is easy when rejecting one master, to become enslaved to another. On one end of the modesty spectrum:
[img=https://s.newsweek.com/sites/www.newsweek.com/files/styles/lg/public/2016/07/08/niqab-ban.jpg][/img] Women are:
-Ashamed of their bodies
-Removed from their individual identity
-Subserviant
-Abused
-Physically uncomfortable
At the other end of the modesty spectrum:
[img=http://kore.am/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/gg-i-got-a-boy-1024×576.jpg][/img] (That’s right, we’re going K-Pop)
Women are:
-Ashamed of their bodies
-Removed from their individual identity
-Subserviant
-Abused
-Physically uncomfortable
The first group is exploited through religion, the second group is exploited through materialism. Both are miserable.
I have a testimony of modesty, but it has almost nothing to do with specific clothing styles. We cheapen the true meaning of the word when we apply it exclusively to clothing and ignore the much broader application to moderation, generally.
Roy wrote:
How much does my DD need to conform to the Mormon mold in order to benefit from the Mormon social structure? It is a vexing question.
Here is the 64,000 dollar question – how much does an individual need to conform to the Mormon mold [non-doctrinal cultural expectations that may or may not be verbalized and/or written down and/or “policed”/enforced] in order to benefit from the Mormon social structure?
I think some parameters that enter into the equation are as follows:
a)
the “nature” of the rule that is broken– shoulder bearing teenagers are not treated the same as pregnant teenagers. b)
how often does the person attend Mormon functions– ie church, other activities. c)
how often does the person/how much can the person contribute– the more potential social currency or prospective social currency you develop allows you greater freedom (sometimes). d)
how connected is that person to leadershipby blood or by tradition. e)
how badly does the church organization in the area need you or your family? f)
location– inside the Mormon corridor, California, or “in the mission field” also plays a part. g)
attitude– defiance and disrespect generate different results then seeking common ground and respect. I don’t have the answers – I barely have the question. For now, the social rules my daughter unwittingly breaks are within the forgivable bounds of the group because she is only 8.5 years old. The benefits she gets from church and church activities are fairly hit-or-miss these days. But we go because they are our community – for now.
Old Timer wrote:
I have a testimony of modesty, but it has almost nothing to do with specific clothing styles.We cheapen the true meaning of the word when we apply it exclusively to clothing and ignore the much broader application to moderation, generally.
Absolutely.
I think that 80% of modestly is tied to respect and awareness of cultural expectations and personal choices. For good or for ill, what a person wears says volumes about them. For good for ill, what a woman wears says more and is judged more than what a man wears. I plan to teach my daughter to be aware of those unwritten rules in self-defense, if nothing else.
About 20 years ago, I went out on a date/group activity with a friend. She was hanging out with one of her guy friends (Guy 1) because she had a boyfriend (Guy 2), while I was attending with an actual date. My friend had been friends with Guy 1 long enough that all 3 people know that Guy 1 was not a threat to Guy 2. Anyhow, we hung out together as girls before changing into our date wear – and her original selection was a sleeveless halter top. I asked her if she was wearing that – and she thought about it and went and changed into a more modest shirt that was more appropriate for the “hanging out with the guys” situation she was in.
I have thought about that over the years, “Why did I bring that up” – and concluded that my problem wasn’t the sleeveless shirt, so it wasn’t really a modesty issue. As her friend, I wanted her to be sure that the outfit she picked out did not send a mixed message to Guy 1 and Guy 2 – even though it was cool that she was hanging out with Guy 1, it could get murky pretty quickly.
I will get back to this later, I have family in town, but my Bishopric member and his wife are cavorting around a tropical island and their version of modesty would flip your lid. Lot’s of shoulderless dresses. Even in front of an LDS temple. They are the ward Barbie & Ken.
I am cheering their honesty all over Facebook. Someone has got to “Tear Down This (modesty) Wall”
mom3: that sounds a lot like my ward friends (and me!). It’s in the 110s here, and it’s completely nuts to be covering up to the extent we are expected to. Does modesty for women in the church equate to men wearing white shirts and ties to church? I don’t know if I’m mixing ideas up. Sorry if so. Conform to the norm, self-sacrifice because it means something to the group? If you don’t, it must be a lack of “testimony” or spirituality?
I view it as a part of practicing our religion with a group of people, not really just lists of right vs wrong…but how we do these things and why.
I’m guessing it is way harder for women, because there are not the same judgments attached to a white shirt, maybe different ones about lack of spirituality over a shirt which seems silly, but maybe not as harsh to the personal identity that women deal with, I suspect (having raised 2 daughters and having talks with them).
But perhaps there are some similarities.
– You worry what others think
(which it is a nice life lesson to know how to not care)– You stand out from others
(which it is good to balance the extremes dande mentioned)– You choose to ignore what leaders say
(why do we care so much about volunteer leader opinions anyway?)There could be some shades of testimony in these things, depending on where the person’s heart is.
Different people are going to have various reactions around it…and in those reactions I think is what reveals true conversion…how we treat others, how we view ourselves, and how we react to others’ reactions. This is how we practice religion.
When I was 12, I remember an older priest boy (very rebellious streak in him)…show up with pink hair (I kid you not). My dad was the YM president, and asked him to bless the sacrament. He did. The bishop got some comments from families afterwards that weren’t pleased. But, the impression it left that young man was that he was more important to my dad than his hair, inappropriate as it was. (We still talk about it as a family…it was probably 25 years later my youngest brother married this kid’s younger sister…this young kid has since served as bishop in a ward. He got over his rebellious phase.
🙂 We keep in touch and laugh at the story of blessing the sacrament with pink hair).Perhaps modesty for men’s styles is a different subject.
In our ward, one family has a son on a mission, and the daughter has gone inactive, has tattoos and posts stuff on facebook about partying. She is proud of her path. She showed up in church a few weeks ago. First time in probably a year or more I’ve seen her there (of course I’m not always there). She had on an incredibly tight all white dress, bare shoulders and the dress was super short….she was constantly pulling the skirt down with any movement. It was a pretty revealing dress.
I’d say…it was inappropriate for church. Made me immediately uncomfortable. Then…the inner dialogue kicked in…
– first of all…it’s good to see her here in church. I’d like to tell her it’s good to see her rather than avoid her.
– second…just because I don’t like it…maybe she does, and that is what she likes…and it is just different than my style.
I dunno what is appropriate, but it isn’t my place to talk to her about it. She was standing there with her mom. I like their family. We have things in common with sons on missions. I know the daughter is into photography. I went to say hi…there were too many others around talking to them I didn’t get to visit but waived and just told the girl it was good to see her.
Whether I like the dress or not…I dunno.
A testimony of appropriate dress and attire should not be greater than a testimony to love and accept others.I’m still not sure why my first reaction was that it was inappropriate. Perhaps something in HG’s post that I should further consider about things. But I want to follow my dad’s example and make that individual know they are more important to me than standards.
Perhaps there is a point where it is better to have someone be asked to cover up a little more if done by the right person, at the right time, in the right place, at a church meeting. But if we are going to err…let’s err on the side of love and let God work out the rest.
If it is the first time you’ve seen that person in church in over a year…I’d say it isn’t the right thing to lead with their clothing choice when you see them.
Then again…I let my son wear a black shirt to pass the sacrament. You just gotta take what I say with a grain of salt. I don’t know much about much.
Heber13 wrote:
Does modesty for women in the church equate to men wearing white shirts and ties to church? I don’t know if I’m mixing ideas up. Sorry if so.
I think what modesty is supposed to mean, it does. But as a side, sort-of-off-topic note, I don’t understand why people wear ties. It’s one of the the stupidest societal norm we conform to in Church. While I don’t fully agree with the modesty standards for women in Church, guys are very limited in what they are allowed to wear. I’m happy that we’re breaking away from white shirts, allowing dress shirts of certain other colors… But beyond that, it’s slacks, button up shirt, tie, dark socks, and dress shoes.
Maybe modesty in part means fitting in with societal norms, to make others more comfortable. Even if those societal norms (ties) are pretty stupid. But people think they look nice and respectful (for some reason). So we wear them.
It is all based on outward appearances judged by others. And that reveals the minds of others…which is what Hawkgrrl is saying is such a big part of the problem for women.
What Heber just said. I am thinking of a story to illustrate what I think would be the differences and similarities between the clothing expectations for men and women. I am thinking back to the story by Dr. Suess of the star bellied sneetches. Suppose that men are expected to wear a star on their bellies. The star inspector comes by and says to the man, “I see that you are wearing your gold star, good for you.” For women the problem is their very bodies are seen as dangerous, distracting, temptingly sinful. The star inspector comes by and says to the woman, “I see that you are wearing lots of gold stars, unfortunately they don’t cover everything and I can still see parts of your core (shoulders, torso, thighs). I particularly notice the shape of your butt when you bend over to pick something up or to get a drink from the fountain. I need you to work on that.”
Also as strange as it is for someone to say “Testimony of Modesty”, it would be stranger still for someone to say “Testimony of white shirts and ties”.
Wearing a white shirt is surface level and cosmetic – whereas modesty, its messages and implications, go much deeper.
Just to consider: Our cultural modesty norms were determined by heterosexual men. That is obvious, since there are no “temptation-based norms” for what men are expected to wear that are not so extreme as to be obvious to pretty much anyone. (e.g., Don’t wear Speedos during a baseball game.)
Perhaps the best example of this is church basketball. I don’t know about now, but it was more than just common to have male basketball games in church end up being played with team uniforms being “shirts and skins”. It wasn’t seen as immodest specifically because the perspective was set by men who weren’t aroused by bare male chests. There apparently was no thought whatsoever to the reactions of women, homosexual men, or anyone else who might be aroused to varying degrees by males not wearing shirts.
“Immodest” became synonymous with “what turns us on sexually” – with “us” being defined as “church leaders” – which, by default was “heterosexual men” – and which became, over time, “what turns even only a few of us on” – which is why shoulders and knees eventually got included in the definition.
Seriously, look back on church magazines back in the 50’s and 60’s. There are a LOT of bare shoulders and mid-thigh clothing in those magazines. The counter-culture, hippie movement of the late 60’s and 70’s, as well as Pres. Kimball’s focus on modesty, altered the discourse greatly in the Church – to the point where we can hear about someone “having a testimony of modesty”.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.