Modesty

[Anonymous]

Good article on Modesty found here

Quote from the article

Quote:

Confusing a virtue for an outward manifestation causes misunderstanding and problems. For instance, if modesty is only about the depth of hem and necklines, then phrases like “a modest house” or “a modest opinion” begin to lose their meaning. Worst still, the virtue will be marginalized and applied in arbitrary and sexist ways. When this shallow understanding of modesty is used, discussions about the issue quickly turn into a sort of fight about traditional values versus body shaming, self-respect in conflict with a culture of objectification, or a perverse blame game amongst the sexes. It seems most of these arguments peter out, as deaf ears refuse to capitulate, perhaps because the whole debate is built on a faulty premise that can’t be reconciled.

But discussions about modesty change significantly when we elevate our thinking. Modesty is not about how much of yourself you cover up; it’s about how you choose to reveal yourself to the world.

[Anonymous]

Awesome.if it would make into a GC talk it would be awesome-er

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Thus I believe modesty should be, above all, a concern by each of us for all of us, and a commitment to not view ourselves or those around us as simply a fancy house, a pair of breasts, a nice professional title, or as any other part that if over emphasized will betray the sacred whole.

I liked his idea of the “sacred whole.”

[Anonymous]

:thumbup:

[Anonymous]

Sheldon wrote:

Good article on Modesty…

Quote:

Confusing a virtue for an outward manifestation causes misunderstanding and problems. For instance, if modesty is only about the depth of hem and necklines, then phrases like “a modest house” or “a modest opinion” begin to lose their meaning. Worst still, the virtue will be marginalized and applied in arbitrary and sexist ways. When this shallow understanding of modesty is used, discussions about the issue quickly turn into a sort of fight about traditional values versus body shaming, self-respect in conflict with a culture of objectification, or a perverse blame game amongst the sexes. It seems most of these arguments peter out, as deaf ears refuse to capitulate, perhaps because the whole debate is built on a faulty premise that can’t be reconciled… But discussions about modesty change significantly when we elevate our thinking. Modesty is not about how much of yourself you cover up…

It really is kind of weird that the Church has basically re-defined modesty in a way that it now means something completely different to active Mormons than it does to the rest of the world. For example, most people would think of “modest” as meaning something along the lines of unpretentious, not vain or indecent, etc. whereas in the Church it has mostly come to mean having shoulders, legs practically to the knees, and the neckline above a certain level covered (I.E. no cleavage, tank-tops, sleeveless dresses, medium-lengh shorts or skirts, etc. allowed).

Another interesting thing to me about this is that it looks like this is one point where the Church has actually become increasingly strict recently unlike some other things like R-rated movies and caffeinated soft-drinks which were more strongly emphasized as no-nos in past decades. In fact, many non-Mormon parents that would certainly disapprove of their teenage daughters wearing overly provocative clothing and businesses that have well-defined dress standards to try to keep things professional would not currently find anything wrong with popular styles that in many cases that would not be considered “modest” by LDS standards.

I do think some feminists read more malicious intent into this than there really is overall. For example, I doubt that most Church leaders really meant any harm by this or were consciously trying to go out of their way to oppress women in a sexist way, perpetuate “rape culture”, etc. To me it looks like it mostly started with the basic tradition of adults that had gone through the temple wearing garments and then it was extended to try to get young women and girls to wear similar clothing that would cover garments I guess mostly to try to get them used to idea to prepare them for when they go through the temple. And now, whether intentionally or not, it looks like it has mostly become yet another obedience test on the checklist similar to the WoW that basically serves the purpose of maintaining a distinct Mormon identity and sub-culture that is separate from the world.

[Anonymous]

Ann wrote:

Quote:

Thus I believe modesty should be, above all, a concern by each of us for all of us, and a commitment to not view ourselves or those around us as simply a fancy house, a pair of breasts, a nice professional title, or as any other part that if over emphasized will betray the sacred whole.

I liked his idea of the “sacred whole.”

I like that Ann. It should be taught about respect. I don’t have a problem with examples, like necklines or skirt length for daughters if it is put in the same context as professional title, muscles, flashy homes or any other prideful element so it doesn’t sound like it is just about the girls and their bodies, but that is part of the “sacred whole” along with other stuff, equally for boys and girls.

I also think there is an appropriate way to compliment my daughters when they look nice, and my sons when they take time to look nice and have some self-respect without focusing on the wrong things.

[Author]

Posts