Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

God'S Standard Of Modesty Vs Cultural Understanding Of Of Modesty

Saints Alive

By Saints Alive
in General Discussions

Recommended Posts

Saints Alive Veteran

Saints Alive

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Good point. Let's look at teh actual questions again:

Assuming a universal standard of modesty; were adam and eve living immodestly in the garden (before the fall)? This is not ascertained by the standard being spelled out for us (becaue it isn't spelled out anywhere) -- but, the Garden of Eden is not the same "universe" as exaltation. On what basis shoud we assume a universal or a multi-universal standard?

Assuming a cultural standard of modesty; which culture our we to follow? Assuming the culture of the Gospel, that standard which is provided by the Lord's annointed. Assuming any other culture, by that corresponding culture, unless the person has made Gospel covenants.

If I live outside of Utah where tank tops and short shorts are acceptable (or man skirts, or thousands of other cultural examples) am I still being modest if i follow those cultural trends? Only if you are true to the culture you belong to--if you have made Gospel covenants, the answer would be "No."

What if I visit (or move to) another area with a different cultural dress standard, which cultural standard of modesty am I required to follow? Whichever culture you ant to belong to--if you have made Gospel covenants, it would be the standard set by the Lord's annointed.

The standard "set by the lords anointed" once had no problems with beards, it now apparently does because of 60s beatniks. I didn't realize the Lords standards were so easily influenced by man.

Calm Grand Master

Calm

Posted
Posted

That is still culturally dependent. A topless amazon or african tribal woman would probably feel just fine standing topless in front of the savior. 99.99% of American women probably would not.

And if one assumes that God can see us wherever and whenever we are, he is certainly aware of how we look unclothed, that response is rather silly....much like Adam and Eve's response was...why were they suddenly ashamed when there had been no condemnation of their appearance by God prior to that time?
Calm Grand Master

Calm

Posted
Posted

Mine or CV75's?

Anyone who would be embarrassed by appearing naked in front of God....who has certainly seen us at our best and worst and all inbetween over the years.
slamarwi Enthusiast

slamarwi

Posted
Posted

Why is it okay for a man to show is stomach when swimming, but it is immodest for a women to wear a two piece swimsuit? Why is is we are told it is now inappropriate for men to have long hair or beards because societal views have changed in the last fifty years, but it is still immodest for a women to expose her bare shoulders even though societal views have changed in the last fifty years to make it completely acceptable?

For the questions regarding the lack of clothing for men or women, who said any of those are really appropriate?

The beard and hair thing has nothing to do with modesty. A topic for a different discussion.

Shanky82 Contributor

Shanky82

Posted
Posted

And if one assumes that God can see us wherever and whenever we are, he is certainly aware of how we look unclothed, that response is rather silly....much like Adam and Eve's response was...why were they suddenly ashamed when there had been no condemnation of their appearance by God prior to that time?

The answer to this question, "what about Adam and Eve in the garden?", is that Adam and Eve were innocent and child like and didn't know they were naked. You know, God judges us by the light and knowledge we have. A women from an Amazon, African, or Pacific Island culture where it is acceptable for women to be topless isn't going to be condemned for anything they don't know.

We're comparing those who don't have or live by gospel standards to those who have the gospel and should be living it. It's like I said in a previous post, we hold up our standards and invite others to live by them and testify to them that there is a greater happiness for living those standards, but we shouldn't cast judgement on those who don't have those standards or who don't live by them. Those who have the gospel are held to a higher standard, but even then, it should be taken into consideration where they are at in their conversion.

Stargazer Grand Master

Stargazer

Posted
Posted

I think that often cultural mores on modesty come from environmental requirements. Starting with something I know about, the deserts of Northern Africa are dry, hot, sandy and windy. If you look at the Tuareg and Bedouin cultures, when they are out in caravans, both men and women cover everything but their eyes. They had no fancy sun screen. Somehow, in the Middle East that became a cultural edict. These days concupiscience runs so rampant in us culture, and anywhere that Westerners have been. Today, I had lunch with a Sister and going into the resturant, I ran into a group of Muslim Sisters in all their stuff. I, on the other hand was wearing my cute little knee length dress with cap sleeves and relative high (Not) neck line. I felt so insecure and exposed. They looked covered and secured. Yesterday I saw a woman I know on Facebook wearing a teeny bikini! At times, I really miss Islam except for the fact that they do not properly view Jesus Christ and do not have the Atonement.

If you wish, you could take your standards up a notch. I intend to.

I stopped by Costco to pick up a few things today. Also entering the store was a party of young women who were dressed in a kind of uniform, sort of. They wore full length dresses in a somewhat bright pattern, all the same cut, mind you, with full-length sleeves, turtle necks, and all had on a bolero-type knitted garment (almost like a shrug). Oh, yes, and their hair was up in buns, with a doily-like covering over the bun. I have seen this before, and as curious as I was as to the nature of their clothing and the reasoning behind it, I did not of course intrude so as to satisfy that curiosity (if my wife had been with me, I might have asked her to inquire).

But as modest as this dress was, what it seemed more to do was to call attention to itself. Much like a nun's habit, or a priest's cassock are intended to do. I was led to think of one attitude towards hijab as being modest relative to the prevailing culture. In Iran it would mean lliteral hijab, but in London, it would mean something like a knee-length dress, a blouse with a neckline that actually touched the neck, and covered at least half the upper arm. And not so tight as to enable everyone to give an accurate figure measurement. Something that was modest without calling attention to itself, like the young ladies that I mentioned above.

The funny thing is, a pretty young woman wearing a head scarf (as in hijab) might actually be more physically attractive dressed that way than if her head were uncovered -- at least it might be so in a given environment. And thus her dress would call more attention to her -- resulting in her being actually LESS secure.

Relativism is not always a bad thing.

Calm Grand Master

Calm

Posted
Posted (edited)

The answer to this question, "what about Adam and Eve in the garden?", is that Adam and Eve were innocent and child like and didn't know they were naked.

But God knew they were naked and didn't seem to have any problem with it.

My point is that there would appear to be from God's reaction or rather lack of it to Adam and Eve's nakedness that universal modesty is more about attitude than about what one is wearing since one can be perfectly naked and still be the most modest individual around.

Edited by calmoriah
1
CV75 Grand Master

CV75

Posted
Posted (edited)

The standard "set by the lords anointed" once had no problems with beards, it now apparently does because of 60s beatniks. I didn't realize the Lords standards were so easily influenced by man.

In the case of Naaman, the Lord was showing that spiritually-inspired, faithful obedience to the prophet is a greater blessing than obedience to one's culturally-informed biases. On one level, Elisha's choice of the Jordan is to other rivers in Damascus as to our modern leaders' modesty standards are to Montalivet Beach's. The faithful will follow their leaders, and the Lord inspires the leaders.

Even an absence of malice in one's personal modesty standards is not as beneficial as an expression of faith in the Church's modesty standards. The development of the human spirit is better when one puts off their own preference and adopts what the Lord is asking hm to do.

Edited by CV75
Tacenda Grand Master

Tacenda

Posted
Posted

I stopped by Costco to pick up a few things today. Also entering the store was a party of young women who were dressed in a kind of uniform, sort of. They wore full length dresses in a somewhat bright pattern, all the same cut, mind you, with full-length sleeves, turtle necks, and all had on a bolero-type knitted garment (almost like a shrug). Oh, yes, and their hair was up in buns, with a doily-like covering over the bun. I have seen this before, and as curious as I was as to the nature of their clothing and the reasoning behind it, I did not of course intrude so as to satisfy that curiosity (if my wife had been with me, I might have asked her to inquire).

But as modest as this dress was, what it seemed more to do was to call attention to itself. Much like a nun's habit, or a priest's cassock are intended to do. I was led to think of one attitude towards hijab as being modest relative to the prevailing culture. In Iran it would mean lliteral hijab, but in London, it would mean something like a knee-length dress, a blouse with a neckline that actually touched the neck, and covered at least half the upper arm. And not so tight as to enable everyone to give an accurate figure measurement. Something that was modest without calling attention to itself, like the young ladies that I mentioned above.

The funny thing is, a pretty young woman wearing a head scarf (as in hijab) might actually be more physically attractive dressed that way than if her head were uncovered -- at least it might be so in a given environment. And thus her dress would call more attention to her -- resulting in her being actually LESS secure.

Relativism is not always a bad thing.

I think you saw the FLDS gals.
Shanky82 Contributor

Shanky82

Posted
Posted

But God knew they were naked and didn't seem to have any problem with it.

My point is that there would appear to be from God's reaction or rather lack of it to Adam and Eve's nakedness that universal modesty is more about attitude than about what one is wearing since one can be perfectly naked and still be the most modest individual around.

Bingo! Modesty is about more than what one is wearing or not. I would say that because we live in a fallen world that what one is wearing is tied to modesty. You know, the Savior taught that to look on a women to lust after her, you have already committed adultery in your heart. A girl doesn't necessarily have to be stark naked for a man to do that.

TAO Mentor

TAO

Posted
Posted

I have no problem believing that something culturally driven is of God, what I see is a contradiction when people justify our modesty standards (knee length shorts/skirts, covered shoulders, one piece bathing suits) by saying things like, "God's ways are not man's ways", or "God is an unchanging God" and then in the next sentence justify the no facial hair policy on changing cultural standards.

Mmm... Just because God is an unchanging God doesn't mean his policies are unchanging. I'm sure his feelings on the subject are unchanging, but I'm also sure he's flexible enough to get things to work in certain times.

Stargazer Grand Master

Stargazer

Posted
Posted

I think you saw the FLDS gals.

What, in Washington state?

Stargazer Grand Master

Stargazer

Posted
Posted

They could have been on vacation. ;)

Well, this isn't the first time I've seen them at this particular Costco, so I suspect they are local. Or maybe it was at the WallMart next door...

Of course, it's entirely possible for FLDS folks to have moved to the Olympia, Washington area. They might feel we are potentially more tolerant towards them, being that we've recently made gay marriage official.

emarkp Collaborator

emarkp

Posted
Posted

They are almost certainly Mennonites. We have a Mennonite community in our norcal area and we're most likely to see them at CostCo and Barnes & Noble (across the street from Costco).

Tacenda Grand Master

Tacenda

Posted
Posted (edited)

Well, this isn't the first time I've seen them at this particular Costco, so I suspect they are local. Or maybe it was at the WallMart next door...

Of course, it's entirely possible for FLDS folks to have moved to the Olympia, Washington area. They might feel we are potentially more tolerant towards them, being that we've recently made gay marriage official.

I did have some pics but changed mind in posting. Yes emarkp, the Mennonites and FLDS both wear about the same thing!

Edited by Tacenda
Wanderer7 Enthusiast

Wanderer7

Posted
Posted (edited)

Assuming a cultural standard of modesty; which culture our we to follow? If I live outside of Utah where tank tops and short shorts are acceptable (or man skirts, or thousands of other cultural examples) am I still being modest if i follow those cultural trends? What if I visit (or move to) another area with a different cultural dress standard, which cultural standard of modesty am I required to follow?

https://www.lds.org/...arance?lang=eng

Here is the most clear-but definition of modesty I know of. If you're conforming to it, you're following God's standard. I note, for interest, that short shorts and tank tops are not on the acceptable list according to this guide. Also, I feel like raising standards of modesty is never really a bad thing. I'm not advocating burkas for women or men, but at least they don't leave much room for doubt, do they?

Edited by Wanderer7
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...