For The Sisters- Immodesty And You Are The Bishop

[Danzo]

However, it is the Brethren who serve as the trustees for "those institutions." It is they who set the dress and grooming standards. And while shaving may not be a requirement for entrance to the Celestial Kingdom, obedience and compliance in this specific venue (enrollment at Church schools) may very well have a bearing on it.

 

However the Brethren have not extended the Honor code at byu to the Saints in General, nor have i heard it implied by any of the Brethren. 

True there are many church standards that are incorporated into it, but these rules are found elsewhere and one does not need to look at the honor code for their validity.

 

I don't mind the honor code. Those who go to BYU need to live by it, because that is what they agreed to do. However, it is an artificial "Law of Moses" designed for students at that university not to the saints as a whole.

[Tacenda]

I don't know what I'd say if I was a male bishop.  I do however want to know how some women are able to wear what they do and still wear garments.  I recently saw a photo of Ann Romney with a very low cut shirt.  And Marie Osmond also.  Me?  I can't even wear a shirt that is appropriate without showing a little garment on the side, I must buy the wrong style top.  I usually have to wear two shirts all the time, very hot in the summer, one under the short sleeve or lower cut shirt.  So I guess the church is smart to get the young girl and then young woman, use to wearing appropriate clothing starting out.  I don't think it will be a big problem.  They are trained young in the church, unlike in my day.        

[Calm]

So you are saying that women find long haired guys sexy?  I guess that's the Fabio thing?

 

See, I really AM dumb about this stuff I guess....  

It may go back to Samson, the whole long hair equals strength and virility thing he had going.....

[Danzo]

I don't know what I'd say if I was a male bishop.  I do however want to know how some women are able to wear what they do and still wear garments.  I recently saw a photo of Ann Romney with a very low cut shirt.  And Marie Osmond also.  Me?  I can't even wear a shirt that is appropriate without showing a little garment on the side, I must buy the wrong style top.  I usually have to wear two shirts all the time, very hot in the summer, one under the short sleeve or lower cut shirt.  So I guess the church is smart to get the young girl and then young woman, use to wearing appropriate clothing starting out.  I don't think it will be a big problem.  They are trained young in the church, unlike in my day.        

 

Although I'm sure Ann Romney and Marie Osmond are great people, and what they wear is their business, I wouldn't teach my daughters to look to them as a guide on what to wear.

[frank_jessop]

I would send the applicant home with the application. I would say "I want you to fill this out based on how you see your conduct. Here is the BYU Honor Code. Please review the Honor Code when completing this. We will meet next week to discuss. You are welcome to have your parents attend if you wish."

[MorningStar]

I would have a special meeting with all YM and YW with their parents and let them know there are a lot of kids wanting to get into BYU and I wouldn't feel comfortable signing an endorsement for anyone who seems disinterested in living the honor code.  I would rather not single anyone out.

[Calm]

I agree that it would be wise to make it clear in some fashion to all likely applicants (which would at least be all active youth given the possibility exists) that one was going to stick to the requirements in any endorsement. But one still might get some applicants who try to get that endorsement even if not qualified, so one may have to deal with individuals eventually. It can be kept nonjudgmental though and more just a comparison to the requirement if that is appropriate. I think there may be times that it is appropriate for a bishop to counsel a youth on morality including modesty, but I think a good and preferably strong relationship us already established and it is known the youth won't be over sensitive. A different approach, perhaps counselling with parents or encouraging leaders to teach by example in stronger ways, may be called for if that relationship doesn't exist or the youth has special needs.

[mfbukowski]

I'm not a woman either, but I would imagine you would handle it the same way you would for a young man that didn't shave every day, had long sideburns, a beard, or as Bob pointed out had "hippie" hair. In the case of BYU-I you'd better throw in shorts of any kind as well.

Nope.  He would know the beard has to go.  I would say- "Hey man, the beard has to go- you know that!" while poking him in the shoulder, and he would laugh and say , "Uh yeah, I guess you're right" and that would be it.

 

Bob knew it, he was just holding out as long as he could.  I don't think he was exactly offended when Elder Oaks caught up to him finally.

[toon]

I remember when, as a student, BYU first required a Bishop's endorsement each year for returning students, as opposed to the endorsement to just get in.

 

The Bishop of my BYU ward started the interview off, before asking any questions, by signing the form.  He handed it back to me and then said, "Now that that's out of the way, let's talk about you."  His concern was that the new requirement precluded him from effectively doing his job as Bishop.

 

I'm not a woman nor a Bishop, not will I ever be either.  But if I were a Bishop, I'd make sure the young woman was aware of the honor code.  I'd ask if she intended to abide by it. And if she said, "Yes," then I'd sign. 

[Calm]

If the question is not that she will abide by it, but does she abide by it, isn't that a problem though?

I am not saying that should be the question (I can see reasons for both it being and not), but it is the question, isn't it? Are you not personally lying if she is not abiding by it and you indicate that she is?

[mfbukowski]

I would have a special meeting with all YM and YW with their parents and let them know there are a lot of kids wanting to get into BYU and I wouldn't feel comfortable signing an endorsement for anyone who seems disinterested in living the honor code.  I would rather not single anyone out.

Great idea!

 

.... but in a small ward with only one girl getting ready to go, and everyone aware that she tends to dress immodestly, that might have the opposite of the intended result. 

[mfbukowski]

I would send the applicant home with the application. I would say "I want you to fill this out based on how you see your conduct. Here is the BYU Honor Code. Please review the Honor Code when completing this. We will meet next week to discuss. You are welcome to have your parents attend if you wish."

That seems like a good answer, but as I recall the form really has a lot of other questions the Bishop fills out in confidence and then it goes to the SP and to the Y.  The only thing really relevant on that form is that one question. 

 

Others have made similar comments, but I don't think that approach would fly.  It is definitely for the Bishop to complete.

[mfbukowski]

If the question is not that she will abide by it, but does she abide by it, isn't that a problem though?

I am not saying that should be the question (I can see reasons for both it being and not), but it is the question, isn't it? Are you not personally lying if she is not abiding by it and you indicate that she is?

If you ask her on Sunday and by Tuesday she promises to abide by it "from now on"  and you send the form the next Saturday the problem is solved, it seems to me.

 

Being a bishop is not easy.  It's often walking a tightrope.  And being accountable to God for lack of mercy and ruining a sweet girl's life because of being legalistic about a form?

 

Not easy!

[Calm]

If you ask her on Sunday and by Tuesday she promises to abide by it "from now on"  and you send the form the next Saturday the problem is solved, it seems to me.

 

Being a bishop is not easy.  It's often walking a tightrope.  And being accountable to God for lack of mercy and ruining a sweet girl's life because of being legalistic about a form?

 

Not easy!

Totally agree.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Nope.  He would know the beard has to go.  I would say- "Hey man, the beard has to go- you know that!" while poking him in the shoulder, and he would laugh and say , "Uh yeah, I guess you're right" and that would be it.

 

Bob knew it, he was just holding out as long as he could.  I don't think he was exactly offended when Elder Oaks caught up to him finally.

Sorry. You are of course correct. My comment was directed at how to look at past behavior when filling out the form rather than looking at the counseling aspect. Should have done a better job at making that clear.

[MorningStar]

Great idea!

 

.... but in a small ward with only one girl getting ready to go, and everyone aware that she tends to dress immodestly, that might have the opposite of the intended result. 

How many young men are there though?  That's why I would do a combined meeting and it could be for anyone high school aged, just so they know that in the future, they will need a bishop's endorsement.  Thank goodness I will never be bishop though! 

[The Nehor]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was my understanding that there isn't a "dress standard" for going to the Temple. Meaning, if you have a recommend they won't turn you away based on what you are wearing. We're certainly encouraged to dress in our Sunday best when we go, but there isn't a criteria by which we are judged at the entrance.

When I worked at the Temple our instructions for the recommend desk was to admit anyone with a valid recommend. If someone was wearing extreme clothing (I believe we were going with shirtless for guys with maybe a speedo or a two piece swimsuit for women we were told to call a member of the Temple Presidency to inform them and they could talk with the person. The "worst" I ever saw was a guy in what we would call business casual. He actually apologized and told me he was in town on business without more formal clothing when he got bad news from back home about a member of his family and needed the temple. I welcomed him.

[daz2]

It has been 30 years since I was a bishop. There weren't a lot of youth. I don't remember that any of the young women were really pushing the limits to a stage of indecency (but I wasn't really paying a lot of attention to their clothing--my view was that the YW presidency and their moms or parents would take care of counseling their daughters about dress). I don't remember, but I would guess that some of the young women sometimes wore sleeveless tops, or shorts that did not come to the knee. That is, they may have worn clothing that wouldn't satisfy BYU or even For the Strength of Youth, but were not indecent. Again, I don't remember for sure. But I know my daughters wore shorts that did not reach the knees before they were endowed in order to be married in the temple. So I am guessing there are young women who do the same before going to BYU. My daughters knew that once they were endowed they would need longer shorts, and they went out and bought them. I realize that this is shocking to many people in the Church who think that from infancy children should be trained to wear garment friendly clothing. And perhaps my own grandchildren will be raised that way. When I was a young adult and a young parent, the church magazines did not airbrush sleeves onto famous paintings of angels and the Friend did not contain articles telling children they were sinners if their clothing was sleeveless. This is a change in the Church from the time I was young. And who knows, it may be God's will that our standards be tighter than they were when I was young. (I also know that when my mother went to BYU in the early 1950s, it was very common for young women to wear bare shoulders to formal dances--I have pictures of her and her roommates. This changes when Elder Spencer W. Kimball in the mid-1950s gave a talk at BYU condemning bare shoulders, and thereafter women would add shoulder coverage and refer to the dress as "Kimball-ized). That it, it seems like the Church and its culture has become much stricter about "modesty" in my lifetime.

It was almost a century ago when President Heber J. Grant acquiesced to culture, and approved a garment that no longer went to the ankles and to the wrists. This upset some people who believed that this was a surrender to immodest dress standards. I wonder if the issue came up again if the shortened garment would ever have been approved in this day and age--or if we would hear talks explaining that dresses must go to the ankles and sleeves to the wrists, and anything shorter than that would be immodest. And if this discussion would be about a young woman who wears short sleeved tops and dresses a couple of inches below the knee: should such a rebel be allowed to attend BYU. Returning to the pre-1923 garments seems to me the direction our modesty rhetoric is headed in the spiritual sense. Maybe it would be a good thing to return to the old style garment and standard of modesty. If God really is unchanging, then maybe the original or early designs of the garment truly represented God's will, and the shortened current garment represents God's allowing us to live a "lesser law" for a while. But the truly celestial law will be the longer garment, and that is why the modesty rhetoric and dress requirements so much stricter than 50 years ago, to prepare us to live that higher law again.

Edited February 26, 2014 by daz2

[Sleeper Cell]

It may go back to Samson, the whole long hair equals strength and virility thing he had going.....

 

In a sense, Sampson got the type of woman he dressed for.

 

 

 

Sorry ... Couldn't resist     

[Senator]

 But the truly celestial law will be the longer garment, and that is why the modesty rhetoric and dress requirements so much stricter than 50 years ago, to prepare us to live that higher law again.

 

Oh, I don't know. If Moroni's attire is any indication, we might be surprised what celestial wear is like. Heavens, we have yet to have female angels visit us. Who knows what they might or might not be wearing.

[Garden Girl]

I grew up in the 50's... yes,  ... in So Cal with hot summers and every extra moment spent on the beach.  I wore shorts, regular white short shorts just like everyone else.  They weren't cut high or skimpy, they were simply shorts.  It was in 1957 that Bernuda shorts became popular, and we wore them with color coordinated knee high socks in winter, or just plain in summer.  Soon that was the usual mode of shorts...

I remember wearing sleeveless dresses... I also wore what we called a "halter" top which was a forerunner of the bikini top... but the halter of my day was not skimpy at all.  I remember one beach trip our youth were going to take, and our leader came to pick me up and she was wearing a halter top and shorts, just like the rest of us... so no garments and her husband was in the bishopric...

The general style of the day was skirts that were about 2"-3" below the knee... that was just the style, LDS or not. 

And when I went to BYU in 1959 we could not wear pants on campus except on Saturday.

 

So daz2, standards may have tightened, or eased as far as pants on campus, over the years, but I prefer them now because you cannot find the simple halters, for instance, that we used to have... the ones today now barely cover the breasts,  And skirts are so short they go up to mid-thigh when a girl/woman sits down. etc.

 

GG

[Kenngo1969]

I would send the applicant home with the application. I would say "I want you to fill this out based on how you see your conduct. Here is the BYU Honor Code. Please review the Honor Code when completing this. We will meet next week to discuss. You are welcome to have your parents attend if you wish."

But, Frankie, he wasn't talking to you ... unless you're a goyl!  (I haven't conducted an exhaustive review of the Handbook to see if it has any problems with that approach, but your reply seems reasonable to me.  Does this mean that the rest of us can chime in, too, even when you address your queries to a specific poster, or do you operate on the principle, "Do as I say, not as I do"? )

Edited February 27, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[The Nehor]

But the truly celestial law will be the longer garment, and that is why the modesty rhetoric and dress requirements so much stricter than 50 years ago, to prepare us to live that higher law again.

According to accounts as I read them celestial beings are clothed in light. I tried going to Church once wearing only light and the Bishop told me to go home or he would call the police. I agree with you; the members of the church are not ready for the higher law.

[Kenngo1969]

That seems like a good answer, but as I recall the form really has a lot of other questions the Bishop fills out in confidence and then it goes to the SP and to the Y.  The only thing really relevant on that form is that one question. 

 

Others have made similar comments, but I don't think that approach would fly.  It is definitely for the Bishop to complete.

Doh!  I confess, I went to The Devil's School to the North ( FKA "University of Deseret!")  

Edited February 27, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[mfbukowski]

Doh!  I confess, I went to The Devil's School to the North ( FKA "University of Deseret!")  

Hey man, I am a gentile adopted into the tribe so I don't have a clue what this means. And besides going to a gentile school we had to chisel all our papers on stone tablets, or use papyrus.  I took a few classes from Moses.  Nice guy but he had bad breath.