Duncan Posted July 6, 2017 Posted July 6, 2017 This is what Pres. Joseph F. Smith said in Oct. 1914 General Conference, “I don't want it to be understood that I am finding fault, I am only telling a solemn truth, and I am sorry that I have it to say, but I want it to be distinctly understood. We see some of our good sisters coming here to the Temple occasionally decorated in the latest and most ridiculous fashions that ever disgraced the human form divine. They do not seem to realize that they are coming to the house of God, and we have to forbid them entrance, or find fault with them, and they go away grieved and say sometimes, we don't want to go there any more." Why? Because they come unprepared, like the man who was found at the feast without the wedding garment, who also had to be turned out (Matthew 22:1-14). We have to turn them out occasionally, because they will not hearken to the counsel that has been given to them.” I can't imagine the fashion styles for women in 1914 would have ever been that bad to turn people away from the Temple. I look at my Grandma's pictures from back then and the women all seem to be really covered up and not wearing anything flashy or or anything. What do you make of this scene?
Thinking Posted July 6, 2017 Posted July 6, 2017 I have noticed that there are some temple endowed members who try to make the garment fit their desired fashion. Just yesterday our neighbor was talking to my wife out in the front yard. A popular female fashion is the cut jeans. She had cut jean shorts on and her garment bottoms were clearly visible through the cuts. I have also seen men wearing athletic shorts with their garment bottoms hanging an inch or two below the bottom of the short. Perhaps Joseph F. Smith needs to come back to general conference and give a talk about garments and fashion. 2
JAHS Posted July 6, 2017 Posted July 6, 2017 Here's a few more things he said a year earlier: "In my sight the present-day fashions are abominable, suggestive of evil, calculated to arouse base passion and lust, and to engender lasciviousness, in the hearts of those who follow the fashions, and of those who tolerate them. Why? Because women are imitating the very customs of a class of women who have resorted to that means to aid them to sell their souls. It is infamous, and I hope the daughters of Zion will not descend to these pernicious ways, customs and fashions, for they are demoralizing and damnable in their effect.—Oct. C. R., 1913, p. 8. I do not want to be burdensome to this vast congregation by talking too long, but I have another thought that weighs upon my mind, and this is not in relation to men, but is with respect to the women, and more particularly with regard to the manner in which they dress. Never, perhaps, at least within the period of my life, and I have lived in the world nearly seventy-five years, never, I say, within the period of my life and experience have I seen such obscene, uncleanly, impure, and suggestive fashions of women’s dress as I see today. Some of them are abominable. I lift my voice against these audacious practices and these infamous fashions, and I pray that you who have daughters in Zion will save them, if you can, from following these obscene fashions, that if followed, will destroy the last vestige of true womanly modesty, and reduce them to the level of the courtesans of the streets of Paris, from whence these debasing fashions come." — October Conference, 1913. Life of Joseph F. Smith, p. 405. Blame it on France !
Popular Post bluebell Posted July 6, 2017 Popular Post Posted July 6, 2017 I remember reading a quote by some mormon prophet or apostle describing the evils of girls cutting their hair (i.e. getting bangs). I think the best way to interpret these kinds of quotes is to remember that it's less the fashion or hair style that is improper and more the societal statement behind it. For example, wearing make up used to be something only loose women did. Now, make up doesn't have the same implications of course. If you live in a culture or era where showing your ankles is indecent and the church asks members to keep that standard, that doesn't mean God views ankles as indecent. 7
The Nehor Posted July 6, 2017 Posted July 6, 2017 15 minutes ago, JAHS said: Blame it on France ! To be fair it usually is their fault. 3
Guest Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: To be fair it usually is their fault. France is usually the blame for all ill's is it not...I thought everyone knew this. 1
JLHPROF Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 1914 was leading into the 1920s. Ankle length skirts and wrist length sleeves were going away, and the new fashions didn't allow the wearing of the garment properly. And people were more concerned with wearing the latest clothes than their garments. So they would roll them up or mutilate them. That's what President Smith is referring to, Fortunately President Grant came to the aid of the fashion challenged and gave them permission to hack off the arms and legs and some symbolic items. And eventually President Kimball got rid of the original altogether. But President Smith's concern over immoral clothing was about the garment, not seeing a bare ankle. 1
JLHPROF Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 6 hours ago, Thinking said: I have noticed that there are some temple endowed members who try to make the garment fit their desired fashion. Just yesterday our neighbor was talking to my wife out in the front yard. A popular female fashion is the cut jeans. She had cut jean shorts on and her garment bottoms were clearly visible through the cuts. I have also seen men wearing athletic shorts with their garment bottoms hanging an inch or two below the bottom of the short. Perhaps Joseph F. Smith needs to come back to general conference and give a talk about garments and fashion. That would be nice. I doubt anyone would listen to him. People don't hold the garment itself as sacredly as they used to unfortunately. It just a symbolic reminder to most with little sacred about the item itself to many.
Gray Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 1 Sam 16:7: the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart. 1
HappyJackWagon Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 13 hours ago, bluebell said: I remember reading a quote by some mormon prophet or apostle describing the evils of girls cutting their hair (i.e. getting bangs). I think the best way to interpret these kinds of quotes is to remember that it's less the fashion or hair style that is improper and more the societal statement behind it. For example, wearing make up used to be something only loose women did. Now, make up doesn't have the same implications of course. If you live in a culture or era where showing your ankles is indecent and the church asks members to keep that standard, that doesn't mean God views ankles as indecent. I agree. Modesty is typically based on societal norms but somewhere along the line modesty and worthiness seems to have been inextricably linked to the clothes we wear. Perhaps its because others assume there is a statement being made that reveals a level of rebellion, but the extreme focus on modesty as clothing is missing the mark IMO. I think these quotes show how judgmental humans can be as we try to establish and maintain in/out group dynamics and standards. The quotes are interesting because they are a reminder that these issues have been pervasive for a very long time and unlikely to change. The cultural norms may change the perception of what is and isn't acceptable, but it doesn't seem to change the natural tendencies to judge and exclude. I think that will take a massive concerted effort to change that kind of culture, if it's possible at all. 1
stemelbow Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 I preferred the warnings in the scriptures over this condemning women routine--you know the scriptures that teach us that wearing nice clothes is evil. I'm always about 3 levels below the company I keep in fancy outfits because of that. It seemed far less about women being evil back in old Book of Mormon times and more about parading around in fancy clothes because it makes someone feel better about him/herself. Perhaps our old president's misdirected attitude about the problem is what has led us to where we are today. I mean imagine him transported to our day where a handful of women have boob jobs in my own ward, and a couple have face work done. I dont' mean to sound judgmental. It's the times we live in and they are just part of the world we live in. But if the focus was less about women turning on old men because the men weren't used to seeing women's legs or whatever and more about living a more modest life overall, maybe the message would have stuck better.
thesometimesaint Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 I wear clothes for two purposes. Protection from the elements, and I don't want to scare the public.
bluebell Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: I agree. Modesty is typically based on societal norms but somewhere along the line modesty and worthiness seems to have been inextricably linked to the clothes we wear. Perhaps its because others assume there is a statement being made that reveals a level of rebellion, but the extreme focus on modesty as clothing is missing the mark IMO. I think these quotes show how judgmental humans can be as we try to establish and maintain in/out group dynamics and standards. The quotes are interesting because they are a reminder that these issues have been pervasive for a very long time and unlikely to change. The cultural norms may change the perception of what is and isn't acceptable, but it doesn't seem to change the natural tendencies to judge and exclude. I think that will take a massive concerted effort to change that kind of culture, if it's possible at all. I agree that modesty has gone pretty far right on the pendulum in the last few years in our society. I think a lot of it is a reaction to the ever loosening societal norms for what is allowed in public. That seems to be the way our culture works in America at least. I think we are starting to see it swing back a bit and hopefully it'll settle in somewhere in the middle. I appreciate that the church has recently started to remind people that modesty is not all about how much of our bodies we cover. There is a lot more to it than that. I don't see these kinds of quotes as an attempt to establish or maintain group dynamics and standards though. I think they are a reflection of men who feels incredible responsibility for the membership of church and his fear for those who are not doing what he sincerely believe God expects them to do. But I do agree that people not living up to the standards that the prophets believe God expects of us is pervasive and affects every generation. 2
HappyJackWagon Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 9 minutes ago, bluebell said: I agree that modesty has gone pretty far right on the pendulum in the last few years in our society. I think a lot of it is a reaction to the ever loosening societal norms for what is allowed in public. That seems to be the way our culture works in America at least. I think we are starting to see it swing back a bit and hopefully it'll settle in somewhere in the middle. I appreciate that the church has recently started to remind people that modesty is not all about how much of our bodies we cover. There is a lot more to it than that. I don't see these kinds of quotes as an attempt to establish or maintain group dynamics and standards though. I think they are a reflection of men who feels incredible responsibility for the membership of church and his fear for those who are not doing what he sincerely believe God expects them to do. But I do agree that people not living up to the standards that the prophets believe God expects of us is pervasive and affects every generation. I agree with you that this is done out with the best of motives, but it is still boundary maintenance for in/out group. Clothing and modesty has changed dramatically and I suppose God is still just as pleased with people today as he was in 1914. The only thing that has really changed is the cultural norms and the way they influence the leaders.
bluebell Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I agree with you that this is done out with the best of motives, but it is still boundary maintenance for in/out group. Why is it still boundary maintenance? I'm not sure you've supported that assertion or why I should accept that it's true. Quote Clothing and modesty has changed dramatically and I suppose God is still just as pleased with people today as he was in 1914. The only thing that has really changed is the cultural norms and the way they influence the leaders. That was what I was trying to say in my first post. Showing our body is only immodest when it means something. Being naked in the garden of eden wasn't immodest because there was no meaning and no response attached to it. When being naked gained meaning, covering the body became necessary. Showing your ankles could legitimately be inappropriate in God's eyes 1914, because of what it meant and the response it brought about from others, while God can legitimately not care in this day and age because it means nothing and elicits zero responses due to that meaning. 2
Popular Post katherine the great Posted July 7, 2017 Popular Post Posted July 7, 2017 Personally I think its wonderful. And healthy. Our church is slow to embrace change, but it IS dynamic. Conservative men run the church. The women rebel in a passive aggressive fashion. Several years later, we see a policy change. Devout LDS women (probably the younger ones) wanted to wear current fashions that wouldn't accommodate wrist length sleeves and a collar so they wore them anyway. Nine years later, the church embraced a redesign of religious clothing. Women in the 1970's wanted to use birth control and work outside the home, against the counsel of male leadership. They used birth control anyway, got jobs anyway. Over time, the rhetoric about limiting family size all but disappeared. Women now have a greater say in all aspects of church policy. I think its great! (Oh, btw, my 23 and me results show that I'm genetically 25% French so...) 5
HappyJackWagon Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 14 minutes ago, bluebell said: Why is it still boundary maintenance? I'm not sure you've supported that assertion or why I should accept that it's true. That was what I was trying to say in my first post. Showing our body is only immodest when it means something. Being naked in the garden of eden wasn't immodest because there was no meaning and no response attached to it. When being naked gained meaning, covering the body became necessary. Showing your ankles could legitimately be inappropriate in God's eyes 1914, because of what it meant and the response it brought about from others, while God can legitimately not care in this day and age because it means nothing and elicits zero responses due to that meaning. The modesty issue, these specific quotes, and garments are boundary maintenance because the leader of the church was defining what is and what is not acceptable behavior for members of the church. He was declaring what makes a person a good Mormon and what calls that into question. Specifically regarding whether or not to admit a person into the temple based upon their clothing, the boundary of temple participation is clearly being defined and enforced. It is a boundary that is being maintained. When considering it more broadly than just the temple, there is a boundary about what makes a person a good and faithful member. This boundary is being established and maintained. And by having such a clear boundary it creates the in/out group dynamic. Does that help at all?
bluebell Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: The modesty issue, these specific quotes, and garments are boundary maintenance because the leader of the church was defining what is and what is not acceptable behavior for members of the church. If that's what makes something boundary maintenance, wouldn't that make chastity, gossiping, service, lying, etc. boundary maintenance issues as well though instead of issues of trying to follow Christ and obey God?
HappyJackWagon Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 11 minutes ago, bluebell said: If that's what makes something boundary maintenance, wouldn't that make chastity, gossiping, service, lying, etc. boundary maintenance issues as well though instead of issues of trying to follow Christ and obey God? Well...yeah. Commandments and standards of worthiness are absolutely boundary maintenance. The church is an institution that requires certain behaviors. If someone falls outside of those behaviors they are either removed or labeled as less worthy as to clue members of the in group about how to interact with them. The church is not God or Christ, so it is absolutely possible that someone can fall outside of a set of guidelines at one moment, yet qualify at another. Nothing has changed other than the church's enforcement of a boundary. Does the church's enforcement of a boundary change the person's relationship with God. I don't think so. 1
stemelbow Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 38 minutes ago, katherine the great said: Personally I think its wonderful. And healthy. Our church is slow to embrace change, but it IS dynamic. Conservative men run the church. The women rebel in a passive aggressive fashion. Several years later, we see a policy change. Devout LDS women (probably the younger ones) wanted to wear current fashions that wouldn't accommodate wrist length sleeves and a collar so they wore them anyway. Nine years later, the church embraced a redesign of religious clothing. Women in the 1970's wanted to use birth control and work outside the home, against the counsel of male leadership. They used birth control anyway, got jobs anyway. Over time, the rhetoric about limiting family size all but disappeared. Women now have a greater say in all aspects of church policy. I think its great! (Oh, btw, my 23 and me results show that I'm genetically 25% French so...) my wife has worked outside the home for the past nearly a year. She's received tons of negative comments and judgment from ladies in the ward. She also found it laughable when I worked for the Church and the Church wouldn't support birth control as part of it's health care package. I mean in some ways, what you describe as having been settled and handled by women remains a problem in the Church and in Church culture. So I wouldn't be so quick to call that dynamic.
bluebell Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 31 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Well...yeah. Commandments and standards of worthiness are absolutely boundary maintenance. I don't know that i agree with that. When God decided (for lack of a better term) on commandments and standards of worthiness, I don't think His motivation was boundary maintenance. I think those things exist because they help us to become more holy, more like Christ and God. Quote The church is an institution that requires certain behaviors. If someone falls outside of those behaviors they are either removed or labeled as less worthy as to clue members of the in group about how to interact with them. The church is not God or Christ, so it is absolutely possible that someone can fall outside of a set of guidelines at one moment, yet qualify at another. Nothing has changed other than the church's enforcement of a boundary. Does the church's enforcement of a boundary change the person's relationship with God. I don't think so. God and Christ are Beings which require certain behaviors as well though. If someone falls outside of those behaviors, there are consequences, very few of which are so that other members know how to interact with them. I do agree that, because the leaders of the church are not infallible, it's possible and likely that sometimes someone can fall outside of a set of guidelines but not be outside of God's guidelines. But I think that how people respond and react to sincere guidelines expressed by our leaders can definitely impact their relationship with God and how God responds to them.
thesometimesaint Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 50 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Well...yeah. Commandments and standards of worthiness are absolutely boundary maintenance. The church is an institution that requires certain behaviors. If someone falls outside of those behaviors they are either removed or labeled as less worthy as to clue members of the in group about how to interact with them. The church is not God or Christ, so it is absolutely possible that someone can fall outside of a set of guidelines at one moment, yet qualify at another. Nothing has changed other than the church's enforcement of a boundary. Does the church's enforcement of a boundary change the person's relationship with God. I don't think so. Your relationship to God is between you and God. Your relationship to God's Church is between you and his Church. 2
HappyJackWagon Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 23 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: Your relationship to God is between you and God. Your relationship to God's Church is between you and his Church. Totally agree. And it's worth noting, or at least being open to the possibility that God's boundaries are not always identical to the church's. Quote Bluebell- I don't know that i agree with that. When God decided (for lack of a better term) on commandments and standards of worthiness, I don't think His motivation was boundary maintenance. I think those things exist because they help us to become more holy, more like Christ and God. God's primary purpose may be for each individual's personal growth but He still maintains boundaries. The war in heaven is a good example of what happens if individuals fall outside of the established boundary. 1/3 were cast out. That's a lot of people. How is that not boundary maintenance? I think your squabble may be with what does or does not motivate boundary maintenance, but it is boundary maintenance nonetheless.
bluebell Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 (edited) 5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: God's primary purpose may be for each individual's personal growth but He still maintains boundaries. The war in heaven is a good example of what happens if individuals fall outside of the established boundary. 1/3 were cast out. That's a lot of people. How is that not boundary maintenance? I'm coming at this from the perspective of 'motivation'. I disagree that the motivation for God removing 1/3 of His children from heaven was to maintain boundaries. Quote I think your squabble may be with what does or does not motivate boundary maintenance, but it is boundary maintenance nonetheless. Again, i don't think you've provided any support for this assertion. At this point we should probably just agree to disagree. Edited July 7, 2017 by bluebell 1
Recommended Posts