Bernard Gui Posted July 5, 2018 Posted July 5, 2018 1 hour ago, jkwilliams said: That's what I find so interesting: the definition of "modesty" seems to have changed since I was a young man. A sleeveless top or dress would not have been considered immodest back then, but it is now. My mother tells a story of going to a formal dance when she was at BYU. Having grown up rather poor, she did not have a formal gown, so a friend loaned her one, though she was mortified that it was strapless, which would have been considered immodest. So, she bought a length of chiffon fabric, and they pinned it up over her shoulders and behind her neck, making it look like it was part of the dress. When they arrived at the dance, they saw that President McKay and his wife were standing in a reception line at the entrance, greeting each couple as they entered. She was horrified, certain that he would know she was wearing an immodest dress. But he just shook her hand and asked her name and where she was from. I asked her recently if she thought the bare shoulders were a problem, and she said, "No, why would that be a problem?" I wonder what is behind these more restrictive dress standards. I never imagined the Friend would publish an article about a 4-year-old girl choosing modesty by not wearing a sleeveless dress. That's just weird. I’ve been long puzzled by the buzz ginned up over sleeveless and bare shoulders and the seemingly universal association of them with President McKay anecdotes, as if he approved of them so the rest of the Prophets and members are out of step somehow. The first (1965) For the Strength of the Youth pamphlet under his signature advises against short and strapless and spaghetti strap dresses. Of course certain standards change with changes in the general culture, no big deal AFAIC. The Church has maintained rather consistent standards in the face of some pretty extreme swings in the culture around us. 1
jkwilliams Posted July 5, 2018 Posted July 5, 2018 Just now, Bernard Gui said: I’ve been long puzzled by the buzz ginned up over sleeveless and bare shoulders and the seemingly universal association of them with President McKay anecdotes, as if he approved of them so the rest of the Prophets and members are out of step somehow. The first (1965) For the Strength of the Youth pamphlet under his signature advises against short and strapless and spaghetti strap dresses. Of course certain standards change with changes in the general culture, no big deal AFAIC. The Church has maintained rather consistent standards in the face of some pretty extreme swings in the culture around us. I'm not saying President McKay approved of bare shoulders. I'm saying my mother didn't see it as a problem. If my mom is out of step with the prophets, so be it. It's just interesting to me that we are in an era where sleeves are photoshopped onto paintings. I'm not criticizing the church or saying anyone is out of step, just that I see a definite change in emphasis about sleeveless dresses. That's all. I'm guessing that a directive about depictions of sleeves has come from somewhere in the church office building, and it would be fascinating to know why that is. I'm reminded of when I was working at the COB and a directive came down that temple altars were not to be photographed or depicted, so when I was working on the brochure for the San Diego Temple open house, we had to send it back to the graphic designer to have the altars removed. The sealing room looked particularly strange without an altar, as it became just a photo of a row of chairs in front of a mirror. I'm sure there's a reason for this, and I'm curious as to what it is.
Exiled Posted July 5, 2018 Posted July 5, 2018 12 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: I’ve been long puzzled by the buzz ginned up over sleeveless and bare shoulders and the seemingly universal association of them with President McKay anecdotes, as if he approved of them so the rest of the Prophets and members are out of step somehow. The first (1965) For the Strength of the Youth pamphlet under his signature advises against short and strapless and spaghetti strap dresses. Of course certain standards change with changes in the general culture, no big deal AFAIC. The Church has maintained rather consistent standards in the face of some pretty extreme swings in the culture around us. Do you think bare shoulders are inherently immodest? So, if a very modest and loose fitting dress that was so loose so as to not advertise anything, with a neckline all the way to the chin, but bare shoulders, would that dress be immodest? If so, is the "immodesty" really just a social construct of church leaders or more along the lines of signalling whether or not someone is in or out of the group? It seems to me that bare shoulders in and of themselves are no more immodest than wearing a skirt that shows some ankle.
Ahab Posted July 5, 2018 Posted July 5, 2018 9 minutes ago, Exiled said: Do you think bare shoulders are inherently immodest? So, if a very modest and loose fitting dress that was so loose so as to not advertise anything, with a neckline all the way to the chin, but bare shoulders, would that dress be immodest? If so, is the "immodesty" really just a social construct of church leaders or more along the lines of signalling whether or not someone is in or out of the group? It seems to me that bare shoulders in and of themselves are no more immodest than wearing a skirt that shows some ankle. I think part of the problem is that various images can pop up in our minds when thinking of a woman or girl wearing a top that exposes her shoulders. A T-shirt can expose shoulders if the head opening is sufficiently wide, with anything other than her neck being either cleavage or shoulders. I don't think the "brethren" are thinking of that much shoulder exposure being a problem, though. Probably more like when the top starts to fall off of the shoulders exposing more of the woman's chest and arms. So then the question becomes how far down can the top drop before it is considered immodest to be dressed that way. And I would say the more the top drops the more it becomes immodest, with no problem if exposure of the shoulders is only the part of the shoulders that are very near to the woman's neck.
jkwilliams Posted July 5, 2018 Posted July 5, 2018 14 minutes ago, Ahab said: I think part of the problem is that various images can pop up in our minds when thinking of a woman or girl wearing a top that exposes her shoulders. A T-shirt can expose shoulders if the head opening is sufficiently wide, with anything other than her neck being either cleavage or shoulders. I don't think the "brethren" are thinking of that much shoulder exposure being a problem, though. Probably more like when the top starts to fall off of the shoulders exposing more of the woman's chest and arms. So then the question becomes how far down can the top drop before it is considered immodest to be dressed that way. And I would say the more the top drops the more it becomes immodest, with no problem if exposure of the shoulders is only the part of the shoulders that are very near to the woman's neck. I think somebody must be thinking about it being a problem, or they wouldn't be photoshopping sleeves onto angels in 19th-century paintings. Again, I would love to find out where that directive is coming from. 1
Exiled Posted July 5, 2018 Posted July 5, 2018 23 minutes ago, Ahab said: I think part of the problem is that various images can pop up in our minds when thinking of a woman or girl wearing a top that exposes her shoulders. A T-shirt can expose shoulders if the head opening is sufficiently wide, with anything other than her neck being either cleavage or shoulders. I don't think the "brethren" are thinking of that much shoulder exposure being a problem, though. Probably more like when the top starts to fall off of the shoulders exposing more of the woman's chest and arms. So then the question becomes how far down can the top drop before it is considered immodest to be dressed that way. And I would say the more the top drops the more it becomes immodest, with no problem if exposure of the shoulders is only the part of the shoulders that are very near to the woman's neck. In this story from the Friend, the emphasis was on sleeves: https://media.ldscdn.org/pdf/lds-magazines/friend-june-2011/2011-06-19-hannahs-new-dress-eng.pdf It seems sleevelessness was not next to godliness in this story, not falling necklines only. Would you view this dress as immodest?
Ahab Posted July 5, 2018 Posted July 5, 2018 1 minute ago, Exiled said: In this story from the Friend, the emphasis was on sleeves: https://media.ldscdn.org/pdf/lds-magazines/friend-june-2011/2011-06-19-hannahs-new-dress-eng.pdf It seems sleevelessness was not next to godliness in this story, not falling necklines only. Would you view this dress as immodest? No, just weird. I don't understand why anyone would dress that way.
jkwilliams Posted July 5, 2018 Posted July 5, 2018 1 minute ago, Ahab said: No, just weird. I don't understand why anyone would dress that way. There's a woman in my office who is wearing a dress sort of similar (bare shoulders and long sleeves). I've seen a lot of women wear something similar. Not sure why it's weird. To each his own, I suppose.
Exiled Posted July 5, 2018 Posted July 5, 2018 7 minutes ago, Ahab said: No, just weird. I don't understand why anyone would dress that way. It looks goth. Is that why you think it's weird?
Ahab Posted July 5, 2018 Posted July 5, 2018 14 minutes ago, Exiled said: It looks goth. Is that why you think it's weird? Because it is "goth"? No, I didn't know it was classified as a goth dress before you told me. It just looks weird to me. Now I wonder why anyone would want to dress goth, not that their reason would make me think it was any less weird. 1
Bernard Gui Posted July 5, 2018 Posted July 5, 2018 3 hours ago, Exiled said: Do you think bare shoulders are inherently immodest? So, if a very modest and loose fitting dress that was so loose so as to not advertise anything, with a neckline all the way to the chin, but bare shoulders, would that dress be immodest? If so, is the "immodesty" really just a social construct of church leaders or more along the lines of signalling whether or not someone is in or out of the group? It seems to me that bare shoulders in and of themselves are no more immodest than wearing a skirt that shows some ankle. What you or I think is irrelevant because we will never be able to come to a concensus of opinion on a workable definition of modesty. I don’t believe it’s fair to lay this at the feet of our Church leaders. There are many other organizations-not all of them religious- that have modesty standards. Even so, Church leaders can set whatever standards they think are appropriate and we are free to nit-pick, ridicule, and flaunt them all we want.
jkwilliams Posted July 5, 2018 Posted July 5, 2018 5 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: What you or I think is irrelevant because we will never be able to come to a concensus of opinion on a workable definition of modesty. I don’t believe it’s fair to lay this at the feet of our Church leaders. There are many other organizations-not all of them religious- that have modesty standards. Even so, Church leaders can set whatever standards they think are appropriate and we are free to nit-pick, ridicule, and flaunt them all we want. Nitpicking maybe, but I don't see anyone ridiculing or flaunting. I just find it fascinating that there has been this focus on bare shoulders in a way I've never seen before. But you're right, the church can (and does) set whatever standards it wants. Part of me is just curious as to why this, and why now?
Ahab Posted July 5, 2018 Posted July 5, 2018 3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Nitpicking maybe, but I don't see anyone ridiculing or flaunting. I just find it fascinating that there has been this focus on bare shoulders in a way I've never seen before. But you're right, the church can (and does) set whatever standards it wants. Part of me is just curious as to why this, and why now? When is now, exactly? Tube tops and halter tops were not an issue in the 1830s, or even the 1900s. Somebody came up with the design, sometime, though, and now we have some comments from some people who say that should be an uh-uh, not an okay thing to be wearing while some other people who oppose those comments are saying yeah-yeah baby, that is an okay thing to be wearing! I think we only need worry when everybody is in agreement about this.
jkwilliams Posted July 5, 2018 Posted July 5, 2018 Just now, Ahab said: When is now, exactly? Tube tops and halter tops were not an issue in the 1830s, or even the 1900s. Somebody came up with the design, sometime, though, and now we have some comments from some people who say that should be an uh-uh, not an okay thing to be wearing while some other people who oppose those comments are saying yeah-yeah baby, that is an okay thing to be wearing! I think we only need worry when everybody is in agreement about this. That's what's interesting to me. Tube tops and halter tops had their heyday in the 1970s, but the church wasn't censoring bare-shouldered angels back then. I'm just curious as to why the change has happened at this particular time.
Ahab Posted July 5, 2018 Posted July 5, 2018 23 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: That's what's interesting to me. Tube tops and halter tops had their heyday in the 1970s, but the church wasn't censoring bare-shouldered angels back then. I'm just curious as to why the change has happened at this particular time. Maybe that's happening now because more people can afford to and know how to photoshop now. Depending on the angel, I may prefer that he keep his shoulders covered, too.
jkwilliams Posted July 5, 2018 Posted July 5, 2018 Just now, Ahab said: Maybe that's happening now because more people can afford to and know how to photoshop now. Depending on the angel, I may prefer that he keep his shoulders covered, too. It's interesting that 19th-century artwork from a church is now considered too revealing. I was raised on a steady diet of Arnold Friberg beefcake: 1
Ahab Posted July 5, 2018 Posted July 5, 2018 5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: It's interesting that 19th-century artwork from a church is now considered too revealing. I was raised on a steady diet of Arnold Friberg beefcake: Maybe the woman is cold. Maybe that's why the man is putting a cloak on her. All the guys seem to be fine with having their shoulders bare.
Bernard Gui Posted July 6, 2018 Posted July 6, 2018 (edited) 11 hours ago, jkwilliams said: I’m guessing that a directive about depictions of sleeves has come from somewhere in the church office building, and it would be fascinating to know why that is. One of the great and important mysteries to be revealed in the latter-days. When we find out we can ask him to leave the restaurant. Edited July 6, 2018 by Bernard Gui
jkwilliams Posted July 6, 2018 Posted July 6, 2018 Just now, Bernard Gui said: One of the great and important mysteries to be revealed in the latter-days. I’ll have to ask my cousin. He apparently has contacts at the church office building. 😉
Bernard Gui Posted July 6, 2018 Posted July 6, 2018 1 hour ago, jkwilliams said: I’ll have to ask my cousin. He apparently has contacts at the church office building. 😉 Cool. Most of the big secrets are revealed in the elevators, or so I am told.
jkwilliams Posted July 6, 2018 Posted July 6, 2018 9 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: Cool. Most of the big secrets are revealed in the elevators, or so I am told. Nah, he'll just find someone to leak it to him. He's good at that. https://www.cityweekly.net/utah/latter-day-leaks/Content?oid=9641432
Scott Lloyd Posted July 9, 2018 Posted July 9, 2018 On 7/2/2018 at 2:19 AM, Bernard Gui said: This anecdote appears frequently in LDS modesty discussions, usually followed by “to the pure, all things are pure.” Sometimes I wonder about its authenticity, or whether we got the full story, or whether he thought his associate was being a dirty old man, or what he actually meant if he really said it, or just what is the point of bringing it up? I’ve also wondered if that story is meant to suggest that since one of our prophets was apparently ok with immodesty, so everyone else should be too. I wonder at what point he might have drawn the line with a majorette costume or how the one in that parade would compare with current costumes and if he would be ok with them, or if he was just trying not to be judgemental. It should be noted that at other times President McKay strongly advocated modesty in dress, including publishing the first For the Strength of Youth pamphlet. I heard a version of this story involving a later Church president (Spencer W. Kimball perhaps) and the BYU cheerleading squad at a football game. It strikes me as an urban legend. 1
Thinking Posted July 9, 2018 Posted July 9, 2018 On 7/5/2018 at 3:00 PM, Ahab said: All the guys seem to be fine with having their shoulders bare. If my shoulders looked like that, I would walk around with bare shoulders too. As it is, I'm the guy who wears a t-shirt in the wave pool at 7 Peaks because I don't want to get a sunburn and nobody wants to see me shirtless. 1
Bernard Gui Posted July 9, 2018 Posted July 9, 2018 (edited) 11 hours ago, Thinking said: If my shoulders looked like that, I would walk around with bare shoulders too. As it is, I'm the guy who wears a t-shirt in the wave pool at 7 Peaks because I don't want to get a sunburn and nobody wants to see me shirtless. Just curious why you would want to walk around with bare shoulders if they looked like that. I'm pretty proud of my big toes so I cut out the part of my shoes that covers them so everyone can admire them, too. Edited July 9, 2018 by Bernard Gui
Thinking Posted July 9, 2018 Posted July 9, 2018 3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: Just curious why you would want to walk around with bare shoulders if they looked like that. Because I'm Mr. Vain. 3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: I'm pretty proud of my big toes so I cut out the part of my shoes that covers them so everyone can admire them, too.
Recommended Posts