Modesty for Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden

[Pyreaux]

45 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Actually, I think that’s the only logical conclusion when taking what she posted at face value. She said that in the church today, modesty no longer means for women to cover these parts of their bodies, instead now thanks to a grass roots movement that rejects these old outdated standards of modesty, modesty "is starting to mean what it should mean." 

But if she didn’t mean that it’s perfectly modest for women to reveal their chests, midriffs, shoulders, and knees, she is welcome to clarify what she meant. 

I also wonder, with no particular opinion of my own, is there a solid line, or is it a moving line? Cultural opinions do change. Not many disapprove of the practicality of swimwear without garments now days, and sports, but what of a hot July or most days among LDS from rural parts of Africa? I recall a few Biblical paintings with a woman with one breast exposed, I'm not sure how common that was or if it was a Greek thing, but the times have changed. I think there is support that the apron or loincloth is the standard and was a symbol of modesty. While a garment should be "worn", and as private under piece / compact temple robe, it should be covered and unaltered or not worn, though I believe the garment was once a one-piece longjohn, and the Apostolic Church wore the full body robe in public. I don't know if I can make a call over what is sensible or puritanical.

Edited July 9, 2023 by Pyreaux

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I think we should let her speak for herself. If she wants to clarify what she meant, she’s welcome to do it. 

But since you’ve now stated what you believe in regards to modesty and clothing, it sure sounds like you are saying that a woman can be completely modest while simultaneously wearing clothing that reveals the chest, midriff, shoulders, and knees. If this is not what you believe, feel free to clarify. 

Sure, if in her culture in that setting that is how humble people dress, yes, that can be modest. I think completely naked is quite modest in the right time and setting if that is their culture. 

I can imagine settings where a completely covered to the tips of their fingers and toes person is immodest (say they are walking around covered in gold rings and watches and wearing suits that cost more than a couple of years’ salary for those who are working around them, while treating the workers as if they are scum).

[Calm]

In fact, the way the scriptures teach modesty, there is a good chance that those going around checking out whether or not girls and women are abiding by their modesty standards are actually the ones most at risk for being immodest scripturally speaking. 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

Sure, if in her culture in that setting that is how humble people dress, yes, that can be modest. I think completely naked is quite modest in the right time and setting if that is their culture. 

I thought you said that humility (which is not the same as modesty for the record) has nothing to do with what one wears. 

The temple garment is the same in all cultures and has been given to endowed members of the church to cover our nakedness. 

I don’t think that God holds a topless bushman woman living in the remote Kalahari desert accountable for being immodest because she doesn’t no any better, but I don’t think he has different standards of modesty and that anything goes as long as it’s what “humble" people wear in a given culture. 

This is also really not the issue at stake anyway. Do you think that an LDS woman or young woman who has been properly taught what modesty means can wear clothing that reveals the chest, midriff, shoulders, and knees and be perfectly modest? 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

28 minutes ago, Calm said:

In fact, the way the scriptures teach modesty, there is a good chance that those going around checking out whether or not girls and women are abiding by their modesty standards are actually the ones most at risk for being immodest scripturally speaking. 

Yeah, I don’t think so. The scriptures teach us to judge between right and wrong. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with noticing that someone is dressed immodestly and recognizing that what they are wearing is immodest. 

Correctly identifying immodestly when one sees it, is not being guilty of being immodest "scripturally speaking.” That’s ridiculous. 

[Calm]

35 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

thought you said that humility (which is not the same as modesty for the record) has nothing to do with what one wears. 

Exactly…if one is humble while naked, one is humble.

 

36 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

The temple garment is the same in all cultures and has been given to endowed members of the church to cover our nakedness. 

The temple garment has not existed in all cultures nor is it possessed by all who live in each culture.  Why would someone not covenanted to wear the garment be judged by that covenant?

[Grug the Neanderthal]

57 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

I also wonder, with no particular opinion of my own, is there a solid line, or is it a moving line? Cultural opinions do change. Not many disapprove of the practicality of swimwear without garments now days, and sports, but what of a hot July or most days among LDS from rural parts of Africa? I recall a few Biblical paintings with a woman with one breast exposed, I'm not sure how common that was or if it was a Greek thing, but the times have changed. I think there is support that the apron or loincloth is the standard and was a symbol of modesty. While a garment should be "worn", and as private under piece / compact temple robe, it should be covered and unaltered or not worn, though I believe the garment was once a one-piece longjohn, and the Apostolic Church wore the full body robe in public. I don't know if I can make a call over what is sensible or puritanical.

I think the line should be solid, but it’s hard when the culture around us changes, as we live in the world while trying our best to not be of it. 

In that regard, I think that it may be appropriate to make some alterations to the garment, with the Lord’s permission of course, which obviously changes the modesty standards somewhat. For example, I don’t see a problem with shortening the garment from the wrists and ankles to the elbows and just below the knee. I don’t see any modesty compromise there. 

Lowering the neck (chest and back) lines to the level that they currently are and raising the leg of the garment above the knee cap on the other hand are very hard to justify in my opinion. Perhaps it’s okay because this still has the effect of causing "Mormons" to be more modest than society at large, even though modesty standards have been compromised. It’s hard to say. Really depends on what God has or hasn’t authorized. 

I don’t believe that there’s any justification for making the garment any more revealing than it currently is, regardless of how much more loose the worldly standards get. Nor do I think that there’s any justification for loosening the general requirement that the garment been worn day and night with very limited temporary exceptions.

I worked outside for years in blistering Arizona desert, and never had a problem wearing the garment the entire time. In fact wearing a long sleeved shirt turned out to be cooler than a short sleeved one as it shielded my arms from the sun and cooled me off once it got moist from perspiration. I also typically wear a long sleeved swim shirt and knee length shorts when I swim and stay quite cool. 

I think the argument that it’s justifiable to remove the garment and wear more revealing clothing because it’s too hot doesn’t fly at all. 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Exactly…if one is humble while naked, one is humble.

Sure, but once again, humility and modesty aren’t the same thing. If one is naked and could put on clothing, then one is not modest, regardless of how humble one might be. 

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

The temple garment has not existed in all cultures nor is it possessed by all who live in each culture.  Why would someone not covenanted to wear the garment be judged by that covenant?

I never said that someone in a culture who has no access to the garment and hasn’t covenanted to wear one will be "judged by that covenant?" Those without law, like the topless bushman lady in Africa, will be judged based on the light and knowledge they have received.

But this is again, not what we are talking about. We’re talking about the church’s teachings on modesty. I will ask the question again, please actually answer it this time:

Do you think that an LDS woman or young woman who has been properly taught what modesty means can wear clothing that reveals the chest, midriff, shoulders, and knees and be perfectly modest?

 

[Calm]

47 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

The scriptures teach us to judge between right and wrong.

 

They teach us to judge righteously….which may include only if there is a need or a calling to judge given the scripture of “he who is without sin” and all.  I have my doubts that someone who judges another out of impulse or habit or just because they think they have a right to judge is judging righteously.

[Grug the Neanderthal]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

 

They teach us to judge righteously….which may include only if there is a need or a calling to judge given the scripture of “he who is without sin” and all.  I have my doubts that someone who judges another out of impulse or habit or just because they think they have a right to judge is judging righteously.

Judging righteously of necessity requires correctly judging between right and wrong. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with correctly recognizing immodesty when one sees it. 

Casting final judgment on an individual who is dressed immodestly or thinking that we are better than someone who sins differently than we do is of course wrong, but this most definitely does not mean that we should turn a blind eye to immodesty and no longer teach high modesty standards at church and within our families, which includes not wearing immodest clothing. 

[Calm]

How is judging someone immodest when it is not necessary for our own righteousness not casting stones?  If you are walking down the street and you take the effort to critique the woman walking the other way as immodest, someone who you will never see again, what good has that done your soul?

Edited July 9, 2023 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I think the line should be solid, but it’s hard when the culture around us changes, as we live in the world while trying our best to not be of it. 

In that regard, I think that it may be appropriate to make some alterations to the garment, with the Lord’s permission of course, which obviously changes the modesty standards somewhat. For example, I don’t see a problem with shortening the garment from the wrists and ankles to the elbows and just below the knee. I don’t see any modesty compromise there. 

Lowering the neck (chest and back) lines to the level that they currently are and raising the leg of the garment above the knee cap on the other hand are very hard to justify in my opinion. Perhaps it’s okay because this still has the effect of causing "Mormons" to be more modest than society at large, even though modesty standards have been compromised. It’s hard to say. Really depends on what God has or hasn’t authorized. 

I don’t believe that there’s any justification for making the garment any more revealing than it currently is, regardless of how much more loose the worldly standards get. Nor do I think that there’s any justification for loosening the general requirement that the garment been worn day and night with very limited temporary exceptions.

I worked outside for years in blistering Arizona desert, and never had a problem wearing the garment the entire time. In fact wearing a long sleeved shirt turned out to be cooler than a short sleeved one as it shielded my arms from the sun and cooled me off once it got moist from perspiration. I also typically wear a long sleeved swim shirt and knee length shorts when I swim and stay quite cool. 

I think the argument that it’s justifiable to remove the garment and wear more revealing clothing because it’s too hot doesn’t fly at all. 

The location of the marks in relation to the body parts is symbolically linked to their meanings and should not be altered at all.  It's not about modesty or comfort.

[Grug the Neanderthal]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

How is judging someone immodest when it is not necessary for our own righteousness not casting stones?  If you are walking down the street and you take the effort to critique the woman walking the other way as immodest, someone who you will never see again, what good has that done your soul?

How is recognizing that someone is dressed immodestly not casting stones? Is this a serious question?

The woman taken in adultery was presented to Jesus to entrap him. The Pharisees correctly pointed out that the law given by God stated that she should be stoned to death. Meanwhile, the Romans forbid the Jews from executing people. They were trying to get Jesus to either state that they law of God didn’t need to be followed or that they should stone her in defiance of the laws of the land. That’s not even remotely the same thing as what we’re talking about in regards to modesty.

Jesus did not chastise them for correctly identifying that the woman was guilty of adultery. He also didn’t say that it was just fine for the woman to commit adultery. Instead he offered a response that foiled the Pharisees attempt to trap him while telling the woman to go and sin no more.  

As for what good it does one’s soul to correctly differentiate between right and wrong, I will let you ponder on that one. 

You're scenario also yet again does not address the issue at hand. No one is talking about “taking the time to judge or critique some random stranger on the other side of the road" for not dressing modestly. We’re talking specifically about the church’s teachings and standards on modesty and how it applies to women and young women in the church. 

You’re still refusing to answer my simple question about LDS women and young women wearing clothing that reveals the chest, midriff, shoulders, and knees and instead you’re asking questions that don’t address the issue at hand. Again, please answer my simple question. 

 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The location of the marks in relation to the body parts is symbolically linked to their meanings and should not be altered at all.  It's not about modesty or comfort.

So why has the church shortened the garment to the point that it no longer covers the knees for most individuals?

It was clearly done with comfort and the ability to wear more revealing clothing in mind. 

[Rain]

6 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I think the line should be solid, but it’s hard when the culture around us changes, as we live in the world while trying our best to not be of it. 

In that regard, I think that it may be appropriate to make some alterations to the garment, with the Lord’s permission of course, which obviously changes the modesty standards somewhat. For example, I don’t see a problem with shortening the garment from the wrists and ankles to the elbows and just below the knee. I don’t see any modesty compromise there. 

Lowering the neck (chest and back) lines to the level that they currently are and raising the leg of the garment above the knee cap on the other hand are very hard to justify in my opinion. Perhaps it’s okay because this still has the effect of causing "Mormons" to be more modest than society at large, even though modesty standards have been compromised. It’s hard to say. Really depends on what God has or hasn’t authorized. 

I don’t believe that there’s any justification for making the garment any more revealing than it currently is, regardless of how much more loose the worldly standards get. Nor do I think that there’s any justification for loosening the general requirement that the garment been worn day and night with very limited temporary exceptions.

I worked outside for years in blistering Arizona desert, and never had a problem wearing the garment the entire time. In fact wearing a long sleeved shirt turned out to be cooler than a short sleeved one as it shielded my arms from the sun and cooled me off once it got moist from perspiration. I also typically wear a long sleeved swim shirt and knee length shorts when I swim and stay quite cool. 

Bodies are different than each other and even change from what they once were. Just because wearing garments is not a heat problem for you doesn't mean it isn't for others.  In Utah I wore shorts/capris in the snow sometimes and my winter coat was a sweater because I would get overheated.  Two of my children have the same problem.  In Texas where I was born and here in Arizona for years I had a heat rash that was incredibly uncomfortable and sometimes painful.  Luckily, or unluckily because it may be because of health that has dissipated the last couple of years.  

6 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I think the argument that it’s justifiable to remove the garment and wear more revealing clothing because it’s too hot doesn’t fly at all. 

 

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

You’re still refusing to answer my simple question about LDS women and young women wearing clothing that reveals the chest, midriff, shoulders, and knees and instead you’re asking questions that don’t address the issue at hand. Again, please answer my simple question. 

 

Are showing shoulders revealing in your belief?  You keep mentioning them.  How are they revealing (if they are)?

[Grug the Neanderthal]

7 minutes ago, Rain said:

Bodies are different than each other and even change from what they once were. Just because wearing garments is not a heat problem for you doesn't mean it isn't for others.  In Utah I wore shorts/capris in the snow sometimes and my winter coat was a sweater because I would get overheated.  Two of my children have the same problem.  In Texas where I was born and here in Arizona for years I had a heat rash that was incredibly uncomfortable and sometimes painful.  Luckily, or unluckily because it may be because of health that has dissipated the last couple of years.  

 

I’m not buying this. There’s nothing about the current garment length and the variety of material it is offered in that would prohibit anyone from wearing clothing that doesn’t cause them to overheat. It’s all about current styles and the desire to fit in. It being too hot to wear the garment is just an excuse. 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

Just now, Calm said:

Are showing shoulders revealing in your belief?  You keep mentioning them.  How are they revealing (if they are)?

Please answer my question, and I’ll be happy to answer yours. One more time:

Do you think that an LDS woman or young woman who has been properly taught what modesty means can wear clothing that reveals the chest, midriff, shoulders, and knees and be perfectly modest?

And please specifically address clothing that reveals the chest and midriff. 

[Calm]

The opening poster is not a member of the Church and I see no indication he has limited the conversation on modesty to only LDS members.  And I have no intent to do so either.

Is something immodest for a nonmember if it would show temple garments if they wore them or does that standard only matter for members in your opinion?

[Calm]

56 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I’m not buying this. There’s nothing about the current garment length and the variety of material it is offered in that would prohibit anyone from wearing clothing that doesn’t cause them to overheat. It’s all about current styles and the desire to fit in. It being too hot to wear the garment is just an excuse. 

You should be grateful you don’t have these kinds of issues rather than acting as if they don’t exist.  If you do some research online, you will likely quickly come across stories of nonmembers who have issues even with the more minimal underwear and wearing whatever they want; yet they still have problems.  Add the clinginess of garments when frequently damp from sweat or even dry that then prevents air from reaching all parts of the body freely…and don’t forget a bra will pull the top garment tight against the body and all the fun hormones that go along with menopause, pregnancies, and periods…a guy telling a woman there is no reason she would ever overheat if dressed appropriately is laughable.

I have tried several styles and fabrics offered by the Church and cannot wear any of them to sleep in as they cause rashes even with no pjs and the lightest of sheets.  The problem is all of the fabrics are thin and lay flat against my skin.  Only thing that doesn’t cause problems are extremely baggy, long sleeve and full pant, no elastic pure cotton of a certain weight that doesn’t cling at all.  One of my bishops was a doctor and he was the one who told me not to wear garments when sleeping.  I am trying hard to fathom how current style and the desire to fit in is the issue with that.  The elastic used to ‘hem’ used to cause a nice constant itching all by itself but thankfully they have stopped using that.

Then there was that medication I was taking that would have put me in the hospital if I got too hot.

I survive summer by never going outside and having an huge bill for our AC, and if required to, by changing clothes (typically a size too large so they are loose) several times a day and taking a shower a couple a times.  Not everyone has that option.

PS:  I never wear shorts or even capris and my skirts are all maxi (dumped hose eons ago).  My sleeves are rarely even short, most are 3/4 or longer.  My clothes like I said are quite loose.  Not even a belt.  And yet here I am complaining about garments overheating me when my clothing will be identical even if I stop wearing them.  How does that make sense in your world?

Edited July 9, 2023 by Calm

[Grug the Neanderthal]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

The opening poster is not a member of the Church and I see no indication he has limited the conversation on modesty to only LDS members.  And I have no intent to do so either.

No one is asking you to limit the conversation on modesty to LDS members.

Mustard seed specifically brought up the old fashioned LDS standards on modesty which held that it was immodest for women and young women to wear clothing that revealed the chest, midriff, shoulders, and knees and how she was glad that a grassroots movement had done away with this and that people were now starting to view modesty correctly. When I asked her a question about her statement, you presumed to speak for her. 

I have asked a very relevant and essential question about the views you keep expressing in regards to modesty, and you have intern repeatedly deflected and posed distracting questions of your own. And you’re still at it. Is there a reason why you are unwilling to answer my simple question? It’s not a difficult question. 

Here, I’ll try to make the question even easier. Is it modest for LDS women and young women to wear croptops which expose the midriff, chest, shoulders, and back? How about booty shorts that barely cover the butt or even show some of it? How about bikinis? Strapless mini skirts?

The "humble" poor wear these things in our current mainstream culture. Is it modest for LDS women who have been properly taught what modesty means to wear these things?

I say no. And I also say that’s it’s not modest for anyone to wear these things, LDS or otherwise. But what say you?

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

So why has the church shortened the garment to the point that it no longer covers the knees for most individuals?

It was clearly done with comfort and the ability to wear more revealing clothing in mind. 

Highly disagree.

This is an international church now, not a Utah USA church.

People around the world come in various shapes and sizes.  What a mess and expense it would be if we had Asian sizes, Samoan sizes, African sizes, Chicago sizes, and California sizes.

Every body ( two words) gets to be a little uncomfortable; yet another tiny tiny reminder of Christ being  "uncomfortable" for us.

[bluebell]

This is what the church teaches the youth about modesty right now—

“Treat your body—and others’ bodies—with respect. As you make decisions about your clothing, hairstyle, and appearance, ask yourself, “Am I honoring my body as a sacred gift from God?” Heavenly Father wants us to see each other for who we really are: not just physical bodies but His beloved children with a divine destiny. Avoid styles that emphasize or draw inappropriate attention to your physical body instead of who you are as a child of God with an eternal future. Let moral cleanliness and love for God guide your choices. Seek counsel from your parents.”

This is enough for me. 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

45 minutes ago, Calm said:

You should be grateful you don’t have these kinds of issues rather than acting as if they don’t exist.  If you do some research online, you will likely quickly come across stories of nonmembers who have issues even with the more minimal underwear and wearing whatever they want; yet they still have problems.  Add the clinginess of garments that frequently when damp from sweat or even dry prevents air from reaching all parts of the body freely…and don’t forget a bra will pull the top garment tight against the body and the fun hormones that go along with menopause and periods…a guy telling a woman there is no reason she would ever overheat if dressed appropriately is laughable.

It looks like you’re trying to play the old insensitive man card. I find that to be in poor taste. You have no idea what issue I have and haven’t had when it comes to getting overheated or even getting a heat rash while wearing my garments. 

For the record, I have been overheated and had heat rashes many times while wearing garments working out in the Arizona sun all day. This isn’t the point, though and has nothing to do with the discussion on modesty. There’s simply no excuse to take off the garment in order to wear more revealing clothing on the grounds that it’s too hot. 

[Rain]

43 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I’m not buying this. There’s nothing about the current garment length and the variety of material it is offered in that would prohibit anyone from wearing clothing that doesn’t cause them to overheat. It’s all about current styles and the desire to fit in. It being too hot to wear the garment is just an excuse. 

You don't have to buy it, but it would be nice if you tried to understand it from someone who has tried the different fabrics, seen and definitely felt the red rash across my body rather than discount my experience with a wave of a hand.