Modesty for Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden

[Calm]

11 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

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.

So is God’s law in your view essentially don’t wear clothing that would expose garments if you wore them?

 

 

PS to another post….while I agree wearing a long sleeve shirt that is light in color and weight and is of very breathable fabric in the sun may be cooler than wearing a tank top in the sun (I have an old white long sleeve dress shirt of my husband’s that I save for the rare summer outdoor event), one can overheat indoors as well as outdoors.  Having an extra layer on one’s trunk and less exposed skin slows the cooling process, even with the wicking variety of garment.

This observation and others do not mean I don’t believe we should wear garments or clothing that covers it if we have made the temple covenant.  I do not see the command to wear temple garments and appropriate for them clothing as tied to “modesty” as defined as avoiding indecency; rather it is closer in my view to “modesty” as in being humble in obedience to God and respecting the covenant.

Edited July 9, 2023 by Calm

[Rain]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Like everything, imo, it's subject to how you interpret it to create your world.

Sounds so much like you. 🙂

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You don't have to be exalted to create a world, we get to practice it every day 😉

 

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

And there it is. I was waiting for it. 

Why weren’t you thinking of men in skimpy clothing too?

[Rain]

3 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I don’t think I’m misunderstanding the connection by not understanding your experience, but if you think so, perhaps you would be kind enough to clarify your experience.

Are you saying that you were unable to find a single garment fabric, style, or size that didn’t give you a heat rash across your entire body but were able to find other undergarments with fabrics that didn’t give you a heat rash under the exact same heat conditions because they allowed you to wear clothing that wouldn’t cover the garment?

Honestly, there have been enough points through this thread that I have lost track of who said what and what points were connected to what points. 

And after a sacrament meeting talk and mustard seed's last post I recognized that I had a little too much argumentative feelings mixed in with my true feelings on this topic and I apologize for that. I've done my best to rid myself of that now and just communicate below. 

I am saying that the extra layer that garments provide were worse with my problems no matter what they were made of. The layer stuffed up in my armpit doesn't help either - sadly the fabric and style that works best for the rest of my top makes the armpit pretty bad. And because I have felt this way I have long mourned for those in Africa or even here in Phoenix who needed to wear that extra layer especially if they have no AC. 

But I really feel it is the attitude that makes a difference in modesty and not clothing rules. I have moved furniture into apartments many times with women in tank tops and shorts and never found them immodest. I have seen women clothed to their ankles and wrists, but acting seductive who I felt were not modest.

I don't remember  how this thread got started, but changing the garment top to a tank top would do nothing to change the things talked about. The placement of the hem above, below or on the knee still conforms with the symbolic reasoning. 

2 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I said, IF the previous teaching on modesty were not enough more could have been added. But I disagree that this was the case.

As for your second point, what if the current teachings is too vague out of fear of offending? 

Then we have a problem.

However, I don't think that is what happened and I think a bigger problem is that we haven't trained our youth (including many of us when we were youths) well in finding out for themselves what God wants.  We have made it easy for them to think they only need to follow the rule, like with the Law of Moses, instead of teaching them how to be more in tune with God.

And like with many rules people naturally fight against them. When they work things out with God that is no longer a worry.

[Saint Bonaventure]

I may be misunderstanding, but for LDS is there a direct connection between "dressing modestly" and "dressing so as not to be alluring"?  I mean "alluring" in a romantic sense. I'm trying to keep this description site appropriate.

I say this because I don't think that the Bible verses often deployed in the name of modesty--Isaiah 3, 1 Tim. 2, etc.--are primarily about being alluring. I think "alluring" can be there in some sense, but these passages seem to me to be more about not dressing and adorning in a way that exalts the self, that is flamboyant, that is drawing excessive attention, that is exhibiting wealth etc.

In that sense, a man wearing a $4k suit and tie may not be dressing modestly. 

I'll add that the white shirt and tie thing feels very Protestant to me. I say this knowing that there have been Catholic church meetings that have had courtly church dress and so on, but the white shirt and tie thing? It seems very Victorian and more generally European, and a thing that emerged over the last few centuries and that was reinforced by the business class in the 20th century.

When you offer Mass every day, there's a certain acceptance of people coming dressed as they are. In my parish we try to dress respectfully because our dress is not about drawing attention to ourselves in an alluring or any other aggrandizing manner. Nevertheless, the sacredness is reinforced more by the silence in the church--little or no conversation in the church proper before or after Mass--and by leaving distractions outside of the church. I don't know the last time I saw a cell phone in the church, let alone heard one go off during Mass. 

[Pyreaux]

14 hours 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. 

The women of the thread seem united, and as I read between lines I get this vision of generations of conflict between Young Women's Leaders and Youth over whether shorts are too short, humiliating stories of extra cloth getting sewn on the girls at Young Women's Campouts. I sense an era when girls weren't merely being judged, but standards were actually imposed upon them. Is it this you are coming from? Those you call truly "immodest", shamelessly shaming women for the wearing a "commonly sold" style of dress to church or public (as I've heard "modest" dresses can be hard to find). Is it for such reasons you feel modesty should be in the realm of personal conviction in contrast to being imposed on someone?

Now there are flip sides to the issue. I do believe there is a personal responsibility for women to be modest for the sake of not inciting men, places where it should be considered. What Paul says about women covering their hair during sacred ordinances as to not "offend" the angels. I do think he is speaking about being modest, do what you can to have mercy upon angels/priests and holy men at sacred venues to help them control their thoughts. I recall Jordan Peterson talking about eliminating sexual harassment in the workplace. How if women who put on make-up and dress provocatively and enter a space with men, are we to never expect a man to ever become provoked, to stare or comment. What purpose does red lipstick and high heels at work serve other than to attract men? Modesty in dress might still be a virtue. But I don't wish to fight, ladies. These are just new thoughts I had today. Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, so don't kill me, please.

Edited July 9, 2023 by Pyreaux

[Grug the Neanderthal]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I didn't, because I wasn't trying to convince anyone that they were in the wrong for following the directions in the old version.  When some members would attempt to add things to those directions, or create rules around them, I would speak up when I could.

Nah, I think this is just a cop out. I’m not trying to convince anyone here to agree with me any more than you are any one else is.

You are telling me to write the first presidency to tell them that I think the new modesty teachings are too vague, but you didn’t write them complaining about the old teachings you believed were too rigid, that’s a double standard. All you’re trying to do is distract from the issue at hand. 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

2 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

The women of the thread seem united, and as I read between lines I get this vision of generations of conflict between Young Women's Leaders and Youth over whether shorts are too short, humiliating stories of extra cloth getting sewn on the girls at Young Women's Campouts. I sense an era when girls weren't merely being judged, but standards were actually imposed upon them. Is it this you are coming from? Those "immodest" shamelessly shaming women for the wearing a "commonly sold" style of dress to church or public (as I've heard a "modest" dresses can be hard to find). Is it for such reasons you feel modesty should be in the realm of personal conviction in contrast to being imposed on someone?

Now there are flip sides to issue. I do believe there is a personal responsibility for women to be modest for the sake of not inciting men, places where its should be considered. What Paul say about women covering their hair during sacred ordinances as to not "offend" the angels. I do think he is speaking about being modest, do what you can to have mercy upon angels/priests and holy men at sacred venues to help them control their thoughts. I recall Jordan Peterson talking about eliminating sexual harassment in the workplace. How if women who put on make-up and dress provocatively and enter a space with men, are we to never expect a man to ever become provoked, to stare or comment. What purpose does red lipstick and high heels at work serve other than to attract men? Modesty in dress might still be a virtue. But I don't wish to fight, ladies. These are just new thoughts I had today. Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, so don't kill me, please.

You should be safe. They’re busy coming after me. 

[Rain]

13 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I may be misunderstanding, but for LDS is there a direct connection between "dressing modestly" and "dressing so as not to be alluring"?  I mean "alluring" in a romantic sense. I'm trying to keep this description site appropriate.

Yes and no.  Yes, there has been a direct connection in the last few decades, but like you describe below the scriptures talk about it differently.  Unfortunately, the alluring idea has sometimes been much louder than the other.

13 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I say this because I don't think that the Bible verses often deployed in the name of modesty--Isaiah 3, 1 Tim. 2, etc.--are primarily about being alluring. I think "alluring" can be there in some sense, but these passages seem to me to be more about not dressing and adorning in a way that exalts the self, that is flamboyant, that is drawing excessive attention, that is exhibiting wealth etc.

In that sense, a man wearing a $4k suit and tie may not be dressing modestly. 

I'll add that the white shirt and tie thing feels very Protestant to me. I say this knowing that there have been Catholic church meetings that have had courtly church dress and so on, but the white shirt and tie thing? It seems very Victorian and more generally European, and a thing that emerged over the last few centuries and that was reinforced by the business class in the 20th century.

When you offer Mass every day, there's a certain acceptance of people coming dressed as they are. In my parish we try to dress respectfully because our dress is not about drawing attention to ourselves in an alluring or any other aggrandizing manner. Nevertheless, the sacredness is reinforced more by the silence in the church--little or no conversation in the church proper before or after Mass--and by leaving distractions outside of the church. I don't know the last time I saw a cell phone in the church, let alone heard one go off during Mass. 

 

[MustardSeed]

13 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

do believe there is a personal responsibility for women to be modest for the sake of not inciting men

No.  Women are not responsible for what you think.  How can we be?  Men will think of women sexually even when we cover head to toe.  Do not put that on us.  This attitude has done damage to us and we will not accept this further. 
 

 

[MustardSeed]

19 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

What purpose does red lipstick and high heels at work serve other than to attract men?

No. I’m wearing lipstick and heels right now.  I’m in a class with only young women.  It’s a culturally accepted practice to wear heels and lipstick and if that turns you on, you are responsible to manage your behavior. 

Edited July 9, 2023 by MustardSeed

[Grug the Neanderthal]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Why weren’t you thinking of men in skimpy clothing too?

I’ll leave that to you. 😉

[MustardSeed]

For the record, Jordan Peterson is in my mind, brilliant, and has a lot of good information to share. Be careful, however how he shapes your worldview. That’s all I’m going to share on that topic.

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

The women of the thread seem united, and as I read between lines I get this vision of generations of conflict between Young Women's Leaders and Youth over whether shorts are too short, humiliating stories of extra cloth getting sewn on the girls at Young Women's Campouts. I sense an era when girls weren't merely being judged, but standards were actually imposed upon them. Is it this you are coming from? Those you call truly "immodest", shamelessly shaming women for the wearing a "commonly sold" style of dress to church or public (as I've heard "modest" dresses can be hard to find). Is it for such reasons you feel modesty should be in the realm of personal conviction in contrast to being imposed on someone?

This is part of it.

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

Now there are flip sides to the issue. I do believe there is a personal responsibility for women to be modest for the sake of not inciting men, places where it should be considered.

This is the more concerning part. That people expect women to be responsible for men's thoughts and actions.  The problem is more evident when men are not held to the same responsibility.

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

What Paul says about women covering their hair during sacred ordinances as to not "offend" the angels. I do think he is speaking about being modest, do what you can to have mercy upon angels/priests and holy men at sacred venues to help them control their thoughts.

I've recently come across ideas that we may be misunderstanding Paul where women are concerned. That he may be sharing or quoting how the culture around them feels about them, but not necessarily him.  I've not studied it enough to share more here unfortunately, but just want to say that because of that (and other things) what he says about doesn't sway me.  Sorry, that I can't explain better.

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

I recall Jordan Peterson talking about eliminating sexual harassment in the workplace. How if women who put on make-up and dress provocatively and enter a space with men, are we to never expect a man to ever become provoked, to stare or comment.

Does he feel the same way about men wearing suits and that women are not responsible when they become provoked, stare or comment because of what the men are wearing? If he does, I'm glad he is not holding the responsibility differently.

But no, if any person sexually harasses someone they are the ones who chose to do it and their victim is not responsible.  Just as having a nice lawn in my yard doesn't make me responsible for my neighbor being jealous or for a thief stealing the computer in my house.

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

What purpose does red lipstick and high heels at work serve other than to attract men?

 

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

Modesty in dress might still be a virtue. But I don't wish to fight, ladies. These are just new thoughts I had today. Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, so don't kill me, please.

I don't want to fight either. So not my nature.  But I am so, so tired of being told I am responsible for how a man thinks and acts.

Totally serious question - if you knew a woman was having sexual thoughts about you at work would you ever think "that's my fault.  I should have buttoned up the collar button on my shirt.  If she hadn't seen my adam's apple she wouldn't feel that way"?  I ask this because I find men's Adam's apples crazy attractive and it would never even occur to me to ask them to cover it or blame them for leading me on because of it.

Edited July 9, 2023 by Rain

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

I recall Jordan Peterson talking about eliminating sexual harassment in the workplace. How if women who put on make-up and dress provocatively and enter a space with men, are we to never expect a man to ever become provoked, to stare or comment. What purpose does red lipstick and high heels at work serve other than to attract men? Modesty in dress might still be a virtue. But I don't wish to fight, ladies. These are just new thoughts I had today. Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, so don't kill me, please.

Why don’t we all just never bathe or groom ourselves at all in the workplace to prevent attraction?

[The Nehor]

29 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I’ll leave that to you. 😉

Then if you accept me as a subject matter expert I can say that our standards are very one-sided.

[Grug the Neanderthal]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

And after a sacrament meeting talk and mustard seed's last post I recognized that I had a little too much argumentative feelings mixed in with my true feelings on this topic and I apologize for that. I've done my best to rid myself of that now and just communicate below. 

I appreciate the apology and clarification.

2 hours ago, Rain said:

I am saying that the extra layer that garments provide were worse with my problems no matter what they were made of. The layer stuffed up in my armpit doesn't help either - sadly the fabric and style that works best for the rest of my top makes the armpit pretty bad. And because I have felt this way I have long mourned for those in Africa or even here in Phoenix who needed to wear that extra layer especially if they have no AC.

I can completely understand and relate. I spent over a decade working long hours outside in the blistering Arizona sun in the heat of the day usually on concrete or asphalt and often with little or no shade. But I have covenanted to wear the garment day and night, and so I do that, even though one less layer of clothing might be more comfortable in the heat. 

And this really isn't the issue. No one is overheating wearing shorts that go to the knees and a t-shirt instead of high shorts and a tank top, let alone booty shorts and a crop top. No one is overheating wearing a more modest one piece swim suit or even a swim shirt and shorts instead of a bikini. 

2 hours ago, Rain said:

The placement of the hem above, below or on the knee still conforms with the symbolic reasoning. 

I don't think it does. 

2 hours ago, Rain said:

Then we have a problem.

Yes indeed. 

2 hours ago, Rain said:

However, I don't think that is what happened and I think a bigger problem is that we haven't trained our youth (including many of us when we were youths) well in finding out for themselves what God wants.  We have made it easy for them to think they only need to follow the rule, like with the Law of Moses, instead of teaching them how to be more in tune with God.

I don't believe that this is what was going on. The church should teach us what God's will is. Of course there are many things left up to us, but I don't see any problem with the church being clear about God's expectations on issues like modest attire, drinking alcohol, using tobacco, using drugs, having pre-martial sex and other issues regarding chastity, swearing, getting tattoos, etc. I think that the reasons were always taught. Other things have always been open to individual interpretation and people have always been taught to be in tune with God and seek his will.

Edited July 9, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal

[Grug the Neanderthal]

15 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Then if you accept me as a subject matter expert I can say that our standards are very one-sided.

I don't think that they are. Men and women are different. Their bodies are different and the way they are wired is different, but that doesn't make the standards "very one-sided." If we use the garment as the modesty standard, the current men's garment is actually less revealing than the current women's garment. I think the issue is that our culture has sexualized women and pressures them to dress sexy and show off their bodies. Society tells them that if they want to look good they need to wear high shorts that barely cover their butts, super short skirts, skimpy tops, bikini's, etc., but doesn't pressure men to do this. 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

So is God’s law in your view essentially don’t wear clothing that would expose garments if you wore them?

I don't understand what you are asking, can you please clarify?

3 hours ago, Calm said:

This observation and others do not mean I don’t believe we should wear garments or clothing that covers it if we have made the temple covenant.

Thank you for clearing that up, because your comments earlier made it sound like you were saying something along these lines.

3 hours ago, Calm said:

I do not see the command to wear temple garments and appropriate for them clothing as tied to “modesty” as defined as avoiding indecency; rather it is closer in my view to “modesty” as in being humble in obedience to God and respecting the covenant.

I honestly have no idea why you and others here keep trying to connect modesty with humility. The two are not the same thing. As for the garment, doesn't the temple tell us that among other things it is given to us to cover our nakedness? 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

4 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I don’t enjoy this type of “gotcha” discussion. I said what I said, but I will answer the question simply, and leave it at that. Yes, I believe women can show their shoulders and be humble, just as boys can.  Yes, I believe women can show their knees and still be humble, just as boys can. And I believe that women’s midsection’s are as innocent as are mens. To be clear, I believe it would be inappropriate for women to show their breasts in public in the United States of America, unless they are breast-feeding. I no longer use the term modesty, but instead use the term socially appropriate as deemed by the situation, For example, it would be inappropriate for me to wear a two-piece suit to Neanderthals barbecue. It is appropriate for me to wear a two-piece suit in other places. I do so with no qualms or issues.  As another example, it’s important to dress appropriately when one is singing in a high school girls choir when the required dress says no shoulders. The purpose of this is for Continuity to please the eyes of the audience. Choirs are supposed to be one voice, and the visual should be the same. When girls show up with strap dresses or short skirts it messes up the scene and directs focus on the individual. Not appropriate.

At a wedding I attended yesterday, somebody wore an extremely revealing dress. This is not appropriate, because everybody knows that the focus is supposed to be on the bride. Nobody is to wear white, and nobody is to wear anything that takes attention away from the bride. If a man showed up in a sparkly suit, that would also be inappropriate.
 

Since correcting the message  delivered in my youth from “modesty” (where the focus was protecting boys and men) to “appropriate dress for the situation”, I feel better informed, and actually LESS JUDGMENTAL myself.  It is a nice place to be. 
 

I think arguments online, which I have been guilty of, demonstrates significant absence of modesty (humility). I have shared what I think and what I believe. I will not discuss further.

 

A point of clarification: Modesty and humility are not the same thing.

It sounds like you believe that when it comes to modesty women (and men presumably) can pretty much wear whatever they want or is little as they want as long as it is considered culturally acceptable in that situation. I strongly disagree with this, especially since the standards of the world on pretty much everything have been declining rapidly about pretty much everything, including modesty. God's standards do not mirror the ever-changing standards of the world. 

[The Nehor]

22 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I don't think that they are. Men and women are different. Their bodies are different and the way they are wired is different, but that doesn't make the standards "very one-sided." If we use the garment as the modesty standard, the current men's garment is actually less revealing than the current women's garment. I think the issue is that our culture has sexualized women and pressures them to dress sexy and show off their bodies. Society tells them that if they want to look good they need to wear high shorts that barely cover their butts, super short skirts, skimpy tops, bikini's, etc., but doesn't pressure men to do this. 

You are basing your conclusions on how men can be attractive on what exactly?

A lot of this is wrong.

[Grug the Neanderthal]

20 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You are basing your conclusions on how men can be attractive on what exactly?

I don't know what you're asking, nor how it's relevant to my comment.

21 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

A lot of this is wrong.

Such as? Please elaborate. 

[Calm]

37 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I honestly have no idea why you and others here keep trying to connect modesty with humility.

Because the scriptures connect immodesty with vanity, exalting oneself as Saint Bonadventure says above.

[Grug the Neanderthal]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Because the scriptures connect immodesty with vanity, exalting oneself as Saint Bonadventure says above.

They may be loosely connected but vanity and immodesty are not the same thing. Using humility and modesty interchangeably is incorrect. 

[webbles]

55 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I don't think that they are. Men and women are different. Their bodies are different and the way they are wired is different, but that doesn't make the standards "very one-sided." If we use the garment as the modesty standard, the current men's garment is actually less revealing than the current women's garment. I think the issue is that our culture has sexualized women and pressures them to dress sexy and show off their bodies. Society tells them that if they want to look good they need to wear high shorts that barely cover their butts, super short skirts, skimpy tops, bikini's, etc., but doesn't pressure men to do this. 

You seem to think that being more revealing or less revealing is the key factor in whether someone is being sexual or immodest.  I think several women on the forum have mentioned that a man in a very nice fitting suite is alluring to them, similar to how a woman in a revealing outfit is alluring to you.

The amount of clothing that one is wearing is not a valid way to determine whether you are modest or not.  A woman who is breastfeeding is definitely "revealing" but I hope most people would consider her to be modest.  A man wearing a nice suite intentionally to be alluring to women is definitely fully clothed but I would consider him to be immodest.