Modesty for Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden

[Grug the Neanderthal]

5 hours ago, Rain said:

I can't answer that with a yes or no, because like calm shares I don't think any of those things in and of themselves proclaim modesty.  It is the state of their hearts and minds, not the length of their hems that make it modest or not. 

But if you are asking if I think God has rules for every clothing item or body decoration then I would have to say no, especially if it is only women's clothing someone is concerned about. 

 

I am claiming his rule of immodesty is something like calm said,"don’t  wear things for the purpose of self aggrandizement, to elevate yourself above others", a state of heart, not a set of rules about body coverage of clothing or body decoration.

Your answer is a bit confusing, but I gather that you do believe that someone can be perfectly modest while wearing booty shorts and a crop-top as long as they don’t do it for the purpose of elevating themselves above others. 

My follow up question is if you believe that it’s possible for an individual who has been correctly taught what modesty means to wear booty shorts and a crop-top and still be perfectly modest in God’s eyes?

Lets not over complicate things. A simple yes or no would be great.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

It just gets stuck in there due to not knowing where to put other grooming mandates.

Maybe not….To me tattoos and piercings are closer than the usual stuff to the scriptural instructions of avoiding immodesty by avoiding self exalting, attention getting attire, such as the jewelry and braids of the Bible.  My guess, btw, is the braids referred to are the elaborate ones that would require hours and the service of another to create them, often a slave, rather than the simple ones you can whip out yourself in a few minutes to keep long hair out of your eyes or from getting tangled.

This would not automatically make tattoos and piercings immodest, would depend on their purpose.  Some tattoos and piercings are done for religious purposes, to mark the body as sacred.  I doubt God condemns those as immodest though he might be unhappy about them for another reason.  This is my own bias as I have known people who had bad reactions to piercings, causing numbness or weird growths and gotten infections from improperly cared for tattoos as the body responded to what is an injury, but circumcision does at least as much and is biblically acceptable, so perhaps he isn’t. 

But tattoos and piercings don’t do much revealing in and of themselves, so they hardly qualify as immodest by the revealing of too much skin standard that has been adopted by the Church to cover most of the modesty discussions lately (up until the last few years that is, shout out to current FtSoY).

Edited July 10, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

52 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

who has been correctly taught what modesty means

You are apparently assuming “correctly taught” means taught modesty by the modesty rules you believe in.

Perhaps someone else sees “correctly taught” as taught the scriptural descriptions of modesty.  And for someone else “correctly taught” means by the standard of For the Strength of Youth.

If she has a different standard than you, if she answers “yes” will you understand that as her saying they can be modest by your rules or by hers, which may be the rules of scriptures or FtSoY or a combo of those and sometching else?  And if she doesn’t explain what standard she is using, will answering “yes” really be a simple answer or the more complicated one (because now you get to guess what standard she means for “correctly taught” and what she means by “yes”).

Edited July 10, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

 

 

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

So God didn’t make clothing for Adam and Eve to cover their nakedness once their eyes were opened and could recognize good from evil?

I could have sworn that he did.

Because he made clothing for them after their eyes were opened does not necessarily mean the first that happened was the cause of what came later.  Though there does seem to be some connection given the way it is written in both Genesis and Moses.  Feels like it might be loaded with assumptions based on ancient understandings held by those who wrote it, so I am reluctant to force modern modesty standards into an ancient text…as all should be imo when dealing with ancient scripture.

Edited July 10, 2023 by Calm

[The Nehor]

38 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Nope. Think really hard Nehor. You can do this. What other point could I possibly have been making? 

I suppose it might have just been you peacocking about how devoted you are to following the apostles and so the whole thing didn’t make sense beyond that.

Or you may have seen some booty shorts and lost your train of thought.

[Rain]

46 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Your answer is a bit confusing, but I gather that you do believe that someone can be perfectly modest while wearing booty shorts and a crop-top as long as they don’t do it for the purpose of elevating themselves above others. 

Can be? Yes. Definitely is?  No.

46 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

My follow up question is if you believe that it’s possible for an individual who has been correctly taught what modesty means to wear booty shorts and a crop-top and still be perfectly modest in God’s eyes?

Lets not over complicate things. A simple yes or no would be great.

I hope what I said above suffices because I've had to read your question over and over and I finally decided it would take a lot of talk trying to figure out just what you are asking.

 

 

 

Edited July 10, 2023 by Rain

[Vanguard]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

So you are saying it was Adam and Eve who needed to be clothed to feel comfortable in front of God’s messengers and not an issue for his messengers…since they weren’t mortal yet.  If so, I agree….though I don’t assume that standard has been consistent through the ages.

No, I don't assume it's been consistent either though I am not claiming it should be. The fact is that we are saddled with this notion of modesty (informed largely by our culture) and have to 'tip the hat' to its mandates. And now I'm not sure where I wanted to go with this but to say there are clear notions of modesty around what we all wear that in some context needs to be addressed.

[Rain]

12 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

No, I don't assume it's been consistent either though I am not claiming it should be. The fact is that we are saddled with this notion of modesty (informed largely by our culture) and have to 'tip the hat' to its mandates. And now I'm not sure where I wanted to go with this but to say there are clear notions of modesty around what we all wear that in some context needs to be addressed.

Are you saying it needs to be addressed within the church as a moral thing or just overall as a member of society?

[Vanguard]

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Your answer is a bit confusing, but I gather that you do believe that someone can be perfectly modest while wearing booty shorts and a crop-top as long as they don’t do it for the purpose of elevating themselves above others. 

I know this thread is fast and furious but I want to call attention to my understanding that modesty is very much a function of culture. It so happens that we have directives in our LDS culture that draws its own general 'line ranges' about attire as informed by our general leadership (presumably with the blessing of the Godhead). We all know and have discussed the notion that certain attire expectations vary greatly among cultures and time periods though those cultures who allow for more skin are not necessarily erring in ignorance against God's standards. It simply is not an issue nor should it be.

All of these arguments, however, do not address what I believe is very important, that being, how does a culture enforce these expectations without unnecessarily harming the legitimate sensitivities of its members? We had discussed issues of modesty some time ago and this question was not answered to my satisfaction. Or are there those who believe there should be no enforcement short of allowing the individual's sense of propriety as informed by their Spirit and the example of others to be the sole enforcer?

[Vanguard]

7 minutes ago, Rain said:

Are you saying it needs to be addressed within the church as a moral thing or just overall as a member of society?

I'm primarily referring to the Church as we have more demanding modesty guidelines - guidelines that also cross into issues of sexual morality at times. How we go ab out addressing this is largely what I communicated in my post just before this one. 

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

I know this thread is fast and furious but I want to call attention to my understanding that modesty is very much a function of culture. It so happens that we have directives in our LDS culture that draws its own general 'line ranges' about attire as informed by our general leadership (presumably with the blessing of the Godhead). We all know and have discussed the notion that certain attire expectations vary greatly among cultures and time periods though those cultures who allow for more skin are not necessarily erring in ignorance against God's standards. It simply is not an issue nor should it be.

All of these arguments, however, do not address what I believe is very important, that being, how does a culture enforce these expectations without unnecessarily harming the legitimate sensitivities of its members? We had discussed issues of modesty some time ago and this question was not answered to my satisfaction. Or are there those who believe there should be no enforcement short of allowing the individual's sense of propriety as informed by their Spirit and the example of others to be the sole enforcer?

I think we are in agreement for the above except perhaps the blessing of the Godhead.  I can see God leaving us to work on that ourselves…though maybe that is what you mean by blessing and not necessarily approval of the standards.

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

I know this thread is fast and furious but I want to call attention to my understanding that modesty is very much a function of culture. It so happens that we have directives in our LDS culture that draws its own general 'line ranges' about attire as informed by our general leadership (presumably with the blessing of the Godhead). We all know and have discussed the notion that certain attire expectations vary greatly among cultures and time periods though those cultures who allow for more skin are not necessarily erring in ignorance against God's standards. It simply is not an issue nor should it be.

All of these arguments, however, do not address what I believe is very important, that being, how does a culture enforce these expectations without unnecessarily harming the legitimate sensitivities of its members? We had discussed issues of modesty some time ago and this question was not answered to my satisfaction. Or are there those who believe there should be no enforcement short of allowing the individual's sense of propriety as informed by their Spirit and the example of others to be the sole enforcer?

In the past (and sometimes even now) the church has tried to enforce modesty standards and in my opinion it has done more harm than good.  I know of more than a few women who have very poor feelings about the church as adults that largely began by being policed by leaders at church activities and camps.  Not to mention, requiring girls to wear t-shirts and shorts over swimsuits is a huge safety hazard in a lot of water activities.

I think the church is starting to realize the harm that good intentioned modesty enforcement has done and has reassessed that.  The guidelines in the FSOY pamphlet leave the policing in the hands of the individuals, for example, which was a needed change.

(and for the record, I don't think they are doing that but secretly meaning "but you'd better still follow the old standards or you need to repent".)

[Vanguard]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think we are in agreement for the above except perhaps the blessing of the Godhead.  I can see God leaving us to work on that ourselves…though maybe that is what you mean by blessing and not necessarily approval of the standards.

That's cool beans. : ) I guess how we "work on that" is my question. Let's go back to the teenage youth dances. When someone comes in who is not dressed according to the dress standard, what do you think should be done (if anything)? I know there are many examples of understandable misunderstandings or legitimate ignorance. What about those instances when it appears obvious it is not that type of example?

[Rain]

4 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

I'm primarily referring to the Church as we have more demanding modesty guidelines - guidelines that also cross into issues of sexual morality at times. How we go ab out addressing this is largely what I communicated in my post just before this one. 

 

7 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

I know this thread is fast and furious but I want to call attention to my understanding that modesty is very much a function of culture. It so happens that we have directives in our LDS culture that draws its own general 'line ranges' about attire as informed by our general leadership (presumably with the blessing of the Godhead). We all know and have discussed the notion that certain attire expectations vary greatly among cultures and time periods though those cultures who allow for more skin are not necessarily erring in ignorance against God's standards. It simply is not an issue nor should it be.

All of these arguments, however, do not address what I believe is very important, that being, how does a culture enforce these expectations without unnecessarily harming the legitimate sensitivities of its members? We had discussed issues of modesty some time ago and this question was not answered to my satisfaction. Or are there those who believe there should be no enforcement short of allowing the individual's sense of propriety as informed by their Spirit and the example of others to be the sole enforcer?

Thanks.  

My husband brought up yesterday one of the times he was most happy with what he has done.  He was in the ward YM presidency and was chaperoning at a stake dance. One of his young men "Mark" came with a mohawk, chains and other untraditional clothing styles. Someone in the stake told my husband to send him home.

My husband refused. He put his arm around Mark and went for a walk with him. He didn't tell him he was wrong for dressing like that.  Didn't tell him the "correct" way to dress. My husband gently talked to him about perceptions of people and helped him feel both his love and God’s love for him. 

I had forgotten about this till my husband reminded me yesterday that later  Mark sent him a letter while he was on his mission.  He thanked my husband for how he treated the situation.

Sometimes I think we forget that we are God’s children, that he gave us agency and that he is our biggest supporter and wants more for each of us than we can imagine.  

When we start to understand who we are we start to change and grow to be like him.  We don't need to enforce rules. We just need to help others understand God’s love for us. Sometimes that means  putting your arm across their shoulder, really getting to know them and their motivations and helping them see where they can grow. 

Sometimes that means we love them and let them choose to do things we see as a problem (agency) and trust that before they were our child, student, friend, they were God's and his plan works.

It doesn't mean we do nothing.  It means we teach with love who they really are.

[Rain]

2 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

That's cool beans. : ) I guess how we "work on that" is my question. Let's go back to the teenage youth dances. When someone comes in who is not dressed according to the dress standard, what do you think should be done (if anything)? I know there are many examples of understandable misunderstandings or legitimate ignorance. What about those instances when it appears obvious it is not that type of example?

Totally did not read this before my last post lol. It was just something my husband talked about yesterday and came to mind when reading your prior two posts.

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Rain said:

 

Thanks.  

My husband brought up yesterday one of the times he was most happy with what he has done.  He was in the ward YM presidency and was chaperoning at a stake dance. One of his young men "Mark" came with a mohawk, chains and other untraditional clothing styles. Someone in the stake told my husband to send him home.

My husband refused. He put his arm around Mark and went for a walk with him. He didn't tell him he was wrong for dressing like that.  Didn't tell him the "correct" way to dress. My husband gently talked to him about perceptions of people and helped him feel both his love and God’s love for him. 

I had forgotten about this till my husband reminded me yesterday that later  Mark sent him a letter while he was on his mission.  He thanked my husband for how he treated the situation.

Sometimes I think we forget that we are God’s children, that he gave us agency and that he is our biggest supporter and wants more for each of us than we can imagine.  

When we start to understand who we are we start to change and grow to be like him.  We don't need to enforce rules. We just need to help others understand God’s love for us. Sometimes that means  putting your arm across their shoulder, really getting to know them and their motivations and helping them see where they can grow. 

Sometimes that means we love them and let them choose to do things we see as a problem (agency) and trust that before they were our child, student, friend, they were God's and his plan works.

It doesn't mean we do nothing.  It means we teach with love who they really are.

I like how the General Handbook (quoted below) is silent on enforcing standards of dress (and instead says that no one should be cast out from public meetings) but does remind us that inappropriate behavior should be addressed in private and with love. 

Sometimes, in extreme circumstances, people do need to be asked to leave of course but as far as I can tell "immodest clothing" isn't one of those exceptions to the rule.

"The Savior taught that His disciples should love their neighbors (see Matthew 22:39). Paul invited new converts to “no more be strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints” (Ephesians 2:19). The Savior also taught that Church members are not to “cast any one out from … public meetings, which are held before the world” (Doctrine and Covenants 46:3).

Those who attend should avoid disruptions or distractions contrary to worship or other purposes of the meeting. All age and behavior requirements of different Church meetings and events should be respected. That requires refraining from overt romantic behavior and from dress or grooming that causes distraction. It also precludes making political statements or speaking of sexual orientation or other personal characteristics in a way that detracts from meetings focused on the Savior.

If there is inappropriate behavior, the bishop or stake president gives private counsel in a spirit of love. He encourages those whose behavior is improper for the occasion to focus on helping maintain a sacred space for everyone present with a special emphasis on worshipping Heavenly Father and the Savior."

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

That's cool beans. : ) I guess how we "work on that" is my question. Let's go back to the teenage youth dances. When someone comes in who is not dressed according to the dress standard, what do you think should be done (if anything)? I know there are many examples of understandable misunderstandings or legitimate ignorance. What about those instances when it appears obvious it is not that type of example?

I would pray and hope that I was inspired to do what was right by the kid. 

As long as there is not obvious harm of others being done by the kids, I would likely err on the side of leading by the Spirit and not by the rules. 

[Rain]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I like how the General Handbook (quoted below) is silent on enforcing standards of dress (and instead says that no one should be cast out from public meetings) but does remind us that inappropriate behavior should be addressed in private and with love. 

Sometimes, in extreme circumstances, people do need to be asked to leave of course but as far as I can tell "immodest clothing" isn't one of those exceptions to the rule.

"The Savior taught that His disciples should love their neighbors (see Matthew 22:39). Paul invited new converts to “no more be strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints” (Ephesians 2:19). The Savior also taught that Church members are not to “cast any one out from … public meetings, which are held before the world” (Doctrine and Covenants 46:3).

Those who attend should avoid disruptions or distractions contrary to worship or other purposes of the meeting. All age and behavior requirements of different Church meetings and events should be respected. That requires refraining from overt romantic behavior and from dress or grooming that causes distraction. It also precludes making political statements or speaking of sexual orientation or other personal characteristics in a way that detracts from meetings focused on the Savior.

If there is inappropriate behavior, the bishop or stake president gives private counsel in a spirit of love. He encourages those whose behavior is improper for the occasion to focus on helping maintain a sacred space for everyone present with a special emphasis on worshipping Heavenly Father and the Savior."

I like this.

[Vanguard]

15 minutes ago, Rain said:

My husband brought up yesterday one of the times he was most happy with what he has done.  He was in the ward YM presidency and was chaperoning at a stake dance. One of his young men "Mark" came with a mohawk, chains and other untraditional clothing styles. Someone in the stake told my husband to send him home.

My husband refused. He put his arm around Mark and went for a walk with him. He didn't tell him he was wrong for dressing like that.  Didn't tell him the "correct" way to dress. My husband gently talked to him about perceptions of people and helped him feel both his love and God’s love for him. 

That's good stuff - thanks for sharing this. : ) It also speaks well of the youth in question being willing to walk with someone in the presidency to discuss the issue. ; )  Did you husband tell you whether the youth remained at the dance or went back home to change? Did your husband allow/would he have allowed the youth to remain at the dance dressed in that attire? 

[webbles]

2 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Your answer is a bit confusing, but I gather that you do believe that someone can be perfectly modest while wearing booty shorts and a crop-top as long as they don’t do it for the purpose of elevating themselves above others. 

My follow up question is if you believe that it’s possible for an individual who has been correctly taught what modesty means to wear booty shorts and a crop-top and still be perfectly modest in God’s eyes?

Lets not over complicate things. A simple yes or no would be great.

I served a mission in Manaus, Brazil (literally in the middle of the Amazon jungle).  On our first day in the mission field, the Mission president, his wife, and the two APs took all of us new missionaries to a baptism that evening.  At the baptism, there were many members of the ward.  Some of the women were wearing clothing that would probably be considered immodest (crop-top, bikini top, etc).  These were women who where active members in the ward.  It was a bit of a culture shock for us American missionaries.  I remember one of the sister missionaries commenting, privately, on the clothing.  But the mission president (who was American and from Utah), nor his wife, nor the APs, nor any other church leader there made any comment, then or later.

After having been out on the mission for a little longer, I learned that modesty was much more linked towards what the person meant vs what they actually wore.  Many women, including active members in leadership positions, would wear clothing at home and around town that would probably be considered immodest by your standards.  Yet I believe they were definitely modest.

So, yes, an individual who has been correctly taught what modesty means can be perfectly modest in God's eyes when wearing booty shorts and a crop-top.

[Rain]

7 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

That's good stuff - thanks for sharing this. : ) It also speaks well of the youth in question being willing to walk with someone in the presidency to discuss the issue. ; )  Did you husband tell you whether the youth remained at the dance or went back home to change? Did your husband allow/would he have allowed the youth to remain at the dance dressed in that attire? 

He did years ago when it happened, but I don't remember if he stayed or not. He would have allowed him to stay.

My husband had two dreaded callings for years.  One was to be in the young men's presidency.  He grew to be ok being in YM presidencies because he dearly loved and still loves those young men.  

[Vanguard]

49 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Sometimes, in extreme circumstances, people do need to be asked to leave of course but as far as I can tell "immodest clothing" isn't one of those exceptions to the rule.

I think I'm misunderstanding you.

49 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Those who attend should avoid disruptions or distractions contrary to worship or other purposes of the meeting. All age and behavior requirements of different Church meetings and events should be respected. That requires refraining from overt romantic behavior and from dress or grooming that causes distraction.

Isn't this saying/suggesting that dress or grooming may well be something that should be enforced to the point of asking the person to leave? Else what would be the point be of making it a requirement?

[MustardSeed]

32 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

I think I'm misunderstanding you.

Isn't this saying/suggesting that dress or grooming may well be something that should be enforced to the point of asking the person to leave? Else what would be the point be of making it a requirement?

If someone attended with a tshirt featuring vulgar language I would be concerned.  If girls showed up in a skirt above the knee I’d be bored. 

[bluebell]

43 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

I think I'm misunderstanding you.

Isn't this saying/suggesting that dress or grooming may well be something that should be enforced to the point of asking the person to leave? Else what would be the point be of making it a requirement?

Dress and grooming, sure, but note though that it doesn't say anything about modest clothing.  We might read that in there because of our church culture but it doesn't say it.  It says "dress and grooming that causes distractions...and detracts from meetings focused on the Savior."

There are a lot of modest clothing (skin covering-wise) that would distract from a focus on the Savior.  And a lot of "skimpy" clothing that shouldn't.  I think the requirement is in there for clothing that has inappropriate sayings or is purposefully meant to create a scene.  Shoulders, thighs, and midriffs hopefully wouldn't stop us from being able to focus on the Savior, but a shirt with swear words or other profanities would probably do just that, for example.

Whether or not it is modest isn't really the point of that section, as I understand it.

[bluebell]

19 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

If someone attended with a tshirt featuring vulgar language I would be concerned.  If girls showed up in a skirt above the knee I’d be bored. 

In the past I've been a member of wards that had a policy to ask girls to leave an activity if they showed up in shorts that were too short.  What a horrible thing to do to a young woman trying to attend her church meetings.  Even done with good intentions, that is going to cause some scarring.