We try not to rant here at Doves & Serpents. We try to discuss things we’re thinking about, exchange ideas, and ask questions. But I was pushed over the edge today when I read this little gem published in The Friend (a monthly magazine for children ages 3-12 published by the Mormon church). So my Doves & Serpents peeps are allowing me a little rant today (thanks, guys!).
The story is short-just 230 painful words-so go ahead and read it and then come back.
That was quick.
Did you read the part about how Hannah is four? Yep. Four-year-old Hannah is excited to head out to the zoo. She’s even more excited when she sees a gift from her grandmother! Alas, Hannah (did I mention that she is four?) laments that the dress has no sleeves. Mom comes to the rescue and suggests that if Hannah wears a sleeved t-shirt, the dress will be modest. And off they go to the zoo. Snip, snap, snout. This tale’s told out.
And yet, there is so much rant-worthy content here. I’m not a fan of extremism. I much prefer moderation. Checks and balances, moderation in all things, you get the picture. But this story-and the assumptions that underlie it-are extreme. They are not the best of what Mormonism has to offer. On the contrary, they seem to be among the worst that Mormonism has to offer. Reading this story–written for an audience that includes my children (ages 8, 11, and 14)–made me feel like a member of a freakish cult that hypersexualizes its preschool children girls rather than a member of a beautiful (and sometimes weird) religious tradition that has brought a lot of blessings and meaning to my life.
I don’t want to be a part of a religion that tells four-year-old girls that their shoulders need to be covered. Since when did shoulders become sexual? When did we begin attaching sexual motives to four-year-old girls? This is creepy. Even worse-since when did so many of my friends and friends-of-friends start swallowing this bitter pill? One of my friends told me recently that a woman in her ward (congregation) refuses to allow her children to watch The Little Mermaid because-fasten your seatbelts, people-Ariel is immodest with her shell bikini top. 
Whah? Another friend politely refused some sleeveless onesies and sundresses I handed down to her because her husband didn’t want their infant daughters to dress immodestly. How is it even possible for an infant (or a four-year-old) to dress “immodestly”?
I don’t want my daughters equating “modesty” with how much skin they choose to reveal or to cover. Sure, I’d like them to be modest, but modesty encompasses so much more than how much leg or cleavage or, okay, shoulder you reveal. Modesty is about attitude, demeanor, dispositions. It’s about moderation. It’s about avoiding extremes. It’s about feeling comfortable in your own skin.
My kids are being bombarded with messages about modesty at church. This message is being touted in our church magazines for kids and for teenagers, our weekly Sunday lessons, our Especially for Youth camps, girls’ camp, our official church website, official church publications, our instructions for 21-year-old female missionaries . . . it’s starting to feel like a founding principle of our religion. I’d love to see us stop trying to micro-manage four-year-olds’ (and 14-year-olds’) wardrobes and get back to the good stuff.
This is not our good stuff.
;
;
After writing this article, I participated in a Mormon Matters podcast re: modesty. Check it out here.
;
An infant? Now THAT is hilarious. Poor dad. I suppose no one is allowed in the room when he changes a diaper? Actually, that reminds me of a funny article I once read (it was satire) about how the nursery kids were being immodest, because people could see diaper lines under th onesies. Apparently that’s not too far off.
Reminds me of the people who, when their kids started a family, that (1) the little kids shouldn’t bathe with the parents as that was inappropriate, and (2) that a male child could not be breastfed because it was a man other than the husband seeing/touching the wife’s breast.
Sometimes people of faith take things way, way too far…
Just tell me that isn’t true…no one thinks that way, right? RIGHT????
Fran, I’m with you. Hoping Michael comes back to tell us he was just joking.
I wish I could. I truly wish I could. It’s a true story.
So since breastfeeding a male child would be inappropriate but breastfeeding a female child would be fine, is it also fine for the mom to take a lesbian lover?
I also just realized that I shouldn’t post when I’m sleep deprived. That should be […]”people who, when their kids started a family, stated“[…]
Good morning! :-)
Some people’s lives are so marinated in fear that everything is in a better safe than sorry mode: Better that babies learn to dress like they are wearing garments now than have to learn later. I totally disagree. Perhaps there is something important about learning it later. Perhaps there is something valuable about trying out different ways of dressing as an adolescent. We are here to make choices and learn from them, right?
I call it the Gospel of Safety. In the temple it states that Adam and Eve were sent from the garden to learn by their OWN EXPERIENCE the good from the evil. The Gospel of SAFETY states that you must learn from obedience and from other people’s experiences. this is NOT of God.
I think you make a very good point, Gail. I like that observation.
Thank you so much for making this point, Heather. Extremism, in any form, is harmful. The impact of these lessons in modesty saddens me. I get that the idea is to teach little ones when they are young to make “good” choices, but what does this message accomplish in a preschooler? To be even more ashamed of the little body her Father in Heaven gave her?
What does this teach little boys? Funny how there is never a mention of a little guy choosing not to wear a muscle shirt on a hot day.
Gurrrr . . . that’s right, Stephanie. That’s what I crossed out “children” and wrote girls in its place. No one talks about tank tops for boys–ever. No one tells the boys that they can’t wear shorts to Scout camp, yet girls are routinely told that no shorts are allowed. Occasionally, they are allowed to wear knee-length shorts. Are the boys required to wear knee-length shorts?
So many double standards.
oh, believe me, when I was a STRICT orthodox Mormon, the muscle shirts DID come up in groups I associated with and even in my own home. Being bare chested for boys and teens STILL comes up as bad and wrong. It is so sad that we don’t just LOVE our bodies, ALL OF THEM and ALL OVER. I believe if we were more accepting of nudity in general then all this sexual stuff related to just anyone’s body would NOT be so sexually arousing for boys or girls. Sexual thoughts and feelings are very human, but we set boys up to think that they are supposed to respond sexually to just anybody’s shoulders or thighs.
Who’s extreme? The “modests” or the “nudists”?
I was also somewhat disturbed by the fact the little girl’s first reaction to a gift from her grandmother was a frown. Seems she has already learned that ANY deviation from church culture (not doctrine), no matter how slight, should be met with disapproval. Doesn’t seem like a step toward a well-adjusted, open, and affirming LDS woman in the future. Seems to be teaching both shame of her own body and disapproval of others.
Yes, Andrew. That part was sad, too. I have a VERY hard time believing that a four-year-old would feel sad about a cute dress from her grandma . . . because it didn’t have sleeves. In fact, I don’t think I really even believe that part of the story is true. Oh sure, maybe after the mom supplied the girl with that information, then the girl recognized it from a primary lesson or something. But for a four-year-old girl to see a bright new red dress and automatically go to immodesty? Nah . . .
Heather, I think it’s true. If sleeveless dresses had been an issue in our family (and sadly there was a point in time when I toyed with banning sleeveless tops/dresses) my girls would have noticed right away. Four year olds are SMART.
The whole story seems completely made up by one of those strict “orthodox” Mormons, specifically to get into the Friend. There is no way this entire scenario actually happened. No 4 year old acts that way. lol
“Suffer little children (who are wearing sleeves), and forbid them not (so long as they are wearing sleeves) to come unto me: for of such (of course, if they are wearing sleeves) is the kingdom of heaven (where people wear sleeves).”
The sad part, to me, is that it seems that these stories in a children’s church magazine are taking up valuable space. Space that could be used for an article teaching children how to care for their body as a temple, eat mindfully, honor health, give thanks for this temple that houses the spirit, etc. OR, God-forbid, teach kids about kindness, joy, forgiveness, love, service.
My issue is that this move toward fundamentalist thinking (Are we heading into burkha territory? Seems like the same principal.) totally sidetracks us from the really important teaching that should be done within religion in regards for children. When it’s all said and done, I want to be able to rely on my religion for spiritual truth and training, and not sweat the small stuff. If a church doesn’t know the difference between the small stuff – namely that it’s what’s inside that counts – it isn’t worthy of my trust.
Leave dress codes up to the schools and corporations. I expect more from places that claim to know something about Spirit.
Yes, Laurie. That’s what I was trying to get at by saying “this is not our good stuff.” This is straining at gnats.
“If a church doesn’t know the difference between the small stuff — namely that it’s what’s inside that counts — it isn’t worthy of my trust.”
Yep, this.
Great post, Heather.
The unintended consequences of devoting space in the magazine to declaring sleeveless dresses immodest is that the same little girl will grow up looking judgmentally at other little girls who are not as righteous for their choice in summer dresses.
No kidding! On Facebook today, a no-longer-active Mormon woman said that as she and her two daughters sat outside the temple (during her older son’s wedding) in very pretty matching pink, sleeveless dresses, a girl that she guessed was about 10 approached them to tell them they were dressed immodestly. Gasp!!
If I ever caught one of my kids doing something like that, I seriously do not know what I would do. SO presumptuous.
It is strange how much this issue has grown in recent years. I have been scanning pictures of my grandmother’s family and my own childhood and it amazes me how many sleeveless dresses my grandmother and her sisters wore in the 20’s and 30’s and how many I wore in the 70’s and no-one thought anything of it. It also amazes me how much I am uncomfortable with the idea of my daughter wearing sleeveless clothing — since I do not think it is an issue at all!
Tierza, yes, I see these conversations as having increased exponentially in both quantity and insanity. When I was a teenager, we just didn’t talk about modesty all the time. And it wasn’t nearly so constrained. And NO ONE, and I mean, NO ONE, was worrying about four-year-olds.
At a friend’s house last weekend, I picked up a book about Mormons published in the 1950s–by Deseret Book. There were pictures of YW and adult women wearing sleeveless dresses. So what, right? That’s fine. But you would NEVER see this now.
It’s like we’re battening down the hatches . . . but for what?
Part of the reason modesty wasn’t pushed as much in the 50’s was because it wasn’t as big of an issue! Shorts didn’t show your butt cheeks, the front of your shirt didn’t go half way down to your belly button and be see through at the same time. Come on, think people! If you look at the clothes worn then and what’s worn now there’s a reason modesty is pushed more now. Also when do you start teaching kids about modesty? 4? 8? 10? 15? when they go to the temple (if they go?)? you could apply the same concept to prayer…when do you teach your kid how to pray 4? 8? 10? 15? when you think they might really need it? if kids are taught these concepts from the beginning then it won’t be an issue later on. My parents (along with many other families in the wards that I have been in) did not let us wear sleeveless shirts, short skirts, or short shorts as kids. As babies we didn’t wear spaghetti strapped dresses or sleeveless ones. I was never allowed to wear a bikini, no matter my age. People would give a clothes and I knew which ones I would be allowed to wear and which ones I wouldn’t. I didn’t grow up to be some fanatical woman who wears long dresses all day and wears long sleeves during the summer. I’m a worthy member that was married in the temple, I’m about to start pharmacy school, and although we’ve put off having kids until after I’m done with school (gasp! I know) I’m in YW and have lots of nieces & nephews and modesty is an issues that I see being taught at all ages. Being raised in a climate that is very hot and people tend to wear the least amount of clothing as possible, the concept of wearing modest clothing is a big deal. Children need to be taught these principles at a early age so that they can make the right choices later. (After they go through the temple, if they see a cute skirt or dress, or low cut top, do they just decided that its ok to not wear their garments when they wear that outfit because its cute? I mean its ok to only obey SOME of the principles and then interpret them however you want to, right?!)
Oh and BTW…I guess the stakes around me (in SC) are the only stakes in the church to push the concept that guys shouldn’t walk around with their shirts off (especially at church service projects or games, etc) and tanktops (or wife beaters as their commonly referred to here) are a big no no. They are under shirts, not a shirt and stay under your shirt.
AKL126, your comment is spot on. Our society today demands teaching modesty early. Thanks for your comment.
I think I would have been like the girl in this story.. and now even having left the church and stopped wearing garments for almost a year, I still can’t bring myself to wear a sleeveless top without something over it.. it’s crazy! I’m really happy to see my girls run around in their sundresses because of this… when around their extended LDS family though, I do try to cover them up.. I wish it wasn’t that way. Really short skirts I can understand, really low cut tops, even really tight clothing, but no sleeves… why?
I think a story like this signals a complete disconnect between the methods being used to teach principles. Ostensibly, the intent isn’t to sexualize a four-year-old, but to condition her to believe that sleeves are the only things that are normal and acceptable. We could just roll our eyes, but I believe these lessons have a real and harmful effect — they are the covered up side of the constant sexualizing coin. It means our girls are never given an opportunity to construct themselves without thinking about the impact their bodies have on others.
So, I’m a big fan of modesty. I’ll admit it. I feel like there is so much trash (in dress, behavior, media, you name it) that sexualizes everyone and everything. I hate that. I particularly hate sexualized young girls (or kids in general).
BUT, thinking that little kids need to cover up in any way is just ridiculous to me. I have to say though, that the whole concept of modesty for little kids strikes me as something typical for American Mormons. I know in my home ward in Germany, where there are plenty of young couples with kids, no one would even think twice about something like this. Actually, they frequently let their kids roam naked at activities that make for nakedness (playing outside in water, swimming, or just playing at home or outside with no water involved…). Of course, no kids are naked in Church, but I know they’d all laugh at the idea that maybe a little kid is immodest if it doesn’t wear sleeves.
It’s just absurd. And it’s absurd even to many very “conservative” members in Germany. So, I wonder what it is that drives Americans to this extreme? (I also say Americans, because from having lived in England, Austria and Greece, they also didn’t seem to get as worked up over this)…
Fran, I agree. There is something important and valuable about modesty in behavior, speech, dress, attitude, demeanor, etc. That’s why it seems we are missing the mark. We’re short-changing our kids by focusing so single-mindedly on dress.
Interesting to be reminded that this is an American issue. The church seems to be struggling to gain its footing as a “global church.” I wonder whether this story makes it into the non-English version of The Ensign. I’m guessing not.
So if it’s too lame/weird/not applicable for the non-U.S. members of the church, then why are we being subjected to it?
I’ve been trying to figure that out. In the German Ensign version, they always include the kid stuff, but I don’t know if it’s a combination of The Friend and The New Era. Anyway, I flipped through my German Ensign for June, and didn’t find the story in there. I’d have to compare the kid stories overall from that edition though to the English version to see if they simply omitted it, or if they’re just behind (sometimes they post stuff in the German version a month later than in the US version).
I have a feeling though that it wouldn’t make it into the European Ensigns. Or, at least so I hope.
And why are Americans subjected to it? You’re a bunch of heathen after all? Just kidding…I’d say it’s just cultural. I know a lot of Europeans feel that Americans (as a whole) are prudish. So, maybe the Church leaders, just being part of the culture, take it a step further and try to turn it into doctrine? I have to say though that things DO change for the youth. Members, even in Europe, at that point may follow the Church’s dress code a little more closely (I know my parents didn’t let me wear anything sleeveless. Then again though, my younger sister was allowed to wear tank-tops?). But, kids you let roam free and naked. As they should.
Fran, in my experience, the Liahona is a combination of the Friend, the New Era, and the Ensign. So maybe we are just special here in the U.S. and we get to read everything.
And yes, I’m sure we are mocked for being prudish. We deserve it.
You mean you NEED everything. :) Us Europeans, we’re already so righteous we don’t need all the extra stuff the Americans get. Hahahahaha…
Blame it on our Puritan roots.
Your post, Fran, reminded me that the law in UTAH is that a child can be naked in PUBLIC until they are 8 years old before it is even considered indecent exposure. We had this conversation when one of my children was consistently going naked outside while being potty trained. The law was the same in PA. I had children who ran naked there as well and I had nosy neighbors there as well. So interesting that this stuff is coming out of the state of UTAH and it is about a 4 yr old.
Let me add, going along with Laurie’s excellent comment, that the laser focus on modesty as a shorthand for goodness and sexual purity is unfortunate because it takes away time that could be spent allowing the girls to focus on constructing themselves internally. We need to trust that focusing on kindness, integrity, compassion, service and honesty is all girls need to make good decisions about what they put on their bodies (even though that will differ from individual to individual and in different situations).
I’m speechless about this, just speechless.
Two days go, I took our kids (5 and 3) to an art museum to see a traveling exhibit of famous modern artists. Of course there were lots of nude paintings and sculptures. For the first time ever, the 5-year-old looked at a painting of a nude woman (lying on a bed on her stomach) and giggled and pointed. “Look, Mommy, she has bare feet!!!” (Failed to notice the rest of her naked body.)
Now, he’s closer to 6 than to 5, but is only just beginning to notice what people are wearing/not wearing, so we talk about how wonderful our bodies are and how every body is different and unique in some way. And we talk about protecting our skin from the sun. At age 4, about where his brother is, naked bodies (or partially naked ones) are just bodies. Now, there may be reasons to cover shoulders (sunburns come to mind) but don’t steal the children’s innocence, Primary teachers.
With kid’s emphasis on the importance of following rules, if my son heard this story (or sat through a sharing time lesson that used this or a similar story), I could easily imagine him walking up to strange girls, getting right in their faces, and telling them, “You’re not modest. You are supposed to wear sleeves.” Lots of opportunities for discussing tact and family choices looming ahead, I suppose.
But is that really the kind of lesson I want my kid taking away from all this? Do I want him looking at his kindergarten friends and telling them the rules of proper attire? And do I want his first definition of “modest” to be “bare shoulders are bad”? Definitely not. There are so many other ways to be modest and to show respect for ourselves and others besides worrying about the shoulders of babies and preschoolers.
Yet again, we’ll be having homeschool Primary that week. Probably involving a trip to the beach. Or maybe another art museum ;-) Or maybe we’ll just look at Grandma’s BYU yearbook where so many of the women were wearing sleeveless tops and dresses. sheesh.
LRC, I was going to post a similar point and see you have it really well covered. Young kids’ main takeaway will be judging other people.
Dress and modesty are inextricably bound to time and place and are not a timeless concept. If you were to take the most modest, BYU-approved, female bathing suit, and travel back in time to Brigham Young’s day, BY would have a heart attack looking at the woman wearing while swimming in the Great Salt Lake. And, in Joseph Smith’s account of Moroni’s visits, JS says he could tell Moroni wore no clothing other than a robe because JS could see into Moroni’s bosum. So, Angel Moroni modesty . . . fail!
Amen! Thanks for this.
I like to think that the church would use modesty as a tool to stay on the middle path and not being too extreme, not drawing attention away from a focus on what’s important, gospel wise. It’s just become kooky though!
Case in point: my friend, a convert, was getting her 12-year old ready for girl’s camp. She called me, confused that the sleeveless shirts she had bought for her daughter, shirts with high necklines up to the collarbone, and long enough to cover down to her hips, weren’t acceptable. Her honest question was, “I’m confused. Why are shoulders immodest?” She also mentioned that the tankini she bought for girls’ camp, with boy shorts that covered the top of her thigh and a tank that overlapped the shorts by 1 1/2 inches wasn’t allowed, either.
There’s something in the arbitrary nature of rules that doesn’t trust the very teachings offered at church. Can’t we teach correct principles and let members govern themselves?
Fran, as a native of Belgium, I totally agree with you that this extreme modesty emphasis is a American church thing. And I agree with those who recall that covering up the shoulders was added fairly recently.
I joined the church in Belgium in 1970 at the age of 15 when mini skirts were still something very new and scandalous. I never wore any really short ones; my skirts were all just a smidge longer than mid-thigh. At my baptism, I wore a high neckline, white sleeveless dress. I also owned a green sleeveless dress, also with a neckline to the base of my neck. No one said “boo” to me about those. It wasn’t until I wore a pair of dress slacks to Church in September that I was taken aside by a young woman slightly older than myself and told that we dont’ really wear slacks to church. YW were also reminded that their skirts shouldn’t be too short–even the sister missionaries were struggling to find longer skirts. The older, endowed, women used their pre-endowment dress patterns adding a longer shoulder seam so that it would cover the garment sleeve. The message was: cover the garment out of respect,” not “cover your shoulders, they’re evil.”
Fast forward to the early 90’s when I lived in Louisiana and some of my friends’ daughters started attending BYU and getting married–usually in the Salt Lake Temple. Again, all wore sleeveless tops and dresses in their teens; there never was any mention by anyone that there was the least bit of problem with that. And believe me we had a leader who didn’t believe in agency; had there been the least little whiff of restriction in that area, the SP would have been happy to have YW “covenant” publicly, with arm raised to the square, to not wear anything sleeveless, he did it about dating non-members.
So, here we are 15 years later. Where did this injunction come from? When did it start? Whose brainchild is it? I know we hear it all the time, I know it’s now in FTSOY. By the way, check out the 1965 version, it’s not there. In fact, it’s more than implied that girls are wearing sleeveless. They’re just not to wear backless or spaghetti straps because it doesn’t look good on most, not necessarily because it’s immodest. A cursory look at some of the “Meet the Mormon” type book published in the 60’s and 70’s show young women in sleeveless attire.
There are tons of high neckline dresses that are sleeveless; I fail to see how they’re immodest.
The larger problem is that talk of removing the sleeves from the garment has gone on for years. I was told a few years ago by someone who attended a focus group by the General RS board that “there’s to be no discussion of removing the sleeves. The sleeves cannot be removed because of tradition.” Really? Tradition of our fathers?” Where’s the doctrine or scriptural background?
Removing the sleeve–which i know has been recommended by one of the 2 garment designers because she’ realistic and knows it’s a big stumbling block to the YW–that’s why we have to train them early— removing the sleeve is now less likely to happen anytime soon because the reason for the sleeves has now changed, It’s about shoulders been sexual and immodest. Hard to change minds and make them not immodest.
By the way, if shoulders are immodest in the same way that breasts are then let’s not have our YW wear swimsuits, or gym attire or any other “specialty” clothing that bares the shoulders. I know some stakes already mandate YW wear t-shirts and shorts even over their one-piece conservative suits.
The problem we have now, however, is that we’re raising a whole generation of YW–and by extension YM–who believe bare shoulders to be immodest and frowned upon by our Heavenly Father who made them, so that removing the garment sleeve would be even more difficult because of the teachings that have been drummed into our little girls heads.
I know of more than one little girl who has pointed to a non LDS woman wearing some sleeveless attire and called her immodest. It’s especially nice when it’s the next door neighbor.
The fact is that bare shoulders are only immodest by the definition of some extreme religious groups–be they Muslim, Christian Fundamentalists, or Mormons–all groups who have a problem with gender equality.
My wife and I read this story in the Friend a few weeks ago. After reading this story we decided to cancel our subscription to the Friend. I think it is really sad that my wife felt the need to proof read the Friend for content before handing it over to our daughter. Obviously, the spirit was right and her fears were justified. We have since had serious discussions about not raising our daughter in the Church after reading this.
please tell me you clicked the “Leave Feedback” button at the bottom right of the page.
Heather, thanks for writing this. I was so bothered when I read it when it came to our house a few weeks ago. I was just sick about it. And the thing that bugs me is that I start to think the problem is me–that I’m walking the razor’s edge of apostasy for being upset by the article.
I’m 42. I was always a modest kid–didn’t wear bikinis, never wore shorty short shorts. But I went to prom in dresses that were modest then but wouldn’t pass muster today. The standard of what it modest for girls has changed radically since I was a teen. I expect by the time my girls are my age they’re going to be forced to look like those poor polygamist wives (the ones with the big bangs, and varying shades of blue, shapeless dresses).
@Elizabeth, I know what you mean. If you complain/fret over something in The Friend, you’re on that slippery slope . . . but when does reason enter the discussion?
I’m with you–I don’t think I ever wore immodest clothing, even as a teenager. Actually, I had one black & white checked mini-skirt that I wore when I was about 16 that was mini, but not extreme. That’s about it. But yeah–“modest” now and “modest” in the late 80s are not the same thing.
My problem is I see stuff like this and I just fume. Now that I write for D & S, I can complain and get some of my fuming out this way.
And then I just put my head down and carry on. I feel powerless.
Ahh, the black and white checked miniskirt of 1986. Was yours houndstooth, plaid or gingham? :-)
A friend who worked for the church magazine about 7 years ago wrote this on my FB page after I posted the Friend article and wrote how much it upset me. I thought everyone here might benefit from it.
“A little back story you might enjoy: Several years ago when I was working for the magazines, they had an illustrated cover on the Friend that included a little girl in a sleeveless shirt. These covers are checked by the GAs and everyone before they go to print, and no concerns whatsoever were raised. Until a reader wrote in to have a fit about how the Friend makes it impossible for her to teach her daughters modesty because they show such terrible examples on the cover. Well, one letter changed everything. Suddenly sleeveless shirts/dresses/whatever were banned from the magazine. And with your post I can see that it has moved from “don’t show a picture of it” to “overtly condemn it”. Oh brother.”
In the most recent BYU alum magazine there was an article which had pictures from the past. There was a cute black/white photo from I’d guess the Wilkinson era of a co-ed in a white collared polo which was sleeveless. I couldn’t imagine how that photo made the cut. In perhaps the same issue there was BYU’s greatest fan. She had more than one set of earrings. LOL That I even notice these things bothers me.
I think it’s incongruent that on one hand we make babies be ‘modest’ but the Church has recently allowed sister missionaries to not wear hose. What prompted that change? To make the girls less peculiar, I believe. So, which is it? While I joke about us looking like the pligs (as my great-aunt called them), I don’t think it’s a far stretch. If we want to look peculiar just keep our current standard of modesty, and hold that. We don’t need to wear a burka.
My 2- and 6-year-old daughters both wore sleeveless dresses to church last week. It was over 90 degrees. And they were so stinking cute. I can’t imagine ever thinking (or doing) differently than that.
What is wrong with you people? Children, no matter how young, do need to immediately begin preparing for the social, moral, and physical realities of adulthood, including but not limited to, modesty and sex. It is our job as parents to prepare them whether they are capable of understanding the reasons or not. Thus, from this moment forth, I will ensure that my two year old daughter wears a bra every day and maxi-pads at least one week a month.
@Troy, laughing out loud here at my desk. Poor Chloe . . .
But really–you gave a great example of the absurdity of the argument that we should just make them deal with things while they’re kids so it’s not an issue when they become adults. Adults and kids are not the same . . .
@Troy–Awesome! That is, hands down, the best rebuttal I have ever heard in regard to little girls and modesty. Great!
My daughter turned 8 on the 4th of July and she was baptized that day. She had a lovely white dress with very wide sleeveless sleeve, but I’d say her shoulder was pretty much covered. She was baptized in Iowa in just a family gathering.
I was thinking, if I’d been in Utah/Idaho at our stake baptism would I have let her wear just that, or would I have made sure she had a little sweater thingy over it so I wouldn’t get demeaning looks from others?
I wonder if theres really more of a problem getting the younger women to wear garments– like more than in the past. The garment designer told me there is but she was very willing to make changes– like shrinking the sleeve so it barely extended over the shoulder bone– but she got overruled by another woman. This was for the Carinessa top that just came out. She actually drew for me what she had tried to do.
So if the number of those conforming has decreased why not try to make substantial changes that would make it more likely for younger women to wear their garments “as instructed” rather than begin enforcement measure at birth. Why use a hammer? The garment now is less about reminding members of their covenants and more about outward appearance giving members the official “seal of approval.”
Moreover, I fail to see how grey, torn garments like I often see on many members in the grocery store line remind anyone of their covenants.
Martine, tell your friend to keep fighting! :) And, since you seem to have a connection, could you pass on to that friend that it would be a HUGE blessing to many Mormon women to have maternity garments that work better than the stuff we’ve got right now. I’m thinking carinessa bottoms with a wide, stretchy waistband or something… Also, tell her the new carinessa tops are great. I love them. It’d be greater even without the bit of sleeve, but I’m ok with it right now. We really really really need better maternity bottoms though. Considering that the whole multiplying and replenishing business is very big in our Church, we should support those women doing their “duty” with better garments for the occasion!!!
I don’t buy maternity garments; I just wore my husband’s bottoms.
I wonder that too. But my biggest problem with the garments isn’t the sleeves. It is that they don’t fit well and are uncomfortable.
It was so interesting for me to read this while travelling in New York where there is significantly more ethnic and religious diversity than in my hometown in Texas. I keep seeing families dressed in various ways–Muslims, Hindus, Mennonites, Hasidic Jews visiting sites together and dressed in various ways. It is obvious that within various religious traditions the what-to-wear lines are drawn in different places for different groups. And so I have found myself pondering that within our LDS tradition this is also true. And while we tolerate and celebrate the diversity around us, we need to do the same inside our own tradition. This morning at the train station a Mennonite baby girl (about 6 months old) was dressed just like her mother–bonnet and all. She was precious. And I wouldn’t feel right judging that any of these women the world over are all repressed by these traditions. They appeared happy and engaged with their families–on vacation like we are.
And so if a 4-year old in an LDS family is taught by her parents to cover her shoulders because they value that degree of modesty, maybe we should not be any more judgmental or critical of that than we are of all these other groups who dress in various ways. And maybe there is even value to these traditions–the bodies of women are not exploited and injected with botox and “enhanced” with various implants to become some unreachable ideal that does not exist.
As a mother of 5 daughters, I find the modesty issue complicated–you can wear that because you’re 4, but not you because you are 12. Maybe it is easier to say, “Put a shirt under that.” I don’t know. Interesting to think about…
I think not judging others is crucial, particularly other religions.
However, within our own religion, I find the issue is a little different. Our doctrines teach certain truths and standards, but certain messages seem to contradict those teachings. We believe in agency, loving our neighbor, not judging, and that we can know through the spirit what is right for us as individuals. Yet, there is a constant push to conform to certain dress codes or behaviors.
To me, choosing for oneself what is modesty (or right or true or important) should never be judged by others. If a person on their own decides that covering your whole body or just certain parts is what they want to do, I’m totally fine with that. But forcing something on someone else, is a different thing. If parents would just dress their kids in whatever they consider “modest”, that’d be fine. However, in our Church somehow this oftentimes seems to come with some message of others being “immodest”. I mean, I live in a complex with many Somalian families. They all cover their girls completely. Yet, I’ve never heard any of them comment on anyone else not looking “right”. Yet, I’ve heard it from quite a few Mormon kids. (I don’t blame the kids, by the way…). Something isn’t going right here, I think.
Karin – you do ask some good questions! I sometimes have an easier time being tolerant of others than of people in my own religious tradition. LOL! I also see the value in group markers. Your trip and sightseeing sounds really neat!
But am I wrong in wishing we could call a spade a spade? I’m not naive enough to believe that the little girl in the article would say, “But that dress won’t indicate that I’m a member of the Church of Jesus Christ, Mommy.” But I wish that the word “modest” wasn’t used. It’s such a loaded word, brimming with connotation. I wouldn’t have nearly as much problem with the whole sleeves issue if we removed that powerful word & replaced it with something else. Maybe we could just state plainly, “We try to minimize the amount of skin shown.”
Not to drag in another hot button issue, but I was thinking about the use of connotatively powerful words with regards to the Casey Anthony trial. A friend with more legal understanding and interest in the case has insisted to me that the lawyers failed to “prove” Casey Anthony murdered her daughter. The friend pointed out the restrictions and rules the jury must follow when deciding the case. And it came to me then that the phrase “not guilty” is what I objected to. I would rather that the decision described as “failure to adequately prove guilt” than “not guilty.” “Not guilty” implies innocence.
That probably sounds like a non sequitur, but I do think there is a power in the words we use and the way we use them. Tying up this whole business of what we wear with the word “modesty” is asking for problems. I mean, if one of the reasons that we cover children’s shoulders is to prepare for garment wearing, then we shouldn’t call that “modesty” at all. While garments certain promote modesty, their main purpose is something else, right?
I think the whole 1984 children-as-spies aspect bugs me too. The little girl judges a gift from her grandmother. Ugh. We shouldn’t encourage children to think they are superior to their elders.
Karin, I’m all for people continuing their traditions when they want to, but the ban on sleeveless tops for girls who don’t wear garments yet isn’t a tradition in our church. I was born in 1958 and grew up in Utah and sleeveless shirts were common for us in the summer, and there was never any question about “modesty” associated with them. It’s just been the last fifteen years or so that I’ve heard it discussed.
And, at least where I live, there are plenty of botoxed and enhanced women at church, no matter how long their sleeves are.
I think this observation ties into an earlier comment… do we want to be publicly recognized, as a group, by what we wear? As in Mennonites, polygamists, Amish, Hasidic Jews, etc? I would not be ashamed to wear the ‘uniform,’ if I chose to belong to one of those groups. However, it seems as if we are trying to walk a line of being ‘in the world but not of the world’ – and different members draw the line in a different place when defining the LDS ‘uniform.” And the editors of the Ensign, among others, are siding with the more conservative definition. I think there is a powerful subgroup of LDS who like the idea of the uniform, and promote the use of Shade undershirts, etc. that delineate who is wearing it and who isn’t.
Yeah–to me, it’s bigger than just, “Oh, what a silly story. Who cares?” Because The Friend is an official publication of the church, I feel like its contents represents the views of “the brethren.” And it seems, frequently, to push a very conservative agenda, a very narrow view of many things–women’s roles (cringing since that’s one of my least favorite phrases of all time), the “sanctity” of marriage, modesty, dating standards, etc. That conservative position, IMO, then allows readers to lord that conservative position over on other people who don’t comply.
That feels different to me than respecting other religious communities’ dress standards.
But the idea of tolerating/struggling to tolerate our own practices versus others’ is interesting to me. I have SO MUCH MORE invested in the Mormon community that it’s easy for me to see an Amish person or a Pentecostal person or a Muslim person dressed in religious garb and think, “Oh, good for them” (like the female Muslim weight lifter, for instance) than it is to see such extreme standards in my own community and have the same forgiving/open reaction.
Does that make sense?
Interesting to note that it is usually the women in these different groups that get saddled with most of the inconvenience involved in these different dress codes. . . There are power and control issues here that shouldn’t be ignored–and that’s as true for Mormons as it is for Muslims wearing burqas.
@Erin, you make a great point about separating out the portion of this issue that can be attributed to an arbitrary group norm that doesn’t have anything to do with modesty–i.e. the portion of this that is about wearing the “Mormon” uniform. For boys passing the sacrament, it isn’t about modesty, it’s an arbitrary uniform (the white shirt). For boys, most of the time it is presented as such. For girls, however, the message about the “uniform” they are supposed to wear is packaged with a religious message of modesty, and that can be confusing (and has the potential to do some damage, in my opinion).
Interesting observation, Brent. We were out and about somewhere the other day and saw a family who I presumed to be Pentecostal judging by their clothes. Of course, I could be wrong, but I think I was right–the mom and her daughters were wearing long denim skirts and had VERY, VERY long hair. The dad looked like Joe Plumber. And I said to Brent, “Hey–why are the women the only ones who have to dress strangely while the men get to look more average/normal?”
The answer, I think, both within our own culture and within other religious traditions (although I’m more reluctant to speak to others’ experiences than I am of my own) has everything to do with control.
Why are girls being told that they can’t wear shorts to girls’ camp? I’m assuming that boys are not being told that they can’t wear shorts to cub/boy scout camp.
And when I (and other women in my ward) are told not to wear pants, that has nothing to do with modesty. It has everything to do with control. I do not *look the part* of a Mormon woman in pants. Therefore, I am a problem that needs to be dealt with.
I cringed a bit when I read the story. It started with the Especially for Youth document. I don’t like the word applied to babies and 4 yr olds. I like boys to wear shirts with their shorts. Maybe I’m comfortably in the middle somewhere. I’m 66 and EVERYONE in my generation went sleveless before they were endowed.
I think comfortably in the middle is a good position! As Ed pointed out, we no longer follow the dress standards that were culturally accepted at the time of the founding of the LDS church. The fact that I’m sitting here in long pants and a short-sleeved shirt, with my hair cut short and dyed, long earrings, bright lipstick, painted toenails and bare ankles would have been shocking.
Of course, the old fuddy duddy in me says, “What’ll the cultural definition of acceptable dress be when my kids are grown? Plastic baggies over one’s bits?” :)
Mom, I like boys with shirts, too! Did I get that from you?? I don’t allow Stuart to run around shirt-less. I’m sure people find that odd.
So you’re confirming that there HAS been a shift now towards the whole “teach ’em while they’re young” thing. I don’t love it.
I do wish I had some more of those cute iron-on Mormon tee shirts I wore when I was a kid, however. If we’re going for arbitrary group markers, I raise my hands for those.
I also think a CTR ring is an example of an arbitrary group marker/article of clothing/jewelry that serves its purpose well! More CTR rings (and toe rings) and fewer little girls who are already getting worried about what other people are going to say about their clothes.
Thank you, “mom!” I’m 10 years younger than you but that’s the way I remember those days too. I’ve heard the argument that today’s fashions are so much trashier than 30-40 years ago that’s why we have to teach those “higher” standards. “Higher standards” is the magic phrase. Who can argue against “higher standards?” so we invent a higher standards that’s not existed in the church before.
Bare shoulders don’t necessary lead to closets full of slutty clothes. There’s no logic to it but I’ve quit expecting logical thinking when it comes to the cultural aspect of Mormonism. Fanaticism, that’s what it is.
I let my just turned 8 year old wear a sleeveless dress today, call me a rebel! I also let her wear healed dress shoes. She can’t be a baby forever and this is NOT making her grow up, she’s comfortable and happy and GOING TO CHURCH…so trust me, if someone wants to get in my buisness I’m well equipt with much more wonderful and wise ideas. Go ahead, judge me. Thing is, the ones talking trash won’t be doing it to me. Sad, but true. I’m glad I don’t get the Friend.
This sad little primary story and your comments reminded me of an experience I had when we moved to Utah 8 years ago. At that time the YW were required to wear long pants to sporting events. Basketball at the church? Long pants. Volleyball game at the Stake Center? Long pants. I was very surprised at this and asked my neighbor why in the world the YW weren’t allowed to wear athletic clothes to sporting events and his reply was, “Just for asking that you are going to be known as the most liberal person in (our ward).” I’ve been called worse things but it didn’t answer my question.
A little while later my early elementary age son came home from school and told me the other kids jumped all over him for wearing a tank top to school. He was actually wearing one of those little sleeveless shirt/short sets. He was probably 6 or 7 at the time and already the kids were judging each other by their clothing. There was nothing immodest about how he was dressed but there is a school dress code that prohibits tank tops and other clothing that someone thinks is immodest. It caused me to stop and think about how the predominant religion imposes its standards on everyone else in the community.
Reading some of these comments is saddening. Seems to be more about bickering and justification instead of striving to do what is right. Regardless, there is a great Ensign article that addresses a lot all the points people bring up. Here is the link and a few selected quotes:
http://lds.org/ensign/1992/02/more-than-hemlines-and-haircuts?lang=eng
“The problem for us, then, is how to determine what is modest and what isn’t. Modesty is, after all, fairly subjective. One person may consider a sleeveless dress too immodest for a young Latter-day Saint woman to wear, while another could look at the same dress, note the modest length and design, and find nothing wrong with it.”
“[…] however, there is room for interpretation. Exactly where on the thigh do shorts become “short shorts”? How tight do pants have to be before they are “revealing”? And does “low-cut” mean anything other than turtlenecks?
Clearly, For the Strength of Youth teaches the correct principles and leaves us to govern ourselves. And that’s the way it should be. Heavenly Father has given us the freedom to choose, and we can’t grow or receive blessings from obedience if all the decisions have been made for us.”
Hi, Gringo. I disagree that all we’re doing here is bickering and justifying, but I’m glad you came here and read & commented! ;)
I’m all about “it’s more than hemlines and haircuts,” but that article is from 1992. I think the rhetoric we were getting from church leaders and publications 20 years ago was much more sane and reasonable. I feel like it’s gotten ratcheted up to the nth degree. It’s no longer a modest position; it’s extreme.
And of course, I totally agree about letting us govern ourselves. I would like for the church and its leaders to get back to telling us–and our youth–to do just that rather than trying to micro-manage our every move.
I’m that girl that has never worn a two-piece because the strength of youth pamphlette says not to – super modest my teen and single years- and when I read the friend article I was seriously disturbed. The volume of posts on the internet about this article make me happy. Thank you for voicing this.
You sound like you are anti-mormon.
@Gina, are you talking to me (the author of the post)? I’m very much NOT anti-Mormon. I’m anti-extremism, from wherever the extremism comes. And I’m anti- ideologies/narratives that teach girls that they are responsible for boys’ thoughts/actions via their clothing choices.
Heather, I heard you on the Mormon Podcast about this subject and loved what you said. I have a brother who has stressed severe “modesty” standards with his little girls (only his girls) since they were infants and I have always felt like they would grow up with weird body issues. I am not sure they have (the oldest is only 12), but they do have a very stringent and judgmental streak with other people’s choices, both in clothing, and earrings, entertainment, books, and most other “standards”. And they are very uptight about enforcing this standard with their cousins, which has caused some hard feelings. Stories like this in the Friend, oxymoronic name at this point, seem to justify their judgmental behavior, which is probably what bothers me the most about the story.
I did a sharing time on sunday about my body is a temple… I made sure to stress the point, “we don’t learn these things so that we can judge others. we learn these things so we can obey for ourself.” And I am sure all you parents agree, that part of obeying is doing it without complaining, right? So let’s obey the rules of modesty and teach them to our children (something parents are commanded to do, teach their children all that is right, especially what the prophets have told us)…. and let’s not complain.
@Marie, I think it’s great that you thought to point out that we shouldn’t judge others. We all need to hear that more often (maybe especially me!!).
However, I’m not sure I do agree with your statement that “part of obeying is doing it without complaining” or that the “rules of modesty” are at all clear. I’m really not interested in just obeying rules because someone said they are rules. But that’s just me personally. I can only speak for myself.
I wouldn’t call my post *complaining* . . . criticizing? Yes. Critically evaluating? Yes. Discussing and asking for feedback from others? Yes.
Not for me. Yes, it is difficult and annoying when my children challenge me, but, especially when it is important and a principle I want them to internalize, I am more interested in discussion and communication.
I realize I’m late to the discussion here, but I have to ask a question.
I’m in the primary presidency of my ward. Two weeks ago I taught the “my body is a temple” lessons and emphasized (when talking about tattoos and body piercings) that we don’t judge other people who make different choices than us. I’m pretty sure no one heard it except the one male teacher in the room who wears an earring and has a tattoo.
Then last week the PP taught a lesson on modesty. Yes, in the program for the year we were instructed to teach a lesson on how to dress modestly to preschoolers and older yet prepubescent children. The PP went along with this new crazy line about sleeveless shirts and tank tops. I just sat there and kept my mouth shut.
So my question is this: Do I have a responsibility to speak up in Primary when I hear something extreme and not doctrinal being taught? Should I challenge the cultural indoctrination? Should I respect the PP and let her teach without interference? If I do challenge the cultural extremism being taught to our children, how do I do so respectfully and tactfully?
You know, if I do begin to speak up it probably won’t be long before I’m released and then I’ll have to go back to Gospel Doctrine and RS. Cringe.
I deal with this frequently, Menner. To be honest with you, one way I deal with it is by writing for this blog and posting it on my FB wall. That way, I figure it’s at least possible that some church members (whether in my ward or not) will read it and think about it–even if they don’t agree with what I write! In my case, I know that some members of our primary presidency have read things that I’ve written because we’ve discussed it in comments here, on Facebook, and in person.
In the situation you described, I wouldn’t have interrupted the teacher to say something, but I would’ve brought it up later. A year or so ago, my kids were told (by a member of the stake primary presidency) during a primary activity day that it was against the Word of Wisdom to drink caffeinated drinks. I mentioned it later to the member who had said it. She didn’t really agree with me, but again–I raised the issue.
I also fear getting released and having to go back to Gospel Doctrine and RS. I fear that will spell the end of my church attendance days . . .
Would that really cause you to stop attending church? I hope not.
When does modesty start? What are your thoughts? When are kids suddenly supposed to be taught these things?
Here’s my view…Everyone has the right to make their own decisions. I have no problem with babies wearing sleeveless clothes, but I don’t want mine wearing them, and it’s more a reason of personal experience. At what point does modesty become modesty? At what age is showing shoulders no longer in line with what the prophets have counseled? A sister-in-law of mine did not want to go to the temple and make covenants with the Lord because she liked wearing sleeveless shirts. She has since got over that excuse, but if she had never in her life worn sleeveless shirts, she wouldn’t have waited 5 more years to go to the temple.
Thoughts? When does modesty become modesty? When do you suddenly tell your child, “Your shoulders are now immodest?”. Would like to hear your thoughts.
I have to be honest, I don’t know that I would ever tell my child, “Your shoulders are now immodest,” because I don’t think our bodies are dangerous. That doesn’t mean I don’t think modesty is important, but more that I believe modesty is a much more fluid concept. It is about dressing appropriately for occasions, personalities and climates.
I don’t know your sister-in-law, so I can’t possibly judge, but, in my experience, people’s reasons for not attending the temple are usually far more complicated than sleeves. You could just as easily say that a person who has worn sleeveless tops is making a bigger and more fully-informed sacrifice when they decide to make covenants in the temple.
But, to try to answer your question. Modesty is a way of addressing sexual maturity and before puberty I believe it sexualizes children. In the same way that I wouldn’t buy my six-year-old daughter sexualized clothes (padded bikinis, high-heeled boots), I also wouldn’t treat her body as an object that needs to be covered.
I find it interesting that so many replies contain “fear” about the original article in The Friend. So many calling a t-shirt “extremism”. Seriously? A Tshirt scares you to the point of feeling like you belong to a cult of extremism???
THAT is extreme. It mentioned no burkha, no hijab, no wearing of wigs to cover your child’s hair… there are sleeveless dresses that cover the shoulder, and are modest. But MOST sleeveless dresses I have seen when shopping for my children have very wide arm holes, low necklines, etc. And no, they are NOT modest, unless a shrug or t-shirt is added. When my child moves and I can see in her dress, that dress is not modest.
The story is one example of how to make an outfit modest. Not something to create “fear” in grown women.
Monica, I don’t think anyone here finds t-shirts extreme, just the logic behind the need for them (a logic that is strikingly similar to the logic of the burka) and applying that to a four-year-old.
I do not even know how I ended up here, but I thought this post was wonderful. I don’t know who you are but definitely you’re going to a famous blogger if you are not already Cheers!
Even though I think that we as mormons sometimes do push things pretty harshly such as modesty I also know that from my own home and family experiences that it might seem extreme it is done out of love and respect. We love and respect our bodies. We love and respect our Heavenly Father. We are taught our bodies are temples. When we enter the temple we are asked to forgo bikini cut undies and thongs for garments. Now more than ever in a world of decaying morals we need to be strict with ourselves and our families. There isn’t a gray area anymore and when you talk about when did shoulders become sexual on a 4year old? Well let me tell you that to some they are. There are more freaks and pervs out there now than there has ever been. Now I know this from experience also. I work with law enforcement and it makes me want to put moo moos on my 4 year old daughter but I don’t. But you need to know that there is nothing wrong with standing up and being bold and teaching our kids early that modesty is important. Media has turned our little angels into sexual objects. Even the girls on the disney channel dress more provocative than they used and act more as young adults rather than prepubescent teens. So when you question a little story that is a simple example of how a mom is trying to teach her daughter to always choose the right and dress as Heavenly Father wants us to maybe you need to question your standards. I am not perfect but I refuse to close my eyes to the truth of the world and the people in it. I will teach my daughter to not wear bikinis and always wear sleeves even if they are just capped because if we allow ourselves to justify strapless, tanks, bikinis, daisy duke shorts, low cut t’s that do show their chest, and even mini skirts when they are tiny we are just teaching them that it is okay and mark my words they will push it with you when they get older and they will do it whether you know it or not. It isn’t extremism it is honest modesty and a caring mother and church that wants the best and doesn’t want us to treat our bodies or act in a way that Heavenly Father would be displeased. It draws attention and it does make them act differently. If we teach modest in dress and are firm on our convictions they will learn respect for themselves and even others. It caries over. Ask yourself why did this article bother you so much that you had to bash it in a public way? Probably because you want to justify what you are teaching your daughter(s) to yourself and to others.
Bee, I’m curious as to what you think I’m teaching my daughters that I think needs justification.
I completely agree that we should teach our kids to love and respect their bodies. I agree that that means we should treat our bodies lovingly.
I guess where we disagree is that I don’t think that teaching a 4 year old to cover up her shoulders accomplishes that objective. I think it sends the message that her body is something to be ashamed of–something to be hidden. Sure, I think some parts of the body are best left hidden ;), but shoulders???
Bee D, thanks for stopping by.
I hope that teaching your daughters the way you are accomplishes your goals. Some of us are going about it a different way. Sadly, no one who is sexually attracted to children is going to care if they have a t shirt on under their sundress. Wearing a burka doesn’t protect women in Saudi Arabia from being sexually assaulted, either. It is false security.
The only thing I wanted to comment on was: “But I was pushed over the edge today when I read this little gem.” You don’t get pushed, you decided to be pushed. We were created to “act” and “not be acted upon.” We are all free to interpret, feel, say, live by what the Church teaches (evident by all the posts) but remember WE are not pushed, WE decide to be pushed. Yes, things/words/circumstances can affect us but we ultimately decide how and how much.
Odd. How might one DECIDE to be pushed?
???
“You decided to be pushed”, is a metaphor. Just as you used the very same metaphor of “I was pushed over the edge”, I would naturally assume that you did not mean the Friend literally grew arms and pushed you over a cliff. Likewise, when Moroni said you chose to be pushed, he is metaphorically speaking that you chose to be offended. Being offended is simply a choice, not something that is forced upon us.
If you teach your daughter to dress modestly it doesn’t mean teaching her to be ashamed it means teaching her to be respectful to her body and to be aware of it. What you instill in a child at a young age stays with them. There was an add a few months back that displayed a young girl in underwear that was styled to mimic lingerie. I see it more and more. Little girls dress more provocatively at earlier ages. They are more promiscuous earlier and sexuality things earlier in life. Most of it comes from the decline of society but why would we help it on? Why woudl we as mother allow and teach our daughters that spaghetti straps, stapless, tanks, bikinis, super short shorts are acceptable just because they are young and then when they reach the age that we think they are becoming mature we expect them to change their ways and become more modest when we as the mother have taught them it is okay at a young age? I have seen it in a younger sister, friends, cousins, etc. What we allow them to dress like as young children they will in fact dress like as young adolescent. We are not only trying to teach them modesty for life but to be respectful of our bodies and to show respect for Heavenly Father’s wishes for us to be modest. Yes my daughter is to young to wear garments but if she is brought up with the standard of dress that coincides with the standards held in order to enter the temple and wear garments when that day comes she will be prepared. Modesty doesn’t change but society does. We do not have to decline with society. I look back at my mothers generation and yes they did occasionaly wear bikinis but they had an understanding of modesty that we as a society don’t anymore. Wearing a tshirt under a tank isn’t cult like it is modest, plain and simple. It is a simple concept. If you can tell yourself that shoulders aren’t a big deal that is up to you but what are you accomplishing in allowing her to wear a tank as opposed to a little tshirt? Nothing.
Yes it might seem like a false security but we are a civilized people. And yes people will do what they want but you are also putting yourself out there for more attention when you wear something more revealing. I see it at work all the time. As a victims advocate I sit back and can’t believe it when a young teenager walks in looking like the women do on the rap music videos my nephew watches. Showing more flesh than is needed to entice a man. She is upset because she doesn’t know why something like rape has happened to her. I am not saying that sexual assault is ever the victims fault but a lot can be said about how you put yourself out there to a predator. If she had had something on that covered herself he might have still attacked but he might have over looked her. You never know for sure how predators will act. But wouldn’t you rather teach them to be mindful of themselves and have them choose to be safe first rather than sorry later? Also I have observed that the way someone dresses effects the way that they act and the people that take notice. I am just human and am not perfect and will not judge because everyone has their owns choices to make but I am trying to lend a perspective that speaks from those experiences others have had that I have been able to be a support after the fact. Be mindful, you can’t protect your child from everything and if taught properly things can be avoided.
Modesty is not to be ashamed. It is to be mindful.
Amber, I disagree with you about the training them when they are young idea. IMO, adolescence, when the body is maturing sexually, is the appropriate time to navigate those issues. To me, worrying about modesty when they are little is just as strange as putting a little girl in a padded training bra or high-heeled boots. However, I’m less concerned with our difference of opinion on that issue and more concerned with some of the victim blaming (you should never blame the victim, but …) statements you’ve made. Despite our cultural ideas about modesty, there simply is not a strong correlation between a woman’s clothing choice and rape. Women are victimized, often privately and in their homes, no matter what they are wearing and I find it very upsetting that you are suggesting otherwise. Rape and sexual abuse can only be “avoided” when men (and in some cases, women) do not rape or sexually abuse others.
Woa. Woa! Blatant victim blaming here. As a victims advocate, you would do well to look into your viewpoint that a woman’s lack of clothing is why she is being raped. I can’t sit and read this and not speak up. I have no problem if you choose your own standards of modesty, but let’s not blame those who have been raped for causing the actions of their perpetrators. Modesty standards do not cause rape, and a person’s choice of clothing is not responsible for the violent acts of others. Dressing modestly will not keep someone safe – that is absolutely ludicrous.
Listen, there are many reasonable arguments for dressing modestly and I respect people’s rights to differ from my opinion of what is modest and to insist that they cover their own little one’s shoulders. But insisting that your version of modest is the right one is close-minded and judgmental, and insisting that showing skin (according to your standards) is “putting yourself out there for a predator” is – in fact – victim blaming.
“Modesty doesn’t change but society does.”
Modesty is clearly an evolving concept. The church changes it’s standards of what is modest, just as society does. If it didn’t, we would all still be hiding our ankles and knees and only wearing dresses. Our garments would still be one piecers.
I was so surprised when my son went to his first youth dance without a tie, and even more surprised when he told us that the girls wore jeans now too. “Hallelujah!”… I thought, the church has finally loosened up a little bit.
Rape is not a sexual act; it is an act of agression, an act of violence. I fear for rape victims whose “advocates” judge and condemn them as being guilty of the attack. Surely, a rape advocat has had some training in the realities of this crime?
Thanks for your comments Amber. I agree. Little girls dress my sexie than most women do.
Little girls are only “sexy” if we, as adults, say they are. And when we ascribe adult values/intentions (i.e. trying to be “sexy”) to little girls for doing things like wearing tank tops, I think we’ve lost our way.
My daughter sometimes wears tank tops . . . because we live in Texas and it’s so dang hot down here. Nothing sexy about it.
Like it or not, there are many sick adults who are out in the world who *do* in fact think little kids (yes, even four year olds) are sexy. In fact, there was even a point in time when *elbows* where considered revealing, and NOT just by the LDS. So it stands to reason that there is somebody out there, who may actually be turned on by the look of shoulders.
Whether there is or not, why not protect our innocent children by minimizing as best as we can the possibility of some shady character scoping them out. It’s a protection. Why kick against it and call it bad?
Do you really think that covering your daughter’s shoulders will protect her from abuse?
The “good stuff” or the “plain and precious truths” are found in the scriptures. In fact, your blog post, and subsequent comments, remind me of a very plain truth taught in Moroni 7:14-17 to help all people distinguish between the words of the prophets and the philosophies of bloggers. After reading the FRIEND and your post, it is plain to me who truly presents the “good” stuff.
JC, your response seems a tad arrogant. . . There is “good stuff” everywhere–in the Ensign, in the Friend, on blogs, etc. The trick is to have enough maturity and spiritual self-confidence to be able to pick out the good from these different sources (and “the good” will probably vary by individual and circumstance) and to leave the “bad.” If your position is that EVERYTHING in the Friend is by definition “good” because it has the official stamp of approval from the church, I think you’ve got a little growing up to do. . . I, for one, don’t believe that God expects us to put our brains in a sock drawer and simply paint by the numbers–I think he expects more out of us than that. I think he expects us to think for ourselves and to do our best to develop our own sense of spirituality (and to take responsibility for what we choose to believe in). Somehow, lately, we’ve gotten in into our heads as Mormons that “exact” obedience is a virtue. I couldn’t disagree more. If I remember correctly, exact obedience was a big part of someone else’s plan. . .
Brent, you don’t know anything about me, but you suggest I put my head in a sock drawer — and I am the arrogant one. Sorry Brent, you must not have read the passage I’m referring to because it doesn’t suggest that you put your head in a sock drawer, nor does it suggest blindly following a philosophy or a teacher. It teaches how to distinguish the “good stuff” that Heather suggests is not in the Friend article, and warns us not to be deceived into thinking good to be evil and vice versa. That is the point of my comment — not blindly following.
Furthermore Brent, your comment is completely out of context. Your speaking in a broad terms. My comment is posted on this blog page to this specific post by Heather where she not only attacked the FRIEND article but…”church magazines for kids and for teenagers, our weekly Sunday lessons, our Especially for Youth camps, girls’ camp, our official church website, official church publications, our instructions for 21-year-old female missionaries . . .” and then claimed that emphasizing this kind of modesty is “not good”. I did not make a blanket statement that all blogs are bad or irrelevant — I blog.
However, THIS post does disturb me, and my comments are directed toward Heather’s opinion of the Friend article referenced in her post. Sorry Brent, and Heather, to me it is clear to perceive who’s fruit basket is more full when it comes to discussing “Modesty”. Heather…. a blogger, or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ “magazines for kids and for teenagers, weekly Sunday lessons, Especially for Youth camps, girls’ camp, official church website, official church publications, instructions for 21-year-old female missionaries” — all of which I have personally witnessed the blessings of their teachings on modesty.
For the record, I don’t think that Heather or any other parent who allows their child to wear a sleeveless dress is bad, evil, or going to hell, nor do I think most Latter Day Saints feel that way. However, I do believe that modesty in dress standards for boys and girls, as taught in this Friend article and other church publications, is a true principle. I also understand and respect that people don’t always feel or see things the same way I do on a number of issues. So as far as Heather’s or anyone else’s choice of clothing attire for their children is not my business to judge.
What I am, and all people are required, to do is judge what are correct principles to adopt in their lives and their children’s lives. Heather has taken her lifestyle opinion on modesty a step further than just living it; she has blogged about it to the point that it has received some wide attention. Which is still no real concern of mine for the most part, except the fact that she attacked the Church and it’s work in expressing her opinion on modesty. She drew the line in the sand and said, essentially: “My opinion of modesty is good, and opinions that agree with the Friend are ‘not good.'” Now I and others are confronted with this proposition — which teaching on modesty is good and which is not. (I can only assume Heather intended proposition with her final claim that the Friend’s teaching on modesty–published by the Church–is “not good.”
I say again, it is clear to me — maybe not so much to others — which teaching is good. I choose the Friend.
I’m intrigued by the notion that expressing disagreement about something = an attack on the Church and its work. I feel like it’s my God-given responsibility to think critically–and that includes thinking critically about things I read in church publications. I honestly feel like if I didn’t do that, I would be disappointing my heavenly parents. I truly do not believe that is what they want us to be doing in life.
Furthermore, why only offer two choices: agree with Heather or agree with the Friend? How silly! I’d venture to say that there are many, many, MANY other options available. I grow weary of all the binaries we seem to throw out in the church all the time. It feels like the easy way out to me. Clearly, the world is much more complicated than just black/white, right/wrong, true/not true. The world is full of diversity, contradictions, etc. We would do well to lean into some of those complications in order to really tease them out.
My two cents.
Heather, seriously? How did you become a writer? This whole post is making an argument. It’s purpose is to persuade. So when I say that I and others are confronted with a proposition, I am speaking of the argument you have proposed here! Not every other proposition out there. I didn’t realize that you left it so open-end when made your final statement, “This is not our good stuff,” a statement that you absorbed me and all other members into without “our” consent. But I digress. Let’s start from the top…
What is your argument? Claim? Specific intention of this post? To launch an attack on the Friend, the Church, and the Brethren for teaching Modesty in a wrong way. You used the to topic of modesty to launch the attack (please look up the definition) and made the centerpiece of your whole argument that “our church magazines for kids and for teenagers, our weekly Sunday lessons, our Especially for Youth camps, girls’ camp, our official church website, official church publications, our instructions for 21-year-old female missionaries” (all works and appendages of the Church) are the counterfeit of “extremism.”
This claim and intention is made even more clear in the later comment by you: “Yeah–to me, it’s bigger than just, ‘Oh, what a silly story. Who cares?’ Because The Friend is an official publication of the church, I feel like its contents represents the views of ‘the brethren.’ And it seems, frequently, to push a very conservative agenda, a very narrow view of many things[…] That conservative position, IMO, then allows readers to lord that conservative position over on other people who don’t comply.”
In this comment you state quite clearly that the Friend article is concerning to you because it is a church publication and endorsed by the brethren. It is at this point that you then reveal your real motivation behind this post — and it is not to tease out the truth behind modesty doctrine. It is because you perceive the church leadership to be narrow-minded driving politics of a conservative agenda.
Here is the heart and the most disturbing part of your attack because I know these men to inspired, full of love and compassion, holding God’s authority on earth, who’s only interest is the eternal welfare of God’s children, and who receive God’s revealed word for our day. I know these men, their individual and collective fruits and have seen their sacrifices. Because of this, anyone proposing character contrary, will have a hard time convincing me — especially when that person openly states that a calling outside what they feel comfortable with could be the end of the commitments and covenants: “I also fear getting released and having to go back to Gospel Doctrine and RS. I fear that will spell the end of my church attendance days…”
So in the end, what am I the reader left with from your proposal? What is the focal point of your proposition? What is the driving question that I have to answer before I can even consider the rest of your argument, let alone the billions of other propositions out there on the topic? I need to determine if what you have staged your argument on is sturdy or faulty–the veracity or falsity of the Friend article, other church publications, and the Prophets and Apostles regarding the topic of modesty. I they are true in what they have presented and taught, why would I listen to you or anyone teaching contrary. If they are wrong, then you have earned my ear to try to persuade me further, and perhaps the billions of other voices of opinion on modesty.
I, like you, believe it is very important to study and critically analyze a situation, a decision, or a proposition in your mind. Building a case with sound judgement and good reason, but ultimately the final step is to return to Him who knows all truth and ask (D&C 9:8).
It really doesn’t matter to me whether or not you think tank tops are modest or immodest. I have no desire to convince you one way or the other. I simply object to someone who using their opinion to launch an attack on what I hold as dear and true and suggest that I and others act like “member[s] of a freakish cult that hypersexualizes its preschool[…] girls” for agreeing and believing what the Friend and Church on modesty.
Based upon my personal testimony of the reality of the Living Christ, His true Apostles and Prophets, and numberless fruits of the Spirit I have enjoyed from observing their teachings and being an intimate participant in these great works you have so boldly testified against, I know so clearly who’s proposal is of God–the good and true.
Why do I care to tell you this? Because going back to my first post, I find it interesting that you are a small part of fulfilling prophesy, and my testimony in that… has grown today.
Yes, JC, Heather is obviously an inarticulate boob.
Well said, JC … I couldn’t agree more. We are being faced with a choice between two choices, and those who are choosing the church’s publication of the Friend in this instance are left feeling like they are making the wrong or judgmental choice. Perhaps that wasn’t the intent of the author, but it is definitely how it was laid out.
I feel like people who decide to make a choice (based on our convictions, experiences, and wanting to adhere to principles and commandments for the cause of ensuring our own protection, as well as our family’s) that is not a popular choice are often made to feel like because they choose a certain way of life, they are being judgmental. Since when are we not allowed to have an opinion contrary to those who don’t adhere to our same standards?
I’m grateful JC was able to spell out the issue at hand, and also show that obedience to those principles debated have brought much happinness in his/her own life, and a respect for the body…contrary to what this article is stating.
It’s important to recognize that the term “standards” is one that carries a definite connotation of judgment. The answer to the question, “is this modest?” is going to differ wildly from one family to another. It’s really important to understand the nuances of culture, equality, etc – when judging others about their dress standards. Every human has a limited perspective. We need to remember that the world is not black and white.
I think it is worrisome to sexualize a four year old – whether we are allowing her to dress far beyond what is appropriate for her age, or whether we are projecting our ideas of sexuality onto an innocent little shoulder – both are exacerbating this problem that we have of overly sexualizing our children (and our adults for that matter).
I wish we could focus on the problems of sexualizing children, victim blaming, and our Mormon sexual repression (do you think it exists?) instead of spending our energetic resources worrying about four years olds and tank tops.
I think one of the most interesting things (and I’m being sincere here) about those fully engaged in the “exact” obedience trap is how strenuously “they” argue that they are somehow thinking for themselves. . . Choosing to follow is not the same as walking your own path (in the same way that painting by the numbers is not the same as being an artist). It’s a philosophical difference that really can’t be bridged (and I doubt we are going to agree on this). In my opinion (to engage in a few generalizations), any sane (or grounded) individual that reads that particular article in the Friend, looks at Heather’s comments, and engages in three second of rational thought would side with Heather. . . and the only reason I think there is any debate about it is because folks have put their brains in their sock drawers and are busy following marching orders. If that’s not accurate, then please explain, in clear and concise terms, why YOU (not “the church” or “the prophets” or “the scriptures” or Santa Clause, etc.) believe allowing 5-year-olds to wear sleeveless dresses is afront to basic decency and morality. . .
Brent, do you hear yourself? “Let’s discuss a religious topic, but leave religion out of the discussion.” Do I understand you correctly?
For some reason I was under the false impression that we held a common belief: 1 That Jesus Christ is our Savior, the WAY, the TRUTH, and the LIFE; 2 That Jesus Christ established His church and personally presides at it’s head under His authority; 3 That Jesus Christ restored this authority and the original church organization to Joseph Smith the Prophet and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints houses just that; 4 That Jesus Christ’s direction continues today through His living Prophets and Apostles; 5 That we believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and that He will yet reveal — to include The Bible, The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants, The Pearl of Great Price, General Conference, THE WORDS OF THE LIVING PROPHETS (please see D&C 68:3-4); 6 That Santa Clause is not real, but God and Jesus Christ most certainly are (apparently, Brent, you see them comparatively).
However, I now realize that this is not the case; and therefore you and I have no common ground to stage this discussion. Your philosophy appears truly independent… independent of Christ. That is particularly clear, when you require someone to make an argument strictly with the “philosophy of man” and exclude the teachings of Jesus Christ’s “Church” and His “prophets.” How many apostasies has the human race seen because of that particular methodology? I admit I am not independent of Christ in my quest for truth or how I should live my life — tried it once or twice in my life and it didn’t work well.
Is that trap of “exact obedience” you speak of? No. Because exact obedience is not a trap — though I do not profess to be exactly obedient in all things as I am completely aware of my fallen and sinful state. But yes I seek to be perfected in Christ and in His way. God’s plan does require perfection and exact obedience through free will — we just can’t attain it without Jesus Christ’s Atonement. The Other Plan, as you referenced, was “forced obedience” not merely “exact obedience” as you incorrectly stated. I do not seek to force anyone to think a certain way. I am not forced to think a certain way either.
Additionally Brent, I must point out that your logic or “rational thinking” is inconsistent. For example, earlier you stated that I was “spiritually immature” and had some growing up to do; later you require me to abandon all things spiritual to justify myself. How is that consistent philosophy or logic? It is not. Anyone with a brain out of the sock drawer and who gives 3 seconds of rational thought to it would tend to agree. I guess, Brent, a person is only logical or rational if they agree with Brent, but not if they agree with the prophet of God or the Friend.”
Brent, in the end, you and I will likely never agree on this; and for me that is fine. I have literally hundreds of friends, co-workers, and family, that don’t agree with me on thousands of issues, and I love them and respect them just the same. I don’t believe that they are brainless, immature, or incompetent because we don’t see eye-to-eye or paint a picture from a different framework. With respect to that, it appears Brent, you have a lot more growing up to do.
Pedophiles are attracted to children, not the clothing (or lack thereof) that a child may or may not be wearing. It is impossible to dress a child “modestly” enough to deter a pedophile. To suggest differently is ridiculous.
JC, I think your comment speaks for itself. It seems clear enough that you are wholeheartedly engaged in a paint-by-the-numbers approach to spirituality–that’s fine (to each their own). I will point out that in the “other” plan, you’ll note, we were all free to choose (or not choose) in much the same way that you claim it is an act of “free will” to be exactly obedient. . . I also think it’s interesting that you don’t even attempt any sort of rational defense of the particular article in question (beyond the simplistic “because Jesus says so” rationale). That doesn’t seem to suggest any sort of real engagement with the question (beyond the standard “I’m choosing to not choose, but to just follow orders” approach to life). At any rate, good luck.
My response is really to the comment posted by JC that begins, “Heather, seriously, how did you become a writer?”
I am a newcomer to this site, having linked to it from Religion Dispatches. From what I’ve read so far, Heather is a writer because she writes. She writes clearly and personally and with a sense of humor. She “shows not tells” by using interesting and effective details.
Heather also comes across as warm, friendly, and respectful — qualities that are lacking in the response of JC, whom, I assume, must also be a member of the Mormon Church. I base my assumption on this sentence in which JC defensively accuses Heather of “launch[ing] an attack on the Friend, the Church, and the Brethren.”
The “I Am a Mormon” business card that 2 Mormon boys left at my door aims to show that Mormons are a diverse group of people. JC’s unvarnished response is, however, far more illustrative of the stereotypical Mormon than any PR efforts could be.
I am an active Mormon and find myself yearning for more neighbors and friends who think the way Heather does and actually dares to say it. I find her questioning to be fair, warm, and humorous. I hope that Heather will keep writing and expressing her views, telling us stories about her family and herself, and keep asking the questions that need to be asked.
Wow. I am amazed – our church magazines are not scripture. And to me it is just so sad that little girls cannot – according to that article – wear sleeveless anythings. What happened to joy of our physical bodies? Too much teaches that we need to be ashamed of our bodies – cover cover cover them up. Why? Our bodies are not walking temptation for others of the opposite gender – and it is NOT our responsibility to cover them up so others won’t be tempted. The sin of the other belongs to the other, not me. A little girl wearing a sleeveless dress or top is not immodest. And obedience is not safety when obedience becomes an idol, or something to bash someone else with. Good grief.
Lol this is ridiculous. This is a total joke and bordering preaching from the pulpit. To each their own but when in doubt the church is the foundation of all things. You can and should study their teachings out but opening it up for what has become what Joseph Smith experienced in his youth, many false prophets preaching about how their way is the best way and questioning something yes as simple as modest dress regardless the age to me does seem a bit wrong.
Also I do not believe that Amber was blaming the victim. It seems that she was merely trying to get the point across that dress can in fact effect a person for the worse. I feel sorry that the some of the members of the LDS church that have posted on here cannot see things as they really are.
There are real dangers out there and we should take every precaution to protect our children. Everyone has their own way of doing things but the great thing about our church is that it lays a foundation for all things. Hopefully we all can get back to the basics and stick to the foundation laid out for us by our Heavenly Father and the prophets that we are so blessed to have in this modern day sodom and gomorrah. There is no gray area. Don’t get trapped thinking there is.
I don’t believe that I will ever read this blog again because ultimately the truth of the matter is the spirit doesn’t lie and I personally have felt nothing but anger coming from a large majority of the comments. You can never take things back once they have been put out there especially on the internet. So be wise about what you post or comment. If it doesn’t lend to the spirit and is typed while you are feeling attacked or offended than it probably isn’t coming from the spirit and shouldn’t be said.
I do not want anyone to be offended by my words. Please understand that I do not think that I am perfect, far from it, but I just wanted to share what has been shared with me time and time again.
For those that questioned me and in turn seemed to think that I was being judgemental you should know that I am not. I know of all people that dressing modest doesn’t protect you from sexual assault. Dressing imodest doesn’t mean that you deserve it either. I was stalked and raped at 18 and I have always dressed modestly. So I of all people realize that dress doesn’t mean you are safe. After my experience I decided that I wanted to do what I do for a living to help others that have gone through similar experiences. Some of those sexual predators are purely opportunistic predators or are predators that perceive things in an alternate reality. But from my own experiences and from those of others I have been able to help with I have been able to witness that dress can and does in fact effect the way that a women is perseved by the opposite sex and especially predators.
It is as simple as that. I do not judge. It is my job not to judge. I hurt each time I work with one of those unfortunate individuals that has had to go through something like that. So please do not presume that I am judging anyone all I can contribute is my own views and experiences and what I have shared has been what I have experienced.
Amber, I’m sorry that happened to you. I’m guessing everyone here has zero tolerance for assault, and assure you you’re are not alone. By your own words, you were dressed modestly when assaulted. Yet, you go on to say that appearance has an effect on predators. The sad thing is, no matter what we (or our daughters) wear, it will be a turn on to someone somewhere. It simply is not possible to dress in a way that protects from assault.
The frightening truth is that the only protection from assault is to be lucky enough to not encounter a predator in his/her ideal circumstances.
John Bytheway says, “Standards Never Change”.
Well, obviously, they do. So it’s important to question why, and to think critically about these issues rather than pretend that the past never happened. This whole modesty fetish by Mormons indicates deeper spiritual insecurity to me. Fear of judgement, fear of condemnation, fear of not being “good” enough, fear of what others think and say, fear of not living a “higher” law (higher than what, or high enough?)
JC went over the top–wow, it was like he was spitting out his response and you could feel him trying to “set everyone else” straight and true. The biggest problem with the more recent trend of Mormon Modesty Creep is that is DOES NOT come from the brethren. It comes from tiny little self-appointed judges who try to push our culture to “higher” standards (whatever that means). It’s minimum wage employees of a college testing center who take it UPON THEMSELVES to set new standards and enforce them arbitrarily ON THEIR OWN INITIATIVE when the moment strikes them. This isn’t about following the brethren, it’s about individuals setting themselves up above others, and using cultural notions about “modesty” and women’s bodies to justify their new “doctrine”.
And some people let this happen, or even support vocally (like JC), because they kind of agree. All the while ignoring the spiritually damaging aspects of all this. Christ was about love, acceptance, freedom from burdens (cultural, political, traditional, Mosaical, etc.). Enforced obedience, self-glorifying dogmatism, is all about . . . well, do the math.
Modesty is so important. “The way you dress is a reflection of what you are on the inside. Your dress and grooming send messages about you to others and influence the way you and others act” (“For the Strength of Youth” pamphlet 14-15). Modesty is a mindset, and it’s how we respect our bodies.
These modest traditions need to be kept through out a person’s whole life, not just once they are at a certain age. It would not be appropriate for a young lady to wear “short shorts and skirts, tight clothing, shirts that do not cover the stomach, and other revealing attire” (“For the Strength of Youth” pamphlet 15-16). Then for this girl to expect to be able to adapt to living after going through the temple when she wears garments. This is the same with little girls. How can we expect them to simply reverse the way they dress once they are older. We cannot justify immodesty by saying some girl is too young or that the image is just a cartoon. These things become engrianed in our lives. Do not let your children accept immodesty.
I personally hate immodesty, and I am a 17 year old Young Woman who wants to be stylish. Sure it’s harder to choose The Lords way in being modest and virtuous, but when has living the gospel ever been easy?
I sincerely hope those who follow this blog do not question God’s commandments, He is the Truth, and happiness comes through obedience. I know that if we follow Him and His prophets, we will never be led astray. No matter what the world thinks is “stylish”, “cute”, or “acceptable”, God will always have His laws. Modesty is one of them. We must overcome the world.
*like* and i especially like that you’re just 17 and you know this. seems like you know more than the adult blogger…
Uh, right, a 17 year old knows more than a PhD professor, wife, and mother of three……….Are you serious? Because if you are, and if you are a mormon, I don’t think I can be a mormon for one more day!!!
Wow. That wasn’t a blanket statement. It was a statement about this one item discussed in one blog post.
And I’m amazed that something so miniscule could determine whether or not you change your religion.
Actually, its my belief that the LDS church is a man made organization which makes me want to leave the religion. But, its judgmental, blind followers, who place a higher value on the silly rantings of a 17 year old than on the thoughtful reflections of an educated woman, who make me feel like I should depart sooner rather than later.
And that’s what will be happening shortly. I’m sure to your relief.
roots athletic watches canada
I suppose 1 Samuel 16:7 was a not translated correctly.
“for the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart.”
Too bad I had to memorize it in seminary. I might be much more extreme in my views on four year old fashion if I hadn’t…
I do not know you, but I love you for this website. As. In. LOVE. This is the part where I tell you I, yes…PURPOSEFULLY buy immodest dresses (maybe not purposefully but I don’t care and neither does my husband) for our girls. Ages 6 and 2. I KNOW we are getting judged on Sunday, and I just don’t give a damn. My philosophy is, why should my girls be blazing hot during the summer? They have the rest of their lives to have to dress modestly if they choose to go through the temple…why make their entire lives such? I dunno, I just feel strongly, like you said, that modesty isn’t something determined by how much skin is showing. It is all done in the attitude in which something is worn.
Here’s a story in a muslim childrens’ magazine about a little girl and the hijaab.
http://www.mkjournal.org/stories/more_stories/she-loves-her-hijaab.shtml
having your kids dress modestly isn’t a bad thing. it gets them in the habit of dressing modestly so that it’s not like they all of a sudden have to change their wardrobe when they get older. if you’re mormon, why are you so critical of mormon standards? standards exist for a reason and i can’t believe you are publicly ranting about how you disagree with them. doesn’t seem like a good idea to me.
I’m Mormon for a lot of reasons that have nothing to do with this post. Being Mormon does not mean I surrender all critical thought. It also does not mean I have to blindly accept everything any Mormon church leader tells me. I believe that god gave us brains and intended us to use them. I believe he wanted us to study things out in our minds. And when I study this issue out in my mind/heart, I do not agree with the church’s position.
That doesn’t make me any more or less Mormon than you, or than anyone else.
You mean you don’t agree with the church’s position that the Prophet backs up? Do you believe in what the prophet says? Or do you pick and choose what to agree with?
I don’t disagree that we’re supposed to study things out in our minds and hearts; we definitely should. But it doesn’t seem to me like that’s what you did. You don’t have any good reasons for why we SHOULDN’T be modest, and I know plenty of reasons that we SHOULD. It just seems as though you’re looking for counsel to complain about.
There are a lot of little things (for instance, tattoos and extra piercings) that you won’t go to hell for if you do. But just because you won’t go to hell doesn’t mean you just ignore the counsel. Modesty is a topic of counsel that it seems as if you think it’s useless to worry about. After all, who needs to follow counsel when it’s 90 degrees in Texas, right?
I understand that you don’t think it’s necessary for children to be 100% modest. To you, a tank top or track shorts are both totally fine. But when does that change? Just when they start wearing garments? When they’re teenagers? Or never really? I don’t even think it’s really bad if younger kids wear those kinds of things, but i don’t judge people either way–if they want their kids to be immodest, whatever, that’s their deal. If they want their kids to be extra modest, whatever, that’s also their deal.
What I have a hard time with about this post is that you went out of your way to publicly complain about counsel. Just because that story talked about a 4 year old girl being modest doesn’t mean that it’s the Church’s position that anyone will be going to hell if their 4 year old is not modest. It is just showing that modesty is important at all ages. So why do you have so much to complain about? Let your 4 year olds wear whatever you want them to wear and let other people let their 4 year olds wear whatever they want them to. You just make it sound like modesty is a thing for the dogs–not really important, so don’t worry about it. Is that how you really feel about it? Or do you only feel that way about it with regards to 4 year olds?
I just found this article and the comments. It’s astounding how Pharisaiacal Mormon culture has become. I’ve seen many instances of this phenomenon. My ex-wife actually pulls out the tape measure to check sleeve and hem lengths on clothing my daughter wants to buy. Her mom refuses to buy her bikini underwear because it’s not “modest”; when my daughter pointed out that nobody would ever see it, her mom said “I don’t want you to get used to the feeling because then you won’t be as willing to wear the garment after you go to the temple.”
And it’s not just the girls either. When was the last time anybody saw a “shirts and skins” basketball game amongst the young men? We did it all the time when I was in the program. I actually did see one such game but it didn’t last long because the stake president came in and told the guys to put their shirts on, they were being “immodest.” Once I visited the home of a friend in Utah during a very hot summer. I walked in and found his recently returned missionary son on the sofa wearing just running shorts while watching TV. Hot day, no air conditioning. His dad came in, saw him, and barked at him to go put a shirt on. This 21 year old son got up and meekly complied.
I hear from my kids and their friends what they privately think of all this obsession with “modesty.” It doesn’t bode well for the church’s credibility.
I think the comments are getting a little crazy. This wasn’t a general authority talk or in a scripture. This was one woman’s experience in an attempt to teach her daughter garment-worthy modesty at a young age. I have three little girls, and believe me, the topic comes up all the time. In teaching my little girls to cover their shoulders, I am not teaching them to hide or dislike their pretty little bodies. I am teaching them to dress like I do. We don’t live in Utah. We have people coming to church in all kinds of clothing options, and it is fine. We are just happy to have them there. Even though I encourage my little girls to cover their shoulders, they don’t think people who don’t are going to hell. And people who teach their girls to cover their shoulders aren’t going to hell either. :) There are different ways to teach standards, and I don’t think we need to be so hard on this mom who was teaching her little girl a standard that is in For the Strength of the Youth Pamphlet.
@evelyn – “This wasn’t a general authority talk or in a scripture” – – I think that is exactly the problem and the danger. It isn’t doctrine or a strict commandment of God, like “don’t judge” or “love your Neighbor”. Instead, it’s a creeping phenomenon of Mormon culture where people find ways to socially control others and at the same time find a measurement that reinforces or justifies their own sense of righteousness. Someone makes a big stink about the cover art of The Friend magazine or a picture of fun-loving youth at a youth conference in The New Era and suddenly something starts to creep in to our Mormon culture that was never announced, revealed, taught, or sustained, and yet becomes the vital measurement of all that’s pure and acceptable.
My daughter who loves her education at BYU still rolls her eyes when we mention those uniquely crazy BYU things. She has danced her whole life and enjoys the art and even takes classes at BYU, but she says there are people trying to seriously pursue dance there, but the program just doesn’t reach the highest possiblities, because some people there are all wrapped up in the modesty issues of dance clothing. They miss the art for the obsession.
Time and a place — I was in the Hill Cumorah Pageant a few years ago with my family (what a fantastic experience, BTW). But even when told by inspiredly-called directors and costume people to please not wear white garment bottoms with your lamanitish kilt things some could not let go of that. It’s ridiculous to flash white long underwear when you are jumping off a pyramid in front of 10,000 people. Time and a place, people.
The danger is that everything in our life experience as humans for some has to filter through this arbitrary and relatively recent measurement of skin, regardless of functionality, comfort, support, style, body type or personal preferences. It is more important than artistic expression or even a missionary pageant production. And for what? Do we think God cares? He tells us he looks at our hearts. I think this concern with the outward says more about us and our own human insecurities.
I get it–there’s a time and a place for things, there are issues of appropriateness, but that goes back to treating modesty as an inward attitude of our spirit and the way we communicate ourselves, not some outward enforceable line of purity. I know there are crazies in the world and in the church (heck, I had a roomate at BYU who showered in his garments), but are the crazies dragging us all to their crazy place? Because these crazies won’t stop–you can never be righteous enough–a shoulder here, an elbow there, and suddenly we’ve got our righteous women of individual worth all wrapped up in black burkas.
@Homer “My daughter who loves her education at BYU still rolls her eyes when we mention those uniquely crazy BYU things. She has danced her whole life and enjoys the art and even takes classes at BYU, but she says there are people trying to seriously pursue dance there, but the program just doesn’t reach the highest possiblities, because some people there are all wrapped up in the modesty issues of dance clothing. They miss the art for the obsession.”
I am a currently senior dance major at BYU who has danced in department classes everyday for more than 4 years. My husband and I are both members of a performing dance company at BYU. The debate on modesty within in the dance department and the school at large have left many of us confused and conflicted as we study an art that is based on the union of the mind, body, AND spirit. We are taught to love, revere, and care for our bodies, and then are exhorted that a leotard with a 1″ wide shoulder strap is acceptable where a 1/2″ strap will result in being asked to leave class. Really? I understand the need to draw a line, but am continually amazed by the the fixation with regulation of minutia, as opposed to offering a safe environment in which bodies are glorified through movement, not sexualized by skin to fabric ratios. I am tired of raised eyebrows when I, a temple endowed member, come to class in my 1″ strap tank tops and knee length pants. I guess I am expected by some to wear my garments through a full day of physical exertion. I have been asked to not perform in a new $2,500 costume that I had purchased and had approved by modesty checkers with measuring tapes because one person’s measurements came up different. I have even received dirty looks after stepping into the hall outside of a ballet classroom for a drink of water in a standard BYU leotard and tights.
Just last month, an older dance history professor showed me a series of photos that are not widely distributed, and for good reason. They were a chronicle of the BYU dance department since the early 1900’s and I was shocked to see that the dress code for dancers in 1910 at BYU was significantly more “immodest” than the worst I’ve seen at BYU. Wow. I wonder just where all of this is headed? The faculty members discuss styles such as razor back tops as if the dancer’s eternal exaltation is on the line. This is a minor example of a huge issue, but it does not bode well for the current attitude of some within our faith.
Wow, Jessica. What a fascinating and sad post. I obviously agree that the definition of “modesty” has become crazy and the emphasis on it is extreme. I’ve always been a member of the church, but it feels like a different church to me now (age 38) than then. My daughters were recently told they could not come to a YW activity if they were wearing track shorts. But we live in Texas where it’s already 90 degrees and they were going to be outside, having a water balloon fight. So track shorts and a t-shirt to me seem like a perfectly appropriate wardrobe choice.
What can we do, besides wring our hands?
Oh, Jessica……I am at a loss for words. Is there anything of beauty left in the church???????????
I think the creeping modesty obsession and paranoia is a result of the fortress mentality of senior leadership who’ve spent their entire lives in Utah and inside the church. They see the church losing control of information about its history and its public image. They see the statistics which show that the majority of LDS youth leave the church. They believe their own jeremiads about “the world” allegedly getting more and more corrupt. They fear that the Internet and the digital age are loosening their hold on the minds of the kids. They can’t stop any of this.
Yet these panicking leaders are products of an LDS culture from decades ago when the message, the culture, and the kids were far more easily controlled, corralled, and kept in line. They fear they’re losing the control they’ve been taught is their right and responsibility. They can’t control the information flowing to the youth nor the thoughts, minds and hearts of the kids in response.
So they respond by trying to exert what control they can, over the externals, the outward signs of alleged faithfulness and obedience. So much of Mormon culture has always been about facades and the appearance of righteousness anyway. What else can they do? As they sense that things are continuing to spin out beyond their control, they–and no doubt countless LDS parents like them–will respond by trying to clamp down on the externals even more tightly. Thus, we get requests not to wear $2500 dance costumes even though they’ve been “pre-cleared” as “acceptably modest,” because one person’s measurement disagrees.
These are the signs of desperate leadership unable to comprehend, control, or adapt to social and cultural changes they think are dangerous. What’s most sad is, as I said before, that so many of them don’t seem to realize that the kids understand exactly what they’re doing, think it’s ridiculous, and judge the church and its credibility accordingly. So these efforts to enforce righteousness will end up having the very effect the leaders are trying to prevent: the kids will continue to leave the church, because they want and will want no part of an organization and culture that obsesses over such minutiae at the expense of greater substance.
I didn’t read everything, but the dress code for Mormons is extreme. It always depends on where you go, but I’ve been to some wards where they’ve pulls potential members and even new members aside and told them what they were wearing was “inappropriate” because a female was in dress slacks instead of a dress, or they weren’t “Sunday best”.
Since leaving the church and exploring other churches, I didn’t realize how much this is beaten into us. So many other churches didn’t care what you were wearing, as long as you were THERE. What kind of God would turn away a person, simply because of their attire? Jesus wouldn’t even be ALLOWED at BYU for his long hair, sandals, “cross dressing” dress, and scraggly beard! I mean HELLO!!
After i found a new church to attend, it took me 6 months to shed the LDS “dress code” to feel comfortable enough to allow myself to dress like normal people. I’ve saved so MUCH money by not having to worry about “Sunday Best” clothes for my kids anymore. Instead they get to play outside, to crafts & activities in actual play clothes and they are so much more happier and I am even happier and less stressed to not worry about stains, rips, or accidents. The dress code burden was lifted when I finally let go of that weight, the LDS church hoisted on me.
If a god doesn’t allow me into heaven simply because I am too poor to keep up with the Jones’ “Sunday Best” wardrobe, then he isn’t much of a god. I’m baffled by a god who takes attendance and by one who looks down on those who aren’t dressed like they are in a fancy restaurant all the time.
So, Ashley, here’s the deal. I’ll bet you a milkshake that you pick and choose what to believe (either that, or you’re truly beyond hope as a rational individual). For example, do you believe that the Civil Rights Movements was a communist plot? Before you answer, keep in mind that a prophet taught that over the pulpit in general conference? Do you believe that you need to accept polygamy in order to achieve the highest degree of exaltation? Do you believe that if American Indians join that church, their skin will turn white? Yep, you guessed it, those things were taught in general conference. Interracial marriage is evil? Blacks will never get the priesthood? Homosexuality is a choice? And on and on and on. . . I think I’ve met about one person that didn’t pick and choose what to believe (and that person was certifiably insane, seriously). The only question is whether or not you are self-aware enough to recognize it (or honest enough to admit it).
There are going to be extremes expressed by individuals in the church all the time. Even in the higher-up ranks, some of these ideas will be published as “doctrine”. We can choose to be offended, or not. Sure, it is irritating to have a young child tell my granddaughter that her dress is immodest because it has no sleeves. But I think this gives me an opportunity to explain that the gospel message is not about clothing, but modesty is something, that unfortunately is helpful in the world of hell in which we live. If you have ever looked at the Megan’s Law website, before choosing a home you will see how many sex offenders are in your neighborhood, and statistically how many children are sexually abused is scary. Now with cell phone cameras, etc, we do our best to protect our children. I feel that is what modesty is about. I taught my daughter that she can wear anything she wants with her husband, at home. I did let her wear sleeveless tops in high school. But I did not leave the church over this. That is ridiculous. The gospel and the priesthood are true, and to let something like this interfere with the truth and some members “opinions” is sad. My belief is rooted and I will continue on, even Hugh Nibley disagreed with some teachings in the church, but remained firm in his belief of the gospel as restored by Joseph Smith. Remember, even prophets are not always speaking for God, and we all make mistakes and opinions will always be out there, but the gospel is true and I value the priesthood in my life.
Delia, you don’t know how much I wish that dressing young children or women in a certain way would protect them from sexual violence, but that simply isn’t true.
Statistically speaking, most sexual abuse occurs within homes and families. Sometimes women are raped in mini skirts, but they are also raped in jeans, in sweatpants, in burkas and work uniforms. Do we honestly believe that a young girl who is abused by a father, an uncle or a teacher is abused because of something she has done, some provocation in her dress? We talk this way because we want to feel some sense of control, some feeling that we are doing our best to protect our children. But the sad truth is that young girls and women are at risk for sexual violence because they happened to be born in a female body, not because they have dressed it in a certain way.
Also, no one is going to leave the church or even get more than a little irritated over one rogue article or one talk.
But this isn’t a rogue article, this is part of the theme in primary this year. These messages are in the Strength of Youth manuals, countless General Conference talks, YW manuals and, to some extent, YM manuals. Women receive lessons about modesty in RS lessons and VT messages. It’s in the rules at BYU (whose culture still holds significant clout in the culture at large) and its on the cover of the Ensign.
Whether teachings on modesty are doctrine or not, they are, at present, a significant part of our culture.
You’re right Heidi, it is sad that we cannot protect our kids better and that it happens in families is true. On just the subject of modesty — I do think it helps teenage girls to understand the need for modesty is not just a Mormon thing. Check out Dennis Prager’s video on the visual male. http://www.eveoutofthegarden.com/2011/02/understanding-men.html
He does a great job. the video is on my post there.
I am always surprised though, that people do leave the church when they become offended. And I can see where it would be easy to feel offended by some of the members that are very stiff and outspoken. It’s interesting how these things get written into curriculum, and how members often feel that their righteousness is based on keeping these guidelines, but then totally forget about reaching out to others, or not offending members. Or just being nice. There is the story told of a woman leaving the church when Emma Smith offered her a cup of tea!
I live in California, and when my daughters were small, it was hard to find clothing for them at the store that didn’t make them look like Britney Spears Jr. I contend that it’s not training kids to wear modest clothing that “hypersexualizes” them as the author contends, but stores full of slutty clothes for kids that does. (I recently saw a kid in a belly shirt with “Hot For Daddy” on it.) You should see what a lot of the pregnant moms wear.
I grew up Mormon (am not any longer) and I wore strappy sundresses, microminis, bikinis and the like when I was small. I remember around 12, when I was already picking out my own clothes, and my mom tried to steer me into more modest choices, I didn’t get it and there I was at 13, 32DDD and still wearing bikinis at the lake. If you start off aware that you are going to be counter the prevailing culture with your choices, it makes good sense. Begin as you mean to go on.
The principle of modesty for me is that our bodies are a sacred gift from God that should be respected. Sometimes I ask myself, “Could this outfit possibly make others distracted or uncomfortable?” or, “will I feel uncomfortable with how _____this is?” The answers are different depending on the circumstances and people involved. My desire to dress myself and children modestly comes not from shame but out of respect for the body God is entrusting me with and respect for others in their efforts to respect bodies as well.
When I read the story in the Friend with my daughter I was a bit surprised by the inclusion of such a specific example, but I figured the aim of the article is to encourage the kids to seek after modesty. The girl feels uncomfortable wearing the dress – she’s the one that initiates the effort. I’m not bothered by girls wearing sleeveless to church. And if my daughter points it out to me, I’m finding ways to teach the principle, “judge not that ye be not judged.” And I dont judge the people that put the article in the Friend. Its not a statement of rule, its an experience of one family. I can equally imagine a kid reading this and asking, “mom, is it bad that I wear no sleeves?” and the mom saying, “do you feel comfortable dressing that way?” followed by why or why not? Its an opportunity to discuss and focus on the principles.
When I read the story in the Friend with my daughter I was a bit surprised by the inclusion of such a specific example, but I figured the aim of the article is to encourage the kids to seek after modesty. The girl feels uncomfortable wearing the dress — she’s the one that initiates the effort. I’m not bothered by girls wearing sleeveless to church. And if my daughter points it out to me, I’m finding ways to teach the principle, “judge not that ye be not judged.” And I dont judge the people that put the article in the Friend. Its not a statement of rule, its an experience of one family. I can equally imagine a kid reading this and asking, “mom, is it bad that I wear no sleeves?” and the mom saying, “do you feel comfortable dressing that way?” followed by why or why not? Its an opportunity to discuss and focus on the principles.
The principle of modesty for me is that our bodies are a sacred gift from God that should be respected. Sometimes I ask myself, “Could this outfit possibly make others distracted or uncomfortable?” or, “will I feel uncomfortable with how _____this is?” The answers are different depending on the circumstances and people involved. My desire to dress myself and children modestly comes not from shame but out of respect for the body God is entrusting me with and respect for others in their efforts to respect bodies as well.
This article begs the question – are we becoming Latter-Day Saints or Latter-Day Pharisees? I see a definite trend towards the latter. Here’s an interesting quote that I think applies perfectly:
“The worst sinners, according to Jesus, are not the harlots and publicans, but the religious leaders with their insistence on proper dress and grooming, their careful observance of all the rules, their precious concern for status symbols, their strict legality, their pious patriotism . . . the haircut becomes the test of virtue in a world where Satan deceives and rules by appearances.” — Hugh Nibley in his talk ‘What is Zion?’
Does that sound familiar? The danger with these cultural ‘standards’ is that they begin to become accepted as ‘doctrine’. Let me give you a concrete example. The General Handbook says that it recommends white shirts and ties for men or boys blessing and passing the sacrament; but that it is NOT REQUIRED, and that leaders should NOT make it required. But is that what is happening in the Church? It starts out as a recommendation. Clearly – just that. But then that recommendation begins to be interpreted as ‘the Brethren have said you need to wear a white shirt and tie to pass the sacrament’. Then it evolves to ‘you HAVE to wear a white shirt and tie to pass the sacrament’. And pretty soon, people begin to believe that you cannot exercise the priesthood unless you have on a white shirt and tie!! This is actually happening in many Wards I know of. I know youth who have had their testimonies shattered because YM leaders came down on them and excluded them because they did not have a white shirt or tie. So something that is a recommendation – not a requirement – has now become an issue that makes you ‘unworthy’ to use the priesthood! I’m sorry folks – the color of my shirt has NOTHING to do with worthiness. This is exactly what Christ reviled in the Pharisees. And this is exactly what I see happening in the Church – we are becoming more concerned about sleeves that souls; couture than Christ; pomp than people. This simply should not be! I would rather see a youth passing the sacrament in jeans and a t-shirt than to not come to Church at all. And if I saw a little four year old in Church in a sleeveless sundress, I would thank God that she was there where she could learn about the Gospel and be fellowshipped with the Saints. I wouldn’t give a hoot about her sleeves…
Thank you Neal–in response to this discussion some people ask, “what’s the big deal”, or isn’t “danger” a little overblown. I think in a worldly relativistic way of thinking we can just blow things like this off as “someone’s” opinion and we can just live and let live. But, from a gospel perspective, there are real dangers here that affect and threaten the credibility of the Church and its claim to follow the gospel. thanks for bringing up the voice of High Nibley who would say things that were perfectly founded on the gospel, but extremely uncomfortable and grating to the majority.
http://ambronalegal.com/index.php?option=com_blog&view=comments&pid=98&Itemid=0
It can be realy great post, searching very interesting are going to be glad present and recomendate my buddies Iam certain they will be happy read this posting