#63839 - Dress code

[Rifka]

Also, I think it's interesting that the author of the first article was a woman. I have never seen an article like that written by a man. I'd be interested to see if any men have written in saying similar things (since generally one of the main arguments for modesty is to avoid giving men improper thoughts).

I've never written an article like that, but I am a man and I do agree with her. But I don't generally get turned on by women's shoulders or legs. Some men do, I get that. But I get turned on by women's faces, so should all women cover their faces to protect me?

And, the fact that she has been a member of the church for 9 years and hasn't yet been to the temple concerns me. It sounds like she has more to worry about than others commenting on her clothes.

Really? I think she has been to the temple: see this post. I'm actually confused why you think she hasn't been to the temple. But in any case, I don't see why her not having been to the temple would permit you to judge her worthiness.

I thought she hadn't been to the temple because of this quote: "Dresses, shirts, tank tops and shorts all were culled from my closet- despite my having not been to the temple." Re-reading the article, though, I realize that she didn't make it clear if she had gone to the temple after this point. And, the article you linked to does sound like she did. Sorry for jumping to conclusions.

[Genuine Article]

the fact that she has been a member of the church for 9 years and hasn't yet been to the temple concerns me. It sounds like she has more to worry about than others commenting on her clothes.

Nine years isn't that long. I was baptized at the age of eight; does that mean I should have gone through the temple by age seventeen? When to go to the temple to receive ones endowment is a very personal decision.

[Rifka]

And, the fact that she has been a member of the church for 9 years and hasn't yet been to the temple concerns me. It sounds like she has more to worry about than others commenting on her clothes.

Wow. This comment pretty much proves my point on how quick we are to rush to superficial judgment.

Okay, so I guess I was pretty judgmental there. When I first read your response, Katya, I was upset because I didn't think I was being judgmental. My thoughts were this: I wasn't saying she was a horrible person because she hadn't been to the temple. I just said that it concerns me that she had been a member for nine years and hadn't been to the temple. In the church, temple worship is highly stressed. New members are encouraged to prepare to go after they have been members for a year. In my experience as a missionary and a member, if a person has been a member for that long without going to the temple (assuming they were baptized as an adult-- I guess I did jump to a conclusion there, too), generally it's because they either a)don't understand the importance of temple worship, or b)have a worthiness issue they haven't dealt with. I understand that's not the case with everyone. In fact, as I thought more about that line and your response, I realized there were all sorts of exceptions that I was overlooking-- even in my own family. My aunt was baptized as a child but went inactive as a young adult, married a non-member, came back to church, but waited to go to the temple because she wanted to go with her husband. She finally received her endowments a couple of years ago when her daughter was married.

I guess what was trying to say was that I think it's okay to be concerned when someone has been an adult member for a long time without receiving temple ordinances, but that doesn't mean we should assume a motive for them. For example, would you be concerned if someone you knew were skipping school, hanging out with a sketchy crowd, becoming antisocial and moody, etc? Probably so. Does that mean you could assume they were doing drugs or other bad things? Not necessarily. But, you could still be concerned for their welfare. That's all I meant to say when I made that statement. Sorry for being so much more judgmental than I realized.

[Rifka]

the fact that she has been a member of the church for 9 years and hasn't yet been to the temple concerns me. It sounds like she has more to worry about than others commenting on her clothes.

Nine years isn't that long. I was baptized at the age of eight; does that mean I should have gone through the temple by age seventeen? When to go to the temple to receive ones endowment is a very personal decision.

That is true. I, too, was baptized at age 8 and I didn't receive my endowments until I turned 21-- thirteen years later. Thanks for bringing that up. I addressed this issue in my previous post-- I realized as I re-read the article today that I had assumed she was baptized as an adult, which might not necessarily be the case.

[Rifka]

Also, I think it's interesting that the author of the first article was a woman. I have never seen an article like that written by a man. I'd be interested to see if any men have written in saying similar things (since generally one of the main arguments for modesty is to avoid giving men improper thoughts).

I've never written an article like that, but I am a man and I do agree with her. But I don't generally get turned on by women's shoulders or legs. Some men do, I get that. But I get turned on by women's faces, so should all women cover their faces to protect me?

Thanks for your input on that, Yarjka. I was just curious because I usually hear women arguing that. It was interesting to hear a man's point of view.

[Rifka]

And on page 208 of the Gospel Principles manual...

I went to this page, but I'm not sure what you were trying to point out.

[C is for]

And on page 208 of the Gospel Principles manual...

I went to this page, but I'm not sure what you were trying to point out.

The little girl's wearing a sleeveless dress. Outside the temple no less!

[Yarjka]

I guess what was trying to say was that I think it's okay to be concerned when someone has been an adult member for a long time without receiving temple ordinances, but that doesn't mean we should assume a motive for them. For example, would you be concerned if someone you knew were skipping school, hanging out with a sketchy crowd, becoming antisocial and moody, etc? Probably so. Does that mean you could assume they were doing drugs or other bad things? Not necessarily. But, you could still be concerned for their welfare. That's all I meant to say when I made that statement. Sorry for being so much more judgmental than I realized.

This is a pretty good example - it helps me see where you're coming from. I usually err on the side of not judging at all, and sometimes I fail to help someone in need as a result. In the case of someone I don't know very well, though, I still think it's better to err on the side of not judging.

I do have a question though concerning temple attendance. I was under the impression that single adult women aren't encouraged to go to the temple before getting married unless they serve a mission. Is this not the case? My wife didn't go through until she married me at 26. I assumed that was pretty normal.

[Digit]

Just curious, what's the standard apologist interpretation of "naked" apostle Peter in John 21:7? Chalk it up to the Greek word which actually meant lightly-clothed, I assume?

[Dragon Lady]

I do have a question though concerning temple attendance. I was under the impression that single adult women aren't encouraged to go to the temple before getting married unless they serve a mission. Is this not the case? My wife didn't go through until she married me at 26. I assumed that was pretty normal.

It used to be determined by bishop to decide at what age a single girl could go through if not married nor going on a mission. About the time I turned 22 the church came out with a policy (that I heard through my bishop and have no official backing for) that they wanted girls who weren't going on missions or getting married to wait till they were 23. So I waited till I was 23 and several months, then took out my endowment. I got married at 24 (almost 25) so I suppose I could have waited another year and a half, but I felt it was important for me then.

[Rifka]

And on page 208 of the Gospel Principles manual...

I went to this page, but I'm not sure what you were trying to point out.

The little girl's wearing a sleeveless dress. Outside the temple no less!

Ah, I see. I was looking for something in the text, so I didn't even notice the picture.

[Rifka]

Just curious, what's the standard apologist interpretation of "naked" apostle Peter in John 21:7? Chalk it up to the Greek word which actually meant lightly-clothed, I assume?

Strong's concordance gave the following definitions for the word naked:

1) properly
a) unclad, without clothing, the naked body
b) ill clad
c) clad in undergarments only (the outer garments or cloak being laid aside)
d) of the soul, whose garment is the body, stripped of the body, without a body

2) metaph.
a) naked, i.e. open, lay bare
b) only, mere, bare, i.e. mere grain not the plant itself

I assume that most apologetists would assume the definition of d). It's possible he could have been literally naked, but I don't think it's likely if he were fishing out under the sun for a long amount of time. He'd get pretty sunburnt sitting there in the nude for many hours.

There's an interesting commentary found here that suggests that being completely unclothed would have been offensive in Jewish culture and gives the following
explanation:

toVn ejpenduvthn diezwvsato, h gaVr gumnov", kaiV e[balen eJautoVn eij" thVn qavlassan Peter’s behavior here has been puzzling to many interpreters. It is generally understood that gumnov" does not refer to complete nudity (as it could), since this would have been offensive to Jewish sensibilities. It is thus commonly understood that the meaning here is “stripped for work,” that is, with one’s outer clothing removed, and Peter was wearing either a loincloth or a loose-fitting tunic (undergarment). Believing himself inadequately clad to greet the Lord, Peter cast his outer garment (toVn ejpenduvthn) around himself and dived into the sea. C. K. Barrett offers the explanation that a greeting was a religious act and thus could not be performed unless one was clothed.173 This still leaves one with the improbable picture of a person with much experience on and in the water putting on his outer garment before diving in. R. Brown’s suggestion seems much more probable here: the verb used, diezwvsato, does not necessarily mean putting clothing on, but rather tying the clothing around oneself (the same verb is used in 13:4-5 of Jesus tying the towel around himself).174 The statement that Peter was naked (h gaVr gumno") could just as well mean that he was naked underneath the outer garment (toVn ejpenduvthn), and thus could not take it off before jumping into the water. But he did pause to tuck it up and tie it with the girdle before jumping in, to allow himself more freedom of movement. Thus the clause that states Peter was naked is explanatory (note the use of gavr), explaining why Peter girded up his outer garment (toVn ejpenduvthn) rather than taking it off: he had nothing on underneath.

I searched New Testament Commentary (Bruce R. McConkie), Jesus the Christ (Talmadge), the New Testament Institute Manual, and The Mortal Messiah (Bruce R. McConkie), but I couldn't find an LDS commentary on it from the sources I had available. Hopefully the source I cited above works for you.

[Imogen]

Despite growing up with a mother who tends to wear very revealing clothes, I dress very modestly. My rule growing up was that none of my necklines could go below the mole on my chest. Now i break that rule because I realize that the lower necklines make my neck look longer and thinner. I also always wear camis under my clothes because otherwise i feel uncomfortable.

I think it's interesting how obsessed our culture is with what people wear. One of the most common rape defenses is based on a victim's clothing choices. People are checking out what you wear in church, at work...I try to just pay attention to what I'm wearing, and ignore everyone else. Unless they are wearing something REALLY inappropriate or REALLY awesome.

[C is for]

My rule growing up was that none of my necklines could go below the mole on my chest.

Hey, I have that rule too! Even though it's not necessarily inappropriate, I always feel uncomfortable if that spot is showing, because I trained myself to cover it up.

[Marduk]

I have to say that I did not read the question the same way many of you seem to have. Is it not possible to have an objective view of the level of enforcement/standard of a particular dress code, without being judgmental of those who may be in violation of it?

And seperate from this, I don't really see a problem with having a specific dress code for a specific place. So someone may think it favorable not to have one's shoulders exposed in church. If I were a regular member of that church, I would expect to follow the standard of dress that they had. Now, if I'm a guest of that particular church, it may be overlooked as ignorance any small infraction of the dress code I may commit. But honestly, what is wrong with having a standard and expecting people to, in general, follow it? I agreed with the general idea the linked blog post was trying to convey. But the specifics of it simply did not support well the point she was trying to make.

[Katya]

There's a lot here I've wanted to respond to, but it took me a while to find time to put my thoughts together, so I apologize for the delay.

[Katya]

I think that YW need to dress modestly - using that term in the "not distracting the crap out of YM hormones and potraying themselves as sex objects" definition, not nessesarily the crisp definition.

I used to think that "not distracting the YM" was a good reason for dressing modestly, but I don't feel that way any more. (I realize that you're not necessarily advocating that position, but I feel like it's an argument that's generally worth addressing.)

The problem with defining modesty by the reaction of men (young or otherwise) is that it's based on the false premise that IF a woman is dressed modestly, THEN men will not be sexually aroused by her.

If you take that premise and flip it around, then you come to the logical conclusion that IF a man is sexually aroused by a woman, THEN it must be because she's dressed immodestly.

Framed in that way, that statement gives any man the power to declare that what any woman is wearing is inappropriate.

I grant that there are many, many men who are mature enough to take a more measured approach to the situation. However, when you take a group of men who have internalized the female modesty messages they heard growing up—especially if you combine that with a discomfort with their own sexuality which is all too common (as Yarjka's comment on another thread illustrates)—the result is men getting upset about things like visible skin between a woman's neck and her cleavage, wanting to ban the wearing of single strap backpacks, equating tank tops and above-the-knee shorts with pornography, and generally turning into the self-appointed modesty police.

And since the logic is that any man can declare that a woman's clothing is immodest, such immature behavior on the part of even a minority of the population can be very damaging, so long as the general population buys into the notion that (young) women need to dress modestly for the sake of (young) men.

(Also, even if the majority of (young) men take no issue with what the majority of (young) women are wearing, the underlying signal is still that a woman's body needs the approval of men, which is, ironically, the same signal being sent by the scantily clad models and actresses on the cover of men's magazines.)

[Katya]

Won't it be harder to change wardrobes and explain that suddenly kids should wear more modest clothes when they haven't been doing it all along?

All kinds of behavioral expectations and responsibilities change as children grow up, although I take your point that the teenage years are potentially a bad time to be waging a wardrobe battle. (But that seems like an judgment call that's better left up to parents instead of needing to be mandated across the community.)

I noticed that in the book "A Holy Temple," by Boyd K. Packer, he says that "Only clothing that is immodest or extreme in style would be incompatible with wearing the garment. Any member of the Church, whether he or she has been to the temple or not, would in proper spirit want to avoid extreme or revealing fashions." (pg 75) In other words, members of the church should dress modestly whether they have been to the temple or not, and only immodest or extreme styles would not be compatible with wearing the garment.

Quoting Boyd K. Packer is never a good way of scoring rhetorical points with me, but I'll try to address his arguments.

First off, it's worth noting that modesty is culturally specific. Even the Mormon standard of modesty has changed, over time (taking the change in garment styles as evidence) and current garment styles actually vary quite a bit in coverage, depending on the style and fabric.

Second, with due respect to Elder Packer, I think it's safe to assume that it was much easier for men to find garment-compatible clothing in 1980 (when A Holy Temple was first published) than it is for women in the present day. There is plenty of mainstream modern clothing which I would consider modest (under a more general definition of the word), which might be unexpectedly problematic to wear with garments. This is not to say that I don't think endowed members shouldn't make the effort, just that it would be nice to have some sort of acknowledgment and understanding of the situation instead of blanket condemnation for perceived failures. (And, along those lines, I might therefore find it appropriate to allow my (hypothetical) daughter to wear clothing which might not technically cover some styles of garments, if sized up.)

Also, someone upthread mentioned the fact that men's garments are often visible when they sit down while wearing shorts, yet we don't seem to make much of that. Why not? Given the current trend towards men's shorts which are long, but loose, it's quite likely that men would have a very difficult time finding shorts that don't show their garments, or they would have to sit very carefully so as to tuck their baggy shorts underneath them. I would love to see that.

[Katya]

I know a lot of people who believe that ensuring modesty is the one and only purpose of wearing the garment, and I think that focusing on that to exclusion of all else causes them to miss out on the real blessings of wearing it.

As usual, I agree with basically everything which proceedeth from the mouth of NerdGirl, but I especially like this. A lot of our discourse about modesty and garments seems to be focused on never letting our youth get a taste of the sweet sartorial freedom they're going to lose after they go through the temple, which strikes me as a backwards way of approaching the situation. (And, to be honest, it may reveal a certain ambivalence on the part of the people actually giving such lessons or talks.)

[NerdGirl]

There is plenty of mainstream modern clothing which I would consider modest (under a more general definition of the word), which might be unexpectedly problematic to wear with garments.

This is so, so, so true. It is impossible to know if something (especially a top) will cover my garments without trying it on over them. Even if it has sleeves and is not low cut, the neckline might be slightly too square or too boatneck and there will be a half-inch of garment edge poking out at one place so I need to find something to go under it. Or you might have one of those tops that has a v-shaped back, and bit of garment lace pokes out at the point of the v. There's nothing about that particular half-inch of back skin that is indecent while all the skin above it is not. And even if something shows my garment top a bit, the same thing on someone with a differently-shaped figure might completely cover theirs. So even if you grow up wearing knee length everything and sleeves on all of your shirts, that's no guarantee that your wardrobe will cover your garments after you've been to the temple.