Is there any truth to this rumor?
The other day I was talking to a friend in my ward who mentioned that another friend in the ward recently got an email from her friend in Utah (follow that? Kind of like Telephone, isn’t it?). The Utah friend was expressing excitement over her new calling as a Modesty Adviser in the Young Women’s program. Apparently, it’s the responsibility of the Modesty Adviser to go into Young Women’s closets and drawers and help them cull any immodest clothing from their wardrobes.
Out here in the Lone Star State, we haven’t heard of Modesty Advisers (yet). But I was wondering if some day soon, I’ll be expected to open my door to someone carrying the authority of a calling and allow her to go into my daughter’s bedroom to tell her that her shorts are too short. I’m a pretty go-with-the-flow kind of girl, but I have a problem with that.
First of all, can anyone substantiate the rumor? Second of all, does anyone else feel like this calling crosses the line into what should be parental responsibility and personal choice?
Not a chance that one’s true.
Comment by Dan Ellsworth — August 31, 2008 @ 12:13 pm
I agree with Ellsworth.
Comment by Matt W. — August 31, 2008 @ 12:27 pm
Yeah, I would highly doubt this is true. I could maybe MAYBE see this woman got an actual YW calling and was asked to teach some modesy lessons or something? I think the fastest way to alienate the youth is to bring in the modesty police!
Comment by ameliorateme — August 31, 2008 @ 12:27 pm
Ew. I seriously hope that’s not true because it would really be horrible if it was. I understand that we’re supposed to be modest, but doing that would just be weird.
Comment by Janet — August 31, 2008 @ 12:33 pm
I’m with #1. I think it definitely crosses the line of individual choice, parental responsibility and privacy in the home.
Comment by Abby — August 31, 2008 @ 12:59 pm
If that insanity is true (and I sincerely hope it isn’t), that ward must have way too many people in it to start making up such ridiculous callings. Make somebody a designated hymnbook passer-outer, or send them our direction–we have so few people in our ward (and so many of the dependable ones in stake callings) that most of us have at least two or three callings–including some members of the RS Presidency!
Comment by eastcoasttransplant — August 31, 2008 @ 1:07 pm
My SIL’s stake did decide to ban shorts of any length at YM/YW events. The ban was removed for the YM’s basketball games, but not the YW’s basketball games. They must play in capri’s. Obviously girl’s knees have some appeal that boy’s don’t…
Comment by joyofsix — August 31, 2008 @ 1:09 pm
I just spent an hour of my life in the cultural hall, on a miserable folding chair enduring a combined Priesthood, RS, YM, YW meeting. The topic was…..Modesty. 3 different speakers: old guy, middle aged woman, and one young elder type. We now have it confirmed. Heavenly Father considers flip flops not only too casual for temple youth trips, church mtgs, weekday youth activites, etc., apparently, flip flops are the beginning of a slippery slope that unfortunately ends in excomminication. The spirit can’t be in a body clothed with open toed shoes. (Unless, of course, you live in the slums of Peru and they are the only foot wear available.)
An investigator to the church was there, sitting between the missionaries, and she was taking notes like crazy. I can only imagine what “enlightenment” she will take back to her Baptist preacher!
After an full hour of being reminded that the Lord, “looketh on the heart”, but we judge you by your appearance, nothing would surprise me.
p.s. Jesus wore sandals.
Comment by livin in zion — August 31, 2008 @ 1:11 pm
THe part I find the most unbelieveable about the story is that the friend expressed excitement over the calling.
Comment by Courtney — August 31, 2008 @ 1:17 pm
I’m in our YW presidency and we haven’t heard anything like that…thank heavens. I’m not too keen on the open toed sandal thing either- I wear sandals (not flip-flops) all summer long and I’m not changing that fact. There’s nothing immodest about my feet. Gosh, the investigator must have thought we’ve gone loopy.
Comment by Kimberly — August 31, 2008 @ 1:20 pm
Not in our area of UT at least (I’m in the Kearns, UT area). If it’s happened it’s probably like #6 said some ward with not enough callings for people. If it were true I would definitely think it crossed the line.
Comment by Melissa — August 31, 2008 @ 1:22 pm
Seriously! Its our whole lifes here on earth to be able to make choices? My gosh if this is true what is wrong with the church Isnt there more improtant things to worry about then flip flops.
Comment by julia — August 31, 2008 @ 1:28 pm
I’d have to vote rumor. If it was true, that would be incredibly sad. Crossing the line, most definitely. Someone mentioned it alienating the youth. I’d go as far as saying it would alienate the parents of those young women, as well. I can tell you I’d be livid if someone came to my house to tell my kids what they could and couldn’t wear. Along the same line, I can’t believe they would ban shorts from YW? I mean, I understand about modesty, but come on! Next thing we know we’ll be back to ankle length dresses with long sleeves and high necks. I understand if someone would choose to dress that way, but choice is the key word here. Sometimes things done in the church get a little scary that way. Same with flip flops. I can understand the concern for dressing appropriately for the Sabbath, and not looking like you’re hitting the beach when really you’re going to church. But I sure like me my flip flops during the rest of the week, and I can’t for the life of me see how that would lead me to excommunication… I suppose it’s a good thing we do have free agency, and can go home and discuss and pray and realize that those speaking in church are, after all, humans prone to their own opinions. Which, spoken in front of the congregation during a Sunday school or RS/PH meeting, remain just that…
Comment by Doreen — August 31, 2008 @ 1:31 pm
Oh, boy.
We had an unannounced, mandatory (like they physically herded you into a room after church without any explanation) meeting on modesty for a combined YW/RS meeting a couple of years ago.
We were read to out of True to the Faith and For the Strength of Youth books. We were told that it’s immodest to dye one’s hair an unnatural color — (like blonde). It didn’t feel very good. I don’t think I would appreciate someone coming in and telling me what clothes are ok for my daughter.
I’m pretty sure this is a rumor par excellence.
Comment by meems — August 31, 2008 @ 1:31 pm
How horrible it would be for women to expose their most sensuous of parts, the knees, to the leering eyes of any dirty passer-by.
How mundane and unsensuous are the knees of men, however.
It is good to see that rampant sexism is alive and well in the Mormon church.
Disgusting.
Comment by Craig — August 31, 2008 @ 1:37 pm
Sounds like a rumor to me… but a fun one. I’m thinking of making up badges. Only my job will be to ticket the YM and men for wearing black shoes with a brown belt or something else as vitally important.
Comment by Eris — August 31, 2008 @ 1:37 pm
I want to be the fashion police! Can I do it? Pick me! Pick me!
(I’m trying to decide what will be the first to go. White socks? Nylons?)
Comment by Researcher — August 31, 2008 @ 1:52 pm
…and some flip flops are more casual than others- but I don’t see why that would matter on Mutual nights, when we usually dress casually anyway. Oh come on. This is too annoying. I won’t even say publicly what I would tell someone who came to my home and went through my daughters’ clothing- actually, she’d never get that far. Grrr.
Comment by Kimberly — August 31, 2008 @ 1:56 pm
#8– There’s a guy in my ward who never wears a tie because “I wouldn’t want Jesus to feel out of place if he dropped in one Sunday.”
I was leaning towards rumor, but the girl who started it is pretty reliable. Maybe it was a practical joke being played on her.
And if she’s reading, she needs to come out of lurkdom and comment!
Comment by Shelah — August 31, 2008 @ 2:11 pm
No way that’s true.
Comment by Sue — August 31, 2008 @ 2:14 pm
Yes, I’ve heard of the calling. Call me gullible, but I’m inclined to believe it is true. I’ve met & experienced too many zealous, albeit a bit misguided, leaders in my life.
Yes, it would really bug me as a parent.
Comment by lyn — August 31, 2008 @ 2:24 pm
If it is true, which I have a hard time believing, it has to be one ward who has way too many members and is making up callings. I would also think that the calling doesn’t involve going to the girls houses- that seems really inappropriate.
Comment by Alliegator — August 31, 2008 @ 2:28 pm
It might be one of those unofficial callings that people make up. “Hey, you’d be good at tactfully telling girls to get new clothes. Why don’t you help our YW?” As for it being spread church-wide, not going to happen.
Comment by Michelle Glauser — August 31, 2008 @ 2:34 pm
I can believe that this is a real calling in some wards out there. I don’t believe that this is anything official from the Brethren that will be church wide anytime soon.
I’d also bet you a million bucks that the words “What Not to Wear” were tossed about in the meeting where this calling was created.
Comment by Starfoxy — August 31, 2008 @ 2:45 pm
There is no possibility that this is true.
Comment by E — August 31, 2008 @ 2:45 pm
No way. Thats the parents job. I’m all for dressing nicer. I have agree that $3 old navy flip flops are not appropriate for church. (Refer latest modesty article in August (?, maybe July) Ensign) You should dress to reflect your spirit. However, I don’t think that a modesty adviser is needed. Maybe a personal shopper, but not an adviser.
Comment by Rachjill — August 31, 2008 @ 2:52 pm
I can believe it, but it makes me feel unbelievably sad to think that this is considered a “good” solution to a problem of immodesty.
I can’t imagine the horror of having some strange woman enter my closet and tell me what I should and shouldn’t be wearing. Double the horror for the drawers that hold my undies, PJs, swimwear, etc.
As a parent I allow my teen kids to have the privacy of keeping their own closet and drawers. Every once in awhile we go in and declutter together to get rid of old & worn items, but I consider it a violation of their privacy to invade their personal spaces without their permission.
Would the YM adviser be assigned to go on “porn patrol” and examine the boys’ computers, look under their beds, etc? I think not. Why is it “okay” to do this to YW who are already probably terribly insecure about their clothing and appearance?
Comment by JanaR — August 31, 2008 @ 2:53 pm
no one except stacey london is ever going to tell me what to get rid of in my closet. or in my kids closets.
i would really hope thats a joke. because to me that is going to far. (as much as i would like YW to cover themselves a bit more, i put that more on the parents)
Comment by Terina — August 31, 2008 @ 3:18 pm
No chance in Hades is it true. What parent would allow that kind of meddling? (no need to answer that)
Comment by mami — August 31, 2008 @ 3:56 pm
uh,
It’s not going on here in the thick of happy valley, so maybe it’s not likely that it’s going on anywhere else officially? I dunno. I personally would be offended (and I don’t get offended all that easily.)
never heard that one.
Comment by sare — August 31, 2008 @ 4:21 pm
I wore flip flops just last week. I am 40+! I didn’t get my recommend revoked. AND who is telling the stake presidents counselors wife that she has to be X’s due to her inappropriate attired feet.
Modesty advisor - can’t believe its true. If there is such a calling, maybe it’s like a personal progress leader who gives suggestions like a mini devotional during opening exercises in YW. I would never let her through my doors no matter how my family adhered to church guidlines of dress.
Comment by big mama — August 31, 2008 @ 4:23 pm
I have a hard time believing this would be an actual calling. However, in my experience growing up in YW, it would just be making official what already goes on. Not so much someone coming to your home to tell you what to get rid of, but we had so much policing of modest dress at Girls Camp, Youth Conference, and stake dances that it almost felt that invasive. I was confident enough to be able to take it, but some (including my sister who has since left the church and more than one nonmember friend who came along to activities) were extremely hurt by overzealous leaders who didn’t approve of knees and shoulders being flaunted to the whole world. I really got into it one year with the stake camp director because my shorts didn’t quite touch my knees (I guess I grew, because they had at one point). We’re talking maybe a half inch - now that I wear garments I can wear shorter shorts than those with no issue. But she was horrified and made me change. I did, and then later put the same shorts on again. For the next 5 days. I’m stubborn like that. And I mean, come on - it was GIRLS camp! If there’s anywhere we should be allowed to “flaunt” our bodies, it’s when there isn’t a man in sight for miles!
Comment by Chelsea — August 31, 2008 @ 4:37 pm
I wasn’t “confident enough to take it” like Chelsea, I was bratty enough to flout it. Whenever someone commented on too-short skirts or off-the-shoulder tops I’d make a point of wearing exactly what they were complaining about the next week, and go up to them and say in my brightest, chirpiest voice, “Hello, Sister Y, it’s so lovely to see you here!” - generally while toying with my hem or neckline at the same time to bring maximum amount of attention to their pet peeve. I was about as goody-goody as it got when I was in YW, but I have always had a thing with modesty police, not just for my sake but for the sake of the YW who are really struggling to continue coming to church and need all the encouragement and support they can get, no matter how they’re dressed.
My vote? Rumour, although perhaps true in one or two wards with an abundance of people and a lack of common sense.
Comment by Quimby — August 31, 2008 @ 4:53 pm
I was going to write exactly what Quimby did in her last paragraph.
Comment by Ray — August 31, 2008 @ 4:59 pm
Unfortunately, although I hope it is a rumor, I could see this happening. Not an overall church directive, but in a particularly zealous and well-staffed ward. It so closely mirrors all the experiences I had in YW and also a leader. Even as a naive, very down-the-line YW, I noticed the unfairness of the strict dress code we had for girls camp and sports activities, and the absolute lack thereof for the YM. As a YW leader, I had to use all my persuasion to tactfully dissuade the rest of the presidency when they wanted to make a house call to a YW and her mother to let them know we thought her dress was inappropriate! That is just so out of bounds for so many reasons. (and I lost the girls camp battle–even though it was nearly ninety degrees, no shorts and none of those heathen flip flops.)
Comment by kelli — August 31, 2008 @ 5:03 pm
I’m not sure how to word this any better, so I’m just going to throw it out-
The extreme, constant, nit picky policing of modesty standards feels like sexual harassment to me.
I don’t know why. But it gives me the same icky feelings- I have a right to comment about your body, with authority over you, and shame you about what you are doing with it (versing shaming you with what someone may be doing TO it against your will in the case of actual sexual harassment).
I am just completely turned off by the constant focus on young girl’s bodies that results in overzealous modesty policing, especially because the focus usually starts when they start maturing, and they’re already insecure, and they are told almost hysterically, and unfortunately constantly, exactly how they need to cover up and why- it seems to have an undercurrent of “women are their bodies, and how they cover/don’t cover them up”.
I agree with above comments- either it’s not true or it’s a one off where there are too many people and not enough callings.
Comment by sophia*rising — August 31, 2008 @ 5:10 pm
I’m in our Stake YW Presidency and have heard of no such calling. In fact, we spent one of our recent meetings complaining about some of the ‘made-up’ callings some of the YW presidencies in our Stake come up with here and there.
I hate the idea of this calling, but I have to admit modesty is a problem for some of our youth-and I’m not talking flip flops or shorts that don’t quite touch their knees.
Comment by Me — August 31, 2008 @ 5:18 pm
#34 Oh Ray- you made my day…until I read the last four words. What this thread needs is a good zealous moderate/conservative Mormon man preaching the good word on cross dressing as a teenager in violation of the “modesty” code.
*sigh*
A girl can dream.
Comment by CrazyWomanCreek — August 31, 2008 @ 5:22 pm
mercy me I hope I don’t burn… but one of my finest features is my cleavage. As it happens, I do have a few nice blouses that look great on me and reveals the slightest bit of a cleavage.
so what? our bodies are our temples and we don’t put fences around the temples…. all the way up to Moroni, do we?
I don’t own a plaid jumper but love my peep-toe shoes. my favorite all-about-me moment is when I’m at the nail salon getting my toes done (that might be tmi). you bet I wear flops all the time with the exception of sacrament - and sometimes then i’ll opt for a flop with an adornment as I would never wear those to the beach (which is the demarcation line, right?)
with that being said - all of us in our house following modesty guidelines to the letter - as well as the guidance regarding tattoos and piercings - but let’s not go down that road again! i’m not a fan of it either, but hey *shrug*
anyway - i pity the poor sister who thinks she’s gonna get into my daughters’ closets. hehehehehe
gosh - it’s a great day .. and holiday weekend too. i feel so lucky.
Comment by Mary Magdalene — August 31, 2008 @ 5:23 pm
Sophia - “feels like sexual harassment to me.”
Sexual harrasment is about control. That’s what patriachies do. Control people. If you are a member of a church you show up for it. Otherwise you join some other organization.
julia -”..gosh if this is true what is wrong with the church Isnt there more improtant things to worry about then flip flops.”
There is nothing more important to organised religion than to control it’s female members. Without them there is no church. In today’s climate I’d wager that harrassing young girls about their clothes would push them right out the church.
Comment by Ruby — August 31, 2008 @ 5:36 pm
Ruby- tell me that you are even now being evacuated from NEw Orleans, or your hamster has a tumor, anything to make me feel compassion for you and see you as a lonely woman who needs an outlet for years of patriarchal abuse and not a nut-o who invokes condecension in the most unintentionally ironic way of freeing LDS women from their bondage.
LDS women liberate yourselves! The floodgates have been opened! To the promised land! We have chocolate here and fear not, you can keep your culottes!
I seriously need to get a life.
Comment by CrazyWomanCreek — August 31, 2008 @ 5:42 pm
A few years ago, my then 13 year old daughter, already self conscious about her body, was further tormented by her leaders and a bishopric member. They often used her as an example of “what not to wear”, in front of the other young women during class. She believed that everyone at church hated her and thought she was a slut because of this. Her leaders wanted to call her to be the class president, but before they could do this they had a meeting with her about their expectations of her attire and one of the leaders took her shopping for appropriate clothing.
Why do we do this to our young women?! Give them a good example and time to work out their own inner turmoil of who they are and have faith that they will be ok. My daughter is now a beautiful 16 year old who is a wonderful example to the other women in our ward. I am proud of how she handled this challenge.
I pray this whole idea is just a rumor.
P.S. I wear flip-flops all the time. Don’t we have more important issues to contend with?
Comment by Kelli — August 31, 2008 @ 5:47 pm
CWC - How could I say I was going to write what Quimby wrote in the first paragraph? I agree with the central point completely, but I’ve never worn too-short skirts or off-the-shoulder tops - and I’m sure everyone who has ever seen me thanks God daily for that.
Comment by Ray — August 31, 2008 @ 5:52 pm
Kelli, those leaders should be flogged in public then chained in stocks - or at least taken into an office and given a good old-fashioned, verbal butt-kicking.
Comment by Ray — August 31, 2008 @ 5:55 pm
(To clarify - by “too short” I mean 2 inches above the knee, max. I’ve never been one for the micro-minis. Not that I have any sort of moral qualm about them - on someone else’s body - but on my pear-shape body, it’s best to cover the hips and thighs)
Comment by Quimby — August 31, 2008 @ 5:56 pm
It feels like the modesty police have gotten a lot more strident since I was a teenager. My brother and his wife won’t even let their girls play with dolls who wear sleeveless shirts or short skirts. Try finding a Barbie princess who is wearing garment-worthy clothes.
Comment by Shelah — August 31, 2008 @ 6:06 pm
Ahhhhhhhhh!!!!!! What’s the world coming to?
(Although I will admit that I always felt I was doing something wrong and slightly naughty whenever I changed Ken’s clothes.)
Comment by Quimby — August 31, 2008 @ 6:09 pm
for the love of all things Barbie!
what next? burkas?
Comment by Mary Magdalene — August 31, 2008 @ 6:14 pm
Yeah, the Barbies at my house are all naked. I’ve never seen so many fully-clothed Barbies as the ones at his house.
Comment by Shelah — August 31, 2008 @ 6:19 pm
#46 With what I see as zealot opinion of the
Barbies clothes, I can’t believe your brother allows them to play with Barbies at all!
How is he going to feel about them being cheerleaders or how about olympic beach volleyball players? So many more battles to worry about with our children today than what their dolls are wearing.
Comment by big mama — August 31, 2008 @ 6:19 pm
MM, you’re not far off - my fundy nutcase BIL (Muslim, not Mormon) has recently decided that his daughters can only wear dresses, preferably ankle-length, with long sleeves. They still have to wear pants underneath to make sure they’re modest. But he wants them to only wear dresses, so that they behave “like girls” - which, to him, means not running and jumping and playing on the playground equipment or playing sports . . . . Sick!
Comment by Quimby — August 31, 2008 @ 6:24 pm
Believe me, Big Mama, you’re preaching to the choir as far as I’m concerned!
I feel very confident in my assumption that his girls will not be cheerleaders or beach volleyball players or anything of that ilk. They’ll probably be cross-country skiers (they live in Alaska). They’ve had the “no sleeveless” rule ingrained in them since babyhood, and I’m guessing it would apply to exercise wear and the like. (but again, it doesn’t apply much since they’re in Alaska).
Comment by Shelah — August 31, 2008 @ 6:26 pm
Quimby you describe what the little girls typically wear (as reported in the mass media which may or may not be accurate) who, in the Spring, were taken from their FLDS compound in Texas - long dresses with pants, long sleeves, etc.
let kids be kids… it’s like some folks think they can take all ‘weapon-like’ toys from their stash at home - kids will build guns outta legos or lincoln logs. and those aren’t available, if they have a thumb and a finger… they’re suddenly armed (NOT a threadjack).
bring on the flops and the cleavage and the ruby red lipstick!
God bless America
Comment by Mary Magdalene — August 31, 2008 @ 6:29 pm
Oh, I’ll take Barbie any day over those Bratz dolls…they look like prostitutes. Glad my girls are teens and past that stage altogether.
#42 Kelli- I’m really sorry that happened to your daughter. I’m appalled- those leaders are lucky they didn’t completely drive her away. What nonsense- it must have hurt you terribly as a mother too.
We have a YW who dresses quite immodestly by any standard, who also brings a non-member friend who is goth- pins and piercings, you name it. I am just so happy they come to the activities and seem to have a fun time. These two YW have really opened up over the last year and they both attend seminary (amazing for a non-member). I’m so proud of our loving and kind Bishop, who can be counted on to warmly welcome both of these girls and take a sincere interest in their lives. If anyone ever approached either of these girls with the intent to make them feel badly about what they wear, I’d be loaded for bear. I have noticed quite a few improvements that they have made on their own- in fact, when we did pictures, they both were completely appropriately dressed, without a word from any of us.
The non-member visitor has not pierced any other body part since she’s been in YW and when she told me that, I felt really good that she’s losing the need to hurt herself and shock people. She also told me that she refuses to have sex with her boyfriend because of what she’s learned. I think that’s real personal progress. She can wear flip flops on her head if she’d like.
Comment by Kimberly — August 31, 2008 @ 6:42 pm
On a side note, what IS up with the beach volleyball players? I thought maybe it was advantageous for the sport, but then I saw the guys… I’m not one to flinch when I see scantily clad ladies, but sheesh, they’re practically naked…
Comment by Doreen — August 31, 2008 @ 6:52 pm
Thank you for sharing that Kimberly. That IS the point is it not? At least they are at church.
My own grandfather, who came from a very large and very poor depression era family, became inactive for many years because people at church laughed and made fun of him for wearing blue jeans to church. The blue jeans were the only nice pants he had.
I have no problem with “guidelines” or a leader or two mentioning what is appropriate occasionally. But I do think the modesty thing has gotten out of hand. Teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves. Or is that whole quotation passe now?
Comment by A. Nonnie Mouse — August 31, 2008 @ 7:01 pm
Okay, the timing of this post is perfect. I have been fretting about this issue today. I am a Counselor in our Young Womens Presidency and today during our opening exercises “two” letters from the Stake Young Womens Presidency were read to the girls about modesty. Don’t get me wrong - I know modesty has it’s place, but it’s starting to feel like we spend so much of our time talking to the young women about outward obervances that it can start to feel like we’re no better than the Pharisees. You may wear one pair of earrings, not two; shorts two inches above the knee okay, not three; you may take 100 steps on Sunday but not 110…. etc. When we dismissed for classes I taught the lesson today and when we read the scripture in Samual 16:7 about the Lord not looking on the outward appearance, but on the heart, I just had to say something. I told the girls that yes, modesty is important and has it’s place, but that I wanted them to remember what matters the most and that is the state of their heart. Bored in Vernal has a great quote posted on her blog about orthodoxy that really has me thinking - I think it goes hand in hand with this issue.
Comment by minnie — August 31, 2008 @ 7:02 pm
It’s hard to imagine “modesty adviser” as a formal calling. I guess I could see someone being called as a YW adviser and then given an informal assignment to be responsible for a particular issue. Sort of like the elders’ quorum assigning a member of the presidency to be the “barbeque counselor.” Perhaps something like that might be what is meant by “modesty adviser.”
In any event, the responsibilities described for this “calling” are incredibly intrusive. Aside from all the other issues that have been mentioned, what gives someone the right to dispose of another person’s personal property? Does the ward compensate the young women for the monetary value of the clothing that is confiscated?
Comment by Left Field — August 31, 2008 @ 7:04 pm
Oh Kimberly, thanks so much for sharing that! Teenagers can be the best examples ever!
Comment by newbie — August 31, 2008 @ 7:10 pm
Kimberly,
Thanks for sharing and thanks for getting it ……..and your Bishop as well. I think (at least I hope) as a church we are moving away from what was taught to our young women for years, which was that they had the upper hand in the relationship to the young men, modesty, chastity, etc.
I cannot say that I every had to deal with modesty issues when I served as Bishop. What used to drive me crazy was young men who wore a white shirt and tie to pass the sacrament witih baggy pants that did not fit with $140.00 tennis shoes. At times I would have a priest who would wear a colored shirt and say he could not participate in the administration of the sacrament because of this. I would tell them sorry but you look great please join the other AP members.
I look forward to the day when some members quit getting caught up in the “thick of thin things” and get caught up in spirit of discipleship and cultivating spiritual gifts.
I think more than any other group in the church the Young Women are confronted by the advesary more than any other and I think that priesthood leaders have a ways to go in understanding the (reality) of the trials they are faced with on a daily basis.
Comment by ThomasB — August 31, 2008 @ 7:17 pm
#41 “LDS women liberate yourselves! The floodgates have been opened! To the promised land! We have chocolate here and fear not, you can keep your culottes!”
I seriously need to get a life.
Comment by CrazyWomanCreek”
Actually Sonia Johnson, one of your own, said it all first. I learned so much from her. She got a life. I have one. I highly recommend it.
Comment by Ruby — August 31, 2008 @ 7:24 pm
Ruby, CWC is a proud atheist - she’s no more Mormon than you are.
Thomas, I always wondered if YM used the “white shirt” thing as an excuse to get out of passing the Sacrament!
Comment by Quimby — August 31, 2008 @ 7:26 pm
On overzealousness. We were visiting in another ward once. My hubby came out of priesthood and told me the Bishop got up to lecture the men on the righteousness of their ties. Solid colors only. No patterns and NO cartoon characters. Those apparently are frowned on by the Lord and you will be condemmed to one of the lower Kingdoms to do laundry for eternity for some person who wore righteous clothing. Oh brother.
Comment by Jo in Utah — August 31, 2008 @ 7:59 pm
Thanks. It did hurt my daughter and I hated the thought that she BELIEVED they thought horrible things about her, even though I know they didn’t.
I am thankful that she stuck it out and is active today. And thankfully, most of those leaders have left our ward. I now serve in YW and I will never make an issue of anything our girls wear. I love them all for who they are.
I wish everyone were like your bishop, Kimberly. It’s what’s on the inside of our hearts that really count. When we take the time to know, we make a difference.
“They don’t really care how much you know, until they know how much you care”.
Comment by Kelli — August 31, 2008 @ 8:01 pm
CWC, you rock.
Kimberly, what a great story. That is how our wards should be–places of refuge and compassion.
I’m all for modesty but some of the excessive focus on it described on this thread really freaks me out. When I was a YW a couple of decades ago modesty was very occasionally mentioned, maybe once every few months or even once a year, and we weren’t allowed to wear shorts to girls’ camp. But it was nowhere near the enormous deal it seems to have become, and lessons nowhere near as specific and intrusive. Yikes.
Comment by ZD Eve — August 31, 2008 @ 8:08 pm
Yes the ‘white shirt’ thing is used to get out of passing and blessing the sacrament. Alive and well in Idaho!
Comment by big mama — August 31, 2008 @ 8:27 pm
i had a friend that had a bishop that gave the entire ward a dress code. no denim in the building at all ever. no cartoon ties. no pants in the building. (and here is the kicker) the YW couldn’t wear thong underwear. seriously. who is going to check this? my friend would wear a denim dress to church every sunday just to tick this guy off. there were some other rules, but i don’t remember them all.
i also know a bishop who pointed out a YM to the entire congregation from the pulpit for not wearing his white shirt to pass the sacrament and how he was being a bad example. this boy was already struggling. at least he was at church. is it any surprise this boy no longer attends??? there has to be a compromise. i loved the earlier story about a girl who brings a nonmember, and both of them aren’t wearing entirely appropriate things. but that they see and are understanding and are making changes in their own way.
and if we’re not going to allow flip flops at church can we outlaw birkenstock sandals too? because i think those are much worse than any flip flop.
Comment by Terina — August 31, 2008 @ 8:51 pm
I have said for a long time that one of the greatest things about the Church is the growth possible through local lay leadership (ward-side and in the auxiliaries), while one of the worst things about the Church is the damage that can be caused by local lay leadership. It really is a two-edged sword.
I love the growth; I am pained deeply by the damage. I truly believe the growth is important enough to make up for the damage on the whole, but that’s small comfort to those who are damaged severely - and we need to be diligent in cases where it truly is consistently severe.
Comment by Ray — August 31, 2008 @ 9:01 pm
Thanks for the tip on Sonia Johnson, Ruby. That was interesting reading. Not surprising though, those ladies always get uppity when they’re allowed an education. The menfolk got lax.
Comment by CrazyWomanCreek — August 31, 2008 @ 9:18 pm
Very thoughtful and well said Ray.
Comment by ThomasB — August 31, 2008 @ 9:22 pm
whatever happened to free agency?
i’d hate to think this rumor was for real. doesn’t telling people what to do kind of along the lines of Satan’s plan?
the best we can do is to teach the importance of modesty to our youth and let them choose for themselves. plus i think issues with wardrobe falls more along the lines of parental duty.
most definitely crossing the line.
Comment by chris jenkins — August 31, 2008 @ 9:26 pm
When I was the bishop, the other leaders always were distressed to find that it was my turn to chaperone the multi-stake dances because I always took the side of the kids and turned any decision that some kid was noncompliant into a trial. I was tickled the kids were actually at the dance and my measuring stick and view of certain fabrics and styles (”I’m sure that is a collar, isn’t it? that 1/2 inch band of fabric, that’s a collar, right? …”) was somehow different than all the others. If some other leader was about to ship some kid out, I’d usually run over to try to intervene.
I didn’t want the kids finding ways to amuse themselves in the park next to the building (it was so easy–huge, dark, lots of trees and bushes, secluded corners) instead of really being in the dance and I felt that if we made them leave or embarrassed them, we would lose any opportunity for any influence. So many always seemed a step or two away from disappearing anyway. Why give them the excuse to take those steps?
There is something in our church culture that wants easy to understand and (especially) easy to enforce rules, and lots of them. For a group that spends time preaching about not being judgmental, we spend a far larger time passing judgment and executing sentence on each other. The worse part of it is the joy that some appear to get it out of it. That’s really creepy.
No doubt if there was a Modesty Advisor, the most inappropriate person would be called to be it.
The whole attitude and approach is wrong and our youth retention rate shows it.
Comment by Jim Donaldson — August 31, 2008 @ 9:28 pm
Surely this is a rumor as I can’t imagine the problems they will have if it’s true. A couple of thing bothered me reading through the comments:
1- Girls in some ward have to wear capri’s to do athletics? Why the double standard?
2- There are issues with dying your hair?
I think #36 is right, this can become sexual harassment and I’d love to be the first person to find out if I have a case.
Comment by Molly — August 31, 2008 @ 11:22 pm
The other day I was talking to a friend in my ward who mentioned that another friend in the ward recently got an email from her friend in California The California friend was expressing excitement over her new calling as a Breast Augmentation Adviser in the Relief Society. Apparently, it’s the responsibility of the BAA to go into each woman’s closet and drawers and help them cull any clothes that don’t emphasize the chest.
Out here in the Happy Valley, we haven’t heard of BAA’s (yet). But I was wondering if some day soon, I’ll be expected to open my door to someone carrying the authority of a calling and allow her to go into my bedroom to tell me that my blouses are too loose. I’m a pretty go-with-the-flow kind of girl, but I have a problem with that.
First of all, can anyone substantiate the rumor? Second of all, does anyone else feel like this calling crosses the line into what should be personal responsibility and choice?
Comment by Alison Moore Smith — September 1, 2008 @ 1:16 am
It’s always fascinating (and frustrating) to me how even the mention of modesty gets people all riled up. Modesty is so much more than just clothes, and people getting all riled up makes that harder to understand, communicate, and teach. If it weren’t such an important topic, we wouldn’t be hearing about it from prophets of God (as recently as in the August Ensign).
Can people take this principle to an extreme? Of course, but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t important.
I want to suppose this isn’t a rumor for just a second. Since we don’t even know what this person should do, how on earth could it be declared that it’s absolutely crossing a line? I can think of a lot of meaningful things that could happen with such a calling if it existed. There’s a lot more to modesty than hemlines and necklines, and if youth are taught correctly about it, maybe they could grow up not hating the principle as much as many adults do.
Comment by m&m — September 1, 2008 @ 1:35 am
Exactly. So how come you go on and on about hemlines and necklines for the rest of your post?
Modesty is internal and we should be focusing on that instead of focusing on the outward appearance.
Comment by Quimby — September 1, 2008 @ 2:59 am
#72 Jim- that is an awesome position for a bishop to take and it amazes me if any adult would need your tactics explained to them. Teenagers are so sensitive to being publicly humiliated (I think everyone is but it’s the worst for teens). It’s a sure way to alienate them from everything they need to get through this time…loving adults that praise their progress and guide them through the mistakes. I bet the teens adored you.
I understand the modest dress concerns- I’m a mother of teens for heaven sake, I have had days where I’ve told my daughters that they need to put a tank top under a certain blouse. It’s usually an honest mistake where they didn’t know how much cleavage showed when they bent over. I maintain that it’s the parents’ jurisdiction. It’s what we teach- the reasons behind modest dress. Not that she is some kind of Jezebel for desiring to look like everyone else in school- none of them wants or deserves to look like a nerd and become the object of teasing for wearing neck to ankle dresses. They can love the latest new looks. It requires time and effort and going shopping with them and it starts when they are very young. I use a lot of humor with them.
My 17 year old just tried on an admittedly cute top that did a square plunge- my only comment was, “Wow, your boobs look fabulous”- she knew immediately that the shirt was too revealing if that’s the first thing I saw. Or, a dress, a bit too short and clingy, “Perfect for your wedding night!” I think they deliberately find some items for me to comment on and we laugh through the whole shopping trip. They liked, “Guaranteed to make your father spit up his lemonade”.
Comment by Kimberly — September 1, 2008 @ 4:59 am
I really hope this is a rumor, because I’d be in trouble - I’d never let somebody like that in my house or anywhere near one of my kids. Nobody else gets to judge whether my kids’ clothes are too immodest or not.
And I can’t believe some nutjob somewhere told kids they couldn’t dye their hair. Wasn’t it an apostle who talked about how even an old barn looked better with a new coat of paint?
That’s another one I’d be in trouble for. I’m prematurely gray (at the age of 14, thanks so much for that one Dad!) and I’m dyeing my hair until I’m old enough to have earned the gray.
Comment by Sariah — September 1, 2008 @ 8:20 am
#77 Kimerly, that is an awesome approach to modesty with teenage daughters…I love injecting humor into just about anything and everything while still teaching them…thanks for the great ideas!
Comment by amanda — September 1, 2008 @ 10:47 am
I’ve never heard of this calling; but I could totally see it happening at the local level in some ward with a busybody YW presidency.
Comment by Kaimi — September 1, 2008 @ 11:31 am
The job description for this calling could be rather unintentionally funny, no? “Your job is to go into YW’s closets and help them out . . .”
Comment by Kaimi — September 1, 2008 @ 11:34 am
uh yeah, Kaimi. I’m pretty sure anyone who dreamed up this “calling” would fail to see the humor in the job description.
Comment by Shelah — September 1, 2008 @ 11:59 am
Exactly. So how come you go on and on about hemlines and necklines for the rest of your post?
Uh, I didn’t, Quimby. If you read Elder Hales, he talks about the reasons modesty in dress matters. And when I was talking about what someone *could* do with this calling if it were real, I was thinking beyond just clothes, but to doctrine and teachings and all the facets of what modesty entails, including ‘internal’ things.
But modesty isn’t ‘just internal’ either. It’s both. Modesty in all its meanings matters. Just because it’s more than hemlines and necklines doesn’t mean that those things aren’t important.
I have a hard time believing a person would be called to raid yw’s closets. But I could see someone called to teach doctrine, have some meaningful activities about different facets of what modesty means, get yw involved in influencing the community (encouraging stores to get more modest clothing, movie theaters to include more uplifting stuff), etc.
Comment by m&m — September 1, 2008 @ 1:33 pm
In our stake, girls can’t even wear capris. For swimsuits they have to wear a modest suit, plus board shorts to the knees, plus a non white t shirt. At girls camp this summer, and every summer since we have been here, the rule is no shorts, including capris. And a swimsuit for the indoor showers. My son’s list? Yeah, shorts were ok. The girls have also been told that the nape of the NECK was to sexy and they should not be showing it. We need a new stake president.
Comment by pollyjk — September 1, 2008 @ 1:39 pm
I’m so proud of my 12 year old son who shudders with real embarassment that he might ever be percieved as making others responsible for his own libido,as seems to be happening in 84.As Marjan Satrapi says in Persepolis-if you don’t like what you see(or even if you do)then don’t look.Spread the word re Persepolis as it’s a wake up call for those who project their sexuality onto women,we need to teach our sons they are always responsible for their own desires and actions.,and our daughters to enjoy their own sexuality appropriately.Where flip flops come into all this is a mystery to me.
Comment by wayfarer — September 1, 2008 @ 1:54 pm
Haven’t you heard, toes are the new “gateway” body part. It used to be shoulders, but we’ve all had it rammed into our heads that if we show our shoulders we are just a corner away from being whores; so now the battle is on our sexy toes.
M&M - I misread your post and for that I apologise. You say you’re frustrated that so many get riled up about this subject - might I say in return that I’m frustrated anyone thinks it’s any of their business how I dress. It reeks of control. That you refuse to see that is terribly frustrating.
Comment by Quimby — September 1, 2008 @ 2:30 pm
Thanks for that Quimby,now I get why my husband loves my toes.
Perhaps we could try ‘extreme ‘ Laura Ashley? Where does an interest in fashion come in all of this?At least in my day we were free to wear flip flops uncritically-still,I may have them to thank for my temple marriage.My poor kids.
Comment by wayfarer — September 1, 2008 @ 3:34 pm
Quimby,
I can understand the frustration, and sometimes it does reek of control if people take it too far. But the principle itself is true and important, and it’s too bad that sometimes individuals can take it to an extreme. But let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
When modesty is reduced to ONLY hemlines and necklines, then it can be frustrating. But when it is taught with the Spirit and with a broader understanding of why it matters, then it can be something that can be empowering.
Comment by m&m — September 1, 2008 @ 3:37 pm
I just wore DH’s running shorts to the stake Labor Day picnic because they’re cool microfiber marathon guy stuff and I already have heat rash from gardening. I was happy all day in them. I just ordered some for myself.
I have thin, sensitive skin and have been hospitalized twice for serious complications of heat rash. I cannot ever wear nylons, although I can wear some microfiber tights when it is cold. The church used to send me custom silks before the newer fabrics came into use. The newer fabrics are another reflection that the church is going global. Skin shredding humidity doesn’t happen in the west.
I broke both feet in separate accidents 6 and 20 years ago. My uncoordination is legendary. My feet are neither the same size, nor that close to the shape of your average human foot. Closed toed, triple wide, high volume shoes are almost impossible to find. I have this gem in black, brown and white(for the temple). http://www dot buy dot com/retail/product.asp?sku=206957447&listingid=20994779&dcaid=17902
Aren’t they lovely? I emphatically preach that the nylon and shoe fetishes of some leaders are cultural and not part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, who (…threadjack…) wore sandals and a beard.
I wear naturalizer slides or running shoes everywhere, including TO the temple in the summer. Whoever feels the need to tell me my footwear is inappropriate gets a longish, boring recitation of why I wear such lovely shoes and if I think it’s warranted they get a little barb about judging others. I was a shy child and my dad regularly tells DH he has created a monster. DH laughs. He likes monsters.
My daughters are grown. I made remarks like Kimberley’s while shopping with them. It’s my place. I’m their mother. No one else has the right to mother my children and PARENTAL is the category that specific modesty counseling falls into.
A few years back our daughter could not wear her perfectly modest ,non bare midriff, boy leg two piece swimsuit to Girls’ Camp. She went out and bought a pretty racy one piece to wear. DH and I laughed. The only place she was comfortable wearing it was Girl’s Camp, and she wore it there for 3 years.
#68 Ray — Amen!
#78 — Sariah I never knew. You must do a fantastic job because I’ve never noticed roots.
Comment by Karen — September 1, 2008 @ 3:39 pm
even if it is true, i don’t think it is that big of a deal. 1) I am pretty sure you have to LET them in your house to cull through your child’s closet and 2) If it were my calling there would be plenty of other ways to get the point across without culling through your childs’ closet. I guess I understand that it seems a bit extreme, but I am sick of young women showing up to church in clothes that are not appropriate for church. I dont’ think flip flops are appropriate, there I said it. I don’t think they belong in church, I don’t think they are some slippery slope to anywhere, but I think they are disrespectful. When did showing up to church in your best clothes change to show up to church in last weeks wrinkled mess? I understand your piont, but I think you might be making this more extreme than it really is. Of course, this is my opinion and we are all allowed to have those.
Comment by britt — September 1, 2008 @ 3:43 pm
Garbled,sorry.I’m referring to Bro Hales talk and his reference to’Extremes’and this being now a third generation of casual dress.I remember sister missionaries wearing hats-that looked pretty extreme to me.My mother thought it was slutty not to wear panty hose-I would do anything to avoid such ludicrously impractical attire.My point is that this is at least to some extent generational-women of 50 years ago would consider it “loose’ to go uncorsetted. I think it’s great that my husband has not had to wear a tie to work for some years now,and my friend with 5 pre college daughters simply could not afford to buy them court shoes simply to be worn to church.Let it pass,next year your daughters will be costing you a small fortune in platform courts.
Comment by wayfarer — September 1, 2008 @ 3:52 pm
#62 Comment by Quimby
I would have preferred that this come from her.
Comment by Ruby — September 1, 2008 @ 3:54 pm
I have to share…my husband (who is very far from being a member) when I shared with him this chuckled and said that whatever man (or men) brought up the flip flops or capris rules clearly had a fetish. Ok, the conversation was a lot more interesting than that but I am sure it is not appropriate.
I could go on, but I recently got all riled up on BCC about modesty (with someone also discussing only allowing barbies to wear shirts with sleeves…) and I am just too burnt out on this discussion. I have to just laugh or I will lose my mind. I do have a 14 year old sister however, and I worry about what all this hyper-focus on ‘modesty’ is doing to her self image. Shes a beautiful girl and she is being made to be ashamed of her body. It makes me sad.
Comment by julie — September 1, 2008 @ 4:27 pm
But more often that not, that’s what it’s reduced to in practice. It’s all about outward appearances - and it’s all about outward appearances for *women*. (Very scary mirror image of Islamic fundamentalism - men can wear whatever they want, but women must conform to a certain, overly strict interpretation of “modest”.) What about “the Lord looketh on the heart”? We never hear that message. We just hear the nos - no, you can’t show your shoulders, no, you can’t show your knees, no, you can’t show a hint of cleavage, no, you can’t wear anything tight, no, you can’t show your midriff, no, you can’t show your toes . . .
If modesty is important let’s focus on the internal instead of the external. And if it’s important let’s make consistent rules for the YM and for the YW - none of this, YM can wear banana hammocks when they swim but YW must wear a one-piece covered by board-shorts covered by a t-shirt.
Comment by Quimby — September 1, 2008 @ 4:36 pm
I think that Flip flops and some of the clothing issues we’ve been discussing are really reverence issues, not modesty issues. Modesty deals with sexualizing one’s appearance (anybody have a better definition?). Flip flops, whatever else they may be, do not sexualize. They are not immodest, they are casual–very casual. Obviously for some, too casual. But a distinction needs to be made between a general dress ideal, which is about reverence and respect for the church or the Lord, and modesty, which is about sexualizing one’s body.
They overlap but aren’t the same and treating them as if they were the same, confuses both the reverence and modesty arguments to the point of incoherence.
And girls camp rules are just hilarious. Look not there for rationality. Fortunately, they are good for a laugh, even if you ultimately have to obey them.
Comment by Jim Donaldson — September 1, 2008 @ 5:32 pm
I agree, Jim. Clothing can be both a reverence issue and a modesty issue and flip-flops (and baggy pants on sacrament passers) seem to be more of a reverence issue.
Comment by Shelah — September 1, 2008 @ 6:25 pm
#89 - is this the Karen whose last name starts with a B?
If so, then you’re just the nicest person ever because my hair grows out so fast that I constantly have gray showing. It doesn’t help that my hair is so dark. LOL
That is just wrong on so many levels…
Comment by Sariah — September 1, 2008 @ 6:47 pm
Sariah, FWIW, there was a woman in my ward growing up who was in her 30s and completely grey. I always thought she had the most beautiful hair.
I think, in general, the thing we criticise most about ourselves is either seen as part of our beauty or not even noticed by other people.
Comment by Quimby — September 1, 2008 @ 7:01 pm
One of the young men in our ward this summer cornered my husband and ragged on him every time he wore anything other than a white shirt. Now, this young man admittedly has some mental and social disabilities–he just fixated on the white shirt thing. What was so weird was that I really didn’t think it was that big a deal. DH has lots of nice shirts of different colours. Why does it have to be white?
You know what I think looks disrespectful? I think it looks awful when the deacons slouch around while they’re passing the sacrament in their untied sneakers. But I recognize that’s a personal gut reaction, and I’d never lecture the young man or his parents about the shoes. Two reasons: 1) that may be all the kid has 2) maybe it’s all his parents can get him to do to agree to come to church and fulfil his responsibility, and the sneakers are just NOT the hill to die on.
As for women… well, the last two weeks I haven’t had to worry one bit about whether or not my dress was long enough.
…Because I wore pants!! Oh SNAP!!
They’re nice pants. I love them. I’ll wear a dress if I feel like it, but I look perfectly sharp and neatly dressed in my dress pants and a nice blouse. Nobody has said anything. I need a snappy comeback if anyone gets snooty about it.
When I move to my husband’s ward it’s going to be even easier because a woman there already wears pants every week. Huzzah!
Comment by xenologue — September 1, 2008 @ 7:33 pm
#98 Yes, the one who thinks of you and your boys often.
Comment by Karen — September 1, 2008 @ 8:35 pm
#77 - Kimberly, I really like your approach with the kids. You get the result you want and let them feel like it was their own idea to comply. Good Job!
Comment by big mama — September 1, 2008 @ 8:49 pm
We had a rule for no shorts at Girls Camp, except during free time. It never occurred to me that it was a modesty thing but rather a safety thing. During class time, we were out in the woods, doing camping things, trying to not get ticks or poison oak. During free time, we were making lanyards or swimming in our “modest one piece” swimsuits. The guys down at scout camp had the same policy.
Comment by mrs w — September 1, 2008 @ 10:32 pm
I can’t imagine anything like a modesty advisor. As a YW Pres, I would never, ever consider anything like this. One big reason is that it would step on parents’ toes. Parents are the ones responsible for teaching their children modesty. The ones who are doing it probably don’t need anyone to come and clear out the closet. The ones who aren’t would likely be offended to have someone come in and “police” their parenting, home and daughter that way.
The only way I think this could be true is if in one particular ward with girls and parents they know really well, the parents are having a hard time and ASKED for help, and the YW and Bishop found a way to try to help and invented a “modesty advisor”. But, no, no way did it come down from Salt Lake.
Before I got called to be YW Pres in my old ward (and before I knew the girls and their families), I saw some of the YW get up and give talks in very immodest clothes, and I wondered, “Why didn’t their YW leaders teach them that those clothes are immodest?” HA! Then I got called to be YW Pres and was just so glad that the girls were even coming to church that I could give a rat’s behind what they were wearing. I never made a peep (personally to a YW) about immodest clothes.
Comment by Stephanie — September 1, 2008 @ 10:39 pm
That last sentence makes it sound like I talked about YW to other people. No, I just meant that I taught lessons on modesty and talked about it on standards night, but I never singled anyone out for being immodest.
Comment by Stephanie — September 1, 2008 @ 10:41 pm
think that Flip flops and some of the clothing issues we’ve been discussing are really reverence issues, not modesty issues. Modesty deals with sexualizing one’s appearance (anybody have a better definition?).
Actually, Jim, something important to realize is that modesty is NOT just about sexualizing one’s appearance. I think it is this misunderstanding about modesty — making it all about sexuality — that makes the topic more problematic than it needs to be.
For example, flip-flops at church are not about sexualization of toes. It’s about reverence, as you pointed out. BUT reverence for God is part of what modesty is about. That was something Elder Hales pointed out.
As the General Authorities and auxiliary Church leaders travel across the earth, it is apparent to us that the world is becoming increasingly casual and informal. This is manifested in many ways but particularly in the way people dress. This is also true among some members of the Church….
Some Latter-day Saints may feel that modesty is a tradition of the Church or that it has evolved from conservative, puritanical behavior. Modesty is not just cultural. Modesty is a gospel principle that applies to people of all cultures and ages. In fact, modesty is fundamental to being worthy of the Spirit. To be modest is to be humble, and being humble invites the Spirit to be with us.
And Quimby, if you read his article, he points out that the standards are for BOTH YM and YW. When I saw that, I thought of your comment. FWIW.
The For the Strength of Youth Pamphlet also includes YM in its guidelines.
I don’t disagree that sometimes “on the ground” locally, people will go nuts with the principle and focus on the don’ts without explaining the doctrine, the whys. I think that decoupling of the standards with the doctrine is one reason why people get upset about this topic. But still, that doesn’t change the fact that it’s an important principle, a spiritual principle — not just a superficial thing.
I think another thing that makes this principle difficult is that it’s all too easy to judge another on the external, and that is inappropriate. But again, that doesn’t mean we throw the baby out with the bathwater, imo.
Comment by m&m — September 1, 2008 @ 11:18 pm
We had a 14 year old sent home from a dance because the cap sleeves didn’t touch underneath her arm pit…I guess it was one of the flutter sleeves.
I loved hear Oprah say once–she some other women were discussing underwear and wearing or not wearing a slip. She said…”is it a secret we have legs???”
I would imagine it’s kind of hard to teach/encourage”appropriate” dress for different occasions. We had a daughter who was bound and determined to know if her leaders cared she was there or were more concerned about what she was wearing (or not wearing) when she was a teen. Fortunately we survived those years and she now is embarrassed about how she dressed.
I agree, we have way too many rules. We should not be worrying about how many earrings or if the shorts/hem touches the knees.or a dress is sleeveless: maybe we can worry if the panties/briefs are showing or a plumbers crack is exposed when bending over though.
Comment by Not in Utah — September 2, 2008 @ 12:01 am
M&M, it’s reassuring to know that the apostles and prophets, at least, don’t have double standards - it’d be nice if that would filter through down to ward level. The last time I heard a member of the Bishopric talk about modesty it was all about rules for the YW. The only rule the YM got - “And the young men shouldn’t wear pink shirts because it’s girly and gay.”
At its heart I don’t think modesty is about sexualisation. I think we need to move away from that idea. Instead, we should teach that modesty is about humility - which is tied into respect for Heavenly Father, but it goes deeper than that. About the best example I can think of, off-hand, is, you know how in some wards YW wear their prom dresses to church the next Sunday? They might meet church standards in every single way; but I think it’s more immodest than showing bear shoulders, because it’s not humble. In a similar way, wearing a $1000 Armani dress to a ward where most people are wearing DI is immodest, even if the dress is completely up to standards, because again, it’s not showing humility.
Comment by Quimby — September 2, 2008 @ 1:51 am
My 18-year-old daughter, who always dresses very stylishly but very modestly, was chastised by her YW president last year for wearing a pair of silver cross earrings. Thankfully, she remained calm and poised, and told her leader that “They remind me of my father,” who was Catholic, and passed away three years ago. The YW president didn’t have any reply to that, and has never spoken to her about that again. The cross thing does rear its head occasionally — not really a modesty issue, maybe more of a reverence one? I think it is a cultural thing, however, rather than essential to the gospel. A friend of mine in our stake told me that a new convert in her ward wore a cross necklace to church, and one of the missionaries criticized her to the point that she broke out it tears. How sad! And how unimportant in the entire scheme of things.
Comment by Little Stream — September 2, 2008 @ 2:02 am
As a father of three daughters, I’d happily tell the Modesty advisor to go mind her own business. I don’t care whether it is a calling, an assignment, or whatever.
Comment by john — September 2, 2008 @ 5:53 am
#108- Good for your daughter. My first two children were baptized Episcopalian when they were infants- the tradition in that faith. One wore a mini cross and the other had a medallian of Mary praying. I have both of those tiny charms on my charm bracelet…I don’t really care what anyone else thinks it means-they simply represent my daughters’ first formal introduction into faith practice and the entire family supporting them in it.
Comment by Kimberly — September 2, 2008 @ 6:11 am
I think M&M (105) & Quimby (107) both have great points that bear thinking about. Thank you, both of you, you put something into words that has been nagging at me for awhile.
Comment by SilverRain — September 2, 2008 @ 7:32 am
If this is not a rumor, then someone needs to stand up in that ward and say how completely wrong it is. The role of YW leaders is to support parents, not usurp them (as tempting as it may be at times).
Shame on the busybodies.
Comment by Lupita — September 2, 2008 @ 8:22 am
#107 - I am positive if a YM wears a pink shirt it will not turn him into a gay. I know you aren’t saying this, but it seems that would be the reasoning behind it - reminds me of primary days when Halloween came around and boys were asked to not dress as girls because ‘cross dressing could make them make bad choices’. Ridiculous!!
The High Priest Grp Leader in my ward wears pink and purple dress shirts and ties of pastel frequently. Maybe this grandpa is secretly gay…(please not the sarcasm)! Sounds like alot of wards are taking their homophobic views way too far on that one.
Comment by big mama — September 2, 2008 @ 8:37 am
My first semester at BYU-I my roommate told a story about how when she was asked to give a talk it had been a crazy day with a watermelon fight and lots of activities. She had gotten into the shower when she got home and during that time 3 different groups of guys had come over to invite us to things that evening. They were all waiting fer her to get out of the shower so we could decide together.
Well little did any of us know she hadn’t brought clothes in with her (just her neck to knees towel). When she wanted to get out she called me to the bathroom door and explained it and we asked the boys to turn around and she went to her room to get dressed. Point of the story: crazy day including being invited to give a talk.
The bishop got up next and proceeded to tell us we couldn’t be the kind of people who would get out of the shower with boys in the apartment. IN FRONT OF THE WHOLE CONGREGATION!!! after she had literally just told her story. She spent Sunday School in the bathroom crying and I spent the next several weeks almost going home because I was so angry I couldn’t look at my bishop.
Needless to say she got over it much faster than I did. This to me has been an example of someone letting their own feelings override the Spirit and I have tried very hard to let that not happen to me- especially in a situation that involves someone else’s personal choices.
Comment by BrandyL — September 2, 2008 @ 8:37 am
Quimby - I also agree whole heartedly about the Armani dress. Great point!
Comment by big mama — September 2, 2008 @ 8:40 am
I am so clueless about fashion that I wouldn’t know it was a $1000 dress, and isn’t there a chance one might find such a dress at DI, given away by someone like me?
I do agree that we shouldn’t talk about the price of clothes, which happens in YW sometimes, and makes me sad.
Comment by Naismith — September 2, 2008 @ 9:17 am
I respectfully disagree with you Lupita (107)
I think that maybe we are all (myself included) over reacting. I can see how a calling such as this would be valuable. I do NOT advise going through the closets of other people or the closets of other people’s children, but I don’t think that is what the calling is supposed to be about. Maybe it is to teach that modesty is much more than just clothes and shoes. Maybe it should be a calling in YM and YW. Maybe we should stop discussing the sexualization of children and instead focus on respect for our own bodies and for the Lord. I think m&m explained it very well with some quotes from apostles. Maybe that is what we should focus on.
I admit, I can be wrong here, but I feel like a mob chasing a beast that isn’t really beastly
Comment by britt — September 2, 2008 @ 9:24 am
Britt, as long as it’s respectful
“Apparently, it’s the responsibility of the Modesty Adviser to go into Young Women’s closets and drawers and help them cull any immodest clothing from their wardrobes.”
If that is what the calling entails, it is definitely overstepping boundaries.
And, it would NEVER be a calling in the YM program.
Quimby, I agree modesty as a whatnottowear issue is the absolute lowest common denominator. Immodesty is so multifaceted. It’s taken me a long time to realize that.
Comment by Lupita — September 2, 2008 @ 10:50 am
Quimby (107) and m&m (105), I think you (and Elder Hales, for that matter–yeah, I know…gulp….) are talking about reverence. And that is why the modesty principle gets away from us and we have little success teaching it.
Wearing prom dresses to sacrament meeting is not immodest, it is irreverent. Humility is part of reverence. I think that is an easy principle to teach. It is wearing clothing that is inappropriate because it is inappropriate for the time and place. Nothing necessary immodest about the clothing itself, just not here not now. That’s reverence and humility. Flip flops, etc., untied sneakers, fit here.
Immodest clothing is inappropriate for any public occasion because the clothing itself is immodest. A t shirt with long sleeves that goes to the crotch with a high neckline that is so tight the guy in the row behind can count the freckles on the girl’s back is immodest, even though it meets all the neckline, sleeve, and hem length rules. It still sexualizes her. Unless it buried under a sweater or something, it probably shouldn’t be worn at all.
Dividing the principle like this makes it more easily teachable, I think. The corollary ideas are immodest = trashy, reverent = classy. I am the father of formerly teenage but still very style conscious daughters. This worked.
I am not disagreeing with you at all in principle (reverence, humility and modesty are intertwined) and I think we would all be in agreement as to what would be permissible and what isn’t, but I think defining things like this is actually teachable.
It’s a strategic decision.
I am still trying to figure out why girls should have to play basketball in capris.
Comment by Jim Donaldson — September 2, 2008 @ 11:00 am
i was thinking it could be fun. it would have to be from the late 60’s or early 70’s.
Comment by mfranti — September 2, 2008 @ 11:09 am
If might be fun if it wasn’t the Sunday morning after your prom, then it is just an, uh, interesting dress. Feel free.
Comment by Jim Donaldson — September 2, 2008 @ 11:59 am
I’ve been to church in the slums of Peru. They have enough sense to not wear flip flops to church and to the temple. It’s about reverence. These poor people go out of their way to dress very nice on Sunday. Nearly every man and boy wears a white shirt, tie, and coat. The woman all wear dresses. It’s only in the U.S. that we don’t have enough sense and reverence to know what to wear to the Lord’s house.
Comment by 8ButNoHate — September 2, 2008 @ 12:25 pm
For most teenage kids, I agree with other commenters who say that the important thing is that the kids are there. Most kids are very self-conscious, and can see whether what they are wearing fits in with everybody around them. And it is more likely that the kid who’s wearing inappropriate clothes is more likely to conform to the norm than it is that the other kids will decide it’s okay for them to dress inappropriately.
My first thought when I read the post was, “What a creepy calling to have or to give.” Ewww….
Comment by CS Eric — September 2, 2008 @ 12:56 pm
My father parented with this attitude - and my siblings and I hold a great deal of respect both for him and for his thoughts. He also taught that “you can choose your actions, but not the consequences.” And wove that principle into all things.
For him, modesty was a reverence issue - and he taught mostly about wearing appropriate clothes to appropriate occassions (and then, of course, laughed at me this weekend, 18 years later, when I was in a frenzy about the right skirt length for a black tie event I have to attend! :).
My best instruction, however, came from a friend of mine who was in the YW presidency with me - who talked about the same things as my father and then talked about “dressing to flatter.”
Incidentally, the YW with the way-too-tight shirt that created bulges in all the wrong places, the YW with the jeans were low- low- low-rise and the YW with cleavage busting out all over all ended up coming in future months with clothes more suited to their body type - all without having to say a word about what they were wearing or about anything relating to sex.
It taught me a very good lesson of reinforcing and teaching positive rather than harping on the negative/wrong.
Comment by Sara — September 2, 2008 @ 1:07 pm
Oh but Sara, how can one be taught correct principles of the gospel if they are wearing flip flops? They must not want to hear those principles if they are dressed so disrespectfully.
JK, that’s really my mother talking. Every sunday in church she would point out the men who weren’t wearing full suits. “Isn’t it so sad?” she would say. “They must not love the Lord.” That was her favorite line.
As much as I make fun of the crazy moses-law like views my mom has of the church, I have respect for the gospel and the church, even though I chose not to practice it anymore. Which brings me to Ruby in reference to #40 - it makes me sad that you have such a fatalistic view of the church. Your comment makes it sound like you think people who show up for a church are a bunch of masochistic nincompoops. Sure the church doesn’t change with the trends, but it’s evolutionary (albeit slowly).
Comment by Kaylynn — September 2, 2008 @ 1:30 pm
A prom dress to Sacrament meeting? How bizarre (and inappropriate).
Comment by Lulubelle — September 2, 2008 @ 1:37 pm
lulubelle, are you speaking to me?
Comment by mfranti — September 2, 2008 @ 1:44 pm
I’m sure the calling exists, I’ve heard of dating committee callings at a singles ward in southern california…anything is possible. I’d never allow them to go through my daughter’s clothes. I wore patent leather mini skirts and strapless tops in my youth and I turned out just fine.
Comment by Erin — September 2, 2008 @ 4:39 pm
this can’t be true. it just can’t be. and why aren’t parents upset about such rules?
Comment by mfranti — September 2, 2008 @ 5:14 pm
MM: Who is the “we” in this statement you wrote? It makes it sound like you are one among the GAs/auxilary leaders traveling around the world:
“As the General Authorities and auxiliary Church leaders travel across the earth, it is apparent to us that the world is becoming increasingly casual and informal.”
Maybe you were quoting a GA…
Comment by Not in Utah — September 2, 2008 @ 5:34 pm
MM…apologies for asking above… I must have been really tired when I read your post (twice) and missed the part where it said Elder Hales…lol. Yep, I’m tired.
Ask school teachers and some employers. A large number/percentage of US teens and young adults these days don’t have a clue about wearing appropriate clothes to work or school or events, even funerals. They are comfortable with any and all the 4 Bs exposed:…backs, butts, breasts, and bellies. One school I know of has a rule that none of the 4Bs can show…and that’s quite exceptional these days. Our high schools look like the kids are at the beach or pool side many a day.
Comment by Not in Utah — September 2, 2008 @ 5:40 pm
I don’t know why no one says anything. I guess the consensus is its from the stake president, so it is the same as from God. Some of the YW advisors have all been in the calling one way or the other for 8 years. It is time for a change.
In our stake, girls can’t even wear capris. For swimsuits they have to wear a modest suit, plus board shorts to the knees, plus a non white t shirt. At girls camp this summer, and every summer since we have been here, the rule is no shorts, including capris. And a swimsuit for the indoor showers. My son’s list? Yeah, shorts were ok. The girls have also been told that the nape of the NECK was to sexy and they should not be showing it. We need a new stake president.
this can’t be true. it just can’t be. and why aren’t parents upset about such rules?
Comment by pollyjk — September 2, 2008 @ 6:07 pm
I can absolutely see this being true - not coming from Salt Lake, but at a local level where modesty is important to a stake leader (such as mine) or bishop.
Comment by LM — September 2, 2008 @ 6:21 pm
Pollyjk,
Dying to know, is your ward in UT? Small town or large? I’d be interested to know how much geography plays into the rules of modesty. When I lived in the Northeast, practically anything went for sacrament, though at YW camp you couldn’t wear shorts.
Comment by Molly — September 2, 2008 @ 6:27 pm
This may be true, but we may not be aware of the actual details. Maybe this person’s calling, if it is true, is more and adviser. With parent’s permission said adviser could take a look at the girl’s wardrobe and discuss modesty as it relates to her specific wardrobe. Maybe give suggestions on how to make a spaghetti strap more modest by layering over another shirt? This is just my benefit of the doubt scenario.
If it is really as described it can’t be true because not all budgets can afford to replace cloths marked by some random sister as being immodest. Some folks have hand me downs and not all are from modest LDS friends/relatives. I remember an female investigator who came to church in pants every Sunday until a short while after she was baptized got some hand me downs given to her. She wasn’t barred at the door of the chapel. I know modesty is different, but it is in the same realm.
Lastly, if God intended us all to be forced into obedience he would have chosen a different plan. Forced obedience is how I would view some one entering our home and forcing compliance with her interpretation of modesty!
I can only hope this rumor is just that or it is more a position of advice and guidance.
Comment by sandra — September 2, 2008 @ 8:12 pm
In my ward it is a kind of tradition that the Sunday after prom, YM and YW wear their prom attire as long as it is ‘modest’. Mostly meaning with a semblance of sleeves, not skin tight and almost to the knee. However, I have never heard of girls who wore sleeveless (not strapless) getting a talking to from anyone.
Comment by big mama — September 2, 2008 @ 10:43 pm
We are in Lake Havasu City, AZ. Town of 55,000. 2 wards both on the smallish side. Modesty is a huge issue in town, as things like pasties in lieu of tops are ok. Missionaries are not allowed at certain grocery stores, and not allowed anywhere by London bridge. This is a boating community, and caters to Ca. boaters.
Comment by pollyjk — September 2, 2008 @ 11:31 pm
Naismith #116, if you ever have a $1000 Armani dress to give away, don’t give it to DI, send it to me!!!!
You put it much better than me - wearing the expensive dress wouldn’t necessarily be out of line, but talking about the price and label would be.
Comment by Quimby — September 3, 2008 @ 12:29 am
I don’t think I would have survived fat pregnancy feet at church without my supportive and classy flip flops. The only other option would have been old stretched out sneakers…
Comment by denebug — September 3, 2008 @ 11:22 am
The ward where my parents recently lived also had a tradition where the kids wore their prom dresses/tuxes to church the next day.
Comment by Shelah — September 3, 2008 @ 9:29 pm
Lots to read…haven’t read every response, but to coin Shelah’s phrase, “Out here in the Lone Star State” you’ll be met by my very good friends Smith & Wesson if you try to come in my door for that purpose. Can you be excommunicated for slamming the door on the “Modesty Advisor”?
Comment by Joe — September 3, 2008 @ 10:56 pm
Girls in my ward growing up typically wore their fancy dance attire to church the day after the event–my mom easily agreed to me staying home or going home after Sacrament meeting when it became clear that Sunday School and YW those days was spent recapping everyone’s fun. Tedious.
Added to our family faith-building legends this year has been “The Miracle of the Lands-End Swimsuit”. One uncle is notoriously careful about modesty in swimwear and 2 of his daughters last year brought “immodest” tankinis to the family reunion (I’d have to guess that they were deemed immodest by the virtue of being of the 2-piece persuasion). One of these women has since married a guy even more conservative than her father. Before this year’s family gathering she started shopping for a suit that would be acceptable to her father (and now her husband’s even more stident strictures) and had no luck until her husband started including it in family prayers. My response to the telling of the story (with much mockery by her mother and sister) was that it was good I wasn’t born into their family since my response to all that would have been “Bite me.”
Comment by marianne — September 4, 2008 @ 12:24 am
No modesty police in this corner of Zion. We have bigger fish to fry.
Here’s an idea. If a young lady is wearing something questionable, ask her how she would feel if her mother were wearing the exact same outfit. Or if the relief society president were wearing the exact same outfit. Or, if she would feel comfortable wearing that outfit in the Deacons’ Quorum meeting on Sunday? If she has no problem with any of those, then there is no problem with the outfit (you may, however, have a problem in that the message of the gospel is just not getting through to her).
Modesty is not the gospel, just like not smoking or drinking are not the gospel. When we emphasize things like modesty, are we leaving out the more important issues such as loving those around us, drawing near our Father in prayer, and learning to live righteous, virtuous, lives. You have to pick your battles.
As far as letting someone with a “calling” into my daughter’s room to assess their wardrobe, I would tell them that the US Constitution says that unless they have probable cause, a warrant, and a badge, then the answer is a respectful NO.
Comment by Joe W — September 4, 2008 @ 3:02 am
LOL, I think most YW would be mortified at the thought of their mothers wearing any of their clothes/styles. In fact that would be a way to keep your teenage daughter from wearing anything you didn’t like - just say how cute it is and put it on and wear it out in front of them, preferably to the mall. They’d put it in the back of their closet so fast!
Comment by Quimby — September 4, 2008 @ 4:37 am
Quimby, you are partially right in post 144…the YW would be mortified and embarrassed…but they would also see it as making fun of them and their peers. I think it’s important to keep in mind that teens and young folks in their 20s have never wanted to “look/dress” like their parents generation was dressing. Think of the flappers, think of the hippies, etc., etc. They want to look different.
Kids around here wear their prom dresses and tuxes to church the weekend of the Prom. But more and more of our kids don’t go to the local HS proms due to the high cost of the tickets and loud hard music. Sometimes a Stake will sponsor a “prom like” regional event. The kids really look forward to both the LDS Prom and meeting other youth from across a state or two. The fishbowl is pretty small in these parts for meeting someone to date.
Comment by Not in Utah — September 4, 2008 @ 4:54 am
Meant to ask: Do any of you think that sleeveless is necessarily immodest? I don’t think so and shorts a bit above of the knee are not immodest. They are just not what we wear after going to the Temple. I’m personality not in favor of “training” (mostly aimed at the YW) to wear clothes early in their lives that fit the AT (after Temple) wardrobe. I think they should CHOOSE to change to their styles of dress rather than be “trained” into it and should not be required to meet those clothing requirements prior to getting their endowments.
Do any of you remember when the Catholic church required women’s heads to be covered and their shoulders in their churches? Maybe they still do.
And Forest Lawn Cemeteries in So California posted dress code standards including not to wear curlers in the hair as you were entering a sacred place. I think they also requested no shorts. It was so long ago that I was there…do they still have those signs posted? Have they been modified?
Comment by Not in Utah — September 4, 2008 @ 5:00 am
Good point Not in Utah re: teens thinking their parents were making fun of them.
Comment by Quimby — September 4, 2008 @ 5:04 am
I don’t think sleeveless shirts are immodest. Tube tops are and strapless sure can be. But, I’ve seen plenty of shirts that cling so tightly that little is left to the imagination and a lot of the fabrics are so sheer that you can see everything anyway.
I am chesty and learned early on that women of modest chest size look so sleek and elegant in many styles that I cannot wear without looking like a hooker. A lot depends on body shape and form.
I dunno. I think there’s a difference between showing a shoulder while wearing an otherwise modest blouse and showing shoulder with a broad expanse of chest and cleavage. The context matters too. If I’m gardening and I’m hot and sweaty, I’ll wear a tank top (not clingy- just a loose, shapeless thing) and shorts…same if I’m mowing the lawn. If someone comes over uninvited, I simply drape a shirt over it. I’m not a person who wears my G’s while doing sweaty outdoor work- not only do I consider the extra layer downright impractical, but I do not like to wear them when I’m going to get dirty and sweaty. I take full responsibility for acting contrary to recommendation on that.
I’m also a convert, so I did not grow up with G’s and a culture that was so strict about clothing. Yet, I never was the type to let it all hang out and I always avoided overtly sexy clothing out of personal preference…frankly, I never wanted to be looked at for my boob power.
In YW, truthfully, I could put one YW in a tank top next to another YW who meets all the technical criteria for modesty and find the latter girl to be wearing the more provocative outfit.
I’m also a nurse and quite desensitized to bodies. I’ve seen so many that it’s routine. I’m very practical about it and I cannot tell you how many perfect strangers have shown me body parts they are concerned about (in non-hospital settings) and I don’t bat an eyelash. (Once on a subway in NY, a woman placed my hand on her breast to feel a lump…I was fine with that, but dh looked mortified).
Oh, I’m old enough to have attended Catholic church wearing both a hat and gloves. It was standard.
Comment by Kimberly — September 4, 2008 @ 5:30 am
Kimberly (post 148) you and I think alike and might be about the same age. I remember when one of the fun departments in JC Penneys and similar stores was to go by the hat department and try on all those hats: pill boxes, feathered dealies, veils, oh what fun it was. And it was it helped to pass the time at the church we went to looking at the variety of hats.
We have moved into a casual/comfortable style of dressing and living in my life time. Some it is good I think, but dress can reveal attitude about where you are, etc., but now this casualness is also a habit and what people believe is normal acceptable wear for occasions when you have better to wear.
Do you remember when you couldn’t go to any event without checking with all your girl friends to find out what they were going to wear? It would have been so mortifying to show up differently or too casual or too dressed up, etc. I like it that you don’t have to worry so much about what to wear or not to wear. Funny though, I’ve seen some our members of all ages who were tittering on the edge so to speak about church show up very casual for church, but when and as they seemed to find stronger testimonies they gradually dressed up a little bit more for church–so by non-verbal communication conveyed their growth.
Are you still in NY?
Comment by Not in Utah — September 4, 2008 @ 7:30 am
Not in Utah. I was visiting NY, but I live in New England. Currently in CT, on the border of MA.
Yep. I sure do remember a time where it was embarrassing to turn up either over or underdressed for an event. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with learning the difference between casual, business casual, business, formal, spring vs. winter etc. I say this from the perspective of a comfortable dresser who does like updated styles without getting overly into it. I have a few interchangeable pieces of each style. Not a clothes horse but a believer in dressing to the occasion.
Yet, I’d never impose my judgment on another person at church or anywhere else, for that matter- I’m so glad when anyone comes, flip-flops or slacks aside. I do believe in allowing others to come to their own conclusions about fashion and dress. I teach the modesty code in YW by my own experience and I’d cut off my left arm before I’d single any of them out by her attire, unless I am complementing a flattering outfit.
Comment by Kimberly — September 4, 2008 @ 7:48 am
We really lost the modesty war when our daughter was a teen…now she’s grown up, married, has a child and is fairly modest by choice. It is hard to see your own kids make poor choices and you can only “control” it so much. We worried when she wore brief shorts and tops and drove back (2 hours) from the beaches–what would happen if she broke down on the side of the road–not to say if she was dressed in jeans and loose dark tee shirt she’d be any safer–but you know there are folks driving along the highways looking for girls who are advertising their bodies. We survived, she survived. She did get her feelings hurt though when some of her peers at church told her she “looked” like a wanna be hooker. When we counseled her that she probably could not fight off a strong armed man who might decide to take advantage of her she really believed she was physically able to do so and it was “their” the guys’ problem if they were turned on, but she felt comfortable and liked the clothes and wasn’t going to let their problem dictate what she wore.
Comment by Not in Utah — September 4, 2008 @ 8:03 am
I don’t believe the calling of modesty cop would be approved of by the higher-ups in the church, but, yes, I can imagine some bishop or stake president wanting such a thing.
A few years ago when our daughter was in high school she had a continual run-in with her seminary teacher. She was a cheerleader required to wear her cheer outfit to school on some days, and her seminary teacher insisted that she not wear her cheer outfit (or cover it up with a long coat or something). She was convinced the seminary teacher hated her. The bishop didn’t feel he should undermine the seminary teacher, and my daughter quit going to seminary on cheer days and eventually quit going altogether. (FWIW, that’s not what I wanted her to do, and she knew it. But I also believe, in most cases, in letting teenagers govern themselves after being taught the correct principles.)
Some time later, after my daughter graduated from high school, the bishopric received a letter from the First Presidency stating that the decision about what to wear to seminary is a parental issue, not one to be decided by the seminary teacher. I thought that was good counsel from the FP, and that makes me think that the Brethren wouldn’t look too kindly on the calling as described in the original post.
My feeling is that if teenagers are showing up for church activities, I’d rather have them there than not, regardless of what they’re wearing (within reason, of course). I say, teach the principles and let them learn.
(And FWIW, my daughter is now a young single woman who remains active in church and dresses appropriately at church by anyone’s standard.)
Comment by Eric — September 4, 2008 @ 9:28 am
save us. if a modesty adviser showed up at my door (or my future daughters) i would probably explode on contact.
Comment by Kittiesforprez — September 4, 2008 @ 5:09 pm
this seems ridiculous to me. if there is someone called to police teenage girls’ closets, then wouldn’t it stand to reason there should be a word of wisdom monitor? who is going to follow high school students around to make sure they eat their vegetables and stay away from alcohol every weekend?
if my daughter had a leader that was told to go through her closet, i would have a nice sit down with the bishop and/or stake president. the leader would not be allowed to go through her closet. unless the bishop could convince me that calling truly came from divine inspiration, which i seriously doubt, it would not fly in my household.
am i way off base here, or does that seem awfully fascist?
Comment by Corinne — September 5, 2008 @ 11:15 pm
#146 ” Do any of you remember when the Catholic church required women’s heads to be covered and their shoulders in their churches?”
Yes indeed. We didn’t wear hats to school so when we went to the church to practice for choir we had to pin kleenex on top of our heads. At mass we also had to wear gloves. These rules went by the by when women stopped showing up for church. When we didn’t show up our collection envelopes didn’t either. All of a sudden the rules weren’t rules anymore.
.
Comment by Ruby — September 6, 2008 @ 9:05 am
#154 Of course it’s fascist Corinnie. It’s about control. A church doesn’t stay in business if it doesn’t control the women.
As I understand it both the catholic and the mormon church have fewer members in the states than overseas. Women in countries governed by fascist and other ‘ists are easier to control. We are out of control in ours. ( Wish I had one of those smiley faces to put on here). You go girl. Trust your instincts
Comment by Ruby — September 6, 2008 @ 9:05 am
re: 156
#154 Of course it’s fascist Corinnie. It’s about control. A church doesn’t stay in business if it doesn’t control the women.
One might add “country” to “church” in this sentence and sum right up what is wrong with the picture of McCain and Palin.
Reproductive rights (ability to PLAN Pregnancies), e.g.,
Birth Control is fundamental to Womens ability to be independent, self supporting, participatory in the wider world, to care for the children she bears, to help raise her family from poverty. It is fundamental to HALF OUR CITIZENS Civil Rights.
I don’t get a Presidential Candidate who says he “LOVES his Country” (and I believe he does), and then permits, indeed applauds his running mate/understudy when she mocks the “Reading of Rights”. Palin as Mayor tried to fire a librarian who would not ban the books she disliked from the public library. She advocates denial of access to information.
There are very few words in the Presidential Oath of office. It’s near exlusively about “Defending the Constitution of the United States”.
Qualification for President does not revolve around years of experience in offices (PTA, Mayor, Legislator).
It is about Loving One’s Country enough to understand and be willing to DEFEND, not denigrate, the CONSTITUTION of the US.
By choosing a running mate and Vice President who clearly is thereby unqualified, McCain shows that he does not get it.
All other fine qualities not withstanding, that makes McCain Unqualified to be President.
Comment by Betty Jo — September 6, 2008 @ 10:58 am
Gee Betty Jo, I didn’t realize that Constitutional rights apply to foreign enemies.
Comment by Patti — September 6, 2008 @ 11:06 am
I have a hard time believing this “Modesty Advisor” calling is anything more than a Mormon legend. However, if it is true, I agree that it is completely intrusive and creepy.
Comment by Patti — September 6, 2008 @ 11:59 am
Sorry, Betty Jo, but that is a tired and inane justification. If you are going to make a quasi-legal argument, at least make a solid one.
Comment by Ray — September 6, 2008 @ 1:28 pm
re: 158.
The whole point of “Rights” is to ensure that people will not be thrown into jail or tortured because someone in Authority says “trust us, they’re bad guys.” It’s called Checks and Balances. We may NOT assume that the Executive branch cannot ever make a mistake. The reason for judicial review is to ensure that someone else has an opportunity to say “are you sure? prove it.”
I noted yesterday that those poor FLDS folks down in Texas are getting their children back. Guess the Texas Child Protective Services Authorities made a few (hundred) mistakes.
I do, however, apologize for not finishing my comment (157) before I sent it off. It may well appear to be inappropriate to this thread about Modesty Police.
There really is a connection, honest.
IF it is true that some Ward or another is inventing a calling of Modesty Police, and if, as has been suggested, it is because they have too many folks who are seeking a calling, then I think that a sorry state of affairs not to mention a rather appalling lack of imagination.
I doubt there exists a community in this country where Senior Citizen shut-ins are not waitlisted for Meals on Wheels. Volunteers provide their vehicles / gas to bring food and a safety check to these folks. With gas prices as they are, the program is direly short of new volunteers. How about Volunteer Debt counseling programs for so many of our neighbors who are out of work or loosing their homes? What about Community volunteer Emergency planning work? If one doesn’t live in Hurricane country, they may still be vulnurable to Tornadoes, Fires or Floods. Does your community have a reverse 911 system in place to notify folks of emergency information? How’s your Volunteer Fire Department doing?
Does the local Red Cross have enough First Aid training volunteers? Do your public schools still fund music or art programs or do they need volunteers to support them. What of respite care for families with children or elderly with special needs? Good grief!!
There sure as shootin’ ought to be a difference between a “Calling” and a simple excuse for exercising the Petty Tyranny of the Powerless!
A girl child learns modesty from her Mother.
She ought learn Civics from her School and Service
from her Church.
McCain’s selection for his VP appears to me way too ignorant of her Civics and way too inclined to indulge in that Petty Tyranny of the unimaginative.
Comment by Betty Jo — September 6, 2008 @ 1:34 pm
152
BYU cheerleaders dress in miniskirts and do high kicks. - I saw this yesterday actually.
157
Terrorists don’t deserve rights.
Comment by nb — September 7, 2008 @ 8:27 am
re:162
The point is, how do you know they are terrorists? Because someone who NEVER makes a mistake says so? No, you know because someone besides the one who arrests them, reviews the facts and after judicial review, agrees.
The reason for checks and balances is not because terrorists are good folks, it’s because mistakes occur, if you were mistakenly arrested as a terrorist, should the charge alone be sufficient to elminiate review and NEVER give you a chance to call anyone to explain the error and arrange to free you? Of course not. The conviction, not the charge decides the penalty and for a terrorist the penalty oughta be a really big one.
What about Book banning? Should your town mayor decide what you should and should not be allowed to read? Should the Government decide you can’t keep a shotgun for home defense? I don’t think so.
I think that it is a bad thing if people in charge think that rights are only for the people who are the same as them.
Comment by Betty Jo — September 7, 2008 @ 9:38 am
Is this new “Modesty Advisor” going to help my daughter clean her room so they can actually find her clothes. Good luck to her then!!!!!!
Comment by CD — September 7, 2008 @ 10:17 am
I’m big on Rights. ‘Specially when applied to the subject of this thread, e.g., Modesty Police.
If my daughters need help monitoring their girl’s wardrobes, they are spozed to call on me. It’s my right. I survived the aggrieved insolence of female adolescent angst from their childhood. I earned the right to be the Modesty police they call on for help.
I’m the one that gets to say “Darling, you know I love you to pieces, but either the pants need to be higher or the shirt lower. Don’t get me wrong - I DO ADMIRE the creativity of your argument, but no, a mandala tattoo covering that cute little belly button is not the same as cloth covering it.”
I don’t need no petty tyrant mayor telling me what I can tell my girlies. That’s my right.
however, I must confess that the granddaughter’s latest ploy against my “immodest clothing may attract undesirable attention” argument has me a bit stumped. She says, “I can deal with undesirable attention. I have a brown belt in karate - remember Granny? Want to see all those fighting trophies again Granny?” hmmm.
if any other of you fMhers might suggest a better defence against that one, I’m open to suggestions.
Comment by Betty Jo — September 7, 2008 @ 1:13 pm
Can we please keep the political references contained in the threads that already have over 300 comments discussing the tickets and campaigns?
Comment by Ray — September 7, 2008 @ 3:00 pm
why are we questioning the callings that the Lord is sending out through his advisers, it just seems wrong to me to put into our own hands and question what they do, it brings about a bad spirit, if its needed in there ward then so be it
Comment by shea — September 7, 2008 @ 7:10 pm
Kuddos to you! When I went to church, I never had the guts to wear pants, although I always thought a sharp pair of paints wear a million times nicer than the demin skirts and such.
Comment by Charlotte — September 8, 2008 @ 5:50 pm
I thought this was somewhat related to modesty, but I went shopping with a girlfriend this weekend and she bought $200 jeans. Now, the FLDS adhere to the scripture below, but why don’t the LDS. Seems like we’ve gotten out of hand in dress and are now longer seen as “peculair people” because of it.
And again, thou shalt not be proud in thy heart; let all thy garments be plain, and their beauty of the work of thine own hands DC 42:40
Comment by Mommybee — September 16, 2008 @ 11:17 am
Not In Utah,
I hope I won’t offend you by saying this, but the above statement sends up a “red flag” when I read it. I don’t know you well enough to say whether it is sexist, but it does sound sexist.
Comment by Buckley — October 10, 2008 @ 7:01 pm
Let us all remember to differentiate from opinion and doctrine. A church leader, either local or church-wide, can attempt to define for us what they believe is correct behavior or standards, but if it’s not scriptural, then it’s merely IMO advisory.
strong>ALL “revelation” given to us for our benefit is subject to the test of personal prayer, though it might be a stretch to describe other people’s imposition of their modesty standards on us as revelation.
So while I doubt the Modesty Nazi — ahem — “Advisor” is real (Golly, I hope some ambitious Young Women’s leader is not really inflicting this on her girls) — their standards are THEIR standards until I receive a confirming revelation.
Comment by Brian — January 6, 2009 @ 5:54 pm
I LIKE TO SEE THEM TRY TO TELL WHAT I CAN AND CAN’T WEAR I JUST TELL THEM TO MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS. IF THEY ARE PUSHING THE ISSUE OF IMMODESTY THEY WILL HAVE A FIGHT ON THEIR HANDS THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO DO THAT WHAT ARE THEY THE TALIBAN????
Comment by Barbara Godding — January 28, 2009 @ 2:02 pm
HEY YOU BUSYBODIES,
I WEAR PANTS ALL THE TIME I LIKE TO SEE YOU SAY TO MY FACE.THAT I CAN’T WEAR JEANS
YOU ARE A BUNCH OF HYPOCRITES!!!
Comment by Barbara Godding — January 28, 2009 @ 2:05 pm
WOW, BARBARA! YOU MAKE SUCH A COMPELLING ARGUMENT ABOOUT THE SUBJECT AT HAND…
I have to agree that it is a bit creepy having a calling for this specific purpose. We never really had this problem when I was in YW, but the twice yearly lessons on chastity, morality, etc. were enough for me.
Comment by Lulu — January 30, 2009 @ 1:22 pm
To Lulu
I was raised a Catholic and our church does not have a modesty advisor. so I think that the modesty advisor should mind her own business isn’t that invasion of privacy.?????
Comment by Barbara Godding — February 4, 2009 @ 11:47 am
Barbara- I grew up going to the Catholic church and the nuns were the modesty advisors…they went at it with a vengeance in my town. Don’t know if you are old enough to have experienced that because eventually, the women were having none of it anymore. The length of our skirts were measured, heads had to be covered and we wore gloves to church.
Comment by Kimberly — February 4, 2009 @ 12:14 pm
HI KIm,
I remembered that when I was growing up I always wore a mantilla to church I still do. the outfits of the women today are downright trashy. they look like whores.
Comment by Barbara Godding — February 7, 2009 @ 3:47 pm
So, with regards to the OP, was it ever determined whether this is just a rumor or isolated event, or whether it is something that’s really being disseminated throughout the Church at large? Starting slow and picking up steam?
Comment by Lorian — February 7, 2009 @ 4:25 pm
I can only answer for my ward and stake, Lorian…we haven’t seen hide nor hair of a modesty advisor in these parts.
Comment by Kimberly — February 7, 2009 @ 8:17 pm
Good to know. Thanks.
Comment by Lorian — February 7, 2009 @ 9:56 pm
well if the modesty advisor comes to my door they will be greeted by a 44 Magnum.
GO AHEAD MAKE MY DAY!!!
i DON’T THINK THEY ARE IN BRISTOL RI IF THEY ARE THEY BETTER STAY THE HELL AWAY FROM HERE
Comment by Barbara Godding — February 8, 2009 @ 11:39 am
This has been proven to be a hoax. It’s things like this that divide the members as is shown blatantly in this thread. Shesh, people, grow some brains and do some checking before making fools of yourselves. Not to mention the wonderful ammunition you give others against the LDS church.
Yes, modesty is important for both boys and girls. When I was an inactive teen who dressed more in line with society, I was pressured for sex far more often than when I was an active teen member who made an effort to dress modest yet stylish. Then I was treated much more respectfully by non-member boys.
I have experienced personally and seen the difference in others in the way we carry ourselves when we are dressed nicer for church than when we are just schlepping about in flip-flops. I think that is the point of the flip-flop debate.
Comment by Katie — July 18, 2009 @ 4:02 pm
[…] comment on Shelah’s post Is there any truth to this rumor? at […]
Pingback by Zelophehad’s Daughters | My Nacle Notebook 2008: Interesting Comments — September 8, 2009 @ 6:53 pm